CALCULATION (PREDICTION) 140 Physics and Econometrics (applied mathematics) (ORGANIZATION OF ENTROPY) BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING (ORGANIZATION OF GROWTH) 130 Chemistry, Biology, Medicine, ENGINEERING (CONSTRUCTION) 120 computer science (language), electronic engineering ( fields ), mechanical engineering (power), public engineering (mass, scale and distance), structural engineering (forces of nature) COMPUTATION (MEASUREMENT) 110 Law, Finance, Accounting, ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION (ORGANIZATION) 105 Business and Marketing Criminal Justice Primary Education. TRADES (best learned by doing) ORGANIZATION OF REPRODUCTION (PARENTING) (best learned by doing)
Theme: Science
-
Current Topic: Clarity On Metaphysics Of Time, Rather Than Just Action
Metaphysics: Time The most effective conservation of energy is to save time. We expend energy to alter events in new state we would not have in current state. In this sense we’d not produce but we save. And inventory what we save. We can understand that as farmers we would adapt our thinking to production an d inventory rather than as hunters to capture and save. But it is the mental concept of hunters that is correct. We act to reorganize and save. We capture this difference between expenditure of energy and capture of energy We expend some of that energy as heat and the rest as action, and attempt against nature to inventory the rest, and invest it in more of the same actions as possible. And the reason we have been so insanely good at everything we do is that cooperation (Organizing) is so disproportionately rewarding because the concentration of energy is so rewarding. And because the use of information via cooperation, trade, and money and now post-money substitutes has assisted us in ever larger concentrations of energy/effort. Man transcends to god hood by outwitting the universe’s course of events Our ultimate expression of this strategy is to effectively stop time for all but the energy we consume. ***So just as truth exists in the greatest informational parsimony short of tautology, perfect transcendence exists in perfect energy parsimony short of the stopping of time***. We are no longer farmers and no longer need be subject to the metaphysics of farmers. Savers of time. And as such the savers of energy. For humans, time and energy and mass are synonyms.
-
Current Topic: Clarity On Metaphysics Of Time, Rather Than Just Action
Metaphysics: Time The most effective conservation of energy is to save time. We expend energy to alter events in new state we would not have in current state. In this sense we’d not produce but we save. And inventory what we save. We can understand that as farmers we would adapt our thinking to production an d inventory rather than as hunters to capture and save. But it is the mental concept of hunters that is correct. We act to reorganize and save. We capture this difference between expenditure of energy and capture of energy We expend some of that energy as heat and the rest as action, and attempt against nature to inventory the rest, and invest it in more of the same actions as possible. And the reason we have been so insanely good at everything we do is that cooperation (Organizing) is so disproportionately rewarding because the concentration of energy is so rewarding. And because the use of information via cooperation, trade, and money and now post-money substitutes has assisted us in ever larger concentrations of energy/effort. Man transcends to god hood by outwitting the universe’s course of events Our ultimate expression of this strategy is to effectively stop time for all but the energy we consume. ***So just as truth exists in the greatest informational parsimony short of tautology, perfect transcendence exists in perfect energy parsimony short of the stopping of time***. We are no longer farmers and no longer need be subject to the metaphysics of farmers. Savers of time. And as such the savers of energy. For humans, time and energy and mass are synonyms.
-
The Hierarchy Of Truth Propositions
—Observations vs Operations vs Explanations— 1) OBSERVATION, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively, “Fact.” 2) OPERATIONS, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively”, “Recipe” 3) EXPLANATION, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively, “Law” (an apriori statement is a special case of explanation whereby the statement of hypothesis can be true and cannot be false.) Observation: reporting of factsOperations: production of processes. Explanations: describingcausal relations That’s probably the epistemological state of the art in a nutshell. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
The Hierarchy Of Truth Propositions
—Observations vs Operations vs Explanations— 1) OBSERVATION, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively, “Fact.” 2) OPERATIONS, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively”, “Recipe” 3) EXPLANATION, hypothesis, tested, theory, tested exhaustively, “Law” (an apriori statement is a special case of explanation whereby the statement of hypothesis can be true and cannot be false.) Observation: reporting of factsOperations: production of processes. Explanations: describingcausal relations That’s probably the epistemological state of the art in a nutshell. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Yes, There Exists A Scientific Method
ACTUALLY, THERE IS A SCIENTIFIC METHOD. ITS JUST NOT PECULIAR TO SCIENCE. ITS THE UNIVERSAL EPISTEMIC METHOD, BUT ONLY SCIENTISTS PRACTICE IT WITH ANY DILIGENCE. Just as we can test axiomatic(declarative) systems for consistency dimension-by-dimension; Say, like: -> identity(pairing off) -> arithmetic(number), -> geometry(space), -> calculus (motion) -> equlibria (stocastics) -> And like: -> length,-> width,-> area,-> volume,-> change,-> motion -> We can also test theoretic (descriptive) systems, like: -> Reason, -> Rationalism, -> Logic, -> Empiricism We can test also each dimension of the entirety of reality: 1 – categorical consistency (identity) 2 – internal consistency (logic) 3 – external consistency (empiricism) 4 – existential possibility (operationalism) 5 – rational possibility (morality) 6 – scope accountability (full accounting, limits, and parsimony) So there is a scientific method, because scientists are the only ones who use it with any degree of discipline: “My warranty that I have done due diligence in testing categorical internal and external consistency, existential and rational possibility, and scope accountability.” If an individual has done due diligence against each dimension it is almost impossible for him to engage in: 1 – error 2 – bias 3 – wishful thinking 4 – suggestion 5 – overloading 6 – obscurantism 7 – pseudoscience 8 – deceit Given that our information is never complete, and if it is complete we speak in tautology not truth, then we can never know we speak the truth even if we do so. What we can know is that we have done due diligence against speaking falsehood. That is the best that we can do. And this is what it means to “Testify”. And that is what it means to be a member of western civilization: to learn to do such due diligence that whenever you speak, you give testimony. It may not be true but you warranty that you have done your duty not to state a falsehood. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
-
Yes, There Exists A Scientific Method
ACTUALLY, THERE IS A SCIENTIFIC METHOD. ITS JUST NOT PECULIAR TO SCIENCE. ITS THE UNIVERSAL EPISTEMIC METHOD, BUT ONLY SCIENTISTS PRACTICE IT WITH ANY DILIGENCE. Just as we can test axiomatic(declarative) systems for consistency dimension-by-dimension; Say, like: -> identity(pairing off) -> arithmetic(number), -> geometry(space), -> calculus (motion) -> equlibria (stocastics) -> And like: -> length,-> width,-> area,-> volume,-> change,-> motion -> We can also test theoretic (descriptive) systems, like: -> Reason, -> Rationalism, -> Logic, -> Empiricism We can test also each dimension of the entirety of reality: 1 – categorical consistency (identity) 2 – internal consistency (logic) 3 – external consistency (empiricism) 4 – existential possibility (operationalism) 5 – rational possibility (morality) 6 – scope accountability (full accounting, limits, and parsimony) So there is a scientific method, because scientists are the only ones who use it with any degree of discipline: “My warranty that I have done due diligence in testing categorical internal and external consistency, existential and rational possibility, and scope accountability.” If an individual has done due diligence against each dimension it is almost impossible for him to engage in: 1 – error 2 – bias 3 – wishful thinking 4 – suggestion 5 – overloading 6 – obscurantism 7 – pseudoscience 8 – deceit Given that our information is never complete, and if it is complete we speak in tautology not truth, then we can never know we speak the truth even if we do so. What we can know is that we have done due diligence against speaking falsehood. That is the best that we can do. And this is what it means to “Testify”. And that is what it means to be a member of western civilization: to learn to do such due diligence that whenever you speak, you give testimony. It may not be true but you warranty that you have done your duty not to state a falsehood. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
-
A Conversation Between Taleb and Doolittle
Rob De Geer I want you and Nassim Taleb to tango. My two favorites at the moment. Curt Doolittle We can talk and educate, but we can’t really ‘debate’ because we are saying very similar things. I think I would frame the argument, and that my terminology would be so superior that it was inescapable, and that it would show that we’re in violent agreement – and that I understand what he is doing but he doesn’t know about or understand what I’m doing. So (a) I would ‘win’ only in the sense that I would frame the discourse with a superior descriptive language, and (b) we would both win, and perhaps mankind would win, by showing that we are not necessarily outliers but representatives of a scientific movement to counteract the pseudosciences of the 20th century. Rob De Geer OOOooo I want to see it more because of those statements. Curt Doolittle I think the big difference between Taleb and I, besides our obvious and genetic cultural differences and our equally big round heads, is that my ‘ego’ is purely a marketing position, and his is a natural extension of his background and character. My mother’s Catholicism worked on me. 🙂 In other words, It would be good for mankind but I don’t see him engaging me until I publish. Even though my work would fend off many of the criticisms he receives. I’m not actually keen on being famous. He is. Different currencies for different souls. Curt Doolittle (after thinking a bit) Taleb’s LITERARY method relies on ANALOGY and won’t necessarily help him get to an answer. His mathematics are excellent but don’t seem to be providing him enough parsimony. And for the same reasons I criticize apriorism as a special cast of empiricism, I don’t *THINK* until we determine what it is we need to measure and how to measure it, that we can measure it empirically. This is why I prefer my method, which should provide us with an understanding of what we need to measure so that we can measure it. All these distortions accumulate throughout the economy and they burn down accumulated capital of every sort: genetic, cultural, normative, reproductive, productive, fixed, and monumental. Both top down (empiricism) or bottom up (operationalism) help us solve different categories of problems – and then we use the opposite technique to test our hypothesis. We need both tools. I’ve been hoping Nassim would get a little closer than his demonstration that we require logarithmically increasing amounts of information to gain any insight into outliers and black swans. I think there is an operational explanation for this, and that just as we measure economies with sets of anchor measures, we can measure for black swans with sets of anchor measures. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
THE DIVINE, SUPERNATURAL, MORAL, AND SCIENTIFIC —“Is the universe open for fre
THE DIVINE, SUPERNATURAL, MORAL, AND SCIENTIFIC
—“Is the universe open for free actions or divine interventions or other special divine actions? Are there reasons for the impossibility claims?”—
We have not yet eliminated the possibility. We certainly cannot seem to construct any test of such things. All tests we run that would require human control of outcomes have failed – spectacularly. We cannot even find one instance. But what if only the unintended can be caused by collective imagination? In other words, if you were a divinity why would you allow access to the resource? You wouldn’t. Ever.
So the reason for the claim of impossibility is not because we know it’s impossible, it’s because we want to stop charlatans, magicians, pseudoscientists, and liars from distracting us from that divine action that we can take if we are acting in full subconsious honesty (pure faith).
It is becoming increasingly possible to imagine that by some very, very, very subtle method, we can cause a ‘god’ to form out of the information we possess, our memories, our speech, our actions, and even our imaginings. And that this god like all such gods, is not in control of the physical universe, but that it does influence our actions and ambitions in the same sense that a super-intelligent but non-sentient mind would.
–“What is a free action? Which definitions of ‘free action’ are useful and adequate? What is a divine intervention? What other kinds of divine action are there?”—
Divine intervention can be explained if and only if it is demonstrated by human behavior. Free action is necessary for the simple reason that the information necessary to make a decision in a deterministic universe, isn’t possible for a person to possess, plus given the human propensity to err bias etc, means that all choice involves quite a bit of choice. The constraint on most human action however is resources and people with whom to cooperate, more than our own desire to act.
–“Which evidence is there for the existence of free actions (of a certain kind) and of divine interventions? (An evidence-based approach.)”—
What we call synchronicity does not seem, in all cases, to be explicable. It may be that some of us are just better at picking up subtle physical markers by accident (subconsciously) but that we cannot do anything when trying (consciously). It may be that those of us exposed to similar information deterministically will pursue similar objectives and take similar actions producing similar intuitions, producing similar imaginary content, and sensing similar extremely subtle information.
I am currently stuck on the problems we find in physical science at the very lowest level, and that we seem to be only aware of a subset of the universe that’s open to inspection by our senses. But this is a very small percentage of the energy and mass in the universe.
When I combine this with the silence in space, I am troubled that we are just very primitive in our understanding of space-time and transit through it by other than EMR and crude mass.
So
(a) the reason we push back on mysticism and divinity is to protect against charlatanism not because we cannot eliminate the possibility of either. In other words it is a moral imperative that we do not have another era of ignorance and mysticism.
(b) any existent (conscious or not) divinity would prevent us from conducting conscious experiments to take advantage of the resource he made available for us.
(c) We don’t know enough to eliminate the possibility of such an information system (god). And it looks like it is possible (despite the simplicity of the universe that we do understand) that there are phenomenon that transcend the limits of the physical world as we know it – at least to the extent of providing us some information.
(d) We can’t seem to find a single case despite trying (very hard) of any divine action that is not explicable by other means.
(e) We can’t disprove, and it is more likely, that any information system (god) would not evidence itself in the physical world except through our actions, imaginations, or hallucinations. And that we are looing for the wrong kind of evidence (physical) rather than the only kind that would be possible (experiential).
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-30 08:32:00 UTC
-
(6) economics is the greatest political pseudoscience since the invention of scr
(6) economics is the greatest political pseudoscience since the invention of scriptural monotheism. And has been just as deadly
Source date (UTC): 2016-09-30 08:16:34 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781769693304676352
Reply addressees: @JoshZumbrun
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781157309145686016
IN REPLY TO:
@JoshZumbrun
This is one of the most horrifying graphics I’ve ever seen:
https://t.co/wM0VJZn0Wg https://t.co/qaUaNFtRPlOriginal post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781157309145686016