ON A GRAMMAR OF CATEGORIES (IDENTIFYING CONSTANT RELATIONS) So if we are to spea

ON A GRAMMAR OF CATEGORIES (IDENTIFYING CONSTANT RELATIONS)

So if we are to speak precisely we need a term that describes the limits of the human brain’s processes of identifying categories, then one for natural categories (invariant), and then one for utilitarian categories (variant/explanatory), and then for partially-substitutable/unpredictable ( variant/explanatory/plastic): this last being the problem of economic analysis, since that is the point at which mathematics begins to break down in the description of constant relations.

So we need a grammar of identity (category). Because every category is something we identify, by identifying a set of constant relations. (a search function).

Unfortunately, until we have artificial intelligences, it will be very difficult to quantify, or define some set of limits, that describe the information necessary to form constant relations. (this is, in my opinion, what Taleb’s work is limited by). This is also why I work with via-negativa, since if we cannot describe the thing in and of itself, but we can describe what it is not.

The grammar of existence prevents substitution (ignorance, error, bias, deceit), by creating a unique identity for every single action, and therefore a category (recipe) of constant relations.

i’ll try to give this some thought so that I can create a spectrum(series) that gives us a post-rationalist language for this subject…