Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • THE CHALLENGE OF THE CHURCH So the difficulty facing the church is this: we can

    THE CHALLENGE OF THE CHURCH

    So the difficulty facing the church is this: we can see gods writing in the universe: the laws of nature, and in the actions of man: Natural Law. If church doctrine is incompatible with Natural Law then it is false – the frailty of men of God, interpreting the words of god as best they could. But there is not much to correct. The church developed natural law itself. There is nothing in the words of Jesus Christ, or the Common Law of Europa that is incompatible with Natural Law. There is however, a great deal of Jewish, Babylonian, and Egyptian writing in the bible that is incompatible with natural law. Much of the Tanakh and nearly all of Jewish Law – even that reformed by Mendelssohn is incompatible with Natural Law – it is poly-ethical – and we have seen Jews punished by history for it. And very little of the Koran – so much so that it might be the work of an anti-Christ. For it prevents man from ascent through mandatory ignorance. And we have seen the result in the death of every civilization touched by it. Communism is the worse religion as it is predicated on violations of natural law, and a series of great lies, where most ancient religions are merely ‘imprecise’ because of the limits of ancient knowledge and of ancient languages. Hinduism, Buddhism, and Shintoism are prisoners of the limits of primitive human thought and language more than they are incompatible with Natural Law. At present the false pope is not practicing Christianity, nor is he seeking to restore the other half of the church: the aristocracy; nor is he practicing Natural Law, but Communism. He is a False Pope. He is too weak to be an anti-christ. But he is a false pope. So this is why I have little faith in the future of the church. They are trying to make money through donations not to teach the Word and Meaning of God. And as we have seen with the communists, the jews, and the muslims – civilizations pay heavily for failing to teach and learn the meaning of the words of God.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-04 08:42:00 UTC

  • UNIVERSAL TRANSLATOR FOR WHITE CONSERVATIVE SPEECH “Science makes it hard for me

    UNIVERSAL TRANSLATOR FOR WHITE CONSERVATIVE SPEECH

    “Science makes it hard for me to claim the moral high ground at the same time I advocate democracy, because western conservatism is just a name for aristocracy, and aristocracy is just a name for meritocracy, and meritocracy is just a name for a eugenic society, and it’s hard to look you in the face, pretend you’re an equal in a democracy, while at the same time saying you’re really an evolutionary dead weight on the rest of us that needs to be removed from the gene pool if we are going to have an advanced civilization.”

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 15:20:00 UTC

  • THE EPIPHANY AND THE BLOODSHED WE WILL LOOSE Once you experience the epiphany th

    THE EPIPHANY AND THE BLOODSHED WE WILL LOOSE

    Once you experience the epiphany that we live in an age of largely pseudoscientific discourse, changing only the terms from supernatural, to moral, to rational, and now to pseudoscientific, your understanding of the world will change so dramatically that you may (as I have) experience profound anger at those who invented and perpetuated the new pseudoscientific religion we are all the victims of – we are the wage and credit slaves of pseudoscience rather than religion.

    We replaced the rule of law reducible to experience that we can all judge, and the payment of taxes we can all observe with rule of finance and credit which is not – and is nothing but a vehicle for fraud.

    In other words -and get ready for this to shock you – we replaced the mysticism of religion with the promise of afterlife in exchange for hard labor on behalf of others in the now, for the promise of retirement and the abandonment of want in our later lives in exchange for hard labor on behalf of others in the now.

    We transitioned from the treatment of money and credit as beneath those who rule, and limited by rule of law, and moral hazard, and outsourcing it to ‘lower people of lesser character’, to abandoning rule of law that we can sense, perceive, and taxes we can sense and percieve, to the expropriation of everything we produce by those who use our inability to sense and percieve to defraud us.

    There is no secret to fiat money – it is merely shares in the corporation of the commons we call ‘the state’. There is no reason to require third parties to distribute shares – and there never was. And with the advent of fiat money (paper shares), credit money (promises of future paper shares), and digital money (the elimination of the need for paper to represent the shares) there is no reason whatsoever to preserve the ‘trick’ of making consumers pay for access to their own shares (as common shareholders) rather than forcing business, industry, banking, and finance, as well as the state, to fight with each other in order to obtain some portion of them.

    Moreover, there is no reason any of this process is not fully governable by rule of law, independent of human discretion, and forbidden by teh constitution, defended by the courts, and enforced by militia, and the army if necessary. And therefore fully transparent and free of deceit and parasitism upon the people.

    We will need to draw a lot of blood.

    Do a lot of killing.

    Do a lot of burning.

    And enact a few legislative changes.

    But in the end, the people who lie cheat and steal, will be deprived of that opportunity. And those who still live after our cleansing of their kind, will have to search for other useful means of surviving under the rule of natural law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 10:54:00 UTC

  • ***The vast majority of our arguments in the past century of modernity can be re

    ***The vast majority of our arguments in the past century of modernity can be reduced to poetry using pseudoscientific rather than moral, literary, or mythological verse.***

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-03 10:36:00 UTC

  • (math) —“Curt: Someone said:”The closest you can get to objective truth is mat

    (math)

    —“Curt: Someone said:”The closest you can get to objective truth is maths, which is apriori, analytic and not empirical whatsoever” Is this a lie? I’m having difficulties understanding that since maths is axiomatic.”—

    This is one of the great intellectual problems that we must deal with. And it’s as old as the Greeks at least. It is better to say, that if you can describe something in *certain mathematical equations* then you have the lowest chance of misinterpretation of description.

    However, as we see in statistics daily, economics weekly, and physics monthly, mathematics is a tool limited to describing certain things. It does not for example, describe causality or sequence. And it can be misused more easily than used.

    Mathematics depends upon constant categories and constant relations, at scale independence. And so it is good for expression of deterministic phenomenon. However, in economics and in sentience, we have only inconstant categories, and fungible relations. We can think of it this way: the physical world can’t decide to change categories and relations; we can cause changes in the physical world if we want at some cost or other. The economic world can change categories and relations, but at some cost and effort; and the sentient world can change categories and relations with only exposure to information, and very near zero cost to the individual, but at very, very, very high cost to groups.

    This does not mean we cannot make true statements about economics at some degree of precision. Just as we cannot make true statements about subatomic world yet beyond some degree of precision. The reason being that at the subatomic level, and in the economic and sentient levels, the causal density is so high and categorical variation so high that mathematics has proven little use in direct prediction of consequences – and almost none at all. At the sentient level we have no way at all of expressing in mathematical terms the information necessary to change state.

    What we have seen is that there is a point at which we can model sufficient causal density of systems that we can observe intermediary phenomenon (patterns) that assist us in defining limits of consequent patterns (ends we want to observe). So we may not be able to predict the location of molecules of gas, prices of a good at a location, or the information necessary to form an idea. But that does not mean that we cannot make truthful (parsimonious and descriptive) statements about those phenomenon.

    And this is the current limit of our understanding of what we may be able to do with mathematics. In other words, while there may be an unmeasurable and unpredictable set of end states due to causal density and rapid heuristics that change our actions or associations, it appears that whatever limits humans are limited by, just as whatever limits the universe is limited by, cause patterns that appear, and these patterns may in fact assist us in predicting end states.

    The problem, as usual, will be at some point, the information necessary to perform a calculation is equal to reality itself.

    So, the response to your friend is that math is good at measuring simple things, that does not mean all things that we need measure are simple.

    Math works because it is trivial. But we have, until the 1800’s only used it to measure trivial things.

    We are just beginning to touch upon complicated things.

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 15:48:00 UTC

  • QUARTERLY REPEAT: CURT, WHAT PHILOSOPHERS ARE WORTH READING REALLY? NONE. BUT IF

    QUARTERLY REPEAT: CURT, WHAT PHILOSOPHERS ARE WORTH READING REALLY? NONE. BUT IF YOU MUST….

    —“Curt: Which philosophers are worth reading? I take it Hume, Newton and Aristotle are among the ones who avoided engaging in falsehoods?— Alex

    You know, to be honest, I don’t think much of philosophers other than to get a feel for how the history of thought evolved into science.

    I would suggest reading about philosophers rather than philosophers themselves. I would rather someone read the SEP than any given philosopher. (Seriously. Encyclopedias prevent you from anchoring. )

    That said, it is hard to say no to:

    1 – Aristotle/Aurelius,

    2 – Machiavelli/Durkheim/Pareto/Hayek,

    3 – Bacon/Locke/Smith/Hume/Jefferson,

    4 – Galileo/Newton/Darwin/Maxwell.

    5 – The Greek tragedies, Dostoyevsky, Checkov, and Nietzche.

    6 – The Greek and Roman myths, the whole corpus of Christiandom’s myths that survived christianity as folk myths of the hearth. And perhaps most importantly homer, and the entire european (including Russian) great myths that evolved from that set of myths.

    And whichever of my followers had the genius bit to add, that it is only through tragedy that we can communicate to all classes, is something that I think bears knowing.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 15:19:00 UTC

  • “If you think it’s expensive to replicate a test, just look at the cost we’re be

    —“If you think it’s expensive to replicate a test, just look at the cost we’re bearing for not doing it.”—Gilberto Carlos

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-30 07:37:00 UTC

  • POSSIBLE TO DEMAND WARRANTY OF DUE DILIGENCE IN SCIENCE – ACTUALLY, IN ALL PUBLI

    http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/03/29/j-scott-armstrong-fraction-1-papers-scientific-journals-follow-scientific-method/ITS POSSIBLE TO DEMAND WARRANTY OF DUE DILIGENCE IN SCIENCE – ACTUALLY, IN ALL PUBLIC SPEECH

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-30 00:43:00 UTC

  • Don’t get it backwards. Math is so powerful precisely ’cause it’s so simple (dum

    Don’t get it backwards. Math is so powerful precisely ’cause it’s so simple (dumb). It’s easy to be correct when you choose your own causal density. It’s far harder to be correct when you can’t.

    Math is pretty simple for that reason, and we can delve into great complexity because of simplicity.

    But we are having problems in physics at higher causal density.

    And mathematics is all but useless in social science (say, in economics) because of causal density.

    And we can’t even figure out a unit of measure for sentience yet, which is an even higher causal density.

    So when people make statements like you just did, it sounds a little bit like someone saying chess is complicated. Actually it’s not. It’s a closed (ludic) game. It’s just hard for humans. There is math that is hard for humans for the same reason: mere scale of permutations. But it’s still trivial.

    Tell me how to measure the market value of a brand.

    Tell me how to measure the future rate of decline of iphone appeal.

    Tell me how to measure how much information it takes to change state from one idea to another?

    Doing puzzles is simple.

    Problems have high causal density.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-28 12:57:00 UTC

  • Simplicity is necessary in mathematics since mathematical symbols and operations

    Simplicity is necessary in mathematics since mathematical symbols and operations itself (state and operators) are necessary to allow us to remember state with sufficient precision that we can conduct comparisons between states.

    However, if we restated the foundations of mathematics operationally (constructively – analogous to gears), and we stated the foundations of mathematical deduction negatively, as geometry, we would be able to show that it is convergence between the via-positiva construction, and the via-negative deduction that leads us to truth.

    Unfortunately, man discovered (logically so) geometry prior to gears, and as such, we retain the ‘superstitious’ language of geometry (and algebra) of the superstitious era in which both were invented.

    Reality has only so many dimensions. By adding and removing dimensions from consideration we simplify the problem of describing the constant relations within it.

    Mathematics specializes in the removal of (a) scale, and (b) time, and (c) operations (and arguable (d) morality) from consideration, leaving only identity, quantity, and ratio, to which we add positional naming (numbers). We then construct general rules of arbitrary precision (scale independence) and apply those to reality wherein we must ‘hydrate’ (reconstitute) scale, time, and operations(actions).

    So just as philosophy is ‘stuck’ in non contradiction instead of increasing dimensions in order to test theories, mathematics is ‘stuck’ in non-contradiction instead of re-hydrating (restoring dimensions) to justify propositions.

    In other words, fancy words like ‘limits’ or ‘non-contradictory’ or ‘axiom of choice’ and various other terms in the field are just nonsense words that prevent the conversion of mathematics from a fictionalism into a science.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-28 07:10:00 UTC