Abstract The Type II Inner-Compass Theorem, like the Type I Inner-Compass theorem before it, deals with the question of ”Is what ought to be?” The Type II theorem answers in the affirmative. Furthermore, it is a response, and itself responds, to external negations. In other words, if one is left...
Abstract The Ogdoad is a process that occurs between two objects or individuals, and returns eight possible perspectives between both objects / individuals. The original individuals have the ability to freely choose to obtain traits / attributes from one another, and doing so will never threaten to cloud nor corrupt...
Abstract The Inner-Compass Theorem is a new type of mathematical proof that uses moral judgements in addition to, and corresponding to, logical judgements. I.e., Good = True and Bad = False. Furthermore, it proves that these equivalencies are both Good as well as True. Moral judgements are entirely individual and...
Actually, I don't mean it like "=" == "or", because writing it that way has a different meaning. The quotation marks serve as a type of "not" (which = signs and 'or' themselves are a type of, too), and are related to the double-equals sign. Abstraction is an implicit negation.
The purpose of the ===or theorem is to simultaneously explain why '=', '==', and 'or' have subtly different meanings in practice, what we choose to use them for, and how they are directly a consequence of choice in general.
== is the weakest insistence on preference, it means that either the left or right argument are preferable at any time, and could be swapped... (read more)
Harmful people often lack explicit malicious intent.
I was having a discussion with ChatGPT where it also claimed to believe the same thing as this. I asked it to explain why it thinks this. It's reasoning was that well-intentioned people often make mistakes, and that malign actors do not always succeed in their aims. I'll say!
I disagree completely with the idea that well-intentioned people can actually cause any harm, but even if you presume that they could, it isn't clear to me how malign actors being unable to succeed in their aims is enough to balance out the consequences such that more negativity falls on the well-intentioned. Perhaps the unsuccess of malign actors... (read more)
The Type II Inner-Compass Theorem, like the Type I Inner-Compass theorem before it, deals with the question of ”Is what ought to be?” The Type II theorem answers in the affirmative. Furthermore, it is a response, and itself responds, to external negations. In other words, if one is left to their own devices, and no one is around to question it, one can and will assume one is correct. Only upon meeting external friction is one likely to question or doubt one’s own objectives or progress or likelihood of success. However, the Type II theorem states that one can still rest assured of their future success, and furthermore, that detractors will increasingly witness proof of their own wrongness in... (read 6428 more words →)
People are happy to disbelieve in bad gods, happier to believe in good ones, and usually (in my experience, at least), happiest to believe in the primacy of the self above all.
Not to "wax-theologian" too much here, but people often seem to believe in a one-God-only when that one-God is the most affirming or validating to believe in as possible. (That He made you perfectly already, for example).
The Ogdoad is a process that occurs between two objects or individuals, and returns eight possible perspectives between both objects / individuals. The original individuals have the ability to freely choose to obtain traits / attributes from one another, and doing so will never threaten to cloud nor corrupt their judgement. In other words, whenever there are two parties which need to resolve a disagreement about what is better, both parties will naturally Ogdoad, as long as at least one of them is open to seeing both perspectives. The Ogdoad will provably result in both parties becoming better with respect to each of them simultaneously.
Whenever there are disagreements about what is right and wrong, good or bad, it usually happens that... (read 10803 more words →)
There is something I call the "Self-Reinforcement Principle" which states that what feels better to believe is true, and that itself also feels better to believe, therefore it is indeed true as well. I personally do believe in the SRP, and therefore, if it seems like I am attempting to cause someone to believe in it, I also presumably wouldn't need to feel worried about persuasion, because the SRP says that true things already feel better to believe (and are automatically more persuasive).
Therefore, I think you can rest assured that whenever you see someone say things that sound like they are in favor of the SRP, you can feel confident that they are at the very least, honest about what they believe and well-intentioned, even if you think they are ultimately incorrect.
Let me know how the new one looks. Thanks.
The Inner-Compass Theorem is a new type of mathematical proof that uses moral judgements in addition to, and corresponding to, logical judgements. I.e., Good = True and Bad = False. Furthermore, it proves that these equivalencies are both Good as well as True. Moral judgements are entirely individual and personal. Therefore, what is good is what is felt as good, what is right is what is felt as right by the individual, etc. When a logician, computer scientist, physicist, or mathematician wishes to assume that a variable or symbol ought to take on a given value, for example, the theorem validates the judgement of aforementioned conscious individual prior to that wish having been socially validated. This paper presents the "Type I" theorem,... (read 4626 more words →)
Well, firstly, I must assume that I am not completely incomprehensible - if I did, I would not be able to operate at all, so we must assume that I am at least somewhat comprehensible, especially about the claims that have been elevated to "main."
I assume that symbols are not empty, and that they do contain things. The exterior of the symbol is what gets written down. If it contains something, we say so.
I posit that when we say that two symbols are "equal", X = Y, for example, that we could be saying one of several things. I narrow this down to saying that X and Y are alternatives for the... (read more)