(FB 1553009066 Timestamp)
BETTER THAN I COULD HAVE SAID IT
by Brandon Hayes
I’m under the impression and understand the beauty of P to be this: by removing personal subjectivity (asymmetric preference) from human interaction [by subjecting it to P law; replacing it with calculation] Emotions and meaning are properly solved for (via the best plausible outcome). This is because P solves for the optimal interaction (cooperation; reciprocity).
P says (calculates, proves) what’s false (wrong); thus to be avoided OR bad (immoral unethical) to be punished (or left undone). By, removing, punishing and limiting the bad. ALL possibilities to GOOD are opened [and taken more often as we close doors to the “bad”].
It leaves preference and decisions about pursuits to HUMANS (hence P can’t be done by AI and is resistant to take-over). Only humans can make the calculations P suggests.
People seem to think P must say more than it does about the way things are or ought to be; but the brilliance of P is its parsimony.
— CURTD —
Correct. And this is the problem i face, the law faces, and science faces. We say only that which is false. It is up to those others to decide, from that options remain, what is GOOD and not FALSE. So for those with great psychological, emotional, intellectual, and material, agency for whom adaptation to any given ‘good’ is relatively easy does little for the vast majority for whom movement with a herd of similar interests is their only available means of survival.
If I must PROPOSE a religious structure (I will do so) as a rough outline for others to create upon, then I will. But even doing that is merely ADVICE. That is different from math (measurement) science (falsification), and law (truth). The narrative will and must forever be a means of unifying behind an hypothesis of the good.