Every time some conservative asserts something in confidence despite his relative ignorance, he is no different from his consumptive (liberal) counterpart. The only ‘truthful’ empirical, and therefore ‘conservative’ answer is: “i don’t know yet” But ‘i know…’ is merely a statement of being lazy or incompetent.
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-17 19:55:00 UTC
Truth is what it is. Leaders do not shy from the truth when their group strategy and competitive advantage is The Truth. Restoring western civ requires restoring the constitutional monarchies… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=508792809717614&id=100017606988153
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-17 14:38:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1196075117111107584
The Church relies on abrahamic lying and dysgenia. Rule of Law relies on truth, reciprocity, and eugenia. A Monarch (Lichtenstein) as judge of last resort (veto) denies access to power by political means. Monarchies needn’t inbreed. My job is to lead w/Truth – even if difficult.
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-17 14:09:23 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1196067812856549379
Reply addressees: @YvesBurri
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1196066023465730055
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/1196066023465730055
Truth is what it is. Leaders do not shy from the truth when their group strategy and competitive advantage is The Truth. Restoring western civ requires restoring the constitutional monarchies for the purpose of judge of last resort. The fact that your head is full of as much bullshit about monarchies as the left is full of bullshit about white people, is because you’re just as much a victim of bullshit as they are.
1) Hoppe is right on incentives of “Renters” in government.
2) Michels is right about the iron law of oligarchy and the consequences of democracy.
3) Schmidt is right about the need for the law to handle exceptions.
4) Legions (exp Bagehot) are right that monarchies are the most successful form of government in history, and democracies always fail from hyperconsumption and competition over access to power, the violates the natural law, which is that we may have no power over one another other than denial of parasitism.
4) I am right that (a) monarchy is necessary for the denial of power, (b) denial of influence, (b) limiting the fashions of the people – and far better record than any president. Monarchs and Prime ministers and allocation to parties, have always defeated presidents, speakers of the house, and the first past the post two-party system in every possible case.
QUOTES
Because a ceremony of men, kin, nation is far better than a ceremony of false gods, ideology, politicians – or consumption.
The best Governments of the World have been composed of Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy.
The best reason why Monarchy is a strong government is, that it is an intelligible government. The mass of mankind understand it, and they hardly anywhere in the world understand any other.
The Sovereign has, under a constitutional monarchy such as ours, three rights – the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn. And a king of great sense and sagacity would want no others.
Monarchy hardens into despotism. Aristocracy contracts into oligarchy. Democracy expands into the supremacy of numbers.
They that are discontented under monarchy, call it tyranny; and they that are displeased with aristocracy, call it oligarchy: so also, they which find themselves grieved under a democracy, call it anarchy, which signifies the want of government; and yet I think no man believes, that want of government, is any new kind of government.
The British monarchy has the political and constitutional task of subtracting from the government and governors of Britain the papal and kingly airs that in America, because we have no such institution, unfortunately adhere to the president.
I believe that the visit of the Queen to the United States is an admirable occasion to produce an historical, truthful, sincere, genuine analysis of how the British Monarchy evolved into its present situation.
Americans also seem to believe that the monarchy is a kind of mediaeval hangover, encumbered by premodern notions of decorum; the reality is that the British monarchy, for good or ill, is a modern political institution perhaps the first modern political institution.
What royal families are very good at doing is surviving and reinventing themselves. That’s true whether it’s a constitutional monarchy in Britain or an authoritarian monarchy.
If a nation does not want a monarchy, change the nations mind. If a nation does not need a monarchy, change the nations needs.
Source date (UTC): 2019-11-17 09:38:00 UTC
Science: A Warranty of Due Diligence SCIENCE: The use of logical and physical instrumentation for the purpose of eliminating ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and obscurantism, Fictionalism and deceit from our free-associations by the systematic deflation and attempted falsification (survival) from criticism in eight dimensions of actionable reality: categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, fully accounted including scope and limits – and coherent across those dimensions. Science is a moral discipline wherein we criticize our ideas, so that we can speak them truthfully: — We test our categories using differences to eliminate conflation. — We test our reasoning with logic for internal consistency. — We test our observations with external correspondence. — We test the existence of our premises with operations. — We test the rationality and volition of choice through sympathy — We test the reciprocity and volition of choice through changes in capital — We test the scope of our theory with falsifications. Once we have tested our theories by these means, then we can say that we speak truthfully – and as such do no harm. The central argument regarding truth: 1) That in order to cooperate, humans evolved sympathy for intent – and are marginally indifferent in their judgment of intentions. This allows us to sympathetically test most human incentives if subject to the same stimuli (information). It is also why juries can functions, since this sympathetic testing of intentions is the criteria by which juries render decisions. 2) That however, we cannot sympathize with the first principles of the physical universe – the equivalent of intentions. So while we intuit and can test man’s intentions, we cannot measure and test the universe’s first principles. As such, the best we can do is testify to observations and measurements of those phenomenon until at some point we know those first principles – if that is ever possible. 3) But our observations must also be reduced to stimuli that can be sympathetically tested by others, and insulated from our deception, bias and error. 4) We call this process ‘science’, but the practice of science is little more than a set of moral rules that instruct us as to how to eliminate deception, bias and error. The scientific method then, is merely a moral discipline: the means by which we struggle to speak the truth, as truthfully as we may possibly accomplish given the frailty of our reason. 5) That giving witness to one’s observations, is testable by reproduction of a set of operational definitions. That operational definitions produce the equivalent of names, just as positional numbering provides quantities with names. Such names are insulated from deception, distraction, loading, framing and overloading. Theories are not. While we cannot demonstrate the absolute parsimony of a theory (that we know of), we can demonstrate that we truthfully conveyed our observations. In other words, we can testify truthfully to an ordered set of facts, even if we cannot testify truthfully to parsimony of a theory. 6) That it is possible to state instead that all outputs of scientific investigation are truthful, if they are truthfully represented – where ‘scientific investigation” refers to the use of the scientific method, regardless of field of inquiry. But that we seek the most parsimonious statement of a theory, and we can never know that we have obtained it, we can only develop consensus that we cannot cause it to fail. This is, as far as I know, the best non-platonic description of truth available. Everything else is a linguistic contrivance for one purpose or another – possibly to obscure ignorance, and possibly to load ideas with moral motivation. Scientists load their contrivance of truth, and mathematicians load their contrivance of numbers, limits, and a dozen other things – most of which obscure linguistic ‘cheats’ to give authority to that which is necessary for the construction of general rules. (ie: the problem of arbitrary precision). 7) That Popper did no investigation into science or the history of science prior to making his argument, and that as yet, we do not have a systematic account of the history of science. However, what history we do have, both distant and recent, is that science operates by criticism upon failure, where failure is demonstrated by via overextension of the theory. 8) The reason for overextension rather than criticism as the operational preference being that it is economically inefficient (expensive) to pursue criticism rather than to extend a theory to its point of failure then criticize it. And as far as we know, this is how science functions in practice, and must work, because it is how all human endeavors must work. Because while a small number of scientists may seek the ‘truth’ (or whatever a Platonist means by it), what scientists try to do is solve problems – i.e. to manufacture recipes for useful cognition. 9) Popper’s advice was merely moral given that the scope of inquiry in all human fields had surpassed that of human scale, where tests are subjectively verifiable. (I think this is an important insight because it occurred in all fields.) Einstein for example, operationalized observations (relative simultaneity for example) over very great distances approaching the speed of light using Lorenz transformations. And as Bridgman demonstrated, the reason Einstein’s work was novel was because prior generations had NOT been operationalizing statements ,and as such, more than a generation and perhaps two were lost to failure of what should have been an obvious solution. (See the problem of length, which I tend to refer to often as the best example.) I addressed this in a previous post, and what popper did was give us good advice, and while he made an argument that appears logical, like most rational arguments, unsupported by data, it is not clear he was correct, and in fact, it appears that he was not. The question is not a rational but empirical one. (Note: I seek to codify this moral insight into law. Thus ending all deception by not only Fictionalism, but all other means.) 10) Popper unlike Misesian Pseudoscience, or Rothbardian Immoral Verbalisms, was engaged in a moral attempt both in politics and in science, and perhaps in science as a vehicle for politics, to prevent the pseudoscientific use of science – particularly by fascist and communists, to use the findings of science as a replacement for divine authority by which to command man. What popper did, particularly with his Platonism, was to remove the ability for the findings of science to be used as justification for the removal of human choice. Popper, Mises, and Hayek were responsible for undermining pseudoscientific authoritarianism. Of the three Popper is perhaps less articulate (possibly to obscure his objective), but certainly not wrong, so to speak. While Mises’ appeal to authoritarianism (which is part and parcel of his Jewish culture) was entirely pseudoscientific, by claiming that economics was deductive rather than empirical, and justifying it under a priorism, instead of as I’ve stated, understanding that he was merely trying to apply operationalism to economic activity, which would merely demonstrate that Keynesian economics was immoral and deterministic, not unscientific. 11) But Popper, Mises, Hayek, Bridgman and Brouwer, did not find a solution to restoring the western aristocratic conditions for public speech. They too were a lost in Platonism a bit. Bridgman and Brouwer did understand that something was wrong, and were very close, but they could not make the moral argument. We have had a century now of attacks by verbal contrivance and we can demonstrate the destruction of our civilization by way of it. So the moral argument is no longer one of undemonstrated results. WE have the results. And we have a generation of men, myself included, trying to repair it. One must speak truthfully, because no other truth is knowable. Intellectual products that are brought to market must be warrantied just as are all other products that are brought to market, and the warranty that you can provide is operational definitions (recipes, experience), not theories (psychologism, projections). And if you are not willing to stand behind your product then you should not bring it to market. Because you have no right to subject others to harm. Intellectuals produce ideas (myself included), that is our product. We are paid in measly terms most of the time, for our product, but that is what we do. But it is no different from serving too-hot coffee or selling dangerous ladders, or manufacturing defective gas tanks – intellectuals do plenty of harm in history. Perhaps the most harm of all. Between Abraham, Paul of Tarsus and the Byzantine Emperors, Mohammed and his real author,; Marx, Boaz, and Freud, it is hard to envision any worse catastrophe perpetrated by man. THEREFORE: Why is it that the informational commons, and by consequence the political and normative commons, are not – in an age of information – as subject to warranty and liability as pollution or harm to physical commons, life, body, and private property? Truthfulness – testimony that has been subject to due diligence – is a non trivial cost. And economists are too happy (as it appears all social scientists have been) to produce defective products for personal gains, without the warranty that all other products have been subject to. Why is it that free speech is not limited to free truthful speech? After all, the cost of producing truthful scientific testimony under due diligence and warranty is much higher than the cost of producing untruthful pseudoscientific testimony without due diligence or warranty. Doesn’t mere free speech without warranty of due diligence of truthfulness construct an impossibility under which the production of high cost truth and the production of low cost fantasy, bias, error and deceit must eventually win? There is a great difference between the terms “empirical” (observable and measurable) and “scientific” of which empirical criticism is but a minor subset of the criterion necessary for the production of warranty of due diligence against fantasy, bias, error, and deceit. We have had a century of economists running with intellectual scissors, causing inter-temporal externalities of profound consequence. And the Cosmopolitan (freshwater) rationalist’s justification of priors is only more visible than the mainstream Anglo empirical (Saltwater), justification of priors under the pseudoscience of Rawlsian Justificationism – itself a fascinating example of the logically impossible, yet pervasively persuasive. So just as all enlightenment adaptations were plagued with errors – Anglo, French, German and Jewish – both freshwater and saltwater economics are plagued with pseudoscience. The freshwater try to justify objective morality, by argumentative construction (pseudoscience), and the saltwater try to justify immorality by intentionally failing to account for profound normative, institutional, civilizational, and genetic consequences (pseudoscience). So it’s one thing for all of us to point the finger of the accusation of pseudoscience one place or another. But it is quite another to realize that the minute you draw the lens of truth upon either freshwater or saltwater economics, you will discover that both are pseudosciences that merely confirm ideological priors.
In the last century intellectuals tried and failed to complete the scientific method and thereby create a test of non-falseness like we do in law. They couldn’t do it. What I’ve done, because I’ve been lucky enough to spend most of my life working with “computable” systems – meaning that which is existentially possible to construct through a series of operations is supply the habits of strict operational construction with requirements for existential possibility, to the scientific method, and complete what those thinkers failed to discover.
Popper applied Jewish critique, (criticism), to science, as “falsificationism”. Meaning, the way to avoid pseudoscience is to require that a statement be falsifiable. He did this because pseudoscience was rapidly expanding under the popularity of authoritarian socialism, as much as because he was simply interested in philosophy. He was trying to preserve intellectual cosmopolitanism (Jewish diasporism), and this culminated in his work “The Open Society” which is what Soros uses as his ‘plan’. Now, in his efforts to correct science, he developed a set of ideas that I will try to reduce to these: 1) Falsification (critique, criticism) vs. Justificationism (excuses) 2) Critical Rationalism: we can know what is false but not what is true. 3) Critical Preference: we cannot know which theory is more likely true. there is no method of decidability. 4) Verisimilitude through Problem->Theory->Test 5) That science, by verisimilitude (markets), is conducted as a MORAL (social, normative) process, and that scientific discovery was accomplished by moral means. BUT THIS IS THE PROBLEMUnempirical: his statements are logical not empirical, and he never did any research, nor has any been formally done. Costs: he, like most philosophers, continues the Aristotelian tradition of ignoring costs. Costs provide us with information about which theories we can afford to pursue. Historically then, we can empirically demonstrate that man uses costs as methods of decidability. Decidability: Costs provide decidability, for the simple reason that just as we pursue the least cost methods of research, nature evolves using the least cost method of evolution. It’s only humans that can choose to do the expensive thing and take a risk. Nature can’t do that. Nature is tightly deterministic. Man is only loosely deterministic. Because all of us guess a future and see if we can achieve it. Falsification: Falsification is not very precise, and he did not see the dimensions. So he did not restate the scientific method as a series of dimensional tests equal to the dimensional tests of mathematics. So categories(identity), math(relations), logic (words/membership), operations (costs/existence), morality (choice/cooperation), and scope (full accounting) were each methods of falsification, that a scientific statement would have to pass. (Rather than the competition between consistency, correspondence, completeness, and coherence.) Verisimilitude: (Rather than Markets.) Because costs do determine the progress of our investigations, our knowledge evolves just as organisms evolve, planets evolve, solar systems, galaxies, and the universe. What differs is the cost of inquiry in each culture. White people happen to have the lowest cost of inquiry because they have a high trust civilization where the norm of truth is highly defended as (nearly sacred) public property. Physical absence vs Social presence of first causes. Unable to distinguish between the problem of instrumentation in the physical sciences in the absence of knowledge of first causes (‘nature’s choice’), versus the problem of subjective instrumentation in the social sciences, in the presence of first causes (sympathetic choice) The Epistemological Cycle … Problem -> Theory -> Test … is incomplete. The complete epistemological cycle is: Perception(Chaotic) -> …Opportunity (Free Association) -> ……Hypothesis (way-finding) -> ………Criticism(individual investment) -> …………Theory (outputs a recipe/opportunity narrative) -> ……………Social Criticism (market investment) -> ………………Law (exhaustion – return on investment) -> …………………Survival (Perfect Parsimony – incorporation into norms) -> ……………………Tautology ( invisible – assumed world structure ) This long chain that represents the evolutionary survival of ideas, can be broken into these sections: 1 – Perception -> free association(searching) -> identity (opportunity) 2 – Question (Problem) 3 – Iterative Criticism ( Survival!!! ) ………..way-finding (criticism) / Hypothesis. Way-finding is a form of criticizing an idea. ………..criticism / theory / personal use ………..testing / law / general use ………..recognition / survival / universal use ………..identity / tautology / integration into world view. The Continuous Recursive Disambiguation (falsification) of our free associations. IMMANUEL KANT 3) A Priori: Or, “independent of observation.” There are three dimensions to claims of an a priori truth claim:
iii) Necessity vs. Contingency Therefore we can produce at least the following spectrum of a priori claims. (a) Analytic A Priori: tautological: “2+2=4 and all deductions thereof.” (b) Synthetic A Priori : “Increasing money increases inflation.” (c) Necessary Synthetic A Priori: “Childless women will have no grandchildren.” (d) Contingent Synthetic A Priori: “all other things being equal, as a general trend, increasing demand will increase supply, although we cannot know the composition of that supply in advance, we can identify it from recorded evidence.” This produces a an ordered spectrum of declining precision: (a) Identity(categorical consistency) – Analytic A Priori (b) Logical:(internal consistency) – Nec. Synthetic a priori (c) Empirical: (external consistency) – Gen. Synth. a priori (d) Existential: (operational consistency) – Cont. Synth. a priori Which corresponds to the testable dimensions of numbers (ideals) (a) identity (numbers) (b) logical (sets) (c) empirical (ratios) (d) existential (constructible) Which corresponds to dimensions of physical reality (a) point (b) line (c) shape (d) object (e) time (change) (f) relative change Which corresponds to a subset of the dimensions of actionable reality , the full set of which we express in fully express in Testimonialism as: (a) Identity(categorical consistency)(point) (b) Logical:(internal consistency)(line) (c) Empirical: (external consistency)(shape) (d) Existential: (operational consistency) (e) Volitional: (rational choice of rational actor)(change)(time) (f) Reciprocal: ( rational exchange between actors) (relative change) Which together account for the totality of actionable reality (by man) that we currently know of (and its quite hard to imagine anything else is possible). The test of speech then consists of dimensional deflation and spoken conflation into parsimonious testimony: 1 – Identity tests categories – differences (deflation) 2 – Logic tests internal consistency – membership (deflation) 3 – Empirical actions test correspondence – measurement (deflation) 4 – Operational Language tests existential possibility (deflation) 5 – Rational action tests incentives – rational choice consistency (deflation) 6 – Reciprocity tests moral – rational exchange consistency (deflation) 7 – Full accounting and limits test scope consistency. (deflation) 8 – Narrative by analogy to perception describes reality – coherence (total consistency) (conflation) Reality is explained by narrative, and the narrative survives falsification by identity, logic, action, reason, reciprocity, and scope. We test statements about the world by deflating each dimension and testing each for consistency. Each sub dimension can only be tested by use of the next dimension. The only native skill we possess is the test of “differences”. Because our brains use samples of inputs in combination with memory to predict results and alert us through new stimulation to the differences. Our brains sample senses, provide certain services, the hierarchical (distilled) result of which are combined (conflated) through memory and backward propagation into ‘experience’. It turns out that except in rare cases we ‘experience’ a fairly accurate model of the physical world – but an absurdly inaccurate model of the social world, and completely nonsensical model of our personal value to that world. All of which are precisely what is necessary to survive as sentient (feeling of changes in state) and conscious (self aware) life form when possessed of uncomfortable knowledge in a universe of consistent risk. This is a simple way of explaining Hume, Kant, and the Phenomenologists. DEDUCTIBILITY FROM A-PRIORI PROPOSITIONS Ergo, while one can claim the tautological truth (the Analytic A Priori), and one can claim the ideal(logical) truth (the Necessary Synthetic A Priori), one cannot ever know the non-tautological(identity, The Synthetic A Priori), non-ideal(Contingent Synthetic A Priori ) truth, because we rarely possess sufficient information to do so. As such there is a vast difference between an a priori rule of thumb, and a ….. What does this mean? It means that we can deduce from Analytic A Priori and Necessary Synthetic A Priori, but we cannot deduce from General Synthetic A Priori, or Contingent Synthetic A Priori Statements because we cannot know if such deductions are true (for specific cases). So the problem with making a priori claims in economics is that you can say statements about statements but not about consequences in reality. You can only say ‘all other things being equal’, we should observe this effect. You cannot say, “we will always observe this effect’. Or even that the effect will appear in the given circumstance. Why? Because we don’t always observe such effects, and economics is rife with examples, the most commonly cited being unemployment does not necessarily increase, and prices are sticky – and for good reason. The innovation that Menger brought to the table was to bring the principle of relative change from calculus to economics. The principle contribution of Hayek was to transform the use of materials to the use of information as the model for all social phenomenon. The principle contribution of Popper was to bring the information model to philosophy, and in particular the philosophy of science and to model scientific investigation on a market. This followed the transition in physics from the use of electromagnetic fields to that of information. Which then brought physics and mathematics into full correspondence. What Hayek and popper and the Classicals and the Keynesians all missed and Brouwer in math, Bridgman in physics, and Mises in economics, and the entire analytic and continental movements missed was that man cannot make truth claims. For example, we did not think the ideas of time(velocity of change), length(distance), and space(volume) varied. Einstein’s discovery was the same as Mises’, Brouwer’s and Bridgman’s: that all our pretense of axioms are false. If our idea of length and time can be false, every other idea that is obvious to our senses and reason can be false. The difference between economics and physics is in (a) volition vs. determinism (b) reciprocity vs. transformation (c) sympathetic testing of rational choice vs. entropy. In simplest terms I translated Hoppe’s “Kantian Justificationism” into Anglo scientific terms, and in doing so completed the scientific method, uniting science, philosophy, morality, and law. Its uniting these fields by explaining the proper function of Praxeology that is the innovation. The primary difference is that I show that you can’t produce a libertarian commune so to speak, and instead have to produce a full scale political order under ‘natural law of reciprocity’ where property rights apply to any demonstrated investment no matter how abstract. Otherwise demand for authority increases, or retaliation increases, or trust and economic velocity decreases, and competitiveness decreases, with all instances of differences not resolvable under law. Therefore you cannot ‘exit’ to create a condition of liberty, you must conquer and hold territory in the market for territories against all possible competition. And this requires you produce an economy capable of producing the means of doing so. And that economy will always look something like a parliamentary monarchy but with purely empirical natural law. In other words, you can only get liberty by permission and you can only get sovereignty by force. So, while you cannot obtain borderland European liberty or separatist, ghetto, and borderland Jewish ‘liberty’, and if you want a condition of Anglo-Saxon liberty for the individual, it’s only possible if you create sovereignty in fact for the polity. And the only way to create sovereignty and liberty is using (a) a militia, (b)natural law of reciprocity, (c) the markets that are made necessary by the natural law of reciprocity, (d) including the markets for association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons production, polity production. And in order to do so you must produce a competitive market between the family(church/school), the commons (houses for each class), and judiciary (monarchy, judiciary, military). In other words, by restoring the pre-revolutionary path, of Christian monarchies, and converting from mere common law, to strictly constructed judge discovered, law. And eliminating the parliament’s ability to create legislation and regulation – limiting them to contracts of the commons. And transforming the treasury into a purely empirical insurer of last resort for whom regulation is merely a matter of actuarial calculation. GETTING TO THAT DIFFERENCE (undone) COMPLETING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD Properly understood, the Scientific method, at least as practiced in the physical sciences, if extended to include tests of volition, reciprocity, and full accounting, serves as nothing more than a warranty of due diligence upon our speech about the world. In other words, the scientific method demands due diligence in the distribution of information just as we demand due diligence in the market for goods and services, and claims about goods and services, by force of involuntary warranty.
“DEFLATION“, DEFLATIONARY (de–conflate) (undone) “DIMENSION” (1) We can make: (a) statements about experiences(metaphysical), or (b) statements about statements(ideal), or (c) statements about existential properties(existential/real), or (d) statements about existential cause and effect(change). (e) statements about volition “CLOSURE” (2) No test of any dimension can be completed without appeal to the subsequent dimension. (i.e. Gödel. this is profoundly important. no dimension can provide a self-test.) Ergo, all speech is deflationary. “CRITICAL RATIONALISM” (3) All descriptive propositions of existential cause and effect (change) are contingent. “CRITICAL PREFERENCE” (4) The only method of decidability between two or more non-false cause and effect propositions(change) is cost. This is a clarification of Occam’s razor. And appears to be true, for the simple reason that nature cannot but choose the least cost method, and man generally chooses the least cost method – even if we cannot know the full causal density of his considerations. “FALSIFICATION” (0) The purpose of the scientific method is to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, Fictionalism, and deceit from our statements about reality. DUE DILIGENCE AGAINST IGNORANCE, ERROR, BIAS, DECEIT (5) The only method of making a truth claim is to perform due diligence in each dimension of reality (a ‘premise’ of the consequential dimension) applicable to the cause and effect phenomenon. (i.e. physical world can’t engage in rational choice, or voluntary exchanges) Again, those dimensions are: (a) Identity(categorical consistency)(point) (b) Logical:(internal consistency)(line) (c) Empirical: (external consistency)(shape) (d) Existential: (operational consistency)(object) (e) Volitional: (rational choice of rational actor)(change) (f) Reciprocal: ( rational exchange between rational actors)(changes) (g) Limited: (Limits: At what points does the description fail?) (h) Fully Accounted: (Have all costs and consequences been accounted for – defense against cherry picking and special pleading.) DARWINIAN SURVIVAL OF IDEAS (6) All propositions (facts, propositions, theories) must survive the markets for criticism at the observer-mental-testing, observer-action testing, market application testing, and market survival testing. In other words, the universal epistemological method follows this lifecycle: (a) observation (b) Free association (F -> observation) (c) test of reasonability (F -> free association ) (d) Hypothesis (e) Perform Due Diligence (a-h) above. (F -> free association ) (f) Theory (g) Publish to the market for application (h) Survival in the market for application(F ->observation – of failures ) (i) Law (j) Survival in the market for refutation (F-> observation – of failures) (k) Habituation into metaphysical assumptionsSPECIAL CASES 7) This epistemological process is universally applicable despite the fact that various results can be identified with it. Because just as we find prime numbers largely by trial and error we find special cases of statements by trial and error. But when we find these statements we have to ask ourselves what is it we are finding? (a) Sensations: statements about experiences(metaphysical), or (b) Logic(analytic): statements about statements(ideal), or (c) Fact: statements about existential properties(existential/real), or (d) Theory(Synthetic): statements about existential cause and effect(change). (e) Morality: statements about volition (f) Testimony: statements about the fully accounted change in state of a given instance of the statement we are making (I have a credit card report that shows John Doe, on 1/1/2018 at 4:06:32 exchanged $2.00 for a Hershey’s candy bar at Don’s newspaper stand then existing on 225th and Main in Cityname.”) EXAMPLES The most common special cases that we find are those that are impossible to contradict at the same dimension. (a,b,c,d,e) above. (a) Sense(Metaphysics): we cannot sense a ball is green and red all over at the same time. (b) Logic: If I issue credit on fractional reserves, I will increase the supply of money. (c) Fact: The differences between commodity money and note money include but are not limited to: liquidity, demand, exchange fee or interest gain, portability(weight/volume), reserve risk, vendor risk. (d) Theory: All other things being equal, if we increase the supply of money, prices will eventually increase accordingly and lower the purchasing power of payments against debts. (e) Morality: All other things being equal, when we force majoritarian decisions on the polity by using representative democracy, we create a monopoly out of the market for the commons, and eliminate the possibility of cooperating on means even if we pursue different ends. “ECONOMIC LEVERS” Polities can generally use this series of levers to affect the economy. -Near Term- (a) Monetary Policy (b) Fiscal Policy (Spending) -Medium Term- (c) Trade Policy (import export policies, foreign trade policies) (d) Regulatory/Legislative Policy (also includes price controls etc) (e) Immigration-Deportation policy / Expand military, WPA etc. -Long Term- (f) Human Capital Policy (Education policy) (g) Institutional Policy (laws, regulations, bureaucracies, institutions, banks) (h) Strategic (military) Policy
Science: A Warranty of Due Diligence SCIENCE: The use of logical and physical instrumentation for the purpose of eliminating ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and obscurantism, Fictionalism and deceit from our free-associations by the systematic deflation and attempted falsification (survival) from criticism in eight dimensions of actionable reality: categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational, reciprocal, fully accounted including scope and limits – and coherent across those dimensions. Science is a moral discipline wherein we criticize our ideas, so that we can speak them truthfully: — We test our categories using differences to eliminate conflation. — We test our reasoning with logic for internal consistency. — We test our observations with external correspondence. — We test the existence of our premises with operations. — We test the rationality and volition of choice through sympathy — We test the reciprocity and volition of choice through changes in capital — We test the scope of our theory with falsifications. Once we have tested our theories by these means, then we can say that we speak truthfully – and as such do no harm. The central argument regarding truth: 1) That in order to cooperate, humans evolved sympathy for intent – and are marginally indifferent in their judgment of intentions. This allows us to sympathetically test most human incentives if subject to the same stimuli (information). It is also why juries can functions, since this sympathetic testing of intentions is the criteria by which juries render decisions. 2) That however, we cannot sympathize with the first principles of the physical universe – the equivalent of intentions. So while we intuit and can test man’s intentions, we cannot measure and test the universe’s first principles. As such, the best we can do is testify to observations and measurements of those phenomenon until at some point we know those first principles – if that is ever possible. 3) But our observations must also be reduced to stimuli that can be sympathetically tested by others, and insulated from our deception, bias and error. 4) We call this process ‘science’, but the practice of science is little more than a set of moral rules that instruct us as to how to eliminate deception, bias and error. The scientific method then, is merely a moral discipline: the means by which we struggle to speak the truth, as truthfully as we may possibly accomplish given the frailty of our reason. 5) That giving witness to one’s observations, is testable by reproduction of a set of operational definitions. That operational definitions produce the equivalent of names, just as positional numbering provides quantities with names. Such names are insulated from deception, distraction, loading, framing and overloading. Theories are not. While we cannot demonstrate the absolute parsimony of a theory (that we know of), we can demonstrate that we truthfully conveyed our observations. In other words, we can testify truthfully to an ordered set of facts, even if we cannot testify truthfully to parsimony of a theory. 6) That it is possible to state instead that all outputs of scientific investigation are truthful, if they are truthfully represented – where ‘scientific investigation” refers to the use of the scientific method, regardless of field of inquiry. But that we seek the most parsimonious statement of a theory, and we can never know that we have obtained it, we can only develop consensus that we cannot cause it to fail. This is, as far as I know, the best non-platonic description of truth available. Everything else is a linguistic contrivance for one purpose or another – possibly to obscure ignorance, and possibly to load ideas with moral motivation. Scientists load their contrivance of truth, and mathematicians load their contrivance of numbers, limits, and a dozen other things – most of which obscure linguistic ‘cheats’ to give authority to that which is necessary for the construction of general rules. (ie: the problem of arbitrary precision). 7) That Popper did no investigation into science or the history of science prior to making his argument, and that as yet, we do not have a systematic account of the history of science. However, what history we do have, both distant and recent, is that science operates by criticism upon failure, where failure is demonstrated by via overextension of the theory. 8) The reason for overextension rather than criticism as the operational preference being that it is economically inefficient (expensive) to pursue criticism rather than to extend a theory to its point of failure then criticize it. And as far as we know, this is how science functions in practice, and must work, because it is how all human endeavors must work. Because while a small number of scientists may seek the ‘truth’ (or whatever a Platonist means by it), what scientists try to do is solve problems – i.e. to manufacture recipes for useful cognition. 9) Popper’s advice was merely moral given that the scope of inquiry in all human fields had surpassed that of human scale, where tests are subjectively verifiable. (I think this is an important insight because it occurred in all fields.) Einstein for example, operationalized observations (relative simultaneity for example) over very great distances approaching the speed of light using Lorenz transformations. And as Bridgman demonstrated, the reason Einstein’s work was novel was because prior generations had NOT been operationalizing statements ,and as such, more than a generation and perhaps two were lost to failure of what should have been an obvious solution. (See the problem of length, which I tend to refer to often as the best example.) I addressed this in a previous post, and what popper did was give us good advice, and while he made an argument that appears logical, like most rational arguments, unsupported by data, it is not clear he was correct, and in fact, it appears that he was not. The question is not a rational but empirical one. (Note: I seek to codify this moral insight into law. Thus ending all deception by not only Fictionalism, but all other means.) 10) Popper unlike Misesian Pseudoscience, or Rothbardian Immoral Verbalisms, was engaged in a moral attempt both in politics and in science, and perhaps in science as a vehicle for politics, to prevent the pseudoscientific use of science – particularly by fascist and communists, to use the findings of science as a replacement for divine authority by which to command man. What popper did, particularly with his Platonism, was to remove the ability for the findings of science to be used as justification for the removal of human choice. Popper, Mises, and Hayek were responsible for undermining pseudoscientific authoritarianism. Of the three Popper is perhaps less articulate (possibly to obscure his objective), but certainly not wrong, so to speak. While Mises’ appeal to authoritarianism (which is part and parcel of his Jewish culture) was entirely pseudoscientific, by claiming that economics was deductive rather than empirical, and justifying it under a priorism, instead of as I’ve stated, understanding that he was merely trying to apply operationalism to economic activity, which would merely demonstrate that Keynesian economics was immoral and deterministic, not unscientific. 11) But Popper, Mises, Hayek, Bridgman and Brouwer, did not find a solution to restoring the western aristocratic conditions for public speech. They too were a lost in Platonism a bit. Bridgman and Brouwer did understand that something was wrong, and were very close, but they could not make the moral argument. We have had a century now of attacks by verbal contrivance and we can demonstrate the destruction of our civilization by way of it. So the moral argument is no longer one of undemonstrated results. WE have the results. And we have a generation of men, myself included, trying to repair it. One must speak truthfully, because no other truth is knowable. Intellectual products that are brought to market must be warrantied just as are all other products that are brought to market, and the warranty that you can provide is operational definitions (recipes, experience), not theories (psychologism, projections). And if you are not willing to stand behind your product then you should not bring it to market. Because you have no right to subject others to harm. Intellectuals produce ideas (myself included), that is our product. We are paid in measly terms most of the time, for our product, but that is what we do. But it is no different from serving too-hot coffee or selling dangerous ladders, or manufacturing defective gas tanks – intellectuals do plenty of harm in history. Perhaps the most harm of all. Between Abraham, Paul of Tarsus and the Byzantine Emperors, Mohammed and his real author,; Marx, Boaz, and Freud, it is hard to envision any worse catastrophe perpetrated by man. THEREFORE: Why is it that the informational commons, and by consequence the political and normative commons, are not – in an age of information – as subject to warranty and liability as pollution or harm to physical commons, life, body, and private property? Truthfulness – testimony that has been subject to due diligence – is a non trivial cost. And economists are too happy (as it appears all social scientists have been) to produce defective products for personal gains, without the warranty that all other products have been subject to. Why is it that free speech is not limited to free truthful speech? After all, the cost of producing truthful scientific testimony under due diligence and warranty is much higher than the cost of producing untruthful pseudoscientific testimony without due diligence or warranty. Doesn’t mere free speech without warranty of due diligence of truthfulness construct an impossibility under which the production of high cost truth and the production of low cost fantasy, bias, error and deceit must eventually win? There is a great difference between the terms “empirical” (observable and measurable) and “scientific” of which empirical criticism is but a minor subset of the criterion necessary for the production of warranty of due diligence against fantasy, bias, error, and deceit. We have had a century of economists running with intellectual scissors, causing inter-temporal externalities of profound consequence. And the Cosmopolitan (freshwater) rationalist’s justification of priors is only more visible than the mainstream Anglo empirical (Saltwater), justification of priors under the pseudoscience of Rawlsian Justificationism – itself a fascinating example of the logically impossible, yet pervasively persuasive. So just as all enlightenment adaptations were plagued with errors – Anglo, French, German and Jewish – both freshwater and saltwater economics are plagued with pseudoscience. The freshwater try to justify objective morality, by argumentative construction (pseudoscience), and the saltwater try to justify immorality by intentionally failing to account for profound normative, institutional, civilizational, and genetic consequences (pseudoscience). So it’s one thing for all of us to point the finger of the accusation of pseudoscience one place or another. But it is quite another to realize that the minute you draw the lens of truth upon either freshwater or saltwater economics, you will discover that both are pseudosciences that merely confirm ideological priors.
In the last century intellectuals tried and failed to complete the scientific method and thereby create a test of non-falseness like we do in law. They couldn’t do it. What I’ve done, because I’ve been lucky enough to spend most of my life working with “computable” systems – meaning that which is existentially possible to construct through a series of operations is supply the habits of strict operational construction with requirements for existential possibility, to the scientific method, and complete what those thinkers failed to discover.
Popper applied Jewish critique, (criticism), to science, as “falsificationism”. Meaning, the way to avoid pseudoscience is to require that a statement be falsifiable. He did this because pseudoscience was rapidly expanding under the popularity of authoritarian socialism, as much as because he was simply interested in philosophy. He was trying to preserve intellectual cosmopolitanism (Jewish diasporism), and this culminated in his work “The Open Society” which is what Soros uses as his ‘plan’. Now, in his efforts to correct science, he developed a set of ideas that I will try to reduce to these: 1) Falsification (critique, criticism) vs. Justificationism (excuses) 2) Critical Rationalism: we can know what is false but not what is true. 3) Critical Preference: we cannot know which theory is more likely true. there is no method of decidability. 4) Verisimilitude through Problem->Theory->Test 5) That science, by verisimilitude (markets), is conducted as a MORAL (social, normative) process, and that scientific discovery was accomplished by moral means. BUT THIS IS THE PROBLEMUnempirical: his statements are logical not empirical, and he never did any research, nor has any been formally done. Costs: he, like most philosophers, continues the Aristotelian tradition of ignoring costs. Costs provide us with information about which theories we can afford to pursue. Historically then, we can empirically demonstrate that man uses costs as methods of decidability. Decidability: Costs provide decidability, for the simple reason that just as we pursue the least cost methods of research, nature evolves using the least cost method of evolution. It’s only humans that can choose to do the expensive thing and take a risk. Nature can’t do that. Nature is tightly deterministic. Man is only loosely deterministic. Because all of us guess a future and see if we can achieve it. Falsification: Falsification is not very precise, and he did not see the dimensions. So he did not restate the scientific method as a series of dimensional tests equal to the dimensional tests of mathematics. So categories(identity), math(relations), logic (words/membership), operations (costs/existence), morality (choice/cooperation), and scope (full accounting) were each methods of falsification, that a scientific statement would have to pass. (Rather than the competition between consistency, correspondence, completeness, and coherence.) Verisimilitude: (Rather than Markets.) Because costs do determine the progress of our investigations, our knowledge evolves just as organisms evolve, planets evolve, solar systems, galaxies, and the universe. What differs is the cost of inquiry in each culture. White people happen to have the lowest cost of inquiry because they have a high trust civilization where the norm of truth is highly defended as (nearly sacred) public property. Physical absence vs Social presence of first causes. Unable to distinguish between the problem of instrumentation in the physical sciences in the absence of knowledge of first causes (‘nature’s choice’), versus the problem of subjective instrumentation in the social sciences, in the presence of first causes (sympathetic choice) The Epistemological Cycle … Problem -> Theory -> Test … is incomplete. The complete epistemological cycle is: Perception(Chaotic) -> …Opportunity (Free Association) -> ……Hypothesis (way-finding) -> ………Criticism(individual investment) -> …………Theory (outputs a recipe/opportunity narrative) -> ……………Social Criticism (market investment) -> ………………Law (exhaustion – return on investment) -> …………………Survival (Perfect Parsimony – incorporation into norms) -> ……………………Tautology ( invisible – assumed world structure ) This long chain that represents the evolutionary survival of ideas, can be broken into these sections: 1 – Perception -> free association(searching) -> identity (opportunity) 2 – Question (Problem) 3 – Iterative Criticism ( Survival!!! ) ………..way-finding (criticism) / Hypothesis. Way-finding is a form of criticizing an idea. ………..criticism / theory / personal use ………..testing / law / general use ………..recognition / survival / universal use ………..identity / tautology / integration into world view. The Continuous Recursive Disambiguation (falsification) of our free associations. IMMANUEL KANT 3) A Priori: Or, “independent of observation.” There are three dimensions to claims of an a priori truth claim:
iii) Necessity vs. Contingency Therefore we can produce at least the following spectrum of a priori claims. (a) Analytic A Priori: tautological: “2+2=4 and all deductions thereof.” (b) Synthetic A Priori : “Increasing money increases inflation.” (c) Necessary Synthetic A Priori: “Childless women will have no grandchildren.” (d) Contingent Synthetic A Priori: “all other things being equal, as a general trend, increasing demand will increase supply, although we cannot know the composition of that supply in advance, we can identify it from recorded evidence.” This produces a an ordered spectrum of declining precision: (a) Identity(categorical consistency) – Analytic A Priori (b) Logical:(internal consistency) – Nec. Synthetic a priori (c) Empirical: (external consistency) – Gen. Synth. a priori (d) Existential: (operational consistency) – Cont. Synth. a priori Which corresponds to the testable dimensions of numbers (ideals) (a) identity (numbers) (b) logical (sets) (c) empirical (ratios) (d) existential (constructible) Which corresponds to dimensions of physical reality (a) point (b) line (c) shape (d) object (e) time (change) (f) relative change Which corresponds to a subset of the dimensions of actionable reality , the full set of which we express in fully express in Testimonialism as: (a) Identity(categorical consistency)(point) (b) Logical:(internal consistency)(line) (c) Empirical: (external consistency)(shape) (d) Existential: (operational consistency) (e) Volitional: (rational choice of rational actor)(change)(time) (f) Reciprocal: ( rational exchange between actors) (relative change) Which together account for the totality of actionable reality (by man) that we currently know of (and its quite hard to imagine anything else is possible). The test of speech then consists of dimensional deflation and spoken conflation into parsimonious testimony: 1 – Identity tests categories – differences (deflation) 2 – Logic tests internal consistency – membership (deflation) 3 – Empirical actions test correspondence – measurement (deflation) 4 – Operational Language tests existential possibility (deflation) 5 – Rational action tests incentives – rational choice consistency (deflation) 6 – Reciprocity tests moral – rational exchange consistency (deflation) 7 – Full accounting and limits test scope consistency. (deflation) 8 – Narrative by analogy to perception describes reality – coherence (total consistency) (conflation) Reality is explained by narrative, and the narrative survives falsification by identity, logic, action, reason, reciprocity, and scope. We test statements about the world by deflating each dimension and testing each for consistency. Each sub dimension can only be tested by use of the next dimension. The only native skill we possess is the test of “differences”. Because our brains use samples of inputs in combination with memory to predict results and alert us through new stimulation to the differences. Our brains sample senses, provide certain services, the hierarchical (distilled) result of which are combined (conflated) through memory and backward propagation into ‘experience’. It turns out that except in rare cases we ‘experience’ a fairly accurate model of the physical world – but an absurdly inaccurate model of the social world, and completely nonsensical model of our personal value to that world. All of which are precisely what is necessary to survive as sentient (feeling of changes in state) and conscious (self aware) life form when possessed of uncomfortable knowledge in a universe of consistent risk. This is a simple way of explaining Hume, Kant, and the Phenomenologists. DEDUCTIBILITY FROM A-PRIORI PROPOSITIONS Ergo, while one can claim the tautological truth (the Analytic A Priori), and one can claim the ideal(logical) truth (the Necessary Synthetic A Priori), one cannot ever know the non-tautological(identity, The Synthetic A Priori), non-ideal(Contingent Synthetic A Priori ) truth, because we rarely possess sufficient information to do so. As such there is a vast difference between an a priori rule of thumb, and a ….. What does this mean? It means that we can deduce from Analytic A Priori and Necessary Synthetic A Priori, but we cannot deduce from General Synthetic A Priori, or Contingent Synthetic A Priori Statements because we cannot know if such deductions are true (for specific cases). So the problem with making a priori claims in economics is that you can say statements about statements but not about consequences in reality. You can only say ‘all other things being equal’, we should observe this effect. You cannot say, “we will always observe this effect’. Or even that the effect will appear in the given circumstance. Why? Because we don’t always observe such effects, and economics is rife with examples, the most commonly cited being unemployment does not necessarily increase, and prices are sticky – and for good reason. The innovation that Menger brought to the table was to bring the principle of relative change from calculus to economics. The principle contribution of Hayek was to transform the use of materials to the use of information as the model for all social phenomenon. The principle contribution of Popper was to bring the information model to philosophy, and in particular the philosophy of science and to model scientific investigation on a market. This followed the transition in physics from the use of electromagnetic fields to that of information. Which then brought physics and mathematics into full correspondence. What Hayek and popper and the Classicals and the Keynesians all missed and Brouwer in math, Bridgman in physics, and Mises in economics, and the entire analytic and continental movements missed was that man cannot make truth claims. For example, we did not think the ideas of time(velocity of change), length(distance), and space(volume) varied. Einstein’s discovery was the same as Mises’, Brouwer’s and Bridgman’s: that all our pretense of axioms are false. If our idea of length and time can be false, every other idea that is obvious to our senses and reason can be false. The difference between economics and physics is in (a) volition vs. determinism (b) reciprocity vs. transformation (c) sympathetic testing of rational choice vs. entropy. In simplest terms I translated Hoppe’s “Kantian Justificationism” into Anglo scientific terms, and in doing so completed the scientific method, uniting science, philosophy, morality, and law. Its uniting these fields by explaining the proper function of Praxeology that is the innovation. The primary difference is that I show that you can’t produce a libertarian commune so to speak, and instead have to produce a full scale political order under ‘natural law of reciprocity’ where property rights apply to any demonstrated investment no matter how abstract. Otherwise demand for authority increases, or retaliation increases, or trust and economic velocity decreases, and competitiveness decreases, with all instances of differences not resolvable under law. Therefore you cannot ‘exit’ to create a condition of liberty, you must conquer and hold territory in the market for territories against all possible competition. And this requires you produce an economy capable of producing the means of doing so. And that economy will always look something like a parliamentary monarchy but with purely empirical natural law. In other words, you can only get liberty by permission and you can only get sovereignty by force. So, while you cannot obtain borderland European liberty or separatist, ghetto, and borderland Jewish ‘liberty’, and if you want a condition of Anglo-Saxon liberty for the individual, it’s only possible if you create sovereignty in fact for the polity. And the only way to create sovereignty and liberty is using (a) a militia, (b)natural law of reciprocity, (c) the markets that are made necessary by the natural law of reciprocity, (d) including the markets for association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons production, polity production. And in order to do so you must produce a competitive market between the family(church/school), the commons (houses for each class), and judiciary (monarchy, judiciary, military). In other words, by restoring the pre-revolutionary path, of Christian monarchies, and converting from mere common law, to strictly constructed judge discovered, law. And eliminating the parliament’s ability to create legislation and regulation – limiting them to contracts of the commons. And transforming the treasury into a purely empirical insurer of last resort for whom regulation is merely a matter of actuarial calculation. GETTING TO THAT DIFFERENCE (undone) COMPLETING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD Properly understood, the Scientific method, at least as practiced in the physical sciences, if extended to include tests of volition, reciprocity, and full accounting, serves as nothing more than a warranty of due diligence upon our speech about the world. In other words, the scientific method demands due diligence in the distribution of information just as we demand due diligence in the market for goods and services, and claims about goods and services, by force of involuntary warranty.
“DEFLATION“, DEFLATIONARY (de–conflate) (undone) “DIMENSION” (1) We can make: (a) statements about experiences(metaphysical), or (b) statements about statements(ideal), or (c) statements about existential properties(existential/real), or (d) statements about existential cause and effect(change). (e) statements about volition “CLOSURE” (2) No test of any dimension can be completed without appeal to the subsequent dimension. (i.e. Gödel. this is profoundly important. no dimension can provide a self-test.) Ergo, all speech is deflationary. “CRITICAL RATIONALISM” (3) All descriptive propositions of existential cause and effect (change) are contingent. “CRITICAL PREFERENCE” (4) The only method of decidability between two or more non-false cause and effect propositions(change) is cost. This is a clarification of Occam’s razor. And appears to be true, for the simple reason that nature cannot but choose the least cost method, and man generally chooses the least cost method – even if we cannot know the full causal density of his considerations. “FALSIFICATION” (0) The purpose of the scientific method is to eliminate ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, Fictionalism, and deceit from our statements about reality. DUE DILIGENCE AGAINST IGNORANCE, ERROR, BIAS, DECEIT (5) The only method of making a truth claim is to perform due diligence in each dimension of reality (a ‘premise’ of the consequential dimension) applicable to the cause and effect phenomenon. (i.e. physical world can’t engage in rational choice, or voluntary exchanges) Again, those dimensions are: (a) Identity(categorical consistency)(point) (b) Logical:(internal consistency)(line) (c) Empirical: (external consistency)(shape) (d) Existential: (operational consistency)(object) (e) Volitional: (rational choice of rational actor)(change) (f) Reciprocal: ( rational exchange between rational actors)(changes) (g) Limited: (Limits: At what points does the description fail?) (h) Fully Accounted: (Have all costs and consequences been accounted for – defense against cherry picking and special pleading.) DARWINIAN SURVIVAL OF IDEAS (6) All propositions (facts, propositions, theories) must survive the markets for criticism at the observer-mental-testing, observer-action testing, market application testing, and market survival testing. In other words, the universal epistemological method follows this lifecycle: (a) observation (b) Free association (F -> observation) (c) test of reasonability (F -> free association ) (d) Hypothesis (e) Perform Due Diligence (a-h) above. (F -> free association ) (f) Theory (g) Publish to the market for application (h) Survival in the market for application(F ->observation – of failures ) (i) Law (j) Survival in the market for refutation (F-> observation – of failures) (k) Habituation into metaphysical assumptionsSPECIAL CASES 7) This epistemological process is universally applicable despite the fact that various results can be identified with it. Because just as we find prime numbers largely by trial and error we find special cases of statements by trial and error. But when we find these statements we have to ask ourselves what is it we are finding? (a) Sensations: statements about experiences(metaphysical), or (b) Logic(analytic): statements about statements(ideal), or (c) Fact: statements about existential properties(existential/real), or (d) Theory(Synthetic): statements about existential cause and effect(change). (e) Morality: statements about volition (f) Testimony: statements about the fully accounted change in state of a given instance of the statement we are making (I have a credit card report that shows John Doe, on 1/1/2018 at 4:06:32 exchanged $2.00 for a Hershey’s candy bar at Don’s newspaper stand then existing on 225th and Main in Cityname.”) EXAMPLES The most common special cases that we find are those that are impossible to contradict at the same dimension. (a,b,c,d,e) above. (a) Sense(Metaphysics): we cannot sense a ball is green and red all over at the same time. (b) Logic: If I issue credit on fractional reserves, I will increase the supply of money. (c) Fact: The differences between commodity money and note money include but are not limited to: liquidity, demand, exchange fee or interest gain, portability(weight/volume), reserve risk, vendor risk. (d) Theory: All other things being equal, if we increase the supply of money, prices will eventually increase accordingly and lower the purchasing power of payments against debts. (e) Morality: All other things being equal, when we force majoritarian decisions on the polity by using representative democracy, we create a monopoly out of the market for the commons, and eliminate the possibility of cooperating on means even if we pursue different ends. “ECONOMIC LEVERS” Polities can generally use this series of levers to affect the economy. -Near Term- (a) Monetary Policy (b) Fiscal Policy (Spending) -Medium Term- (c) Trade Policy (import export policies, foreign trade policies) (d) Regulatory/Legislative Policy (also includes price controls etc) (e) Immigration-Deportation policy / Expand military, WPA etc. -Long Term- (f) Human Capital Policy (Education policy) (g) Institutional Policy (laws, regulations, bureaucracies, institutions, banks) (h) Strategic (military) Policy
THE TESTIMONY WE CALL “TRUTH” The Decidability of Testimony
—“We evolved to negotiate pragmatically not testify truthfully. The reason we need Truth is because it’s counter-intuitive – it provides decidability independent of opinion or value – and so it’s often undesirable.” —
Deflating the word “True”.
|Testimony| > Dishonesty(bias, deceit) > Error (ignorance, error) >
Meaningful (intuitionistic) > Honesty(rational) >
Truthfulness(scientific) > Ideal Truth (imaginary) >
Analytic Truth (logical) > Tautological Truth (linguistic).
The etymology of the word “True” is:
truth (n.) Old English triewð (West Saxon), treowð (Mercian) “faith, faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty; veracity, quality of being true; pledge, covenant,” from Germanic abstract noun *treuwitho, from Proto-Germanic treuwaz “having or characterized by good faith,” from PIE *drew-o-, a suffixed form of the root *deru- “be firm, solid, steadfast.”, “oak” “Strong as an oak”. true (adj.) Old English triewe (West Saxon), treowe (Mercian) “faithful, trustworthy, honest, steady in adhering to promises, friends, etc.,” from Proto-Germanic *treuwaz “having or characterized by good faith” (source also of Old Frisian triuwi, Dutch getrouw, Old High German gatriuwu, German treu, Old Norse tryggr, Danish tryg, Gothic triggws “faithful, trusty”), from PIE *drew-o-, a suffixed form of the root *deru- “be firm, solid, steadfast.” Sense of “consistent with fact” first recorded c. 1200; that of “real, genuine, not counterfeit” is from late 14c.; that of “conformable to a certain standard” (as true north) is from c. 1550. Of artifacts, “accurately fitted or shaped” it is recorded from late 15c. True-love (n.) is Old English treowlufu. True-born (adj.) first attested 1590s. True-false (adj.) as a type of test question is recorded from 1923. To come true (of dreams, etc.) is from 1819. true (v.) Sense of correspondence. “make true in position, form, or adjustment,” 1841, from true (adj.) in the sense “agreeing with a certain standard.” Related: Trued; truing. (source: from the online etymology dictionary)
An Action (Verb): We Lack a Primary Verb for “Speaking the Truth” While we have admittedly fuzzy definitions for true and truth, one of the frailties of English and most other IE languages is that they do not have a primary verb for “speak the truth,” as a contrast to lie and lying (v.). As we will observe repeatedly over the course of this book, the lack of a primary verb for Speaking the Truth is but one of many apparent confusions that are cause us so many problems of grammar and vocabulary. In order to solve the problem of the ‘missing term’ we will use the terms “truthful”, “truthfulness”. For example: ‘He lies’, vs. ‘He speaks truthfully’. I’m not adventurous enough with terminology to suggest we use truths and truth as in ‘He truths’, and ‘That’s a truth’, even if it’s not uncommon for us to use “True” and less frequently “Truth” as statements of agreement. A Term of Promise: All Statements are Promissory, With Varying Degrees of Contingency If I say ‘it’s raining’, I am saying “I promise it is raining”. I might say “I think/believe it is raining” which expresses contingency. I might also say “isn’t it raining?” Or “maybe it is raining” to suggest a possibility rather than state a contingency or a promise. Yet we seek to avoid that accountability. The Term Testimony Instead of Promise: ‘Testimonial Truth’ In philosophical discourse the terms ‘promissory’ or ‘performative’ truth are used for similar purposes. But because we are working in the context of law not norm and because we want to distinguish our work from prior authors, we will use the term “Testimony” and “Testimonial Truth”. Only the Conscious (Humans) can Testify or Promise Only those capable of speech (testimony), possessing sentience (feeling) consciousness (reason) and agency (cognitive independence from intuitionistic interference) are cable of making such promises. And not all individuals are possessed of sufficient agency (knowledge, skill, ability) to make such promises – and unfortunately we are not ourselves aware of our own limits. For this reason honestly is insufficient for truth claims. Instead we must perform due diligence against our limitations in order to make truth claims. And to guard against deception we must demand warranty (Or as Taleb argues, ‘skin in the game’.) Not simply because people are deceptive, but because they often lack the agency to speak truthfully having performed due diligence against their frailties. The Degree of Promise in Testimony So when we make a truth claim or state a truth proposition, we are constructing an intersection of three axes;
Our testimony is sufficiently decidable and warrantied for the degree of decidability or not. A Term of Agreement In English grammar we refer to yes and no as a subtype of word we call ‘Agreement’, as in |Word| Noun > Verb > Relation > Agreement. We also use ‘true’ and ‘false’ as methods of ‘agreement’, but agreement on the correspondence of testimony (speech) with reality (existence). So when we say ‘That is true’, we mean ‘I agree with your testimony’. Or less supportively ‘I consent to your testimony’. Or “I promise you will agree with my testimony”, or ‘I cannot disagree with your testimony’. In this sense yes and no, true and false, good and bad are statements of agreement.
|Agreement| Agree, True, Good < Undecidable > Disagree, False, Bad
A Point of View We habitually conflate (a) the words uttered by the speaker, with (b) the audience’s judgment of the correspondence of those words with reality, (c) the incentives of the speaker that bias his speech with (d) the sufficiency of decidability for the speaker, (e) the sufficiency of decidability of the audience who may or may not possess the skill, and (f) sufficiency of decidability for the judge who may or must possess such a skill to do so. And in doing so we conflate point of view (speaker, audience, judge), even though those points of view possess different information and different incentives, and different objectives. The audience and the judge must ask, what demand for sufficient decidability is required to answer this question? What degree of due diligence is necessary to claim an answer is honest, truthful, or true – and is it warrantable? And is that degree of honesty, truthfulness or truth sufficient to provide the decidability demanded by the question? In other words, is the testimony decidable true, and is the question decidable given that degree of truth? If not then what is the scale of possible consequence (harm), and what is the possibility of restitution (correction of the error)?
|Point of View| Speaker (Producer)(Hypothesis) < > Audience (Market)(Theory) > Judge (Court)(Finding of Law)
So a speaker (voice), author (text), or craftsman (symbols or illustrations), produces a product (hypothesis), that is tested by an audience (market), and negotiated (recursively), and either agreed with (purchased), or disagreed with (boycotted – exited), or submitted to a court (fraud). The Act of Testimony: Copying, Describing, and Reconstructing Speaking Truthfully requires accurately copying (reporting on) existential reality and then representing that copy in thoughts, words, displays, and actions or other symbols, where the audience’s use of those thoughts, words, and symbols reconstructs the same perception of reality as the speaker.
Idealism: The Conflation of Speech (exchange) vs. Text (interpretation) Agreement vs Ideal (normative)( … ) The Correspondence Definition of Truth The most common and reductive definition of truth is ‘correspondence’ – meaning that one’s description corresponds to whatever one refers to by it. Which is deceptively simple until we decompose it. The name Socrates normatively corresponds to a (long dead) skeptical philosopher. The meaning of correspondence: ie: numbers. The word “red” normatively invokes the sufficiently infallible expectation to observe a color in another. (the definition of correspondent truth) The properties, or constant relations, of two words, phrases, sentences, and stories are identical. The properties of the speech, consisting of analogies to experience, produce in the audience the experience of recalling the same perceptions, objects, relations, and conclusions (s) that the speaker recalls and reports upon. These definitions differ from “correspondence with reality” to correspondence with another’s perceptions of reality either directly (sensation), or by instrument, or by imitation of action, or by imitation of imagination and reason. consistent, correspondent, and coherent (with what?) Textualism: Deflationary Definition of Correspondence( … ) For example: 1) “Snow is white” is true if and only if it corresponds to the fact that snow is white. Is then Deflated to: 2) “Snow is white” is true if and only if snow is white. Is then Operationalized to: 3) I promise (or recommend, or suggest the possibility) that my statement “Snow is white” is true, and therefore correspondent with reality, if and only if any randomly selected observer will testify that, as a general rule of arbitrary precision, the color of common snow appears white, and will appear white to other observers, unless otherwise tainted by some other coloring. Is simplified to Testimony: 4) “I promise that you will observe as I have observed that snow appears white.”
|Commitment| Promise < Recommend the Likelihood < Suggest the Possibility
And “Snow is White” serves as a convenient Ordinary Language (colloquial) reduction that reduces the computational cost, time, and effort of conveying the same information. As we will see, these reductions are the origins of most sophistry in argument, and philosophy. The Problem of Imperfect Knowledge and Vocabulary Our knowledge of other than the trivial is always incomplete. Language consists of general terms (names of categories that describe distributions of properties), and as such Man cannot know the Ideal Truth even if he speaks it. But he can speak truthfully, and we can test whether his testimony reconstructs an experience we find equally correspondent to the subject. So we can separate the knowable(testimony) from the unknowable (truth) The Problem of The Copula Truth originated with the term testimony. We merely combine the word True with the copula “is” (meaning “I don’t know how it exists”) and conflate the various positions on the truth spectrum out of convenience and ignorance. When we use the verb “to-be”, we use it to obscure one of the following (including my intentional use of the verb to be to refer to “currently acting” (doing) as illustration).
1 – to overcome limits of less able minds to bear the cost in short term memory of maintaining state while searching for testifiable phrases.
2 – to save time and effort of grammatical construction among those who share sufficient context that they will not misconstrue our intent.
3 – to avoid accountability for our testimony (promise).
4 – to inflate a promise (conduct a pretense of knowledge) by habitual repetition of a convention we do not understand.
5 – to obscure our ignorance of the relations we testify to (promise).
6 – to suggest relations that are present but insufficient for fulfillment of our promise.
7 – to suggest relations that are not present because of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fictionalism, for the purpose of coercion.
8 – to suggest relations that are not present for the purpose of deception or fraud. In other words, we use it because of Convenience, Ignorance, Error, Coercion, and Deceit.. The Problem of Blame Avoidance in Prose ( … ) The Problem of Costly Construction. ( … ) The Testimonial Definition of Correspondence. “Agreement”: with text …. Sufficient fulfillment of demand for infallibility… “Testimony: A Recipe for the Reconstruction of Experience, provided with warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, fictionalism, and deceit.” “Truth: A perfectly parsimonious recipe for the construction of experience given perfect information such that error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience and deceit are impossible.” For the simple reason that language consists of general terms (distributions so to speak), Man cannot know the truth even if he speaks it, but he can speak truthfully, and we can test whether his testimony reconstructs an experience we find equally correspondent to the subject. (Diagram here) demand, promise, agreement, recursively The Certainty of Falsehood and the Contingency of Truthfulness
|Decidability| Unknown > Undecidable > Truthful > True(All) > False
Truth: Decidability of the correspondence ( consistency, coherence, completeness, rationality and reciprocity) of the testimony. True: Testimony is decidedly correspondent (consistent, coherent, compete, rational and reciprocal) with the referent. False: Testimony that is decidedly over truth over undecidable over unknown. Falsehood: Decidability of the non-correspondence ( inconsistency, incoherence, and-or incompleteness, rationality and reciprocity) of the testimony. We Can Only Know Statements Are Not False ( … )
|DECIDABILITY| Incomprehensible > Comprehensible(Decidable) > Possible(Decidable) > Contingent(True, Decidable) > False (Decidable)
Truth Claims: Justification (Support, Ideal) vs. Truthful Claims: Criticism (Survival, Real) 1) Obverse: We justify moral arguments given the requirement to preserve the disproportionate rewards of Cooperation, without which survival is nearly impossible. Law and Morality are Contractual, informationally complete, and open only to increases in precision – we know the first principles of cooperation. 2) Reverse: We criticize intuitions, hypothesis, theories and laws to remove imagination, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception from our imaginations in order to identify truth candidates. Reality is Non Contractual, informationally incomplete, and forever open to revision. We do not yet know the fist principles of the universe. The reason it took us so long to identify the meaning of truth (Testimony) was that we evolved from moral and cooperative creatures, and we evolved science from moral, cooperative, and legal (dispute resolution), and therefore justificationary reasoning. Defense Against Infallibility The Degree of Warranty in Testimony (Due Diligence, and Insurance)Restitution as the limit of warranty in Testimony (The range of consequences is not arbitrary – determined by choice, but by liability for consequences as determined by the market (harm).) The Law Alone Provides Decidability Across Full Accounting (real), Testimony, Warranty, and Restitution. Differences in scope between Science, Economics, Law, Literature DEMAND FOR MEANING The problem of meaning (scope of associations) vs truth (limit of mal-associations) DEMAND FOR TRUTH The Demand for Infallibility of One’s Testimony ( … ) Explain the upcoming section listing the dimensions of testimony needed, and the due diligence and warranty given the population and outcomes. PRODUCING SUFFICIENTLY DECIDABLE AND INFALLIBLE TESTIMONY We possess at least these faculties: Our physical perceptions (perceptions), our intuitionistic and emotional faculties (intuitions), and our intellectual faculties (reason), action (movement) and speech (communication).
|Faculties| Sense Perception (physical) >
Intuition (emotion, impulse, intuition) >
Intellect (reason) > action(testing) >
speech (testing - communication(via others)).
Using these faculties, we have produced instrumental means (instrumentation) by which to improve upon ourperception, intuition and reason. 1) Logical (Intellectual)(Comparisons(words))(Results) 1.1 The Differential (Identity and therefore Category) 1.1- Categorical: We may testify to tautology and in that case must speak THE truth. We have no alternative. 1.2 The Logical (internally consistent across categories) 1.2 – Logical: We may testify to internal consistency within a given grammar. As such we speak truthfully if and only if argument (formula, proof) is (exists as) internally consistent (consisting of constant relations between states). When we LOGICAL we mean that one’s argument, justification, or reasoning, follows in the sense that the constant relations of properties, categories, relations, and values, that you’re depending upon are constant for the purposes you suggest, assert, or claim. And generally we separate the logical (necessary) from the rational (choice) 1.3 The Logical Fallacy of Closure. ( …. ) 2) Empirical (Perceivable)(Physical)(Actions)(Consequences) 2.1 The Empirical (Externally Correspondent) – what we call empirical 2.1 – Empirical: We may testify to external correspondence if and only if we find external correspondence, sufficiency and parsimony. When we say ‘EMPIRICAL’ we mean that ones description, argument, justification, or reasoning, has been tested against reality by the use of physical and logical instrumentation to eliminate common errors of perception, bias, reason, logic, and fraud. 2.2 The Operationally Possible (Existentially Possible) – what we call operationally possible. 2.2 – Operational: we may testify to the existential possibility of sequence of operations only if we can describe changes in state of constant relations due to a sequence of operations. When we say ‘SCIENTIFIC’ we mean that ones statements have been tested logically, empirically, rationally, stated operationally, scope complete, and limited, and that the work is warrantied, if by nothing else than reputation and career. (very little work is scientific) 3) Rational (imaginable) (Intuition, Incentives)(choices)(Returns) 3.1 The Rational (Rational Choice) – what we call subjectively testable. When we say ‘RATIONAL’ we mean, it’s a rational or not rational choice by which to obtain desirable outcomes. Rational: We may testify to the rationality of choice if and only if we sympathetically test the incentives under sufficiency and parsimony. Decidability in Choice 1 – Time is limited and a scarcity 2 – Man is a costly form of life in an unpredictable universe. 3 – Man must acquire resources to live within this unpredictable universe. …Emotions are a change in state… cognitive biases are to encourage acquisition despite evidence. 4 – Man Acquires the Physical, Intuitionistic-Emotional, Intellectual, Reproductive, and Social as either gains (increases) or discounts (savings). Man demonstrates that he acquires and defends: 1 – Survival: Life, Time, Rest, Memories, Actions, Social Status, Reputation 2 – Relations: Mates (access to sex/reproduction), Children (genetics), Familial Relations (security), Non-Familial Relations (utility),Consanguineous property (tribal and family ties) 3 – Associations: Organizational Ties (work), Knowledge ties (skills, crafts), Insurance (community) 4 – Signals (Reputation, Status, Self Image) 5 – Several Interests: Those things external to our bodies that we claim a monopoly of control over, having obtained them without imposing costs upon others. 6 – Shareholder Interests: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (physical shares in a tradable asset), 7 – Commons Interests: Commons: Unrecorded and Un-quantified Shareholder Property (shares in commons), Artificial Property: (property created by fiat agreement) Intellectual Property. 8 – Informal (Normative) Interests: Our norms: manners, ethics, morals, myths, and rituals that consist of our social portfolio and which make our social order possible. 9 – Formal Institutional Interests: Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion),Government, Laws. 10 – Man must inventoryhis acquisitions (Possessions, Interests) against the kaleidic unpredictability of the future and the vicissitudes of nature. 11 – Man must defend those interests that he has acquired and inventoried 12 – Man engages in parasitism by:
1 – harm, violence, murder
2 – theft,
3 – extortion, blackmail, racketeering.
4 – fraud, fraud by obscurantism, fraud by moralizing, fraud by omission,
5 – free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses,
6 – conspiracy, rent seeking, corruption
7 – conversion, immigration,
8 – conquest, war and genocide. Summary of Categories: Violence, Theft, Extortion, Fraud, Externality, Conspiracy 13 – Man must act cooperatively to disproportionately improve acquisition of resources. (Cooperation is in a division of labor is disproportionately more rewarding than any other activity man can engage in.) 14 – Man must cooperate only where it is beneficial and preferable to non-cooperation. As such all cooperative actions or sets of actions, must result in:
1 – Productive (increases property)
2 – Fully Informed (without deceit – a form of discounting)
3 – Warrantied (promise of non parasitism warranty of restitution)
4 – Voluntary Exchange
5 – Free of negative externality (imposes no costs on the property of third parties). 14 – Man must act to preserve and extend cooperation to preserve the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation. (Cooperation is itself a disproportionately valuable scarcity) Man acts to preserve and extend cooperation by the suppression of parasitism that creates the disincentive to cooperate, and therefore decreases the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation. (Man evolved necessary and expensive moral intuitions to preserve cooperation – including expensive forms of punishment of offenders.) 16 – Man organizes to increase cooperation, and to increase cooperation on the suppression of parasitism. Man is a Rational (amoral) not moral or immoral actor Incentives to acquire are marginally indifferent (Network of decidability , Hierarchy of decidability, Constant rotation to pursuit of opportunity in time.) Empathize with feelings, sympathize with reason Malincentives in Choice3.2 The Reciprocal and Ethical (Reciprocally Rational Choice) – what we call ‘ethical. (incentives are a substitute for emotions) (emotions are a description of changes in state) (describe subjective testability of incentives) 3.3 The Reciprocal and MoralDecidability in Cooperation ( … ) Harm : Theft (imposition of costs) is decidable. Moral intuitions are not. (…) Decidability in the CriminalDecidability in the EthicalDecidability in The Moral: we may testify to the morality (Crime, ethics, morality) of any action or its consequences by tests of the productive, fully informed, voluntary, (and warrantied) transfer of that which individuals have acted to obtain an interest. Decidability in the AmoralBut Not the Emotional (Values) Note that while we can experience emotions, we cannot testify to them, not just because they are unobservable (testable), but because the evidence is quite clear that our reported experiences and preferences have little to do with our demonstrated behaviors and preferences. Cultural Differences in the Attribution of Emotions to Costs ( … ) Negative consequences, of doing so. 4) The Contractual (Limited, Complete, Parsimonious, and Coherent) The contractual provide warranty that one or more transactions for meaning result in a batch of transactions that is complete (coherent, and complete) 1 – The Complete (Limits, Scope) – what we call ‘fully accounted’ (no or few unlimited general rules of arbitrary precision) The Problem of Full Accounting vs. Cherry Picking and Selection Bias. (that we address all dimensions) (this is what separates the real from the idea) 2 – The Coherent (consistent across the logical, empirical, rational, and complete) this is where parsimony: coherent with actions, reality, matters and why operational language provides a test of coherence. 3 – The Parsimonious. (parsimony) ( discuss parsimony in the dimensions, … address determinism in the universe and cheapest transformation…. And compare with human incentives ) DEFINITION: PARSIMONY “Lowest cost across all dimensions testable by man” EXPANSION – Given human faculties: sense, disambiguation (constant relations), perception(integration-prediction), auto-association-prediction, attention-prediction (will), recursion-prediction, and release of actions; – And dimensions of tests of constant relations: free associative, categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational choice, reciprocal rational choice, completeness; Parsimony must refer to: “Lowest Cost”, expanded to:
< p style=”padding-left: 30px;”>- bounded rational self-interest: – in the seizure of opportunity, – from the field of identified opportunities, – given the opportunity cost of the opportunity, – determined by competition for the greatest return in the shortest time for the least effort, with the greatest certainty at the lowest risk, – to the point of disequilibrium and subsequent re-equilibration, – eliminating the opportunity from the field of opportunities. < p style=”padding-left: 30px;”>- and – reciprocity (repeating the above) is the only productive rather than parasitic (costly) means of interaction. (- although parasitism and predation are profitable means of interaction, they are consumptive not productive.)
The difference between: – Testimony (due diligence by self), – Coherence(consistency by audience), – Parsimony(competition by market), … is grammatical (point-of-view), and an application of and conformity to, – the law of epistemology (free association-idea-> hypothesis-surviving > theory-surviving > application-surviving) I can fuss with this a bit to make it as tight as reciprocity and testimony, or any of the other definitions, but ‘skeptical subjective testing against Occam’s Razor serves as the colloquial reduction.
When we say TESTIMONIAL we mean that if your statement is logical, scientific, rational, reciprocal (meaning ethical and moral)l, limited and complete, and that you’ve given a warranty that you’ve done these due diligences, and have put ‘skin in the game’ if you are wrong. Hierarchy of Ten Testifiable Dimensions of Reality So, given our four faculties, we have evolved two tests of each, giving us ten dimensions of reality that we can test. Those Ten Testifiable Dimensions of Reality are:
1 – Differences (identity)
2 – Internal Consistency
3 – External Correspondence
4 – Operational Construction
5 – Rational Choice
6 – Reciprocal Choice (moral, ethical, legal, political)
7 – Limits (max and min boundaries stated)
8 – Completeness (completeness, full accounting)
9 – Coherence
10 – Parsimony We will use this set of dimensions of actionable and testifiable reality throughout the rest of this book. SUMMARY So when we make a truth claim or state a truth proposition, we are constructing an intersection of four axis;
Our testimony is sufficiently decidable, subject to due diligence, and warrantied for the degree of decidability or not. But of due diligence (proof or excuse) or warranty (skin in the game) it is warranty that provides greater insurance. MALINCENTIVES IN TESTIMONY FALSEHOODS
Ignorance
Error
Bias, Wishful thinking FRAUDS
Loading, Framing, Suggestion,
Obscurantism, Overloading,
Fictionalism, Deceit CRIMES
Murder, Harm, Violence
Theft
Fraud, Fraud by Omission RESTITUTION Restitution Upon Failure Warranty cannot be given for more restitution than is possible Law Encompasses All Dimensions of Reality Law requires all dimensions of reality. Truth is determined by law (testimony), all else is a subset of legal testimony, given the subset of reality we are testifying to. ( … list disciplines and how they address subsets of reality … )
|Disciplines| Law < Cognitive Sciences
< Economic and Social Sciences
< Physical Sciences and Engineering
< Mathematics
< Logics
DUE DILIGENCE IN TESTIMONY Warranty: One’s Due Diligence Against Demand for Infallibility. If you claim you speak truthfully, you can claim you have done sufficient due diligence to warrant your words against retaliation and demand for restitution or retribution. That is all you can claim. But we can never claim a thing is true if there is more information that can ever be presented that could falsify the claim. When we say something ‘is’ true, we CAN only say that we have done due diligence against it’s falsehood to the best or our knowledge and ability. if you say something ‘is’ true, you must also state how it exists, since ‘is’ refers to existence. We use the verb ‘to be’, especially in the form of ‘is’ to avoid describing how something exists – for rather complicated reasons – including saving of effort, the high cost of changing between experience, intention, action, and observation – a grammatical cost that is quite high for us humans. What we evolved the verb “to be” to mean, is “I promise that you will come to the came conclusion by making the same observation” So to say ‘the cat is black’ is to say ‘if you observe this cat then it will appear black in color.’ This is the only thing you CAN mean, because it is the only existentially possible thing you could mean. We just habituate language out of experience and effort reduction, rather than follow rules of truthfulness of language, which is expensive to learn and speak. So that is what statements mean: they mean that you have made observations of something or other, translated that experience into analogies to experience, then spoken that to another who upon listening recreates the experience through language. He then fails to understand, or requires additional information until he does understand, and the additional information so that he does not err. So just as we accumulate sounds into words, we accumulate experiences generated by words into reconstructions of the speaker’s experience. You can convey truthfulness (tested), honesty(untested), error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and fantasy. But only you can create a statement, so only you are responsible for the truthfulness of your statement. Your statement is not true. You speak truthfully(having tested), honestly(having not), in error, bias, wishful thinking, fantasy, or deception. That is all that is possible. Someone else finds your statement true when they reconstruct the same experience. So whey I say x=y I am saying that I promise you will also find that x=y if you choose to test this. This is all you CAN mean. Now you can say that you speak impulsively, honestly, or truthfully, or something in between. So that you cannot promise that the audience will also come to the same conclusion that you do. That is the difference between information (impulse), hypothesis(honesty), theory(truthfulness). So you can then only promise that what you’re offering is information, honesty, or truthfulness. But one must tell others which we are offering: information, honesty, or truthfulness. So correspondence exists when you have done due diligence on your observation, and when you consequent speech allows your audience to reconstructs your experience, and when they possess sufficient knowledge to do so. In other words the other person may lack the knowledge to reconstruct the experience of correspondence. This does not mean you cannot know a truth candidate. You can. Since you can reconstruct it. But you cannot test it without others with more knowledge. This is why science is a social construct. it is very hard to know the ‘ultimate’ most ‘parsimonious’ truthful statement because it is increasingly hard to possess sufficient information to know if it could produce greater correspondence. So in practicality, if you establish limits on your truthful statement such as “this works for tis circumstance’ then it is fairly easy. But if you say this works for N circumstances this gets increasingly difficult because there is more and more information that you can’t necessarily account for. TRUTH ISN’T COMPLICATED Truth is Not a Complicated Subject (Really) If we research the different definitions of (theories of) truth we will find that they fall into (a) consistent, (b) correspondent, (c) constructible (operational), (d) coherent, and (e) contractual (consensual, normative), and (f) the whether the speaker offers a promise, testimony, and warranty or not. Unfortunately (g) Full Accounting, consisting of limits, completeness and parsimony are rarely discussed as a formal requirement even if all such definitions. This has turned out to be a significant problem in all disciplines because it allows fuzzy definitions and cherry picking, and willful ignorance of consequences. And so the mistaken proposition that there are different theories of truth is simply a failure to articulate each theory of truth as simply those subsets of dimensions of reality that we are testing when we seek to produce a truth claim. In other words: any Truth proposition creates demand for Testimony, Due Diligence and Warranty in those dimensions that the proposition depends upon. There exist only so many dimensions to test, and there are no (and likely will never be) other dimensions – a subject we will address later under The Grammars. For example:
Note that with the decline of truthful speech in the postmodern era we have simply produced an increasing delta between reported and demonstrated preferences. This pattern, in which we add or remove dimensions of reality given the subject matter of our speech (context) will appear as a constant theme throughout this book. Most of our speech across all our various disciplines consists of including or excluding dimensions of one kind or another so that we produce both content sufficient for communication of meaning, and limiting the scope of that meaning such that we avoid falsehood. And also, we will discover that falsehood is created by either communicating with insufficient and extraneous dimensions. A statement(testimony) is True if its sufficiently consistent, correspondent, coherent, and complete to provide decidability given the context of the question being decided. A statement (testimony) is true if and only if it provides sufficient decidability given the demand for decidability in the context of the decision. TYING IT ALL TOGETHER The spectrum of definitions of truth determines the scope of one’s promise of: identity, consistency, correspondence, existential possibility, rationality, reciprocity, limits, completeness, and parsimony versus the Scope of warranty, demand for Infallibility, scale of Consequence (harm), and possibility of Restitution (correction): The demand for each category of Truth is determined by:
So if we take the sentence “that’s True”, and fully expand it we end up with: “I promise (or I agree) that (or those) statement(s) consist(s) of constant relations that are (exist as): 1 – non-conflationary (identities), 2 – internally consistent (logical), And; 3 – externally correspondent (empirical), 4 – operationally possible (possible), And; 5 – consisting of rational choices (rational), 6 – that are reciprocal (ethical and moral), And; 7 – that all of the above are coherent (consistent across all of the above), and; 8 – that the claims are limited in scope (to a max and minimum), and; 9 – fully accounted (complete) as a defense against cherry picking, and; 10 – parsimonious (not open to over-extension). And; 11 – Each dimension has received sufficient due diligence 12 – To satisfy the demand for infallibility; 13 – In the effected population; 14 – Given the scope and scale of the possible consequences; and; 15 – The possibility of restoration and restitution.” Which is so rich in content that it’s no wonder we process truth claims by intuition, and then struggle with the definition rather than attempt to decompose and articulate why we claim statements are either true or not. And worse, why we see so much conflation of the logical, rationalist, scientific, and operational uses of it. Or stated differently: Truth is sufficiently complex a question that it causes overloading, and forces us to rely on intuition. But we are in the process of articulating the means of preventing overloading, and preserving the use of reason. THE SPECTRUM OF TRUTH CLAIMS Next we will define the Truth spectrum so that we begin to see what categories of truth we may claim without ignorance, error or deceit. 1) Tautological Truth (Linguistic): Domains: Referrers (names): Identity, Mathematics, Logical Equality, Textual Interpretation. Actor: That testimony you give when promising the equality of the properties, relations, and conditionally, the values of two referrers by using two different terms: a circular definition; a statement of equality; or a statement of identity. Observer: An observer of the same phenomenon, and observer (audience) of your description (testimony) would agree that your description provides sufficient infallibility given the demand for infallibility in the given context. Judge: Identity ( Demonstrable, Knowable): A promise of (testimony to) the indifference (lack of difference) between one term, concept, statement, construction, or argument, and another; provided with warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and fraud. Conclusion Tautological truth consists of testimony of internal consistency of constant relations between terms and that is all. It says nothing of external correspondence, operational possibility, rationality, reciprocity, coherence, or limits, completeness, and parsimony. 2) Analytic Truth (Logical): Domains: Axiomatic: Mathematics, Logical Argument, Textual Interpretation. Actor: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic (declarative) system (grammar). (A Logical Truth). Observer: An observer of the same phenomenon, and observer (audience) of your description (testimony) would agree that your promise of internal consistency (constant relations) provides sufficient infallibility given the demand for infallibility in the given context. Judge: Consistency ( Demonstrable, Knowable): A promise of (testimony to) the preservation of constant relations (internal consistency) across a set of given operations provided with warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and fraud. Conclusion Analytic truth consists of testimony of internal consistency of constant relations between statements, and that is all. It says nothing of external correspondence, operational possibility, rationality, reciprocity, coherence, or limits, completeness, and parsimony. Axiomatic (Systems) grammars, can be declared (arbitrary) and internally consistent, while theoretic must be observed (existential) and externally correspondent, while operational must be actionable (possible). And therefore existentially possible 3) Ideal Truth, The Truth, True (Unknowable, Ideal): Domains: Logic: Identity, Mathematics, Rational Argument, Textual Interpretation, Models. Actor: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.) Observer: An observer of the same phenomenon, (or knowledgeable of the subject matter), and observer (audience) of your description (testimony) would agree that your promise of internal consistency (constant relations), external correspondence, operational possibility, rationality of choice, reciprocity, coherence, limits, scope, and parsimony provides sufficient infallibility given the demand for infallibility in the given context – and anticipating the possibility of future knowledge will falsify it. In other words, the observer estimates the unknown, the demand for infallibility, and the possibility of ignorance, error, bias, and the incentive for fraud, fictionalism, and deceit, versus the actor’s ( speaker’s) warranty (skin in the game). Judge: The Truth( Ideal, Unknowable): A promise of a perfectly parsimonious recipe for the reconstruction of experience given perfect information such that error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience and deceit are impossible. Conclusion As such non trivial ideal truths do not knowingly exist. And we should not engage in the pretense that other than trivial ideal truths exist as other than convenient fictions for the purpose of conveying meaning (teaching, communication), which must then be corrected from truth claims to truthful claims in order to provide warranty against misrepresentation, in the same way a parable using animals does in fact convey meaning, but also requires at the end, we state and extract and directly state the general rule of wisdom, morality, or ethics that the parable conveys by illustrative example. The function use of Ideal Truth is to create an internally consistent model we can use to characterize (just as we do with fictional characters), and provide a cartoonish (simplified ) method of comparing that which is too complex for us to manage without such simplification. As such the test of ideal truth is (a) whether the meaning conveyed is sufficiently infallible for the purpose claimed, and (b) whether it is sufficiently infallible that the the externalities (falsehoods) that the audience might, as a consequence, freely associate, induct, or deduct from it. In other words, that it is free of suggestion or obscurantism. 4) Truthful, Truthfulness (Testimonial, Knowable, “Scientific”): Domains: Speech: Promissory Testimony, Commercial Testimony, Scientific Argument, Scientific Hypothesis, Theory and Law. Actor: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. Observer An observer of the same phenomenon, and audience of your testimony would agree that you have demonstrated internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility, rationality of choice, reciprocity, coherence, and limits, scope, and parsimony, to provide a warranty of one’s due diligence in the elimination of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and fraud. Judge: Truthful Testimony ( Demonstrable, Knowable): A promise of Recipe for the Reconstruction of Experience, provided with warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and fraud. Conclusion Truthfulness is the only testimony it is possible to warranty as descriptive of existential reality. Ideal, Analytic, and Tautological Truth are merely testimony to internal consistency (constancy of relations) of expressions (language). So to restate the differences between the True(Ideal, Imaginary) vs. Truthful (Due Diligence, Performative, Real), what is the difference between “Correspondence” and “Reconstruction”? The first is platonic (imaginary), the second operational (real). 5) Honesty (Knowable): Domains: Speech: Interpersonal Testimony, Court Testimony; Reasonable Argument. Actor: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. Observer: An observer of the same phenomenon, and audience of your testimony would agree that your description Judge: Honest Testimony (Knowable): A Recipe for the Reconstruction of Experience, provided with warranty of due diligence only against and deceit. It is for the jurists, and the jury to decide if you speak honestly. In practice both judges and juries seek to identify malincentives one the one hand and conformity to norm, tradition, and law on the other, by subjective testing of testimony to detect malincentives that might have been seized or at least influenced behavior. Conclusion Honesty consists of testimony that you do not engage in suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and fraud. It is a warranty against your pursuit of malincentives no matter how mild. Categories of Honesty
6) Meaning(Comprehensible – Allegorical)Domain:Actor:Observer:Judge:Conclusion:7) Pragmatic Truth (Actionable – Rationality)Domain: Personal and interpersonal Decision, Action, Agreement. Actor: The testimony you give promising the correspondence and coherence of one or more statements is sufficiently infallible for the meaning, decision, action, and consequences in the given context. Observer: An observer of the same phenomenon, and observer (audience) of your description (testimony) would agree that your statements provides sufficient correspondence and coherence given the demand for infallibility in the given context. Judge: Consistency ( Demonstrable, Knowable): A promise of (testimony to) the utility of one or more statements due to sufficient correspondence, coherence, and infallibility provided with limited warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit.” Conclusion Pragmatic Truth requires nothing other than Actionable or Decidable for the individual or group to obtain it’s want, and sufficiently infallible to provide warranty against irreciprocity (harm) that one might be forced to provide restitution against – regardless of identity, consistency, correspondence, coherence, limits, scope, and parsimony. In other words, true enough to remain blameless. Pragmatic truth is that definition of Truth most people operate by. Only those who must decide insurance of others and restitution in case of irreciprocity (harm), or who seek to compete by argument, or seek to expand our knowledge of the world concern ourselves with the rest. 8) Consensus Truth (“Agreement”, Consensual – Reciprocity)(agreement on paradigm)Domain: Personal and interpersonal Negotiation – Particularly in the context of fictionalism: politics, ideology, philosophy, and religion. Actor: The testimony you give promising the coherence of one or more statements with consensus. Particularly some fictional paradigm. Observer: An observer of the same phenomenon, and observer (audience) of your description (testimony) would agree that your statements are coherent with consensus. Judge: Consistency ( Demonstrable, Knowable): A promise of (testimony to) the adherence of a statement to consensus. Consensus need not require identity, consistency, correspondence, possibility, rationality, reciprocity, limits, completeness or parsimony – only coherence. Conclusion In other words, coherent enough with group consensus to remain blameless. Consensus truth is required for all fictionalisms – particularly religion and ideology. As such consensus truth is not truth whatsoever, but a promise of agreement, conformity, or approval. Religion and Idealism in the ancient world, and Marxism, Feminism, and Postmodernism in the modern world, specifically rely upon Consensus (agreement) for decidability. They cannot survive the tests of consistency, correspondence, rationality of choice, reciprocity in particular, and limits, and completeness. But as ideologies they do not have this purpose. They seek only to gain consensus on means of obtaining power through the vulnerabilities of majority monopoly democracy. In the absence of democracy they seek to cause synchronicity of decision making such that by indirect action in speech (or deception), trade (or theft or fraud), and violence (or shirking or pacifism), they achieve their desired ends. 9) Ordinary Language Speech (Negotiation)Domain: Ordinary Speech Actor: that speech you would utter when in common unwarrantied and unfiltered conversation. Observer: The observer of that speech expecting exchange of information without externality of service or good, or impact upon service or good. Judge: That the speech contains neither promise, nor demand, nor fraud. Conclusion Ordinary language consists entirely of Negotiating for something whether information, option, action, or material. We may or may not be conscious of what we are negotiating for, in large part because it’s often entertainment, attention, status, trust, belonging(approval), alliance – all of which are evolutionary incentives to acquire options on insurance against future risks to the same, no matter how small. Much of the time, when not seeking options, we are seeking information. When not seeking information then cooperation. When we are not seeking cooperation we are seeking gift or exchange. If not then for alliances of some degree or another in the pursuit of some end or other. As such, negotiations vary from deception to negotiation to status production, to option creation to entertainment. And we rely upon the entire spectrum of truth as the discourse at hand demands. Proof Proof of contingent relations = proof of possibility. Proof of inconsistent relations = proof of falsehood. One cannot prove a truth. One can only test it for constant relations at all scales: categorical (idenity-self), logical (internal-others), correspondence (the universe), volition(rational choice), operations(existential possibility), and reciprocity (reciprocal volition), and to do so in operational (measurable) terms, stating limits and inclusivity of scope. This is what is required for due diligence against not only falsehood, but ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit. The Fallacy of Proof One of the great falsehoods of philosophy: proof. You cannot prove anything, so the question itself is a deception. The questions are un-falsifiable, which is a center position between justifiable and warrantable. Justifiable(excuse) > falsifiable (possible) > demonstrable(empirical) > warrantable (insured) Proofs exist in and only in mathematics, for the simple reason that positional relations (positional names that we call numbers) are by definition and necessity constant relations and cannot be otherwise. There are very few other constant relations. (time is one, and even that is a question of relative position and velocity). We can create certain set arguments. We can identify certain reductio (trivial) necessities just as we can identify certain prime numbers. But the question is fraudulent (a trick) of grammar. Since one cannot prove anything, one can merely justify (non-promissory), provide terms of falsification(promissory), demonstrate(temporal), or insure (Intertemporal) As soon as you admit the criteria of: – deception and fraud – incentive – cost – warranty …. into philosophical argument, we change from philosophy to law, just as when we introduce empiricism into theology, we move into philosophy. REPLACEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION WITH PROSECUTION (FALSIFICATION) PROSECUTORIAL OPERATIONS (WARRANTIES OF DUE DILIGENCE)ATION – INTERROGATABLE)
|Knowlege| Free association > idea(survives) >
hypothesis(survives) > theory(survives) >
law(survives) > Identity(tautology)(survives) >
differences(consistent and inconsistent relations)(evolves) >
[Loop].
PROSECUTORIAL OPERATIONS (WARRANTIES OF DUE DILIGENCE) Falsification(Survival) by Measurement (cardinal, ordinal, decidable)) Decidability under Prosecution: Via Positiva Vs Via Negativa And The Competition Between Both ( … ) constructible vs deducible THE CURE FOR SUGGESTION AND DECEIT. Rationalism was invented to attempt to reconstruct christianity without mysticism. I understand the great deceits. It’s but one of them. Rationalism’s Obscurantism and Scriptural Mysticism are similar techniques. The Contemporary version uses propaganda and repetition. But the technique is reducible to suggestion by loading framing and overloading in all three. Suggestion works. The science says that we can’t even defend ourselves from it even if we work hard at it. This is why we invented analytic philosophy and operational definitions in science. And why I have completed that project with testimonialism and propertarianism. To make suggestion impossible. At least to make it impossible in matters of finance, politics and law where it can be so readily used for ill. Suggestion is necessary or teaching each other by analogy would be impossible. Suggestion is necessary or supposition of intent would be impossible. Supposition of intent is necessary or cooperation is impossible. Cooperation is necessary or a division of labor and exchange is impossible. But in all human cooperation and all transfer there is a difference between suggestion of meaning, and the test of truth. We have been, as normal humans, attempting to define a single test of truth for millennia. But we have failed. Because epistemology requires the transfer of meaning by suggestion, and the test of truth by criticism. As such the single most important solution to communication is to limit the divergence between the means of communicating meaning, and the means of criticizing meaning. This is what I believe we, I, have accomplished: to speak in a manner that the least difference between meaning and truth exists. This is testimonialism. The scientific method is a process of creativity followed by criticism. invention followed by testing. Imagination followed by survival from scrutiny. The easiest way to limit suggestion is to refer to existential operations using a continuous point of view. Operationalism. With the tests of operationalism, we slowly train ourselves to speak the truth, just as we have slowly trained ourselves to speak in the language of science instead of the language of mystical analogy. And the benefits of this truthfulness will be as great as the benefits of science. ==== Satisfying Demand We use the term TRUE for “agreement on correspondence”,
|TRUTH CLAIM| Undecidable > Possible > Relative > Consensual >
Contingent > Probable > Decidable > Necessary > Analytic >
Tautological.
As far as I know, all statements remain contingent, if only for the imprecision of definitions alone. I’ll deflate it further into TESTIMONY, DEMAND, and WARRANTY. TESTIMONY: demand for agreement(x), degree of necessity(y) and degree of warranty(z). DEMAND: I can hold an agreement on correspondence with myself, with someone else, with others, with everyone, with anyone. WARRANTY: I can warranty my testimony corresponds to the possible, probable, contingent, decidable, necessary, analytic, and tautological. And can be possible, personally actionable, collectively actionable, collectively decidable, and collectively irrefutable, and collectively tautological. We use ‘Truth’ for all those purposes: “true enough for the circumstance.” The question is whether one uses then truth that is sufficient for, and therefore survives the demand for, the circumstances. ==== SUMMARY Demand for Decidability Decidability Testimony Due Diligence Warranty Restitution Truth claims are matters of law. COMMUNICATION Transfer of properties by analogy culminating in the transfer of experience (meaning) by the process of “suggestion”. The process of creating shared experiences using symbols – primarily language. TRUTH (reconstruction of same experience) (where the experience corresponds to reality) FALSEHOOD Imagination Error Bias Wishful Thinking Obscurantism Suggestion Deceit SUGGESTION Loading Framing Shaming Rallying Chanting Overloading OVERLOADING Mysticism/Supernaturalism Narrative/Literature Rationalism/Verbalism Pseudoscience/Innumeracy UNLOADING Truthfulness TRUTHFULNESS Due diligence that we have not engaged in deception, or error, bias, wishful thinking, obscurantism, suggestion, and deceit. DUE DILIGENCE We perform due diligence by testing every dimension of knowledge we know how to. (just as we have different mathematics for each of the increasing dimensions): Identity and Category Internal Consistency (logic) External Correspondence (empirical consistency) Existential Possibility (operational definitions) Parsimony, Limits, Full Accounting (limits) Morality (Productive, Fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externality of the same.) KNOWLEDGE There is only one sequence to knowledge, and all others are false: Perception(observation) -> Free Association(awareness) -> Hypothesis(guess) -> Theory(Due Diligence) -> Law(Survival) -> Tautology(identity/name) -OR- False Knowledge is not a qualifier as some pretend, nor does it or can it convey truth content. It is anything in any state of the process of knowledge evolution that we can observe, are aware of, imagine possible, seems consistent, cannot seem to falsify, that is not yet false. Knowledge: anything that works for the purposes we intend and we cannot yet deem false. SCIENCE Science = due diligence. While we cannot know if we speak the most parsimonious truth, or whether we speak the truth, what we can do THE ECONOMICS OF TRANSFERRING EXPERIENCES (we use scientific language because it imposes the lowest cost of truth testing upon the audience. we avoid scientific language because we wish to impose costs upon the audience. We embrace unscientific language when we want to deceive.) THE CREATIVITY OF MEANING AND THE CRITICISM OF TRUTH (two part process: 1-transfer meaning, 2-test for truth – Reverse, Obverse) RESTITUTION (limiting harm) WARRANTY (skin in the game) =================== Where does this go? Yields: |Yields|: (Potentials/Forces > Operations > Symmetries) > (Algorithm > Model > Simulation) > (Axiom > Proof) > Law(Model) > (Theory > Paradigm) > (Sentence > Story). ========================
THE TESTIMONY WE CALL “TRUTH” The Decidability of Testimony
—“We evolved to negotiate pragmatically not testify truthfully. The reason we need Truth is because it’s counter-intuitive – it provides decidability independent of opinion or value – and so it’s often undesirable.” —
Deflating the word “True”.
|Testimony| > Dishonesty(bias, deceit) > Error (ignorance, error) >
Meaningful (intuitionistic) > Honesty(rational) >
Truthfulness(scientific) > Ideal Truth (imaginary) >
Analytic Truth (logical) > Tautological Truth (linguistic).
The etymology of the word “True” is:
truth (n.) Old English triewð (West Saxon), treowð (Mercian) “faith, faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty; veracity, quality of being true; pledge, covenant,” from Germanic abstract noun *treuwitho, from Proto-Germanic treuwaz “having or characterized by good faith,” from PIE *drew-o-, a suffixed form of the root *deru- “be firm, solid, steadfast.”, “oak” “Strong as an oak”. true (adj.) Old English triewe (West Saxon), treowe (Mercian) “faithful, trustworthy, honest, steady in adhering to promises, friends, etc.,” from Proto-Germanic *treuwaz “having or characterized by good faith” (source also of Old Frisian triuwi, Dutch getrouw, Old High German gatriuwu, German treu, Old Norse tryggr, Danish tryg, Gothic triggws “faithful, trusty”), from PIE *drew-o-, a suffixed form of the root *deru- “be firm, solid, steadfast.” Sense of “consistent with fact” first recorded c. 1200; that of “real, genuine, not counterfeit” is from late 14c.; that of “conformable to a certain standard” (as true north) is from c. 1550. Of artifacts, “accurately fitted or shaped” it is recorded from late 15c. True-love (n.) is Old English treowlufu. True-born (adj.) first attested 1590s. True-false (adj.) as a type of test question is recorded from 1923. To come true (of dreams, etc.) is from 1819. true (v.) Sense of correspondence. “make true in position, form, or adjustment,” 1841, from true (adj.) in the sense “agreeing with a certain standard.” Related: Trued; truing. (source: from the online etymology dictionary)
An Action (Verb): We Lack a Primary Verb for “Speaking the Truth” While we have admittedly fuzzy definitions for true and truth, one of the frailties of English and most other IE languages is that they do not have a primary verb for “speak the truth,” as a contrast to lie and lying (v.). As we will observe repeatedly over the course of this book, the lack of a primary verb for Speaking the Truth is but one of many apparent confusions that are cause us so many problems of grammar and vocabulary. In order to solve the problem of the ‘missing term’ we will use the terms “truthful”, “truthfulness”. For example: ‘He lies’, vs. ‘He speaks truthfully’. I’m not adventurous enough with terminology to suggest we use truths and truth as in ‘He truths’, and ‘That’s a truth’, even if it’s not uncommon for us to use “True” and less frequently “Truth” as statements of agreement. A Term of Promise: All Statements are Promissory, With Varying Degrees of Contingency If I say ‘it’s raining’, I am saying “I promise it is raining”. I might say “I think/believe it is raining” which expresses contingency. I might also say “isn’t it raining?” Or “maybe it is raining” to suggest a possibility rather than state a contingency or a promise. Yet we seek to avoid that accountability. The Term Testimony Instead of Promise: ‘Testimonial Truth’ In philosophical discourse the terms ‘promissory’ or ‘performative’ truth are used for similar purposes. But because we are working in the context of law not norm and because we want to distinguish our work from prior authors, we will use the term “Testimony” and “Testimonial Truth”. Only the Conscious (Humans) can Testify or Promise Only those capable of speech (testimony), possessing sentience (feeling) consciousness (reason) and agency (cognitive independence from intuitionistic interference) are cable of making such promises. And not all individuals are possessed of sufficient agency (knowledge, skill, ability) to make such promises – and unfortunately we are not ourselves aware of our own limits. For this reason honestly is insufficient for truth claims. Instead we must perform due diligence against our limitations in order to make truth claims. And to guard against deception we must demand warranty (Or as Taleb argues, ‘skin in the game’.) Not simply because people are deceptive, but because they often lack the agency to speak truthfully having performed due diligence against their frailties. The Degree of Promise in Testimony So when we make a truth claim or state a truth proposition, we are constructing an intersection of three axes;
Our testimony is sufficiently decidable and warrantied for the degree of decidability or not. A Term of Agreement In English grammar we refer to yes and no as a subtype of word we call ‘Agreement’, as in |Word| Noun > Verb > Relation > Agreement. We also use ‘true’ and ‘false’ as methods of ‘agreement’, but agreement on the correspondence of testimony (speech) with reality (existence). So when we say ‘That is true’, we mean ‘I agree with your testimony’. Or less supportively ‘I consent to your testimony’. Or “I promise you will agree with my testimony”, or ‘I cannot disagree with your testimony’. In this sense yes and no, true and false, good and bad are statements of agreement.
|Agreement| Agree, True, Good < Undecidable > Disagree, False, Bad
A Point of View We habitually conflate (a) the words uttered by the speaker, with (b) the audience’s judgment of the correspondence of those words with reality, (c) the incentives of the speaker that bias his speech with (d) the sufficiency of decidability for the speaker, (e) the sufficiency of decidability of the audience who may or may not possess the skill, and (f) sufficiency of decidability for the judge who may or must possess such a skill to do so. And in doing so we conflate point of view (speaker, audience, judge), even though those points of view possess different information and different incentives, and different objectives. The audience and the judge must ask, what demand for sufficient decidability is required to answer this question? What degree of due diligence is necessary to claim an answer is honest, truthful, or true – and is it warrantable? And is that degree of honesty, truthfulness or truth sufficient to provide the decidability demanded by the question? In other words, is the testimony decidable true, and is the question decidable given that degree of truth? If not then what is the scale of possible consequence (harm), and what is the possibility of restitution (correction of the error)?
|Point of View| Speaker (Producer)(Hypothesis) < > Audience (Market)(Theory) > Judge (Court)(Finding of Law)
So a speaker (voice), author (text), or craftsman (symbols or illustrations), produces a product (hypothesis), that is tested by an audience (market), and negotiated (recursively), and either agreed with (purchased), or disagreed with (boycotted – exited), or submitted to a court (fraud). The Act of Testimony: Copying, Describing, and Reconstructing Speaking Truthfully requires accurately copying (reporting on) existential reality and then representing that copy in thoughts, words, displays, and actions or other symbols, where the audience’s use of those thoughts, words, and symbols reconstructs the same perception of reality as the speaker.
Idealism: The Conflation of Speech (exchange) vs. Text (interpretation) Agreement vs Ideal (normative)( … ) The Correspondence Definition of Truth The most common and reductive definition of truth is ‘correspondence’ – meaning that one’s description corresponds to whatever one refers to by it. Which is deceptively simple until we decompose it. The name Socrates normatively corresponds to a (long dead) skeptical philosopher. The meaning of correspondence: ie: numbers. The word “red” normatively invokes the sufficiently infallible expectation to observe a color in another. (the definition of correspondent truth) The properties, or constant relations, of two words, phrases, sentences, and stories are identical. The properties of the speech, consisting of analogies to experience, produce in the audience the experience of recalling the same perceptions, objects, relations, and conclusions (s) that the speaker recalls and reports upon. These definitions differ from “correspondence with reality” to correspondence with another’s perceptions of reality either directly (sensation), or by instrument, or by imitation of action, or by imitation of imagination and reason. consistent, correspondent, and coherent (with what?) Textualism: Deflationary Definition of Correspondence( … ) For example: 1) “Snow is white” is true if and only if it corresponds to the fact that snow is white. Is then Deflated to: 2) “Snow is white” is true if and only if snow is white. Is then Operationalized to: 3) I promise (or recommend, or suggest the possibility) that my statement “Snow is white” is true, and therefore correspondent with reality, if and only if any randomly selected observer will testify that, as a general rule of arbitrary precision, the color of common snow appears white, and will appear white to other observers, unless otherwise tainted by some other coloring. Is simplified to Testimony: 4) “I promise that you will observe as I have observed that snow appears white.”
|Commitment| Promise < Recommend the Likelihood < Suggest the Possibility
And “Snow is White” serves as a convenient Ordinary Language (colloquial) reduction that reduces the computational cost, time, and effort of conveying the same information. As we will see, these reductions are the origins of most sophistry in argument, and philosophy. The Problem of Imperfect Knowledge and Vocabulary Our knowledge of other than the trivial is always incomplete. Language consists of general terms (names of categories that describe distributions of properties), and as such Man cannot know the Ideal Truth even if he speaks it. But he can speak truthfully, and we can test whether his testimony reconstructs an experience we find equally correspondent to the subject. So we can separate the knowable(testimony) from the unknowable (truth) The Problem of The Copula Truth originated with the term testimony. We merely combine the word True with the copula “is” (meaning “I don’t know how it exists”) and conflate the various positions on the truth spectrum out of convenience and ignorance. When we use the verb “to-be”, we use it to obscure one of the following (including my intentional use of the verb to be to refer to “currently acting” (doing) as illustration).
1 – to overcome limits of less able minds to bear the cost in short term memory of maintaining state while searching for testifiable phrases.
2 – to save time and effort of grammatical construction among those who share sufficient context that they will not misconstrue our intent.
3 – to avoid accountability for our testimony (promise).
4 – to inflate a promise (conduct a pretense of knowledge) by habitual repetition of a convention we do not understand.
5 – to obscure our ignorance of the relations we testify to (promise).
6 – to suggest relations that are present but insufficient for fulfillment of our promise.
7 – to suggest relations that are not present because of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, fictionalism, for the purpose of coercion.
8 – to suggest relations that are not present for the purpose of deception or fraud. In other words, we use it because of Convenience, Ignorance, Error, Coercion, and Deceit.. The Problem of Blame Avoidance in Prose ( … ) The Problem of Costly Construction. ( … ) The Testimonial Definition of Correspondence. “Agreement”: with text …. Sufficient fulfillment of demand for infallibility… “Testimony: A Recipe for the Reconstruction of Experience, provided with warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, fictionalism, and deceit.” “Truth: A perfectly parsimonious recipe for the construction of experience given perfect information such that error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience and deceit are impossible.” For the simple reason that language consists of general terms (distributions so to speak), Man cannot know the truth even if he speaks it, but he can speak truthfully, and we can test whether his testimony reconstructs an experience we find equally correspondent to the subject. (Diagram here) demand, promise, agreement, recursively The Certainty of Falsehood and the Contingency of Truthfulness
|Decidability| Unknown > Undecidable > Truthful > True(All) > False
Truth: Decidability of the correspondence ( consistency, coherence, completeness, rationality and reciprocity) of the testimony. True: Testimony is decidedly correspondent (consistent, coherent, compete, rational and reciprocal) with the referent. False: Testimony that is decidedly over truth over undecidable over unknown. Falsehood: Decidability of the non-correspondence ( inconsistency, incoherence, and-or incompleteness, rationality and reciprocity) of the testimony. We Can Only Know Statements Are Not False ( … )
|DECIDABILITY| Incomprehensible > Comprehensible(Decidable) > Possible(Decidable) > Contingent(True, Decidable) > False (Decidable)
Truth Claims: Justification (Support, Ideal) vs. Truthful Claims: Criticism (Survival, Real) 1) Obverse: We justify moral arguments given the requirement to preserve the disproportionate rewards of Cooperation, without which survival is nearly impossible. Law and Morality are Contractual, informationally complete, and open only to increases in precision – we know the first principles of cooperation. 2) Reverse: We criticize intuitions, hypothesis, theories and laws to remove imagination, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception from our imaginations in order to identify truth candidates. Reality is Non Contractual, informationally incomplete, and forever open to revision. We do not yet know the fist principles of the universe. The reason it took us so long to identify the meaning of truth (Testimony) was that we evolved from moral and cooperative creatures, and we evolved science from moral, cooperative, and legal (dispute resolution), and therefore justificationary reasoning. Defense Against Infallibility The Degree of Warranty in Testimony (Due Diligence, and Insurance)Restitution as the limit of warranty in Testimony (The range of consequences is not arbitrary – determined by choice, but by liability for consequences as determined by the market (harm).) The Law Alone Provides Decidability Across Full Accounting (real), Testimony, Warranty, and Restitution. Differences in scope between Science, Economics, Law, Literature DEMAND FOR MEANING The problem of meaning (scope of associations) vs truth (limit of mal-associations) DEMAND FOR TRUTH The Demand for Infallibility of One’s Testimony ( … ) Explain the upcoming section listing the dimensions of testimony needed, and the due diligence and warranty given the population and outcomes. PRODUCING SUFFICIENTLY DECIDABLE AND INFALLIBLE TESTIMONY We possess at least these faculties: Our physical perceptions (perceptions), our intuitionistic and emotional faculties (intuitions), and our intellectual faculties (reason), action (movement) and speech (communication).
|Faculties| Sense Perception (physical) >
Intuition (emotion, impulse, intuition) >
Intellect (reason) > action(testing) >
speech (testing - communication(via others)).
Using these faculties, we have produced instrumental means (instrumentation) by which to improve upon ourperception, intuition and reason. 1) Logical (Intellectual)(Comparisons(words))(Results) 1.1 The Differential (Identity and therefore Category) 1.1- Categorical: We may testify to tautology and in that case must speak THE truth. We have no alternative. 1.2 The Logical (internally consistent across categories) 1.2 – Logical: We may testify to internal consistency within a given grammar. As such we speak truthfully if and only if argument (formula, proof) is (exists as) internally consistent (consisting of constant relations between states). When we LOGICAL we mean that one’s argument, justification, or reasoning, follows in the sense that the constant relations of properties, categories, relations, and values, that you’re depending upon are constant for the purposes you suggest, assert, or claim. And generally we separate the logical (necessary) from the rational (choice) 1.3 The Logical Fallacy of Closure. ( …. ) 2) Empirical (Perceivable)(Physical)(Actions)(Consequences) 2.1 The Empirical (Externally Correspondent) – what we call empirical 2.1 – Empirical: We may testify to external correspondence if and only if we find external correspondence, sufficiency and parsimony. When we say ‘EMPIRICAL’ we mean that ones description, argument, justification, or reasoning, has been tested against reality by the use of physical and logical instrumentation to eliminate common errors of perception, bias, reason, logic, and fraud. 2.2 The Operationally Possible (Existentially Possible) – what we call operationally possible. 2.2 – Operational: we may testify to the existential possibility of sequence of operations only if we can describe changes in state of constant relations due to a sequence of operations. When we say ‘SCIENTIFIC’ we mean that ones statements have been tested logically, empirically, rationally, stated operationally, scope complete, and limited, and that the work is warrantied, if by nothing else than reputation and career. (very little work is scientific) 3) Rational (imaginable) (Intuition, Incentives)(choices)(Returns) 3.1 The Rational (Rational Choice) – what we call subjectively testable. When we say ‘RATIONAL’ we mean, it’s a rational or not rational choice by which to obtain desirable outcomes. Rational: We may testify to the rationality of choice if and only if we sympathetically test the incentives under sufficiency and parsimony. Decidability in Choice 1 – Time is limited and a scarcity 2 – Man is a costly form of life in an unpredictable universe. 3 – Man must acquire resources to live within this unpredictable universe. …Emotions are a change in state… cognitive biases are to encourage acquisition despite evidence. 4 – Man Acquires the Physical, Intuitionistic-Emotional, Intellectual, Reproductive, and Social as either gains (increases) or discounts (savings). Man demonstrates that he acquires and defends: 1 – Survival: Life, Time, Rest, Memories, Actions, Social Status, Reputation 2 – Relations: Mates (access to sex/reproduction), Children (genetics), Familial Relations (security), Non-Familial Relations (utility),Consanguineous property (tribal and family ties) 3 – Associations: Organizational Ties (work), Knowledge ties (skills, crafts), Insurance (community) 4 – Signals (Reputation, Status, Self Image) 5 – Several Interests: Those things external to our bodies that we claim a monopoly of control over, having obtained them without imposing costs upon others. 6 – Shareholder Interests: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (physical shares in a tradable asset), 7 – Commons Interests: Commons: Unrecorded and Un-quantified Shareholder Property (shares in commons), Artificial Property: (property created by fiat agreement) Intellectual Property. 8 – Informal (Normative) Interests: Our norms: manners, ethics, morals, myths, and rituals that consist of our social portfolio and which make our social order possible. 9 – Formal Institutional Interests: Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion),Government, Laws. 10 – Man must inventoryhis acquisitions (Possessions, Interests) against the kaleidic unpredictability of the future and the vicissitudes of nature. 11 – Man must defend those interests that he has acquired and inventoried 12 – Man engages in parasitism by:
1 – harm, violence, murder
2 – theft,
3 – extortion, blackmail, racketeering.
4 – fraud, fraud by obscurantism, fraud by moralizing, fraud by omission,
5 – free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses,
6 – conspiracy, rent seeking, corruption
7 – conversion, immigration,
8 – conquest, war and genocide. Summary of Categories: Violence, Theft, Extortion, Fraud, Externality, Conspiracy 13 – Man must act cooperatively to disproportionately improve acquisition of resources. (Cooperation is in a division of labor is disproportionately more rewarding than any other activity man can engage in.) 14 – Man must cooperate only where it is beneficial and preferable to non-cooperation. As such all cooperative actions or sets of actions, must result in:
1 – Productive (increases property)
2 – Fully Informed (without deceit – a form of discounting)
3 – Warrantied (promise of non parasitism warranty of restitution)
4 – Voluntary Exchange
5 – Free of negative externality (imposes no costs on the property of third parties). 14 – Man must act to preserve and extend cooperation to preserve the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation. (Cooperation is itself a disproportionately valuable scarcity) Man acts to preserve and extend cooperation by the suppression of parasitism that creates the disincentive to cooperate, and therefore decreases the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation. (Man evolved necessary and expensive moral intuitions to preserve cooperation – including expensive forms of punishment of offenders.) 16 – Man organizes to increase cooperation, and to increase cooperation on the suppression of parasitism. Man is a Rational (amoral) not moral or immoral actor Incentives to acquire are marginally indifferent (Network of decidability , Hierarchy of decidability, Constant rotation to pursuit of opportunity in time.) Empathize with feelings, sympathize with reason Malincentives in Choice3.2 The Reciprocal and Ethical (Reciprocally Rational Choice) – what we call ‘ethical. (incentives are a substitute for emotions) (emotions are a description of changes in state) (describe subjective testability of incentives) 3.3 The Reciprocal and MoralDecidability in Cooperation ( … ) Harm : Theft (imposition of costs) is decidable. Moral intuitions are not. (…) Decidability in the CriminalDecidability in the EthicalDecidability in The Moral: we may testify to the morality (Crime, ethics, morality) of any action or its consequences by tests of the productive, fully informed, voluntary, (and warrantied) transfer of that which individuals have acted to obtain an interest. Decidability in the AmoralBut Not the Emotional (Values) Note that while we can experience emotions, we cannot testify to them, not just because they are unobservable (testable), but because the evidence is quite clear that our reported experiences and preferences have little to do with our demonstrated behaviors and preferences. Cultural Differences in the Attribution of Emotions to Costs ( … ) Negative consequences, of doing so. 4) The Contractual (Limited, Complete, Parsimonious, and Coherent) The contractual provide warranty that one or more transactions for meaning result in a batch of transactions that is complete (coherent, and complete) 1 – The Complete (Limits, Scope) – what we call ‘fully accounted’ (no or few unlimited general rules of arbitrary precision) The Problem of Full Accounting vs. Cherry Picking and Selection Bias. (that we address all dimensions) (this is what separates the real from the idea) 2 – The Coherent (consistent across the logical, empirical, rational, and complete) this is where parsimony: coherent with actions, reality, matters and why operational language provides a test of coherence. 3 – The Parsimonious. (parsimony) ( discuss parsimony in the dimensions, … address determinism in the universe and cheapest transformation…. And compare with human incentives ) DEFINITION: PARSIMONY “Lowest cost across all dimensions testable by man” EXPANSION – Given human faculties: sense, disambiguation (constant relations), perception(integration-prediction), auto-association-prediction, attention-prediction (will), recursion-prediction, and release of actions; – And dimensions of tests of constant relations: free associative, categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational choice, reciprocal rational choice, completeness; Parsimony must refer to: “Lowest Cost”, expanded to:
< p style=”padding-left: 30px;”>- bounded rational self-interest: – in the seizure of opportunity, – from the field of identified opportunities, – given the opportunity cost of the opportunity, – determined by competition for the greatest return in the shortest time for the least effort, with the greatest certainty at the lowest risk, – to the point of disequilibrium and subsequent re-equilibration, – eliminating the opportunity from the field of opportunities. < p style=”padding-left: 30px;”>- and – reciprocity (repeating the above) is the only productive rather than parasitic (costly) means of interaction. (- although parasitism and predation are profitable means of interaction, they are consumptive not productive.)
The difference between: – Testimony (due diligence by self), – Coherence(consistency by audience), – Parsimony(competition by market), … is grammatical (point-of-view), and an application of and conformity to, – the law of epistemology (free association-idea-> hypothesis-surviving > theory-surviving > application-surviving) I can fuss with this a bit to make it as tight as reciprocity and testimony, or any of the other definitions, but ‘skeptical subjective testing against Occam’s Razor serves as the colloquial reduction.
When we say TESTIMONIAL we mean that if your statement is logical, scientific, rational, reciprocal (meaning ethical and moral)l, limited and complete, and that you’ve given a warranty that you’ve done these due diligences, and have put ‘skin in the game’ if you are wrong. Hierarchy of Ten Testifiable Dimensions of Reality So, given our four faculties, we have evolved two tests of each, giving us ten dimensions of reality that we can test. Those Ten Testifiable Dimensions of Reality are:
1 – Differences (identity)
2 – Internal Consistency
3 – External Correspondence
4 – Operational Construction
5 – Rational Choice
6 – Reciprocal Choice (moral, ethical, legal, political)
7 – Limits (max and min boundaries stated)
8 – Completeness (completeness, full accounting)
9 – Coherence
10 – Parsimony We will use this set of dimensions of actionable and testifiable reality throughout the rest of this book. SUMMARY So when we make a truth claim or state a truth proposition, we are constructing an intersection of four axis;
Our testimony is sufficiently decidable, subject to due diligence, and warrantied for the degree of decidability or not. But of due diligence (proof or excuse) or warranty (skin in the game) it is warranty that provides greater insurance. MALINCENTIVES IN TESTIMONY FALSEHOODS
Ignorance
Error
Bias, Wishful thinking FRAUDS
Loading, Framing, Suggestion,
Obscurantism, Overloading,
Fictionalism, Deceit CRIMES
Murder, Harm, Violence
Theft
Fraud, Fraud by Omission RESTITUTION Restitution Upon Failure Warranty cannot be given for more restitution than is possible Law Encompasses All Dimensions of Reality Law requires all dimensions of reality. Truth is determined by law (testimony), all else is a subset of legal testimony, given the subset of reality we are testifying to. ( … list disciplines and how they address subsets of reality … )
|Disciplines| Law < Cognitive Sciences
< Economic and Social Sciences
< Physical Sciences and Engineering
< Mathematics
< Logics
DUE DILIGENCE IN TESTIMONY Warranty: One’s Due Diligence Against Demand for Infallibility. If you claim you speak truthfully, you can claim you have done sufficient due diligence to warrant your words against retaliation and demand for restitution or retribution. That is all you can claim. But we can never claim a thing is true if there is more information that can ever be presented that could falsify the claim. When we say something ‘is’ true, we CAN only say that we have done due diligence against it’s falsehood to the best or our knowledge and ability. if you say something ‘is’ true, you must also state how it exists, since ‘is’ refers to existence. We use the verb ‘to be’, especially in the form of ‘is’ to avoid describing how something exists – for rather complicated reasons – including saving of effort, the high cost of changing between experience, intention, action, and observation – a grammatical cost that is quite high for us humans. What we evolved the verb “to be” to mean, is “I promise that you will come to the came conclusion by making the same observation” So to say ‘the cat is black’ is to say ‘if you observe this cat then it will appear black in color.’ This is the only thing you CAN mean, because it is the only existentially possible thing you could mean. We just habituate language out of experience and effort reduction, rather than follow rules of truthfulness of language, which is expensive to learn and speak. So that is what statements mean: they mean that you have made observations of something or other, translated that experience into analogies to experience, then spoken that to another who upon listening recreates the experience through language. He then fails to understand, or requires additional information until he does understand, and the additional information so that he does not err. So just as we accumulate sounds into words, we accumulate experiences generated by words into reconstructions of the speaker’s experience. You can convey truthfulness (tested), honesty(untested), error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and fantasy. But only you can create a statement, so only you are responsible for the truthfulness of your statement. Your statement is not true. You speak truthfully(having tested), honestly(having not), in error, bias, wishful thinking, fantasy, or deception. That is all that is possible. Someone else finds your statement true when they reconstruct the same experience. So whey I say x=y I am saying that I promise you will also find that x=y if you choose to test this. This is all you CAN mean. Now you can say that you speak impulsively, honestly, or truthfully, or something in between. So that you cannot promise that the audience will also come to the same conclusion that you do. That is the difference between information (impulse), hypothesis(honesty), theory(truthfulness). So you can then only promise that what you’re offering is information, honesty, or truthfulness. But one must tell others which we are offering: information, honesty, or truthfulness. So correspondence exists when you have done due diligence on your observation, and when you consequent speech allows your audience to reconstructs your experience, and when they possess sufficient knowledge to do so. In other words the other person may lack the knowledge to reconstruct the experience of correspondence. This does not mean you cannot know a truth candidate. You can. Since you can reconstruct it. But you cannot test it without others with more knowledge. This is why science is a social construct. it is very hard to know the ‘ultimate’ most ‘parsimonious’ truthful statement because it is increasingly hard to possess sufficient information to know if it could produce greater correspondence. So in practicality, if you establish limits on your truthful statement such as “this works for tis circumstance’ then it is fairly easy. But if you say this works for N circumstances this gets increasingly difficult because there is more and more information that you can’t necessarily account for. TRUTH ISN’T COMPLICATED Truth is Not a Complicated Subject (Really) If we research the different definitions of (theories of) truth we will find that they fall into (a) consistent, (b) correspondent, (c) constructible (operational), (d) coherent, and (e) contractual (consensual, normative), and (f) the whether the speaker offers a promise, testimony, and warranty or not. Unfortunately (g) Full Accounting, consisting of limits, completeness and parsimony are rarely discussed as a formal requirement even if all such definitions. This has turned out to be a significant problem in all disciplines because it allows fuzzy definitions and cherry picking, and willful ignorance of consequences. And so the mistaken proposition that there are different theories of truth is simply a failure to articulate each theory of truth as simply those subsets of dimensions of reality that we are testing when we seek to produce a truth claim. In other words: any Truth proposition creates demand for Testimony, Due Diligence and Warranty in those dimensions that the proposition depends upon. There exist only so many dimensions to test, and there are no (and likely will never be) other dimensions – a subject we will address later under The Grammars. For example:
Note that with the decline of truthful speech in the postmodern era we have simply produced an increasing delta between reported and demonstrated preferences. This pattern, in which we add or remove dimensions of reality given the subject matter of our speech (context) will appear as a constant theme throughout this book. Most of our speech across all our various disciplines consists of including or excluding dimensions of one kind or another so that we produce both content sufficient for communication of meaning, and limiting the scope of that meaning such that we avoid falsehood. And also, we will discover that falsehood is created by either communicating with insufficient and extraneous dimensions. A statement(testimony) is True if its sufficiently consistent, correspondent, coherent, and complete to provide decidability given the context of the question being decided. A statement (testimony) is true if and only if it provides sufficient decidability given the demand for decidability in the context of the decision. TYING IT ALL TOGETHER The spectrum of definitions of truth determines the scope of one’s promise of: identity, consistency, correspondence, existential possibility, rationality, reciprocity, limits, completeness, and parsimony versus the Scope of warranty, demand for Infallibility, scale of Consequence (harm), and possibility of Restitution (correction): The demand for each category of Truth is determined by:
So if we take the sentence “that’s True”, and fully expand it we end up with: “I promise (or I agree) that (or those) statement(s) consist(s) of constant relations that are (exist as): 1 – non-conflationary (identities), 2 – internally consistent (logical), And; 3 – externally correspondent (empirical), 4 – operationally possible (possible), And; 5 – consisting of rational choices (rational), 6 – that are reciprocal (ethical and moral), And; 7 – that all of the above are coherent (consistent across all of the above), and; 8 – that the claims are limited in scope (to a max and minimum), and; 9 – fully accounted (complete) as a defense against cherry picking, and; 10 – parsimonious (not open to over-extension). And; 11 – Each dimension has received sufficient due diligence 12 – To satisfy the demand for infallibility; 13 – In the effected population; 14 – Given the scope and scale of the possible consequences; and; 15 – The possibility of restoration and restitution.” Which is so rich in content that it’s no wonder we process truth claims by intuition, and then struggle with the definition rather than attempt to decompose and articulate why we claim statements are either true or not. And worse, why we see so much conflation of the logical, rationalist, scientific, and operational uses of it. Or stated differently: Truth is sufficiently complex a question that it causes overloading, and forces us to rely on intuition. But we are in the process of articulating the means of preventing overloading, and preserving the use of reason. THE SPECTRUM OF TRUTH CLAIMS Next we will define the Truth spectrum so that we begin to see what categories of truth we may claim without ignorance, error or deceit. 1) Tautological Truth (Linguistic): Domains: Referrers (names): Identity, Mathematics, Logical Equality, Textual Interpretation. Actor: That testimony you give when promising the equality of the properties, relations, and conditionally, the values of two referrers by using two different terms: a circular definition; a statement of equality; or a statement of identity. Observer: An observer of the same phenomenon, and observer (audience) of your description (testimony) would agree that your description provides sufficient infallibility given the demand for infallibility in the given context. Judge: Identity ( Demonstrable, Knowable): A promise of (testimony to) the indifference (lack of difference) between one term, concept, statement, construction, or argument, and another; provided with warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and fraud. Conclusion Tautological truth consists of testimony of internal consistency of constant relations between terms and that is all. It says nothing of external correspondence, operational possibility, rationality, reciprocity, coherence, or limits, completeness, and parsimony. 2) Analytic Truth (Logical): Domains: Axiomatic: Mathematics, Logical Argument, Textual Interpretation. Actor: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic (declarative) system (grammar). (A Logical Truth). Observer: An observer of the same phenomenon, and observer (audience) of your description (testimony) would agree that your promise of internal consistency (constant relations) provides sufficient infallibility given the demand for infallibility in the given context. Judge: Consistency ( Demonstrable, Knowable): A promise of (testimony to) the preservation of constant relations (internal consistency) across a set of given operations provided with warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and fraud. Conclusion Analytic truth consists of testimony of internal consistency of constant relations between statements, and that is all. It says nothing of external correspondence, operational possibility, rationality, reciprocity, coherence, or limits, completeness, and parsimony. Axiomatic (Systems) grammars, can be declared (arbitrary) and internally consistent, while theoretic must be observed (existential) and externally correspondent, while operational must be actionable (possible). And therefore existentially possible 3) Ideal Truth, The Truth, True (Unknowable, Ideal): Domains: Logic: Identity, Mathematics, Rational Argument, Textual Interpretation, Models. Actor: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.) Observer: An observer of the same phenomenon, (or knowledgeable of the subject matter), and observer (audience) of your description (testimony) would agree that your promise of internal consistency (constant relations), external correspondence, operational possibility, rationality of choice, reciprocity, coherence, limits, scope, and parsimony provides sufficient infallibility given the demand for infallibility in the given context – and anticipating the possibility of future knowledge will falsify it. In other words, the observer estimates the unknown, the demand for infallibility, and the possibility of ignorance, error, bias, and the incentive for fraud, fictionalism, and deceit, versus the actor’s ( speaker’s) warranty (skin in the game). Judge: The Truth( Ideal, Unknowable): A promise of a perfectly parsimonious recipe for the reconstruction of experience given perfect information such that error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience and deceit are impossible. Conclusion As such non trivial ideal truths do not knowingly exist. And we should not engage in the pretense that other than trivial ideal truths exist as other than convenient fictions for the purpose of conveying meaning (teaching, communication), which must then be corrected from truth claims to truthful claims in order to provide warranty against misrepresentation, in the same way a parable using animals does in fact convey meaning, but also requires at the end, we state and extract and directly state the general rule of wisdom, morality, or ethics that the parable conveys by illustrative example. The function use of Ideal Truth is to create an internally consistent model we can use to characterize (just as we do with fictional characters), and provide a cartoonish (simplified ) method of comparing that which is too complex for us to manage without such simplification. As such the test of ideal truth is (a) whether the meaning conveyed is sufficiently infallible for the purpose claimed, and (b) whether it is sufficiently infallible that the the externalities (falsehoods) that the audience might, as a consequence, freely associate, induct, or deduct from it. In other words, that it is free of suggestion or obscurantism. 4) Truthful, Truthfulness (Testimonial, Knowable, “Scientific”): Domains: Speech: Promissory Testimony, Commercial Testimony, Scientific Argument, Scientific Hypothesis, Theory and Law. Actor: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. Observer An observer of the same phenomenon, and audience of your testimony would agree that you have demonstrated internal consistency, external correspondence, operational possibility, rationality of choice, reciprocity, coherence, and limits, scope, and parsimony, to provide a warranty of one’s due diligence in the elimination of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and fraud. Judge: Truthful Testimony ( Demonstrable, Knowable): A promise of Recipe for the Reconstruction of Experience, provided with warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and fraud. Conclusion Truthfulness is the only testimony it is possible to warranty as descriptive of existential reality. Ideal, Analytic, and Tautological Truth are merely testimony to internal consistency (constancy of relations) of expressions (language). So to restate the differences between the True(Ideal, Imaginary) vs. Truthful (Due Diligence, Performative, Real), what is the difference between “Correspondence” and “Reconstruction”? The first is platonic (imaginary), the second operational (real). 5) Honesty (Knowable): Domains: Speech: Interpersonal Testimony, Court Testimony; Reasonable Argument. Actor: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. Observer: An observer of the same phenomenon, and audience of your testimony would agree that your description Judge: Honest Testimony (Knowable): A Recipe for the Reconstruction of Experience, provided with warranty of due diligence only against and deceit. It is for the jurists, and the jury to decide if you speak honestly. In practice both judges and juries seek to identify malincentives one the one hand and conformity to norm, tradition, and law on the other, by subjective testing of testimony to detect malincentives that might have been seized or at least influenced behavior. Conclusion Honesty consists of testimony that you do not engage in suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, deceit, and fraud. It is a warranty against your pursuit of malincentives no matter how mild. Categories of Honesty
6) Meaning(Comprehensible – Allegorical)Domain:Actor:Observer:Judge:Conclusion:7) Pragmatic Truth (Actionable – Rationality)Domain: Personal and interpersonal Decision, Action, Agreement. Actor: The testimony you give promising the correspondence and coherence of one or more statements is sufficiently infallible for the meaning, decision, action, and consequences in the given context. Observer: An observer of the same phenomenon, and observer (audience) of your description (testimony) would agree that your statements provides sufficient correspondence and coherence given the demand for infallibility in the given context. Judge: Consistency ( Demonstrable, Knowable): A promise of (testimony to) the utility of one or more statements due to sufficient correspondence, coherence, and infallibility provided with limited warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit.” Conclusion Pragmatic Truth requires nothing other than Actionable or Decidable for the individual or group to obtain it’s want, and sufficiently infallible to provide warranty against irreciprocity (harm) that one might be forced to provide restitution against – regardless of identity, consistency, correspondence, coherence, limits, scope, and parsimony. In other words, true enough to remain blameless. Pragmatic truth is that definition of Truth most people operate by. Only those who must decide insurance of others and restitution in case of irreciprocity (harm), or who seek to compete by argument, or seek to expand our knowledge of the world concern ourselves with the rest. 8) Consensus Truth (“Agreement”, Consensual – Reciprocity)(agreement on paradigm)Domain: Personal and interpersonal Negotiation – Particularly in the context of fictionalism: politics, ideology, philosophy, and religion. Actor: The testimony you give promising the coherence of one or more statements with consensus. Particularly some fictional paradigm. Observer: An observer of the same phenomenon, and observer (audience) of your description (testimony) would agree that your statements are coherent with consensus. Judge: Consistency ( Demonstrable, Knowable): A promise of (testimony to) the adherence of a statement to consensus. Consensus need not require identity, consistency, correspondence, possibility, rationality, reciprocity, limits, completeness or parsimony – only coherence. Conclusion In other words, coherent enough with group consensus to remain blameless. Consensus truth is required for all fictionalisms – particularly religion and ideology. As such consensus truth is not truth whatsoever, but a promise of agreement, conformity, or approval. Religion and Idealism in the ancient world, and Marxism, Feminism, and Postmodernism in the modern world, specifically rely upon Consensus (agreement) for decidability. They cannot survive the tests of consistency, correspondence, rationality of choice, reciprocity in particular, and limits, and completeness. But as ideologies they do not have this purpose. They seek only to gain consensus on means of obtaining power through the vulnerabilities of majority monopoly democracy. In the absence of democracy they seek to cause synchronicity of decision making such that by indirect action in speech (or deception), trade (or theft or fraud), and violence (or shirking or pacifism), they achieve their desired ends. 9) Ordinary Language Speech (Negotiation)Domain: Ordinary Speech Actor: that speech you would utter when in common unwarrantied and unfiltered conversation. Observer: The observer of that speech expecting exchange of information without externality of service or good, or impact upon service or good. Judge: That the speech contains neither promise, nor demand, nor fraud. Conclusion Ordinary language consists entirely of Negotiating for something whether information, option, action, or material. We may or may not be conscious of what we are negotiating for, in large part because it’s often entertainment, attention, status, trust, belonging(approval), alliance – all of which are evolutionary incentives to acquire options on insurance against future risks to the same, no matter how small. Much of the time, when not seeking options, we are seeking information. When not seeking information then cooperation. When we are not seeking cooperation we are seeking gift or exchange. If not then for alliances of some degree or another in the pursuit of some end or other. As such, negotiations vary from deception to negotiation to status production, to option creation to entertainment. And we rely upon the entire spectrum of truth as the discourse at hand demands. Proof Proof of contingent relations = proof of possibility. Proof of inconsistent relations = proof of falsehood. One cannot prove a truth. One can only test it for constant relations at all scales: categorical (idenity-self), logical (internal-others), correspondence (the universe), volition(rational choice), operations(existential possibility), and reciprocity (reciprocal volition), and to do so in operational (measurable) terms, stating limits and inclusivity of scope. This is what is required for due diligence against not only falsehood, but ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit. The Fallacy of Proof One of the great falsehoods of philosophy: proof. You cannot prove anything, so the question itself is a deception. The questions are un-falsifiable, which is a center position between justifiable and warrantable. Justifiable(excuse) > falsifiable (possible) > demonstrable(empirical) > warrantable (insured) Proofs exist in and only in mathematics, for the simple reason that positional relations (positional names that we call numbers) are by definition and necessity constant relations and cannot be otherwise. There are very few other constant relations. (time is one, and even that is a question of relative position and velocity). We can create certain set arguments. We can identify certain reductio (trivial) necessities just as we can identify certain prime numbers. But the question is fraudulent (a trick) of grammar. Since one cannot prove anything, one can merely justify (non-promissory), provide terms of falsification(promissory), demonstrate(temporal), or insure (Intertemporal) As soon as you admit the criteria of: – deception and fraud – incentive – cost – warranty …. into philosophical argument, we change from philosophy to law, just as when we introduce empiricism into theology, we move into philosophy. REPLACEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION WITH PROSECUTION (FALSIFICATION) PROSECUTORIAL OPERATIONS (WARRANTIES OF DUE DILIGENCE)ATION – INTERROGATABLE)
|Knowlege| Free association > idea(survives) >
hypothesis(survives) > theory(survives) >
law(survives) > Identity(tautology)(survives) >
differences(consistent and inconsistent relations)(evolves) >
[Loop].
PROSECUTORIAL OPERATIONS (WARRANTIES OF DUE DILIGENCE) Falsification(Survival) by Measurement (cardinal, ordinal, decidable)) Decidability under Prosecution: Via Positiva Vs Via Negativa And The Competition Between Both ( … ) constructible vs deducible THE CURE FOR SUGGESTION AND DECEIT. Rationalism was invented to attempt to reconstruct christianity without mysticism. I understand the great deceits. It’s but one of them. Rationalism’s Obscurantism and Scriptural Mysticism are similar techniques. The Contemporary version uses propaganda and repetition. But the technique is reducible to suggestion by loading framing and overloading in all three. Suggestion works. The science says that we can’t even defend ourselves from it even if we work hard at it. This is why we invented analytic philosophy and operational definitions in science. And why I have completed that project with testimonialism and propertarianism. To make suggestion impossible. At least to make it impossible in matters of finance, politics and law where it can be so readily used for ill. Suggestion is necessary or teaching each other by analogy would be impossible. Suggestion is necessary or supposition of intent would be impossible. Supposition of intent is necessary or cooperation is impossible. Cooperation is necessary or a division of labor and exchange is impossible. But in all human cooperation and all transfer there is a difference between suggestion of meaning, and the test of truth. We have been, as normal humans, attempting to define a single test of truth for millennia. But we have failed. Because epistemology requires the transfer of meaning by suggestion, and the test of truth by criticism. As such the single most important solution to communication is to limit the divergence between the means of communicating meaning, and the means of criticizing meaning. This is what I believe we, I, have accomplished: to speak in a manner that the least difference between meaning and truth exists. This is testimonialism. The scientific method is a process of creativity followed by criticism. invention followed by testing. Imagination followed by survival from scrutiny. The easiest way to limit suggestion is to refer to existential operations using a continuous point of view. Operationalism. With the tests of operationalism, we slowly train ourselves to speak the truth, just as we have slowly trained ourselves to speak in the language of science instead of the language of mystical analogy. And the benefits of this truthfulness will be as great as the benefits of science. ==== Satisfying Demand We use the term TRUE for “agreement on correspondence”,
|TRUTH CLAIM| Undecidable > Possible > Relative > Consensual >
Contingent > Probable > Decidable > Necessary > Analytic >
Tautological.
As far as I know, all statements remain contingent, if only for the imprecision of definitions alone. I’ll deflate it further into TESTIMONY, DEMAND, and WARRANTY. TESTIMONY: demand for agreement(x), degree of necessity(y) and degree of warranty(z). DEMAND: I can hold an agreement on correspondence with myself, with someone else, with others, with everyone, with anyone. WARRANTY: I can warranty my testimony corresponds to the possible, probable, contingent, decidable, necessary, analytic, and tautological. And can be possible, personally actionable, collectively actionable, collectively decidable, and collectively irrefutable, and collectively tautological. We use ‘Truth’ for all those purposes: “true enough for the circumstance.” The question is whether one uses then truth that is sufficient for, and therefore survives the demand for, the circumstances. ==== SUMMARY Demand for Decidability Decidability Testimony Due Diligence Warranty Restitution Truth claims are matters of law. COMMUNICATION Transfer of properties by analogy culminating in the transfer of experience (meaning) by the process of “suggestion”. The process of creating shared experiences using symbols – primarily language. TRUTH (reconstruction of same experience) (where the experience corresponds to reality) FALSEHOOD Imagination Error Bias Wishful Thinking Obscurantism Suggestion Deceit SUGGESTION Loading Framing Shaming Rallying Chanting Overloading OVERLOADING Mysticism/Supernaturalism Narrative/Literature Rationalism/Verbalism Pseudoscience/Innumeracy UNLOADING Truthfulness TRUTHFULNESS Due diligence that we have not engaged in deception, or error, bias, wishful thinking, obscurantism, suggestion, and deceit. DUE DILIGENCE We perform due diligence by testing every dimension of knowledge we know how to. (just as we have different mathematics for each of the increasing dimensions): Identity and Category Internal Consistency (logic) External Correspondence (empirical consistency) Existential Possibility (operational definitions) Parsimony, Limits, Full Accounting (limits) Morality (Productive, Fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externality of the same.) KNOWLEDGE There is only one sequence to knowledge, and all others are false: Perception(observation) -> Free Association(awareness) -> Hypothesis(guess) -> Theory(Due Diligence) -> Law(Survival) -> Tautology(identity/name) -OR- False Knowledge is not a qualifier as some pretend, nor does it or can it convey truth content. It is anything in any state of the process of knowledge evolution that we can observe, are aware of, imagine possible, seems consistent, cannot seem to falsify, that is not yet false. Knowledge: anything that works for the purposes we intend and we cannot yet deem false. SCIENCE Science = due diligence. While we cannot know if we speak the most parsimonious truth, or whether we speak the truth, what we can do THE ECONOMICS OF TRANSFERRING EXPERIENCES (we use scientific language because it imposes the lowest cost of truth testing upon the audience. we avoid scientific language because we wish to impose costs upon the audience. We embrace unscientific language when we want to deceive.) THE CREATIVITY OF MEANING AND THE CRITICISM OF TRUTH (two part process: 1-transfer meaning, 2-test for truth – Reverse, Obverse) RESTITUTION (limiting harm) WARRANTY (skin in the game) =================== Where does this go? Yields: |Yields|: (Potentials/Forces > Operations > Symmetries) > (Algorithm > Model > Simulation) > (Axiom > Proof) > Law(Model) > (Theory > Paradigm) > (Sentence > Story). ========================
(NOTE, This glossary should provide a sentence or two definition with pointers to the section of the book that provides exposition.)
P-Method, P-Logic, P-Testimony or Testimonialism, P-Ethics or Propertarian ethics, P-Law or Natural Law of Reciprocity, Operational Language and Vocabulary. Disambiguation by Serialization and Operationalism, The Copula, The Verb To-Be, ePrime, The Grammars, Inflationary and deflationary Grammars. Fictionalisms. Deceits. Abrahamic method of deceit. Ternary Logic, Compatibilism, The Coercive Technologies, Three Classes of Elites, Adversarialism, Falsification, Justification Decidability, Truth as Demand for decidability., Warranty of Due Diligence, Reciprocity, Imposition of costs, Demonstrated Interest. Property In Toto. ABRAHAMISM (Deceits) – In our Glossary of Natural Law “Abrahamism” refers to the argumentative technique of using Pilpul (via-positiva), and Critique (via-negativa) to construct sophisms (the argumentative equivalent of numerology and astrology) via use of disapproval, ridicule, shaming, rallying, loading, framing, suggestion, obscurantism, overloading, straw-manning, undue-praise, the Fictionalisms in ideal, pseudo-rational and pseudoscientific forms, appeals to reasonableness, and false promise, to create hazards. This technique is a variation on the female competitive strategy by which false promises of opportunity for approval, advocacy, defense, affection, sex, and care taking, and the threat of gossiping, ridicule, shaming, and rallying, and deprivation of opportunity for affection and sex are used to constrain and manipulate males, and use to threaten females with Ostracization from cooperation, sharing, assistance, and support. All three Abrahamic religions, Rousseu’s Moralism, Kantian philosophy, Marxist argument, and Postmodern thought all make use of this technique of argument, often stated as “Dialectic” but operationally consisting of Pilpul vs Critique. Most of Propertarianism (the Natural Law of Reciprocity) consists of attempts to prevent Abrahamic arguments and replace them with Testimonial (Ratio-Scientific-and-Operational) arguments so that Law (Constitutions) can be constructed strictly and logically and is not open to accidental, intentional, misinterpretation. Thus requiring legislatures reform a law rather than allow legislation from the Jurist’s bench – which is the means by which the US Constitution was undermined. AESTHETICS(philosophy) – A branch of philosophy dealing with beauty and the beautiful, especially with judgments of taste concerning them. The philosophy or science of art. AGENCY (Propertarianism) —“The capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices subject to personal or external limitations. By contrast, structure refers to those factors that determine or limit an individual and his or her decisions, such as gender, social class, ethnicity, religion, customs, education, economic institutions, government, propaganda, ability, knowledge, ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit. Meaning that one’s agency is determined by the combination of beneficial institutions, abilities, and knowledge and inhibiting institutions, abilities, and knowledge”— As an example, God would have perfect agency, because would have perfect knowledge(omniscience), perfect reason, perfect emotions, perfect mindfulness, perfect ability to act (omnipotence), unlimited resources, and no competition, no need to cooperate, and therefore no need for conventions, laws, institutions, or infrastructure. As humans we have imperfect knowledge, imperfect reason, imperfect mindfulness, imperfect emotions, limited range of actions, limited resources, and we live in a world where we must compete, must cooperate to compete, and to do so require conventions, laws, institutions, and infrastructure. So, Agency consists of the degree to which one approaches perfect ability to act, when not limited by knowledge, reason, emotions, mindfulness, range of action, available instrumentation, available resources, competition, cooperation, conventions, laws, institutions and infrastructure. Given we can never have unlimited knowledge, unlimited resources, and we have limited ability to be free of competition, need for cooperation, conventions, laws, institutions, and infrastructure, we can seek largely to improve our knowledge, reason, mindfulness, and assets so that we maximize our agency within the available limits. CONVERSELY (VIA NEGATIVA) Remove sources of lack of fitness, lack of character (virtue), lack of resources, sources of normative and institutional resistance, sources of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit – all the impediments to agency – and agency will result. Then selecting a philosophy – a means of decidability – by which one can obtain one’s ends, and an aesthetic that values one’s passions in accordance with that philosophy. AGENCY = POTENTIAL ENERGY by Simon Ström Agency = potential energy (PE) Force = applied energy (F) Event = Impulse (Imp), [force vector + temporal dimension] Consequence = displacement vector (s) Action = work (W) Externalities = Waste heat (h) W = F * s COMMODITY(economics)– A comparatively homogeneous product that can typically be bought in bulk. It usually refers to a raw material – oil, cotton, cocoa, silver – but can also describe a manufactured product used to make other things, for example, microchips used in personal computers. COMMON LAW(law)– Legally binding rules or principles of justice developed in the course of history from the gradual accumulation of rulings by judges in individual cases, as differentiated from the kind of statute law embodied in special legal codes or statutes enacted by legislative assemblies or imposed by executive decrees. The importance of the common law heritage is particularly great in the legal systems of Great Britain and of most former British colonies, including the U.S. COMMONS(law, economics) – Originally, meaning Land or resources belonging to or affecting the whole of a community. More articulately: any form of property to which members of a group share an interests, but where that interest is obtained by an unspecified membership in the group rather than by explicit possession of title. I use this term to refer to both physical property and normative commons. The problem with commons is that without shares, even un-tradable shares, the ownership of the commons cannot be protected from confiscation by various means including immigration, or political confiscation. DECIDABILTY, DECIDABLE vs DISCRETION (testimony)
In the REVERSE: a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice). In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present (ie: is decidable) within the âsystemâ(ie: grammar).
In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary).
Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is necessary the question is undecidable, and if discretion is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm).DEMONSTRATED PROPERTY(law) – an expanded definition of property that is based upon the full scope of what humans consider to be property, based upon what they demonstrate that they consider to be property. Demonstrated Property is the definition of ‘property’ used in Propertarianism. EMOTIONS (psychology) – Emotions are reactions to changes in state of “capital” we refer to as Property in Toto that we either have, or might have: obtaining it, saving it, or holding options on past, present and future utility of it. That utility can reduce our physical, intellectual, emotional, reproductive, or time costs. Our “values” influence us in the sense that the value we attribute to any given form of capital varies according to our gender, class, ability, condition, and inventory of existing capital. EMPIRICAL (testimony)– “Empirical” means observable, and therefore measurable, and therefore commensurable, and therefore open to tests of coherence. Empirical: Reciprocally Observable, and therefore agreeable, or disagreeable.
See the value of operational language? If you have the words for it, most philosophical discourses is rendered nonsense. See how law (competition) differs from philosophy by reduction to reciprocity not the self (philosophical justification)? Like I said, in almost all cases philosophical questions are sophisms due to idealism rather than realism – operational language. EXTERNALITY, EXTERNALITIES(law, economics) – An economic side-effect. Externalities are costs or benefits arising from an economic activity that affects somebody other than the people engaged in economic activity and are not reflected fully in PRICES. Positive Externality: A positive externality is a side-effect produced by taking an action that causes an involuntary increase in an individual’s inventory of property-in-toto* (Most normative commons are constructed by way of positive externalities) Negative Externality: A negative externality is a side-effect produced by taking an action that causes an involuntary decrease in an individual’s inventory of property-in-toto* (Immoral actions produce negative externalities, moral actions do not) GHETTO ETHICS (Abrahamism)– literally, the ethics of the medieval urban ghetto. As a ‘state within a state’ residents of the ghetto can conduct exchange as if they are state actors by relying upon high trust exchange in-group, while using low trust exchange out-group. However, in any polity, each of us cannot act as a ‘state’ by applying low trust with some and high trust with others because the net result is a near-universally low trust society for the vast majority. In such an environment demand for the state and its interventions as a proxy for trust remains high, since low trust is by definition the use of cunning and deception to obtain discounts and premiums that the opposite party would not tolerate willingly. In other words, low trust ethics are parasitic, and impose high transaction costs on the population. The underlying point I’m making is the absurdity of using the model of a state within a state to advocate for a stateless society. In that lens the entire Rothbardian project is… well, absurdly illogical. Laughable even. Aristocratic egalitarianism (the protestant ethic) suppresses all cheating such that demand for the state is low because transaction costs and conflicts are minimized, while the velocity of production and exchange is high. GRAMMARS (testimony)
|TRUTHFUL GRAMMARS OF EXPRESSION| Math, Logic, Science, Operations(protocols, processes, recipes), Economics (money, banking, finance, accounting), Law (Natural), History(Description, Narration), Literature (including poetry > essay > fiction > mythology).
|FICTIONALISMS| Deceit > Sophism->Innumeracy > Idealism- >Surrealism > Pseudoscience->Magic > Supernaturalism->Occultism.
|DECEITS| failure of due diligence > ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking > loading > framing > suggestion > obscurantism > fictionalism > denialism > and deceit.
|ABRAHAMIC GRAMMARS|: Disapproval as substitute for argument > False Promise > Baiting into Hazard > Pilpul (sophism) > Critique () > Heaping of Undue Praise, Straw Man Criticism as a Vehicle for Disapproval > Reputation Destruction > Failure to Supply a Competing alternative capable of surviving same criticisms > Authoritarian Conformity,
|AVOIDANCE| Disapproval > shaming > moralizing > psychologizing > ridicule >rallying > gossiping > undermining > and reputation-destruction. “DSRRGUR”.
|ABRAHAMIC EVOLUTION| Abrahamism > (Adding Platonism) > Judaism > Christianity > Islam > (Dark Age Theology) > Marxism > Postmodernism > Feminism > Denialism: “APMPFD”.ALIENABLE / ALIENATION / INALIENABLE
ALIENABLE: able to be transferred to new ownership. ALIENATION: the transfer of the ownership of property rights. INALIENABLE: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred In property law, the possessor may not have the right to sell a parcel of land—no right of alienation. So the parcel is “inalienable” as to the possessor. We are used to seeing the term in the context of rights. Inalienable rights. Rights that cannot be taken away from you without violating Natural Law. But what about the other application of the principle? You CAN’T transfer the right of self defense. You have no ability to alienate a right if the right is inalienable. You can pay/incentivize someone to help you defend yourself, but you can’t transfer the right away.. This is brilliant and true and the consequences of trying to transfer your duty in this regard result in loss of sovereignty. In the US we still have the ability to be sovereign, but we have not behaved sovereign for quite some time as a population and that needs to change immediately if not sooner. Militia service is costly in the sense that it takes time, preparedness, planning, etc which is why people have offloaded the cost of sovereignty onto other extralegal organizations. Having “police” incentivizes the shift of the cost of sovereignty onto those willing to serve for a price and it moves the common man away from maximizing his agency in a setting of aristocratic egalitarianism and peerage and puts the common man in the position of submissive subject. |LAW| Transcendence > Sovereignty + Reciprocity (One Law) > Insurer (Court) (King / Judge of last resort) > The Discovered Law > The Referee (Judge) > The Jury -> The Thang -> The Senate -> { the King/Monarchy, the Senate/Lords(oligarchy) And the House (industry) and the Church (families) and the “those who have only the law to defend them – the underclasses”}. |LONG CYCLE OF HISTORY| {MALE EVOLUTIONARY TERRITORIAL: Fast Western > Medium Rational Eastern > Slow Narrative Indian Indian} vs FEMALE DEVOLUTIONARY MIGRATORY: Supernatural Semitic counter-evolutionary strategy. With Africa, Americas and Pacifica Lagging, and (it appears) Australian-NZ regressing. |MARKETS| Expression > Association > Cooperation > Reproduction > Production > Conflict Resolution (law) > Commons > Polities (order) > (War). |ORDER| Need to Acquire Resources > Action to Improve Acquisition > Cooperation to Improve > Opportunity for Parasitism > Incentive for Parasitism > Preserve incentive to cooperate > Prevent disincentives > Punish to create Disincentives > organize to punish to create disincentives. OPERATIONALISM, OPERATIONISM, INTUITIONISM
OPERATIONALISM (PHYSICS): Operationalism is physics was important because it demonstrated that we expended a great deal of time and money by NOT practicing operationalism and that Einstein’s innovation should have been much earlier and could have been if we had practiced it.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/
INTUITIONISM (MATHEMATICS): Intuitionism in mathematics was less important because there are few if any externalities produced by classical mathematical operations other than the psychological fallacy that there exists some separate mathematical reality. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism/ See Also: Constructive Mathematics:
ECONOMIC INTUITIONISM/OPERATIONALISM IS MEANINGFUL: Therefore the HIGHEST moral requirement for demonstration of construction is in the domain of economics wherein the greatest externalities are caused by economic policy.
OPERATIONISM (PSYCHOLOGY): Operationism in psychology was important in the recent transformation of psychology from a pseudoscience, to an experimental discipline, and because psychologists do produce, and did produce negative externalities – harm, to others. Not the least of which was multiple generations suffering from illnesses cast as cognitive problems. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/199/1/operat.htm
DEFINITION: PARSIMONY “Lowest cost across all dimensions testable by man”
EXPANSION – Given human faculties: sense, disambiguation (constant relations), perception(integration-prediction), auto-association-prediction, attention-prediction (will), recursion-prediction, and release of actions; – And dimensions of tests of constant relations: free associative, categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational choice, reciprocal rational choice, completeness; Parsimony must refer to:
“Lowest Cost”, expanded to:
the lowest cost (least information), description of a chain of causation surviving tests of: entropy, realism, naturalism, operationalism, and;
bounded rational self interest:
in the seizure of opportunity, from the field of identified opportunities, given the opportunity cost of the opportunity, determined by competition for the greatest return in the shortest time for the least effort, with the greatest certainty at the lowest risk, to the point of disequilibrium and subsequent re-equilibration, eliminating the opportunity from the field of opportunities.
and
reciprocity (repeating the above) is the only productive rather than parasitic (costly) means of interaction. (- although parasitism and predation are profitable means of interaction, they are consumptive not productive.) The difference between: – Testimony (due diligence by self), – Coherence(consistency by audience), – Parsimony(competition by market), … is grammatical (point-of-view), and an application of and conformity to, – the law of epistemology (free association-idea-> hypothesis-surviving > theory-surviving > application-surviving)
I can fuss with this a bit to make it as tight as reciprocity and testimony, or any of the other definitions, but ‘skeptical subjective testing against Occam’s Razor serves as the colloquial reduction.POWER, PARETO, NASH DISTRIBUTIONS, EQUILIBRIUMS ( economics, sociology, politics)
The Law of Social Orders
POWER
PARETO
NASHPHENOMENON – noun, plural phenomena, or, especially for 3, phenomenons. An observed or observable change in state of a referent. PRAXEOLOGY (economics) – Intuitionism (Praxeology) in economics is important because manipulation of the economy causes redistributions, gains and losses. As a moral constraint, it is only slightly less influential than law. DEMONSTRATED INTERESTS, |PROPERTY IN TOTO|: DEMONSTRATED PROPERTY IN TOTO (Demonstrated Property)
I. Self-Property Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.” ….a) Physical Body ….b) Actions and Time ….c) Memories, Concepts, and Identities: tools that enable us to plan and act. In the consumer economy, this includes brands. ….d) Status and Class (mate and relation selection, and reputation.)
II. Personal Property ….a) Several-Property: Those things external to our bodies that we claim a monopoly of control over.
III. Kinship Property ….a) Mates (access to sex/reproduction) ….b) Children (genetics) ….c) Familial Relations (security) ….d) Non-Familial Relations (utility) ….e) Consanguineous property (tribal and family ties)
IV. Cooperative Property ….a) Organizational ties (work) ….b) Knowledge ties (skills, crafts)
V. Shareholder Property ….a) Shares: Partnership or shareholdership: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (physical shares in a tradable asset)
VI. Common Property ….b) Commons: Unrecorded and Unquantified Shareholder Property (shares in commons) ….c) Artificial Property: (property created by fiat agreement) Intellectual Property.
VII. Common Informal Institutional Property: ….a) Informal (Normative) Property: Our norms: manners, ethics, morals, myths, and rituals that consist of our social portfolio and which make our social order possible.
VIII. Common Formal Institutional Property ….a) Formal Institutional Property: Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws.
INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
I. Obligations
1) Non-Imposition : (a) Productive, (b) Fully informed, (c) Warrantied, (d) Voluntary Transfer(Exchange) of property-in-toto, (e) Free of External Imposition of Costs against others’ Property-in-toto.
II. Rights
a) Constituo – Homesteading: Convert into property through bearing a cost of transformation. b) Transitus – Transit: passage through 3d space. c) Usus – Use: setting up a stall. d) Fructus – Fruits: (blackberries, wood, profits) e) Mancipio – Emancipation: (sale, transfer) f) Abusus – Abuse: (Consumption or Destruction) Opposite of Constituo.
CATEGORIES OF DEMONSTRATED INTEREST
I) Non-Property (Bring under total control) ….CONTROL: Total Control ….PURPOSE: Create Property ….YES: Constituo, Transitus, Usus, Fructus, Mancipio, Abusus. II) Possession III) Consensual Possession IV) Normative Possession – “property” V) INSTITUTIONAL POSSESSION – “PROPERTY RIGHTS”
i) Personal (Private) Property (limited control) ….PURPOSE: Acquisition Inventory and Consumption ….YES: Transitus, Usus, Fructus, Mancipio, ….MAYBE: Abusus ii) Shareholder (Private) Property (very limited control) ….CONTROL: Very Limited Control ….PURPOSE: Dividends from Cooperation ….YES: Fructus ….MAYBE: ?Transitus, ?Usus,?Mancipio, ….NO: Abusus iii) Common (Public) Property (All Citizen Shareholders) ….CONTROL: No control. ….PURPOSE: Prohibition on Consumption. ….MAYBE: Transitus, Usus, Fructus, ….NO: Mancipio, Abusus
|CRIMES| Predation > Parasitism > Free Riding > Conspiracy > War > Evil.
I – Predation (Physical)- Criminal Prohibitions. Harm: a. Murder b. Violence (harm, rape, damage, asymmetry of force) c. Theft (asymmetry of control) *FREEDOM Achieved Upon Suppression.
II – Parasitism– Unethical Prohibitions. Fraud (Informational): d. Hazard Production (Baiting, Entrapment), Poisoning the Well (Gossip, Ridicule, Shaming, Rallying, Reputation Destruction, Straw Manning, Heaping of Undue Praise on the undeserving.) e. Fraud (false information) f. Omission (Omitting information) g. Obscurantism (Obscuring information) h. Obstruction (Inhibiting someone else’s transaction) *ETHICALITY Achieved Upon Suppression.
III – Free-Riding (Social)- Immoral Prohibitions. Free Riding (Social): i. Profit without contribution to production. j. Externalization (externalizing costs of any transaction) k. Free Riding (using externalities for self-benefit) l. Socializing Losses (externalization to commons) m. Privatizing Gains (appropriation of commons) *MORALITY Achieved Upon Suppression.
IV – Political Prohibitions. Conspiracy (Political): n. Monopoly, Cartel Seeking (or partial monopoly) o. Rent Seeking (organizational free riding) p. Corruption ( organized rent seeking) q. Conspiracy (organized indirect theft) r. Extortion (Organized direct theft), Blackmail. *LIBERTY Achieved Upon Suppression.
V – War. Military Prohibitions. Warfare (Military): s. Conversion (Propaganda, Religious or normative theft of norms) t. Overbreeding u. Immigration. (dilution of norms, institutions, genes) v. War (organized violence for the purpose of theft) w. Conquest. (reorganization of all property and relations) x. Genocide. (extermination of kin and genetic future)
*SOVEREIGNTY Achieved Upon Suppression.
VI – Evil z. The imposition of costs upon the interests of others without intent or incentive for gain, but for the purpose of causing them loss regardless of one’s gain or loss.PROTOCOL, MEDICAL PROTOCOL(medicine) Medical treatments and tests are discussed as protocols. Medical (Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment), – Advisory. Clinical (Research and field trials), – Required. Procedural (EMT, Nurses, Operating rooms.) – Strictest. RECIPROCITY (economics, law): the practice of exchanging things with others for mutual benefit, especially privileges granted by one individual, group, organization, polity, or country to another. REFERRER, REFERENT (REFERENCE), CO-REFERENTIAL(Linguistics)– A referrer or reference is the symbol or name that refers to a person, thing, or idea. Note that we use the term “Referrer” rather than reference. A referent is a person or thing to which a name – a linguistic expression or other symbol – refers. A referrer and a referent refer to one another and are therefore co-referential. RENT SEEKING (Economics) – In public choice theory as well as in economics, rent-seeking means seeking to increase one’s share of existing wealth without creating new wealth. Simple Version: “Corruption from outside the government inside of inside the government.”
NOUN 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. “cronyism and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our biggest companies do business”
ADJECTIVE 1. engaging in or involving the manipulation of public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. “rent-seeking lobbyists” Rent-seeking results in reduced economic efficiency through misallocation of resources, reduced wealth-creation, lost government revenue, heightened income inequality, and potential national decline. In its original sense, rent seeking is the act of gaining partial ownership of land in order to gain control of a part of its production. In government it is the act of gaining privileges, redistribution or partial monopolies. In its broadest sense it is the act of obtaining some sort if claim on the productivity of others rather than producing something ones self, or through voluntary exchange. We all seek rents. We all seek opportunity for benefitting from either the actions of our organizations, the actions of others, or the grant of state state monopolies. Women seek mates as monetary rents and men to ease the burden of childrearing. We all seek rents. We could argue that rent seeking is the primary incentive for cooperation. Because so few of us are productive enough through direct exchange of our efforts. The only rent thats totally moral is interest. Interest is free of involuntary transfer. Interest, in the sense that we rent money to others, contrary to our superstitions, is moral. Now, It is possible to seek rents via interest. Either through usury or through leveraging the state’s fiat money. One can collect interest on production. On can collect interest on consumption. Neither of these things is necessary. Both are voluntary. Neither produce negative externalities. They create whole sequences of positive externalities. But collecting interest on externalities is immoral if it creates externalities that produce involuntary transfers. Rothbards ghetto ethics actually encourage involuntary transfers. Under the false presumption that the market will solve the problem through competition. But Since all things being equal, profit from externalities is greater than the same loan without externalities, just the opposite is true. The market will encourage externalities. Also, ghetto ethics assume that judges will not hold people accountable for those externalities and require restitution of them. But they have and will. Because it is consistent with the ethics of property to do so. STRICT CONSTRUCTION (law): Strict Construction is an abused term where the courts instead use the terms Textualism and Original Intent. But under Propertarian property rights theory, Strict Construction refers to requiring that any law passed be accompanied by argument showing that such a law is specifically authorized by the constitution. In other words, laws constitute permissible legal operations. And none of them can violate property rights. This is important because otherwise, if discretion is required, then judges can insert deception, imaginary content, bias and error into the body of law. (As they have done, circumventing the legislature, the constitution, and property rights.) As such the principle of Propertarian Strict Construction (as opposed to Textualism’s strict construction) requires that we operationally define the construct of all any law. This principle is important because laws have the greatest effect on a polity – and often the greatest unintended effect upon individuals and the polity. TRUST (psychology, sociology, law): Where one party experiences mindfulness in predicting that the intertemporal actions of another party, will not impose costs upon one’s demonstrated intersets; and to advance mutual interests given the opportunity; within the limits of demand for bearing the costs of doing so. I might refine that a bit but it’s pretty good. THREE INSTINCTS (haidt, biology) Reciprocate, Contract, Disgust, and Familial Priority, and Kin Selection. TRUTH Testimony sufficient to meet Demand for decidability. ( … ) THE HIERARCHY OF THE LAWS
VIA NEGATIVA 1. Laws of Nature (Measurement) … Physics … Chemistry … Biology … … Ecology … Consciousness … Economics
Laws of Action … Engineering (?Where?) … … ( … ) Applied
Laws of Thought ( Logics ) … ( … ) … Neural Economy
Laws of Speech (Grammars) … … Logic … … Mathematics … … … Positional Naming … … … Counting … … … Arithmetic … … … … Accounting … … … Geometry … … … Calculus … … … Statistics … … Algorithm … … Recipe, Protocol … … Testimony … … Description … … Narration … … Fiction … … Fictionalisms … … … Sophistry, Idealism, Surrealism .… … … Spiritual, Occult, Supernatural … … … Magical, Supernormal, Pseudo scientific … … Deceits
Natural Law (Cooperation) … Juridical Law ( Conflict Resolution) … … Law of Property (Conflict Avoidance) … … Law of Tort (Conflict over Harms) … … Law of Contract (Conflict over Trades) … Normative Law (…) … … Manners, Ethics, Morals, … … Strategy (Traditions, Rituals, Myths, Histories) … … Institutions formal and informal .… Legislation (Commons Production) … … Regulation (Prior Restraints) … Command ( Deciding the Undecidable ) … Treaty ( Between insurers of last resort ) … War ( Beyond the Limits of Cooperation )WEST, THE WEST, WESTERN CIVILIZATION ( … ) |WEST, THE | Transcendence (into Gods) > Agency > Heroism + Excellence > Sovereignty + Reciprocity > Truth + Duty > Natural Law + Jury > Contract + Markets in Everything > Optimum Private + Optimum Commons > Optimum Evolutionary Adaptation to Change |*| Vulnerability to deceit.
Note: “Gods: Those with Agency: Omnicognizance (reason, OmniIndependence (Emotions, biases), Omniscience (knowledge), Omnipotence (Physical), Immortality (time), Others (Law of Sovereignty+Reciprocity). Note that the Russian version does not include reciprocity.”
(NOTE, This glossary should provide a sentence or two definition with pointers to the section of the book that provides exposition.)
P-Method, P-Logic, P-Testimony or Testimonialism, P-Ethics or Propertarian ethics, P-Law or Natural Law of Reciprocity, Operational Language and Vocabulary. Disambiguation by Serialization and Operationalism, The Copula, The Verb To-Be, ePrime, The Grammars, Inflationary and deflationary Grammars. Fictionalisms. Deceits. Abrahamic method of deceit. Ternary Logic, Compatibilism, The Coercive Technologies, Three Classes of Elites, Adversarialism, Falsification, Justification Decidability, Truth as Demand for decidability., Warranty of Due Diligence, Reciprocity, Imposition of costs, Demonstrated Interest. Property In Toto. ABRAHAMISM (Deceits) – In our Glossary of Natural Law “Abrahamism” refers to the argumentative technique of using Pilpul (via-positiva), and Critique (via-negativa) to construct sophisms (the argumentative equivalent of numerology and astrology) via use of disapproval, ridicule, shaming, rallying, loading, framing, suggestion, obscurantism, overloading, straw-manning, undue-praise, the Fictionalisms in ideal, pseudo-rational and pseudoscientific forms, appeals to reasonableness, and false promise, to create hazards. This technique is a variation on the female competitive strategy by which false promises of opportunity for approval, advocacy, defense, affection, sex, and care taking, and the threat of gossiping, ridicule, shaming, and rallying, and deprivation of opportunity for affection and sex are used to constrain and manipulate males, and use to threaten females with Ostracization from cooperation, sharing, assistance, and support. All three Abrahamic religions, Rousseu’s Moralism, Kantian philosophy, Marxist argument, and Postmodern thought all make use of this technique of argument, often stated as “Dialectic” but operationally consisting of Pilpul vs Critique. Most of Propertarianism (the Natural Law of Reciprocity) consists of attempts to prevent Abrahamic arguments and replace them with Testimonial (Ratio-Scientific-and-Operational) arguments so that Law (Constitutions) can be constructed strictly and logically and is not open to accidental, intentional, misinterpretation. Thus requiring legislatures reform a law rather than allow legislation from the Jurist’s bench – which is the means by which the US Constitution was undermined. AESTHETICS(philosophy) – A branch of philosophy dealing with beauty and the beautiful, especially with judgments of taste concerning them. The philosophy or science of art. AGENCY (Propertarianism) —“The capacity of individuals to act independently and to make their own free choices subject to personal or external limitations. By contrast, structure refers to those factors that determine or limit an individual and his or her decisions, such as gender, social class, ethnicity, religion, customs, education, economic institutions, government, propaganda, ability, knowledge, ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit. Meaning that one’s agency is determined by the combination of beneficial institutions, abilities, and knowledge and inhibiting institutions, abilities, and knowledge”— As an example, God would have perfect agency, because would have perfect knowledge(omniscience), perfect reason, perfect emotions, perfect mindfulness, perfect ability to act (omnipotence), unlimited resources, and no competition, no need to cooperate, and therefore no need for conventions, laws, institutions, or infrastructure. As humans we have imperfect knowledge, imperfect reason, imperfect mindfulness, imperfect emotions, limited range of actions, limited resources, and we live in a world where we must compete, must cooperate to compete, and to do so require conventions, laws, institutions, and infrastructure. So, Agency consists of the degree to which one approaches perfect ability to act, when not limited by knowledge, reason, emotions, mindfulness, range of action, available instrumentation, available resources, competition, cooperation, conventions, laws, institutions and infrastructure. Given we can never have unlimited knowledge, unlimited resources, and we have limited ability to be free of competition, need for cooperation, conventions, laws, institutions, and infrastructure, we can seek largely to improve our knowledge, reason, mindfulness, and assets so that we maximize our agency within the available limits. CONVERSELY (VIA NEGATIVA) Remove sources of lack of fitness, lack of character (virtue), lack of resources, sources of normative and institutional resistance, sources of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit – all the impediments to agency – and agency will result. Then selecting a philosophy – a means of decidability – by which one can obtain one’s ends, and an aesthetic that values one’s passions in accordance with that philosophy. AGENCY = POTENTIAL ENERGY by Simon Ström Agency = potential energy (PE) Force = applied energy (F) Event = Impulse (Imp), [force vector + temporal dimension] Consequence = displacement vector (s) Action = work (W) Externalities = Waste heat (h) W = F * s COMMODITY(economics)– A comparatively homogeneous product that can typically be bought in bulk. It usually refers to a raw material – oil, cotton, cocoa, silver – but can also describe a manufactured product used to make other things, for example, microchips used in personal computers. COMMON LAW(law)– Legally binding rules or principles of justice developed in the course of history from the gradual accumulation of rulings by judges in individual cases, as differentiated from the kind of statute law embodied in special legal codes or statutes enacted by legislative assemblies or imposed by executive decrees. The importance of the common law heritage is particularly great in the legal systems of Great Britain and of most former British colonies, including the U.S. COMMONS(law, economics) – Originally, meaning Land or resources belonging to or affecting the whole of a community. More articulately: any form of property to which members of a group share an interests, but where that interest is obtained by an unspecified membership in the group rather than by explicit possession of title. I use this term to refer to both physical property and normative commons. The problem with commons is that without shares, even un-tradable shares, the ownership of the commons cannot be protected from confiscation by various means including immigration, or political confiscation. DECIDABILTY, DECIDABLE vs DISCRETION (testimony)
In the REVERSE: a question (statement) is DECIDABLE if an algorithm (set of operations) exists within the limits of the system (rules, axioms, theories) that can produce a decision (choice). In other words, if the sufficient information for the decision is present (ie: is decidable) within the âsystemâ(ie: grammar).
In the OBVERSE: Instead, we should determine if there is a means of choosing without the need for additional information supplied from outside the system (ie: not discretionary).
Or in simple terms, if DISCRETION is necessary the question is undecidable, and if discretion is unnecessary, a proposition is decidable. This separates reason (or calculation in the wider sense) from computation (algorithm).DEMONSTRATED PROPERTY(law) – an expanded definition of property that is based upon the full scope of what humans consider to be property, based upon what they demonstrate that they consider to be property. Demonstrated Property is the definition of ‘property’ used in Propertarianism. EMOTIONS (psychology) – Emotions are reactions to changes in state of “capital” we refer to as Property in Toto that we either have, or might have: obtaining it, saving it, or holding options on past, present and future utility of it. That utility can reduce our physical, intellectual, emotional, reproductive, or time costs. Our “values” influence us in the sense that the value we attribute to any given form of capital varies according to our gender, class, ability, condition, and inventory of existing capital. EMPIRICAL (testimony)– “Empirical” means observable, and therefore measurable, and therefore commensurable, and therefore open to tests of coherence. Empirical: Reciprocally Observable, and therefore agreeable, or disagreeable.
See the value of operational language? If you have the words for it, most philosophical discourses is rendered nonsense. See how law (competition) differs from philosophy by reduction to reciprocity not the self (philosophical justification)? Like I said, in almost all cases philosophical questions are sophisms due to idealism rather than realism – operational language. EXTERNALITY, EXTERNALITIES(law, economics) – An economic side-effect. Externalities are costs or benefits arising from an economic activity that affects somebody other than the people engaged in economic activity and are not reflected fully in PRICES. Positive Externality: A positive externality is a side-effect produced by taking an action that causes an involuntary increase in an individual’s inventory of property-in-toto* (Most normative commons are constructed by way of positive externalities) Negative Externality: A negative externality is a side-effect produced by taking an action that causes an involuntary decrease in an individual’s inventory of property-in-toto* (Immoral actions produce negative externalities, moral actions do not) GHETTO ETHICS (Abrahamism)– literally, the ethics of the medieval urban ghetto. As a ‘state within a state’ residents of the ghetto can conduct exchange as if they are state actors by relying upon high trust exchange in-group, while using low trust exchange out-group. However, in any polity, each of us cannot act as a ‘state’ by applying low trust with some and high trust with others because the net result is a near-universally low trust society for the vast majority. In such an environment demand for the state and its interventions as a proxy for trust remains high, since low trust is by definition the use of cunning and deception to obtain discounts and premiums that the opposite party would not tolerate willingly. In other words, low trust ethics are parasitic, and impose high transaction costs on the population. The underlying point I’m making is the absurdity of using the model of a state within a state to advocate for a stateless society. In that lens the entire Rothbardian project is… well, absurdly illogical. Laughable even. Aristocratic egalitarianism (the protestant ethic) suppresses all cheating such that demand for the state is low because transaction costs and conflicts are minimized, while the velocity of production and exchange is high. GRAMMARS (testimony)
|TRUTHFUL GRAMMARS OF EXPRESSION| Math, Logic, Science, Operations(protocols, processes, recipes), Economics (money, banking, finance, accounting), Law (Natural), History(Description, Narration), Literature (including poetry > essay > fiction > mythology).
|FICTIONALISMS| Deceit > Sophism->Innumeracy > Idealism- >Surrealism > Pseudoscience->Magic > Supernaturalism->Occultism.
|DECEITS| failure of due diligence > ignorance > error > bias > wishful thinking > loading > framing > suggestion > obscurantism > fictionalism > denialism > and deceit.
|ABRAHAMIC GRAMMARS|: Disapproval as substitute for argument > False Promise > Baiting into Hazard > Pilpul (sophism) > Critique () > Heaping of Undue Praise, Straw Man Criticism as a Vehicle for Disapproval > Reputation Destruction > Failure to Supply a Competing alternative capable of surviving same criticisms > Authoritarian Conformity,
|AVOIDANCE| Disapproval > shaming > moralizing > psychologizing > ridicule >rallying > gossiping > undermining > and reputation-destruction. “DSRRGUR”.
|ABRAHAMIC EVOLUTION| Abrahamism > (Adding Platonism) > Judaism > Christianity > Islam > (Dark Age Theology) > Marxism > Postmodernism > Feminism > Denialism: “APMPFD”.ALIENABLE / ALIENATION / INALIENABLE
ALIENABLE: able to be transferred to new ownership. ALIENATION: the transfer of the ownership of property rights. INALIENABLE: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred In property law, the possessor may not have the right to sell a parcel of land—no right of alienation. So the parcel is “inalienable” as to the possessor. We are used to seeing the term in the context of rights. Inalienable rights. Rights that cannot be taken away from you without violating Natural Law. But what about the other application of the principle? You CAN’T transfer the right of self defense. You have no ability to alienate a right if the right is inalienable. You can pay/incentivize someone to help you defend yourself, but you can’t transfer the right away.. This is brilliant and true and the consequences of trying to transfer your duty in this regard result in loss of sovereignty. In the US we still have the ability to be sovereign, but we have not behaved sovereign for quite some time as a population and that needs to change immediately if not sooner. Militia service is costly in the sense that it takes time, preparedness, planning, etc which is why people have offloaded the cost of sovereignty onto other extralegal organizations. Having “police” incentivizes the shift of the cost of sovereignty onto those willing to serve for a price and it moves the common man away from maximizing his agency in a setting of aristocratic egalitarianism and peerage and puts the common man in the position of submissive subject. |LAW| Transcendence > Sovereignty + Reciprocity (One Law) > Insurer (Court) (King / Judge of last resort) > The Discovered Law > The Referee (Judge) > The Jury -> The Thang -> The Senate -> { the King/Monarchy, the Senate/Lords(oligarchy) And the House (industry) and the Church (families) and the “those who have only the law to defend them – the underclasses”}. |LONG CYCLE OF HISTORY| {MALE EVOLUTIONARY TERRITORIAL: Fast Western > Medium Rational Eastern > Slow Narrative Indian Indian} vs FEMALE DEVOLUTIONARY MIGRATORY: Supernatural Semitic counter-evolutionary strategy. With Africa, Americas and Pacifica Lagging, and (it appears) Australian-NZ regressing. |MARKETS| Expression > Association > Cooperation > Reproduction > Production > Conflict Resolution (law) > Commons > Polities (order) > (War). |ORDER| Need to Acquire Resources > Action to Improve Acquisition > Cooperation to Improve > Opportunity for Parasitism > Incentive for Parasitism > Preserve incentive to cooperate > Prevent disincentives > Punish to create Disincentives > organize to punish to create disincentives. OPERATIONALISM, OPERATIONISM, INTUITIONISM
OPERATIONALISM (PHYSICS): Operationalism is physics was important because it demonstrated that we expended a great deal of time and money by NOT practicing operationalism and that Einstein’s innovation should have been much earlier and could have been if we had practiced it.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/operationalism/
INTUITIONISM (MATHEMATICS): Intuitionism in mathematics was less important because there are few if any externalities produced by classical mathematical operations other than the psychological fallacy that there exists some separate mathematical reality. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism/ See Also: Constructive Mathematics:
ECONOMIC INTUITIONISM/OPERATIONALISM IS MEANINGFUL: Therefore the HIGHEST moral requirement for demonstration of construction is in the domain of economics wherein the greatest externalities are caused by economic policy.
OPERATIONISM (PSYCHOLOGY): Operationism in psychology was important in the recent transformation of psychology from a pseudoscience, to an experimental discipline, and because psychologists do produce, and did produce negative externalities – harm, to others. Not the least of which was multiple generations suffering from illnesses cast as cognitive problems. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/199/1/operat.htm
DEFINITION: PARSIMONY “Lowest cost across all dimensions testable by man”
EXPANSION – Given human faculties: sense, disambiguation (constant relations), perception(integration-prediction), auto-association-prediction, attention-prediction (will), recursion-prediction, and release of actions; – And dimensions of tests of constant relations: free associative, categorical, logical, empirical, operational, rational choice, reciprocal rational choice, completeness; Parsimony must refer to:
“Lowest Cost”, expanded to:
the lowest cost (least information), description of a chain of causation surviving tests of: entropy, realism, naturalism, operationalism, and;
bounded rational self interest:
in the seizure of opportunity, from the field of identified opportunities, given the opportunity cost of the opportunity, determined by competition for the greatest return in the shortest time for the least effort, with the greatest certainty at the lowest risk, to the point of disequilibrium and subsequent re-equilibration, eliminating the opportunity from the field of opportunities.
and
reciprocity (repeating the above) is the only productive rather than parasitic (costly) means of interaction. (- although parasitism and predation are profitable means of interaction, they are consumptive not productive.) The difference between: – Testimony (due diligence by self), – Coherence(consistency by audience), – Parsimony(competition by market), … is grammatical (point-of-view), and an application of and conformity to, – the law of epistemology (free association-idea-> hypothesis-surviving > theory-surviving > application-surviving)
I can fuss with this a bit to make it as tight as reciprocity and testimony, or any of the other definitions, but ‘skeptical subjective testing against Occam’s Razor serves as the colloquial reduction.POWER, PARETO, NASH DISTRIBUTIONS, EQUILIBRIUMS ( economics, sociology, politics)
The Law of Social Orders
POWER
PARETO
NASHPHENOMENON – noun, plural phenomena, or, especially for 3, phenomenons. An observed or observable change in state of a referent. PRAXEOLOGY (economics) – Intuitionism (Praxeology) in economics is important because manipulation of the economy causes redistributions, gains and losses. As a moral constraint, it is only slightly less influential than law. DEMONSTRATED INTERESTS, |PROPERTY IN TOTO|: DEMONSTRATED PROPERTY IN TOTO (Demonstrated Property)
I. Self-Property Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.” ….a) Physical Body ….b) Actions and Time ….c) Memories, Concepts, and Identities: tools that enable us to plan and act. In the consumer economy, this includes brands. ….d) Status and Class (mate and relation selection, and reputation.)
II. Personal Property ….a) Several-Property: Those things external to our bodies that we claim a monopoly of control over.
III. Kinship Property ….a) Mates (access to sex/reproduction) ….b) Children (genetics) ….c) Familial Relations (security) ….d) Non-Familial Relations (utility) ….e) Consanguineous property (tribal and family ties)
IV. Cooperative Property ….a) Organizational ties (work) ….b) Knowledge ties (skills, crafts)
V. Shareholder Property ….a) Shares: Partnership or shareholdership: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (physical shares in a tradable asset)
VI. Common Property ….b) Commons: Unrecorded and Unquantified Shareholder Property (shares in commons) ….c) Artificial Property: (property created by fiat agreement) Intellectual Property.
VII. Common Informal Institutional Property: ….a) Informal (Normative) Property: Our norms: manners, ethics, morals, myths, and rituals that consist of our social portfolio and which make our social order possible.
VIII. Common Formal Institutional Property ….a) Formal Institutional Property: Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws.
INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS
I. Obligations
1) Non-Imposition : (a) Productive, (b) Fully informed, (c) Warrantied, (d) Voluntary Transfer(Exchange) of property-in-toto, (e) Free of External Imposition of Costs against others’ Property-in-toto.
II. Rights
a) Constituo – Homesteading: Convert into property through bearing a cost of transformation. b) Transitus – Transit: passage through 3d space. c) Usus – Use: setting up a stall. d) Fructus – Fruits: (blackberries, wood, profits) e) Mancipio – Emancipation: (sale, transfer) f) Abusus – Abuse: (Consumption or Destruction) Opposite of Constituo.
CATEGORIES OF DEMONSTRATED INTEREST
I) Non-Property (Bring under total control) ….CONTROL: Total Control ….PURPOSE: Create Property ….YES: Constituo, Transitus, Usus, Fructus, Mancipio, Abusus. II) Possession III) Consensual Possession IV) Normative Possession – “property” V) INSTITUTIONAL POSSESSION – “PROPERTY RIGHTS”
i) Personal (Private) Property (limited control) ….PURPOSE: Acquisition Inventory and Consumption ….YES: Transitus, Usus, Fructus, Mancipio, ….MAYBE: Abusus ii) Shareholder (Private) Property (very limited control) ….CONTROL: Very Limited Control ….PURPOSE: Dividends from Cooperation ….YES: Fructus ….MAYBE: ?Transitus, ?Usus,?Mancipio, ….NO: Abusus iii) Common (Public) Property (All Citizen Shareholders) ….CONTROL: No control. ….PURPOSE: Prohibition on Consumption. ….MAYBE: Transitus, Usus, Fructus, ….NO: Mancipio, Abusus
|CRIMES| Predation > Parasitism > Free Riding > Conspiracy > War > Evil.
I – Predation (Physical)- Criminal Prohibitions. Harm: a. Murder b. Violence (harm, rape, damage, asymmetry of force) c. Theft (asymmetry of control) *FREEDOM Achieved Upon Suppression.
II – Parasitism– Unethical Prohibitions. Fraud (Informational): d. Hazard Production (Baiting, Entrapment), Poisoning the Well (Gossip, Ridicule, Shaming, Rallying, Reputation Destruction, Straw Manning, Heaping of Undue Praise on the undeserving.) e. Fraud (false information) f. Omission (Omitting information) g. Obscurantism (Obscuring information) h. Obstruction (Inhibiting someone else’s transaction) *ETHICALITY Achieved Upon Suppression.
III – Free-Riding (Social)- Immoral Prohibitions. Free Riding (Social): i. Profit without contribution to production. j. Externalization (externalizing costs of any transaction) k. Free Riding (using externalities for self-benefit) l. Socializing Losses (externalization to commons) m. Privatizing Gains (appropriation of commons) *MORALITY Achieved Upon Suppression.
IV – Political Prohibitions. Conspiracy (Political): n. Monopoly, Cartel Seeking (or partial monopoly) o. Rent Seeking (organizational free riding) p. Corruption ( organized rent seeking) q. Conspiracy (organized indirect theft) r. Extortion (Organized direct theft), Blackmail. *LIBERTY Achieved Upon Suppression.
V – War. Military Prohibitions. Warfare (Military): s. Conversion (Propaganda, Religious or normative theft of norms) t. Overbreeding u. Immigration. (dilution of norms, institutions, genes) v. War (organized violence for the purpose of theft) w. Conquest. (reorganization of all property and relations) x. Genocide. (extermination of kin and genetic future)
*SOVEREIGNTY Achieved Upon Suppression.
VI – Evil z. The imposition of costs upon the interests of others without intent or incentive for gain, but for the purpose of causing them loss regardless of one’s gain or loss.PROTOCOL, MEDICAL PROTOCOL(medicine) Medical treatments and tests are discussed as protocols. Medical (Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment), – Advisory. Clinical (Research and field trials), – Required. Procedural (EMT, Nurses, Operating rooms.) – Strictest. RECIPROCITY (economics, law): the practice of exchanging things with others for mutual benefit, especially privileges granted by one individual, group, organization, polity, or country to another. REFERRER, REFERENT (REFERENCE), CO-REFERENTIAL(Linguistics)– A referrer or reference is the symbol or name that refers to a person, thing, or idea. Note that we use the term “Referrer” rather than reference. A referent is a person or thing to which a name – a linguistic expression or other symbol – refers. A referrer and a referent refer to one another and are therefore co-referential. RENT SEEKING (Economics) – In public choice theory as well as in economics, rent-seeking means seeking to increase one’s share of existing wealth without creating new wealth. Simple Version: “Corruption from outside the government inside of inside the government.”
NOUN 1. the fact or practice of manipulating public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. “cronyism and rent-seeking have become an integral part of the way our biggest companies do business”
ADJECTIVE 1. engaging in or involving the manipulation of public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits. “rent-seeking lobbyists” Rent-seeking results in reduced economic efficiency through misallocation of resources, reduced wealth-creation, lost government revenue, heightened income inequality, and potential national decline. In its original sense, rent seeking is the act of gaining partial ownership of land in order to gain control of a part of its production. In government it is the act of gaining privileges, redistribution or partial monopolies. In its broadest sense it is the act of obtaining some sort if claim on the productivity of others rather than producing something ones self, or through voluntary exchange. We all seek rents. We all seek opportunity for benefitting from either the actions of our organizations, the actions of others, or the grant of state state monopolies. Women seek mates as monetary rents and men to ease the burden of childrearing. We all seek rents. We could argue that rent seeking is the primary incentive for cooperation. Because so few of us are productive enough through direct exchange of our efforts. The only rent thats totally moral is interest. Interest is free of involuntary transfer. Interest, in the sense that we rent money to others, contrary to our superstitions, is moral. Now, It is possible to seek rents via interest. Either through usury or through leveraging the state’s fiat money. One can collect interest on production. On can collect interest on consumption. Neither of these things is necessary. Both are voluntary. Neither produce negative externalities. They create whole sequences of positive externalities. But collecting interest on externalities is immoral if it creates externalities that produce involuntary transfers. Rothbards ghetto ethics actually encourage involuntary transfers. Under the false presumption that the market will solve the problem through competition. But Since all things being equal, profit from externalities is greater than the same loan without externalities, just the opposite is true. The market will encourage externalities. Also, ghetto ethics assume that judges will not hold people accountable for those externalities and require restitution of them. But they have and will. Because it is consistent with the ethics of property to do so. STRICT CONSTRUCTION (law): Strict Construction is an abused term where the courts instead use the terms Textualism and Original Intent. But under Propertarian property rights theory, Strict Construction refers to requiring that any law passed be accompanied by argument showing that such a law is specifically authorized by the constitution. In other words, laws constitute permissible legal operations. And none of them can violate property rights. This is important because otherwise, if discretion is required, then judges can insert deception, imaginary content, bias and error into the body of law. (As they have done, circumventing the legislature, the constitution, and property rights.) As such the principle of Propertarian Strict Construction (as opposed to Textualism’s strict construction) requires that we operationally define the construct of all any law. This principle is important because laws have the greatest effect on a polity – and often the greatest unintended effect upon individuals and the polity. TRUST (psychology, sociology, law): Where one party experiences mindfulness in predicting that the intertemporal actions of another party, will not impose costs upon one’s demonstrated intersets; and to advance mutual interests given the opportunity; within the limits of demand for bearing the costs of doing so. I might refine that a bit but it’s pretty good. THREE INSTINCTS (haidt, biology) Reciprocate, Contract, Disgust, and Familial Priority, and Kin Selection. TRUTH Testimony sufficient to meet Demand for decidability. ( … ) THE HIERARCHY OF THE LAWS
VIA NEGATIVA 1. Laws of Nature (Measurement) … Physics … Chemistry … Biology … … Ecology … Consciousness … Economics
Laws of Action … Engineering (?Where?) … … ( … ) Applied
Laws of Thought ( Logics ) … ( … ) … Neural Economy
Laws of Speech (Grammars) … … Logic … … Mathematics … … … Positional Naming … … … Counting … … … Arithmetic … … … … Accounting … … … Geometry … … … Calculus … … … Statistics … … Algorithm … … Recipe, Protocol … … Testimony … … Description … … Narration … … Fiction … … Fictionalisms … … … Sophistry, Idealism, Surrealism .… … … Spiritual, Occult, Supernatural … … … Magical, Supernormal, Pseudo scientific … … Deceits
Natural Law (Cooperation) … Juridical Law ( Conflict Resolution) … … Law of Property (Conflict Avoidance) … … Law of Tort (Conflict over Harms) … … Law of Contract (Conflict over Trades) … Normative Law (…) … … Manners, Ethics, Morals, … … Strategy (Traditions, Rituals, Myths, Histories) … … Institutions formal and informal .… Legislation (Commons Production) … … Regulation (Prior Restraints) … Command ( Deciding the Undecidable ) … Treaty ( Between insurers of last resort ) … War ( Beyond the Limits of Cooperation )WEST, THE WEST, WESTERN CIVILIZATION ( … ) |WEST, THE | Transcendence (into Gods) > Agency > Heroism + Excellence > Sovereignty + Reciprocity > Truth + Duty > Natural Law + Jury > Contract + Markets in Everything > Optimum Private + Optimum Commons > Optimum Evolutionary Adaptation to Change |*| Vulnerability to deceit.
Note: “Gods: Those with Agency: Omnicognizance (reason, OmniIndependence (Emotions, biases), Omniscience (knowledge), Omnipotence (Physical), Immortality (time), Others (Law of Sovereignty+Reciprocity). Note that the Russian version does not include reciprocity.”