Theme: Science

  • I believe nothing, as I am an epistemologist, scientist and operationalist – tho

    I believe nothing, as I am an epistemologist, scientist and operationalist – though I am aware that in all eras there are advangages, or opportunities, made possible by geographic, demographic, technological and conceptual conditions of the moment that people with the ability to do so with the incentive to organize by intent, common interest, or pragmatic utility, knowingly or not, to exploit, and in doing so claim they are ‘doing good’ despite that their efforts produce externalities, and that those externalities often deprive people of choices they might otherwise make that would not produce those externalities. In this, there is no difference between the ages and civilizations other than the greater or lesser utility of each of the three means of human coercion. The primary problem of the age is the failure of states (other than france) to capture fiat money (central banks) so that dividends of government are preserved for the people rather than privatized. And I further understand that the monarchies should have, and would best have, been stewards of these treasuries instead of governments. I further understand that the central subsequent problem has been the introduction of women and a specific group that practices the female group strategy, and that this pairing is the only material source of western civilizational problems as the combination of finance hostile interest, and feminine interest in responsibilty evasion work their way through the institutions of cultural production – as they intended to.

    Reply addressees: @BobbyBrisket


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-02 23:22:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1731091373300817921

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1731088744437223878

  • You mean like science? Religion? Social Norms? 😉

    You mean like science? Religion? Social Norms? 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-02 21:15:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1731059565800600007

    Reply addressees: @antigg860413

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1731053672358944894

  • ‘Because of the Science, nobody can understand us. We’re the weird one’s.”— we

    —‘Because of the Science, nobody can understand us. We’re the weird one’s.”—

    weird (adj.)
    c. 1400, “having power to control fate,” from wierd (n.), from Old English wyrd “fate, chance, fortune; destiny; the Fates,” literally “that which comes,” from Proto-Germanic *wurthiz (source also of Old Saxon wurd, Old High German wurt “fate,” Old Norse urðr “fate, one of the three Norns”), from PIE *wert- “to turn, to wind,” (source also of German werden, Old English weorðan “to become”), from root *wer- (2) “to turn, bend.” For the sense development from “turning” to “becoming,” compare phrase turn into “become.”

    The sense of “uncanny, supernatural” developed from Middle English use of weird sisters for the three Fates or Norns (in Germanic mythology), the goddesses who controlled human destiny. They were portrayed as odd or frightening in appearance, as in “Macbeth” (and especially in 18th and 19th century productions of it), which led to the adjectival meaning “odd-looking, uncanny” (1815); “odd, strange, disturbingly different” (1820). Also see Macbeth. Related: Weirdly; weirdness.

    also from c. 1400


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-02 19:57:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1731039863204360192

  • The difference is that my work consists of the science of why such a thing happe

    The difference is that my work consists of the science of why such a thing happens and why it will always happen. It’s one thing to make an observation of correlation as many have done in history and another a description of causation.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-21 16:29:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1727001185079742940

    Reply addressees: @agathon_helo @WalterIII

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1726995004261020007

  • Yes this is my project: “formal operational construction of the logics of the hi

    Yes this is my project: “formal operational construction of the logics of the hierarchy of disciplines from first principles produced by the procss of of evolutionary computation.”
    (Cardinal > Ordinal > Natural > Operational)
    Yes, I think as you do in geometry and we begin with geometry as the first logic (grammar).
    Instead of notations (symbols) we use operational grammar (essentially programming language) because it’s easier to read but ‘wordy’.
    But yes it is reducible to notation (for those of us who are supernerds at least).
    I (we) focus on publishing books instead of papers, and we are trying to get the first book out the door.
    So we work with one first principle, a hierarchy of rules of ternary logic, each describing the exprssion of ternary logic, and we work with a set of rules of operational grammar that basically convert sentences into statements of equilibriuim.
    So yes. We say (i say) it looks like english but it’s just math or programming.

    Reply addressees: @MindEnjoyer


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-13 11:52:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1724032567668551680

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1723968724363874387

  • Khazarian theory is false. Absolutely. Genetics don’t lie

    Khazarian theory is false. Absolutely. Genetics don’t lie.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-09 13:14:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1722603581465903398

    Reply addressees: @elequalizer23 @stefan_jugovic

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1722572116082712584

  • We also don’t defend by consumer protection nor regulation of labor arbitrage at

    We also don’t defend by consumer protection nor regulation of labor arbitrage at the cost of jobs, skills, knowledge, technolgy, and science or the consequences.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-07 16:30:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721928122923163720

    Reply addressees: @the_urb @BowersWilkins

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721912644251046368

  • No educated adult would ask the question “do you have proof”. Instead you would

    No educated adult would ask the question “do you have proof”. Instead you would say what evidence do you reliy upon?

    Here is the quick reference card.
    https://twitter.com/WalterIII/status/1721260058397544470


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-05 21:43:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721282197112426755

    Reply addressees: @BitterTonic @RoseAndGarden

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721281237099200792

  • Well, Haeckel was wrong a lot because he made unsupported leaps. He was a Lamarc

    Well, Haeckel was wrong a lot because he made unsupported leaps. He was a Lamarckian, he denied the common human origin, thought humans evolved in india, and he was quite silly in many ways trying to unify religion in science and art – to be consistent with religion instead of religion to be consistent with science and art. So I would have to understand how you mean thet term. Because I cant tell if you are confusing selection with drift or not?

    The sequence is generally:
    Regulation (expression)
    Mutation (content)
    Result (Neutral,Beneficial/Harmful, usually Neotenic/Not.)
    Selection (Natural selection by survival and reproduction)
    Drift (spread in a small population)

    Drift Explained
    Evolutionary drift, often referred to as genetic drift, is a mechanism of evolution that refers to random fluctuations in the frequencies of alleles (variants of a gene) within a population. Unlike natural selection, which is a non-random process where alleles become more or less common due to their effect on the reproductive success of their bearers, genetic drift is random and can increase or decrease allele frequency even if they have no impact on the survival or reproduction of individuals.

    Here are key points about genetic drift:

    Small Populations: Genetic drift is most pronounced in small populations, where chance events can lead to large changes in allele frequencies from one generation to the next.

    Bottleneck Effect: This is a form of genetic drift where a population’s size is significantly reduced for at least one generation, often due to a catastrophic event, causing a loss of genetic variation. The resulting gene pool may not be reflective of the original population’s gene pool.

    Founder Effect: Another form of genetic drift occurs when a new colony is started by a few members of the original population. The small population size means that the new population may have significantly different allele frequencies than the original population, often leading to reduced genetic diversity.

    Random Change: In genetic drift, allele frequencies can change in a population due to random sampling errors. This means that some alleles may become fixed (reach a frequency of 1) while others may be lost entirely from the gene pool, regardless of their effects on the phenotype or fitness.

    Non-adaptive Evolution: Genetic drift is a non-adaptive process. Unlike natural selection, which “selects” for traits that confer a reproductive advantage, genetic drift can change allele frequencies in a population even if the changes are neutral or slightly deleterious.

    Loss of Genetic Variation: Over time, genetic drift can lead to the loss of genetic variation within populations, which can make them more susceptible to extinction due to reduced adaptive potential.

    Evolutionary Significance: While genetic drift is a random process, it plays a significant role in evolution alongside natural selection, particularly in small populations and over long periods of time.

    It is important to note that while genetic drift can lead to evolutionary change, it does not work towards optimization or improvement of a species in any directed manner. It is a stochastic effect that contributes to the evolution of populations in a way that is not inherently beneficial or harmful.

    Reply addressees: @ObsidianLining


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-05 19:04:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721242076631760896

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721236765346771079

  • I use the science. So, a lot. 😉

    I use the science. So, a lot. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2023-11-04 17:12:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720851559955812861

    Reply addressees: @WaspiDSRT

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1720799844003164467