Form: Reply

Universal commensurability does not mean uniformity.

I think the one bit I would counsel you with, is that while natural law provides decidability, it is a measure that we can test the deviation from while making trade-offs.

But that it will prevent people (politicians, academics, public intellectuals, pseudoscientists, frauds, and ideologues) from claiming such trade offs (costs) are not extant and inescapable.

Secondly demonstrated interests do vary between cultures for a variety of reasons precisely because of the history of their trade offs.

As such I see my work on decidability (the method through natural law) as the provisioning of truth and transparency in the defense against abuses regardless of context.

In other words, humanity has been taught justificationism, then falsification, then in my work adversarial competition and constructive logic, and finally with a system of measurement, we can not only explain group differences, class differences, sex differences, but also explain the trade offs while preventing deception to common in human history and the false promises and resulting conflict that emerge from the vulnerability of humans who lack such a system of measurement.

I have no idea if you can comprehend this argument in it’s depth but I assume you may gather some understanding from it.