Curt Doolittle

Theme: Science

  • I’m on the side of Poincare and Brouwer (and to some degree Hilbert) that cantor

    I’m on the side of Poincare and Brouwer (and to some degree Hilbert) that cantor was influential in expanding mathematical fictionalism (platonism), and thereby preventing the reformation of mathematics ( and philosophy) that we saw in the sciences.

    This remains unfortunate, since any statement of mathematical fictionalism (platonism) can be stated scientifically (operationally) and therefore these fictions are not only unnecessary but impeded the teaching of math and to some degree pollute the other fields.

    Now, for a person trained in mathematics (measurement), this is all very difficult to understand, just as to a philosopher trained in rationalism (non-contradiction) it is very difficult to understand, just as a theologian trained in idealism it is very difficult to understand. We all make excuses for useful fictions.

    However, the consequences of useful fictions to humanity is cumulatively profound (expensive).

    In fact, I am increasingly convinced that the ‘set’ movement from the 1800’s to the present is not only unnecessary, but harmful on a scale that is unimaginable to all but a few. As Popper said there are not only sources of knowledge, but sources of ignorance, and when we had the opportunity to deflate mathematics and convert it from a philosophy to a science, we failed.

    This tragedy becomes more obvious once we realize that according to Bridgman, we might have had an Einstein a century earlier if mathematics had not be mired in platonism (fictionalism).

    In my work, I’m increasingly aware that the rise of pseudoscientific economics, our failure to develop strictly constructed law, the loss of a century in philosophy, and the expansion of pseudoscience in physics (multiple worlds), are caused by the failure of mathematics – the most basic (simple) and therefore innovative of the logics – to reform.

    Magic is still with us. The enlightenment remains unfinished.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-28 06:28:00 UTC

  • EXERCISE: Fiction vs Fictionalism What separates fiction from fictionalism? Fict

    EXERCISE: Fiction vs Fictionalism

    What separates fiction from fictionalism?

    Fictionalism is constructed with at least these techniques:

    1 – pseudo-science,

    2 – pseudo-rationalism,

    3 – pseudo-history, and

    4 – pseudo-mythology(Religion).

    And each technique includes three tools:

    a) a lie

    b) an obscurantism

    c) a conflation

    Can you give an example of each technique, and the tools used to construct it?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-27 12:04:00 UTC

  • Definitions: Post Euclidian Geometry

    I think that the scientific rather than platonic explanations are more truthful and less “magical” (and less ridiculous honestly). So try this: We can act in four dimensions of the physical universe, measure in four dimensions of the physical universe, and model four dimensions of the physical universe with mathematics. However, we can use the same techniques to model purely logical relationships, as we do to model physical relationships. It requires quite a bit of skill to keep track of what you’re doing, but when we are modeling very complex things, like waves, magnetism, forces, economic phenomenon, we can perform very complex calculations – not because these spaces exist, but because we can use the techniques we developed in the more simple physical spaces consisting of a small number of dimensions of change, to solve problems with many many, dimensions of change. It’s not that complicated really. It just sounds complicated because of the old fashioned (archaic) language we use to describe what we’re doing.

  • Definitions: Post Euclidian Geometry

    I think that the scientific rather than platonic explanations are more truthful and less “magical” (and less ridiculous honestly). So try this: We can act in four dimensions of the physical universe, measure in four dimensions of the physical universe, and model four dimensions of the physical universe with mathematics. However, we can use the same techniques to model purely logical relationships, as we do to model physical relationships. It requires quite a bit of skill to keep track of what you’re doing, but when we are modeling very complex things, like waves, magnetism, forces, economic phenomenon, we can perform very complex calculations – not because these spaces exist, but because we can use the techniques we developed in the more simple physical spaces consisting of a small number of dimensions of change, to solve problems with many many, dimensions of change. It’s not that complicated really. It just sounds complicated because of the old fashioned (archaic) language we use to describe what we’re doing.

  • The State of Mathematical Economics

      Understanding advanced mathematics of economics and physics for ordinary people. The Mengerian revolution, which we call the Marginalist revolution, occurred when the people of the period applied calculus ( the mathematics of “relative motion”) to what had been largely a combination of accounting and algebra. 20th century economics can be seen largely as an attempt to apply the mathematics of relative motion (constant change) from mathematics of constant categories that we use in perfectly constant axiomatic systems, and the relatively constant mathematics of physical systems, to the mathematics of inconstant categories that we find in economics – because things on the market have a multitude of subsequent yet interdependent uses that are determined by ever changing preferences, demands, availability, and shocks. Physics is a much harder problem than axiomatic mathematics. Economics is a much harder problem than mathematical physics, and before we head down this road (which I have been thinking about a long time) Sentience (the next dimension of complexity) is a much harder problem than economics. And there have been questions in the 20th century whether mathematics as we understand it can solve the hard problem of economics. But this is, as usual, a problem of misunderstanding the very simple nature of mathematics as the study of constant relations. Most human use of mathematics consists of the study of trivial constant relations such as quantities of objects, physical measurements. Or changes in state over time. Or relative motion in time. And this constitutes the four dimensions we can conceive of when discussing real world physical phenomenon. So in our simplistic view of mathematics, we think in terms of small numbers of causal relations. But, it does not reflect the number of POSSIBLE causal relations. In other words, we change from the position of observing change in state by things humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density higher than humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density such that every act of measurement distorts what humans can observe and act upon, by distorting the causality. One of our discoveries in mathematical physics, is that as things move along a trajectory, they are affected by high causal density, and change through many different states during that time period. Such that causal density is so high that it is very hard to reduce change in state of many dimensions of constant relations to a trivial value: meaning a measurement or state that we can predict. Instead we fine a range of output constant relations, which we call probabilistic. So that instead of a say, a point as a measurement, we fined a line, or a triangle, or a multi dimensional geometry that the resulting state will fit within. However, we can, with some work identify what we might call sums or aggregates (which are simple sets of relationships) but what higher mathematicians refer to as patterns, ‘symmetries’ or ‘geometries’. And these patterns refer to a set of constant relations in ‘space’ (on a coordinate system of sorts) that seem to emerge regardless of differences in the causes that produce them. These patterns, symmetries, or geometries reflect a set of constant relationships that are the product of inconstant causal operations. And when you refer to a ‘number’, a pattern, a symmetry, or a geometry, or what is called a non-euclidian geometry, we are merely talking about the number of dimensions of constant relations we are talking about, and using ‘space’ as the analogy that the human mind is able to grasp. Unfortunately, mathematics has not ‘reformed’ itself into operational language as have the physical sciences – and remains like the social sciences and philosophy a bastion of archaic language. But we can reduce this archaic language into meaningful operational terms as nothing more than sets of constant relations between measurements, consisting of a dimension per measurement, which we represent as a field (flat), euclidian geometry (possible geometry), or post Euclidian geometry (physically impossible but logically useful) geometry of constant relations. And more importantly, once we can identify these patterns, symmetries, or geometries that arise from complex causal density consisting of seemingly unrelated causal operations, we have found a constant by which to measure that which is causally dense but consequentially constant. So think of the current need for reform in economics to refer to and require a transition from the measurement of numeric (trivial) values, to the analysis of (non-trivial) consequent geometries. These constant states (geometries) constitute the aggregate operations in economies. The unintended but constant consequences of causally dense actions. Think of it like using fingers to make a shadow puppet. If you put a lot of people together between the light and the shadow, you can form the same pattern in the shadow despite very different combinations of fingers, hands, and arms. But because of the limits of the human anatomy, there are certain patterns more likely to emerge than others. Now imagine we do that in three dimensions. Now (if you can) four, and so on. At some point we can’t imagine these things. Because we have moved beyond what is possible to that which is only analogous to the possible: a set of constant relations in multiple dimensions. So economics then can evolve from the study of inputs and outputs without intermediary state which allows prediction, to the study of the consequence of inputs and the range of possible outputs that will likely produce predictability. in other words, it is possible to define constant relations in economics. And of course it is possible to define constant relations in sentience. The same is true for the operations possible by mankind. There are many possible, but there are only so many that produce a condition of natural law: reciprocity. Like I’ve said. Math isn’t complicated if you undrestand that it’s nothing more than saying “this stone represents one of our sheep”. And in doing so produce a constant relation. all we do is increase the quantity of constant relations we must measure. And from them deduce what we do not know, but is necessary because of those constant relations. Math is simple. That’s why it works for just about everything: we can define a correspondence with anything. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • The State of Mathematical Economics

      Understanding advanced mathematics of economics and physics for ordinary people. The Mengerian revolution, which we call the Marginalist revolution, occurred when the people of the period applied calculus ( the mathematics of “relative motion”) to what had been largely a combination of accounting and algebra. 20th century economics can be seen largely as an attempt to apply the mathematics of relative motion (constant change) from mathematics of constant categories that we use in perfectly constant axiomatic systems, and the relatively constant mathematics of physical systems, to the mathematics of inconstant categories that we find in economics – because things on the market have a multitude of subsequent yet interdependent uses that are determined by ever changing preferences, demands, availability, and shocks. Physics is a much harder problem than axiomatic mathematics. Economics is a much harder problem than mathematical physics, and before we head down this road (which I have been thinking about a long time) Sentience (the next dimension of complexity) is a much harder problem than economics. And there have been questions in the 20th century whether mathematics as we understand it can solve the hard problem of economics. But this is, as usual, a problem of misunderstanding the very simple nature of mathematics as the study of constant relations. Most human use of mathematics consists of the study of trivial constant relations such as quantities of objects, physical measurements. Or changes in state over time. Or relative motion in time. And this constitutes the four dimensions we can conceive of when discussing real world physical phenomenon. So in our simplistic view of mathematics, we think in terms of small numbers of causal relations. But, it does not reflect the number of POSSIBLE causal relations. In other words, we change from the position of observing change in state by things humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density higher than humans can observe and act upon, to a causal density such that every act of measurement distorts what humans can observe and act upon, by distorting the causality. One of our discoveries in mathematical physics, is that as things move along a trajectory, they are affected by high causal density, and change through many different states during that time period. Such that causal density is so high that it is very hard to reduce change in state of many dimensions of constant relations to a trivial value: meaning a measurement or state that we can predict. Instead we fine a range of output constant relations, which we call probabilistic. So that instead of a say, a point as a measurement, we fined a line, or a triangle, or a multi dimensional geometry that the resulting state will fit within. However, we can, with some work identify what we might call sums or aggregates (which are simple sets of relationships) but what higher mathematicians refer to as patterns, ‘symmetries’ or ‘geometries’. And these patterns refer to a set of constant relations in ‘space’ (on a coordinate system of sorts) that seem to emerge regardless of differences in the causes that produce them. These patterns, symmetries, or geometries reflect a set of constant relationships that are the product of inconstant causal operations. And when you refer to a ‘number’, a pattern, a symmetry, or a geometry, or what is called a non-euclidian geometry, we are merely talking about the number of dimensions of constant relations we are talking about, and using ‘space’ as the analogy that the human mind is able to grasp. Unfortunately, mathematics has not ‘reformed’ itself into operational language as have the physical sciences – and remains like the social sciences and philosophy a bastion of archaic language. But we can reduce this archaic language into meaningful operational terms as nothing more than sets of constant relations between measurements, consisting of a dimension per measurement, which we represent as a field (flat), euclidian geometry (possible geometry), or post Euclidian geometry (physically impossible but logically useful) geometry of constant relations. And more importantly, once we can identify these patterns, symmetries, or geometries that arise from complex causal density consisting of seemingly unrelated causal operations, we have found a constant by which to measure that which is causally dense but consequentially constant. So think of the current need for reform in economics to refer to and require a transition from the measurement of numeric (trivial) values, to the analysis of (non-trivial) consequent geometries. These constant states (geometries) constitute the aggregate operations in economies. The unintended but constant consequences of causally dense actions. Think of it like using fingers to make a shadow puppet. If you put a lot of people together between the light and the shadow, you can form the same pattern in the shadow despite very different combinations of fingers, hands, and arms. But because of the limits of the human anatomy, there are certain patterns more likely to emerge than others. Now imagine we do that in three dimensions. Now (if you can) four, and so on. At some point we can’t imagine these things. Because we have moved beyond what is possible to that which is only analogous to the possible: a set of constant relations in multiple dimensions. So economics then can evolve from the study of inputs and outputs without intermediary state which allows prediction, to the study of the consequence of inputs and the range of possible outputs that will likely produce predictability. in other words, it is possible to define constant relations in economics. And of course it is possible to define constant relations in sentience. The same is true for the operations possible by mankind. There are many possible, but there are only so many that produce a condition of natural law: reciprocity. Like I’ve said. Math isn’t complicated if you undrestand that it’s nothing more than saying “this stone represents one of our sheep”. And in doing so produce a constant relation. all we do is increase the quantity of constant relations we must measure. And from them deduce what we do not know, but is necessary because of those constant relations. Math is simple. That’s why it works for just about everything: we can define a correspondence with anything. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine

  • Hanging: Genetic Pacification in the West

    Western Europe, state formation, and genetic pacification. – PubMed – NCBI ncbi.nlm.nih.gov USUAL SUSPECTS: FROST AND HARPENDING (I get sh-t all the time from newbs, but if you follow me long enough you learn: I WORK FROM THE DATA. I don’t make sh-t up. ) Evol Psychol. 2015 Mar 6;13(1):230-43. Western Europe, state formation, and genetic pacification. Frost P1, Harpending HC2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25748943 During that period, 0.5 to 1% of all men were removed from each generation through court-ordered executions and a comparable proportion through extrajudicial executions, i.e., deaths of offenders at the scene of the crime or in prison while awaiting trial. The total execution rate was thus somewhere between 1 and 2%. These men were permanently removed from the population, as was the heritable component of their propensity for homicide. If we assume a standard normal distribution in the male population, the most violent 1 to 2% should form a right-hand “tail” that begins 2.33–2.05 SD to the right of the mean propensity for homicide. If we eliminate this right-hand tail and leave only the other 98-99% to survive and reproduce, we have a selection differential of 0.027 to 0.049 SD per generation. …The reader can see that this selection differential, which we derived from the execution rate, is at most a little over half the selection differential of 0.08 SD per generation that we derived from the historical decline in the homicide rate.  

  • Hanging: Genetic Pacification in the West

    Western Europe, state formation, and genetic pacification. – PubMed – NCBI ncbi.nlm.nih.gov USUAL SUSPECTS: FROST AND HARPENDING (I get sh-t all the time from newbs, but if you follow me long enough you learn: I WORK FROM THE DATA. I don’t make sh-t up. ) Evol Psychol. 2015 Mar 6;13(1):230-43. Western Europe, state formation, and genetic pacification. Frost P1, Harpending HC2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25748943 During that period, 0.5 to 1% of all men were removed from each generation through court-ordered executions and a comparable proportion through extrajudicial executions, i.e., deaths of offenders at the scene of the crime or in prison while awaiting trial. The total execution rate was thus somewhere between 1 and 2%. These men were permanently removed from the population, as was the heritable component of their propensity for homicide. If we assume a standard normal distribution in the male population, the most violent 1 to 2% should form a right-hand “tail” that begins 2.33–2.05 SD to the right of the mean propensity for homicide. If we eliminate this right-hand tail and leave only the other 98-99% to survive and reproduce, we have a selection differential of 0.027 to 0.049 SD per generation. …The reader can see that this selection differential, which we derived from the execution rate, is at most a little over half the selection differential of 0.08 SD per generation that we derived from the historical decline in the homicide rate.  

  • As I Understand It This Is the Current Understanding of Regional and Now Tribal, Group Genetics.

    As far as I know all human variation is demonstrably caused by little more than the intensity of expression of possibilities extant already in the genome. Despite partial speciation, we did did not complete sufficient physical speciation for typical classification because our primary means of speciation migrated from the physical to the conceptual, and the conceptual is highly affected by the distribution (norm) and therefore physical expression required little physical mutation in the genome, only substantial modification of the mind post birth. These changes have been consistently selected for whenever possible and they universally favor selection for youthfulness (fertility), which is achieved by delaying the intensity of maturity. A point which asians have unfortunately probably exceeded and whites have approached with dangerous proximity.

  • As I Understand It This Is the Current Understanding of Regional and Now Tribal, Group Genetics.

    As far as I know all human variation is demonstrably caused by little more than the intensity of expression of possibilities extant already in the genome. Despite partial speciation, we did did not complete sufficient physical speciation for typical classification because our primary means of speciation migrated from the physical to the conceptual, and the conceptual is highly affected by the distribution (norm) and therefore physical expression required little physical mutation in the genome, only substantial modification of the mind post birth. These changes have been consistently selected for whenever possible and they universally favor selection for youthfulness (fertility), which is achieved by delaying the intensity of maturity. A point which asians have unfortunately probably exceeded and whites have approached with dangerous proximity.