Form: Argument

1) I framed the problem as whether you can testify. You cannot. Since you cannot testify, you are in fact fictionalizing (adding information that does not exist). 2) I framed the criteria for decidability as (a) parsimony (b) constant relations between existence, perception, cognition, and action, (c) motive, (d) absence of fictionalism. 3) I can testify to my proposition that all these phenomenon either to exist or can exist, without anything other than an energetic substance seeking an impossible equilibrium. (a pattern which we see throughout the natural world). 4) Your proposition is that fictionalism is different from lying – which it cannot be: you are fabricating information that is not there. The information is either present in reality or you are fabricating it. Note: —“To fabricate information means to assert correspondence between objects which do not correspond; and possibly to suppress the full accounting which proves evident said non-correspondence”— George Hobbs 5) non-temporality (non-time), self organization via entropy, and inter-universe sinusoidal equilibration (the ‘bubble’ universe), requires nothing other than itself. There is no meaning of time outside of such a bubble. 6) We treat all fictionalist arguments as error, and in particular anthropomorphism as an error, because in history we have found *all* instances of that pattern of argument to be error. 7) In summary, there is no difference between your fabrication of a fiction to support your fantasy of comforting anthropomorphism, and the bank robber who tells a story that god told him to do so, and the counterfeiter who says he did nothing wrong. 8) Ergo, you are arguing as if we are discussing a theory when I am arguing that you are engaged in deception (fraud). In other words, you are creating a fictionalism in order to justify a personal psychological, political, or material want (or fear). 9) I *cannot* come to any other conclusion simply because I cannot testify to the untestifiable; cannot fictionalize to compensate; and have before me a rather simple answer that explains the universe, and all that results from it’s entropic transformation. 10) Aristotle was wrong about a great many things. Adults don’t fall back two millennia in order to desperately cherry pick an argument. They work with the totality of information such that they cannot. 11) Propertarianism (my work) cannot be applied by people lacking the agency to serve as judges of truth(speech) and reciprocity(action). The weak need their falsehoods. And they are unfit for rule by rule of law. 12) There are any number of people who have found that they lack the agency to function as judges and prosecutors of truth (speech) and reciprocity(action), and who can compete in markets in everything (natural aristocracy). 13) But their choice is always and everywhere without exception – lack of agency. ie: they are still animals. And as animals must be ruled by those who possess it. (aristocracy).