Category: Law, Constitution, and Jurisprudence

I know y’all can’t grasp this but it’s how I work. Physicists use math, programmers use programs, I use arguments, but it’s the same thing: you run tests. Working on the origins and foundation of western civ has been extremely useful. It doesn’t come from thinking but from experimenting: trying to write proofs. The advantage of aspies is auto-associative depth. So every argument creates more pathways allowing more auto association until it’s possible to identify patterns that before were ‘too distant to intuit’. That’s because human intuition varies but generally is limited by the length of an associative jump it can make. Since P-Law is universally consistent it assists us in making more better jumps. But working on it, well,  it’s like math: we learn by trying to write proofs, or programs: they compile, run, and don’t crash. 😉  Same for operational proofs in P-law. Now the word ‘proof’ means ‘test of internal consistency’. It’s just that the ‘internal consistency’ of Formal Natural Law is ‘complete’. In other words, it is consistent and coherent across all fields. So ‘consistent, correspondent, coherent, and operationally possible, is more demanding. I’m searching for that set.

I know y’all can’t grasp this but it’s how I work. Physicists use math, programmers use programs, I use arguments, but it’s the same thing: you run tests. Working on the origins and foundation of western civ has been extremely useful. It doesn’t come from thinking but from experimenting: trying to write proofs. The advantage of aspies is auto-associative depth. So every argument creates more pathways allowing more auto association until it’s possible to identify patterns that before were ‘too distant to intuit’. That’s because human intuition varies but generally is limited by the length of an associative jump it can make. Since P-Law is universally consistent it assists us in making more better jumps. But working on it, well,  it’s like math: we learn by trying to write proofs, or programs: they compile, run, and don’t crash. 😉  Same for operational proofs in P-law. Now the word ‘proof’ means ‘test of internal consistency’. It’s just that the ‘internal consistency’ of Formal Natural Law is ‘complete’. In other words, it is consistent and coherent across all fields. So ‘consistent, correspondent, coherent, and operationally possible, is more demanding. I’m searching for that set.