WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
a) Competition: Without competition (comparison, differences) we have no means of distinction and without distinction we cannot make a choice.
Forms of competition:
b) Constant Relations: Referrers, Properties, relations, and values are determined by marginally indifferent, comparable, or commensurable Constant Relations vs Inconstant Relations between states.
|Comparable|: Identical > Indifferent(in context/limits) > Marginally Indifferent > comparable > commensurable(via intermediary measure) > incommensurable (different)
a) 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 “system”(ie: grammar).
b) 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).
Given these Dimensions:
a) Distinguishability (indistinguishable, distinguishably, meaningful(categorical), identifiable(memorable).
b) Possibility (unimaginable, imaginable, rational, empirical, operational, unavoidable )
c) Actionability (inactionable,contingently actionable, actionable)
d) Population (Self, Others, All, Universal)
a) Indistinguishable(perception) > Distinguishable(cognition) > Memorable(categorical-referrable) > Possible(material) > Actionable(physical) > Choosable(for use) > Preferable(Personal) > Good(interpersonal) > Decidable(political) > True(most parsimonious descriptive name possible)(universal) > Analytic > Tautological.
3) DEMAND FOR DECIDABILITY
Demand for Truth (Decidability):
a) True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship (mental)
b) True enough for me to feel good about myself (psychological)
c) True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results (actionable)
d) True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me. (Moral)
e) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values. (Normative or legislative)
f) True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values. (Natural Law)
g) True regardless of all opinions or perspectives. (True (Proper))
h) True for the purposes of internal consistency. (Analytic)
h) Tautologically true: in that the two referrers consist of sets (networks) of marginally indifferent in properties in the given context (limits).
4) TRUTH: INFORMATION SUFFICIENT FOR DECIDABILITY IN CONTEXT
|TESTIMONY|: IMPULSE > HONESTY > TRUTHFULNESS(Contingent) > TRUTH (Idea) > TRUE (Analytic) > TAUTOLOGY
HONESTY: 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.
TRUTHFULNESS (TRUE): 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.
IDEAL TRUTH: 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.
ANALYTIC TRUTH: Internally consistent, independent of external correspondence. In the construction of proofs, open to substitution and independent of context, we produce tests of internal consistency (generally speaking, the preservation of ratios). Or more simply, the preservation of constant relations.
TAUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: Marginally indifferent description expressing constant relations between referrers.
6) CONTINGENCY (DEPENDENCY)
Free-Association( Guess(Uncritical)) > Hypothesis(Critical) > Premise(Assumption)) > Axiom(Declaration) > Identity(tautology) > Differences(consistent and inconsistent relations) ?
7) JUSTIFICATION (MATH, LAW, SCRIPTURE, LITERATURE – UN-INTERROGATABLE.)
Thinking > Imagining > Reasoning(external competition) > Argument (Informal Logics)(argumentative competition) > Justification(Formal Logics)(internal competition) > Math(Positional Logics) > category > identity > differences(consistent and inconsistent relations)?
8) JUSTIFICATIONARY OPERATIONS
Free Association > Guess > Abduction > Induction > Deduction > Identity(tautology) > differences(consistent and inconsistent relations)?
Decidability under Justification:
Uses of Justification:
9) LIMITS OF JUSTIFICATION
Dependency and Deducibility:
Evidence, Argument: No accumulation of justifications (confirmations) can a
Closure in any dimension is impossible without appeal to the consequent dimension.
10) REPLACEMENT OF JUSTIFICATION WITH PROSECUTION (FALSIFICATION)
11) PROSECUTORIAL OPERATIONS (WARRANTIES OF DUE DILIGENCE)ATION – INTERROGATABLE)
Free association > idea(survives) > hypothesis(survives) > theory(survives) > law(survives) > Identity(tautology)(survives) > differences(consistent and inconsistent relations)(evolves) > [Loop].
12) PROSECUTORIAL OPERATIONS (WARRANTIES OF DUE DILIGENCE)
Falsification(Survival) by Measurement (cardinal, ordinal, decidable))
Dimensions of survival.
a) Categorical Consistency (identity) (competition between properties, relations and values and some reference consisting of properties relations and values)
b) Internal consistency (logical)
c) Observable Consistency (empirical)
d) Existential Consistency (operational)
e) Rational Consistency (praxeological (rational choice))
f) Moral Consistency (reciprocal)
g) Scope Consistency (limits and full accounting)
h) Coherence (dimensional consistency).
Decidability under Prosecution:
||Incomprehensible > Comprehensible(Decidable) > Possible(Decidable) > Contingent(True, Decidable) > False (Decidable)
Uses for Prosecution:
TABLE OF JUSTIFICATION VS FALSIFICATION
JUSTIFICATION (CONSTRUCTION) (“PHILOSOPHY”)
*F-A = Free Association
PROSECUTION (SURVIVAL FROM FALSIFICATION) (SCIENCE)
….Internal……. ..Internal………External………….Market………Survival…. ‘True’.
*True in science – true within scope.
Productive…..Fully Informed…… Voluntary…..Warrantied…. Contained.
Productive ….. Fully Informed …. Voluntary …. Warrantied… Contained … Reciprocal.
*Contained = Free from imposition of costs by externality.
A warranty of due diligence in the test of consistency of the categorical, internal, external, existential, reasonable(action), reciprocal (moral), limits, full accounting, and of coherence.
We often use the test of consistent(internal), correspondent(External), and coherent (commensurable between dimensions). And we either assume or skip limited and fully accounted, because those are most often supplied by context – however, context fails at non-trivial causal density (economics in particular), but our vulnerability to cherry picking appears endemic, such that without specific demands for limits and full accounting, we are easily suggestible (vulnerable to fraud).
DEMAND FOR WARRANTY OF DUE DILIGENCE
Mathematics constant relations due to composition of all referrers using the single dimension of position (mathematics consists of the constant relation of position, due to the use of what we call ‘Numbers’ but which consist of positional names.) By use of positional names, all relations are reduced to positions in n dimensions. Thus enforcing constant relations.
1) Ignorance (of information)
2) Error (in reasoning)
4) Bias, and Wishful thinking
5) Loading, Framing, Suggestion, Obscurantism,
6) Fiction, Inflation, Conflation
7) Fictionalism (idealism, pseudoscience, supernaturalism, (primary means of overloading)
8) Deceit. (full fiction)
9) (Conspiracy – Scale 2)
10) (Propagandism – Scale 3)
11) (Institutionalization – Scale 4)
If you cannot answer these questions or do not understand them you cannot know if you speak the truth, or if you are polluting the commons with fantasy, bias, error, or deception.
EVIL < IMMORAL < UNETHICAL < |AMORAL| > ETHICAL > MORAL > GOOD.
The term “Moral” can be used in a specific sense or a general sense. Either as behavior that imposes costs anonymously and indirectly, or as a general term to refer to all moral, ethical, and criminal behavior.
0) In the series criminal, ethical, and moral, criminal refers to overt crimes, ethical to crimes of interpersonal informational asymmetry (crimes against a person you deal with), and moral to indirect crimes of informational asymmetry (crimes against the social order).
1) Objective (decidable) morality: non imposition / reciprocity (Productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs against demonstrated investments by externality.)
2) Normative morality: that portfolio of norms that in the aggregate produce a group evolutionary strategy, and therefore immoral and moral actions may be judged objectively or normatively.
3) Subjective moral intuitions: that moral intuition we possess because of the combination of genetics, environment and training, and our attempt to survive genetic , social, and economic competition. These may be judged normatively and objectively.
4) Fictional Morality: those wishful arguments we make.. etc. These may be judged subjectively, normatively, and objectively.
The question is, how can we speak in a manner that limits the semantics, grammar, and syntax to constant relations that are invulnerable to, resistant to, or which expose, the various falsehoods that skew, eliminate, or replace, existing constant relations?