Theme: Science

  • There Is No First Mover

    All existence is a consequence of randomness generated at the moment of recreation, and the very small number of laws that arise from whatever the universe is actually made of in… https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10156482471517264 … –“The issue with the “monkeys on typewriters” is that we know that Shakespeare’s works were created and not random. So what this whole thing tells me is that people like you are not actually equiped to understand reality or that your metaphysics are incredibly poor (they are).”— —“There isn’t even an attempt to grapple with Aristotle in his comment. Strange.”—- —“Modern atheists love to prattle on about Aristotle but love to forget that his main work was on METAPHYSICS and that he basically came up with monotheism. They also hold a bunch of pre-socratic beliefs without realizing.”— Anything you cannot testify to is indistinguishable from a lie. Aristotle could not understand the concept of self organizing forces,and so proposed a ‘first mover’.Aristotle was primitive by modern comparisons. He did not propose ‘monotheism’ as much as fail to solve the problem. —How would self-organizing forces apply to things like physics? Would the principle of self-organization inevitably exclude a first mover? Hispano if you are correct I don’t think that would negate the intelligence of Curts proposal, I haven’t heard many exploring these issues.—- —-“Curt is a very smart guy with smart things to say on many subjects. He’s just really bad at metaphysics.”— You haven’t demonstrated an argument only gossip. My argument stands and always will. But that is ok. You are not fully human, and perhaps cannot be. It takes agency, and agency takes courage. The sterility of the universe is hostile to life and we are but an accident. —“And you respond with this, a classic Doolittle ad hominem, poorly imitating Taleb’s style, not realizing you don’t have his rank. This is why you and whatever ideas that aren’t just regurgitations of someone else’s will never move beyond Twitter and Facebook ramblings.”—- Falsify my argument or give up. The universe is self organizing because that’s all it can be, and that’s all it need be. Don’t make excuses by trying to frame the argument as Aristotelian (justificationary) rather than scientific. You’re a clown. Make an argument or crawl away. —“Self-organization has nothing to do (is not an answer) to its origin. It also falls into the regressus problem. Engage with your metaphysical problems. Don’t make excuses by trying to frame the argument as “empiric” or “scientific”. Understand the category of the problem 1st.”—

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. READING SHORT LIST FROM PROPERTARIANISM.COM T

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    READING SHORT LIST FROM PROPERTARIANISM.COM
    The Short List: The Current State of Knowledge

    OUR MINDS
    Jeff Hawkins: On Intelligence (The Brain)
    Daniel Kahneman: Thinking, Fast and Slow (The Mind)
    Jonathan Haidt: The Righteous Mind (The Moral Intuition)
    Francis Fukuyama: Trust (The Political Objective)

    MAN
    Matt Ridley: The Red Queen
    Dale Petersen: Demonic Males
    William Tucker: Marriage and Civilization
    Nicholas Wade: A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History
    Peter Turchin: Ultrasociety: How 10,000 Years of War Made Humans the Greatest Cooperators on Earth
    Garett Jones: Hive Mind: How Your Nation�s IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own

    THE WEST (Sovereignty)
    Ricardo Duchesne: The Uniqueness of Western Civilization
    JP Mallory: In Search of Indo Europeans
    David W. Anthony: The Horse, the Wheel, and Language
    John Keegan: A History Of Warfare
    Joseph Campbell : The Hero’s Journey
    Karen Armstrong : The Great Transformation
    Eric H. Cline: 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed
    Bryan Ward-Perkins: The Fall of Rome: And the End of Civilization
    Emmet Scott: Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited.
    Emmanuel Todd: The Explanation of Ideology
    Emmanuel Todd: The Invention of Europe

    THE RIGHTS OF ANGLO SAXONS (Contractualism)
    Edwin Vieira Jr. The Sword and Sovereignty: The Constitutional Principles of “the Militia of the Several States” (multimedia only – Trying to find pdf.)
    Fritz Kern: Kingship and Law in the Middle Ages
    Alan MacFarlane : Origins of English Individualism
    Daniel Hannan: Inventing Freedom
    David Hackett Fischer: Albion‘s Seed: Four British Folkways in America
    Gregory Clark: A Farewell to Alms

    THE NATURAL COMMON LAW (Contractual Constitutionalism)
    Milsom: Natural History of the Common Law.
    Plucknett: A Concise History Of The Common Law.
    Hayek’s: The Constitution of Liberty

    20th CENTURY CONTEXT
    Stephen Hicks : Explaining Postmodernism
    Hans Hoppe: Democracy The God That Failed


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-10 12:36:53 UTC

  • 1) Huh. Pretty elaborate straw man. (a) monkeys on typewriters is a hyperbolic t

    1) Huh. Pretty elaborate straw man. (a) monkeys on typewriters is a hyperbolic thought experiment: Infinite time, Infinite monkeys, infinite typewriters, infinite paper, infinite storage of the results, and infinite review of their work product are all impossible presuppositions. 2) However, mathematics and sets are ideals not reals, and monkeys on typewriters are ideals not reals, and in the same way we can model mathematical infinities (operations on constant relations) we can model any set of Ludic (fixed set of references) operations. 3) So conflating the ideal (math, monkeys on typewriters) with the real( operations existential in space-time), is a fallacy, and constructing arguments from that fallacy a straw man (deception or fraud.) 4) that said, in the ideal model, some set of characters (~50), randomly generated (randomness is actually a hard problem in itself) will eventually produce the works of shakepeare… 5) and an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters would do so in the time it it takes to type the number of characters that constitute the works of shakespeare. In other words, the time such a thing would take would be rather short. 6) So while shakespear’s production of that prose took just shy of 14 billion years in a universe governed by what appear to be just sixteen forces and what appears to be one substance – just at different density and excitement – ideal monkeys would take only days to produce it. 7) the reason being that we don’t have to evolve monkeys, paper, ribbon, ink, typewriters, and the ability to imagine and model ideal conditions in order to start work on the project. (See Nine Billion Names of God by Clarke.) 8) So shakespear’s works were not created – they evolved out of sixteen basic forces of the universe and the one ‘whatever’ that space time is made from. Just as all else in the universe evolves from those very few rules in nearly infinite scale. 9) Abrahamic religion and all arguments thereof, depend upon two sophisms we call ‘Pilpul and Critique’. They took greek innovations (idealism) and instead of trying to understand the world, tried to impose hosts of lies on the world. We are very vulnerable to these sophisms. 10) Believers in the religions who employ the sophisms of pilpul and critique invented to justify jewish law, are addicts no less than any other drug user is an addict. That’s the genius of that religion. It produces an addiction response to lying.

  • 1) Huh. Pretty elaborate straw man. (a) monkeys on typewriters is a hyperbolic t

    1) Huh. Pretty elaborate straw man. (a) monkeys on typewriters is a hyperbolic thought experiment: Infinite time, Infinite monkeys, infinite typewriters, infinite paper, infinite storage of the results, and infinite review of their work product are all impossible presuppositions. 2) However, mathematics and sets are ideals not reals, and monkeys on typewriters are ideals not reals, and in the same way we can model mathematical infinities (operations on constant relations) we can model any set of Ludic (fixed set of references) operations. 3) So conflating the ideal (math, monkeys on typewriters) with the real( operations existential in space-time), is a fallacy, and constructing arguments from that fallacy a straw man (deception or fraud.) 4) that said, in the ideal model, some set of characters (~50), randomly generated (randomness is actually a hard problem in itself) will eventually produce the works of shakepeare… 5) and an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters would do so in the time it it takes to type the number of characters that constitute the works of shakespeare. In other words, the time such a thing would take would be rather short. 6) So while shakespear’s production of that prose took just shy of 14 billion years in a universe governed by what appear to be just sixteen forces and what appears to be one substance – just at different density and excitement – ideal monkeys would take only days to produce it. 7) the reason being that we don’t have to evolve monkeys, paper, ribbon, ink, typewriters, and the ability to imagine and model ideal conditions in order to start work on the project. (See Nine Billion Names of God by Clarke.) 8) So shakespear’s works were not created – they evolved out of sixteen basic forces of the universe and the one ‘whatever’ that space time is made from. Just as all else in the universe evolves from those very few rules in nearly infinite scale. 9) Abrahamic religion and all arguments thereof, depend upon two sophisms we call ‘Pilpul and Critique’. They took greek innovations (idealism) and instead of trying to understand the world, tried to impose hosts of lies on the world. We are very vulnerable to these sophisms. 10) Believers in the religions who employ the sophisms of pilpul and critique invented to justify jewish law, are addicts no less than any other drug user is an addict. That’s the genius of that religion. It produces an addiction response to lying.

  • Grammars

    GRAMMARS: Myths > Fictionalisms > Literatures (fictions) > Histories > Sciences > Logics > Senses The continuous recursive disambiguation of reality, from the most intuitionistic and subjective measurements, to the most non-intuitive and objective measurements. All speech consists of weights and measures. We just constantly improve our weights and measures. Parsimony(a fully accounted consistency, correspondence, possibility, and coherence) consists of the true names of the categories of the universe. They are just very costly and time consuming for humans to discover.

  • Grammars

    GRAMMARS: Myths > Fictionalisms > Literatures (fictions) > Histories > Sciences > Logics > Senses The continuous recursive disambiguation of reality, from the most intuitionistic and subjective measurements, to the most non-intuitive and objective measurements. All speech consists of weights and measures. We just constantly improve our weights and measures. Parsimony(a fully accounted consistency, correspondence, possibility, and coherence) consists of the true names of the categories of the universe. They are just very costly and time consuming for humans to discover.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. GRAMMARS: Myths > Fictionalisms > Literatures

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    GRAMMARS: Myths > Fictionalisms > Literatures (fictions) > Histories > Sciences > Logics > Senses

    The continuous recursive disambiguation of reality, from the most intuitionistic and subjective measurements, to the most non-intuitive and objective measurements.

    All speech consists of weights and measures. We just constantly improve our weights and measures.

    Parsimony(a fully accounted consistency, correspondence, possibility, and coherence) consists of the true names of the categories of the universe.

    They are just very costly and time consuming for humans to discover.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 17:05:46 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. 1) Huh. Pretty elaborate straw man. (a) monke

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    1) Huh. Pretty elaborate straw man. (a) monkeys on typewriters is a hyperbolic thought experiment: Infinite time, Infinite monkeys, infinite typewriters, infinite paper, infinite storage of the results, and infinite review of their work product are all impossible presuppositions.

    2) However, mathematics and sets are ideals not reals, and monkeys on typewriters are ideals not reals, and in the same way we can model mathematical infinities (operations on constant relations) we can model any set of Ludic (fixed set of references) operations.

    3) So conflating the ideal (math, monkeys on typewriters) with the real( operations existential in space-time), is a fallacy, and constructing arguments from that fallacy a straw man (deception or fraud.)

    4) that said, in the ideal model, some set of characters (~50), randomly generated (randomness is actually a hard problem in itself) will eventually produce the works of shakepeare…

    5) and an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters would do so in the time it it takes to type the number of characters that constitute the works of shakespeare. In other words, the time such a thing would take would be rather short.

    6) So while shakespear’s production of that prose took just shy of 14 billion years in a universe governed by what appear to be just sixteen forces and what appears to be one substance – just at different density and excitement – ideal monkeys would take only days to produce it.

    7) the reason being that we don’t have to evolve monkeys, paper, ribbon, ink, typewriters, and the ability to imagine and model ideal conditions in order to start work on the project. (See Nine Billion Names of God by Clarke.)

    8) So shakespear’s works were not created – they evolved out of sixteen basic forces of the universe and the one ‘whatever’ that space time is made from. Just as all else in the universe evolves from those very few rules in nearly infinite scale.

    9) Abrahamic religion and all arguments thereof, depend upon two sophisms we call ‘Pilpul and Critique’. They took greek innovations (idealism) and instead of trying to understand the world, tried to impose hosts of lies on the world. We are very vulnerable to these sophisms.

    10) Believers in the religions who employ the sophisms of pilpul and critique invented to justify jewish law, are addicts no less than any other drug user is an addict. That’s the genius of that religion. It produces an addiction response to lying.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 15:28:50 UTC

  • 8) So shakespear’s works were not created – they evolved out of sixteen basic fo

    8) So shakespear’s works were not created – they evolved out of sixteen basic forces of the universe and the one ‘whatever’ that space time is made from. Just as all else in the universe evolves from those very few rules in nearly infinite scale.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 15:20:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016341375867064320

    Reply addressees: @Hispanogoyim

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016291695359676416


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016291695359676416

  • 7) the reason being that we don’t have to evolve monkeys, paper, ribbon, ink, ty

    7) the reason being that we don’t have to evolve monkeys, paper, ribbon, ink, typewriters, and the ability to imagine and model ideal conditions in order to start work on the project. (See Nine Billion Names of God by Clarke.)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 15:18:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016340853730705408

    Reply addressees: @Hispanogoyim

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016291695359676416


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1016291695359676416