Theme: Truth

  • (Reverence like faith is absent reason. We need reason to revere them. And they

    (Reverence like faith is absent reason. We need reason to revere them. And they must leave us the reasons to do so. We have left the stagnation of the agrarian age where all our ethics and morals and traditions developed. And in doing so thrown out the wisdom baby with the…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-06 03:47:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1919599836980248943

    Reply addressees: @adulpanget @yaycapitalism @ItIsHoeMath @memeticsisyphus @NoahRevoy

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1919589827525411071

  • (Reverence like faith is absent reason. We need reason to revere them. And they

    (Reverence like faith is absent reason. We need reason to revere them. And they must leave us the reasons to do so. We have left the stagnation of the agrarian age where all our ethics and morals and traditions developed. And in doing so thrown out the wisdom baby with the expired-wisdom bathwater.)


    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-06 03:47:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1919599836980248943

  • RT @ItIsHoeMath: If you talk about things that matter before you understand them

    RT @ItIsHoeMath: If you talk about things that matter before you understand them, you are a bad person.

    You are muddying the water and mak…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-05 23:34:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1919536328649183462

  • DEMYSTIFYING GÖDEL’S THEOREM: WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS Video by Curt Jaimungal of T

    DEMYSTIFYING GÖDEL’S THEOREM: WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS
    Video by Curt Jaimungal of TOE (Theories of Everything)

    Thank you for this video Curt. I’ve spent countless hours pushing back on absurd over-interpretation of Godel’s Theorem.
    FWIW: In my own work on grammars, where a grammar (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation within a paradigm (set of limits)), I tend to make use of Reducibility (See Wolfram) in the spectrum of set, mathematical, algorithmic, and operational grammars.
    This much more easily illustrates the expressibility and reducibility of all grammars, in description of phenomena – not just mathematics.
    In fact, most of my work on exposing errors in the sciences (of which physics is a member) consists of biases embedded in the particular grammar of mathematics that would be falsified by the lessons of the spectrum of grammars, or more generally, the universal grammar.
    So working with set logic and mathematics tends to obscure the logic of all grammars which more easily explain the limits of mathematical expression and application.

    https://t.co/34Gx7IQg2Y


    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-05 16:22:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1919427380206346240

  • DEMYSTIFYING GÖDEL’S THEOREM: WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS Video by Curt Jaimungal of T

    DEMYSTIFYING GÖDEL’S THEOREM: WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAYS
    Video by Curt Jaimungal of TOE (Theories of Everything)

    Thank you for this video Curt. I’ve spent countless hours pushing back on absurd over-interpretation of Godel’s Theorem.
    FWIW: In my own work on grammars, where a grammar (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation within a paradigm (set of limits)), I tend to make use of Reducibility (See Wolfram) in the spectrum of set, mathematical, algorithmic, and operational grammars.
    This much more easily illustrates the expressibility and reducibility of all grammars, in description of phenomena – not just mathematics.
    In fact, most of my work on exposing errors in the sciences (of which physics is a member) consists of biases embedded in the particular grammar of mathematics that would be falsified by the lessons of the spectrum of grammars, or more generally, the universal grammar.
    So working with set logic and mathematics tends to obscure the logic of all grammars which more easily explain the limits of mathematical expression and application.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-05 16:22:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1919427380432798071

  • RT @DRolandAnderson: @KirkegaardEmil “Stereotypes are one of our most reliable s

    RT @DRolandAnderson: @KirkegaardEmil “Stereotypes are one of our most reliable sources of truth, because they survive tests of falsificatio…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-02 01:11:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918111182810169351

  • correct. however the national utility of presumption of honesty is an extraordin

    correct. however the national utility of presumption of honesty is an extraordinary discount …. as long as it’s largely TRUE.


    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-01 23:18:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918082750424465557

    Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918073303392018471


    IN REPLY TO:

    @AutistocratMS

    Even assuming honesty, bias typically consists of discounting some kinds of interests that one benefits from discounting, often unconsciously. So a first good faith response is pointing out what is being discounted and then continue further based on whether the other party accepts the error or resists correction. I think there may be a whole lot of people Runcible might just have to refuse to cooperate with.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918073303392018471

  • THE PROBLEM WITH TRAINING LLMS ISN”T JUST DETERMINING THE TRUTH… (Important) –

    THE PROBLEM WITH TRAINING LLMS ISN”T JUST DETERMINING THE TRUTH… (Important)
    –“You can’t simply tell a model trained exclusively on neoliberal wikipedia edits to “be conservative.” Nobody is even pretending to try to address this root problem which is the single biggest political problem.”– Matt Parrott @MatthewParrott

    In fact, the problem is explaining to both feminine egalitarian consumptive left and masculine meritocratic capitalizing right biases the cause and structure of one another’s positions.

    This can’t happen when LLMs (a) are trained on the publicly available corpus of text, and (b) the LLM has no concept of the difference between two different systems humans make use of: measurement of the universe (categories) and measurement of human preference or it’s aversion for it.

    In most cases both biases, left feminine and right masculine are using hyperbole as a signal of moral outrage given some perceived transgression on the part of the other bais. In such cases – which is most cases, the hyperbole may be analytically false, but by cause and externality symptomatically true.

    There is therefore, given the structure of language and norms, a left bias in most mass produced information.
    Cheers
    CD


    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-01 21:37:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1918057092944150531

  • (NLI Diary) Having an other revelatory day experiencing just how great the dista

    (NLI Diary)
    Having an other revelatory day experiencing just how great the distance there is between present philosophical, mathematical, and scientific epistemology and my work.
    I have to credit GPT for helping me understand the ‘great divergence’. Because it both accuses me…


    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-01 16:40:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1917982512539906397

  • (NLI Diary) Having an other revelatory day experiencing just how great the dista

    (NLI Diary)
    Having an other revelatory day experiencing just how great the distance there is between present philosophical, mathematical, and scientific epistemology and my work.
    I have to credit GPT for helping me understand the ‘great divergence’. Because it both accuses me (correctly) of overwhelming the reader with novelty, volume, and density without “appeal to convention” (meaning explaining that vast delta in existing terms).
    So by asking GPT to explain my work to others I have begun to understand just how great a leap the revolution is.
    We were talking with someone well known, well connected, and deep in the venture capital in ML, LLM, and Crypto spaces this morning, and it was interesting in just covering the contrast between existing inference models (justificationism) vs our darwinian model (falsification, survival).
    Just as falsification and operationalism upended justification and proof in the scientific method – but failed to permeate most fields, my work is a formalization or possibly completion of that failed movement. And that failed movement was the result of Babbage’s failure to systematize his insights, and both Brouwer and Bridgman’s failures in mathematics and physics.
    By delaying the understanding of computation until (frankly) it’s semi-clear articulation by Stephen Wolfram (reducibility), after demonstration by Turing (Recursion), Mandelbrot (fractals) and Conroy (life), compounded by the de-realism (reversing Descartian restoration, back to a sophistry) by Cantor, Einstein, and Bohr, we have made little progress in scientific epistemology.
    I know my work finishes the aristotelian program and solves this problem of scientific epistemology, but I was not aware of how great a leap it is for those outside of a very narrow group of people in the AI (neural representationalism) community.
    This is fascinating. Though I wonder if using social media to conduct tests, and using it to report progress has any value outside of an even narrower population of people at the Institute. 😉 It’s at least documentary and therapeutic for me.
    Affections all.
    -CD


    Source date (UTC): 2025-05-01 16:40:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1917982512342843392