Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • WHY WILL PEOPLE WILL RESIST PROPERTARIANISM? (defense of investment in fraud) Pr

    WHY WILL PEOPLE WILL RESIST PROPERTARIANISM?

    (defense of investment in fraud)

    Propertarianism: All words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and arguments consist of measurements accumulating in transactions. Most importantly, propertarian argument makes visible ALL pretense of knowledge – falsifying any claim made with pretense of knowledge.

    Reciprocity is a value independent test of decidability. With these two tools we can falsify all fraudulent speech (argument).

    That’s why people FEAR propertarianism. Propertarianism serves its purpose as a formal logic of social science from metaphysics, through epistemology through psychology, sociology, ethics, law, politics group evolutionary strategy and aesthetics.

    Propertarianism is ‘frightening’ to the ‘frauds’ precisely because it will restore the market for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs by externality upon others.

    This will deny those who use false language to obtain status and therefore organize non-market action and restore all means of theft. Worse (for the frauds), it eliminates their ability to create false self image and false status signaling thereby ending the competition in the signal (status) economy by fraud.

    This is why people will resist propertarianism. Because it suppresses lies. Unlike abrahamism, marxism, postmodernism and feminism which enable lies – particularly when industrialized lying was made possible by media and the academy, which could then be used by the state to deceive in order to obtain POWER.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-30 10:19:00 UTC

  • THEISTS AND THEIR PERMANENT TOTALITARIANISM by @Göran Dahl There is one word tha

    THEISTS AND THEIR PERMANENT TOTALITARIANISM

    by @Göran Dahl

    There is one word that theists and occultists in general hate above all other words in the entire world, and that word is “evidence”.

    When they see this word, they are appalled and provoked. How can someone not believe in their religion or the esoteric? How can someone read their religious texts and not take their word for it?

    Before you know it, they let out a resounding shriek: “Fedora!”, soon to be followed by “Scientism!” – as if they knew what that meant.

    They are all predictable; not one of them differs from the other in the least.

    Theists will never be pleased with you until you subscribe to their ways unconditionally. Nobody in the so-called alt-right is even remotely as dangerous as the theists, because if they could, they would relegate us back to the Middle Ages and beyond.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-30 09:00:00 UTC

  • BRANDON HAYES – UNDERSTANDING HOW PROPERTARIANISM “TIES THE WORLD OF KNOWLEDGE T

    BRANDON HAYES – UNDERSTANDING HOW PROPERTARIANISM “TIES THE WORLD OF KNOWLEDGE TOGETHER”

    This is gold:

    —“Many in my generation have a wealth of information (bits of data) but it’s like the leaves on a tree; nothing connects the lot of them so many are obscured or lost. Some have branches; let’s call them knowledge. Propertarianism serves well as a trunk. (Roots are grounded action; they effect the system as a whole). {I’ve added many branches and have been gifted a trunk (thank you); I keep track of my property} 😉 Since being introduced to these topics that bridge disciplines my retrieval of information has improved drastically as well as explanatory power. “— Brandon Hayes

    Because that was my original purpose: a universal language of social, political, legal, science.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-30 08:44:00 UTC

  • Steven: That is because nietzsche put a stake in the vampire heart of the abraha

    Steven: That is because nietzsche put a stake in the vampire heart of the abrahamic religions, but failed to find an alternative. His failure was to create relativism, rather than restoring Aristocracy (truth, beauty, and sovereignty). This created the opening for Relativists.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-29 21:18:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1057018979565424640

    Reply addressees: @sapinker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1056946094008164358

    IN REPLY TO:

    @sapinker

    Often surprised by what’s most controversial in my books. Enlght Now says Nietzsche ain’t pietzsche: this un-humanist inspired the Nazis, Fascists, Bolsheviks, & Alt-Right. Yet many intellectuals adore the guy, & were offended by the discussion https://t.co/GpT1nAOgdn

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1056946094008164358

  • YOU CAN’T REALLY ARGUE WITH A THEIST. All inferences and deductions are dependen

    YOU CAN’T REALLY ARGUE WITH A THEIST.

    All inferences and deductions are dependent (contingent) upon the premises. Ergo, one does not argue with the faithful. One sets limits on them, as we do children, domesticated animals, and the incompetent. If the faithful offer one another wisdom that is one thing. If the faithful argue with their faith they de facto confuse wisdom with truth – and engage in fraud.

    —“[Curt Doolittle], you’re the fuckin troll. you use the exact same methods they do and try to get legitimacy behind an impenetrable vernacular. except no one cares what you say and everyone likes me and thinks you’re a bloviating pseudo-intellectual poseur. you claim to know natural law but there is but one natural law and that is Santana Dharma – you are nothing but a heretic”—Jennifer Scharf

    … and ….

    —“Curt won’t debate me because he is a charlatan, so sadly, I must confront him. It’s my duty to my devotees to do that because it is a sin to purport as a master of natural law when you aren’t one.”—Jennifer Scharf

    —“You want to debate Curt Doolittle, right?”— Bryan Nova Brey

    —“ya i’ll debate anyone but it has to be on a livestream.”— Jennifer Scharf

    1 – Debates must be in writing, since it is much, much, harder to engage in…

    (a) disapproval (disapproval, rejection, shaming, ridicule, rallying, gossiping and reputation destruction)

    -OR-

    (b) avoidance (obscurantism, fraud, and deceit) ,

    -BY-

    non-argument (disapproval, avoidance),

    -VERSUS-

    (c) argument (measurements, decidability),

    … in writing

    2 – However, as far as I know Jennifer is just a heterodox cultist and her argument will deflate into truth, decidability, and measurement vs utility, choice, reasonableness.

    3 – All wisdom literature has pedagogical value. Like nursery rhymes, parables, fairy tales, myths, and legends have pedagogica value. That pedagogy may provide dysgenic, devolutionary, static, development, eugenic results. They help us seek opportunities, and collectively to seek the same opportunities, and largely to pay for them in differences of opportunity costs ‘contributing the remainder’ in favor of our developmental direction, rather than requiring direct costs of time, effort, and resources.

    4 – All sciences provide value of decidability in matters of dispute when others engage in Disapproval or Avoidance, versus argument – where argument would expose their deception, fraud, free riding, and parasitism.

    5 – So we can produce via-positiva (opportunity) wisdom literature by fiction and analogy (to assist in wide searches for opportunity). Or we can produce via-negativa (cost reduction) wisdom literature by description and decidability (to assist in suppressing parasitism under pretense of opportunity) or simply error.

    Truth is truth, wisdom is wisdom, fraud is fraud, and falsehood is simply false – and never shall any of them meet.

    (The vedas are a mythology – a wisdom literature, and her brahmins practice their own Pilpul (Sophism) as all justificationists must.)

    I don’t make mistakes (in my arguments). It’s my job. Sorry.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-29 18:41:00 UTC

  • You Can’t Really Argue with A Theist.

    October 29th, 2018 6:41 PM YOU CAN’T REALLY ARGUE WITH A THEIST. [A]ll inferences and deductions are dependent (contingent) upon the premises. Ergo, one does not argue with the faithful. One sets limits on them, as we do children, domesticated animals, and the incompetent. If the faithful offer one another wisdom that is one thing. If the faithful argue with their faith they de facto confuse wisdom with truth – and engage in fraud.

    —“[Curt Doolittle], you’re the fuckin troll. you use the exact same methods they do and try to get legitimacy behind an impenetrable vernacular. except no one cares what you say and everyone likes me and thinks you’re a bloviating pseudo-intellectual poseur. you claim to know natural law but there is but one natural law and that is Santana Dharma – you are nothing but a heretic”—Jennifer Scharf

    … and ….

    —“Curt won’t debate me because he is a charlatan, so sadly, I must confront him. It’s my duty to my devotees to do that because it is a sin to purport as a master of natural law when you aren’t one.”—Jennifer Scharf —“You want to debate Curt Doolittle, right?”— Bryan Nova Brey —“ya i’ll debate anyone but it has to be on a livestream.”— Jennifer Scharf

    1 – Debates must be in writing, since it is much, much, harder to engage in… (a) disapproval (disapproval, rejection, shaming, ridicule, rallying, gossiping and reputation destruction) -OR- (b) avoidance (obscurantism, fraud, and deceit) , -BY- non-argument (disapproval, avoidance), -VERSUS- (c) argument (measurements, decidability), … in writing 2 – However, as far as I know Jennifer is just a heterodox cultist and her argument will deflate into truth, decidability, and measurement vs utility, choice, reasonableness. 3 – All wisdom literature has pedagogical value. Like nursery rhymes, parables, fairy tales, myths, and legends have pedagogica value. That pedagogy may provide dysgenic, devolutionary, static, development, eugenic results. They help us seek opportunities, and collectively to seek the same opportunities, and largely to pay for them in differences of opportunity costs ‘contributing the remainder’ in favor of our developmental direction, rather than requiring direct costs of time, effort, and resources. 4 – All sciences provide value of decidability in matters of dispute when others engage in Disapproval or Avoidance, versus argument – where argument would expose their deception, fraud, free riding, and parasitism. 5 – So we can produce via-positiva (opportunity) wisdom literature by fiction and analogy (to assist in wide searches for opportunity). Or we can produce via-negativa (cost reduction) wisdom literature by description and decidability (to assist in suppressing parasitism under pretense of opportunity) or simply error. Truth is truth, wisdom is wisdom, fraud is fraud, and falsehood is simply false – and never shall any of them meet. (The vedas are a mythology – a wisdom literature, and her brahmins practice their own Pilpul (Sophism) as all justificationists must.) I don’t make mistakes (in my arguments). It’s my job. Sorry.

  • You Can’t Really Argue with A Theist.

    October 29th, 2018 6:41 PM YOU CAN’T REALLY ARGUE WITH A THEIST. [A]ll inferences and deductions are dependent (contingent) upon the premises. Ergo, one does not argue with the faithful. One sets limits on them, as we do children, domesticated animals, and the incompetent. If the faithful offer one another wisdom that is one thing. If the faithful argue with their faith they de facto confuse wisdom with truth – and engage in fraud.

    —“[Curt Doolittle], you’re the fuckin troll. you use the exact same methods they do and try to get legitimacy behind an impenetrable vernacular. except no one cares what you say and everyone likes me and thinks you’re a bloviating pseudo-intellectual poseur. you claim to know natural law but there is but one natural law and that is Santana Dharma – you are nothing but a heretic”—Jennifer Scharf

    … and ….

    —“Curt won’t debate me because he is a charlatan, so sadly, I must confront him. It’s my duty to my devotees to do that because it is a sin to purport as a master of natural law when you aren’t one.”—Jennifer Scharf —“You want to debate Curt Doolittle, right?”— Bryan Nova Brey —“ya i’ll debate anyone but it has to be on a livestream.”— Jennifer Scharf

    1 – Debates must be in writing, since it is much, much, harder to engage in… (a) disapproval (disapproval, rejection, shaming, ridicule, rallying, gossiping and reputation destruction) -OR- (b) avoidance (obscurantism, fraud, and deceit) , -BY- non-argument (disapproval, avoidance), -VERSUS- (c) argument (measurements, decidability), … in writing 2 – However, as far as I know Jennifer is just a heterodox cultist and her argument will deflate into truth, decidability, and measurement vs utility, choice, reasonableness. 3 – All wisdom literature has pedagogical value. Like nursery rhymes, parables, fairy tales, myths, and legends have pedagogica value. That pedagogy may provide dysgenic, devolutionary, static, development, eugenic results. They help us seek opportunities, and collectively to seek the same opportunities, and largely to pay for them in differences of opportunity costs ‘contributing the remainder’ in favor of our developmental direction, rather than requiring direct costs of time, effort, and resources. 4 – All sciences provide value of decidability in matters of dispute when others engage in Disapproval or Avoidance, versus argument – where argument would expose their deception, fraud, free riding, and parasitism. 5 – So we can produce via-positiva (opportunity) wisdom literature by fiction and analogy (to assist in wide searches for opportunity). Or we can produce via-negativa (cost reduction) wisdom literature by description and decidability (to assist in suppressing parasitism under pretense of opportunity) or simply error. Truth is truth, wisdom is wisdom, fraud is fraud, and falsehood is simply false – and never shall any of them meet. (The vedas are a mythology – a wisdom literature, and her brahmins practice their own Pilpul (Sophism) as all justificationists must.) I don’t make mistakes (in my arguments). It’s my job. Sorry.

  • “CURT, WILL YOU TAKE ON THE PHYSICS COMMUNITY TOO?”— (via the web site) TL;DR

    —“CURT, WILL YOU TAKE ON THE PHYSICS COMMUNITY TOO?”—

    (via the web site)

    TL;DR version: “No”. 😉 But it’s a good example of how to use testimonialism to test competing theories.

    —“Hi Curt, I have been following you on Facebook for several months and enjoy reading your ideas. I had been gradually moving away from Libertarianism, and Propertarianism clarified my skepticism of the former and connected many dots.”—

    Welcome then. Glad I could help. 😉 We’re all in this together it seems…. lol

    —“However, it became clear to me that you’ve missed a few things, most notably the century of fraud in physics (Quantum Mechanics). As far as I can tell, a particular anti-scientific philosophy (Kant) gave way to the rejection of fundamental scientific principles like absolute space, cause and effect, and identity. A group of mostly German physicists (Bohr, Heisenberg, Mach, Schrodinger etc) weren’t capable of solving the electron classically, and having adopted the aforementioned philosophy, devised the foundations of contemporary physics. Despite discordance with classic laws and experimentation, they invented (justified) their work with nonsense, claiming that classic laws breakdown at the subatomic level and that things could exist and not simultaneously. And they could only predict the behavior of Hydrogen (QM breaks down for everything higher on the periodic table). This has given us about a century of physics bullshit, like the currently fashionable multiverse theory, rampant curve fitting, and string theory. In the late 1980s, Hermann Haus derived the nonradiation condition, which coincidentally addressed a major problem pre-WW1 physicists faced: why electrons didn’t radiate energy under acceleration. One of his students, Randall Mills, was able to solve the electron using exclusively classic physics (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwells equations, special relativity, and Haus’s nonradiation condition). This was a revolution that few people know about to this day. And it permits the classical solution of a variety of other problems (molecular bonding, the unification of all physical forces, behaviors of fundamental particles, where gravity comes from, falsifying the Big Bang since the the universe perpetually oscillates). He also discovered that Hydrogen could go below the “ground state” (not really the ground state) and become one of a variety of nonradiative states he calls Hydrinos. Hydrinos are the Dark Matter that makes up nearly all of the universe. Mills has formed a company, Brilliant Light Power, that is working to commercialize applications of his work, primarily by utilizing Hydrinos as a novel energy source. I mention this because firstly, Mills’ story, and the corruption in physics, neatly adheres to your description of cognitive biases. It’s worth investing time to learn about. Secondly, the technological implications are extraordinary. Assuming he brings something to market soon, this will turn out to be the ultrasound imate black swan event. The end of all conventional energy sources, the end of the prevailing geopolitical order, the end of conventional transportation sources, and potentially the end of government as we know it. From my vantage point, this could be one hell of a plot twist to the revolution you’re predicting. “—

    I’m aware of this of line of argument of course but it is a book length treatment (or more), that I don’t have the time, will, skill or credibility to put together … and I have my own field to deal with… lol

    I falsify scientific work by searching for categories of consistent human error, very much like a psychologist or social scientists looks for examples of cognitive and social bias. If I don’t find those I deflate the argument and test whether the person is making a claim for which the knowledge upon which such a claim, is not dependent. And worse, if I find evidence of deception due to incentives. Most of scientific research that is questionable today consists of problems of statistical difficulty with insufficient preservation of constant relations because of a lack of operational knowledge or understanding, and because of the DENIAL of the OBVIOUS UNDERLYING MODEL.

    The physicists are having a problem (I THINK) because the underlying model is obviously in conflict with the frame of reference necessary to measure their experiments. But I don’t think that’s a particularly uncommon perception. I think they just don’t know what else to do until they stumble (reverse engineer) that model by a lot of trial and error.

    So while there are many competing theories, and I won’t address the one you mention specifically, you are correct (in part) on the origin of the frame of reference (model problem), it’s amplified even more so by the Mathiness Problem (mathematical idealism), and because of math the set problem, and together by the series of formulae they use that DO predict MOST. So I see them as prisoners from multiple dimensions, the philosophical one being the most distant – and I just dont think I can hold those people off in an argument they way I can theologians, philosophers, mathematicians, economists, jurists, and political scientists. I mean, it’s going to take someone with more of a vested interest in it than I am to work through that problem. And it is not a problem of ‘deceit’ as it is in economics, politics, and law. Just … well… a waste of a lot of pencils.

    —“As a side note, why did you put ads on your website? They look terrible and cause the site to regularly reload, interrupting the reader. Get rid of them ASAP. They’re making you look bad.”—

    I did not put ads on the site. It is because of the free hosting program forces them into the site. I have reasons for doing what I do. And no I don’t like it either. But for the present moment when I need to be able to move everything instantly, this is the most efficient method. I prefer to keep everything offshore. It’s just hard to do that at the moment for a host of reasons.

    Thank you very much for the thoughtful idea.

    Let’s keep fighting the good fight.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-28 18:49:00 UTC

  • —“Curt, Will You Take on The Physics Community Too?”—

    October 28th, 2018 6:49 PM —“CURT, WILL YOU TAKE ON THE PHYSICS COMMUNITY TOO?”— (via the web site) TL;DR version: “No”. 😉 But it’s a good example of how to use testimonialism to test competing theories.

    —“Hi Curt, I have been following you on Facebook for several months and enjoy reading your ideas. I had been gradually moving away from Libertarianism, and Propertarianism clarified my skepticism of the former and connected many dots.”—

    Welcome then. Glad I could help. 😉 We’re all in this together it seems…. lol

    —“However, it became clear to me that you’ve missed a few things, most notably the century of fraud in physics (Quantum Mechanics). As far as I can tell, a particular anti-scientific philosophy (Kant) gave way to the rejection of fundamental scientific principles like absolute space, cause and effect, and identity. A group of mostly German physicists (Bohr, Heisenberg, Mach, Schrodinger etc) weren’t capable of solving the electron classically, and having adopted the aforementioned philosophy, devised the foundations of contemporary physics. Despite discordance with classic laws and experimentation, they invented (justified) their work with nonsense, claiming that classic laws breakdown at the subatomic level and that things could exist and not simultaneously. And they could only predict the behavior of Hydrogen (QM breaks down for everything higher on the periodic table). This has given us about a century of physics bullshit, like the currently fashionable multiverse theory, rampant curve fitting, and string theory. In the late 1980s, Hermann Haus derived the nonradiation condition, which coincidentally addressed a major problem pre-WW1 physicists faced: why electrons didn’t radiate energy under acceleration. One of his students, Randall Mills, was able to solve the electron using exclusively classic physics (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwells equations, special relativity, and Haus’s nonradiation condition). This was a revolution that few people know about to this day. And it permits the classical solution of a variety of other problems (molecular bonding, the unification of all physical forces, behaviors of fundamental particles, where gravity comes from, falsifying the Big Bang since the the universe perpetually oscillates). He also discovered that Hydrogen could go below the “ground state” (not really the ground state) and become one of a variety of nonradiative states he calls Hydrinos. Hydrinos are the Dark Matter that makes up nearly all of the universe. Mills has formed a company, Brilliant Light Power, that is working to commercialize applications of his work, primarily by utilizing Hydrinos as a novel energy source. I mention this because firstly, Mills’ story, and the corruption in physics, neatly adheres to your description of cognitive biases. It’s worth investing time to learn about. Secondly, the technological implications are extraordinary. Assuming he brings something to market soon, this will turn out to be the ultrasound imate black swan event. The end of all conventional energy sources, the end of the prevailing geopolitical order, the end of conventional transportation sources, and potentially the end of government as we know it. From my vantage point, this could be one hell of a plot twist to the revolution you’re predicting. “—

    [I]’m aware of this of line of argument of course but it is a book length treatment (or more), that I don’t have the time, will, skill or credibility to put together … and I have my own field to deal with… lol I falsify scientific work by searching for categories of consistent human error, very much like a psychologist or social scientists looks for examples of cognitive and social bias. If I don’t find those I deflate the argument and test whether the person is making a claim for which the knowledge upon which such a claim, is not dependent. And worse, if I find evidence of deception due to incentives. Most of scientific research that is questionable today consists of problems of statistical difficulty with insufficient preservation of constant relations because of a lack of operational knowledge or understanding, and because of the DENIAL of the OBVIOUS UNDERLYING MODEL. The physicists are having a problem (I THINK) because the underlying model is obviously in conflict with the frame of reference necessary to measure their experiments. But I don’t think that’s a particularly uncommon perception. I think they just don’t know what else to do until they stumble (reverse engineer) that model by a lot of trial and error. So while there are many competing theories, and I won’t address the one you mention specifically, you are correct (in part) on the origin of the frame of reference (model problem), it’s amplified even more so by the Mathiness Problem (mathematical idealism), and because of math the set problem, and together by the series of formulae they use that DO predict MOST. So I see them as prisoners from multiple dimensions, the philosophical one being the most distant – and I just dont think I can hold those people off in an argument they way I can theologians, philosophers, mathematicians, economists, jurists, and political scientists. I mean, it’s going to take someone with more of a vested interest in it than I am to work through that problem. And it is not a problem of ‘deceit’ as it is in economics, politics, and law. Just … well… a waste of a lot of pencils.

    —“As a side note, why did you put ads on your website? They look terrible and cause the site to regularly reload, interrupting the reader. Get rid of them ASAP. They’re making you look bad.”—

    I did not put ads on the site. It is because of the free hosting program forces them into the site. I have reasons for doing what I do. And no I don’t like it either. But for the present moment when I need to be able to move everything instantly, this is the most efficient method. I prefer to keep everything offshore. It’s just hard to do that at the moment for a host of reasons. Thank you very much for the thoughtful idea. Let’s keep fighting the good fight.

  • —“Curt, Will You Take on The Physics Community Too?”—

    October 28th, 2018 6:49 PM —“CURT, WILL YOU TAKE ON THE PHYSICS COMMUNITY TOO?”— (via the web site) TL;DR version: “No”. 😉 But it’s a good example of how to use testimonialism to test competing theories.

    —“Hi Curt, I have been following you on Facebook for several months and enjoy reading your ideas. I had been gradually moving away from Libertarianism, and Propertarianism clarified my skepticism of the former and connected many dots.”—

    Welcome then. Glad I could help. 😉 We’re all in this together it seems…. lol

    —“However, it became clear to me that you’ve missed a few things, most notably the century of fraud in physics (Quantum Mechanics). As far as I can tell, a particular anti-scientific philosophy (Kant) gave way to the rejection of fundamental scientific principles like absolute space, cause and effect, and identity. A group of mostly German physicists (Bohr, Heisenberg, Mach, Schrodinger etc) weren’t capable of solving the electron classically, and having adopted the aforementioned philosophy, devised the foundations of contemporary physics. Despite discordance with classic laws and experimentation, they invented (justified) their work with nonsense, claiming that classic laws breakdown at the subatomic level and that things could exist and not simultaneously. And they could only predict the behavior of Hydrogen (QM breaks down for everything higher on the periodic table). This has given us about a century of physics bullshit, like the currently fashionable multiverse theory, rampant curve fitting, and string theory. In the late 1980s, Hermann Haus derived the nonradiation condition, which coincidentally addressed a major problem pre-WW1 physicists faced: why electrons didn’t radiate energy under acceleration. One of his students, Randall Mills, was able to solve the electron using exclusively classic physics (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwells equations, special relativity, and Haus’s nonradiation condition). This was a revolution that few people know about to this day. And it permits the classical solution of a variety of other problems (molecular bonding, the unification of all physical forces, behaviors of fundamental particles, where gravity comes from, falsifying the Big Bang since the the universe perpetually oscillates). He also discovered that Hydrogen could go below the “ground state” (not really the ground state) and become one of a variety of nonradiative states he calls Hydrinos. Hydrinos are the Dark Matter that makes up nearly all of the universe. Mills has formed a company, Brilliant Light Power, that is working to commercialize applications of his work, primarily by utilizing Hydrinos as a novel energy source. I mention this because firstly, Mills’ story, and the corruption in physics, neatly adheres to your description of cognitive biases. It’s worth investing time to learn about. Secondly, the technological implications are extraordinary. Assuming he brings something to market soon, this will turn out to be the ultrasound imate black swan event. The end of all conventional energy sources, the end of the prevailing geopolitical order, the end of conventional transportation sources, and potentially the end of government as we know it. From my vantage point, this could be one hell of a plot twist to the revolution you’re predicting. “—

    [I]’m aware of this of line of argument of course but it is a book length treatment (or more), that I don’t have the time, will, skill or credibility to put together … and I have my own field to deal with… lol I falsify scientific work by searching for categories of consistent human error, very much like a psychologist or social scientists looks for examples of cognitive and social bias. If I don’t find those I deflate the argument and test whether the person is making a claim for which the knowledge upon which such a claim, is not dependent. And worse, if I find evidence of deception due to incentives. Most of scientific research that is questionable today consists of problems of statistical difficulty with insufficient preservation of constant relations because of a lack of operational knowledge or understanding, and because of the DENIAL of the OBVIOUS UNDERLYING MODEL. The physicists are having a problem (I THINK) because the underlying model is obviously in conflict with the frame of reference necessary to measure their experiments. But I don’t think that’s a particularly uncommon perception. I think they just don’t know what else to do until they stumble (reverse engineer) that model by a lot of trial and error. So while there are many competing theories, and I won’t address the one you mention specifically, you are correct (in part) on the origin of the frame of reference (model problem), it’s amplified even more so by the Mathiness Problem (mathematical idealism), and because of math the set problem, and together by the series of formulae they use that DO predict MOST. So I see them as prisoners from multiple dimensions, the philosophical one being the most distant – and I just dont think I can hold those people off in an argument they way I can theologians, philosophers, mathematicians, economists, jurists, and political scientists. I mean, it’s going to take someone with more of a vested interest in it than I am to work through that problem. And it is not a problem of ‘deceit’ as it is in economics, politics, and law. Just … well… a waste of a lot of pencils.

    —“As a side note, why did you put ads on your website? They look terrible and cause the site to regularly reload, interrupting the reader. Get rid of them ASAP. They’re making you look bad.”—

    I did not put ads on the site. It is because of the free hosting program forces them into the site. I have reasons for doing what I do. And no I don’t like it either. But for the present moment when I need to be able to move everything instantly, this is the most efficient method. I prefer to keep everything offshore. It’s just hard to do that at the moment for a host of reasons. Thank you very much for the thoughtful idea. Let’s keep fighting the good fight.