THE COMPACTNESS OF A THEORY : PROPERTY Compactness of any theory, is not necessa

THE COMPACTNESS OF A THEORY : PROPERTY

Compactness of any theory, is not necessarily a virtue for the purpose of communication. Some theories can only be expressed in the form of a novel, and then via some shorthand reference to the arc of the narrative. Darwin’s evolution is an example of a shorthand that still has not managed to penetrate human cognitive biases: After all, evolution favors complexity within a niche, but not in the direction of anything.

I am naturally wordy because I am obsessed with a certain kind of perceptive precision as guarantee against misinterpretation. I would rather lose the reader, than marginally move him, albeit in the wrong direction. I am still torn, but my experience is, that people begin to grasp my work this way without making early judgements.

I started out with Propertarianism in narrative form, as a new parable for conservatism. And I have reduced it to a limited grammar and terminology. And now am engaged in narrowing Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics and Politics, into a very small number of rules, based upon the necessity of calculation – where I mean calculation in the broadest sense of defining differences.

Compactness matters because it reduces your possibility of error. Intelligibility is more a problem for the reader. For the author of any theory, the expression of that theory in terms least open to misinterpretation, and your work most open to testing.

A compact argument with vast explanatory power is the holy grail.

Property, and Propertarianism, are that missing grail. And with property under propertarianism, we possess a set of technologies capable of expressing and clarifying, not only logic (reason), but mathematics (relations), physics (causes) and economics (actions).

I care a bit more about knowing this than I care about anyone else knowing it. But that’s selfish. 🙂 So I will continue to improve it, and publish my work.

Cheers