In Short “No”. We can in mathematics assert axioms and fail to or choose not to assert axioms. In logic, we can assert axioms and fail to or choose not to assert axioms. In reality (the existential universe) we discover laws, or fail to discover laws – we cannot assert them or fail to assert them. We can therefore assert in logic, mathematics, a contract or legislation, a work of fiction, of fantasy, or of theology, that which cannot be exist given the laws of the universe. We can testify honestly without due diligence, other than to limit our introduction of imaginary content we did not observe exists. We cannot testify truthfully to that which we have not performed due diligence against the existential possibility thereof. So we don’t take theology, fantasy, fiction, nor axiomatic logic and mathematics into evidence in court because one cannot testify to them. We only take theology, fantasy, fiction ‘seriously’ as entertainment. And axiomatic logic and mathematics to be taken seriously only as entertainment. Much like we find Numerology, Astrology, and justificationary Philosophy as entertainment (puzzles) before we move to the detective story, slow reveal fiction, and slow reveal fantasy. These are entertaining puzzles, and nothing more. We take ‘seriously’ that which costs. What separates Law, Economics, the Sciences, Physics, mathematical physics, from pure mathematics, logic, fiction (which does abide by a logic), and theology (which does abide most of the time by some set of justifications), is the cost of doing versus imagining. While we cannot in fact LOGICALLY know which scientific theory to prosecute, we can know which is least COSTLY to prosecute given the anticipated returns. And it turns out that in fact, for this very reason, decidability does exist in the pursuit of scientific theory: Cost.
Form: Quote Commentary
-
—“Religion causes war!”– (nope)
by Bill Anderson You have the causality backwards. Males form tribes so that they can control a breeding population of women. Males who fail to do so will be conquered and their genes displaced, so violent conflict is unavoidable. These breeding populations will produce survival behaviors based on their genetic inclinations and their environment. These behaviors will be prioritized, or valued differently in each population, thus distinct value systems emerge (say monogamy vs polygamy for example). These distinct survival strategies are often incommensurate, and thus conflict is the result of their proximity. Some values are the result of “black swan events” which cannot be predicted or are multi generational processes which have catastrophic results. Pre-literate peoples communicated these lessons via myth, and sacralized (made static) those values as God given commandments. So, religions don’t cause war, competing survival strategies cause war. Religion is the result of a value system (survival strategy), not the cause of it.
-
—“Religion causes war!”– (nope)
by Bill Anderson You have the causality backwards. Males form tribes so that they can control a breeding population of women. Males who fail to do so will be conquered and their genes displaced, so violent conflict is unavoidable. These breeding populations will produce survival behaviors based on their genetic inclinations and their environment. These behaviors will be prioritized, or valued differently in each population, thus distinct value systems emerge (say monogamy vs polygamy for example). These distinct survival strategies are often incommensurate, and thus conflict is the result of their proximity. Some values are the result of “black swan events” which cannot be predicted or are multi generational processes which have catastrophic results. Pre-literate peoples communicated these lessons via myth, and sacralized (made static) those values as God given commandments. So, religions don’t cause war, competing survival strategies cause war. Religion is the result of a value system (survival strategy), not the cause of it.
-
Taxation
by Bill Anderson —-“A small group of people gather together and then invent debts that the rest of some population owes them, then goes about publicizing and collecting those invented debts.”— J R Fibonacci Hunn I think you’re addressing a couple of issues in your larger post: the money system and taxation. Let me address taxation in the quote above. Taxation is an attempt to resolve the free rider problem in group defense. If a group does not defend its territory and resources (including its pool of breeding females) then it will be conquered. This defense and its related expenses is unavoidable. Who pays these costs? Given the choice, many males will choose to avoid paying the costs of defense (understandably having an incentive to avoid the pain and death of war). But the result of allowing some men to free ride on the backs of those providing very dangerous defense services, is that the group may be unable to defend itself and will be conquered. Thus, the fighting males and those with the longest time horizons will bar free riding, by requiring all males to pay for the defense of the group. These required payments for group defense are the origin of taxation, and are unavoidable. Your other point has to do with abuses of the money system (and taxation), which you rightly intuit as parasitism. Every generation must secure its own freedoms, and the price is violence. A people who are unwilling to defend their interests with violence will be conquered, either from without or within.
-
Rule is a Moral Occupation
—“Once one sees the MORALITY of ruling … the smoke starts to clear.”—Michael Churchill We all slowly are working toward consensus on this very issue. Our men just need to exhaust all other possibilities before they will accept the truth. Rule is good. We must rule.
-
Rule is a Moral Occupation
—“Once one sees the MORALITY of ruling … the smoke starts to clear.”—Michael Churchill We all slowly are working toward consensus on this very issue. Our men just need to exhaust all other possibilities before they will accept the truth. Rule is good. We must rule.
-
“Politics and religion are different and are extremely hard to mix together”—J
—“Politics and religion are different and are extremely hard to mix together”—James Portocarrero
Judaism and islam do it. The church was too weak to do it. Chinese never had the problem.
WHY:
homogeneity = reason. Heterogeneity = Religion.
THAT’S THE REASON
The problem is heterogeneity (diversity).
Religion = Stagnation to create homogeneity that doesn’t exist.
Law = Adaptation to change in homogeneity that does exist.
REALLY. THAT’S IT.
There is a reason for ‘demand’ for religion
There is a reason for ‘demand’ for socialization.
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-17 08:13:00 UTC
-
re: commensurability —“Time horizons and acquisition strategies couple to whic
re: commensurability
—“Time horizons and acquisition strategies couple to which grammar one uses (low investment, short time horizon etc etc)”— Bill Joslin
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-16 18:28:00 UTC
-
Libertarianism Survives/exists by Miscategorizing Relations.
by Luke Weinhagen The way it hit me was that libertarianism survives/exists by miscategorizing relations. Specifically, libertarians interpret commons(cooperation) as commons(conflict) and use property rights(IVP) to attempt to resolve that conflict. In doing so they justify libertarianism’s parasitism of the commons(that can only be generated via cooperation) as defense and that justification requires it not suppress any parasitism of the commons(cooperation) as this would self destruct the ideology. Libertarianism self destructed for me once I recognized this categorization error. (via Brandon Hayes)
-
Untitled
http://www.businessinsider.com/salary-personality-men-2018-5
Source date (UTC): 2018-05-15 18:01:00 UTC