What Problem Are We Trying To Solve?
We’re using the method of exhaustive, continuous, recursive, disambiguation; by exhaustive adversarial competition, by both construction and falsification, to produce an unambiguous, universally commensurable, system of measurement; to discover first principles. Then with these first principles and measurements, to produce a universal paradigm, vocabulary, grammar, and logic of the formal sciences, with which to explain the logic of the physical sciences upon which we depend for action, behavioral sciences with which we act, and evolutionary sciences that result from our actions.
This resulting system of measurement, consisting of paradigm, first principles, measurements, vocabulary, grammar, and logic across all domains of possible knowledge, will then provide us with universal decidability regardless of context, where decidability consists in testimony sufficiently infallible, for due diligence, in defense of our claims of innocence, and therefore freedom from liability, in that discipline with the greatest scope of decidability available to man: the Law.
(with this law … )
( why we need this law … (below))
( what is ‘science’ … )
( this completes the unification of the sciences )
( exhausting decidability … with first principles … in before, during and after )
We’re trying to create an unambiguous system of measurement, eliminating ambiguity, so that we reduce or eliminate the possibility of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit, by use of ambiguity, incommensurability, non-correspondence, conflation, inflation, for the abuse of suggestion, deduction, induction, or abduction or guessing.
Examples: disputes over meaning that expand, narrow, or confuse references(properties) so that suggestion, inference, argument can be based on a false premise.
As in “not stating the rules of the game”, “changing the rules”,” moving the goalpost”, “false equivalency”, “deducing from analogy”, “pretense of knowledge” or other tactics of deception common in discourse, debate, and argument.
When we say ‘first we must define our terms’ we are establishing the accounting rules for the production of transactions of meaning, that are free of the pretense of knowledge, error, bias, deceit, fraud, and denial.
The optimum definition of a term is stated as “when you (do) ….” which is an operational description.
( … )
Hanging Mobile Art
(data fact vs information (meaning)) – commensurabiilty.
Continuous Recursive Disambiguation (Building more complex mobiles)
(mobile art with fragments of pictures for each item) (each fragment of each picture has a different weight)
Marginal Indifference In Sense Perception
( … )
Logical and Physical Instruments Solve The Problem of Marginal Differences
( … )
Measurement by Adversarial Competition
Incommensurability of Taste (value, preference)
where? Checklist of First Causes, most parsimonious…. adversarial all directions before, during, and after.
P-Method, P-Logic, P-Law
Frame: A Science Consists of The Production of Testimony by sensory, physical, and logical instrumentation, that is unambiguous(identity), consistent (logical), causal(operational), correspondent(empirical), and coherent within that science, and across all the sciences.
Define: P-Method consists of the process of identification of first causes (first principles and resulting rules(Vocabulary and Grammar:) of P-Logic.
Test(Decide): P-Logic is a Formal, Operational, Deflationary, Adversarial Logic. A “Formal” Science.
Apply: P-Law is an Applied Science of P-Logic &Method to ethics, politics, and group strategy.
Instead of Justification or Falsification
“The Sculptor works Via-Positiva to add clay and Via-Negativa to remove the stone.”
Via-Adversarialism: In a competition between Via-Positiva (theory, justification, excuse), and Via-Negativa (evidence, falsification, prosecution) all that survives, are truth candidates: survival of the fittest truth is determined via survival from adversarial competition. ”
Whether Commerce, Duel, Court, or War the Truth is decided by no other means than adversarial competition and the survival of the fittest – Not by the self, not by others, but by nature.
Via Positiva, The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have done unto you – a presumption that you are sufficiently knowledgeable of the values of others.
(Purchase Promise of Non Aggression)
(Ethics of Priesthoods, Mothers and Poverty)
Via Negativa, The Silver Rule: Do not unto others that they do not want done unto them requires that you are sufficiently knowledgeable of the values of others.
(Don’t aggress in the first place)
(Ethics of Politicians, Fathers and Prosperity)
Via Negativa: The Iron Rule: Never tolerate that which you and yours do not want done unto them, or the doing unto others as they do not want done unto them.
(Punish all aggressions)
(Ethics of Warriors, Judges, and Sheriffs, and Safety)
(in this example we took the golden rule and serialized it into spectrum that prevented misuse of the rule, as a means of escaping responsibility for knowledge of others, and defense of the commons. It’s a very simple example of the P-Method. And it explains how criminal behavior is easily inserted into moral claim. Of these claims it is the silver rule that is the most decidable – not the golden )
“Other thinkers, Via-Positiva, work with Deceit to Ideology, Sophistry to Philosophy, Magic to pseudoscience, and Occultism to Theology, trying to persuade us what to think, say, and do – under promise of opportunity, based on theories of the good.
But Via-Negativa, The Law, science, and Logic persuade us what not to think say and do, based on evidence of the bad under threat of deprivation. This maximizes the incentive to explore, innovate, apply, and adapt to all opportunities that are not bad, rather than demanding the good. Leaving demanding the good for children, limiting us with rules as adults, and advising us to consequences in maturity.
As such we program machines positively with algorithms of instructions because they cannot choose, and we program populations negatively with algorithms of law because people can.
Others may seek to program the good
to reduce cognitive burden, reduce conflict,
and reduce adaptation (the cost of change),
at the cost of innovation, adaptation, and prosperity.
But their incentive is to create numbers of allies
in their conspiracy to resist adaptation.
And in creating numbers of allies
their incentive is to offer false promises,
that in exchange for that alliance,
bait people into subsequent hazards
than the costs they evaded.
The Promised Good Must Be Free of The Prohibited Bad.
That is the function of the law.
The Via-Negativa Organization of Man
P-Law consists of a universal science of decidability (the method), producing an operational logic and paradigm of decidability (the logic), across all human cognition, including language, logic, science, and in particular, the behavioral sciences we call language, psychology, sociology, ethics, law, politics, and group evolutionary strategy (the law). And we apply that law to restate not only the sciences, but all disciplines, in that universal logic and paradigm of decidability(Applied P-Law).
If you are looking for something simple and popular like ideology, philosophy or theology – because they are intuitionistic rather than scientific – and take little to learn them, consist of ‘feels’ over ‘reals’ – then you won’t find it here. This is science. Sorry.
We will combine foundations of mathematics, physics, behavioral economics, evolutionary biology, cognitive science and linguistics.
The P-Method: Adversarialism
- By Continuous Recursive Disambiguation, Enumeration, Serialization, and Operationalization, into first causes by Adversarial Competition. (Terms, Statements, Sentences, Stories)
- At every scale of Stable Relations (symmetries) (First Causes);
- Producing Exhaustive Reduction to First Causes(first principles).
- Then Reconstructing all domains from first causes in consistent, coherent, correspondent, and operational terms.
- Disambiguated by the Paradigm of permissible dimensions, possible operations, logic, and vocabulary, at each scale of stable relations.
- Producing a single consistent, coherent, correspondent, hierarchy of Grammars (logics);
- Creating a universally commensurable value-neutral language of testimony across domains.
- Creating universal decidability across human domains
- Yielding a constructive logic of testing for the testifiability of identity, consistency, operational possibility, correspondence, coherence, rational choice, reciprocity, limits, completeness, and parsimony, of those relations across all scales of stable relations.
- Permitting the falsification of ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading, framing, suggestion, obscurantism, and the fictionalisms of sophistry, pseudoscience, and supernaturalism.
- Resulting in Speech, Story, Argument by Strict Construction of Transactions, in a Contract for Meaning (Statements) and;
- Due Diligence Against Ignorance, Error, Bias, Deceit, Fraud, Theft, Violence, War, and Conquest
- Where due diligence requires tests of existence, identity, consistency, possibility, correspondence, rationality, reciprocity, completeness, and coherence).
And As A Consequence …
- Thereby eradicating Irreciprocity and falsehood from the informational commons, and as a consequence from institution, knowledge, norm, and tradition
- Restoring continuous adaptability by continuous innovation, adaptation, and application of the laws of the universe, allowing greater organization (anti-entropy) producing greater conditions, opportunity, choice, species survival – and peace.
Applying The P-Method Across The Entire Spectrum
Use the method to Define:
- 1.Dimensions, Constant Relations
- 2.Terms and Types
- 3.Statements and Sentences
- 4.Stories: Justifications(-), Explanations( = ) , Arguments(+)
- 5.Grammars(or logics) (the entire spectrum of language)
- 6.First Causes (principles) (the entire spectrum of disciplines (grammars)
–Deflationary, Ordinary, inflationary, Fictionalisms, and deceits
- 7.Behavioral Sciences (the entire spectrum)
–Cognition, Psychology, Sociology, Politics, Economics, Group Strategy
- 8.Applied Social Sciences
–Law, Constitution, Government, Economics, Policy, Religion, Art
- 9.(and every other discipline may we choose, later on)
That’s the method applied.
We need to be able to disambiguate, categorize and test the spectrum of components and paradigms of human speech:
- Define “Moral” (Term)
- I see a black cat (Statement)
- All swans are white (Argument)
- Like finding a needle in a haystack ( Analogy, Simile, Metaphor)
- The tendency of a rock is to fall straight down (Wisdom)
- Everything written in this box is false (Deceit, Sophistry)
- We can inflate our way out of debt (Fraud, Pseudoscience)
- Man was oppressed (Undermining (Critique, or sedition))
- “And he was healed!” (Supernaturalism)
It is very difficult to understand any aspect of my work without understanding the method, the grammars, decidability, testimony (truth), reciprocity, adaptive velocity, ternary logic, and the resulting first principles of every discipline.
- The Method and The Grammars (Logic)
- Decidability and Testimony (Truth)
- Reciprocity and Demonstrated Interest (Ethics)
- Ternary Logic and Trifunctionalism (Law)
- First Principles of Every Discipline (Laws)
- Adaptive Velocity (Consequences)
- History of man reducible to the story of adaptation to increasing capture of energy
What does the P-Method Produce?
- The Propertarian Method produces is a formal (strict), operational(sequential action), grammar (paradigm, vocabulary, grammar, syntax, logic), of Testifiability(truth) and Tort (demonstrated interests), in display word and deed;
- … and as a consequence a value-neutral, unambiguous, universal language (paradigm, vocabulary, grammar, syntax, logic) of decidability across all disciplines (physical science, language-metaphysics, psychology, sociology, politics, ethics, law, group strategy),
- … Providing a constructivist logic of decidability from first principles of the formal, physical, behavioral, and evolutionary laws of the universe. …
- … that allows us to falsify (test) every possible dimension of human action, intuition, cognition, and speech, for both testimonial possibility (truth) and reciprocity(ethics, morality, trespass, tort), …
- … and as a consequence allows us to create uninterpretable law(strictly constructed), constitutions, and their enumerated rights, responsibilities, and inalienabilities …
- … the most influential of which is the conversion of free speech to free truthful and reciprocal speech, in public, to the public, on matters public (commerce, economics, commons, politics, group strategy)
- by extending the involuntary warranty of due diligence and involuntary liability for the truthfulness and reciprocity of commercial speech to that of political speech.
What does The End Result look like?
It looks a lot like a programming language, using economic and legal (scientific) terms. Because that’s what it is. An operational via negativa, constructivist logic of testimony.
–Input definitions, rules, and facts
- And Whereas()
–Desired new State
–Suggested actions to change state
–Evidence of passing relevant checklist items. (80% of the work is in testing against our checklists)
- And if ()…
- Where ()
–Who warranties, warranty, liability, reversibility
- As Such()…
Many legal professionals have recognized that there is a similarity between law and programming. The problem has been the pseudoscientific revolution against empirical (Scientific) law since the middle 1800s and the Marxist-pomo-woke revolution against empiricism in all walks of life.
What is P-Method “Like”?
For most of you, think about it as creating a via-negativa programming language for describing the world to a computational system (man) that already senses the world with an embodiment, rather than a via-Positiva creating a world for programming a computer to simulate an artificial world that doesn’t yet sense, perceive, and model the world using an embodiment.
Because really – that’s what it is. It’s a bridge between a programming language and ordinary language like logic is a bridge between mathematics and ordinary language.
It’s a specification for a via-negativa programming language for testimony, law, government, and economics.
(Explain: via-Positiva program computers via negativa program mankind – they don’t have innate ideas, we do.)
And just like mathematics, logic, formal logic, programming, P is a methodology. And just as math uses numbers, operators, and an equals sign to balance them in a well-formed grammar that lets you test them; and just as programming uses primitive types, complex types, variables, expressions ( phrases), classes, and functions(sentences), including operators (verbs), and programs (stories) that you, a compiler, or a computer can test, P (short for Propertarianism) uses a set of constant terms, variable terms, complete sentences, operational vocabulary (meaning actions), that you – or anyone – can test the same way a programmer or lawyer tests a program or contract today – except it’s far closer to the rigor of a program and far less easy to play games like you can in contract and law.
What is P-Method “Like” Learning?
It’s a combination of converting the logic of mathematics from a set(ideal, verbal, Calculative) to operational(real, operational, Computational) logic and applying that logic to the combination of:
–Law (Property, Tort, or Natural Law)
It’s NOT like Theology(imaginary, personal, and social), Philosophy including and especially continental (verbal and rational), or Ideology (emotional,).
(Anglo analytic philosophy originates in law, continental in theology as secular theology)
And learning P-Logic(Law) is like learning the foundations of all four disciplines: programming, economics, cog-sci, and law – at the same time – while at the same time learning to use reason without ‘resorting’ to intuition.
And that last bit is the hard part, because some of us are more biased to ‘reals’ and some of us are more biased to ‘feels’. The more biased to ‘feels’ you are the harder it is to learn to reason (what you probably think your doing – but not), instead of relying on intuition (instinct). Why? The genetics that cause differences in brain organization.
What is the Propertarian Method? (P-Logic, P-Law)
“The Propertarian method creates a constructivist logic of decidability from first principles of the formal, physical, behavioral, and evolutionary laws of the universe, by exhaustive disambiguation, using adversarial prosecution (falsification), discovering first principles, and then using a strict operational vocabulary and grammar (a sequence of actions) to express sentences, claims, and arguments then testing those sentences, claims, and arguments against each dimension perceivable by humans, and the first principles of every stable state in the hierarchy of stable states we call the sciences.”
A grammar vocabulary and operational logic of first principles (first causes).
Method: Wilsonian Synthesis
This innovation, completing the Wilsonian Synthesis, has only been possible thanks to Anglo-American computation, genetics, neuroscience, economics and politics in competition with the pseudoscientific claims of the past 160 years brought about by the Ashkenazi counter-revolution against science (2020 back to 1860), the German counter-revolution against empiricism, and the French counter-revolution against empiricism.
How Topics This Work Are Organized
- – A System Of Measurement (Vocabulary of Dimensions), A Grammar, An Operational Logic,
- – that can be used to falsify truth, possibility, and reciprocity claims
- – that can be used to construct a formal logic of law
- – that can be used to produce a fully scientific, fully consistent, written constitution for European civilization (our group strategy)
- – within which we can produce policies that continue our prosperity and continuous adaptation and evolution
- – and with which we can defend against past, present, and future means of false promises in all three dimensions of power: finance(remuneration), state(force), religion(speech)
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE WORK
- – Introduction (The Promise)
- … – Given that all human communication consists of, and must consist of, measurements, at the scale of human sense, perception, experience, and reasoning.
- … – Given that as the complexity of our adaptation increases that we increase the demand for greater precision of measurements that compensate for the limits of our sense, perception, experience, reasoning.
- … – Given that there exist Formal Sciences (logics) with which we can explain the spectrum of Physical (Before), Behavioral(During), and Evolutionary(After) Sciences.
- … – Given that science consists of producing testimony that incrementally, but eventually, results in a logic of first principles at every stage of stable relations.
- – We can use The Method (adversarialism, disambiguation, reduction to first principles, production of a system of measurement at every stage of stable relations.
- – Where those stable relations consist of Formal Sciences:
- … – The Logics, Language, The Grammars, Epistemology (Decidability, Truth, Testimony, Proofs), The Deceits
- – And continue with Physical Sciences,
- … – Evolutionary Computation, Physics, Biology
- – And Continue with the Behavioral Sciences
- … – Faculties, Psychology, Sociology, Sociology, Economics, Politics, Group Strategy
- – And Continue with the Evolutionary Sciences
- … – Consequences of group strategy
- – Then we can Produce
- … – The Law of Decidability Across all those disciplines (the law)
- … – Demonstrate the Application of That Law to All Common Questions Of ethics and politics
- – And with all that
- … – Explain the disproportionate success of western civilization (adaptation)
- … – Explain “What Went Wrong”
- … – Explain “What Must Be Done”
- … – Provide the Choices (future)
- … – Provide the Reforms
- – And present that to the people as a means for determining their(our) future.
- – And then work on translating this law as ‘gods law’ and a unification of Aryan, Mediterranean, Germanic, Christian Religions, and Science into the one “True Religion”.
REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH TOPIC
- Just as we began by demonstrating that each word in our language can be disambiguated into noun, verb, modifier, or consent, and within each of those each can be disambiguated into a farily small number of dimensions, we must disambiguate the spectrum of sciences into dimensions, and each dimension into it’s causal relations (first principles > dimensions).
- Every section must produce a set of dimensions that provide a system of measurement for that stage of stable relations.
- Every set of dimensions must fully document the dimensions of that set of stable relations.
- Every one of those dimensions can be used as a ‘checklist’ to determine the truth or falsehood description, inflation, conflation, or fictionalization of any statement that depends upon it.
- Hence my emphasis on series, and sequences, and spectrum, and ‘arrows’.
- Because it is those definitions that constrain the evil that always exists in men from the act of deceit.
ERGO EACH TOPIC CONTAINS
- – What Problem Are We Trying to Solve?
- – Disambiguate the Dimensions of the topic into a set of series (spectrums of measurement)
- – Explain how they work together and give examples if necessary or helpful.
- – If possible produce a graph of how they integrate with one another. (See Gary Stanley Becker, and Hayekian Triangles)
- – What vocabulary we covered (and hopefully learned).
- Adversarial Competition vs. Justification vs. Falsification
- Constructive Logic vs. Deductive Logic vs Inferential Logic
- Paradigm, dimensions, logic, vocabulary, at each scale of stable relations.
- Inflate, Inflationary, Ordinary, Idiomatic, Deflate, Deflationary
- Human grammatical facility, grammar, Grammars (logics);
- Continuous Recursive Disambiguation,
- First Principles, Stable Relations (symmetries)
- Enumeration, Serialization,
- Operations, operational terms, Operationalization, Operationalism
- Universally commensurable
- Value neutral language
- Decidability vs. Choice or Preference
- Due Diligence
- Contract for Meaning