Hmm… Consider this: 1) there is no limit to language and description 2) there is no limit to human mental capacity for generalization. 3) the principle value of AI is to allow humans to increasingly focus their energies on generalizations, scale, and the opportunities…
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-17 19:28:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1769445612586496375
Reply addressees: @BasedErwin @RunicSigil
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1769444641290539445
1) Just as the syllogism, and just as formal logic, sets contain less information than do operations, and constructive operations from first principles contain the most information possible (completeness).
2) All logics are falsificationary, not justificationary.
3) All logics…
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-16 16:35:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1769039895736009199
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1769035867618742425
Yes true, but our concern is ‘universal commensurability’ in other words we are trying to produce ‘the final logic’ across all disciplines. My work in behavioral science and logic and Michael’s work in Mathematics both achieve this end. I start with first principles, and explain…
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-11 17:07:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1767235940014051381
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1767234667286040991
I’m probably one of the better logicians living and working today. Sophistry is not the same as logic any more than fiction is the same as testimony. Michael Huemer is stating what the argument consists of, not that it’s correct. In other words he’s demonstrating what’s wrong…
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-10 22:45:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1766958476276678865
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1766953044967670173
HELP: QUESTION FOR FELLOW SUPERNERDS:
Here I’ve posted the same set of concepts in three forms of prose:
… 1) Publication Prose
… 2) Academic Prose
… 3) Academic Prose in Operational Language
I recognize that I’m ‘asking a lot’ here, but please opine on which style would be preferable for the presentation of the summary of the work.
Examples:
1) Publication) Prose
Title: The Emergence of Differences and Relations: A Constructive Logic of Existence
From Homogeneity to Difference: In the beginning, there was homogeneity – a uniform, undifferentiated state of existence. However, as pressure or perturbations were introduced into this homogeneous system, differences began to emerge. These differences arose as localized fluctuations or variations in the properties or characteristics of the once-uniform existence.
The Spectrum of Relations: As differences emerged, they gave rise to a spectrum of relations between the now-differentiated entities. These relations can range from “completely unrelated,” where the differences are merely coincidental and have no causal or dependent connection, to “necessary and persistent,” where the differences are intrinsically linked and interdependent.
The Constructive Nature of Existence: Existence, then, can be understood as a constructive process, wherein differences and relations continuously emerge and evolve from an initially homogeneous state. This process of differentiation and relation-building gives rise to the complex tapestry of entities, phenomena, and interactions that constitute reality.
Perception, Cognition, and Logic: The constructive nature of existence is mirrored in the functioning of the brain and the processes of perception, cognition, and logic. Neurons, the fundamental building blocks of the brain, operate by creating and manipulating differences and relations.
Sensory inputs, which are essentially differences in stimuli, are processed by neurons to create perceptual representations. These representations are constructed through the identification and relation of differences in the input data.
Cognition, in turn, involves the manipulation and integration of these perceptual representations to create higher-order concepts, ideas, and mental models. This process relies on the ability of neurons to establish and modify relations between different perceptual and conceptual entities.
Logic, then, can be understood as the systematic testing and validation of the consistency and correspondence between the relations established in perception, cognition, and the external world. Logical reasoning involves assessing whether the relations between concepts, ideas, or propositions are consistent with each other and with the observed relations in reality.
Artificial Neural Networks: The constructive logic of existence, based on the emergence of differences and relations, is also reflected in the design and functioning of artificial neural networks. These computational systems are modeled after the structure and operation of biological neurons, and they learn to perform tasks by identifying and manipulating differences and relations in input data.
Just as neurons in the brain create perceptual and conceptual representations through the processing of differences and relations, artificial neural networks learn to recognize patterns, classify information, and make predictions by adjusting the strengths of the connections (relations) between their artificial neurons.
Conclusion: The emergence of differences and relations from an initially homogeneous state is a fundamental process that underlies the constructive nature of existence. This process is mirrored in the functioning of the brain, the processes of perception, cognition, and logic, and even in the design and operation of artificial neural networks.
2) Academic Prose
Title: The Emergence of Differences and Relations: Towards a Constructive Logic of Existence
Introduction: This section explores the fundamental process of how differences and relations emerge from an initially homogeneous state, and how this process explains the constructive nature of existence, perception, cognition, logic, and even artificial neural networks. By understanding these diverse phenomena as instances of a common constructive process, we aim to establish a foundation for a unified constructive logic of existence.
The Emergence of Differences: We begin with the concept of homogeneity, a uniform and undifferentiated state of existence. However, this homogeneity is unstable, and as perturbations or pressures are introduced, differences begin to emerge. These differences manifest as localized variations in the properties or characteristics of the once-uniform existence. The emergence of differences is a crucial first step in the constructive process, as it sets the stage for the formation of relations.
The Formation of Relations: As differences emerge, they give rise to a spectrum of relations between the differentiated entities. At one end of the spectrum, we have “completely unrelated” differences, where the variations are merely coincidental and have no causal or dependent connection. At the other end, we find “necessary and persistent” relations, where the differences are intrinsically linked and interdependent. Between these extremes lies a continuum of relations with varying degrees of causal and dependent connections.
The Constructive Process of Existence: Existence can be understood as a constructive process, continuously building upon the emergence of differences and the formation of relations. This ongoing process of differentiation and relation-building gives rise to the complex network of entities, phenomena, and interactions that constitute reality. The constructive nature of existence is not limited to the physical world but extends to the realms of perception, cognition, and logic.
Neuronal Basis of Perception and Cognition: The brain, particularly the neuron, is a prime example of how the constructive process of differences and relations underlies perception and cognition. Neurons operate by creating and manipulating differences and relations in sensory inputs and mental representations. Sensory information, which consists of differences in stimuli, is processed by neurons to create perceptual representations through the identification and relation of these differences. Cognition, in turn, involves the manipulation and integration of perceptual representations to create higher-order concepts, ideas, and mental models, relying on the ability of neurons to establish and modify relations between different perceptual and conceptual entities.
Logic as the Testing of Relations: Logic can be understood as the systematic testing and validation of the consistency and correspondence between the relations established in perception, cognition, and the external world. Logical reasoning involves assessing the consistency of relations between concepts, ideas, or propositions and their correspondence with observed relations in reality. By testing these relations, logic serves as a tool for validating the constructive processes of perception and cognition and ensuring their alignment with the constructive nature of existence.
Artificial Neural Networks and the Constructive Process: The constructive logic of existence, based on the emergence of differences and relations, is also reflected in the design and functioning of artificial neural networks. These computational systems, modeled after biological neurons, learn to perform tasks by identifying and manipulating differences and relations in input data. Just as neurons in the brain create representations through the processing of differences and relations, artificial neural networks adjust the strengths of connections between artificial neurons to recognize patterns, classify information, and make predictions.
Conclusion: The emergence of differences and relations from homogeneity is a fundamental constructive process that underpins the nature of existence, perception, cognition, logic, and artificial neural networks. By recognizing these diverse phenomena as instances of a common constructive process, we can establish a foundation for a unified constructive logic of existence. This constructive logic provides a framework for understanding how consistency and correspondence arise across different levels of reality, from the basic structure of existence to the highest forms of abstract reasoning.
3) Academic Prose in Operational Language
Title: Constructing a Logic of Existence: The Emergence of Differences and Relations
Abstract: This section proposes a constructive logic of existence based on the fundamental process of the emergence of differences and relations from an initially homogeneous state. It argues that this process explains the constructive nature of existence, perception, cognition, logic, and even artificial neural networks. By demonstrating the commonality of this constructive process across these diverse phenomena, the paper aims to establish a foundation for a unified constructive logic of existence.
Introduction: The present investigation explores the fundamental constructive process that gives rise to the complex tapestry of entities, phenomena, and interactions constituting reality. It posits that this process involves the emergence of differences from an initially homogeneous state and the subsequent formation of relations between these differentiated entities. The paper argues that understanding this constructive process provides a basis for a unified constructive logic of existence, applicable across various domains, including perception, cognition, logic, and artificial neural networks.
The Emergence of Differences: The constructive process begins with a homogeneous state, characterized by uniformity and lack of differentiation. However, the introduction of perturbations or pressures destabilizes this homogeneity, leading to the emergence of localized variations in properties or characteristics. These variations constitute the emergence of differences, a crucial first step in the constructive process, as they provide the foundation for the formation of relations.
The Formation of Relations: The emergence of differences necessitates the formation of relations between the differentiated entities. These relations exist on a spectrum, ranging from “completely unrelated” differences, where the variations lack causal or dependent connections, to “necessary and persistent” relations, characterized by intrinsic links and interdependence. Between these extremes, there exists a continuum of relations with varying degrees of causal and dependent connections. The formation of relations completes the constructive process, giving rise to the complex network of entities and interactions that constitute existence.
Perception and Cognition as Constructive Processes: The constructive process of differences and relations finds expression in the functioning of the brain, particularly in the operations of neurons. Neurons engage in the creation and manipulation of differences and relations in sensory inputs and mental representations. The processing of sensory information, consisting of differences in stimuli, results in the creation of perceptual representations through the identification and relation of these differences. Cognition builds upon these perceptual representations, manipulating and integrating them to create higher-order concepts, ideas, and mental models. This process relies on the neuron’s ability to establish and modify relations between different perceptual and conceptual entities.
Logic as the Testing of Relations: Logic operates as a systematic testing and validation of the consistency and correspondence between the relations established in perception, cognition, and the external world. The process of logical reasoning involves assessing the consistency of relations between concepts, ideas, or propositions and their correspondence with observed relations in reality. By testing these relations, logic serves as a tool for validating the constructive processes of perception and cognition, ensuring their alignment with the constructive nature of existence.
Artificial Neural Networks and the Constructive Process: Artificial neural networks, designed to mimic the functioning of biological neurons, demonstrate the applicability of the constructive logic of existence in computational systems. These networks learn to perform tasks by identifying and manipulating differences and relations in input data. The adjustment of connection strengths between artificial neurons enables the recognition of patterns, classification of information, and generation of predictions. This process parallels the constructive process of differences and relations in the brain, showcasing the universality of the constructive logic across biological and artificial systems.
Conclusion: The constructive logic of existence, based on the emergence of differences and relations from homogeneity, provides a unifying framework for understanding the constructive nature of existence, perception, cognition, logic, and artificial neural networks. By recognizing the commonality of this constructive process across these diverse phenomena, the paper establishes a foundation for a unified constructive logic of existence. This logic elucidates the emergence of consistency and correspondence across different levels of reality, from the fundamental structure of existence to the highest forms of abstract reasoning.
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-08 14:49:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1766114009206374400
THE IMPORTANCE OF P-LAW UNAMBIGUITY
The set of criteria for testifiable prose is designed to create a form of communication that is, above all, unambiguous. By requiring complete sentences in promissory and testimonial form, using operational vocabulary, avoiding the verb “to be,” and including all relevant changes in state and their consequences, testifiable prose eliminates the potential for multiple interpretations or misunderstandings.
This unambiguity is crucial for converting ordinary language, which is often riddled with vagueness and ambiguity, into precise systems of measurement. By ensuring that each statement or claim is clear, specific, and unambiguous, testifiable prose allows for the creation of a common language that can be used to accurately describe, analyze, and compare various phenomena or ideas.
Moreover, the unambiguity of testifiable prose plays a vital role in suppressing errors and deceits that can arise from deduction, inference, abduction, and analogy. When language is ambiguous or open to multiple interpretations, it becomes easier for fallacious arguments or misleading conclusions to take hold. By contrast, the strict criteria of testifiable prose make it much more difficult for such errors and deceits to go unnoticed or unchallenged.
In addition to promoting clarity, objectivity, actionable content, comprehensiveness, testability, logical consistency, accessibility, reproducibility, and providing a foundation for further analysis, the unambiguity achieved through testifiable prose is perhaps its most significant benefit. It enables more precise communication, reduces the potential for misunderstandings or misinterpretations, and helps to create a shared understanding of the subject matter at hand.
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-08 00:42:52 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1765900960574943232
OPERATIONAL PROSE ABSENT THE VERB TO-BE
(repost)
Operational prose that avoids the verb “to be” in its various forms (is, are, was, were, etc.) and constructs complete sentences can significantly reduce the occurrence of vague, ambiguous, and evasive language. This style of writing emphasizes action, clarity, and directness, impacting the use of weasel words, passive voice, and other evasive strategies in several ways:
Reduces Weasel Words and Vagueness: By focusing on concrete actions rather than abstract states of being, operational prose makes it harder to use weasel words that lack specificity. Statements must be tied to specific actions, actors, and outcomes, which naturally demands more precision and clarity.
Eliminates Passive Voice: Without the verb “to be,” the passive construction becomes nearly impossible to use. This forces the writer to specify the subject performing an action, thereby increasing accountability and transparency in the prose.
Limits Hedging and Ambiguity: Operational prose, by its nature, requires that statements be tied to clear and verifiable actions or outcomes. This makes it more difficult to hedge or be ambiguous, as each sentence must convey a specific action or result that can be measured or observed.
Discourages Nominalizations: Operational prose encourages the use of active verbs, reducing the tendency to turn verbs into nouns (nominalizations), which often make sentences more abstract and less clear.
Focuses on Specific Actions Over Generalizations: By emphasizing actions over states, operational prose avoids broad, untestable claims, focusing instead on specific, demonstrable activities or achievements.
Minimizes Jargon and Bureaucratese: While not directly tied to the exclusion of the verb “to be,” operational prose’s emphasis on clarity and action can also help minimize the use of unnecessary jargon and bureaucratese, which often obscure meaning.
Operational prose encourages a more direct, action-oriented style of writing that is inherently clearer and more specific. This style naturally mitigates the use of linguistic strategies designed to obscure, evade, or inflate, promoting instead a form of communication that is more straightforward and easier to verify or challenge.
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-07 23:16:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1765879292523667456
DISAMBIGUATION, OPERATIONALIZATION, SERIALIZATION
(Repost)
“Disambiguation, Operationalization, Serialization,”
What the heck does that mean?
serialize: to arrange (something) in a series.
series: a number of things, events, or people of a similar kind or related nature coming one after another.
From “Disambiguation by serialization by constant relation, and operationalization.”
The constant relation (falsehood, epistemology, morality)
The serialization: ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking…
Where operationalization means converting into a series of subjectively testable human actions thereby producing measurements given the marginal indifference in human action.
So where |falsehood| is a monodirectional series, |epistemology| is monodirectional loop, and |MORAL| is bidirectional from the center ‘amoral’.
This process requires we collect all synonyms and antonyms, organize them by some constant relation into a series of less or more of that constant relation.
Why?
All words (nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs) are constructed of dimensions (scales, series of measurements), open to sense, perception, emotion, or action.
In most cases the human sense perception spectrum appears to produce no more than five degrees of difference for any measurement, such as “distant past, past, recent past, now.” And there are a number of reasons for this – which is why you can only visualize so many of the same things, remember so many numbers or terms, or discern so many directions etc.
In general terms our universe is triangular bias left, forward, bias right, which is our direction of motion. This is also the minimum and maximum necessary decision criteria.
If I go deeper it will get too complicated.
So, by disambiguation by inventorying, operationalizing, serializing into sequences we create unambiguous measurements for language that prohibit conflation and ambiguity and therefore errors of inference and deduction, effectively turning language – especially language like english with so many terms – into a system of measurement.
By combining this technique of very specific terms (measurements), using operational language that is testable, in promissory form (I Promise that…), absent verb-to-be (meaning “I dunno the condition of existence”) in complete sentences, of complete transactions of changes in state, we convert language to a via-negativa equivalent of a via-positiva programming language with the same test of possibility (compilability) since the ability to compile is a test of disambiguity (yes that’s the secret sauce).
By using supply demand tests of statements rather than ideals we end up with the formal economics of human behavior.
For example, decidability = demand for infallibility in the context in question.
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-07 23:11:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1765878079040131072
The First Step in The P-Methodology: “Types”
(repost)
[T]he first step in P-Logic is creating Types. Not Ideal Types. Not ideals. Not an archetypes, not an average, not a set, but a scale: an ORDERED list, hierarchy, or map to use as a system of measurement.
A type is a category whose members varies by one or more of the same properties – one ore more ‘constant relations’.
We do this by a process called “Disambiguation by serialization and operationalization“. Our goal is to create a system of measurement for any concept.
The process is relatively simple.
1) Pick a term. In this example I’l use moral.
2) Collect all related terms, synonyms and antonyms (3 minimum, 5 better)
… Habits, manners ethics morals, traditions, laws, good, bad, right, wrong.
3) Organized them in a sequence (x) from less to more, more to less, or neutral to more and less. Add a second dimension on an orthogonal scale for opposing dimensions ( y ) and another orthogonal (z) after which you’re no longer simplifying anyone’s understanding, so convert, or hierarchy or map or however you want to organize them. Most of the time we keep to simple lists, or sets of simple lists for different degrees of abstraction, or to illustrate different constant relations.
Right / Wrong is a true or false. We use it as an analogy for moral.
Good / Bad is a judgment or preference. We use it as an analogy for moral.
We confuse ethical and moral. Ethical has a more precise meaning, which is an interpersonal action where we abuse the asymmetry of information. Moral is a looser term. It means actions that indirectly and anonymously force others to pay a cost. Manners are something we demonstrate immediately and are testable on the evidence alone.
So I’m going to choose to organize them by :
… Norms: Habits > Manners > Ethics > Morals
and
… Cultural Regulations: Traditions > Norms > Findngs of Court > Regulations > Legislations(Laws) > Constitutions
Or
I could organize all of them by severity of violation:
… Rules: habits > traditions > manners > morals > ethics > laws
Or
I could organize them by moral spectrum:
… Evil< Immoral< unethical< bad < amoral > good > ethical >moral >Virtuous
And I could stack them so that the moral spectrum was in the middle, the leal spectrum above, and the normative spectrum below and show how all of these terms are related.
4) Next Define, Modify Definitions, Redefine, or create New Definitions so that each term in the sequence is unambiguous with every other term. In this case it’s only necessary to disambiguate moral an ethical which we did above.
5) Convert those definitions to Operational Langauge in complete sentences absent the Verb To Be. We’ll study this a bit later. It’s ‘work’ that like mathematics or programming, you only internalize by practice.
6) Use the Precise Term. When you use a term from the sequence, use the most precise one.
7) Enumerate and Repeat the Series. When you are educating people, don’t pick an ideal term, but enumerate the series like this “Well that’s avoiding the externalization of an indirect cost, so that would be Moral (as in manners(direct demonstrated) > ethics(direct asymmetric) > morals(indirect anonymous) > laws(institutional)) and that’s a good thing.”
Results: You will have converted from a colloquial associative vocabulary to a formal vocabulary of measurement. If you do this with a few dozen terms (it’s not that many) you’ll be surprised how precise you’re able to communicate your meaning . And the more you do it the more you’ll think in types (sequences).
But caution: Now we don’t need to speak in formal operational langauge but just as we can diagram sentences, we can ‘explode’ (or expand) anything anyone says into promissory, complete, formal operational sentences that are the equivalent of testable transactions. And we can break stories into sets of transactions, or accmulate transactions into stories.
So use the right too for the right purpose:
… ideomatic speech > colloqual speech > articulate speech > testimonial speech
Propertarianism teaches us testimonial speech.
SOME BASIC TYPES:
… |RULES| habits > traditions > manners > morals > ethics > laws
…|FACULTIES| Physical > Emotional > Mental
…|COGNITION| Sense > Auto-Association > Model > Perception > Prediction > Imagination > Emotion > Attention > Focus > Daydream > Think > Reason > Calculation > Computation
SEX DIFFERENCES IN EXTREMES
Female <———Ascendant Male —> Established Male
Socialist…………………….Libertarian…………………Conservative
Empathic ………………….Pragmatic…………………….Analytic
Undermining …..Non-Conforming……….Violent, Criminal
Social Predator …… Intellectual ……Physical Predator
COMPARE:
========
Data Domain (Computer Science – Databases)
In data management and database analysis, a data domain is the collection of values that a data element may contain. The rule for determining the domain boundary may be as simple as a data type with an enumerated list of values. For example, a database table that has information about people, with one record per person, might have a “gender” column.
Type (Computer Science)
The specification of a set of operations that may be performed on a variable (“name”). Types formalize and enforce the otherwise implicit properties of classes.
Type System (Mathematics)
a type system is a formal system in which every term has a “type” which defines its meaning and the operations that may be performed on it.
Ideal Type (Social Science)
An Ideal Type is a concept constructed by a social scientist on the basis of his interests and theoretical orientation, to capture the essential features of some social phenomenon. The Ideal type, one of the most important concepts of Weber represents the logical conclusion of several tendencies of Weberian thought.
Category vs Type
A Type is a N to 1 relationship (a thing can be of only one Type) and Category is a M to N relationship (a thing can fit into many categories at the same time). Category fits to a family of different things, while type refers to the actual fact that something exists as being of this type.
Type
a person or thing symbolizing or exemplifying the ideal or defining characteristics of something.
synonyms:
(What we DON”T use) epitome · quintessence · essence · perfect example · archetype · exemplar · embodiment · personification · avatar · · prototype
(What we DO use): model · pattern · paradigm
Category
a class or division of people or things regarded as having particular shared characteristics.
The Techniques
The Operational Model of the Brain: brain, mind, consiiousness, agency.
The Grammars. Language, Logics, Paradigms, Periodic Table of Speech
Disambiguation by Serialization and Operationalization
Operationalization by Expanding sentences into Operational language
Acquisitionism, Property in Toto, and the Economics of Human Behavior
Ethics: Decidability, Reciprocity, and Testimony
Crime: Crimes, Frauds, and Deciets,
Prosecution (falsification, or ‘Testing’)
Algorithmic Natural Law (construction) and Applications
Law and Constitutions (Programmatic Natural law), and Incremental Suppression
Institutions, Comparative Rule, Government, Economics, Education, Religion, Family, Demographics, and
Compartive Group Strategies
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-07 23:07:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1765876944095096834
Definition:
Irony (eye’-ruhn-ee)
When there’s a significant gap between what is expected or intended and what occurs, what is said and what is meant, or what is understood by different parties.
I frequently use the term in the context of “painful illustration of the tendency for human folly.” It’s a very smug form of humor. 😉
When I studied writing in college my work was both criticized and complimented for consisting of ‘extended irony’…. which is, well, probably how I see the world: almost entirely constituted of children running with scissors. 😉
Elitist prick yes. But I work for my people not against them. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-03-04 18:40:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1764722655213563904