We can sense Perceptions (physical world), intuitions (not open to introspection) and reason (open to introspection) 1 – Physical (Senses) 2 – Intuitionistic (Emotions and Intuitions) 3 – Intellectual (reason) Reality consists of the following actionable and conceivable dimensions: 1 – point, (identity, or correspondence) 2 – line (unit, quantity, set, or scale defined by relation between points) 3 – area (defined by constant relations) 4 – geometry (existence, defied by existentially possible spatial relations) 5 – change (time (memory), defined by state relations) 6 – pure, constant, relations. (forces (ideas)) 7 – externality (lie groups etc) (external consequences of constant relations) 7 – reality (or totality) (full causal density) We can speak in descriptions including (at least): 1 – operational (true) names 2 – mathematics (ratios) 3 – logic (sets) 4 – physics (operations) 5 – Law (reciprocity) 6 – History (memory) 7 – Literature (allegory (possible)) 8 – Literature of pure relations ( impossible ) 8a – Mythology (supernormal allegory) 8b – Moral Literature (philosophy – super rational allegory) 8c – Pseudoscientific Literature (super-scientific / pseudoscience literature) 8c – Religious Literature (conflationary super natural allegory) 8d – Occult Literature (post -rational experiential allegory ) We can testify to the truth of our speech only when we have performed due diligence to remove: 1 – ignorance, 2 – error, 3 – bias, 4 – wishful thinking, 5 – suggestion, 6 – obscurantism, 7 – fictionalism, and 8 – deceit. So of the tests: 1 – categorical consistency (equivalent of point) 2 – internal consistency (equivalent of line) 3 – external correspondence (equivalent shape/object) 4 – operational possibility (what you just described) (equivalent of change [operations]) 6 – limits, parsimony, and full accounting. (equivalent of proof) Those operations existed or can exist. You can imagine a something with the properties of a unicorn, you can speak of the same, draw the same, sculpt the same … but until you can breed one (and even then we must question), and we can test it, the unicorn does not exist ***in any condition that we can test in all dimensions necessary for you to testify it exists*** This is just one of the differences between TRUTH (dimensional consistency (constant relations)), and some subset of the properties of reality (DIMENSIONAL CONSISTENCY). Mathematics allows us to describe constant relations between constant categories (correspondence) by means of self-reference we call ‘ratios’ to some constant unit (one). The more deterministic (constant) the relations the more descriptive mathematics, the higher causal density that influences changes in state, the more information and calculation is necessary for the description of candidate consequences, and eventually we must move from the description of end states to the description of intermediary states that because of causal density place limits on the ranges of possible end states. In other words, in oder to construct theories (descriptions) of general rules of constant relations, we SUBTRACT properties of reality from our descriptions until we include nothing but identity(category), quantity, and ratio, and constrain ourselves to operations that maintain the ratios between the subject (identity). Mathematics has evolved but retained (since the greeks at least) the ‘magical’ (fictional, supernormal fiction, we call platonism) as a means of obscuring a mathematician’s lack of understanding of just why ‘this magic works’. When in reality, mathematics is trivially simple, because it rests on nothing more than correspondence (identity), quantity, ratio, and operations that maintain those ratios, and incrementally adding or removing dimensions, to describe relations across the spectrum between points(identities, objects, categories) and pure relations at scales we do not yet possess the instrumentation or memory or ability to calculate at such vast scales – except through intermediary phenomenon. As such, operationally speaking, the discipline of mathematics consists (Truthfully) of the science (theories of), general rules of constant relations at scale independence, in arbitrarily selected dimensions. In other words. Mathematics consists of the study of measurement. it is understandable why we do not grasp the first principles of the universe – they are unobservable directly except at great cost. It is not understandable why we do not grasp the first principles of mathematics: because measurement is a very simple thing, and dimensions are very simple things. That mathematicians still speak in fictional language, just as do theists and just as do the majority of philosophers (pseudo science, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-mythology) Ergo, infinities are a fictionalism. Multiple infinities are a fictionalism. Both fictionalism describe conditions where time and actions (operations) have been removed as is common in the discipline of measurement (mathematics). Operationally, numbers (operationally constructed positional names, must be existentially produced as are changes in gears. And as such certain sets of numbers (outputs) are produced faster (like seconds or minutes vs hours) than other sets of numbers (outputs).
Source: Original Site Post
-
Overview
We can sense Perceptions (physical world), intuitions (not open to introspection) and reason (open to introspection) 1 – Physical (Senses) 2 – Intuitionistic (Emotions and Intuitions) 3 – Intellectual (reason) Reality consists of the following actionable and conceivable dimensions: 1 – point, (identity, or correspondence) 2 – line (unit, quantity, set, or scale defined by relation between points) 3 – area (defined by constant relations) 4 – geometry (existence, defied by existentially possible spatial relations) 5 – change (time (memory), defined by state relations) 6 – pure, constant, relations. (forces (ideas)) 7 – externality (lie groups etc) (external consequences of constant relations) 7 – reality (or totality) (full causal density) We can speak in descriptions including (at least): 1 – operational (true) names 2 – mathematics (ratios) 3 – logic (sets) 4 – physics (operations) 5 – Law (reciprocity) 6 – History (memory) 7 – Literature (allegory (possible)) 8 – Literature of pure relations ( impossible ) 8a – Mythology (supernormal allegory) 8b – Moral Literature (philosophy – super rational allegory) 8c – Pseudoscientific Literature (super-scientific / pseudoscience literature) 8c – Religious Literature (conflationary super natural allegory) 8d – Occult Literature (post -rational experiential allegory ) We can testify to the truth of our speech only when we have performed due diligence to remove: 1 – ignorance, 2 – error, 3 – bias, 4 – wishful thinking, 5 – suggestion, 6 – obscurantism, 7 – fictionalism, and 8 – deceit. So of the tests: 1 – categorical consistency (equivalent of point) 2 – internal consistency (equivalent of line) 3 – external correspondence (equivalent shape/object) 4 – operational possibility (what you just described) (equivalent of change [operations]) 6 – limits, parsimony, and full accounting. (equivalent of proof) Those operations existed or can exist. You can imagine a something with the properties of a unicorn, you can speak of the same, draw the same, sculpt the same … but until you can breed one (and even then we must question), and we can test it, the unicorn does not exist ***in any condition that we can test in all dimensions necessary for you to testify it exists*** This is just one of the differences between TRUTH (dimensional consistency (constant relations)), and some subset of the properties of reality (DIMENSIONAL CONSISTENCY). Mathematics allows us to describe constant relations between constant categories (correspondence) by means of self-reference we call ‘ratios’ to some constant unit (one). The more deterministic (constant) the relations the more descriptive mathematics, the higher causal density that influences changes in state, the more information and calculation is necessary for the description of candidate consequences, and eventually we must move from the description of end states to the description of intermediary states that because of causal density place limits on the ranges of possible end states. In other words, in oder to construct theories (descriptions) of general rules of constant relations, we SUBTRACT properties of reality from our descriptions until we include nothing but identity(category), quantity, and ratio, and constrain ourselves to operations that maintain the ratios between the subject (identity). Mathematics has evolved but retained (since the greeks at least) the ‘magical’ (fictional, supernormal fiction, we call platonism) as a means of obscuring a mathematician’s lack of understanding of just why ‘this magic works’. When in reality, mathematics is trivially simple, because it rests on nothing more than correspondence (identity), quantity, ratio, and operations that maintain those ratios, and incrementally adding or removing dimensions, to describe relations across the spectrum between points(identities, objects, categories) and pure relations at scales we do not yet possess the instrumentation or memory or ability to calculate at such vast scales – except through intermediary phenomenon. As such, operationally speaking, the discipline of mathematics consists (Truthfully) of the science (theories of), general rules of constant relations at scale independence, in arbitrarily selected dimensions. In other words. Mathematics consists of the study of measurement. it is understandable why we do not grasp the first principles of the universe – they are unobservable directly except at great cost. It is not understandable why we do not grasp the first principles of mathematics: because measurement is a very simple thing, and dimensions are very simple things. That mathematicians still speak in fictional language, just as do theists and just as do the majority of philosophers (pseudo science, pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-mythology) Ergo, infinities are a fictionalism. Multiple infinities are a fictionalism. Both fictionalism describe conditions where time and actions (operations) have been removed as is common in the discipline of measurement (mathematics). Operationally, numbers (operationally constructed positional names, must be existentially produced as are changes in gears. And as such certain sets of numbers (outputs) are produced faster (like seconds or minutes vs hours) than other sets of numbers (outputs).
-
Abrahamism
ABRAHAMISM: 1) Restatement of Myth as History 2) Projection of Traditional Wisdom as Authoritarian Law 3) Dependence upon Supernaturalism (“Magic”, “Miracle”) 4) Monopoly (exclusivity) and threat of loss for non compliance. 5) False Promise of Impossible(supernatural, natural) Reward for Compliance. 6) Use of Pilpul and Critique In Defense of the falsehoods. 7) Castes of Priests with status, power, and economic incentives to perpetuate the falsehoods. 8) Secret Knowledge, or Prohibition on Competing Knowledge, or Denial of contradictory knowledge. 9) Oath to a falsehood. Payment of Ritualistic costs to the falsehood. Payment of ‘donations’ (fees) to the priesthood.
-
Abrahamism
ABRAHAMISM: 1) Restatement of Myth as History 2) Projection of Traditional Wisdom as Authoritarian Law 3) Dependence upon Supernaturalism (“Magic”, “Miracle”) 4) Monopoly (exclusivity) and threat of loss for non compliance. 5) False Promise of Impossible(supernatural, natural) Reward for Compliance. 6) Use of Pilpul and Critique In Defense of the falsehoods. 7) Castes of Priests with status, power, and economic incentives to perpetuate the falsehoods. 8) Secret Knowledge, or Prohibition on Competing Knowledge, or Denial of contradictory knowledge. 9) Oath to a falsehood. Payment of Ritualistic costs to the falsehood. Payment of ‘donations’ (fees) to the priesthood.
-
Getting Deep Into Propertarianism’s Epistemology with Eric Orwall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ipV6oq1isI learned from this two hour conversation that I can give a three hour lecture (with two long breaks) that would cover the epistemology thoroughly enough. Great stuff here. For the hard core guys here is pretty much the complete picture. And Eric did an amazing job of grilling me. ( @ Eric Orwoll ) -
Getting Deep Into Propertarianism’s Epistemology with Eric Orwall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9ipV6oq1isI learned from this two hour conversation that I can give a three hour lecture (with two long breaks) that would cover the epistemology thoroughly enough. Great stuff here. For the hard core guys here is pretty much the complete picture. And Eric did an amazing job of grilling me. ( @ Eric Orwoll ) -
Update.
UPDATE. I have just finished editing the second draft of “Sovereignty: Reforming Libertarianism”. It’s 235 pages. I have a little work to do on the first page (introduction) that I will finish in the next day or two – I’m a little drained at the moment. Last summer I extracted this work from the “big book”, when I understood it was simply too big, wold distract from the work because of it, and as such required a separate treatment. For the vast majority of people who will conduct arguments in the space, and reposition sovereignty under natural law as a successor to classical liberalism and libertarianism, this book is ‘enough’. At present the big book (“Truth”) is still hovering at 900 pages and will clearly take me over 1000, for the simple reason that my sections on grammar are nearly 100 pages. This bigger book will be overwhelming. it is overwhelming to me. It is something that will be studied. Studied for years perhaps. It’s literally an encyclopedia of thought on every discipline. In publishing this shorter work first, I will run the risk of releasing something incomplete that may weaken the opportunity for the later work – because by its brevity it will not include the very technical aspects of my work, nor the rather vast series of essays on every subject.. But I feel it will fulfill the market need that we (all of us) have created until I can get the major work out the door (which is a crushing bit of work). And I do feel the ‘collective demand’ so to speak. Hopefully this shorter work will provide a stepping stone for you all to work with and at least in my most optimistic dreams, it will reduce the burden. I have not approached publishers yet. I have my own biases but I’m open to suggestions from the community. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute. Kiev, Ukraine.
-
Update.
UPDATE. I have just finished editing the second draft of “Sovereignty: Reforming Libertarianism”. It’s 235 pages. I have a little work to do on the first page (introduction) that I will finish in the next day or two – I’m a little drained at the moment. Last summer I extracted this work from the “big book”, when I understood it was simply too big, wold distract from the work because of it, and as such required a separate treatment. For the vast majority of people who will conduct arguments in the space, and reposition sovereignty under natural law as a successor to classical liberalism and libertarianism, this book is ‘enough’. At present the big book (“Truth”) is still hovering at 900 pages and will clearly take me over 1000, for the simple reason that my sections on grammar are nearly 100 pages. This bigger book will be overwhelming. it is overwhelming to me. It is something that will be studied. Studied for years perhaps. It’s literally an encyclopedia of thought on every discipline. In publishing this shorter work first, I will run the risk of releasing something incomplete that may weaken the opportunity for the later work – because by its brevity it will not include the very technical aspects of my work, nor the rather vast series of essays on every subject.. But I feel it will fulfill the market need that we (all of us) have created until I can get the major work out the door (which is a crushing bit of work). And I do feel the ‘collective demand’ so to speak. Hopefully this shorter work will provide a stepping stone for you all to work with and at least in my most optimistic dreams, it will reduce the burden. I have not approached publishers yet. I have my own biases but I’m open to suggestions from the community. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute. Kiev, Ukraine.
-
Abrahamism: Contending with And Rejecting Aristotle
By Daniel Gurpide All three major religions have had to confront the ideas of the great Greek philosopher, Aristotle. Averroes tried to integrate Aristotle with Islam. Maimonides tried to integrate Aristotle with Judaism. Aquinas tried to integrate Aristotle with Christianity. All necessarily failed. Rationality cannot be integrated with faith; nor reason with anti-reason; nor, in philosophy, fact with fantasy. In conquering parts of the Byzantine Empire, Arabs encountered Greek thought. Muslim scholars studied and were fascinated by the writings of Aristotle and translated them into Arabic. Avicenna and Averroes were superlative Aristotle scholars. The Arabs learned the method of observation-based rationality and, in a true golden age, made superb contributions to medicine, astronomy, mathematics, literature, and other fields. But it did not last. Due to the influence of Al-Ghazali and other reason-rejecting theologians, as well as a fundamentalism firmly entrenched in Islamic culture from its outset, faith ultimately crushed freedom of thought. Under orthodox Islam, the books of Avicenna, Averroes, and other great thinkers were burned in the 12th century. For eight hundred years since, the Islamic world has wallowed in a dark age. When Christians reconquered from the Muslims large areas of Spain, they had access to the Islamic centers of learning in southern Spain. In the 12th century, Archbishop Raymund I of Toledo supported Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim scholars in another great translation movement, mirroring that of Baghdad three centuries earlier, but this time translating Greek masterpieces from Arabic into Latin, the language of European scholars. Predictably, as it had done centuries before, the Church resisted study of Greek philosophy. In 1210 a Church council at Paris forbade the reading of Aristotle’s ‘metaphysics and natural philosophy. But this time the Church failed. Leading European minds, although still Catholic, were determined to gain a greater understanding of the natural world—and nobody, at that point in history, had attained a knowledge of nature equal to Aristotle’s. In one of history’s great and tragic ironies, in the late Middle Ages Aristotle became the patron Greek philosopher of the Catholic Church. Many of that era’s thinkers, the Scholastics, were Christian Aristotelians. But a critical and often overlooked point is that, in the centuries following Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, they too often rejected Aristotle’s method and clung to his specific conclusions as dogmatically as they did Biblical myths.
-
Abrahamism: Contending with And Rejecting Aristotle
By Daniel Gurpide All three major religions have had to confront the ideas of the great Greek philosopher, Aristotle. Averroes tried to integrate Aristotle with Islam. Maimonides tried to integrate Aristotle with Judaism. Aquinas tried to integrate Aristotle with Christianity. All necessarily failed. Rationality cannot be integrated with faith; nor reason with anti-reason; nor, in philosophy, fact with fantasy. In conquering parts of the Byzantine Empire, Arabs encountered Greek thought. Muslim scholars studied and were fascinated by the writings of Aristotle and translated them into Arabic. Avicenna and Averroes were superlative Aristotle scholars. The Arabs learned the method of observation-based rationality and, in a true golden age, made superb contributions to medicine, astronomy, mathematics, literature, and other fields. But it did not last. Due to the influence of Al-Ghazali and other reason-rejecting theologians, as well as a fundamentalism firmly entrenched in Islamic culture from its outset, faith ultimately crushed freedom of thought. Under orthodox Islam, the books of Avicenna, Averroes, and other great thinkers were burned in the 12th century. For eight hundred years since, the Islamic world has wallowed in a dark age. When Christians reconquered from the Muslims large areas of Spain, they had access to the Islamic centers of learning in southern Spain. In the 12th century, Archbishop Raymund I of Toledo supported Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim scholars in another great translation movement, mirroring that of Baghdad three centuries earlier, but this time translating Greek masterpieces from Arabic into Latin, the language of European scholars. Predictably, as it had done centuries before, the Church resisted study of Greek philosophy. In 1210 a Church council at Paris forbade the reading of Aristotle’s ‘metaphysics and natural philosophy. But this time the Church failed. Leading European minds, although still Catholic, were determined to gain a greater understanding of the natural world—and nobody, at that point in history, had attained a knowledge of nature equal to Aristotle’s. In one of history’s great and tragic ironies, in the late Middle Ages Aristotle became the patron Greek philosopher of the Catholic Church. Many of that era’s thinkers, the Scholastics, were Christian Aristotelians. But a critical and often overlooked point is that, in the centuries following Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, they too often rejected Aristotle’s method and clung to his specific conclusions as dogmatically as they did Biblical myths.