Form: Mini Essay

  • P Law Expressed in Mathematics

    Apr 14, 2020, 4:37 PM A very smart guy understands how to express P-Law in Mathematics. (I think in geometry, but he’s got it right). — Billy Law-Bregan — In Natural Law, what would represent the radix? Moreover, as in mathematics where the radix point separates integers from fractionals, would you say in Natural Law the radix point exists between ordinary language and opining? — CurtD — Smart. Good thinking. Good question. In mathematics the radix is the base set of names of positions (nouns), before restoring to positional naming (multipliers of the base: phrases). The grammar of mathematics adds the possible operations (verbs), all of which are variations on addition or its reverse, subtraction (transformations), and the only possible tests of positional comparison, less, equal, or greater (equilibria), an the only possible test of agreement (truth, false, undecidable) In law, the equivalent of radix (base nouns) consist of the vocabulary of actionable references given human facility for sensation, perception, intuition (nouns, names, referents), the vocabulary of operations (verbs, thought word and deed), and the possible changes in state (transformations), and the and the only possible tests comparison (possibility) and only possible test of agreement (empiricism-observation-action, logic-consistency-intuition-word, and experience-sense-perception-autoassociation ). So yes the human grammatical facility, and the structure of grammar, the structure of transactions with that grammar(journal), and the epistemology of the story(ledger) is the same across every one of the grammars from deflationary (math) to functional (programming) to operational (natural law) to ordinary language to the inflationary grammars of narratives, fictions, fictionalisms, and deceits. MATH: Actor (presumed), associated reference (object named by positional name), name of referent – number (positional name), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. LAW: Actor, Action (name of human action), associated reference (object), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. STORY: name of referent – actor, action, transformation, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total All grammars are the same and accounting, finance, and economics are the least error prone methods of describing human action. In this sense, law asks us for a full accounting of human actions so that we can test whether the statements are testifiable (fully accounted) or not, and if not, then how they are not fully accounted, and by deduction, why they aren’t. (ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-farming, suggestion-obscurantism-overloading, the fictionalisms of sophistry, pseudoscience, or the occult, or outright deceit. Ergo P-law fits in the sequence: arithmetic, accounting, programming, natural law, economics, group strategy. — Billy Law-Bregan — I get it, I think. In law, the radix exists as actionable references. Testimony (full accounting) exists as the most efficient number of steps required (radix economy) required express it in that particular base (in this case, actionable references. So continuous recursive disambiguation exists as the tool to teach that efficiency. Something else fell into place for me. I said that the radix exists as actionable references. And, Testimony (full accounting) exists as the most efficient number of steps required to express it in that particular base (actionable references). I think it does something else, too. The radix determines the magnitude of a particular system and represents the value of that system. Moreover, it determines the maximum value of the referents used in the system. E.g. Octagonal base type. Radix (r) = 8. Maximum value of referent exists as 0 to (r)-1. Therefore, maximum value of referent = 7. So, in octagonal base, 428 exceeds the limit of (r), which makes it ambiguous/nonsensical/undecidable/false? (I think). So, I think that In Natural Law, as in mathematics, the radix (accountable references) determine the maximum value/limits of the operations, transformations, positional comparison, test of agreement, and Testimony. Anything that exceeds the limit of (r) exists as inflationary/ambiguous/nonsensical/undecidable/false. I think this also explains why the verb “to be” creates problems in reporting. The various conjugations of the verb violate the magnitude/value/limit determined by the radix. –CurtD– Well done. 😉 You know you have a phd subject right there that unites philosophy mathematics and law. 😉 ===NOTE=== This exchange is in response to this post: MATH VERSUS NATURAL LAW — THE SAME? Math is a logic of positional naming, and Natural law a logic of Property Naming. The grammar of both Math and Law consists of operations on names. So in math we use operations to maintain balance (equilibrium) on both sides of an equal’s sign, and in natural law we use operations to maintain balance between individuals. See? Here: Human Logical Facility (constant relations) > …. Human Language Facility (sequence of sounds) > …. …. Human Grammar Facility (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) > …. …. …. Grammars (deflationary <- ordinary -> inflationary) > …. …. …. …. Math (positional names) > …. …. …. …. …. Programming (procedural names) > …. …. …. …. …. …. Natural Law (human actions) > …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Ordinary Language (utility) > …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Opining (Loading, Framing) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictions (adding what’s not there) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictionalisms (sophistry pseudoscience, supernaturalism) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Deceit (lying) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Denial …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Silence (Notice: Note how I left out verbal logic, rationalism, and philosophy because they’re included in sophistry.)

  • The Point of Demarcation Is Individual vs Political

    Apr 22, 2020, 2:15 PM There are good people in every group. There are bad people in every group. What matters is whether the good or the bad people in every group advance their, and their group’s interest to integrate into our natural law – or whether they resist integration in to our Natural law; or use resistance movements to seek bribes to conform to our natural law; or seek parasitism by taking advantage of our vulnerability – our tolerance – under our natural law. Our Natural Law is empirical and it tells us we aren’t intolerant enough. If it’s interpersonal then exhaust tolerance (christianity). If it’s political then zero tolerance (Doolittle). It’s not a difficult disambiguation, demarcation, distinction, difference. 😉 Be intolerant. Otherwise you’re committing fraud by not paying to cost of maintaining the commons, under pretense your convenience is a conviction. It’s not. It’s fraud. Be intolerant.

  • The Point of Demarcation Is Individual vs Political

    Apr 22, 2020, 2:15 PM There are good people in every group. There are bad people in every group. What matters is whether the good or the bad people in every group advance their, and their group’s interest to integrate into our natural law – or whether they resist integration in to our Natural law; or use resistance movements to seek bribes to conform to our natural law; or seek parasitism by taking advantage of our vulnerability – our tolerance – under our natural law. Our Natural Law is empirical and it tells us we aren’t intolerant enough. If it’s interpersonal then exhaust tolerance (christianity). If it’s political then zero tolerance (Doolittle). It’s not a difficult disambiguation, demarcation, distinction, difference. 😉 Be intolerant. Otherwise you’re committing fraud by not paying to cost of maintaining the commons, under pretense your convenience is a conviction. It’s not. It’s fraud. Be intolerant.

  • In Pursuit of A Truthful Religion

    May 5, 2020, 1:13 PM We know religions exist and we know why: mindfulness necessary to reduce the stress of the neural economy. We know gods exist – at the very least as information. We also know monotheism is a lie by the evidence – gods change, are invented, and discarded all the time in response to human needs. We know submission is bad by the evidence – it has made us vulnerable to defeat. We know abrahamic theology is bad by the evidence because it teaches the abrahamic method of lying. We know the abrahamic method of lying is bad by the evidence. It’s worse than anything other than the plagues. We are trying to discover how to produce a non-false science of religion that is consistent and coherent across all disciplines. From that science we may reconstruct or construct a foundation for future religion. If you are habituated to your abrahamic monotheism that’s understandable. But it’s just a habituation not a good nor a truth. Man may require mindfulness like he requires rest (he does). But man does not need what you claim he does, which is why we have produced so many different means of obtaining mindfulness. You have been trained to feel you need what you do. But this was done to you and invented so it could be done to you for a reason: to organize the underclasses against the aristocracy (which wasn’t necessarily a bad thing until the underclass and priesthood set out to rule by deceit rather than the truth of physical, natural, and evolutionary laws.) Christian behavior (mindfulness insulated from status signaling and status competition) is a good. How do we produce Christian behavior (not belief) without the falsehoods and negative externalities? How do we do it without christian sophistry, pacifism, tolerance, and cowardice? This is not a question of eliminating your faith. It is a question of providing the ‘goods’ of civic religion for those unable to believe the falsehoods you are willing to believe in exchange for your mindfulness. In other words, you don’t matter. You have mindfulness already. You can believe in these things you do. We can’t. We aren’t able to believe falsehoods for ANY reason. We want to prohibit false promises in the new generation that is undermining our civlization like christianity and islam undermined our ancient civlization.. And you only hurt our efforts to stop what has destroyed your religion with your attempts to perpetuation of the falsehoods – you only assist the enemy – and that’s why it is demonstrably winning. The false promise of marxism, feminism, postmodernism in this world is more advantageous a ‘sales strategy’ than the false promise of eternal something or other after death. I will probably spend another decade on this problem. It’s a very hard problem. But I currently see the foundations of that religion, because I see the non-false consistency across physics, biology, evolution, cooperation, sociology, and psychology – to the politics and religion that must result. And is is more like our natural germanic religions : a market and truths – than it is our unnatural semitic religion: a monopoly and lies. In that religion Jesus is a philosopher or prophet of the feminine replacing the female gods of fertility, love, and beauty. And as such that is probably a bad thing. And instead, he should be considered a philosopher or prophet of discipline, by which the underclasses could achieve status by behavior rather than wealth or power. The aristocracy did not have this discipline and did abuse the peasantry, slaves, and women. Jesus gave them a route to respect, and in respect, social equality if not economic and military. He made it possible to demonstrate middle class ethics without middle class resources. And in doing so provided a resistance to the (hedonistic) aristocracy who then, like today, used various forms of excess to demonstrate their social status. And that was his genius. And that is his legacy. And that is the truth not the lie.

  • In Pursuit of A Truthful Religion

    May 5, 2020, 1:13 PM We know religions exist and we know why: mindfulness necessary to reduce the stress of the neural economy. We know gods exist – at the very least as information. We also know monotheism is a lie by the evidence – gods change, are invented, and discarded all the time in response to human needs. We know submission is bad by the evidence – it has made us vulnerable to defeat. We know abrahamic theology is bad by the evidence because it teaches the abrahamic method of lying. We know the abrahamic method of lying is bad by the evidence. It’s worse than anything other than the plagues. We are trying to discover how to produce a non-false science of religion that is consistent and coherent across all disciplines. From that science we may reconstruct or construct a foundation for future religion. If you are habituated to your abrahamic monotheism that’s understandable. But it’s just a habituation not a good nor a truth. Man may require mindfulness like he requires rest (he does). But man does not need what you claim he does, which is why we have produced so many different means of obtaining mindfulness. You have been trained to feel you need what you do. But this was done to you and invented so it could be done to you for a reason: to organize the underclasses against the aristocracy (which wasn’t necessarily a bad thing until the underclass and priesthood set out to rule by deceit rather than the truth of physical, natural, and evolutionary laws.) Christian behavior (mindfulness insulated from status signaling and status competition) is a good. How do we produce Christian behavior (not belief) without the falsehoods and negative externalities? How do we do it without christian sophistry, pacifism, tolerance, and cowardice? This is not a question of eliminating your faith. It is a question of providing the ‘goods’ of civic religion for those unable to believe the falsehoods you are willing to believe in exchange for your mindfulness. In other words, you don’t matter. You have mindfulness already. You can believe in these things you do. We can’t. We aren’t able to believe falsehoods for ANY reason. We want to prohibit false promises in the new generation that is undermining our civlization like christianity and islam undermined our ancient civlization.. And you only hurt our efforts to stop what has destroyed your religion with your attempts to perpetuation of the falsehoods – you only assist the enemy – and that’s why it is demonstrably winning. The false promise of marxism, feminism, postmodernism in this world is more advantageous a ‘sales strategy’ than the false promise of eternal something or other after death. I will probably spend another decade on this problem. It’s a very hard problem. But I currently see the foundations of that religion, because I see the non-false consistency across physics, biology, evolution, cooperation, sociology, and psychology – to the politics and religion that must result. And is is more like our natural germanic religions : a market and truths – than it is our unnatural semitic religion: a monopoly and lies. In that religion Jesus is a philosopher or prophet of the feminine replacing the female gods of fertility, love, and beauty. And as such that is probably a bad thing. And instead, he should be considered a philosopher or prophet of discipline, by which the underclasses could achieve status by behavior rather than wealth or power. The aristocracy did not have this discipline and did abuse the peasantry, slaves, and women. Jesus gave them a route to respect, and in respect, social equality if not economic and military. He made it possible to demonstrate middle class ethics without middle class resources. And in doing so provided a resistance to the (hedonistic) aristocracy who then, like today, used various forms of excess to demonstrate their social status. And that was his genius. And that is his legacy. And that is the truth not the lie.

  • Lead Follow or Get out Of the Way 😉

    May 6, 2020, 11:24 AM

    —“Plain language that we can all agree on.”—Stephen Wells

    I’ve been consistent in my position. (a) I don’t practice equality even among my kinfolk – I practice loyalty and noblesse oblige. (b) researchers in the sciences produce research. activists gain status followers and influence by distributing it. I manufacture intellectual weaponry. it’s “your” (collective) job to figure out how to use it. 😉 (c) this ensures you are leaders and we distribute leadership rather than making me the center of anything at all. I manufacture goods that leaders will use. It’s a natural selection process. And if you can use P you pass. 😉 Now go out and lead. === OR By Noah J Revoy === You don’t have to agree. – Lead if you can understand, agree and can create. – Follow if you can understand and agree. – Or else get out of the way.

  • P Increases the Scope of The Crime of Baiting Into Hazard

    May 7, 2020, 8:32 AM The lender baits you into hazard, not the manufacturer. cash in hand is a present demonstrated capacity. credit is a prediction of future demonstrated capacity. So we don’t confuse ideals (omniscience) with due diligence and statistics free of arbitrage. Where arbitrage is charging It’s reciprocal as long as it’s fully informed. (we also included right to repair – which would increase the price of the car and decrease the price of maintenance.) creditworthiness is an actuarial science, and with linear returns and without loss-arbitrage, problem disappears. If it wasn’t in one’s self interest one wouldn’t do it. The court can’t determine self interest (via positiva) it can only determine harm. Courts do not determine ‘good’ (that’s choice) they determine harm. The Labor of rule of law is divided by design: Monarchy, Military, Law, Government, Court, Individual. And that law produces limits on monarchy, military, Government, court, and the individual.

    1. The individual produces agreements (good, specific).
    2. Court produces rulings (bad, specific),
    3. Government produces legislation (good and general),
    4. The military produces commands (necessary specific crisis)
    5. In UK Monarchy for when all fail. Monarchy is above the law. (Specific Crisis)

    The foundation of contract law is reciprocity, and irreciprocal contracts will not be enforced by the court. The problem is the court’s definition of irreciprocity favors personal choice and consequence rather than legal defense from baiting into hazard. P increases the scope of the law to cover both false promise, and baiting into hazard, at contractual ( private contracts ) and political ( contracts of the commons ) scales. This is the weakness in the current law. (Imagine what would happen if we kept credit ratings, but ended debt collection. We might not have to do anything else.)

  • P Increases the Scope of The Crime of Baiting Into Hazard

    May 7, 2020, 8:32 AM The lender baits you into hazard, not the manufacturer. cash in hand is a present demonstrated capacity. credit is a prediction of future demonstrated capacity. So we don’t confuse ideals (omniscience) with due diligence and statistics free of arbitrage. Where arbitrage is charging It’s reciprocal as long as it’s fully informed. (we also included right to repair – which would increase the price of the car and decrease the price of maintenance.) creditworthiness is an actuarial science, and with linear returns and without loss-arbitrage, problem disappears. If it wasn’t in one’s self interest one wouldn’t do it. The court can’t determine self interest (via positiva) it can only determine harm. Courts do not determine ‘good’ (that’s choice) they determine harm. The Labor of rule of law is divided by design: Monarchy, Military, Law, Government, Court, Individual. And that law produces limits on monarchy, military, Government, court, and the individual.

    1. The individual produces agreements (good, specific).
    2. Court produces rulings (bad, specific),
    3. Government produces legislation (good and general),
    4. The military produces commands (necessary specific crisis)
    5. In UK Monarchy for when all fail. Monarchy is above the law. (Specific Crisis)

    The foundation of contract law is reciprocity, and irreciprocal contracts will not be enforced by the court. The problem is the court’s definition of irreciprocity favors personal choice and consequence rather than legal defense from baiting into hazard. P increases the scope of the law to cover both false promise, and baiting into hazard, at contractual ( private contracts ) and political ( contracts of the commons ) scales. This is the weakness in the current law. (Imagine what would happen if we kept credit ratings, but ended debt collection. We might not have to do anything else.)

  • Trying to Get My Arms Around the Indian Culture.

    May 7, 2020, 10:41 AM THE VERY VERY GOOD Their religion if you want to call it that is wonderful. Partly because it’s not really a religion but like buddhism more a way of life. It’s what I wish we had for europeans – our natural religion. THE VERY GOOD They have the no-hostility thing down. They have non-aggression down. They have presumption of kindness down. They have pretty good impulse control THE PROBLEM IS NOT AN UNSOLVABLE It’s the honesty-responsibility thing. They have approval before truth (non-offense) They don’t take any responsibility for commons So look at the kind of crime they have and it tells you what kind of culture they have. Pervasive familism – even in indian mafias Pervasive corruption Telephone scams. Indirect crimes Petty crime Robbery Less violent crime. They have the usual organized crime problem too, and they do have organized crime that escalates into terrorism. I would rather fix the problem of india than the middle east. The problem is that the country is an empire or civilization and it’s too big to centrally govern.

  • Trying to Get My Arms Around the Indian Culture.

    May 7, 2020, 10:41 AM THE VERY VERY GOOD Their religion if you want to call it that is wonderful. Partly because it’s not really a religion but like buddhism more a way of life. It’s what I wish we had for europeans – our natural religion. THE VERY GOOD They have the no-hostility thing down. They have non-aggression down. They have presumption of kindness down. They have pretty good impulse control THE PROBLEM IS NOT AN UNSOLVABLE It’s the honesty-responsibility thing. They have approval before truth (non-offense) They don’t take any responsibility for commons So look at the kind of crime they have and it tells you what kind of culture they have. Pervasive familism – even in indian mafias Pervasive corruption Telephone scams. Indirect crimes Petty crime Robbery Less violent crime. They have the usual organized crime problem too, and they do have organized crime that escalates into terrorism. I would rather fix the problem of india than the middle east. The problem is that the country is an empire or civilization and it’s too big to centrally govern.