Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

Q: WHY IS LEARNING P-LAW HARD – OR AT LEAST TIME CONSUMING?
(Putting Learning Our Work in P-Law Into Context.)

“You follow @Whatifalthist to learn and identify the What. You follow us to learn how the How, and to prove he is right, and so are we.”

Imagine that you’re trying to learn the whole series of formal logic, programming, basic physics, basic cognitive science, linguistics, the series of behavioral, micro, macro economics, comparative law, and comparative civilization.

We identify the common pattern across all those disciiplines which makes each of them easier to undrstand. But you need at least a basic understanding of all of them to know what the terms mean.

You learn it by doing it. It takes a couple of years of effort. Some people naturally understand it faster and some slower. More life experience in a broader range of contexts helps. More knowledge of at least one science helps. And a predisposition to prefer the truth regardless of how we feel about it matters at least as much. But with work, most people can do some or all of it.

In fact, our evidence is that almost anyone can memorize and learn and apply the ethics and morality with relative ease, and with a little more effort learn the sex differences in cognition, and the sex differences in lying – and between ethics and sex differences that’s much of what most people want to know to understand the social and political world we live in.

So we are creating a set of posters that contain the ‘laws of nature’ so to speak. And once you are familiar with the material, these posters, show how everything is incrementally constructed from physics to behavior to culture to language (to lying and cheating and stealing). So we are in process of producing what we call the “Pamphlet” that reduces everything to that shorthand. Until we show people that outline we won’t know how muc more detail is necessary since the logic in that outline is pretty obvious.

The underlying methodology is trivially simple: continuous recursive disambiguation of terms into a series of ordinal measurements. Continuous recursive disambiguation of all disciplines into a hierarchy of first principles of causality. At every level of emergence of new possibiliteis – meaning each discipline – we list the new properties and operations that are avilable. Each is a grammatical, and vocabular ‘paradigm’. We organize these paradigms from most precise (deflated) to most imprecise (inflated). This produces a higerarchy of grammatical (ordinal) logic just like the mathematical hierarcy of complexity. We call this system of logic the grammars. Then we compose proofs of construction from those first principles, and described by those terms, in the context of those paradgms. In other words we UNIFIY ALL THE SCIENCES AND LOGICS INTO ONE.

These underlying rules of logic of what we do can be memorized. Why? There are only so many principles involved. Twenty something principles in ternary logic of evolutionary computation from physics to civilizational differences, and then and sex differences, behavioral acquisitionism, demonstrated interests, the logic of cooperation, or reciprocity, of truth, the european (natural) group evolutionary strategy, and perfect (scientific) government.

So it might be easier to describe what we do as a ‘new math’ that uses terms as constrained variables, and that describes all behavior across all disciplines. As such it’s a bit like studying mathematics from arithmetic to analysis – except we use terms that are meaningful rather than abstract.

And if you watch what our people write, it’s essentially equations using terms (ordinal) instead of numbers (cardinal).

So while it’s technically computation, in the end it’s is much more like math and physics than philosophy

Cheers.

Reply addressees: @BlakeAn77455669