PROGRESS: I DID IT. (SHOCKED) It’s been an interesting week. I couldn’t write mu

PROGRESS: I DID IT. (SHOCKED)

It’s been an interesting week. I couldn’t write much because of all the asthma therapy, but I did read and think quite a bit, while struggling with ‘correcting’ Hoppe’s apriorism.

But damn. I did it. I really did it. I’ll bet it takes me less than six months to get it all into digestible form with enough examples that I can communicate the concepts to at least those with scientific rather than rational frames of language.

But, whether it takes me one month or six, if I simply state that **the problem of information absence or loss that affects the logic of physics, mathematics, and language never occurs in statements of demonstrated action – the logic of action and by consequence, the logic of cooperation***, then that is all that needs to be stated. Actions by definition and necessity correspond to reality. They are a bridge between imagination and reality. A test of correspondence. They are the only test of correspondence with reality. Human actions are, because of shared intentionality, and the biomechanical similarities between all men, universally open to subjective testing. Even if cognitive abilities differ dramatically – perhaps logarithmically – demonstrated actions do not. Since cognitive abilities can be expressed as functions consisting of a hierarchy of more simplistic operations each of which is reducible to perceptible form, then the problem of cognition is always reducible to more simplistic form, and the difference between lesser and greater minds is merely the scope of the function (network) that is testable at any given time. (This corresponds with what we know of neurological processes: aggregation)

If we take (a) the reduction of information into perceptible form (instrumentalism), (b) subjective testing when stated as action (operations), (c) cooperation via shared intentionality and the consequential prohibition on free riding / imposed costs / involuntary transfer (ethics), then we are done.

By ‘done’ I mean that all logical fields, categories, names, words, relations, causality, ethical action and deduction, can be united into a single consistent framework of instrumentation whose only differences are the choice of which properties we wish to inspect, and which we can and must ignore, for the purpose of testing internal consistency of statements where we are not cognitively able to construct sets without the help of such instrumentation, given the limits of our short term memory, and the composition of our intuition (thinking) as a perpetual and recursive search engine.

COMMUNITY HELP ON ONE ISSUE OF TERMINOLOGY

I need to ask the community to help me with the choice of terminology, or I need to at least articulate the point of view for each term, under the general category of free riding. We only free ride by the imposition of costs without contribution to production. So free riding may contribute to confusion even if its anthropologically, and in context of the problem of cooperation, the most precise term.

THE PROBLEM OF NASH EQUILIBRIUM IN THE PURSUIT OF LIBERTY

(I am trying to solve the problem of eliminating demand for the state, while preserving the greatest liberty, and requiring that all exchanges remain voluntary, productive, and …)

The issue for any polity then is to control the population (distribution of abilities) such that the Nash equilibrium is actually possible and productive. This seems to be the threshold problem that primitive trust societies can’t get beyond.

Monogamous Marriage is a Nash equilibrium problem. And Pareto efficient optimums are a Nash problems. But since we cannot test the aggregates meaningfully against any constant, all we can do is rely upon volition.

Eh….

ENGLISH: GETTING IT MOSTLY RIGHT

If I were to say that the english got it mostly right. And that if we had evolved the multi-house system of private government for the provision of investments in the commons by adding a house of labor, retained the common law as inviolable by the government, allowed the church to evolve into social insurer, and NOT adopted the Napoleonic/Rothschildian credit-state and total war, then I am not sure that we would have gone very wrong. In fact, we were very close. One of the arguments that I’ve kept running across is that the agrarian and industrial revolutions happened so fast, that we could not evolve our institutions as organically as we had in the past. And that while conservative institutions are ‘scientific’ (proven by experience) they require time to evolve, and the disruption caused by the rapid economic progress overwhelmed our prior conservatism.