• (body text)
• ##### THE CRISIS
• (body text)
• ##### SOLUTIONS
• (body text)
• ##### ACTIVISM
• (body text)

• (body text)

• (body text)
• ##### (Explanation)

(text here)

• ##### (Oversing)

(text here)

• ##### ( Runcible )

(text here)

• ##### ( Hriddle (“riddle”) )

(text here)

# Strict Construction from First Principles Is the Most Parsimonious Definition of Causal Relations Possible

Q: For group: Given: “Unambiguous (identity) and Parsimonious (reasoning from first principles(causality).” I don’t think we have a word for “unambiguous and parsimonious” even though I’ve been searching for a way to reduce that to one concept (measure).

Q: Leave it as is?

So another way to state that is:

unambiguous (identity) -> maximally deflated -> perfectly constructed <- minimal chain of necessary causality at present state of knowledge <- parsimonious (reasoning from first principles (causality))

Effectively, you cannot actually formulate an unambiguous identity other than by distinguishing it from other identities. Parsimony in normal parlance describes the minimal use of assumptions/ steps/ conjectures (= philosophy: choice of assumptions); we don’t do philosophy.

We do science: constructing from first principles, doing due diligence, aggressively testing, and accurately formulating the state of our knowledge using operational speech. Our use of the term parsimony acquires a different meaning: strict construction.

Why? Because strict construction from first principles is the most parsimonious definition of causal relations possible. This is the ultimate expression of Occam’s Razor, converting it from a rule of thumb to a scientific law.

Q: For group: Given: “Unambiguous (identity) and Parsimonious (reasoning from first principles(causality).” I don’t think we have a word for “unambiguous and parsimonious” even though I’ve been searching for a way to reduce that to one concept (measure).
Q: Leave it as is?