Sequences · Uncategorized

The Circle of Literature

THE CIRCLE OF LITERATURE

Mythical Literature (supernormalism)
.. Narrative Literature (hypothetical normalism)
.. .. Historical Literature (normalism)
.. .. .. Biographical Literature
.. .. .. .. Legal Literature
.. .. .. .. .. Scientific Literature
.. .. .. .. Essay Literature (personal literature)
.. .. .. Philosophical Literature
.. .. Religious Literature (Supernatural authoritarianism)
.. Fantasy Literature (supernaturalism)
(loop)

Anti-Philosophy · Sequences · Uncategorized

Hierarchy of Knowledge – Two Views of Same Conclusion

THE NEW HIERARCHY OF KNOWLEDGE
0) Physics (Existence)
1) … Time, Man, Action (old Metaphysics – Limits)
2) … … Acquisitionism (old Psychology)
3) … … … Testimony (old Epistemology) – “Science”)
4) … … … … Ethics (old Sociology)
5) … … … … … Production (Old economics)
6) … … … … … … Commons (Old Politics)
7) … … … … … … … Group Evolutionary Strategy (old War)
8) … … … … … … … … Aesthetics (that which is ‘true, good, beautiful)
 
Or we could group it this way:
 
THE NEW HIERARCHY OF KNOWLEDGE: Limits and Oppys
0) … Physics (Existence)
… … … Physics,
… … … chemistry,
… … … biology,
… … … sentience

1) … Time, Man, Action (old Metaphysics – Limits)
… … … Acquisitionism (old Psychology)
… … … Cooperation (old Sociology)
… … … … Reproduction (marriage/family)
… … … … Education
… … … … Production (Old economics)
… … … … Commons (Old Politics)
… … … … Group Evolutionary Strategy (War)
… … … … … Testimony (old Epistemology) – “Science”)

And the second way appears to be better.

Definitions · Law · Sequences · Uncategorized

Natural Law

If we define Moral Intuitions as the reactions we feel in response to our thoughts and actions and those of others.

If we define Normative Morality as the reactions we feel given  for methods of decidability given some set of assumptions.

If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and

If we define truth  (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference.

Then:

We find that personal moral intuition is the product of our genes, and our experiential development. And it varies greatly from individual to individual.

We find that existing normative morality is the product of evolutionary accident and we learn it through experience and observation – although it does vary a little from individual to individual within groups, and varies widely between groups.

We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups.

We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups.

We find that juridical philosophy attempts to explain the common law, without necessarily succeeding at doing so.  But that the transformation of juridical philosophy to juridical science is eminently possible – we just may not like what we learn, any more than we learned in each previous reformation of our thinking.

Natural Law (propertarianism), is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature. It is not a rational philosophy limited to internal correspondence. Its not a moral norm. Nor is it necessarily a moral intuition that all would agree to.

It is the record of the arguments by which we decide conflicts over investments we have made, and protect.  And from these records we can identify a very simple single law – non imposition of costs upon anything whatsoever that others have invested in producing whether informational, behavioral, material, or institutional.

And from those observations we may discover general rules. Just as in any other science.

And there is only one of them.

Fictional vs Juridical · Languages (Precision) · Mathematics · Sequences · Uncategorized

The Dimensions of Reality: Mathematics As Science of Measurement – But Stated Badly

Mar 22, 2017 11:08am
I THINK THIS MIGHT BE HARD FOR YOU BUT ….
(mathematics and truth) (very important) (hot gates pls read)

The answer is quite simple: you just demonstrated proof of operational construction and named that series of actions.

Reality consists of the following actionable and conceivable dimensions:
1 – point, (identity, or correspondence)
2 – line (unit, quantity, set, or scale defined by relation between points)
3 – area (defined by constant relations)
4 – geometry (existence, defied by existentially possible spatial relations)
5 – change (time (memory), defined by state relations)
6 – pure, constant, relations. (forces (ideas))
7 – externality (lie groups etc) (external consequences of constant relations)
7 – reality (or totality) (full causal density)

We can speak in descriptions including (at least):
1 – operational (true) names
2 – mathematics (ratios)
3 – logic (sets)
4 – physics (operations)
5 – Law (reciprocity)
6 – History (memory)
7 – Literature (allegory (possible))
8 – Literature of pure relations ( impossible )
8a – Mythology (supernormal allegory)
8b – Moral Literature (philosophy – super rational allegory)
8c – Pseudoscientific Literature (super-scientific / pseudoscience literature)
8c – Religious Literature (conflationary super natural allegory)
8d – Occult Literature (post -rational experiential allegory )

We can testify to the truth of our speech only when we have performed due diligence to remove:
1 – ignorance,
2 – error,
3 – bias,
4 – wishful thinking,
5 – suggestion,
6 – obscurantism,
7 – fictionalism, and
8 – deceit.

So of the tests:
1 – categorical consistency (equivalent of point)
2 – internal consistency (equivalent of line)
3 – external correspondence (equivalent shape/object)
4 – operational possibility (what you just described) (equivalent of change [operations])
6 – limits, parsimony, and full accounting. (equivalent of proof)
You have demonstrated test number 4. Only.

Those operations existed or can exist. That you engaged in conflation (or deception) because you have given allegorical (fictional) names to a sequence of operations does not. Because you reintroduced falsehood by analogy.

You can imagine a something with the properties of a unicorn, you can speak of the same, draw the same, sculpt the same … but until you can breed one (and even then we must question), and we can test it, the unicorn does not exist ***in any condition that we can test in all dimensions necessary for you to testify it exists***

This is just one of the differences between TRUTH (dimensional consistency (constant relations)), and some subset of the properties of reality (DIMENSIONAL CONSISTENCY).

Mathematics allows us to describe constant relations between constant categories (correspondence) by means of self-reference we call ‘ratios’ to some constant unit (one). The more deterministic (constant) the relations the more descriptive mathematics, the higher causal density that influences changes in state, the more information and calculation is necessary for the description of candidate consequences, and eventually we must move from the description of end states to the description of intermediary states that because of causal density place limits on the ranges of possible end states.

In other words, in oder to construct theories (descriptions) of general rules of constant relations, we SUBTRACT properties of reality from our descriptions until we include nothing but identity(category), quantity, and ratio, and constrain ourselves to operations that maintain the ratios between the subject (identity).

Mathematics has evolved but retained (since the greeks at least) the ‘magical’ (fictional, supernormal fiction, we call platonism) as a means of obscuring a mathematician’s lack of understanding of just why ‘this magic works’. When in reality, mathematics is trivially simple, because it rests on nothing more than correspondence (identity), quantity, ratio, and operations that maintain those ratios, and incrementally adding or removing dimensions, to describe relations across the spectrum between points(identities, objects, categories) and pure relations at scales we do not yet possess the instrumentation or memory or ability to calculate at such vast scales – except through intermediary phenomenon.

As such, operationally speaking, the discipline of mathematics consists (Truthfully) of the science (theories of), general rules of constant relations at scale independence, in arbitrarily selected dimensions. In other words. Mathematics consists of the study of measurement.

it is understandable why we do not grasp the first principles of the universe – they are unobservable directly except at great cost. It is not understandable why we do not grasp the first principles of mathematics: because measurement is a very simple thing, and dimensions are very simple things.

That mathematicians still speak in fictional language, just as do theists and just as do the majority of philosophers (pseudo science, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-mythology) is merely evidence of retention of ancient fictionalism (platonism). And the fact that we must have these discussions demonstrates the equivalent of faith in platonic models, is equal to faith in theological models – merely lacking the anthropomorphism.

Ergo, infinities are a fictionalism. Multiple infinities are a fictionalism. Both fictionalism describe conditions where time and actions (operations) have been removed as is common in the discipline of measurement (mathematics). Operationally, numbers (operationally constructed positional names, must be existentially produced as are movements of gears attached in ratio. And as such certain sets of numbers (outputs) are produced faster (like seconds or minutes vs hours) than other sets of numbers (outputs), and the reverse: some slower. But we simply ignore this fact and instead of saying no matter what limits we apply, the size of the current set of x will always be larger than the current set of y, we say the infinities are of different sizes? No. the intermediary sets produce members at different rates, and the term ‘infinity’ merely refers to ‘unknown limit’ or ‘limit that must be supplies by correspondence with reality upon application.

Practice math as science, or practice it as supernatural religion. I can make correspondent statements referring to god, I can make correspondent statements referring to ‘infinities’ or any other form of mathematical platonism, but in the end, when I do that, I merely make excuses for my inability to testify to causality: TRUTH.

Ergo, like I said, I am pretty well versed in the philosophy of mathematics, and I am perhaps most versed in the philosophy of science of anyone living. And I am pretty confident that mathematicians are no different from scripturalists and platonists: using arcane language and internal consistency to justify a failure to grasp causality: that the only reason internal consistency correspondence to reality is because at least in the physics of the universe if not the actions of man, determinism reigns. In other words, mathematicians in most senses have no idea why what they do, allows them to do what they do.

And at least physicists admit it.

And lawyers before juries have no choice.

Our “Objectives” (intentions) are irrelevant in court. You do not have any right, permission, or ability to determine harm to others. Others determine if you have caused harm to them. And the jury, the judge, and the law are used to determine if in fact your words and deeds cause harm to others. As a prosecutor in court, trying you on whether you speak truthfully, you are guilty of making excuses for the harm you have done by false representation of the discipline of measurement. 😉 you might claim no harm, but then the opposition would say that your retention of fictionalism imposes a cost on every student which is multiplied by every possible action that they could have taken involving any judgement requiring measurement. If we can prevent other kinds of fraud in the market for goods, services, and testimony, why cannot we fill the gap, and prevent fraud in the market for information? 😉

In other words, in crime, neither your intentions nor your opinion matter. Defacto, you’re imposing costs on the commons.

The question is only whether the outcome of your actions imposes costs. Once that question is settled, you are liable for restitution regardless of intent.

Now, since the cost of the practice of supernaturalism, super-normalism (platonism), pseudo-rationalism, and pseudoscience, are only substantial when in the commons, whatever you think in your head is your choice. However once yo speak it in public you are just as liable for that damage as you are liable for yelling fire in the theater. There is no fire in the theatre, and there is no imaginary existence.

Infinity is the name we give to unknown limits that must be provided by context.

Definitions · Sequences · Uncategorized

The Layer Cake of Social Order

THE LAYER CAKE OF SOCIAL ORDER

  1. RELIGION
    Religion evolved to provide understanding of the word, virtues to imitate, and general prohibitions, across clans, tribes, and conquered nations, so that people could cooperate more easily and retaliate (feud) less frequently.
    Weapon: ostracization (death sentence)
    Records: memory of locals.
  2. LAW
    Law evolved to standardize punishments across clans, tribes, and conquered nations, to keep the peace, preserve productivity, preserve taxation, and legitimize (provide value by) rule.
    Weapon: violence, deprivation
    Records: written ledgers of crimes and punishments.
  3. CREDIT
    Credit rule evolved to increase productivity by the promise of consumption in the present, such that the primary form of social punishment was loss of consumption, status, and signaling.
    Weapon: deprivation of consumption, status, and signaling.
    Records: written and electronic records of creditworthiness.
Grammar of Natural Law · Sequences · Uncategorized

Series: Models of Decidability … And explanation of the importance of Series

SERIES: MODELS OF DECIDABILITY
(very important)(advanced)

Michael Andrade teased me the other day for posting so many series, often without resolution. Why?

Each series is an attempt at creating a proof. An attempt to create a set, series, sequence, spectrum, that increases the precision of every definition by its membership in that spectrum. I try to include as many terms as I can, and when something doesn’t fit, I add more dimensions. I record each ‘failed proof’, and some of them I’ve tried dozens of times – each time trying to take it to further clarity and precision.

Eventually I end up with all terms defined on different spectra, and each spectra represents a causal axis – a universal law of man. It is from the identification of these axis that I test each other axis, and together develop an internally consistent and externally correspondent logical description of the laws that govern men’s impulses, thoughts, and actions.
And while definitions are important for clear argument, and definitions in series (linear or otherwise) are the best we can achieve, that is not my end objective.
Just as reality consists of dimensions and eventually pure relations, mathematics consists of dimensions and eventually pure relations, our methods of argument consist of dimensions and eventually result in pure relations. Just as mathematics consists of very simple operations, programming consists of very simple operations, chemistry consists of a very simple set of operations, the ‘theory of everything’ must eventually consist of very simple (deterministic) operations, also… in practice, the law of perfect reciprocity must also consist of a simple set of operations (we know that already from experience), and most importantly *argument* must consist of a very simple set of operations (it does), and a limited number of *dimensions* (it does).

Moreover, just as languages vary from the primitive and high context (Chinese), to the advanced and low context (English/German), Arguments vary from universal context (human experiences), to high context (normative), to low context(natural law), to minimum-context’ (science, or ‘truthful’).

And so just as we have sought the ‘law of chemistry’, and the law of nature (cooperation), we can seek the ‘law of sentience’. The law or argument. The law of communication. And with that law we can create arguments ever closer, and ideas ever closer, to correspondence with reality. And it is from correspondence with reality that we gain knowledge of reality – and from that knowledge, dominion over reality.
SERIES: ARGUMENTS (COMMUNICATION)
==========================

IMAGINARY (we should do )
Occult Literature (Separatist Theology)(separate)(intuition – justify)
Supernatural Literature (Theology)(organize organize by authority)(reason)
Moral Literature (Philosophy)(organize by ideal)(rationalism)
Literature (Allegory)(envision)

DESCRIPTIVE (we have done)
History (Analogy)(advise) (note: non-econ history is literature)
Economics (Record) (evidence of cooperation)(advise)
Law (Record)(evidence of conflict)
Natural Law (Logic)(decide)
Science (Truth )(learn)

JUSTIFICATIONARY (we justify )
Ratio-empirical-operational
Ratio-Empirical
Rational
Reasonable
Moral Normative

EXPERIENTIAL (we feel)
Sentimental
Expressive