Theme: Truth

  • You cannot testify to this only that you have faith in it. As such you may not c

    You cannot testify to this only that you have faith in it. As such you may not claim it is true without lying. This is the problem with abrahamic religions They teach you to lie and those lies make you dim. This is not true of european philosophical or Sinic philosophical religions. It’s not even true of hindu religion. It’s only true of lying deceiving sick twisted middle eastern religions. πŸ˜‰

    Reply addressees: @jasongoldb11835


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-29 20:34:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752067759742001152

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1752048761990267013

  • Not exactly sure what you’re asking. Maybe give me an example? Only thought I ha

    Not exactly sure what you’re asking. Maybe give me an example? Only thought I have in response is that it doesn’t matter what one thinks, has confidence in, believes in, or has faith in, whether conscious or not (metaphysical). But one still remains liable for display word and…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-29 04:43:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751828268674666687

    Reply addressees: @dbabbitt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751826560213045272

  • BTW: search my recent posts for ‘faith belief confidence’ so you get an insight

    BTW: search my recent posts for ‘faith belief confidence’ so you get an insight into the difference between faith (supernatural) and belief (natural) and confidence (experience).


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-29 04:17:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751821887187873921

    Reply addressees: @dbabbitt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751821082040914198

  • Just doing my job man. πŸ˜‰ We conduct the war of ideas and may the best and trues

    Just doing my job man. πŸ˜‰
    We conduct the war of ideas and may the best and truest survive. πŸ˜‰


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-29 03:29:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751809829654409601

    Reply addressees: @_Itsmrfoxy_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751799921504641173

  • I doubt very seriously I’m confusing or conflating anything. On the other hand y

    I doubt very seriously I’m confusing or conflating anything. On the other hand you might interpret what I’m saying as ambiguous and not grasp my meaning.

    All language consists of measurements. A number has no unambiguous meaning without a context, and few if any terms have unambiguous meaning without context. So context equals correspondence.

    In other words if a word is ambiguous in meaning then it’s context is insufficient to provide ambiuity.

    This is the reason we demand operational language in testifiable truth – because if you cannot state what you mean in operational terms you cannot reduce it to unambiguous identity.

    The purpose of grammar is to continuously recursively disambiguate disorder into order, or more correctly ambiguity into identity.

    The function of all existence relies on the same process of continuous recursive disambiguation of entropy into negative entropy that captures time energy and information in its organization and produces additional new opportunities for capture of more energy and more persistence (time) that can be put to new use (capital).

    So the entire universe works by the same simple principle at all scales and the simplicity of that principle emerges in in all contexts at all scales because it must for reasons too complex to explain here.

    So, it’s not the words that have meaning so much as the words phrases sentences narratives reduced to operational prose that produce unambiguity.

    As for reasoning it consists of the primitives the brain is capable of doing which is just wayfinding between episodes where episode consists of a memory and it’s associations in the most general terms.

    Reply addressees: @BrownCanard @compliantcitiz1


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-29 02:43:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751798203131871232

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751795444752269478

  • There are many bullshitters among those who claim they are scientists. But that

    There are many bullshitters among those who claim they are scientists. But that is merely because we have failed to apply the same standard to research goods as we have ordinary consumer, business, industrial, and government products, services, and information. This isn’t terribly hard to do.

    It would unemploy vast numbers of pseudoscientists, and sophists, and fictionalists and petty criminals. I can’t think of a better law to enact for researchers academics public intellectuals reporters advertisers and marketers. πŸ˜‰

    That does not mean science is not the most powerful method of the production of truth we have ever invented and is very likely if not certainly the most advanced it is possible for humans to develop.

    The fact that the nitwit and midwit factions are as easily fooled by nonsense, pseudoscience, sophistry, and theology is a function of the commonality of nitwits and midwits.

    Reply addressees: @Laymandaman @ScottAdamsSays


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-28 19:49:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751693895170215936

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751659367454453843

  • Science means the production of testifiable testimony. Science functions by the

    Science means the production of testifiable testimony.
    Science functions by the competition for survival between testifiable testimonies in the market for testifiable testimonies that consists of other scientists.
    Not all scientific publications or claims survive even the initial test of testifiable under the most basic competitive scrutiny.
    Some survive partly for a time. Some survive partly for a long time. But cumulatively over time those some or all of some hypotheses and theories survive replication, application, and survival in both application and competition from new testifiable testimonies whether hypotheses or theories.
    The progress of this competition for survival, over time, increases the unambiguity(identity), parsimony, consistency, correspondence, and causality of the set of surviving testifiable testimonies (claims, first principles, laws).
    At some point maximum reducibility within a domain is discovered, consisting of textual first principles or or mathematical law, resulting in settled science. (chemistry)
    At some point we
    Therefore Science is merely the application of western tradition of court testimony from civil and criminal matters to mere disputes to hypotheses and theories about the universe and all within it.
    This means that Science is an extension of jurisprudence, and progresses as does jurisprudence, and as a consequence of all knowledge, by Darwinian evolutionary process applied to thought using words.
    Science is just testifiable testimony.
    Non-Science is untestifiable.
    ANd to claim the unjustifiable is true is always and everywhere to lie.
    One can claim supernatural faith.
    One can claim reasonable belief
    One can claim habitual trust
    One can claim experiential confidence
    One can claim the certainty exhaustive knowledge and experience.
    But none of those terms are the same as ‘true’.
    Only testimony that is testifiable, because it satisfies the demand for realism, naturalism, identity, consistency, correspondence, constructability, reciprocity, and full accounting within stated limits can be claimed “true”.

    Reply addressees: @Laymandaman @ScottAdamsSays


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-28 19:38:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751691358236991488

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751659367454453843

  • SOPHISTS USING THE TERM METAPHYSICS TO LIE Metaphysics only exists in literary p

    SOPHISTS USING THE TERM METAPHYSICS TO LIE
    Metaphysics only exists in literary philosophy as the category of assumptions about the universe. This term should be replaced assumptions about reality.
    In logic, the term is premises within a paradigm.
    In science the term is assumptions in the paradigm.
    In social science these premises and assumptions are unconscious in the population in their different individual cultural and religious paradigms.
    The only legitimate use of the term is in social science to refer to the unknown assumptions held by individuals and populations that serve as the paradigm that they use for decidability. Decidability is necessary for choice and choice necessary for action.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-28 16:11:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751639119640289280

  • A syllogism does not require a counter example

    A syllogism does not require a counter example.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-27 18:14:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751307610949607812

    Reply addressees: @metamatician @MindEnjoyer

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751272389940224161

  • MORE TESTING IT ON MY WORK ON TRUTH PROMPT If I recall correctly he has listed t

    MORE TESTING IT ON MY WORK ON TRUTH

    PROMPT
    If I recall correctly he has listed the criteria by which we can test the truth of speech. Is that correct?

    GPT – Universal Primer ‘plugin’
    Yes, you’re correct. Curt Doolittle, in the context of Propertarianism, has indeed provided… https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1751001824822247455


    Source date (UTC): 2024-01-26 22:06:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1751003677035258228