MORE ON TERNARY LOGIC OF EVOLUTIONARY COMPUTATION AS THE FOUNDATION OF UNIVERSAL CAUSALITY AND COMMENSURABILITY
(from elsewhere)
Interesting, This helps me understand what y’all are missing. You haven’t understood the relationship between first principles, the ternary logic of evolutionary computation (operationalism), the spectrum of grammars as logics,(Operationalism), and the ternary logic itself which is a verbal operational end point of all verbal descriptions of phenomena.
Envision the cover of the book Godel Escher Bach. The same shape can appear as a projection completely different entities depending upon the point of view. This is true for ALL sets of relations. And the incommensurability of sets of relations is one of the reasons for people inventing ‘custom’ or ‘private language’ means of understanding something. Yet if that same something was described from the same perspective as everything else producing the same causal projection ,it would be universally commensurable with everything else. It would ‘fit in’ to the model one was using to understand the world.
Science for example converted thens of thousands of discrete rules into a smaller number of general rules which we call the sciences. This provided a more universal understanding of the behavior of the universe from which deduction, induction, and abduction increased and knowledge expanded, and human demonstrated intelligence increased by nearly a standard deviation.
To seek universal commensurability across all domains, in particular behavioral domains, requires the same baseline (means of project). To achieve it we needed first causes and the resulting hierarchy of first principles.
We then take any given concept within any given subject and through enumeration, serialization, operationalization and reduction to first principles we develop an axis of measurement. If within that axis of measurement of any spectrum we discover it’s evolutionary computation: +/-/= and its transformation before/during/after that is commensurable with the prior state and the post state we have rendered all subjects commensurable.
Now given the discussion above it’s pretty clear y’all don’t understand the meaning logic or the spectrum of logics that emerge from each increase in the permissible number of dimensions within a paradigm and the resulting grammar of that paradigm. Nor do you appear to understand how higher mathematics solves this problem of commensurability through projections (baseline) and rotation (commensurability of baselines).
What you’re doing instead is confusing set logic and its representation as symbolic logic as the only logic, when that is only a subset of the logics possible and produced by man as the grammars evolve from the deflationary to normative to inflationary to deceptive, to fraudulent, to seditious, to treasonous.
ANd in doing so you’re not grasping why the work produces a unification of the sciences by universal commensurability by universal construct-ability from first principles. In other words, you’re missing the whole point of the work as a revolution equally to that of empiricism and science, or at least equal in the behavioral and cognitive sciences as darwinian thought and watson and crick were in the biological sciences.
Now I don’t particularly mind when people tell me that I have failed to explain some aspect of the work sufficiently that it is accessible to less educated (or skilled, or knowledgeable) people. I have a long history of those failures of not grasping what others don’t understand. It’s normal for folks like me. But when y’all claim I err, when in fact you do’t understand it’s just the masculine systemic method of ego defense as the feminine empathic method of ego defense by making moral accusations.
Much of my work derived its insights from the failures in mathematics and economics and physics. Most of these failures originate in presumption of a given method of thought being a universal rather than a grammar on the spectrum of grammars – this prevents people from generalizing specific domain information to additional domains, and in particular to the universal domain, which can and does have only one rule: evolutionary computation of persistence by the trial and error discovery of increasingly energetic stable relations under the ternary logic of evolutionary computation that is the means by which everything at all scales in the universe is produced.
As such the FRAME OF REFERENCE one uses to determine consistency and coherence across scales is what we are trying to explain and teach. But it is HARDER than the simpler domain-specific series everyone has been accustomed to under domain specific evolution of the sciences. ANd just as the religious, philosophical, empirical, scientific, and operational domains are challenging thransitions, the universal frame of reference (projection) from first causes that allows commensurability of all scales sufficient to explain all scales is a difficult to learn despite my work on the grammars to illustrated it.
So what I have learned from this rather exasperating exercise is that when I started with geometry then worked through words and grammars everyone got lost. They couldn’t cognitively manage it. The same appears here unless I can rectify it, where I must teach evolutionary computation by the ternary logic into the grammars and their emerging logics before this relatively simple causal hierarchy is intuitive.
So, despite the frustrations, thank you all for helping me understand where my communication (in volume 3) fails). However, in the future, I would prefer you did not assume I err, which only serves to encourage people who are easily lost to go sideways into ‘ways of thinking’ (failure) because they cannot grasp core principles of The Work, and as such just like the marxists you generate new falsehoods that must then be countered.
