A Scientific Method To Predict A Future… {update}

"To develop the skill of correct thinking is in the first place to learn what you have to disregard. In order to go on, you have to know what to leave out; this is the essence of effective thinking." Kurt Godel

1. 1^st Inductive inferences should be open to all possible thought…(Do not block the way of inquiry. Peirce)

2. Abduction-hypothesis should carefully consider all possible combinations and eliminations of such thought…(all ideas must be run through the thought wringer, until all necessary logically scientific values are distilled completely_hard science only, should be admitted__praxeology, axiology, ie., real physical actions & laws__in the final analyses of abduction toward final deductive/inductive proofs)

3. Deductions should be extremely careful to only properly eliminate the superfluous…(all psyche exaggerations/imaginings, false beliefs/faiths & pseudo-opinions must be completely set aside)

4. All epistemic gaps’ origins can & must be closed…(ie., self-evidently solved, ie., free-will, motion-origin, mind-body illusion, experience-materialism, idealism-realism, matter-spirit, etc., Hans Jonas’ logical material supplies much of this)

5. All ontologies must be finite & origin closed, as it’s all we can hard scientifically know…(ie., self-evidently derived, ie., logic is grounded in fundamental value_worth__logic is measured only by/in/of values_hard scientific ethics & esthetics__historically and scientifically accurate physical objective facts & laws)

6. All mereologies must be complete to available information…(all disparate ideas, generalities & exactitudes must be processed toward a continuity continuum of a knowing unity of Universal facts, by fully objective means__all subjective means and realities must be set temporarily aside__any scientific method demands it, ie., symbolic logics, geometries, algebras & absolute calculuses suffice for hard scientific facts and truths__no extra-logical facts are needed)

7. All final abduction-hypothesis decisions must hinge on total use and differentiations/integrations of all empirical/experiential, rational/logical/mathematical & evidential informations, ideas, models, categories & concepts…(steps 1 through 7, must constantly be repeated, until final effects match initial set antecedent actions’ ‘Goals’)

8. The ‘is/ought’ problem must be eliminated…(a false dichotomy of mis-understood teleology__full knowledge of is available__'Ought' can easily be derived from 'Is', iff clear goals are 1^st stated/asserted & properly set to law__either mentally or physically)

9. Quine’s ‘Two Dogmas’ illusion must be eliminated…(a proper integral path oriented ontological, epistemological, teleological & mereological mechanics accomplishes this)

10. Hans Jonas’ logical work, in conjunction with Kepler’s, Bacon’s, Bolzano's, Whewell’s, Hamilton's, DeMorgan’s, Clifford’s, Bain’s, Peirce’s, Tarski's, & Prior's, etc., solves the above__when properly & thoroughly defined, integrated and understood…

11. A Goal Must 1^st Be Set__To Match & Achieve The Above 10 Points…(The’ Goal’ must be clearly and explicitly set out, to achieve the proper scientific methods & actions)

12. All 1^st Goals’ Actions Should Be Set To Time-Variable Law…(a safe % of institution per year, of such laws, to absolutely guarantee the complete safety and sovereignty of all nations’ futures)

13. A Thorough Knowledge & Complete Understanding of Logical, Mathematical, Intellectual and Physical Histories Is Necessarily Required By All Participants of Such A Momentus Project…(All participants should be educated in more than one discipline, & should have at least one discipline be a real hard science, & have been a practicing member of that hard science field, to which he belongs__along with his intellectual endeavor of choice)

“If the psyhe community doesn’t like the above method, the hard scientific community can willingly re-name ‘hard science’ to ‘Imaginary Science’ to please the weaknesses of psyche interpretations of hard science__just as was done by Lobachevsky & Vasiliev, to keep their heads, in the face of Russia’s severe church scrutiny against 19^th century science.”

“Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency." Ibn al-Haytham

Addendum:
"A Good Person, for The Sake of Good…!!!"
 

Hi Tim__tried to make it short, but it grew again... lol...

 

Btw, great note...

 

You know, sometimes I think you think quite different than I do, then you respond and prove me wrong to myself. What you've written is almost identical to the way I also see the world__Just goes to show you, we never know... I do have a lot of respect for your statment, as reflected per what I titled this note; "A Good Person, for The Sake of Good…!!!" Just last night, after our monthly meeting, I mentioned to one of the members I usually have a few drinks with, when he mentioned being a bit worried about the advance of web technologies, such as social media and its obvious consequences__that, though the web was initially causing a few problems, maybe, as we don't yet even know 'The Arab Spring' outcomes, in the long run, from my own self-civilizing experiences of knowledge increase, may not turn out to be what we think. As I told him, 'Imo, It seems near impossible for web knowledge entering the entire world's collective conscious minds, that the final outcome has to be good, as imo, 'Knowledge acquired, when enough is acquired, can do nothing but give one the desire to act good'__and imo, the many people of today's web-world are eventually going to have taken in much information and turn much of it to new knowledge... I just thought it quite coincidental that you'd also mention a similar concept...

 

I just really have only one question to ask about this idea: "Is there a potential for the universe to be one or the other? Of course, but it obviously isn't but one or the other as a few intrinsic aspects demand even the universe take a side as it can't be both of a simple few things due to the very nature of what those concepts represent."

 

Tim, why would you think, "It need to be either one or the other...?" I don't get it...

 

Here's the same problem, from my perspective... If we observe the aggregate Universe, with all its matter and bio-creatures/structures, we know it to be constructed of at least two distinct systems__the geo-physical, bio-physical and mental-physical, yet, we don't yet even know if the geo-physical or bio-physical is complete, as per our present analysis__then there's the mental-physical, with all its present arguments of whether it even be noumenal or phenominal, and by this I interpret to mean, spirit or object, subjective or objective, etc. Recently, I came across Bain's order of the evolution of logical ideas, and he exposed a problem of interpretation stemming from the order of how deduction, induction and definition were actually evolutionarily discovered. He stated something I very much had to agree with, and that was the fact that; 'This evolution of ideas is backward to the way it should be known to function.' Though evulutionary nature gave us this order, the true order of operation, as to producing clear and true ideas is, or should be__Definition_Induction_Deduction, and of course Abduction thrown in since his days, to act as hypothesis mechanics, along with Induction_Deduction... Now, think about this for a second and see if it makes a difference in how we respond to ideas. If we clearly defined what we were about to talk about first, it would eliminate much confusion, as to the fundamental stances our minds were taking, as per the issues discused. By this I mean as per the way Peirce mentioned__He stated that; 'We should use a dual interpretation system for clarity's sake__One for our personal psychologies_the subjective__And, one for our hard science interpretations_the objective.' Can you see what I'm getting at...? If we did do this, agreeingly so, we could avoid the cross-confoundings between the subjective and objective interpretations, almost completely. When we talk about hard science, especially, it should always be understood as measurable objective objects, we are talking about__even when its the real probability maths used in quantum mechanics, as they still pertain only to real underlying objective facts of real objects, even if these objects simply be mere unstructured fields. Not that you and I are often confounded by this problem, but the fact it does come up once in a while in our exchanges, as per the above mentioned; 'taking sides...'

"Of course, but it obviously isn't but one or the other as a few intrinsic aspects demand even the universe take a side as it can't be both of a simple few things due to the very nature of what those concepts represent." Why not Tim...?
 

As to 'Why not?'__The mind is made up of two sides, one distinctly objectively known and understood as rationality, active will, logicality and or intellect__the other objectively not decisively known, except as our subjective emotions, yet as we objectively see, looking around the world, at real emotionally charged and possibly caused actions__it does also seem to have an active will of its own. Now, this is and has been expressed by many since Kant first objectively extensively mentioned it, but I see no other way for these emotional and intellectual actions to exist, unless the mind did have these two distinct wills__One, we can definitely know to be objective, and the other we can both know to exist non-objectively/non-conceptually and or subjectively__subjective is always considered the unknown, due simply to the fact of having no external proof possible, even though we both may know we have subjective feelings. I just have to agree with the 'two-wills' ideas offered by many, as there seems to be no other explanation for what I clearly see happening around the world, and in my own mind, and our biological agents can easily incorporate more than one will, when one realizes the complexity of our many bio-agents, within our brains. The way this was explained is the fact that the rational intellect's will, can externally observe, describe and define all the World's and Universe's objects, plus through symbolic logics, represent everything objectively taking place in ratio-logic and inner conceptual observations, by placing all the corresponding ideas on paper, or replicating most of the experiments as other such corresponding proofs__but the subjective can never be represented by any ratio-logic or inner conceptual observations, though many of us may be able to perceptually see our emotional ideas, we lack all means of externally accurately representing or proving them to others__thus two distinct schools of thought were born, as far back as the Early Greeks__The noumenal(mental ideas) and the phenomenal(physical facts/objects...)

 

The trouble seems to enter Tim, when we try to limit the mental side of the equation, as per so, so; 'must take a side' as per your above statement. Again; Why...?

 

The problem is that when we make statements, without any means of proving them, we commit one of the subjective fallacies, and I don't think you mean to do that, but I do wonder why you seem to miss such subjective fallacies. It's really no big deal, but it does make it rather difficult to keep objective observations and interpretations on track, as to a logical result. To me, where the confusion comes in is not realizing the 'absolute independence' of the subjective side of the mind, and the objective side of the mind, at least to our scientific observation and measurement abilities. The objective side can't possibly see inside the subjective, at least not to mathematize or accurately measure it, and the subjective side can't possibly see inside the objective, at least not to see its total complexity of already known observations, due to the subjective being our agent of generality of feelings, and feelings can only know themselves, and not that well I may add, as you and I would both readily admit. But what happens when we confound the two sides of the mind in person to person communications...? It's simply far too difficult to figure the meanings intended. As to the subjective side of the mind, it further is an ultimate creation and definition unto itself, only__as the micro-bio-agent evolved itself, in conjunction with its environment, but there may be no way for us to ever know how__and we may have to admit defeat, as to understanding the inanimate to animate geo-bio-chemical-life evolution process... But, I do know I have a 'Live Free-Will', as I ain't dead, and the only way I wouldn't have a free-will, is if I were 'Deterministically Dead'__which one day I will be, but not yet__so you see, I do admit to both free-will and determinism being a fact of reality, over time anyway__but, not just yet, for me anyway... lol

 

Let's look at the entire Universe, as a functioning objective object, having 'motion'__and it's required 'limit on motion'. This can also be seen as an isomorphic mechanical relationship between 'Motion as Free-Will' and 'Motion Limit as Determinism'__Now, I see nothing logically wrong with both being true__Do you...? Imo, it would be logically and mechanically impossible for any unstructured fs-motion field to form any form of structured matter, unless the fundamental motion had its absolutely necessary counterpart of a limiting factor over such motion, even if that be 'motion limiting motion', or whatever__No...? If we hypothetically look at the Universe as a possible 'Thermo-Hydro-Dynamics', where the thermodynamic factor operates on the aggregate as 'Free Motion', then the hydrodynamic factor would act on the aggregate as a 'Motion Limit'__thus explaining much about the entire Universal puzzle, while also somewhat explaining gravity's mechanics, being the 'Mean Motions/Actions' between the two 'Thermodynamic/Hydrodynamic' extremes, at the extremes of mechanical explanations... This same scenario can be brought back to Earth, as a function of our minds, where 'Intellectual Determinism' operates over out 'Emotional Free-Choicel' and our 'Intellectual Free-Determined-Will' to check, or act as a brake on our emotions, and both a brake and free circuit actions on and within our intellects... In my book, that would give us all the mechanics necessary to fundamentally function both a Universe and a Mind__No...? Also, it seems to be the same isomorphic mechanics of the total operations of both__At least as to objective generalities...

A few possble thoughts, to at least look at, Tim... I just see nothing wrong with both 'Free-Motion' and 'Braking-Motion' always existing__together__in fact, I see it as an absolute necessity...(The braking motion can also be seen as 'angular momentum', as such would have the torque necessary to act as the 'braking motion', and possibly even one of gravity's explanations__No...?)

 

Please do answer, 'Why you think it's necessary for a Universe to only function 'One Way'__and not the other__I really am curious...'

Have a good un,

Lloyd

--
The Triadic Maxim___Any Idea; “Arithmetically check all possible effects, against all possible premises, and the combined results will be the total actions of the idea.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://spot.colorado.edu/~rhanna/Hanna_freedom_teleology_and_rational_causation_kant_yearbook_published_version_june09.pdf

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/paper_hanna_rationality_and_the_ethics_of_logic_Jphil_proofs_apr06.pdf

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  Alpha Concepts…

Tim, good points... You know, way back in the early `90's, when I'd just finished organizing about 5,000 pages of raw notes, I'd written something similar to what this e-mail portends__Here's what I wrote, in so many words__"I'd like my readers to realize I am well aware of the full self-construction of, 'all past authors of note', about their information and knowledge systems__systems of thought, being none other than necessary self-constructions... I further want my readers to know, I am also fully aware of my own self-constructing of my systems of information about the World and Universe__I write nothing, without one eye on self-construction and her laws, though much of my self-construction is, I think, founded on derived principles, sound laws and facts, which can make sound axioms, and not simply asserted/projected axioms__at least as best as I’m capable, though I’m humanly fallible, also. You must judge this last part of the statement, yourself..." My trouble, through the years Tim, is to get other people to understand that when certain researchers have discovered these necessary self-constructing facts, of the world's many great master-minds, is to have others, one is talking to, or dialoguing with, understand the fact that almost all sound facts and information are really self-constructed informations, mixed with a few newly discovered and/or fully derived new facts, informations, principles and laws... Most people I've had direct face to face conversations with, at these deeper levels, seem to want to think their own minds are more intelligent than interpreting mere self-constructions of facts and informations, mostly of others’ constructions__and will usually refute the facts of 'self-constructed informations and knowledge systems' when the subject is brought up, directly to them... Tim, none of us are as smart as we sometimes think we are, which from reading your responses, I think you may be one of the first people, I've ever spoken with, that seems to understand this. Thanks for being such a wise person, with your internal thought processes, Tim...

So far Tim, this is all I have left of what was a really good extended e-mail to ya, on the very ‘Alpha-Fundamentals’ you mentioned... I’m gonna junk this new Win 007 computer. I’ve lost more e-mails and posts just transferring from file to file programs, or between auto-saves, hidden macro-buttons or whatever. My old computer hardly ever lost, I mean completely lost, files__but this new piece of junk sure does. Sometimes, it even completely looses my mouse, and I have to delete the driver and reload it… Anyway, though I can’t ever repeat what I’d written, I’ll make another feeble attempt…

“Such concepts as randomness/determinism, infinite/finite, eternal/temporary, etc. by definition cause our thoughts of the universal system to take a side as it can't be both infinite and finite, eternal and temporary or be absolutely determinate at all resolutions if any degree of randomness be present. It can however build towards determinate interactions to some degree, but even within such macro scale interactions, the very presence of randomness would actually prevent any local absolute determinism as it would never be calculable of just how much randomness might be present at any one time.”

I’m not picking this apart here Tim, but, I’d like to point out a mechanical fact within our fundamental logic concepts, that does have dual meanings, at the deepest levels of a combined psychological and logical definitions and interpretations’ process of levels. I’d just simply point out that “concepts as randomness/determinism, infinite/finite, eternal/temporary, etc. by definition cause our thoughts of the universal system to take a side as it can't be both infinite and finite, eternal and temporary”__Which when considered as the whole Universe, does do exactly what you’ve stated can’t be done, and this is the very ‘Alpha Concept’ we are trying to understand, that makes all other understanding either possible or impossible… I, out of one side of my mind, agree with what you’ve above stated, as per the bolded text__while out of the other side of my mind, dis-agree with it. Let me explain. Yes, our thoughts of the universal system do take sides to make sensible interpretations of the Universe, but at the same time, we must realize that all interpretations are ‘self-constructed systems’ from some previous assumptions, axioms, derivations, laws or whatever facts and beliefs we may possess__We are all sentence constructors, along with concept systems constructors__It’s just what the mind does__sometimes good, sometimes bad. The thing is, the same sentence can be constructed about the ‘Alpha Logic’ to have opposite meanings, and this is a fact known about our ‘Alpha Logics’ since the time of the Greeks__Logic itself is or can be very tautological(inversely recursive), meaning redundantly true in either construction direction, forward or backward, as per the ancient rules of logic, and can only be fully grounded by the triadic logic process of the Aristotlean formal syllogistic logics. Tim, this may seem strange at first seeing it written, but our fundamental logic, within the mind itself, has to have a ‘system construct’ itself, to make it structurally valid. If we were to follow our ‘self-fundamental-logic’(Alpha Logic) to its very mechanical core, we’d find it depends on both its qualitative and quantitative functions/attributes/whatever, as logic can’t exist as just a quantitative function like we may wish it could, as we must have means to scientifically measure the very values of logic itself, even if as simple as positive-negative, true-false, yes-no, 1-0, or whatever__we find that values’ definitions enters into the logic equations, thus not allowing our fundamental logic to be purely quantifiable, without including such quantitative issues also involved__and herein lies the problems of double definitions, unless a sentence structured language processing scheme is 1^st set up, as per how Aristotle 1^st did it. All through the centuries, logicians have tried to leave Aristotle’s fundamental logic system, only to produce bad logics, veering great distances from the mean, between false extremes__whether too logical or too psychological. Even logic must possess a scheme to find the mean between all the false extremes, of all its possible interpretations… Therefore, formal logics must be relied upon, to validate even other less formal systems of logic__and no system of logic is immune to this most fundamental logical necessity__even our most fundamental ‘Alpha Logics’(logica utens…)

Now, getting back to what you wrote again, about; “caus(ing) our thoughts of the universal system to take a side”__I would have to state, not if one is fully aware of fundamental logic’s necessary 1^st formal constructions, to prove any fundamental logical validity. Tim, all valid logics are fundamentally constructed logics, by and for the sheer necessity of having any possible logical validity. Our own natural fundamental logic is far too fallible to be trusted except for non-super-critical/accurate thinkings. As an example, I simply site the fact that; “concepts as randomness/determinism, infinite/finite, eternal/temporary, etc. by definition are  both infinite and finite, eternal and temporary, etc., at the level of the Universal Whole”__thus the fundamental logic to truly describe such mechanics, absolutely must be formally self-constructed, to avoid such dichotomous oxymorons and ambiguities built into all our languages, psychologies and logics__as your initial statement has dual-logical-meanings, built in by the necessity of ‘Total Universal Mechanics…’ So, what it comes down to Tim, is the fact, that to speak scientifically logically and truthfully, one must fully and carefully self-construct his/her logic, with one eye to the known fundamental ‘Laws of Thought’ and the ‘Laws of Logic’ plus ‘The Laws of Physics’__where some have been around since the early Greeks, while still more weren’t completed until the 19^th century, where we find most of these most fundamental improvements to both ‘The Laws of Thought & Logic, plus Physics…’

Tim, I’m simply trying to point out the scientific use of logic, herself, is extremely critical to such explanations. If a scientific thinker, or scientist doesn’t have a complete grasp of logic’s absolute fundamental necessities, it’s near impossible to process the ‘Universal Mechanics’ into truly meaningful explanations__This is the reason I spend so much time researching the shortest routes to the best ratio-logical explanations__as that’s really all I’ve been doing Tim, since the early `80’s__And truly, I haven’t been wasting my time__It’s clearly that difficult, at the purely and soundly scientific level, especially in today’s overly confused, confounded and conflated world… It’s far more complex, than most of the world realizes. There’s nothing simple about grounding logical ‘Alpha Truths’ in sound physical ‘Alpha Realities’__It’s very difficult… Psychology’s got a big noggin, that’s gotta be knocked outta there… History’s march has been nothing but eliminating psychology from logic, without losing all of logic’s ability and validity to appeal to other scientists, and even maybe a few psychologists, along the path..

I’ll explain this better later Tim, as that post I lost still has me a bit off track…

PHILOSOPHIC COMMENTS ON THE NEW RESULT: "ABSOLUTIVITY" REPLACING RELATIVITY

PHILOSOPHIC COMMENTS ON THE NEW RESULT: 
"ABSOLUTIVITY" REPLACING RELATIVITY 

Science on the large scale, that is science dealing with the fundamentals of reality and the universe, has always had and still has a major effect on the non-scientific - social - general philosophic thinking of that science’s society and its leaders.

The beginning of the scientific method and the work of scientists such as Copernicus and Galileo resulted in the new period of "The Age of Reason" and "The Enlightenment" – rationality and empiricism replacing dogma and faith. 

The new developments that Newton introduced led directly to the concept of the "clockwork universe" and the strong belief in laws, order and regularity. 

And, Einstein’s theory of relativity coupled with the 20th Century’s attribution of actual uncertainty or indeterminism to all physical objects, an extension far beyond the original valid Heisenberg Uncertainty of measurement due to the act of measuring changing the object measured, resulted in our contemporary outlook of a probabilistic reality with no certainty, everything relative with no firm truths, upon which we can lay some of the responsibility for the horrors and tragedies of the 20th Century. 

How is that so ? 

In general, a statement and its contradiction cannot be simultaneously true. Therefore, there are some absolute truths. Thus there is absolute truth, which is the collective body of absolute truths. 

Not all statements are absolute truths. Aside from error, which by definition is not true, there is opinion. For example: 

· Some people state their liking for candy; some their dislike. It is a matter of opinion. 
· But, the statement "Some candy has properties that appeal to some people" is an absolute truth. 

The point of view that the questions, "What is truth ?" and "What is real ?" are meaningless questions without answers is not only incorrect but quite negative and harmful in that it suppresses inquiry and progress that could otherwise take place. 

Truth is that which conforms to and describes reality. Reality is that which is, not only matter and energy in their various forms but also: feelings and emotions, ideas and cultures, languages and arts, and so forth. 

Whether we can know, sense, measure, or understand some aspect of reality or not it still, nevertheless, is.

Its being does not depend on our consent nor our observation nor our understanding of it, nor even our own being. We are not gods. 

The problem is not whether there is absolute truth or not -- there is. The problem is finding out, coming to know, what the absolute truth is, what is true and what is not. Just what is the "real" reality. 

This problem has beset mankind since the earliest stages of the development of our reasoning. It has resulted in a more or less collective decision to grant equal validity to a number of different versions of the truth in spite of their being mutually contradictory. 

Not that individuals, organizations and governments hold the opinion that their own version of the truth is not correct. Rather, they ardently believe in the correctness of their own views. But, their inability to prove their views and their inability to defeat differing or opposing views necessitates their getting along in some fashion with those other views and the multiplicity of contradictory views of reality. 


That state of affairs has existed for so many human lifetimes that it has essentially implanted in our collective and individual thinking the incorrect belief that there is no absolute truth, that truth is what we say it is -- especially that truth is what we can enforce it to be. 

We have gone from inability to determine the truth to non-belief in its existence and then to belief that truth, and reality, are whatever we choose to believe them to be and can force on our fellows. 

The most significant characteristic of the 20th Century, other than its explosion of technology, has been its adoption of the attitude that truth is different for each person and each case, that it is what each individual perceives it to be -- that there is no objective reality, only the subjective reality as perceived by each individual -- that all is relative. 

The great damage that such thinking does is the license that it gives. It gives license to create, choose, decide upon one's own "reality" and then act accordingly. Such thinking ultimately gives us war, rapine, holocausts. 

But, if there is an absolute reality, objective truth, then, even if we are not able to completely know and understand it, we are subject to it. We are measured and judged by it; we experience the effects and consequences of it whether we agree and approve or not, and we feel compelled to behave accordingly. 

Thus absolute reality and objective truth, 
which indeed exist, 
also are desirable and beneficial. 
They are, in fact, essential to civilized society.

And, that is the beneficial result of Absolutivity replacing Relativity. 

Three New and Important Papers On Space and Time...

The ontology of General Relativity, Gustavo E. Romero
https://www.academia.edu/9897779/The_Ontology_of_General_Relativity

Philosophical problems of space-time theories, Gustavo E. Romero
https://www.academia.edu/9910175/Philosophical_problems_of_space-time_theories 

Present time, Gustavo E. Romero
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.4671v1.pdf

A Few IFA Proposals - Conventional - Unconventional

Friday, December 05, 2003

A Few IFA Proposals - Conventional - Unconventional

Ah yes, Edward. Quite a problem we seem to be in. Since Edward asked this question, I thought I might stick my head out and see how many chop it off. Somehow, I feel they may not since we are all in such a quandry... "What this means is that the seesaw analogy fails: Europe cannot go up while the US goes down: both need to descend together. So the problem here is architectural (any suggestions Lloyd?):"

As I stated in one of my posts at: MacroMouse and in thorough agreement with you Edward, "We have never been here before." Due to the vast imbalances in global ppp's, wages, debts, trade, wealth, exchange rates, etc., which have evolved since the collapse of the Bretton Woods System in 1971-`73, we face the most serious challenge since,oh who knows when, forever. So what would I do with the international financial architecture? If enough serious minds are willing to admit something needs to be done, then there are definately several answers.

The goal, of course, is to rebalance the entire global system. How? Well, many forms of external exchange clearing have been put forth since Plato first advocated it, though none overly appeal to me or many others, as suggested - they reduce too much autonomy. Therefore, I suggest several different forms of conventional exchange clearing and several unconventional forms of internal exchange clearing - which allow a higher degree of local autonomy. I see no other way to otherwise rebalance the massively out of balance system. If we had originally, in 1971, rebuilt the then broken system by making balanced floating exchange the law of the land, we wouldn't be here, but we didn't. Just for the record, we could have made a 10% maximum balance band law the IMF would have been mandated to follow when nation's ppp's drifted out of balance, that they should have been mandated to rebalance, even though we had abandoned the pegged system. A rebalancing framework could have and should have been set up at that time, even if it meant loaning, or using a standby agreement until hostilities ended, the money needed by the U.S. to finish the war, etc. It would have been smarter than destroying the entire system as has nearly happened. There were many ways to rebuild a workable system at the time, it was just the acrimony over the war that prevented such a wise course. I mention this for background on what now must be done.

I have only recently come across enough information and empirical evolution to possibly offer a few new and different answers. I am no where near ready, but I can set the framework. At the outset, moral hazard must be guarded against most in the workings of any new system. As Alfred Marshall suggested, we could use his units of purchasing power as a solid standard of a new architecture. I suggest a very large basket[20% of GDP] of commodities, production, goods, and services as the new standard for all nations. This large 20% is required because I further suggest using many forms of derivatives contracts and bond contracts as insurance for the new system of clearing - to satisfy the large financial interests. I suggest this be a minimal financial computer controlled international clearing architecture - politics removed after implementation. To implement, all capital markets must be either closed[short term] or laws of gradual rebalance must be written into the architecture implementation and evolution. This way all nations can maintain their sovereignty and autonomy more than other already advocated systems. If the laws and computer programs are properly written, the world can evolve over a given timeframe to a new global balance of all thus mentioned markets. Rebalancing is a simple accounting trick if enough financing is forthcoming, to do so. It will take much new IMF financing, but the rebalancing will recreate so much new credit productivity, it will pay itself back over time just as the massive public financing of global WWII did.

There is also internal exchange clearing, a non-conventional system, that I have written George Monbiot about. There are several of these variations, also, but for now I will enter my e-mail to George:

Earlier today I came across an article of yours about a meeting, to come up with an alternative to capitalism other than the other failed system - totalitarianism. I'd like to make a suggestion that there is a way to build such an architecture. BTW, you are my favorite author. The system I am talking about is already here, almost but unrecognized, as yet. On the one side we have what I refer to as Minsky's Heinz `57 capitalisms. On the other we have the Heinz `57 totalitarianisms. None of these are satisfactory. Yet, the answer lies somewhere inthe middle between the two. BushCo wants to implement an outrageously totally free [for the corporations that is] capitalism. China, on the other hand is moving from totalitarianism toward BushCo's totally free corporate capitalism. If it goes all the way this would be a big mistake, as the perfect mixed market capitalism lies in between.

What I'm talking about here is the world has a chance to help China develop the first perfectly balancedmixed economy of public and private enterprise. I use this example as the developed nations will not yet listen to common sense. Now, I know from reading your books and articles you can easily grasp this. If China were to naturally evolve to a state of 20% public enterprise markets and 80% private enterprise markets we would have a chance to witness something truly amazing in economic history, if properly organized at this % mix. As, at this total market mix the 20% public enterprise market could be used to keep inflation/deflation permanently in check throughout the 80% private enterprise market, thus allowing a fiat money system unlimited potential. I mention this about China as it is the only experiment in the world heading toward and most likely to reach this % threshold. It would be a great loss to the world if we do not recognize this once in earth's lifetime chance to grant the world a new path. E=1/5X is a formula for perfect competition capitalism.

The 20% public enterprise mix must be a total % market organization of all production, goods, and services in order to check inflation/deflation throughout the 80% totally free private enterprise side. A tripple entry banking system can be set up to finance. Alfred Marshall, at the turn of the century, mentioned such a similar mix with his units of purchasing power. This is the same thing, so to speak, at a much expanded macro level. If you can actually see this system, which I think you can, you must see the advantages a fiat system would possess when inflation/deflation can be market controlled, it frees the printing press to have free reign to build an unbelievably wealthy, healthy, strong, and viable moral capitalism.

If China were to discover this capitalism key, the rest of the world would be forced to emulate - gladly as debts and taxes would vanish or could be used productively. They most likely will cross the 1/5X threshold sometime in the near future as they are privatizing at a fast rate - almost 50% already. There is no need for them to cross it in disarray as is the case with many of Europe's social democracies and Russia's failed transition. They only need be shown the simple facts. Please dialogue with me to work out the details. The world needs us George.

I wrote three books about this system through the `80's and `90's. Trouble is they are very crude web published material - not enough free time. I am now retired and have the time to finish. My work will be rewritten and republished this winter. My first paper will be 20 to 30 pages long on global credit productivity - a totally new macroeconomic subject.

just a start, I have more,
everyone, dialogue with me,
Lloyd

Metaphysics of Emergence

Metaphysics of Emergence A Strange Kind of Being Emerges; Kent D. Palmer, Ph.D. http://holonomic.net/me00a02.pdf 

Preliminaries — definitions of concepts of logical truth and necessity:

Preliminaries — definitions of concepts of logical truth and necessity:

The hierarchy of stable sets, then, consists at least of the empty  set, the set of logical necessities, the set of physical necessities, and the set of all truths. Since any proper subset of the set of logical truths fails to be logically closed, the set of logical truths is the smallest nonempty stable set. Marc Lange

1. Boltzmann’s continuum hypothesis (necessarily incomplete)(admitted by Boltzmann)

2. Boltzmann’s ergodicity (necessarily incomplete as to exact equilibrium)

3. Ramsey’s ergodicity (tends toward equilibrium)

4. Wittgenstein’s foundational logic for mathematics (as interpreted by Ramsey)(sum of all propositions possible represents logical infinity as a fundamental ground of math)(symbolically useful/used as to computer math software)

5. Cantor’s w incompleteness (as per Brower’s intuitionistic logic)(para-consistent logic)(logic is deeper still)

6. Are set-theoretical truths mathematical or logical (why the most basic set is logical)(the non-empty stable set)(logical truths form a stable set under CH and ØCH counterfactual necessity)(stable sets form a heiarchy)

7. Physical necessity and/vs. logical necessity (two definitions of logical necessity —classical and ergodic)(where ergodic applies to non-fixed/non-linear universal logic, i.e., logic of the universal mechanics, not exact universal logic, i.e., what exists in macro structures vs. what exists in micro structures of black holes — as per theory, also QM at super-positioning limit)

8. Godel’s incompleteness of his incompleteness theorem = hypothesis (new discovery sheds new light on Godel’s math being short of its full logic knowledge)

9. Necessary counterfactuals (i.e., by the necessity of a space-time continuum being mathematically un-closable, counterfactuals function as physical necessities for logical necessity, i.e., positive and negative charges of qm fundamental substance matter, except in the possibilities of theoretical black-hole super-positioning mechanics, thus allowing the two positions of logic over math impossibilities)(such a relational logic can’t be written into numbers, at this level of super-positioning)(maybe in the future, it can be mathematized; but, this is un-necessary to absolute foundations of logic, where such logic dictates its own closure by necessity of charge counterfactuals and the c-laws of physics — light, or charge as light velocity-spin collisions, is its own absolute governor on logic’s possibilities and necessities)

Summary of the concept of logical truth and necessity:

Since the time of Thales, Anaximander and Heraclitus we’ve been confronted with the fact of how the mind logically necessarily mechanically functions as to “argument to exhaustion”, or in modern terminology, “counterfactuals”. What is it about us bio-beings that allows us such high level of both logical and mathematical interpretation? I mean; Is it the mind’s eye’s geometric necessary mechanics of scalable intelligence only, or is there a deeper fundamental mechanical necessity in operation? For the last 4 or 5 years, I’ve thought it mainly the bio-organic mechanics of the mind’s eye’s geometric functioning, but I was having trouble grounding such mechanics, other than highly complex compounding of the many truth and proof systems available, but I now see another path — that of a more fundamental counterfactually necessary CH and ØCH logic.

We know the trouble really reared its ugly head with the logic and mathematical crises of the latter part of the 19^th century, when non-linear logic and maths were discovered, placing all fundamental classical logic and math in jeopardy. And, even with all the work done in math and logic since, from Piano axioms, Cantor and ZF set theory and its variants up through Von Neumann, Church-Turing, Godel, Tarski, Cohen, etc., and many other non-standard analyses since, there’s still been the nagging question of incompletenesses, in many areas, especially as to absolute foundations; foundations which could not be fully derived, either from the universal laws, maths or logics, without using the often fudged axioms. What would or could replace the questionable axioms? Many of us have surmised it to be some more basic system of math or logic, not yet discovered, and that is what I’ve discovered — At least, as far as I can see.

I just happened to wake up yesterday morning thinking about “The tensor scalability of imagination”, i.e., “Empires scale up and down over time, mainly by law, money and intelligence; and/or, the lack of intelligence, money and by symmetric and asymmetric law confusions, conflations and changes”; “Quantifiable truth requires a physical ground, even if only qm space”; “Linguistics’ over-formalization of non-fundamental formalization, i.e., Chomsky — Psychology can-not be formalized”; “So far, the only successful “Universal Languages” that’s ever been developed are logic and math; and then, there’s 137+ different formal logics and many more maths”; “Philosophy is a formal methodology of thinking about thinking, as abstraction, conceptualism, logic, etc., and being formal is thus an objective science” — When it dawned on me that what I was looking at was a fundamentally new way of looking at formalizable foundations in logic and math, from a perspective I’d never considered — That of; “The foundation of all quantifiable logic, math and truth systems is the fact that a completed continuum hypothesis is “Impossible of Proof” in any of these systems, thus acts as the counter-factual fact to found such physical realities upon — The Ø symbol is the foundation symbol of all truth proof systems, i.e., “Factual Incompleteness” is the foundation of all truth systems’ proofs.” ØCH extends all the way back to Thales’ counter-factuals, or arguments to exhaustion. Exhaustion only exists due to the incompleteness of ØCH possible. Logic, math and truth systems would not function without ØCH incompleteness, as there’d be no logical or physical counterfactuals to base such systems and thinking upon. CH Completeness must remain incomplete for our knowledge systems to function. The CH is only “Ergodic” — “Tends Toward Equilibrium” — But, ØCH complete — by necessity of logic, math and truth functionality — Otherwise; Counterfactuals could not exist to base any knowledge system upon. All logic, math and truth systems are true up to “Ergodicity”; But, ØCH complete… (Ø meaning “never” here)(CH complete would destroy all possibility of logic, math and truth functionality)(Realize this is just an early summary of my yet pregnant ideas, while the concept is complete in my mind — It’ll take me a while yet to polish and complete it)

ØCH and ØØCH can both be true, as in unified black-holes’ neutron charge non-existence, and all other natural phenomena of universal charges +’s and –’s counterfactual necessities outside black-holes and neutron stars — Thus; Physical necessity is not always logical necessity, allowing for absolute counterfactual facts and truths. The smallest non-empty stable set of pure logic is the ergodic ØCH. E = MC² except at limit — Limit = “Absolute Hydrodynamic Spin-Time Compression” in black-holes, where opposing charges neutralize — When all electrons and atomic structure merge into “Super-Super-Positioning”. No math exists for the above conditions — Only ØCH Logic — The sums and products of truths and counterfactual truths of the propositions involved. These facts alone are the reason logic is the more stable set, over and above set math.

If you follow this at all, give me some honest criticism, as imo, I’m looking at; The #1 Universal Law of ØCH Modal Necessity — CH Counterfactuals Absolutely Must Exist — Which actually changes and enhances the entire foundations of logic, and the logical foundations of math.

P.s.

Sorry for the mostly note infused prelim and summary. I’ll work it into a more condensed and presentable paper later. Just wanted to give you some idea what I’m working on.

A Universal Geometry of The Mind’s Eye P=NP Complete __pic.twitter.com/c8Q592pO15

Fundamental Motion In Motion...

The “motion and rest-motion” indiscernibility apex of CM/QM/RM — There exists no such state, as linear motion is “eternally” exchanging motion states, with angular motion and spin states — “Eternally” — one to the other — V_a = V_r « V_u…

A Rational Morality

A Rational Morality

By, http://intelligentparty.wordpress.com/

I’ve found on a number of occasions that people who conceive of morality as something handed down from on high don’t understand how there could be any alternative to that view. “If you don’t get your morals from [deity of choice], where do you get them?”The frequency with which this line of questioning appears demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of what sort of a concept morality is and how we can coherently define it. The assumption at the heart of the misunderstanding is that morals must be things in the world—not necessarily that they must be tangible, but that they have an existence independent of the human mind. For a person holding this view, morals are fixed, constant, and external.
(Continued below the fold.)

The Source
This notion of external moral values is equally ludicrous whether the perceived source is a deity or a dictator. Morality is a value-based judgment system, a human-created way of applying conceptual labels to human interaction and decision-making. These labels, the words of moral judgment—good, bad, right, wrong, just, unjust—have no real-world referent, the way ‘pencil’ or ‘babboon’ do. They only exist in the abstract, which is to say that they only exist as products of the human mind, and this is the only way they really make any sort of sense—as linguistic constructions for describing and evaluating human behavior. People intuitively understand this, I think, but they persist in thinking of moral values as something existing independent of human reason (and often not even accessible to human reason).
Nature certainly doesn’t make sense as a source for morality, given that nature (pathetic fallacy aside) has no particular interest in whether we act “morally” or “immorally.” This is to say that two actions, one “moral” and one “immoral,” may have markedly different consequences, but nature has no real investment in one over the other for the sake of adhering to a moral system. Examined in this light, moral actions are not qualitatively different from immoral actions from any perspective other than a human one. The only distinction between actions, from a natural standpoint, is due to a difference in the direct consequences of those actions. Any attempt to claim the natural world as a source for arbitrarily chosen moral values is bogus, and is most likely an attempt to rationalize a supernaturally-based view of morality.

Defining the System
It is important for us to understand why morality exists, what purpose it serves in human discourse. Morality is most readily understood as a system we impose in order to make our lives easier—in terms of both individual quality of life and overall utility—and to turn them into something other than ‘kill or be killed.’ In its rational form (as distinct from the sense of ‘public morality,’ where things are arbitrarily chosen as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ for no logical reason), it is a product of extrapolating from rational self-interest. The impulse towards morality is not, fundamentally speaking, an impulse towards treating people justly or fairly for its own sake, but rather an impulse towards treating people justly and fairly in the hopes that they will treat us in such a way. An appropriately chosen moral value within such a system is one that strikes the right balance between self and other, in the sense that the negatives of obeying it ourselves are balanced out by the positives of everyone else obeying it. The most obvious example is the widely held moral prohibition against killing for reasons other than self defense. This is an appropriate moral value for us to hold, because we can reasonably (there’s that word again) expect that the desire to not be killed is more or less universal, that the convenience of not worrying about being murdered will outweigh the inconvenience of not being able to slit the throat of someone who pisses us off. That this is often overlooked in moments of passion in no way invalidates it as an ethos—it just means that there are situations in which people will make decisions based on something other than morality.

Extrapolation and Universality
You will undoubtedly notice a certain degree of speculation within such a system. This is unavoidable, practically speaking, given the overwhelming numbers of people on the earth; it’s not even remotely feasible that we interview the entirety of the human population, in order to have a truly universal representation of human desires. We must rely on experience and reason to give us a sense of what humans value, and which of these values must/should be considered unimpeachable—life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, etc. As we’ve previously established, reason is the only universal language available to us for discussing and analyzing these issues; emotion is not irrelevant, especially when utility and happiness are so closely linked, but the fact that something makes us feel good doesn’t in and of itself make it a universal good in any sense. And there is a need for morality to come from a universally accessible source, because otherwise it becomes meaningless as a system for human behavior. If, say, concepts of morality were bestowed by Hypothetical Supernatural Entity #1, and Hypothetical Supernatural Entity #1 was only perceptible to a certain subset of the population, then the rest of the population couldn’t be fully participating in the system, in the sense that they wouldn’t have any direct access to these “moral values.” Likewise, there is a need for some sort of universal morality in our increasingly global culture; if ever there was a time when different cultures could function with drastically different moral systems without affecting each other, that time is long since gone.

To What End?
The end result of this sort of moral reasoning (post-conventional, under Kohlberg’s very useful rubric, which I expect I’ll discuss again at some future point) is less clear than the merits and methods of the process itself. The only coherent theory of morality, it seems to me, is one which falls under the heading of a social contract, given the lack of justification for drawing moral values from external (non-human) sources. We identify, by careful reasoning, certain values which we all implicitly agree to live by, in order that we may enjoy the advantages of civilization over a more animalistic, survival of the fittest system. The logistics of this are troublesome, as is determining the ideal relationship of morality and law, but the point is that we must embrace a rational definition of morality, wherein we recognize that moral frameworks exist only insofar as we create them and impose them on ourselves and, by extension, on others. It should also be recognized that morality is not, from a broad perspective, a necessity; rather, it is a particularly useful system we’ve concocted to keep from killing and raping and stealing from each other (which is to say: to keep from being killed or raped or stolen from). The sooner we recognize the necessarily rational nature of moral judgments and stop trying to assign some absolute “moral” status to random beliefs and prejudices, the more just and pleasant our world will become, and the less we will abridge the fundamental rights of others.
–Urizen