Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • THOUGHTS ON STATE OF PHYSICS AND QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT Given the history of man’s

    THOUGHTS ON STATE OF PHYSICS AND QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT

    Given the history of man’s cognitive development and that at each stage of our development the innovation has been in correcting a cognitive bias or error rather than providing an insight into the simplicity of the universe, it still appears more likely that quantum theory is simply incomplete (the ‘hidden variable’ question) and that we simply do not understand what is occurring. At present the most likely explanation is that particles per se, even as described as fields, consist of different levels of excitement and density of a single substance we do not yet understand, that CAN disentangle (unwind) faster than the speed of light even if it cannot ‘transmit’ (wind/unwind) faster than the speed of light. This is a fairly simple explanation that preserves all our existing observations, but requires us to imagine something even less biased by the evolutionary condition of our minds, than quantum theory and relativity and electromagnetic radiation(fields) and the excitement of gasses (steam) and evolution itself (adaptation) have been. The universe is simple. Our evolutionary cognitive biases given our need to act at human scale simply cannot yet imagine something ‘that simple’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-22 09:27:00 UTC

  • Well, there are teachers and there are judges, there are scientists and there ar

    Well, there are teachers and there are judges, there are scientists and there are prosecutors. And my view is that it is the competition between the via positiva (peterson) and the via negativa (law) that leaves truth remaining. Because we do not know the truth, we can never know it. We can only know what is false and not yet false. As such, it is up to some to imagine and others to falsify. And for everyone in the market for knowledge to participate in the game. This is contrary to our intuitions because we want the cheap route to truth. But there is no other way to calculate it than by trial and error. And therefore no way to improve our pursuit of it other than to prohibit falsehoods. I don’t know any substantial thinkers that are accessible. It is up to followers and advocates to make the inaccessible accessible.

    In my opinion people will understand the constitution and what they will obtain in exchange for the cost of it. They will understand the value of truth even at the expense of the burden of it. But I doubt many people will understand the rest, or need to, other than the judges who use it to administer the law, and those legislators and lawyers who which to construct contracts of the commons that we currently call ‘legislation and regulation’.

    All along our mission has been the same: I am not a populist. I am providing the answer to Abraham, Augustine, Kant, Marx, Derrida and Rorty. Continuing the work of Aristotle, The Stoics, Roman Law, Machiavelli, Bacon, Smith, Hume, Darwin, Menger, Poincare, Weber, Pareto, Popper and Hayek.

    It is up to men of good conscience to be the distributors. I’m just the manufacturer.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-21 19:41:00 UTC

  • by Daniel Gurpide Scientific and technological developments undermined belief in

    by Daniel Gurpide

    Scientific and technological developments undermined belief in the existence of God. Already in the eighteenth century the idea of intellectually proving the existence of God was abandoned, and Rousseau and Kant may be found positing a belief in God based instead on emotions or values. In a culture in which God had died owing to the development of science, the values of Judeo-Christian slave morality were duly taken up by the causes of democracy, socialism, equal rights – and other movements of the weak and ‘oppressed’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-21 05:38:00 UTC

  • AUGUSTINE IS STILL EVIL —“Augustine took the view that, if a literal interpret

    AUGUSTINE IS STILL EVIL

    —“Augustine took the view that, if a literal interpretation contradicts science and our God-given reason, the Biblical text should be interpreted metaphorically. While each passage of Scripture has a literal sense, this “literal sense” does not always mean that the Scriptures are mere history; at times they are rather an extended metaphor.”—

    Yes, but abrahamism is inherently evil, because one perfect god rather than a family of gods, because that god is claimed to be perfect not merely immortal, because of man’s relationship to a god as subservient slavery not voluntary and contractual, because we cannot defeat and transcend these gods through action and wit, because rituals practiced, and the oaths made, and the prayers said mandate our ignorance, and because the effect of these rituals produces an addiction response that no reason or earthly incentive can break. In other words, when we lose reason, we cease to be human. If we are no longer human we are merely beast. A good slave. A good slave that rebels against truth, merit, transcendence of man, and creates a dependent ignorant people devoid of reason.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 10:10:00 UTC

  • Everyone is a scientist now. Or else he is a mystic. The middle ground – the ide

    Everyone is a scientist now. Or else he is a mystic. The middle ground – the ideal – is gone. Plato is dead. Abraham is dead. Buddha limps along. Confucius survives. Aristotle thrives.

    (worth repeating)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 10:01:00 UTC

  • WORLD HISTORY: THE UNDERCLASS SUPERSTITIOUS SOUTH AGAINST THE UPPER CLASS SCIENT

    WORLD HISTORY: THE UNDERCLASS SUPERSTITIOUS SOUTH AGAINST THE UPPER CLASS SCIENTIFIC NORTH

    While I realize less developed cultures and states (those with less influence of commerce and law and greater influence norm and religion) cannot imagine that it is possible to create a high-roman or high-anglo-saxon order in the absence of falsehood the fact of the matter is that the only controlling factors are (a) demographic: elimination of the underclass, and (b) the scope of suppression of falsehood under the law. All else follows.

    If you have a judiciary that is incentivized to practice the Natural Law of Reciprocity and a military (police/sheriff/militia) that will do as it is commanded by the judiciary then the judiciary in fact serves as a cult of truth and the various religions serve as cults of lies. It is this competition between meritocratic and hierarchical law and non-meritocratic equalitarian deception (religion) that describes the past 2500 years or more.

    Abrahamism was invented to resist the aristocracy (judaism), to undermine the aristocracy (christianity), and to attack the aristocracy (islam). It is the weaponization of lying by the underclasses using Falsehood, Fiction, and Command, against the Aristocracy’s invention of Truth, Science, and Law.

    It is just the northern more domesticated upper classes against the southern less domesticated underclasses. Nothing more.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 08:35:00 UTC

  • AN EXPLANATION OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE 20th CENTURY (we are all scientists now)

    AN EXPLANATION OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE 20th CENTURY

    (we are all scientists now)

    In retrospect, the first wave of the enlightenment failed by not articulating transcendence but merely ‘good’. Darwin, Spencer and Nietzsche provided existential transcendence: evolution. Maxwell and Poincare (and later Einstein) provided evidence of our possibility of physical transcendence. The social scientists (Menger, Weber, Pareto, Durkheim) and the legalists (Jefferson, Hayek) came very close to providing the rule of ethical, social and political transcendence: Reciprocity. And despite Popper’s stumbling upon falsification and Mises’, Brouwer/Poincare/Hilbert, Bridgman, and Turing stumbling upon Operationalism in all its forms, in all their fields, I think it was the failed pursuit of logic as a science in its own as a defense of philosophy against science that begins with Wittgenstein, Russell, and Whitehead that opened the door for the attack on western civilization through the masses, using Abrahamism (deception using suggestion through narrative conflation and overloading), just as Abrahamic Marxism had been used immediately prior, and just as Abrahamic religion had been used as a means of uniting the dysgenic underclasses through deception against the eugenic aristocracy and their use of Deflationary Truth in the ancient world.

    Their (typical) victorian vanity, as if philosophy was not the pursuit of law but a puzzle from a detective novel with which one could display one’s wit, produced a catastrophic failure for our civilization. Linguistic philosophy was a failed program largely because there is nothing in it that cannot be produced in mathematics alone. Mathematics, even if practiced deductively, is always reducible to operations, with the single exception of the law of the excluded middle – an exception which is only necessary for scale independence. And for language to function meaningfully requires action, sequence, and time – leaving linguistic philosophy the only non-operational and therefore ideal (if not magical) discipline.

    So the operational revolution that was needed in both linguistic philosophy, law, and economics, was produced in computer science under Turing. Unfortunately, this failure of the philosophers not only made room for, but assisted in the replacement of Marxist pseudoscience with Postmodern pseudo-rationalism in the 60’s – itself the most novel innovation in the art of lying since the invention of Abrahamism.

    So, my generation, raised with computer science, computability, algorithmic operations, object oriented analysis, the representation of existential reality using relational database design (vs set ideal set theory of language as a false bridge between mathematics and algorithms), has developed an intuitive antagonistic reaction to both linguistic idealism, postmodern pseudo-rationalism, marxist (boazian, freudian, cantorian) pseudoscience. Hence the libertarianism of the technology sector – at least until recent massive asian immigration.

    So for this reason, philosophy is being reformed by people like myself, who have been raised in the discipline of computability and algorithms, well outside of philosophy departments, and who solved the problem that 20th century philosophy failed to: the deflation of the logic of language into only mathematics (sets), and only algorithms(language). And by doing so, all the disciplines: the logic of identity, the logic of mathematics, the logic of sets, the logic of operations, the logic of rational choice, and the logic of reciprocity, each correspond to a single dimension of existential and actionable reality. Thereby removing all mystery behind the logics.

    Next, by overthrowing the ancient conflation of moral and legal justification, including Kant’s apriorism (all via-positiva), and replacing it with science’s criticism (all via-negativa), we are able to unite law, morality, philosophy, and science into a single discipline: the discipline of providing warranty of due diligence by tests of consistency in each dimension of actionable reality applicable to the testimony (speech) we publish (speak in the commons).

    Everyone is a scientist now. Or else he is a mystic. The middle ground – the ideal – is gone. Plato is dead. Abraham is dead. Buddha limps along. Confucius survives. And Aristotle thrives.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-20 08:09:00 UTC

  • Wise and Smart a few mathematicians appear to be smarter than the smartest of al

    Wise and Smart

    a few mathematicians appear to be smarter than the smartest of all other disciplines. And while they may speak in nonsense now and then, this art remains the most demonstrated because failure is so visible.

    a few philosophers appear to be wiser than the wisest of all other disciplines, but most are mere authors of fantasy literature and word puzzles, and their discipline is largely nonsense. And failure is almost universal.

    a few jurists appear to be both smart and wise, but their record is not very good. Justice is a cult as much as a craft – and we must return it to an empirical science.

    a few few physical scientists appear to be smarter than all that remain, but their discipline is largely a craft.

    a few engineers appear to be both smart and wise, but wiser than most disciplines. And while they may speak pragmatically and skeptically at times, it is because failure is both visible and costly.

    I won’t talk about economists. And we will just laugh at social scientists.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-19 11:32:00 UTC

  • PETERSON’S INSIGHT IS THE CORRELATION BETWEEN BRAIN STRUCTURE AND CHEMISTRY, THE

    PETERSON’S INSIGHT IS THE CORRELATION BETWEEN BRAIN STRUCTURE AND CHEMISTRY, THE MONOMYTH, AND THE MYTHS

    Peterson does a number of less than perfect things. But (a) he is restoring stoicism (self authoring), (b) he is restoring myth as wisdom literature using the universal Monomyth>Archetypes>Plots>Virtues system, (c) he is illustrating that this set of teaching virtues by myth maps to personality traits, and how those traits map to brain chemistry and structures.

    WHAT DOES “GETTING IT RIGHT” MEAN TO PETERSON? CORRESPONDENCE AND COHERENCE.

    Peterson uses the term “got it right” when picking insights from different thinkers, and he lauds those with deep insight and literary talent in expression of them. But when he says “got it right” he is referring to an insight that mirrors both the findings cognitive science and the expression of that cognitive science in the

    Furthermore the authority on the subject is Hicks. And It’s flawless. Which I’m happy to argue with anyone. From a purely technical standpoint, the argumentative structure originates in France as moral literature. Is reformed by Kant into rationalism and then the German Continental line. Is reformed by Marx (boaz, freud, cantor, lenin, trotsky, mises, rothbard, strauss) into pseudoscience. And was reformed by the french again into moral literature(Derrida,Foucault), then into pseudo-rationalism (philosophy without truth, Rorty etc.). But the technique has been the same whether in judaism, christianity, islam, marxism, feminism, postmodernism: Literary, pseudo-scientific, pseudo-rational.

    But never deflationary truth: What we call “Science”.

    While we did develop Darwin, Menger, Weber, Durkheim, Pareto, Poincare, Hilbert, Maxwell, Einstein, Spencer, and Nietzsche, and Hayek. Despite mises, brouwer in math and bridgman in physics, and various thinkers in Law, the Operational(Intuitionistic) revolution failed except in the physical sciences. We failed to continue the enlightenment into the social sciences and prevent the counter-enlightenemnts of the abrahamists (fundamentalists, marxists, feminists, postmodernists).

    We were not able to solve social science without cognitive science, genetics, the failures of the postwar attempt at spreading democracy, the failure of communism, socialism, and the great society programs. And the failure of social democracy in those civilizations without accumulated genetic (higher Iq) and cultural (high trust) assets.

    TESTING PETERSON AND HICKS

    My analytic technique requires that we examine the method of argument – whether it is stated via deflation, conflation, or fictionalism, whether it’s scientifically true or not, and then I determine the changes that occur in the state of all existentially possible forms of capital, and whether those changes were voluntary or not.

    So I circumvent ‘meaning’ entirely. In other words, I perform an accounting audit of the arguments. And his arguments hold. Sorry. Rock solid.

    PETERSON’S ONE TROUBLING TOLERANCE

    I would like to correct Peterson on simply one point: that our deception by marxism and postmodernism it is precisely abrahamic use of supernatural literature as in Judaism, christianity, and islam) to deceive and manufacture impediments to knowledge by method of conflation, overloading, suggestion, and ‘fictionalism’ (confusing the real and the ideal and the supernatural). And providing a means of producing an addiction response through ritual and prayer. All off which appear to cause catastrophic harm to all civilizations that adopt abrahamic deception by suggestion and addiction.

    So, by tolerating abrahamic myths – any myths reliant upon fictionalism (conflation of supernatural, ideal, real; myth and history, wisdom and law) – Peterson is leaving open the door for abrahamic art of lying without which judaism, christianity, islam, marxism, and postmodernism cannot survive.

    So, while I have a technical criticism of his work, as far as I know he’s largely on the right track, and his criticisms are correct.

    CLOSING: THE HARSH REALITY OF WESTERN SUCCESS: TRUTH, MARKETS(Meritocracy) AND EUGENICS/

    As far as I know, Peterson is reliant upon a combination of cognitive science and literary science, to use parables to inform for success and diagnose for unhappiness. And this is the traditional role of pagan myth. THe fact that parables make use of ‘external observer’ effect and convey every dimension of reality as do all stories, is something that should be of obviously anyone with experience in therapeutic psychology, knowledge of the function of therapeutic hallucinogens, the art of suggestion, or artificial intelligence.

    Why? We are suggestible in when fire gazing and listening to stories because of the effect of the suspension of disbelief. By visualization via narrative analogy we can experience in the first, second or third person, that which we might feel pain in analyzing within ourselves.

    It was only with abrahamism that the method of teaching and curing was weaponized against the underclasses in order to rally them against the aristocracy. It had a not insignificant role in the destruction of ancient civilization, and it is having a current highly significant role in destroying the modern civilization.

    Why? Man was not oppressed. Man was and remains a beast that was first self domesticated ingroup, then forcibly domesticated by more domesticated outgroups by the combination of agrarian discipline, harsh winters, upward redistribution of reproduction, constraint on reproduction, delayed reproduction, aggressive exposing, sacrificing, hanging, burning,plague , illness, starvation, and war.

    And the distribution of prosperity today is determined by the success or failure at that reduction of the scale of the underclass that has not yet been sufficiently domesticated for autonomous, responsible, participation in modernity.

    Western man’s failing is the promotion of abrahamic underclass values via democracy and equality, rather than the origins and success of western civilization in truth, rule of law (non-discretionary rule. rule without rulers), Markets in everything – the consequence of which is incremental eugenics through upward redistribution of reproduction.

    And that is the difference between the honesty of the ancient world, and the ongoing deception of the modern.

    We are unequal. And our inequality is manageable, as long as we continue to shrink the size of the undomesticated lower classes until they are gone. After that we may find that our definition of lower classes may incrementally evolve. But at present it appears that there is a maximum human capacity around an average of 115-120, which means that we were close to optimum in the west before the industrial revolution. And that we have lost as much as a full standard deviation in average intelligence in less than 150 years.

    And if rates of immigration and reproduction continue, we will have reduced humanity to barbarism once again before the end of the century.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-19 10:14:00 UTC

  • Again, cherry picking. Data is data is data

    Again, cherry picking. Data is data is data.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-18 19:32:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887394636335124480

    Reply addressees: @BaruchKogan @Yisro_Reuel @EOTOverton

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/887388404236812290

    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/887388404236812290