If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, And: If we define truth (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference. Then: We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups. We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups. The Natural Law of Reciprocity, is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature.
Theme: Decidability
-
The Natural Law of Reciprocity, is a negative, descriptive, juridical discipline
If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, And: If we define truth (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference. Then: We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups. We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups. The Natural Law of Reciprocity, is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature.
-
If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of dec
If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference,
And:
If we define truth (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference.
Then:
We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups.
We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups.
The Natural Law of Reciprocity, is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-23 19:37:00 UTC
-
Too Dense but Any Mathematician Will Grok It
As far as I know all truth refers to testimony (correspondence) and we use the term ‘loosely’ for many purposes. Technically speaking logic gates output charges (1) or not (0). We equate this to True=On (constant relation) or false=Off (inconstant). We do this to conflate the logically true (constant relations) and logically false (inconstant relations). We do this DESPITE the fact that all logic is ternary with negative priority (1-False, 2-True, 3-Undecidable), because all premises are contingent. Since all premises are contingent, we cannot claim positives (constructions) are true, only that they are not false. As a consequence we falsify alternatives leaving truth candidates as possibilities. This is in fact how cognition, communication, testimony, and science function: free association(some relations), hypothesis (meaning), theory(self-tested), “Law”(Market Tested). The only question is how we falsify. In mathematics, logic, and language not all ideas can be constructed, and must be deduced by creating constructions that permit us to deduce that which we cannot construct (a heptagon being the most rudimentary problem in geometry – it cannot be constructed by ruler and compass). Nearly all non-trivial constructions cannot be constructed (proven or testified to) they can only be described by the process of elimination. Mathematics is an extremely simple logic since it consists of only one dimension: position. Models are constructed of just that one relation – but in large numbers. Language consists of many kinds of measurements. And is far harder to test. What we intuit as constant relations may be in our brains, but not in reality. This isn’t something that’s open to opinion. Words consists of constant relations. There is simply much higher density that simple reductio models in more primitive grammars (logics).
-
Too Dense but Any Mathematician Will Grok It
As far as I know all truth refers to testimony (correspondence) and we use the term ‘loosely’ for many purposes. Technically speaking logic gates output charges (1) or not (0). We equate this to True=On (constant relation) or false=Off (inconstant). We do this to conflate the logically true (constant relations) and logically false (inconstant relations). We do this DESPITE the fact that all logic is ternary with negative priority (1-False, 2-True, 3-Undecidable), because all premises are contingent. Since all premises are contingent, we cannot claim positives (constructions) are true, only that they are not false. As a consequence we falsify alternatives leaving truth candidates as possibilities. This is in fact how cognition, communication, testimony, and science function: free association(some relations), hypothesis (meaning), theory(self-tested), “Law”(Market Tested). The only question is how we falsify. In mathematics, logic, and language not all ideas can be constructed, and must be deduced by creating constructions that permit us to deduce that which we cannot construct (a heptagon being the most rudimentary problem in geometry – it cannot be constructed by ruler and compass). Nearly all non-trivial constructions cannot be constructed (proven or testified to) they can only be described by the process of elimination. Mathematics is an extremely simple logic since it consists of only one dimension: position. Models are constructed of just that one relation – but in large numbers. Language consists of many kinds of measurements. And is far harder to test. What we intuit as constant relations may be in our brains, but not in reality. This isn’t something that’s open to opinion. Words consists of constant relations. There is simply much higher density that simple reductio models in more primitive grammars (logics).
-
TOO DENSE BUT ANY MATHEMATICIAN WILL GROK IT As far as I know all truth refers t
TOO DENSE BUT ANY MATHEMATICIAN WILL GROK IT
As far as I know all truth refers to testimony (correspondence) and we use the term ‘loosely’ for many purposes. Technically speaking logic gates output charges (1) or not (0).
We equate this to True=On (constant relation) or false=Off (inconstant). We do this to conflate the logically true (constant relations) and logically false (inconstant relations).
We do this DESPITE the fact that all logic is ternary with negative priority (1-False, 2-True, 3-Undecidable), because all premises are contingent. Since all premises are contingent, we cannot claim positives (constructions) are true, only that they are not false.
As a consequence we falsify alternatives leaving truth candidates as possibilities. This is in fact how cognition, communication, testimony, and science function: free association(some relations), hypothesis (meaning), theory(self-tested), “Law”(Market Tested). The only question is how we falsify.
In mathematics, logic, and language not all ideas can be constructed, and must be deduced by creating constructions that permit us to deduce that which we cannot construct (a heptagon being the most rudimentary problem in geometry – it cannot be constructed by ruler and compass).
Nearly all non-trivial constructions cannot be constructed (proven or testified to) they can only be described by the process of elimination.
Mathematics is an extremely simple logic since it consists of only one dimension: position. Models are constructed of just that one relation – but in large numbers. Language consists of many kinds of measurements. And is far harder to test. What we intuit as constant relations may be in our brains, but not in reality.
This isn’t something that’s open to opinion. Words consists of constant relations. There is simply much higher density that simple reductio models in more primitive grammars (logics).
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-19 20:20:00 UTC
-
If you knew your logic, you’d grasp that closure does not exist, and you’re maki
If you knew your logic, you’d grasp that closure does not exist, and you’re making an appeal to closure(self reference).
Since we never know we speak the truth, but we can know a falsehood, the false is the only certainty. (And falsifiability is falsifiable.We just can’t do so.)
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-15 15:15:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018514493482127361
Reply addressees: @Hispanogoyim @egoissocial @IberianSoldier
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018510938813681667
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1018510938813681667
-
THE APHORISM AND RIDDLE: SELF EQUILIBRATING KNOWLEDGE An aphorism is the penulti
THE APHORISM AND RIDDLE: SELF EQUILIBRATING KNOWLEDGE
An aphorism is the penultimate device for the parsimonious conveyance of knowledge. The Chinese lack the concepts and vocabulary to produce aphorisms(science) so they produce ‘riddles'(wisdom). But only the far west and the far east have produced the technique of testable statements that produce competition rather than monopoly. The despotic people have developed monopoly, analogy, monotheism and obedience rather than competition and knowledge.
I gotta tell you that despite knowing this for decades the time it has taken me to come anywhere close Nietzsche is horrifying. His talent is awe inspiring. But once you understand that this is how ‘it is best done’, at least you know what to strive for.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-14 10:44:00 UTC
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. WHAT IS NATURAL LAW? >A fully decidable (univ
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
WHAT IS NATURAL LAW?
>A fully decidable (universal) Law of Ethics.
What do you mean by ethics?
>The law of cooperation and conflict resolution.
What is this law of cooperation and conflict resolution?
>Reciprocity.
WHAT IS RECIPROCITY?
In the Negative (Silver Rule, or via-negativa): The requirement to avoid the imposition of costs on that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposing costs upon that which others have likewise born costs to obtain an interest in.
In the Positive(Golden Rule, or via-positiva): the requirement that we limit our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of the imposition of costs by externality, upon that which others have obtained by the same means.
As determined by the either any change, or the total change in the inventory that all parties both internal and external to the action have born costs to obtain an interest without imposition of costs upon others directly or indirectly by externality.
ââAll of ethics can be reduced to [is a subset/special application of] the degree of reciprocity & the accounting thereof.â James Augustus
WHY DOES RECIPROCITY SERVE AS NATURAL LAW?
Because it is apparently impossible to contradict reciprocity in cooperation (ethics), and as such it provides perfect decidability in all contexts of cooperation at all scales in all times, and under all conditions.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-13 14:50:28 UTC
-
WHAT IS NATURAL LAW? >A fully decidable (universal) Law of Ethics. What do you m
WHAT IS NATURAL LAW?
>A fully decidable (universal) Law of Ethics.
What do you mean by ethics?
>The law of cooperation and conflict resolution.
What is this law of cooperation and conflict resolution?
>Reciprocity.
WHAT IS RECIPROCITY?
In the Negative (Silver Rule, or via-negativa): The requirement to avoid the imposition of costs on that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposing costs upon that which others have likewise born costs to obtain an interest in.
In the Positive(Golden Rule, or via-positiva): the requirement that we limit our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of the imposition of costs by externality, upon that which others have obtained by the same means.
As determined by the either any change, or the total change in the inventory that all parties both internal and external to the action have born costs to obtain an interest without imposition of costs upon others directly or indirectly by externality.
—“All of ethics can be reduced to [is a subset/special application of] the degree of reciprocity & the accounting thereof.— James Augustus
WHY DOES RECIPROCITY SERVE AS NATURAL LAW?
Because it is apparently impossible to contradict reciprocity in cooperation (ethics), and as such it provides perfect decidability in all contexts of cooperation at all scales in all times, and under all conditions.
Source date (UTC): 2018-07-13 10:50:00 UTC