Correct. Effectively, as usual, I’m discussing a full accounting between limits

Correct. Effectively, as usual, I’m discussing a full accounting between limits (first principles – consequences) at the limits of time. Doing so removes subjective preference or subjective utility and instead provides universal decidability (superset).

Instead, when you’re applying that science (system of measurement) you are considering a subset of causes and consequences. In other words, subjective (subset).

The difference between decidability (science, objectivity, superset) and choice (applied science, subjectivity, subset) depend on what utilty you’re trying to measure. The utility independent of context or the utility dependent upon context.

Obviously, as in many things we have all encountered on our journey, that which is obvious to me is not obvious to others, and requires articulation and expression given that deduction and inference fail given the information without that articulation and expression.

It’s only when I discover that which is not obvious to others that I identify the necessity of clarification.

In this case what you’ve illustrated is the lack of clarity of this fundamental principle on the one hand and the need for a science of utility on the other. In other words … we have more work to do.

Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS