( … more … )
And to train it we must KNOW it. We cannot train what we don’t know. And we didn’t (until now with P-Law) understand the ‘science’ of our group strategy, institutions, traditions, norms, rituals. And now that we know that science we can TRAIN the ‘otherwise unfit’ into it.
And we can do so because there is no religious, philosophical, moral, or scientific argument against P-Law, because P-Law is just the explanation of the universal law of all the sciences: of all existence.
Source date (UTC): 2021-11-15 16:29:25 UTC
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107282023437449991
Replying to: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107282000785842669
IN REPLY TO:
@curtd
WHY I KEEP USING THE TERM “P-LAW” P-complete – Wikipedia “In computational complexity theory, a decision problem is P-complete (complete for the complexity class P) if it is in P and every problem in P can be reduced to it by an appropriate reduction.” Ergo: **All existence can be explained by reduction to the first principles of evolutionary computation. In other words, anything that can exist can be reduced to a formal description in P-Law.** I abandoned the term ‘propertarianism’ since it applied only to the original system of measurement in morality. I kept the “P-” for P-Completeness. And because ‘-ism’ implies a p philosophy, and P-Law is a formal logic: a science that unifies the logics and sciences. Ergo P-Law is P-Complete.
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/107282000785842669
Leave a Reply