Nov 20, 2019, 4:40 PM
THE CURSE OF INSTITUTIONALIZED PARADIGMS
It seems strange to tell someone that the earth is round, or that the stars are not pricks in the fabric of the sky, or most of all that velocity through space significantly alters the rate of change we call time. The fact that we continually correct ourselves is the purpose of reason. The strangeness of an increase in parsimony is evidence of the substantiality of error given its absence.
Why? because by the combination of memory, action, and reason, we can continually increase our agency (physical, emotional, intellectual, social, political, evolutionary) and continually increase the capture of differences in state of the universe through our actions.
OBSCURANTISM
When we use the verb “to-be”, we use it to obscure one of the following (including my intentional use of the verb to be to refer to “currently acting” (doing) as illustration).
1 – to overcome limits of less able minds to bear the cost in short term memory of
2 – to save time and effort of grammatical construction among those who share sufficient context that they will not misconstrue our intent.
3 – to avoid accountability for our testimony (promise).
4 – to inflate a promise (conduct a pretense of knowledge) by habitual repetition of a convention we do not understand
5 – to obscure our ignorance of the relations we testify to (promise).
6 – to suggest relations that are present but insufficient for fulfillment of our promise.
7 – to suggest relations that are not present because of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fictionalism, for the purpose of coercion.
8 – to suggest relations that are not present for the purpose of deception or fraud.
In other words, we use it because of Convenience, Ignorance, Error, Coercion, and Deceit..
THE FICTION OF CONFLATION OF LAW(SCRIPTURE) WITH SPEECH.
And so, while we can interpret scripture, the written word, and the recorded law, when we are dependent upon appeals to the authority of scripture, written word, and recorded law, in any circumstance where recursive discourse is possible, we produce statements that are undeniable (false), decidable(true), informative but undecidable, undecidable, and incomprehensible. And we can determine intentions are scientific and logical (false), testimonial and constructive (moral/true ), honest(moral), considerate(polite), immoral (coercive), and criminal (fraudulent).
TRANSACTIONS RATHER THAN CREATIVE INTERPRETATIONS AND DECEPTIONS
And to determine degree of decidability, and intentionality requires little more than complete sentences(full accounting) in operational grammar and semantics (complete transactions). And exercises in the ‘interpretation’ of incomplete transactions is … well, something close to a victorian parlor game.
For example:
“The cat is black” vs “I promise I see a cat, and I promise that its body appears black.”
Is very similar to:
“It’s a rational number” vs “That number consists of a fractional ratio of two or more positional names converted to decimal notation, that produces a equi-divisible, and therefore terminating, positional name” (where fraction is defined elsewhere).
is very similar to:
“The square root of two” and “infinity”, neither of which can exist, for precisely the same reasons: limits.
And in the Ship of Theseus “of” serves that same function as ‘is’: to mislead.
Stating the question as “That ship we contractually refer to as the ship owned by, paid for by, designed by, crafted by, constructed of….” each asks a different question.” (Our nouns contain these general properties of ownership, probability etc).
While nouns, ( or referrers ) may be constructed by many means, from the arbitrary, to the fictional, to the allegorical, to the analogical, to the normative and traditional, to the descriptive to a set of measurements, to a set of relative measurements of a set of constant relations.
So the ship of theseus consists which category of referrers? A contractual (normative) one.
THE OPERATIONAL NAME OF “LOGIC”.
The word “logic”, operationally refers to ‘the preservation of constant relations’ between states (statements) by one or more dimensions of constant relations.
1 – So far as we know, the universe consists entirely of a hierarchical network of constant relations. (Soft Determinism)
2 – While that universe appears to consist of a small number of constant relations (state) and possible operations (changes in state), through layers of permutations of possible operations great complexity can emerge.
3 – Statements Definitions, tautologies, deductions, inductions, abductions and guesses (even free associations) require some set of constant relations between states (statements), by one or more dimensions of constant relations.
4 – We are able to promise descriptions through guesses
5 – We are able to state Tautologies through Guesses (even free associations) as a means of suggesting relations.
6 – And we are able to state sets of tautologies through guesses to cumulatively (repeatedly) suggest relations.
7 – And we are able at times (special cases) to construct proofs of possibility that survive competition with proofs of impossibility. (Where a proof consists of demonstration and survival of the preservation of constant relations between states (Statements).
STRONG LANGUAGE WITH WEAK GRAMMAR
Lucky as we are that english provides as a low context high precision language, and luckier that we are that english grammar generates an analytic rather than synthetic language, and lucky as we are that english contains semantics dialects such as working class germanic, aristocratic french, and intellectual latin and greek. And lucky as we are that english preserves methodological dialects, each of which varies in the preservation of one or more constant relations, including but not limited to the categorical (differences), arithmetic (positional), mathematical, financial, (formal) logical, algorithmic, scientific, legal, experiential(ordinary), fictional, mythic, supernatural, and occult. We remain somewhere between unlucky and primitive, because our grammar remains tainted by the 20th century failure of brewer, bridgman, mises, hayek, popper and dozens of others to complete the transition through probabilistic to operational semantics and grammar.
But as lucky as we are and as unlucky as we have been, it is quite possible to produce a semantics, grammar and syntax of universal commensurability across all methodological dialects, using each to falsify the other. And that is the continued evolution of inventions of science, (inherited quite honestly from engineering), of the limit of testimony (descriptions) to operational language.
THE SHIP OF THESEUS AS AN EXERCISE IN THE STUDY OF DECEPTION.
Rational (kantian) Philosophy, mathematical platonism, pseudoscientific ficationalsms, hermeneutics, the interpretation of scripture, and the interpretation of law, all are
So the proper answer to the Ship of Theseus, is that names consist of some combination of promises, and the contract for the name of the ship of theseus is by definition provided by the question, one of ownership, and our underlying cause of this undecidability begs the questions:
1) why are we ignorant of grammar and semantics of the language we use, and
2) why does sophomoric philosophy consist largely of questions employing this weakness in our semantics, grammar and its understanding,
3) why is it, that we do not ask the question why most paradoxes of this nature are not in fact paradoxes, but deceptions. And
4) why do we not learn that our world is full of deceptions because of the persistence of ideal, supernatural, and occult semantics and grammar? And
5) why do we not punish people who perpetuate such deceptions by use of ideal, supernatural, and occult semantics and grammar? ? (The last a bit tongue in cheek.)
So this particular ‘deception’ (by means of suggestion) is interesting because it provides a vehicle for exploring the techniques of deception and the techniques we use to construct names, and the REASON we use those names rather than other names. So we could say the ship built for theseus, using money he’d made from trading olive oil, by tom, dick, and harry, and designed by eric, during a certain date range, at a certain port, out of materials obtained from here there and everywhere.
So the question is, which constant relations are we discussing? If the ship is dismantled and rebuilt by the same design I would say that one does not testify falsely by using the same short-name (theseus’s ship Mathilda).
TRANSACTIONS: (CLOSING SUGGESTION): LOGIC WITHOUT GRAMMAR IDENTICAL TO ADDITION WITHOUT EQUALS SIGN, OR ACCOUNTING WITHOUT BALANCES, OR THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE WITHOUT EQUILIBRATION.
Now, one last idea for you to mull over: We have been fussing over ‘logic’ for a very long time, and by and large it turns out to have done nothing at all beyond the trivial documentation of the various dimensions of constant relations in our language (nouns and verbs). Like game theory, logic does not scale. Our method of scaling logic has resulted in grammar just as the means of scaling physical interactions results in chemistry.
The foundations of mathematics consist of a trivial necessity of the consequences of constant relations made possible to measure by use of positional names. The foundations of Language (a sequence of transactions describing change in state of relations using semantics(referents), grammar/rules, syntax) consist of three ranges of experience(measurements): physical(voluntary), experiential(involuntary), and imaginary(voluntary). And the actionable universe ends at four dimensions. And the semantic universe is constructed by changes in state within them, given the three ranges of experiences available to us, just as the physical, chemical, biological, and semantic evolve from the underlying forces of the universe.
We have been trying to deflate our semantics, grammar, and syntax without grasping the rather obvious: that language consist of a fairly exhaustive inventory of thought at any given point in time, consisting of three sets of dimensions, four dimensions of reality, and n-dimensions of experience in an (as yet) endless set of hierarchical permutations. We must use language with some dependence upon logic or the relatively low bandwidth of serial phonetic communication using referential symbols would be useless.
So humans are good at scaling logic. The problem we face consists of the conflation of various semantic sets (sets of in-commensurable constant relations), and the ease at which people’s abilities are overloaded by that process, forcing us to return to intuition because of the un-testability of incommensurable suggestions.
in other words, logic merely amplifies the problem of overloading (which is why formal logic is not used outside of the discipline), and all other disciplines require demanding grammar, just as philosophy DOES NOT (heidegger etc).
The problem we face is not the study of logic which is a necessary property of comprehension using referents (symbols) but constraining the grammar to complete transactions and the semantics to correspondence with a universal standard, and the only universal standard available to man – is actions.
TRANSACTIONS: (CLOSING SUGGESTION): LOGIC WITHOUT GRAMMAR IDENTICAL TO ADDITION WITHOUT EQUALS SIGN, OR ACCOUNTING WITHOUT BALANCES, OR THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE WITHOUT EQUILIBRATION.
Now, one last idea for you to mull over: We have been fussing over ‘logic’ for a very long time, and by and large it turns out to have done nothing at all beyond the trivial documentation of the various dimensions of constant relations in our language (nouns and verbs). Like game theory, logic does not scale. Our method of scaling logic has resulted in grammar just as the means of scaling physical interactions results in chemistry.
The foundations of mathematics consist of a trivial necessity of the consequences of constant relations made possible to measure by use of positional names. The foundations of Language (a sequence of transactions describing change in state of relations using semantics(referents), grammar/rules, syntax) consist of three ranges of experience(measurements): physical(voluntary), experiential(involuntary), and imaginary(voluntary). And the actionable universe ends at four dimensions. And the semantic universe is constructed by changes in state within them, given the three ranges of experiences available to us, just as the physical, chemical, biological, and semantic evolve from the underlying forces of the universe.
We have been trying to deflate our semantics, grammar, and syntax without grasping the rather obvious: that language consist of a fairly exhaustive inventory of thought at any given point in time, consisting of three sets of dimensions, four dimensions of reality, and n-dimensions of experience in an (as yet) endless set of hierarchical permutations. We must use language with some dependence upon logic or the relatively low bandwidth of serial phonetic communication using referential symbols would be useless.
So humans are good at scaling logic. The problem we face consists of the conflation of various semantic sets (sets of in-commensurable constant relations), and the ease at which people’s abilities are overloaded by that process, forcing us to return to intuition because of the un-testability of incommensurable suggestions.
in other words, logic merely amplifies the problem of overloading (which is why formal logic is not used outside of the discipline), and all other disciplines require demanding grammar, just as philosophy DOES NOT (heidegger etc).
The problem we face is not the study of logic which is a necessary property of comprehension using referents (symbols) but constraining the grammar to complete transactions and the semantics to correspondence with a universal standard, and the only universal standard available to man – is actions.
NOW, IN THIS CONTEXT, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION.
Does any ideal exist? No.
Identity requires a contract for constant relations.
The question is, who is that contract with? And what are the terms?
Because while a positional name cannot vary except in scale and referent, nearly all other names refer to some contractual necessity, norm, or habit.
Can I use a better name than another to refer to the same entity under the same terms? Of course.
The most parsimonious operational description possible constitutes the least erroneous name. Unfortunately, the terms of semantic contract vary substantially over time.
Yet if all are expressed in a universally commensurable language of operational descriptions, then it is very difficult for the contractual terms of that contract to vary over time.
Attempts to conflate the identity of positional names of scale independence with contractual references is rather foolish when we give it even the most tepid bit of thought.
Either we speak in measurements of we speak in fantasies, and the most important question is not whether we speak the optimum: the most parsimonious description possible at the current level of understanding (truth), but whether we testify falsely as to the state of our knowledge.
