philosophy.md

Contact me at https://matrix.to/#/@plein:schizo.vip I have a repo for my blog on biohacking at https://github.com/ple1n/organic. (pending update)

An opsec tool for proxying at https://github.com/ple1n/nsproxy.

Wayland native live pick-up instant fuzzt search dictionary at https://github.com/ple1n/hoverpanel

This is a journal. It's recommended to read in backward direction.

"Against" Marxism, the pinnacle of academic obscurantism

There is not a journal dedicated to how you, specifically, you, your personal being, should live your life. There is no formal (academic) school of philosophy that really deals with this topic. Instead, you see all the manosphere, or feminist, or parentally preached content. There is a dire need for everyone that lives, a need that is immediate, a need that begins when he ever starts thinking about his life. Admit it, just admit it. Academia is impenetrable to the commoners, especially the wageslaves (or will-bes), the people who can not afford time. This void, is then filled with various cultists, such as the nationalists, the religious preachers, the parents, the mass media, which serve as an excellent proof that the void exists, that the need is so dire.

Am I against Marxism? This is off-topic.

Marxists tell you to read their books and cite elaborate details. Christians do very much the same, as if they want to show off their rich memory of theology. They continue to talk as if everyone agrees with their entire glossary of definitions, acting surprised when you attempt to question their defintions.

I'd term what I hereby advocate, as practical philosophy, or better, immediate philosophy. What is immediate philosophy is what is immediately understandable, useful, truthful, loyal, to you, your own needs and goals.

What if the commoners should be deceived

I even advocate for a deception of the self, suspension of doubt, or some call it a leap of faith.

Deception is surprisingly common and necessary. The causal argument for that is many things we deem good end up having deception, a necessary premise.

Deception is not all equal. Here I apply a reasoning tactic I often use, the assumption of non-identity, a tactic that belongs to reasoning about ontology. We may use the same word 'deception' (and in the same meaning) in many contexts. Then almost driven by momentum, we try to apply our belief such as 'authenticity is good' sweepingly.

I call this method, philosophy of nuance. I value direct observation, direct theorizing, and coining your own terms.

The worst thing about a leap of faith, is that it's often impossible for the obsessive reasoners. Then ultimately the leap is only possible with some sort of external circumstances, which are all a form of coercion.

Here, I used another tactic, the separation of a theory and its effect/usage/feasibility. I argue that a theory that urges people to do anything, must not be separated from its effect. The blame it receives when it fails to work, is equally applicable to the theory itself.

Addendum: I was writing this section in opposite

I gained awareness about my trait of excessive thinking, almost compulsively, which was in fact not typical among most of population. I also had the repeated recall of authenticity that is a result of my immersion in european tradition of philosophy. I value authenticity as a good attitude on life, but acknowledging the sheer complexity of reality and its effects on morality and everything is also a major part of my philosophy.

Live in a world of higher narrative framework

I see emotions, pains, happiness, as a form of violence. I have tried to conceptualize them again and again. I worked around them. Only their effects can be conceptualized.

All forms of philosophy so far value well-being, which ultimately, inevitably lands in sensory well-being. I don't use happiness, or pleasure, since they would have caused confusion.

The very observation that all philosophies point to the same thing, and not just popular cultures, is in some way horrifying in itself. It would be absurd to not pursue well being, as the end of all means, as the ultimate end that is "self-justified", but per Hume, we can not derive outght from is. The ought to well-being is a form of violence. A violence that is forced upon humans beings of the time.

Human beings are forced to live in the moment, surrounded by the dialogue with others, the monologue, the immediate urges, passions and emotions. Occasionally a person may think of 'nihilism' of some sort, or immerse in a grandiose wholistic worldview from a novel. The violence pulls you back.

The immediate narrative which a person often lives in, is poorly logical, fragmented.

Retro-metacognition, when you discover hidden beliefs

Hedonists live a life, often without the awareness that they believe 'hedonism is to be valued' implicitly. The implication is revealed when we step back from ourselves and observe our own behavior from the outside. What is most convincing is the case when I discover my past but hidden beliefs myself.

I live in the fear of implied beliefs. They could drive major decisions and what is hidden is assumed and most dangerous.

Dialectics and classical logic

I've my own way of estimating my worth of thoughts. I value it when a new idea of mine challenges, or contradicts most mainstream thoughts. Such contradiction is based on ample contemplation of existing arguments, thus, a dialectical development.

I had been having a very rich dialectical experience unaware, due to my posession of an internal monologue, which I found to be non existent for many people, later. The intuitive experience is like bumping back and forth across views, and each past view is a dialectical step, or dialectic intermediate. The term doesn't matter. On a tangent, I love expressing my thoughts with new terms each time, to show off that I actually understand them unlike many organic LLMs that live on the internet, and in my city.

This view, a temporal, longitudinal view of progression of ideas, such as your own understanding of some particular thing, casts a shadow on every moment of my thinking, because I know they are dialectic intermediates, incomplete, imperfect.

This may sound like truism. I agreed so too, until I became very explicitly aware of such a process. The depiction of it as a truism, is also drawn as parallel to a thought that was traditional in Chinese culture. Lu Xun called it 中庸的，调和的 which shares great similarity to the laymen interpretation of dialectics. The dialectics taught in Chinese universities is false too.

Every thought is a bit right, and every thought is a bit wrong. Truism, platitude?

There is no useful knowledge that can be drawn from this sentence, without knowing the full theory of dialectics. It may serve some useless skepticism and as a weapon in bad-faith debates, though.

I used the state-machine model a lot. The benefit of drawing compsci concepts is that they are easy to communicate, and usually non ambiguous.

Dialectic logic is like the whole state machine, with the axis of time included, while classical logic, deals with every snapshot, ie, every state.

To understand classical logic, I recommend a tour through the tutorials of Lean4. Don't be scared of theorem provers like I was. They are really just, theorem, provers.

Lean4 captures the entirety of classical logic, with its powerful type system.

1. Classical logic does not care what the terms mean
2. Classical logic is a language
3. Classical logic is closed, hermetic, and does not care about its 'external world'

This is my definition of classical logic, or, if it differs from mainstream definition, this is what I believe it should mean.

When you reason through classical logic, the system is based off a fixed set of axioms, and all conclusions, facts drawn are enclosed within this system. All terms are well-defined to be a fixed place within the system. You can even feed the whole system into a machine to check for correctness of a proof, which does not understand the terms like a human.

1. Terms do not need to have a semantic meaning
2. Terms have fixed, non ambiguous meanings within the system, for this definition of meaning.
3. Temrs do not need to correspond to reality. ie, it does not need to deal the problems implicated in corrspondance theory of truth

The entire modern STEM is based on classical logic.

When you reason through, alone or with an interlocutor, using dialectics, the terms are refined, changed, throughout the discourse. That does not mean we can not have stable definitions of terms. It is rather what we want through such a discourse, to gain a better understanding, attached to symbols.

Definitions are absolutely stable regarding numbers, for example, within the system of calculus. You might argue against saying how much thoughts appear when you think of numbers and new thoughts arise etc, but, well, I am specifically referring the idea of numbers, within its system of calculus. Idea(numbers as a general idea) ∩ Idea(the number's calculus)

The dialectic imperative

There are notable ideas that can be drawn from dialectics.

Such as that I can define reason to be a continual dialectical progression.

A moral duty to dialectically progress one's thought.

Civil covenants based on dialectics instead of simply 'free speech', and fixed contracts of 'private property'.

In light of Kafka's thought, I think dialectics is the perfect response. Each possible Kafkaesque situation is a thought awaiting to be integrated into the dialectic machine. The estrangement is exactly what happens when the rest of society do not try to consider the bizarre situation someone is going through.

The correct worldview should maximally integrate thoughts into the dialectic-state-machine where each of them meaningfully push the whole understanding forward, intuitively, a greater picture. By thoughts I mean all the possible future scenarios, all the possible past scenarios, no matter how bizarre; all possible ideas, no matter how forbidden they are, how much they upset you, how counter intuitive they seem.

Algebraic theory of politics

To algebra, means to abstract out details. That's not all. It's the matter of building a theory based on a foundation of abstractions, which is typically seen in abstract algebra.

To build a good algebraic theory, it needs a good pick of fundamental elements. And to justify such algebraic theories, I refer to the above elaboration about how both classical logic and dialectics coexist and stay true.

An algebraic theory is based on a set of abstract elements, which correspond to axioms in classical logic. That is to say, an algebraic theory is hermetic, closed, and perpetual. An algebraic theory should avoid referencing things in real world without explicit awareness, such that the theory forms a coherent language that does not need to deal with language-reality correspondence.

Intentionality and mechanisms

There are only 2 elements that participate in a political system, the intentionality, and the mechanisms that follow various sources of intentionality due to their subservient nature. This forms the basis of my radically different view on politics.

Market is defined by a vector of wealth over all individuals, where the ranks of power are determined by their relative wealth, which is simplest among all systems, in isolation. In comparison to this view of politics, the various political ideologies are somewhat obfuscating the nature of political dynamics. There is, for example, no inherently evil market because market is subservient to the combination of legal regulation and the investors the customers, both are sources of intentionality, which can be directly derived from this theory. This is therefore the 1st point that can be derived to refute a common view that market is inherently evil or some simply call it capitalistic, or phrased in more vague ways.

This framework can be very useful in analyzing immediate problems that exist today, at least. Consider all the systems that may be designed, it's logically inevitable within each one there are sources of intentionality and a massive amount of mechanisms where people have to follow a certain pattern of behavior. Then, it's only relevant to have better sources of intentionality in these systems.

Do sources of intentionality have anything to do with particular mechanisms such as markets or planning? They don't.

I will call sources of intentionality as intention origins from now on

Consider an existing system with bad intention origins, how do you expect good behaving (such as morally good) intention origins to arise? The corrupt people in power would prevent that, by tautology. It's therefore a prerequisite that a system have benign intention origins, rather than what most current political theoriests try to do, ie, endlessly analyzing mechanisms and consider politics to be a science of mechanisms, ignoring the persistance, and precedence, the causal importance of intention origins.

Abstract algebra of power, politics

Politics and economy

Following the method of abstract algebra, lets define some axiomatic elements of the algebra

• Absolute Money, as a form of power that has no strings attached.
• Will, any kind of intention that is powerless without money.
  • There is conflict, between wills.
• Absolute violence is conceptualized as an extreme form of power where the outcome of event A is forcefully made by some will against other will.
  • The violence can come from nature, state, or regular people.
  • Money is a stateful construct upon this notion, which faciliates the theory.
• Willed Money. Role powers in institutions, legal powers, academic, corporate credentials, status. The acquirement of such money and exercising their power requires conformity to a specific will.
  • Legal money, which is a common form of willed money, close enough to absolute money, but mainly subject to taxation and various fees.
  • Property is what a free will can dispose of, with total sovereignty.
    • Asset is a form of property that generates money, where in its purest form, pure asset. Pure asset generates money without the owner conforming to any other will such as in the way of labouring.
    • Inalienable property, those things that are tied to free will, for all practical purposes, such as looks and intellect, which can not be directly traded yet.
• Gains, defined as a function over a particular will. Absolute money produces equal, net gains for every free will, by tautology. This gives absolute money a special conceptual status of pure utility
• Loss is defined as negative gains.

The willed money, is hence, a 'linear combination' of the former two algebraic constructs.

Under this framework, only the net profit of a corporate, or disposable income of a person can count as 'legal money', as the rest of money is subject to will of clients, not of their own, having strings attached.

The modern system has a vast collection of willed money, each serving a different goal.

Out of all kinds of willed money, legal money, aka currency, is most liquid, easily tradeded due to their structural simplicity. Different kinds of money are interexchanged which is enabled by a matter of configuration of current reality.

Being algebraic abstracts out specific details, which makes it last longer regarding the rapidly shifting landscape, as a good political theory should deal with. The theory should last into future despite rapid development in AI. Most other political theories of current time focus on specifics of morality, methods of social organization, production or rebellion.

The algebraic method in general also tries to capture the whole of reality, as in phenomena, top-down, which is total rationalization in best effort, as in, not missing any part in the theory.

Origin of power

This section is getting bloated. TODO

I was requested to clarify the concept of property. It would be a better way to put it from how power even originated.

In primordial times, around the time agentic consciousness began, we consider of the course of events to follow a trajectory of nature, which is often called arbitrary, random. Diving deeper into the notion it's really just a lack of some intelligent being exerting its control onto reality. The idea and the definition of 'arbitrariness of nature' is really, in this perspective a lack of conscious control by anybody.

The origin of power starts from property. I don't mean property by what it means in the huge interlaced network of political fabrication of the time. Property here means, when a person holds exclusive control over a land, perhaps thousands of years ago. Property does not refer to the land, but the power to maintain an exclusive access, the power to shape the future course of trajectory of events happening on the land. Hence, the notion is tightly bound to the idea of causality itself, conferring generality.

The algebraic part about the theory is that we begin conceptualization from this point of tether, building more complex notions up in the hierarchy gradually, while staying contained in the algebraic framework without introducing more fundamental concepts.

Legal property is a delegated form of property, where the power over property is exercised through a third-party, the state. We don't argue what really counts as the term 'property' either, because the term is just symbol that only has a meaning in a specific context, where the meaning itself is defined by its context for sake of reasoning.

Labour is property, because it effectively reshapes the local reality over matters of material until it becomes some usable product. Using this definition, bureaucratic power itself is also property, trivially, stemming from state power.

The realm a property can cover is often narrow. State has power over beings, but the state itself does not have power over reality. It's a transaction where beings conform to the state in exchange of other matters of value.

The notion of currency is constructed due to the ubiquitous exchange of property. Property represents a stationary form of power exerted by beings over a narrow domain, and currency is a token that beings value.

Humans can not morph their bodies arbitarily yet, even with the total effort of civilzation. Currency is a token within the state, therefore has its power bounded by the upper bound of what the state can do.

What does it mean when a being can get free currency without providing any labour?

Wait, I don't speak words like 'exploitation' or such things at this point. I'm here only to examine the causal network of matter itself.

I call the totality of human control over reality the state, which as as an apparatus, a system, exerts its power through various governments and mechanisms of economy to have beings labour over reality.

Having free currency without having one's own free will obstructed, by tautology, means to have pure power over reality, through the labour of others. It's still not a state of total free will because the state forbids any violation of property typically. Power nowadays are often measured by currencies. That might not accurately reflect the power in question.

I re-read my the previous section. I was reasoning more about those things that serve as tokens that beings value, which diverges from this section. Valuing as a belief and an act. Power fundamentally is grounded in the trajectory of reality. There is no power without agents conforming to the tokens.

I think the property system probably causes a bias in reasoning. Things get measured in matter of currency and people start using currency as a measure of value. I like my causality perspective on property. If you have ability to nudge the outcome of a specific event, you are said to have control, and the substance by which you exert control is called property. The substance can be money, others recognition of you as a relevant person in their connections, and your labour.

Null hypothesis on the nature of conscious identity

There is a stance that I have been having that is analogous to the null hypothesis, but applied in the realm of personal philosophy, as in the philosphy of dealing with one's own outlook on life and personal identity.

The null stance simply states that, nothing other than the consciouness itself is assumed to be part of the self, yourself, or myself. That none of the surroundings, be it my race, the assignment the parents I got, my nation, is assumed, is taken for granted. It's simply absurd to me to assume that the things are a part of myself for no apparent reason, which underpins a vast array of modern ideologies. They assume too much about their identity, yet most elements about their identity is arbitrary, randomly chosen at birth.

I only found out the need to write this down because it turned out this is not an idea that many share with me, as opposed to what I previously assumed.

This section should answer my view on race, nation, and identity in totality

Wisdom and intellect

I take a computer science approach to explain the difference between wisdom, and intellect.

Consider a function Sha256(x)=y, wisdom is the knowledge of x, while intellect, is the ability to reverse the function.

Apparently in this case it's computationally impossible. This is more on the side of immediate knowledge or information, so, extrapolate x to be a some specific way of thinking, specific habits of dealing with things, specific configuration of assumptions (mindset) before any more information is available, a specific worldview.

It's therefore possible for a computationally inferior agent to outwit a more computationally powerful agent through the wisdom, which in the above case, is taken to extreme. Substitute outwit with outcompete in other aspects such as achieving certain noble goals if you need.

Getting substantially more intellect is generally impossible for a human being, but wisdom is not bounded.

In the causal path to truth-seeking, there are the only two elements, information and compute. Saying that also implies there is a substantial element of information, which enables low-compute agents to massively outpace superior agents with the help of good information. Good information can be, knowledge of a better algorithm, which may reduce complexity from O(n^2) to O(logn), while compute is close to average for most human beings by tautology.

This is also, how the right prompt can make LLMs 'much smarter' because we are giving it some 'knowledge' that is on a very high metacognitive level. In an analogy, the AI was running on a O(n) algorithm and the prompt we gave them is some sort of O(logn) method of thought.

Pareto front, multi variate, multi objective optimization

I have to name this method of thought, as in, it as a gadget that I often pick up to frame my ideas, to analyze things, the notion of Pareto front, a recurring theme throughout my recent stream of thought.

Then going meta again, it's sometimes more preferable to write down gadgets of thoughts, rather than try to come up with gigantic, systematic theoretical works.

Many problems of real world are often over-simplified, such as the concern on privacy, the advocate of privacy. Many would want a single piece of software that is specialized in protecting the user's privacy, yet the problem itself is actually a multi-objective optimization over actual usability and privacy. Speaking of usability, I would, as usual, ground it in very immediate phenomena, that the user actually makes friends through a privacy-enhanced device, or software, or platform, that the solution in question is actually increasing the rate of the usability, which is the phenonemal account of usability. This can be said for many other problems that most of them are multi-objective optimization, instead of what they seem to be single-objective which many assume so.

Dialectical freedom, as opposed to constitutional free speech or paradox of tolerance

There is a practical and dire need for a better idea that is drafted to substitute for constitutional free speech or paradox of tolerance, be it a mode of moderation in a small community, or society at large. Not like I really count on this to be implemented, but it's the idea I would propose if there needs to be one, at all.

The "or" in the section title does not imply a parallelism. Speaking of their parallelism, it lies in the fact that they are both being pushed, thus constituting my use of "or".

On a tangent, there are infinitely many ideas being pushed. For each one of the idea, I suggest a dichotomal split, as a starting point of thought, that an idea is not just an idea in public, but the idea de jure and the idea in effect. It would be utterly fallacious to just treat the idea as they are pushed, much as I do not just take what a person says, I observe what he does.

The idea of free speech always falls short when it gets implemented in online communities, because there is an infinitude of nuance that is not captured in a simple code of 'free speech'. The particularities remain non-rationalized and people mostly only focus on that simple code or covenant of free speech.

The matter is to treat politics and social system as a whole, as a conversation, a dialogue, a rational process.

Analogously to free speech, we can forbid what blocks the dialectical progress, and intentionally promote what drives the dialectic forward. In practicse this is very similar to what 'code of free speech' will effect in.

• Spam (valid under free speech, invalid under dialectical freedom as it blocks reasoning)
• Slurs (valid under free speech, invalid under certain code of tolerance, valid under dialectical freedom as long as its not spam)
• Violence (blocks dialectical progress)
• Property (blocks dialectical progress as it blocks the liberty of people who can effect change)

Retrospective chronological view on life

I have tried to rationalize my past which does provided me with useful insights, including, personality development analyzed from the whole trajectory of life.

Here is another thing first. Life can be generally seen as a series of steps of a backtracking solver. This is, a specific observation over a pattern that is visible in my own life. That is to say, and that I believe, it might not apply to other people as directly.

The steps mainly consist of super goals and going into sub goals. When sub goals fail or are postponed I retract to super goals, which, at this very moment, triggers a very existential process of goal revaluation. And I would like you to focus on this motion. This picture as I am positing here, is not useless, which for myself I would try to remind myself of that too to be aware of this general process to not be carried away by sub goals. When it gets retracted all the way back to origin, it's called an existential crisis. Here, this forms a very substantial definition of the elusive idea.

The most valuable thoughts are those that have never been put into words

https://iep.utm.edu/gilles-deleuze/

philosophy is the art of forming, inventing, and fabricating concepts

I've seen too many people indulging in books (comments from decades ago), and can not express ideas in their own terms.

Especially the communists and christians, they like to cite books for every argument they wanna present.

The true philosopher pulls concepts from the undfferentiated whole of raw phenomena without guidance.

On the holography between Dialectics and State Machine

I found a potentially very inspiring similarity between the structures of dialectics and state machine, as in finite state transducer which I am more familiar with. I think the structural similiarity itself is worth noting down.

State machines are a recurring pattern throughout reality, which is the same for dialectics.

To begin, a person's opinion can be modelled as a state machine, where every piece of information may push for the state change, or not. We call the pieces of information, deltas. Each delta may be modelled with classical logic, which conists of axioms and other data. Each delta is therefore on its own, perpetual, self consistent, and independent of external world. Each delta is a closed system of language that does not deal with correspondence with external world such as phenomena.

Some deltas do not push for state change, ie, opinion change. We can regard them as useless information. This is how, meaningful dialectical progress may be defined over.

Reductionism and where it works around

Reductionism is the method of choice in modern rationality. I noticed that we should work around, or that good theories work around the following

• Free will, irreducible, mainly in political theories
• State itself, in computer science related and whatever I mentioned, irreducible.
• End in itself, whenever we talk about means to end, we may reach a point of end in itself
• Ontology, irreducible. Thats why we mostly only care about phenomena.

In retrospect, my algebraic theory of politics follows these rules, as it works around free will, goals of 'the particular system we may want'. They are treated as irreducible atoms in the theoretical framework. And I pursued the productive path of analyzing everything other than the atoms. The theory may be roughly visualized as a graph connecting the irreducible atoms of 'free will' where the ontology of free will does not matter either.

I may call the atoms, ie, irreducible parts when rationalizing in a reductionist framework, singularities in the chapters to come.

They are irreducible for a variety of reasons, maybe because the information is not yet available.

Fear of market optimality

Modern capitalism is as efficient as it can get. Your labour is so clearly priced. Stop overestimating yourself.

It often seems as if the market has reach optimality where you can not change anything but to follow the rules. That every piece of valuable work can be reduced to mere capital, organization and talent that is simply interchangable with money. This is the market perspective, where goods, are in fact the singularities, left out not dealt with. The theory about the mechanisms isn't wrong, but we just noticed the singularities.

That means we can work on them to "beat the market", better internal organization when it's a company or a state, more ideas when it's an individual, etc.

Dialectic maximization as a truth seeking algorithm

I have always been living by a method of dialectical maximization, specifically, I maximize the amount of change in personality through whatever life experience I can get.

It did work. As elaborated earlier there is an assumption that for a particular set of beliefs, you should be able to feed in new arguments, opinions, and data, which through a reconsideration of everything combined should gradually drive towards a more correct view over time, approaching truth ultimately.

This method applied to life, is in practice applied to personality, which is the main causal component that determines the happening of your life, to a overwhelming degree.

In general, I see dialectic maximization as a pratical method of truth seeking that one human being can adopt.

A person is in a naive blank tabula rasa state when born, and fed data through education system which are not very relevant in driving the development of personality overall. This starting point from a perspective of building a truth-seeking algorithm, is particular hard becuase there is very little true data, or beliefs that one can assume that one owns already, while the environment is full of adverse intentional or unintentional lies. How can such a person gradually obtain a set of beliefs that are correct, or ideal? In this case, the best method is through the dialectic maximization. Maximzie the amount of change and the rate of change (2nd order).

The algorithm requires minimal amount of beliefs to be assumed to be true.

Truth seeking of a particular topic, is always inseparable from the truth seeking of a person's life as a whole. In other words, if you really tried your best to find truth in one topic, it will and should eventually change your personality. This is the profound contextuality, as in, how connected the things are.

Personality is the informal term I use for the largest rational context of a person, by which every topic is examined and reasoned.

I also have a particular way of finding things that maximize my prospect of change. Say, an information source that is rich in various news about arxiv papers. The source could maximize the unpredictability of my future course of actions. I try to get more such sources as much as possible. Let me term it, dialectic sources, by which you maxmize your own unpredictability.

Then we can also derive a particular definition of free will, ie. free will as observed. Say we have a particular amount of data, where we can predict the prospect of N agents. We can obtain a matrix where each agent is assigned with a score of predictability. In this context we can consider the agent with maximal unpredictability as having most free will. No I am not talking about the nature, aka ontology of free will. Ontology is not discussed in depths at any moment by me.

Exotic systems that move faster than reason

The term capitalism is perhaps the most confusing and abused term in the discourse. In general, the term is approached from two opposite ends, the capitalism on paper, as desigend, as imagined, and the capitalism as observed, as reasoned from an external observer's perspective. Let me call them capitalism de jure and capitalism de facto, which should be talked about separatedly usually, but as a whole, it forms a very exotic system.

The core of capitalism, is a matrix of wealth and a gradient of incentives it casts. Forget about all ideologies on capitalism. Here I am, proposing a perspective based on pure math. The system can manifest in any forms, with any laws and ideologies, by changing itself. The system can have one law about refund policy and some other laws the other day. This is, apparently what makes it confusing. The wealth matrix consists of rows where each row represents the total wealth of an agent, where each column is one particular form of wealth. The gradient of incentives is created by the fact that each agent wants more of wealth at any given moment.

I am not concerned with particular value judgement that it is good or evil but I admire the exoticness of such a system. This system does not exist by itself. It is created at some point. This is one example of engineering that involves very little effort (as in the amount data and complexity thereof that is needed in the blueprint) but massively profound impact.

The system will persist far into future, reshaping its own definition, but we will recognize it as the same thing that changed itself. How surprising. It will persist until reality hardly resembles what it is right now, such as by erasing the existence of boundaries of consciousness itself, or that ownership can not be created in any form at all.

The system is said to move faster than reason because it has the incentive gradients that are desirable to a particular goal such as optimized production, despite the fact that no-one has laid down the particular plans of incentive gradients in a decree, which inevitably invovles reason, or, I call this a rational process, as in intentional command. The gradients exist before any theorist talks about capitalism, in almost any corner of reality.

Game theoretic wise, capitalism is bad performing because every deal is cursed by a game of chicken, such that perhaps half of useful cooperation is not realized due to the competitiveness itself. I don't consider the competitiveness productive, as it is making everyone worse off. In manifest, many people are using broken products because it is a conflict between the totality of producers of a product and the consumers. They could not reach a deal where everyone is using optimal, non broken products (which is easily attainable by today's productivity). The situation is only sustained to keep consumers to properly fund the industry, which is not absolutely necessary but only product necessitated by a particular configuration of reality, laws, circumstances.

Sometimes an invention is more of a discovery like what people do in cosmoslogy, rather an invention like some craftsman's product. Capitalism is one of the inventions that are actually, more of a discovery that people may work in this particular way. I see AGI in the same way.

Continuation, every system of power as a composition of two

I theorize that every incentived, or forced action in the society, consists of a component of intetionality by one agent, and a component of pure power. Capitalism is a system that works with, almost pure power. Wealth itself, in the purest form, is not conditioned upon any particular terms. Cooperative production is a product of conditioned wealth transfer, where the cooperation is faciliated by a product of power transfer and intetionality that is synthesized by a judicial system.

Wealth is such a weird thing as it exists today in the system. It is a form of power that can not be more pure. You can imagine that it can faciliate any trade that is possible, in the dark markets etc, because it's a form of power that is not pre-conditioned towards any particular goals.

The cooperation in dark markets is also cursed by how free, more precisely, unconditioned wealth is. It's so free that it haunts cooperation. That's why normal markets have a powerful judicial system that exerts intentionality, which is better for human collaboration.

The more pure form of intentional system exists in more rigid hierarchies, such as miltiary systems. Individuals are assigend to do tasks by immediate decrees. Actions are mediated by a two component system where intentionality dominates and 'wealth' barely changes. Or, is it? We notice the ranks as a form of wealth in this system, although less liquid like normal capitalism.

The core system of capitalism mainly deals with the condution of wealth, transfer, and what not. The counter-part is the condution of intentionality. In normal judicial system, conduction of intentionality is exerted through violence and threat of violence. The judicial system also creates a gradient of incentives despite being less pervasive than capitalism because evidently many scenarios are legally uncertain, until the judges announce a decision.

In purest forms, there exist intentional violence and unintentional pure wealth. The former is when one person forces an outcome upon another person. The latter is when one person owning more things while doing nothing to another person. Neither can exist without the existence of the others. In the first case, the one person that can exert violence clearly has more wealth, by definition. In the second case, the status quo itself that can not be disturbed is a form of intentioal violence.

Ranks themselves, are pure power, despite titles and various descriptions being frequently associated with them. It is only in a regulated system of wealth where intentions are frequently exerted the system gradually gets recognized as a system of ranks for a particular set of goals. We consider an agent to be in a list of groups where each group has ranks and frequently associated goals.

The system of money is the largest group where all kinds of intentions are allowed such that the rank itself seems unconditioned and free. In some systems we construct it such that the ranks are only promoted with more specific goals.

Property system as to wealth, reputation system as to intentionality. Can we design such a system that is as powerful as the current property system? Wealth can often be reduced to each other, as in, people considering them equi-valuable. Are intentionalities often reducible to each other? The pervasive reductive nature of wealth makes a currency system possible, which in the simplest case reduces wealth to a scalar.

Cooperation has to happen before consensus can be reached

It's a pipe dream to expect everyone to agree with you before all the work can be started. I would go as far to consider this a fairly common fundamental assumption of many leftist theories. They expect people to form a coalition where everyone is fully aware of their place in the production, what they do and why they deserve the treatment.

It's simply too hard. There is too much difference in levels of intellect and countless other factors.

Capitalism or such systems thrive because they do not demand a full consensus. The production directed through some level of violence. No it does not imply dirty-bloody violence, nor do I believe starvation is necessary in any way to enforce a particular leadership. Just some competent people taking the lead should change the entire dynamics where everyone else has to follow the trend.

In particular, I believe a good leadership must be enforced while using minimal violence. Assuming we want to re-engineer current society as it is, many artificial scarcity in goods can be eliminated because they merely serve as a violence a deterrant a punishment to prevent miscompliance of the leadership which I consider unnecessary anyway.

Such systems move faster than reason. On the other hand, it's a utopian dream where everyone can understand each other and everyone is literally religiously convinced of his fate in dying for a state as some sort of optimal configuration that necessitates his fate in case of defense.

The phrase 'has to' is more of an observation over the imperative that we must drive production including defense before a utopian consensus is reached, due to the adverse nature of current reality. There is the urgency necessitating such cooperation, from the constant arms race of violence and financial power as a result of current configuration of reality at least.

Systems design, open problem, iterative maxima

What is a good solution to systems design, or some open problem?

The solution that defies further iterative development, simplification, reduction.

A worse solution gets refactored, simplified, reduced to simpler parts and reconstructed.

A good solution defies such changes because it is already at an iterative maximum.

• Solutions that are needlessly specific, get generalized, which is a reduction to a general solution + specific parameters.
• Solutions that under-estimate the number of variables are outcompeted by alternatives that do consider more variables. Many problems are Pareto optimization problems involving the human factor, UX, such as design of programming languages.

I may call this iterative maximum, or iteratively optimal.

Not all things are in total order

Here I present a useful pieceful of thought that is fairly pervasively used in identifying reality, coming from

Many things are falsely assumed to be in a total order, such as looks, which profoundly shape the worldviews of many people

In a total order, everything is comparable with any other thing, which forms a linear sequence.

The reality of a lot of things are partially ordered. Notorious example being looks, where people either assume that the order does not exist, or that there exists a total order. People might not be aware that they are assuming the order, even, but they do it implicitly through their arguments.

Looks is a partial order where there are a few prevailing standards of looks, where in each lane there exists relative level of preference. I am not proposing any specific holistic partial order of looks, because I do not want useless controsversy. Rather, I am conjecturing that the thought space conforms to such a structure.

Enligtened narcissism

I have developed this very specific kind of narcissism, where I am fully aware of my flaws that are considered flaws under specific assumptions (axiomatic or not). I contrast it with,

• Ignorant narcissism, the kind where people gain pride over their looks, nation-state, or money while not paying attention to the rest of reality. The nationalists can not accept criticisms. All of them can not accept what they do not have, do not own, including a lack of novelty in their personality.
• Repressed narcissism. I expect most people of this kind to gain siginifcant personality change, say if they gain massive wealth, power, or looks. The fact that their personality and views can change at all is a proof that they are not at an iteartive maximum

The awareness about my own flaws only strengthens my narcissism, because it is not longer predicated on a flawless fiction, a delusion of weak foundation.

Contingent morality and the worhip of status quo

It is praised when a richman donates money to a poor person to alleviate his pain, but, we are assuming way too much things here.

The praise is predicated on the fact that some people are impoverished, as a part of the greater whole of the status quo, which for brevity I refer to as the real.

This is a particular definition of the real, as opposed the possible. Not the Kantian real or whatever other definitions, but the real as in the status quo.

The real includes the fact that some people look pretty and some people look ugly, some people are rich, and that current processors typically have a maximal frequency of 5GHz.

A lot of values of current humans, boil down to to the worship of the real. People do not care about the possible.

Again, I rarely condemn people or praise anything. It's observation and facts that matter. That's all.

Measurement of meaningful undestanding through dialectic delta

I have a personal way of measuring whether I understand this piece of philosophical text, simply by the rate of change to my own views.

If it's generic agreeable arguments, the change is minimal. I might be getting the correct interpretation, but it doesn't matter since I already have it in my own system.

If it changes my own view in any way. It might not be the right understanding, but it's good anyway because dialectic change is good in any case.

Following this methodology, on the 2nd order, I try to gain more sources that give me such change.

Morality constructed on vector of intention and effect

Usual theories of morality each treats the system as a system constructed on intention, or effect. The de facto morality of human rights is of deontology, which is based on intention as in it says what people should do in what circumstances, and a morality based on deontology of the justice of contracts, especially private property. Another popular morality is utilitarianism, socialism, which emphasize systems constructed based on reasoning about effects, and anti-natalism which is popular on internet.

The precise definition of intention and effects can be seen from section Reduction by calculus.

These systems, share a common feature that they revolve around a fundamental element of either intention, or effect.

What if nature of reality is more nuanced? Thats why advocate for a system of morality, on the fundamental level, based on a 2D vector of (intention,effect), where intention and effect are not typical algebraic objects like real numbers. They represent immediate tendency of actions on the forementioned causal trajectory and consequences (effects, possible world) on the causal graph.

It is often absurd to live a life when you have to reach noble goals through oftentimes, bad or evil means. The classical problem is how a utopia necessitates great wars, which is a common topic people litigate over in online discourse.

A person might not have the traits you appreciate, but those very same traits give him a function, make him function as a person that achieve certain effects that you appreciate. This also implies a view of a split of a person as dual of his function in the world and his authentic self, haunting and pervasive.

Having these concerns in mind, you get frustrated and start thinking how absurd all of the reality is, and slack off. Still, I hold the position that absurdity is not real but a hint that might drive you into greater rationalization of the world, and eventually reach an impression of eureka in polar opposite to the impression of the absurd.

Compounding causality, a historical analysis

Here I present a view on development of history that is related to previous elaboration on, wisdom vs intellect.

Intellect is a computation power which derives answers given a computation process, while wisdom, is the answers themselves.

I have developed this exotic view on history that history is unfolded on a compounding causality.

From $t_1$ to $t_2$, the change that may happen is bounded by the computational power and the data that may be used available. The data part is the so-called wisdom as they can enable faster computation shortcuts. The computation may be done by anybody. We see it as a collective process.

The possible change is bounded by the computation; hence the wisdom. It's such weird that the possible change is continually increasing over time. Let's call it action space.

Trivially, wisdom never decreases, because more data is always better, which increases the action space perpetually.

I'm not concerned over production, or specific changes in organizational structures of society, because my theory does not care for these temporary and utterly specific things that change in a short time frame. The action space has been in constant and increasing rates of higher-order increase since the discovery of fire, the use of language and paper, the invention of general computers.

The ever increasing computable space

It's also worth noting that some answers are not possible without particular data. That is to say for a particular process of computation in the time frame $t_1 \to t_2$, some answers are fundamentally non-computable without particular inputs of data. More things are becoming computable over time.

What makes this possible? Brute-force! The computability theory says some answers can not be arrived by a particular algorithm with available data, but it never said we can't just do a correct guess. It's always a guess, by tautology. Let me prove it.

If an answer is unreachable before $t_2$ through all computation methods and data we had before $t_2$, but we gained access to the answer after $t_2$. The only possibility is that we guessed it. Otherwise, it was either non-computable or we did not do the compute. Nothing prevents a heuristic algorithm to just spew out non-computable answwers because computability theory only applies to what it is defined over.

There is a true joke that, you can simply guess the correct preimage at the first time for a SHA256 hash with good enough luck, or any answer to some Turing-non-computable problem.

Multiple perspectives can be true, simultaneously

It's often viewed competitively that if you believe in one theory, you must reject another. Just a very powerful bias I noticed in myself recently. The great theories from academia can be true, and your own theories can be true too. There is no need to fear when others talk about the great theories.

Solving the old 'reputation system problem' from a metalogic perspective

Reputation systems are increasingly prevalent in modern systems

• Ranks of a nation-state
• Capital, where the amount of capital in particular, currency, decides one's agency, the amount of power one has to direct production through legal means.
• IP quality, as implied in the internals of Cloudflare and various IP blacklists
• Risk control in online social media platforms
• CA systems starting from CA root, a centralized PKI.
• GPG public key infrastructure, as an example on establishing a PKI decentrally, which I do not consider, ideal.

The 'reputation' isn't reputation per se, which in usual sense means fame or recognition by an audience.

There are potentially many ways to formalize this, which I came to belief is the core complexity of the said problem. Method wise, it's always ok to throw a random neural network to do the predictions. However, I want to do an analysis from the philosophical view point, to avoid the explainability problem and perhaps offer more profound insight towards the iterative maxima.

• Define 'reputation' as compliance towards a specific goal, such as not creating spam, successful trades.
  • If we try to create a system upon this goal, it's destined to be a narrow system, by tautology.
• etc. not listing more

Trust, and a prevalent phenomenon of isolation of invidiuals in the modern world

This should derive some extra ideas that is adjacent to the above ideas on reputation systems.

Most transactions of modern world tend to be clearly priced, mass saled, platformed products or labor, or transactions faciliated through institutions or legal formal processes. That's a fact. It's simply rare that two people get together and cooperate without a contract. And it's rare even though people can sign contracts.

Trust is a highly profitable element. Examples that profit off trust include

• Gangs that involve drug sales or other illegal activities
• Corruption that can not work without secrecy
• Employment. If an employer can trust another person to hold the capability of work without a degree, the total cost on both people get reduced drastically. The employer can pay less and the employee gets to not go to a university which, depending on the person, is a massive saving in time, and pain.
• Business deals.

Here the metalogic should abstract as much things as possible, such as specific algorithms of evaluating trust.

In a simple model, let's say the goal is to risk control over spamming of users on a platform. It's irrelevant what algorithms are used here, because I will take an approach from the side of observer. For such a system, it is inevitably a decision making system. And such a system inevitably is a system that processes useful, reliable information into actionable results.

We can already derive a theorem from the information part.

Theorem, trust system is information-bounded

Without information, it's impossible to make better decisions that are better than random draws.

This is applicable to any form of trust system.

Theorem, trust system is truthiness-bounded

Consider we have hardware sensors that are protected by police that identify if a user is a real person, which sends a signed message over the wire when an identification is made. We may also have other sources of information for such purpose. The system may adopt both sources and cross-analyze, but the total amount of truthiness is considered to be constant. (This is more like a definition rather than an assertion)

The truthiness of that signed message, is a result of deliberate construction of such a physical system, as a particular configuration of matter of reality, such that it performs our intended goal of identifying a living human.

Inevitably, a trust system will get political because it will create a gradient of incentives. Agents in the system will try to exploit for gains. The truthiness of input may gradually degrade as that happens.

From the chronological perspective, if the truthiness resists exploitation, we consider this trust system to be robust.

Truthiness is formally defined as the degree that data points match the matter in reality. The political side that it causes people to be controlled, to act controlled, is merely a side effect.

It's also common that trust systems utilize rewards and punishment in society to optimize truthiness, but we should be clear about the notions here.

I divide reality into two compartments of realms.

1. Realm of information, where data exist on its own
2. Realm of physicality, the rest of reality.

The realm of information is the data that a trust system, which is a computational process, can access. More specifically, a trust system is formally defined as a function $f: T_1 \to T_2$ that is computable within certain bounds, where $T_{1,2}$ are tensors for input data and output verdicts.

Data is useless without a mapping onto physical reality, especially in this context. The degree the said data tethers onto reality is considered its degree of truthiness.

Usually the two realms are connected by sensors, human attestations, and in more complex setups, institutions, political structures where humans work in pre-designed ways producing predictable results.

What we can do?

The matter in this section does not really concern about getting more information, or more truthiness, because they are outside of the scope, while I believe they are the actual, urgent goals for better trust systems.

If we limit our scope to a particular, isolated trust system, we can see it being deficient in information and truthiness. It could have integrated more information and truthiness into the decision-making process.

A trust system is also inevitably computational, resembling human reason. Currrent state is that most trust systems are very dumb algorithms.

• Increase the "intellect" of trust systems
• Integrate more data sources by connecting other trust systems
  • Consider a trust system here to be, an individual program operated by a web site.
  • Current systems are poorly interoped.
• Integrate more truthiness sources

Systmatic analysis over values

Particular personal goals often change. It is therefore necessitated to survery the whole of possible values or goals one can have.

In this section we are not concerned with particular values that are justified by values in a larger context, where the particular values serve as means to the greater values, such as my effort in nsproxy for enabling freedom, which is a means-to-end relationship.

Values in general, exist as a chain of justification, as observed in population. Why work? It benefits society, the nation, gets money which gets an person's his pleasures. The justification ends here because pleasure is a singularity as defined above. It's a blackbox to rational reduction, almost impenetrable to reason.

My survey over theories I have come across shows that most values often land the values in changes in reality. They value change. Since the disenchantment humans have gradually shifted all their values into change, and hedonism. Change represents the real in the future, and hedonism represents the real, as in status quo. In brief, change, and reality. A huge number of ideologies land the ultimate value of everything in creating a utopia, where no further justification is needed or given and everything else valuable points towards the utopia.

Some people see the termination of the chain of justification as a proof of nihilism. It's plausible. Yet all theories of today are axiomatic in nature in the sense that they need assumptions.

I see nihilism as an invalid philosophical position. It's a mere stimuli, as illusionary as the impression of the divine. That's my insight as a person with experience with frequent mood swings and as a psychonaunt.

Dictatorship is bad?

An ontological investigation into the concept of dictatorship

What do you mean by dictatorship? There are 7 billion people on the planet. Even if we consider the 7 billion only, there are 7 billion kinds of dictatorship. That means you are referring to 7 billion "dictatorships" where each one is different, each one serving as a possible and plausible definition of your dictatorship.

You are making a categorical mistake to dismiss the whole idea of dictatorship when you perceive a subset of possible dictatorships as bad. The old soviet-style states are dictatorships, and, democracy, private property are also dictatorships.

Formally, I define dictatorship as an exclusive control over the future outcome of events, over a geographic region or any other abstract region such as internet spaces.

What does this imply? It means reality will always be inhabited by some form of dictatorship, such as apathy, randomness, arbitrariness. It is only when the control is enchanted with a free will from a free being, people call it a dictatorship. That is to say, dictatorship is fundamentally unavoidable because we live in a world where the course of events follows a single trajectory. The coin either lands heads or tails. When the 'thing' that decides it is randomness, we usually don't call it a dictatorship. I call this dictatorship of randomness.

Ideas transcend terms. Did you notice that your definition get enriched and changed through the reading of the text. That's what I call dialectics.

The necessary consequence followed by the above reasoning, is to stop trying to eliminate dictatorship, figures of power of any kind. The current politics is insecure about such fact that they are inventing complex mechanisms, various councils, ineffective democracies, which end up empowering dictatorships elsewhere. They are so avoidant about apparent forms of dictatorship, while their fixes are elaborate processses that eventually result in a single resolution of deeds, or non-action where non-intervention itself is a dictatorship which can result in suffering in cases where the cruelty of nature causes that.

Do I support dictatorship?

I do not support dictatorship as in the common definitions circulating on internet and offline. It's more accurately called authoritarianism, despite that they are frequently conflated.

Speaking of my definition dictatorship, there is not 'support it' or not, because it's simply a feature of reality that can not be removed.

Psychonauntics and philosophy

It's impossible to be a philosopher without being a psychonaunt first.

There isn't a need to be philosopher for everyone. It's quite mentally draining actually, sometimes harmful, and deception may be good anyway. But under the assumption that you want to be a philosopher, it's imperative that you be a psychonaunt.

I've found that the immdiate perceptions, impressions, and impulses are some of the most powerful biases in the way of human reason. High sex drive blocks personality development.

There isn't a way to get rid of these impressions, but mood changes can shuffle them.

If a simple flip in mood changes your views, it means your reasoning is dialectically incomplete anyway. We consider the integration of more information is always correct a fundamental assumption, just as elaborated earlier in the dialectics section.

Introspection has its bounds. Substances can help. Sometimes you enter this realm because you have to, you get prescribed anti-depressants.

Disregard international standards. They don't matter. They are wrong. I compiled a list based on personal experience over the phenomena that are observable to me.

Nobody needs these theories when you can access the phenomena unless the state blocks the access.

I have substantial disagreement with DSM theories and taxomoy of mental disorders. They are utterly wrong.

• Hypomania
  • Confidence, ego inflation, grandiosity
  • Motivation
  • Disinhibition
  • Increased desires, appetite and enjoyment thereof
  • I do not regard this as a mood disorder. Rather, I consider it the optimal state of being.
  • David Pearce, too, advocates the state of hypomania.
• Depression. Taxonomy wise I consider there to be 3 sub-types of depression.
  • Anhedonia, lack of motivation, feeling of meaninglessness, feeling of nihilism.
    • sometimes manifesting in anorexia, but anorexia doesn't constitute anhedonic depression
    • lack of enjoyment, fulfillment, reward from activities such as eating
    • treatment, stimulants, or any drug with stimulating property.
  • Dysphoria, general unease, unexplained discomfort
    • everyone can experience this with a sufficient dose of antipsychotics, which was used as a torture method.
    • note that Haloperidol is associated with neurotoxic metabolites
  • Melancholy, sadness
    • I consider it a type of mood problem when I have sadness without any reason. It's simply logically absurd that I should be sad without any reason any change in circumstances, isn't it.
    • treatment, serotonergic agents, such as Zolmitriptan.
  • I generally consider stimulants a better treatment than SSRIs, because SSRIs cause long-term profound changes in neuronal weights and brain structure, sometimes causing a huge personality shift for better or worse.
• Anxiety
  • Rumination
    • Repeated worries usually with internal dialogue
    • Many people resort to Ethanol, which is a very terrible drug that has catastrophic metabolic consequences. Literally Butanol or other longer-chained alcohols are better if you like solvents that much.
    • treatment, Pregabalin
      • Pregabalin empties the mind
      • the drug is markedly safer than Ethanol for long-term consumption, for its lack of liver metabolism, activation of irrelevant receptors or inhibition of metabolic enzymes etc, although I do not endorse long-term consumption of psychotropics due to the risks.
      • Benzodiazepines are not very effective
  • Agitation
    • Inability to focus
    • No apparent reason or problems to ruminate or worry over
    • Cardiovascular effects that can be felt
    • treatment
      • beta blockers especially Propanolol
      • $\alpha_{2a}$ agonists such as Guanfacine
        • they are fairly potent orthostatic hypotension agents, while beta blockers don't have a fraction of the effect, to my surprise.
        • I don't endorse Guanfacine as optimal. It's just what I have tried so far.
      • Atomoxetine
        • It's fairly absurd that ADHD agents are put in this bucket, but I reasonably believe they act on the same neuronal pathway.
      • Benzodiazepines
        • Alprazolam is noted for its potent and rapid anti-depressant effects. They derived Adinazolam following the inspiration.
  • Social anxiety, shyness as a personality
    • SSRIs for months
      • I personally believe SSRIs permanently decreased my sex drive too
    • This is a special one because it's a matter of neural structure and weights

Language politics

Democracy, sales, and politics at its surface, are increasingly dominated by the mechanism of memetics. The discourse and reasoning of people are frequently affected by the biases inherent to language in the typical way people use it. Perhaps language is the largest institution overall.

I have hence been proposing a retreat from language. It's especially important for people who are new to reason and politics.

Various conflicts of modern day are pretty much a result of the institution of language, the conflicts over races, genders, nation-states. I see them as drama that only take place on social media and pamphlet of embassies that serve as nothing other than performative art.

Systems that base on the institution of language, are somewhat bad I'd say. Examples being bureaucracy which needs laws regulations various processes intensely based on language, and democracy which needs endless litigations. Language tends to lag behind truly transformative ideas, especially if you want the a large audience to fully digest it.

I find it funny that people constantly argue, fight and die genuinely for these terms, labels of languages, including the symbols, flags, the fixed notions that they represent. Yet if we do not use language to protect some minories, assign labels to them and codify the protection into law, people will probably start bullying them as some sort of usual process, as if it is a part of human nature.

Races, nations are in particular a funny element in the theatre of modern politics. Such notions are elusive because they are partially real, yet fail and will never capture the whole of reality. Just as how I treat the self as a bundle of impressions, knowledge and various processes (I do not acknowledge the existence of the self), races are too a construct that captures the phenotype and behavior of majority. The label draws that much attention because the real part has real political, economical consequences. Most people are not aware that the real part and the fiction part are bundled into one label.

It took humanity so much time to invent new 'symbols' that play a role in the threatre of history. Notably, proletariat from the leftists. Yet most of them acted like swarm and fell for the same trap of language.

I intentionally coined the term outliers, in the hope that it serves as a living, anthropomorphic drive and instance on the way dialectics drives the world forward.

History as a result of free will

Countless people believe in the these right-wing or left-wing theories about the grand theory on the development of history. The iron laws of capital exploitation, recurring patterns in development of civilization. Great historians have figured out all of it, a long time ago, isn't it. Just as what happened in the past, the future must be alike, and you should study more history!

Fundamentally, I believe history is driven by free will and randomness, deliberate choices made by key people, those who are in power, those who had the chance to get their voices heard, those who have the wealth and transformative ideas. The modern day world is to a large degree a consequence of a ton of deliberate choices of key people during WW2 and a ton of coincidences on the key trajectory of events.

There are certainly recurring patterns in society. Companies exploiting people in predictable ways, making profit off capital in predictable ways, countries going to war at each other in predictable patterns. They, however, do not matter, because we focus on change. What's the point on focusing on these repeated patterns? You are looking for disappointment, or confirmation if you like it. Those who look into the repeated patterns are just going into the confirmation bias to make their theories seem useful. Their theories have zero predictive power for all the changes that happened.

Change is fundamentally driven by outliers. Patterns persist until they are changed. I base my predictive power on a clear tether on the theorization on causality. A rich man has more causal relevance than a minimal wage worker, typically. That's the difference in causal relevance that we must acknowledge. To a given outcome, there are causal factors that dominate, and the factors that are trivial. That's the Pareto stance.

History is a matter of creation. There is not a determined future. There is no guarantee in any good or bad ending.

I expect a future much more bizarre, unanticipated for the years to come, perhaps in a good way.

It's sound to refute a point by providing a seemingly irrelevant argument

Sound as in logically valid.

I found this to be a fairly interesting phenomenon in debates and reasoning in general.

In some cases it's indeed going off-topic, but in other cases, this can serve a true rebuttal.

You can say the capitalism as its current state, is causing poverty and crime and go about your whole ideology and propose a lot of solutions. I won't disagree with you on that, but without my addendum, your point is invalid. Notice I am not, in anyway directly refuting your point.

Politics of the time is locking up people with limited food (supply of currency) in a cage (private property and state power where many things you need are not even for sale such as custom medicine). Some people go about justifying people doing crime and killing each other as a result of circumstances, and aspirations of weath equality of various kinds.

I propose the aspiration that some people take the lead and break the cage instead. It's not like the person talking to me didn't want to break the cage. It's rather him not focusing on how the cage is broken, which makes his reasoning partial. The arguments seem to not relate to each other directly, but they are addressing the same thing of reality.

Providing addendum is a sound way to refutation as long as it changes the thought of a person to any dialectic delta.

Refactoring of philosophy, a tradition brought from computer science

I have found it better to refactor philosophy and recompile the source code myself. It's common in fields of engineering to rebuild things but most people are hesitant to rebuild their worldview, methods of reason.

Discrete mathematics as the only relevant ontology

• Causality, language $\to$ Graphs
• Concepts, identities, impressions, objects $\to$ Tensors
• Emergence $\to$ Integral

I've so far used discrete mathematics extensively to build my system of ontology. I see debates over overly speculative nature of things as futile and will not produce meaningful gains. Plus, there are many many ways to examine the same object of reality. There is not a need to obsess with any specific way of philosophy such as going into those speculative dead ends.

Non-predictable factors and predictable factors

In the continual flow of reality as it develops, would you not consider some people to be fairly passive and predictable where other people act like blackboxes, acting as a source of change that drive such predictable sequences. There isn't a bound on the perspectives you can create. It simply makes more sense to create a perspective where some people are considered the causes of change.

Some people always argue that anyone can be regarded a source of change. This is not wrong in the way that you can create a perspective where they are treated as source of change and begin an analysis, but such perspectives are inherently less efficient and lack explanatory power in comparison to, said better perspectives.

Cooperation between enemies

I found this as a trait of capitalism. Two nations would have gone to war without an international system of capitalism where the money is what I considered unwilled money, the purest form of wealth that does not have any strings attached. It's imaginable in such a situation the conflict can be settled by financial means.

Such a system can even enable cooperation between enemies, between mutually disagreeing parties on morality, while in the end, forming a supply chain which may serve some noble goals that we value. This does not happen in a usual leftist rationally-designed system where the system expects people to hold a common worldview.

Empirical study of capitalism

• Short-lasting contracts, settlement. Lack of viable long-term cooperation and accountability.
  • Price of justice might be a rate-limiting factor
• Delegation (sometimes into authority) as a form of cost saving which could be detrimental
• Too much conflict during price negotation, the game of chicken.
  • A lot of deals are not made because the game is fierce, which result in losses of both sides. Either potential profits are not made, or the manufacturer end up re-implementing some existing technologies.
  • Socialism should address this conflict.
• Dimensionality reduction into prices is inherently suboptimal, if the system is to be seen as product of intentional design.
  • The system can be seen as an optimization process towards an optimal price, yet deals in reality require much, more than just price information. Authorities, certifications, various systems got invented over time to undo the "dimensionality reduction"
• Rational descent as a viable strategy of revolution in the era of capitalism
  • It is a rational descent when both producers and consumers optimize towards their goal of cost-saving and gain-maxing.
  • It is a rational descent when all people start adopting a more free currency, such as cryptocurrency, globally but not coordinated.
• Capitalism as a game of bounty hunter.
• Capitalism as a framework structure where more complex political systems can be layered upon.
• Capitalism as a pervasive incentive structure that leads to the full causal chain from production to consumption where every contract is incentived fiscally, until the last, sales contract.
• Flat pricing dominates most deals and has consequences
• Capitalism inherently produces a system of privileges, which is needless.
  • Products that produce more satisfactory are priced higher
  • Flat pricing is usually unavoidable, such that we can not discriminate consumers
  • The two lead to an inevitable result that, to keep the richer consumers pay for better services, better products are more expensive. Otherwise they would not pay.
  • On the other hand, intentionally worsend products are produced to maximize total realized profit / deals made, as long as the downsized products do not affect the sales of premium products.
  • This phenomenon is so ubitquitous

Morality, by Hume

I tried to distance my self from moral judgement in my essay whenever possible. I do not believe in any grand theory of morality that can be explained in simple words, like 'workers deserve fair pay'. I believe in a morality that is extremely nuanced, sometimes absurd and contrived.

If the average workers actually get fair pay, they will spend it on useless products, and prop up huge industries for momentary hedonism. It's a fact that the rich have so much money they don't know where to spend and the poor of the time can't even get a place to live. Inevitably they will blow the money on anime figurines, various copes that serve as nothing but a futile attempt at more of momentary hedonism.

To begin contemplation on morality, it must start from ground state, the Humean stance. Hume has a strong emphasis that the theories on 'ought' reside in a different realm than theories of 'is'.

I enjoy moral hypotheticals. It would be a good hypothetical when an entrepreneur deceived normies, extracted their wages to invest in the making of truly transformative development. You get fascinated by the results not knowing the full causal details that led up to it. This is the absurd.

If optimizing is the state of society, it is usually under-optimized.

People tend to have fears when they want to do something out of the ordinary, start a business, because they think the society is optimized and everything is saturated. No new things need to be written and companies already doing the best. Propaganda have done a great job preaching market as a mechanism.

It is true that it is a perpetually optimizing system, yet people tend to assume it is optimized, without much evidence whatsoever. It is actually underoptimized in most cases.

Ethics that is not conditioned on labour

I have always been cautious when it comes to 'ought' problems.

History of recent decades have been in a gradual shift of labour. In the past pretty much everyone can participate in menial, blue-collar physical labour.

Consequentially, the right-wingers claim those who work deserve cash, the left-wingers claim those who work deserve food. The development gradually shifted the demands. The vast majority of laborers do not produce even a fraction of value, produced by one single engineer in algorithms, or an AI scientist. Fundamentally, those are work ethics.

By their very same ethics, the vast majority deserve nothing? I'm sure they would like this idea.

I'm certain most jobs in most countries serve as nothing but nominal jobs that would have generated wages lower than what could sustain one's life. The system barely maintained the wages through the ubiquitous law of minimum wages and various policies that push for such coverage. They are just masked welfare. You think you are compensated for the efforts. In reality, you are getting relief checks in disguise.

Egoless elitism

I coined the phrase considering there would be people who consider my theory elitism, which is partial. The ego is never the point since I do not even acknowledge its existence. The greatest achievements in history are just those sparks of ingenuity that were followed by masses who try to adopt and appropriate the fruits for their own profits. Ideas just come to me. I would not consider myself entitled because the fact that ideas came to me.

Out of all perspectives, only the view that all events began through a spark of singularity that sometimes resides in a person's mind followed by a sequence of much more predictable outcomes, makes most sense and holds most explanatary power compared to all other views.

There is no point in debating whether free will exists, nor am I interested in its litigation of ontology beyond what serves productive goals of this post. Free will, is only conisdered as it appears, the apparent fact that you can make decisions and nothing beyond it, the apparent fact that it serves as an instrument in the happening of causality.

Historicism is partial because it can not account for the pervasive existence of free will. And it's a theory for the masses anyway because it teachs people to expect things to happen spontaneously. Either way, it's not going to hold any predictive power.

Equality to be assumed until further justification

I do not hold the view of equality simple as it seems, but rather I consider it a stance to be held without further evidence or need to change the view, as a starting point of thought. I hold the accusation why you would set up such an arbitary view or privileges instead of this null stance.

It is the void of reason that I call equality, not that I want to sweep things such that they appear equal.

I also have a disregard, or disdain for the status quo. Reason knows no temporal bounds. People get irritated over borders that get disputed that get moved a little bit, not knowing how much different it was in the past. It's a very common fallacy to reason in the way relative the status quo. Reason should be, absolute, relative to the origin point of null stance.

People call it a crime when a rich person gets his wealth reduced a bit, because its a reasoning with the status quo as a reference point. The correct method is to at least track it further back in time where nobody is much more wealthy, or the null stance where nobody is wealthier or less.

Opposite of transactional life and relationships? Entanglement.

People complain a lot about work, life, relationships being transactional, but I have not heard what is supposed to be the opposite.

The fundamental cause of 'feeling transactional' is due to the simplicity. That is, things are so simple it can be explained with a few words summed up as a transaction. That is to say reason easily captures your life.

An entangled life defies reason, because new things are happening, which defies human reason that currently prevails which includes the popular ideas, langauge, and narratives.

Some people may have a lengthy life, but it can be summed up briefly, if words are to be saved.

Creation is the opposite of analysis, because good creation defies analysis. Life is creation, whether you like it or not, it's going.

Consumerism is, too, what people complain about the transactional feeling, with a sense of nihilism and doom. It's the lack of involvement in the production of goods that led to the impression. On the other hand, politics stripped off people's access to production.

For all I've observed, capitalism does not cause alienation. It's always people that alienated themselves. When they do business they have to imagine themselves as businessmen who have to bargain for maximal profit. Normies are constantly taking various roles whenever they be a partner, a worker, a businessman or a student. There is nothing that forces them to comply with the expectation of norms of roles to 100%.

They can't even free their own minds.

Human experience as a graph, not islands of individuals.

Many people hold the bias to see the human experience as a matter of individual islands, each as a collection of experiences unique to a person, a nation, or some other categories. Fundamentally, I see it as a flattened structure where each person, devoid of any labels, occupies and lives on such a graph of human experience. The conceptual order matters.

You get in school, you feel isolated, and lonely, and perhaps stressed. You catch a cold, you feel feverish and suffer. These are the experiences which are modelled as nodes that follow higher probability connected from other nodes, upon conditions catching a cold, or entering school. If you get unlucky, you get in some truly rare nodes on the graph, such as rare illnesses or those unspeakable horrors, which I term outliers.

Shared human experiences are first-class citizens, as opposed to arbitary man-made labels such as nationalities, races.

1. Bundle of human experiences $\to$ Individuals
2. Nations $\to$ Experiences, trauma, stories unqiue to the nations, considered incomparable $\to$ Individuals

(2) comes with an extra category, where in (1), everyone is equal in front of life, the totality of experiences that life brings you. Substitute the nation with another other kind of bucket if needed.

Specifically, I consider it a state-transition graph, where nodes can represent human experience, impressions, states of consciousness, the set of beliefs one may have at one given moment, where the transition represents conditions, the luck, the unluck, the circumstances.

As the blueprint gets laid down, it gets obvious that overwhelming majority of experiences are universally shared. It's no longer a secret to guard. The urge to preserve your wealth when you get your first bucket of money, the moment you have your first crush, the torment of silencing oppression, the joy of unspoken privileges, the sensation and urges of narcissism, the feeling of doom and self-hate, the resentment against arbitary pain imposed by reality and the endless expression of irony, the warm and fuzzy. Each of them has been experienced, examined, liked or hated by countless people.

It's no longer a convenient perspective to see them as isolated stories to each person his own. Better turn the order of categories back.

It matters to acknowledge the finitude of one's own lived experience, either imposed by himself or circumstances outside of his control, especially when we want to seek the answer to the question, what humanity is. As one acknowledges the finitude, he frees himself from the pain of isolation; he also loses the bias and privilege of particularity. (On narcissism, existentialism, etc. All of them tackled at once)

I value works of art especially those involving plot and, melodies that follow that encode the exquisite emotions present, in their merit of conveying and archiving lived or imagined human experience, such that they are greatly shared, and persist into infinitude.

Liberating humanness from assigned bodies

Modern politics pushes for acceptance of the body one is born with, yet this is exactly against the individual freedom to deny an essence that the assigned body and phenotype forces onto the being. The prevailing ideology, is reactive to an adverse reality. It sees whatever body you get as fair and perfect, as long as this mindset pushes for positive attitude for the sake of positivity. The philosophical tradition, is to treat reality and life authentically, to acknolwedge nothing else other than existence itself (existentialism) as a fundamental starting point of contemplation.

When dignity and humanness is no longer tied to specific assigned physical bodies, it's finally fine to judge them as they appear. At the end of the day, the inhabitant will have to deal with the body knowing the fact that he can never leave it, perhaps much later in life when the awareness comes to him.

Psychological denial, a barrier to particular thought paths

Here I characterize internal contemplation, be it explicit or more implicit, a graph where an idea leads to another idea, an argument leads to another argument.

• There is no way I consider my nation-state to be flawed or any criticism
• There is no way I consider possibiltiy of myself being ugly
• There is no way I might be non-binary, and that I might enjoy it more when I present myself or look different.
• There is no way I am inferior in reasoning
• There is no way rich people live better lives and are not as evil as I thought

The disease of modern reason and discourse, is rooted in psychological denial. The denial is so profound in effects because it blocks a whole cascade of internal dialogue and personality development perhaps spanning over decades of one's life. Denial is when someone is mentally physically incapable of considering certain ideas, certain possibilities. Denial is the instinctual aversion to specific directions of dialogue.

It does not matter what someone says. The fact is deduced from behavior because usually the person himself isn't aware of such denial. Denial results in defects in personality development.

Absurd actions as a sound reaction to the absurd world

sound means logically valid

The world has been characterized as absurd which is popularly known. It is however an unfinished idea, lacking a sequel. I sometimes find it fun to react to the absurd world through equally absurd actions, not as in useless and purposefully performative, but as in absurd actions that properly produce gains for me. This is a largely unpopular idea because most people live in the bliss of rationalized world, where no absurdity is really expected to take place.

It's a process that I have lived through many times. Such absurd actions include extreme measures, extreme discipline, an overwhelming control that suppresses my own fear, shame and deliberately dismissing my own mental states such as depression and feelings/fear of being misunderstood.

Perhaps absurdity is an inherent property of the causal structure of reality. So it has to be acknowledged in both ways, in what is observed and what is to be done next.

Asymmetry of luck

Luck can not be forced, but the statistical distribution can be engineered.

I observed an asymmetry in the pursuit of success that, it is often case that some things may happen to you and some things may certainly not happen to you. To build the premise for success in computer science, you gotta have a decent grasp of English.

There are many things that may be done to build a premise, yet luck can not be built. Learn a new language, move to a new place, enter a field and just barely enter it, meet new people. Such asymmetry is the cause of the 'connection effect' where people complain about others having connections, manifested at a large scale.

The connection effect is not deliberate corruption in most cases. It's the flip side of the luck asymmetry phenomenon. To sample success, the outcomes must be possible at all first. To hire a person, the person must be known first.

Causal synthesis

The other insight is from a view from the causal graph. I mentioned causally important factors earlier. The part that can be engineered, is the synthesis of various causal factors. Modern coporations, especially the innovative ones are all successful causal synthesis of labour, capital, ingenuity.

I don't see it as mere cooperation. It's rather an aggreation of existing causally important, alive, driving factors. Seeing it as a cooperation is a less general perspective.

Change is mediated through sophisticated synthesis of powerful, tangible, intuitive, factors.

Common sense lifting

I've been adhering to a method which I now term, common sense lifting. The notions embedded in daily English language and the corpus of engineering and science have very intuitive, strong impressions, which serve as a good starting point for further theorizing.

I frequently adopt words from common English, terms from science, and gradually build theories and subtly refine the meanings to a point, perhaps completely changing it.

In addition to common English words and notions represented thereby, I also include phenomena that everyone experiences as part of common sense.

Correspondent information and computation

AI inference is a process of computation. Training is function approximation which is also computation.

Computation is a very exotic existence because the process itself can be competely captured by a system of language, while the medium of computation is always mediated through physical phenomena, be it classical or quantum phenomena. Language is a collection of symbols, the ways they are manipulated (aka. algebra), a definition of consistency which we call logic. This is an algebraic triple.

The symbols represent nothing to humans unless the meanings are assigned. The symbols can represent reality at any level by design. Here, by having symbols in a langauge defined to have no meaning at all unless assigned, we can consider the language to exist physically. That is, mathematics exist physically as long as the meanings are stripped.

The symbols are computed on a chip until perhaps the chip works completely unexpectedly, failing the computation. Up until that, we consider the algebra to exist physically.

The prompt you give AI that contains business secrets, is correspondent information, which is a fragment of language that tethers to reality closely, which perhaps take thousands of hours of inference for the AI to produce... Hereby I call it correspondent shortcut

Correspondent information is defined to be a statement consisting of symbols in a langauge that adhere to reality closely, as in having strong causal predictive power. Computation is the manipulation of symbols to produce other symbols that have causal predictive power.

I believe the dichotomy is a fundamental part of reality.

Take this to a bit further, we can denote publicly available information to be $\Sigma$

If it takes $n$ hours of inference for state-of-art AI to produce a statement $T$, its a piece of truth, worth $\Sigma n$

Introducing substance, a measure of usefulness of philosophical theories

Some common theories that have little to no substance.

• The world is one, unified whole. There is no distinction between self, and otherness. The best thing to do is to do nothing. (Taoism, buddhism, etc)
• There is no meaning to anything
• The world is in constant change and we must adapt as it changes. (Marxism as seen in many types of propaganda, and as regurgitated by a lot of people)
• Everythng is directed by God, caused by God, and God is the ultimate good. (monotheism)

These theories tend to be apparently correct, aka. truism, yet they don't confer any predictive power whatsoever. People apparently agree with these theories with others due to social influence and in the back they are utterly confused by life. Life demands an answer, yet truisms can offer nothing; the gap is to be filled with substance.

I evaluate theories of metaphysics and physics as equal citizens when it comes to substance. It turned out theories in science gradually obtained more substance than theories in philosophy. Recent research in high-dimensional tensor spaces have offered more substance than relevant philosophies can do.

Substance is the fundamental cause of progress. Endless litigation in philosophy never produced anything. Through this clarification, it's palpable what substance means.

For any theory, any figment of thought, I judge it through 3 metrics, or axes

• Consistency. The theroy must be internally consistent according to any kind of logic.
• Correspondence. The theory must correspond to reality in a sane way, to have any use. It must be grounded in solving problems of real life.
• Substance. Theory with more substance is denser and confers greater prediction power

Kolmogorov complexity is positively correlated with 'substance'

Kolmogorov complexity measures how compressible a string is. A good theory is by definition hard to summarize. The theories listed above are easily compressed into one idea.

This goes against Occam's razor because if we are going for simplicity, reducing everything to God is the simplest theory.

Theories, even in the 'meta space' such as philosophy, should reflect the inherent complexity of reality.

It's considered meta because philosophy is the idea about ideas, how ideas should be conducted, etc. self-referential

Complexity is a fundamental property of reality, which hereby I ground in Kolmogorov complexity, which connects to computation.

The latest scientific method is not testing, experimentation, but full in-silico simulation, such as https://openworm.org/ which figured out some hidden parameters, not possible with good old scientific methods.

The problem of mind-body duality haunted humans for thousands of years until recent advances in LLM that partly solves the problem through sheer complexity. (complexity not as in hard-to-understand)

Temporal superiority

From years of my biohacking experience, the best biohacking is done early.

Current technology can at most prevent disease or adverse phenotype (such as a puberty one does not want) from happening, and its very nice if done right. Your toolkit shall mostly consist of nuclear receptor modulators such as hormones, targeted therapy drugs (originally designed for cancer) if you need; psychotropics are in its nascent stage but they can be greatly helpful in very times. Do not ever expect biohacking (non-surgical) to program a new phenotype; it's impossible and delusional, but never miss a chance to prevent an outcome.

Novel tactics of reasoning

• Phenomenal extraction
  • The poetic approach. Observe phenomena yourself and write down a theory all by yourself, preferably using language never used by others, as in coining new phrases to depict a radically new perspective.
  • This is greatly underrated. Academia is mostly a circlejerk of dead philosophers.
• Algebraic analysis
  • Denote parts that are resistant to analysis as atoms, or variables.
• Zoom-out
  • Instead of trying to work within a certain system, try to draw more things outside the system into analysis. The zoom-out is a dialectic experience where a new dimension is added to analysis so it feels like 'getting a greater picture' where no former observation is trivially negated.
  • This includes framing a monovariate problem as a multivariate optimzation problem, reframing an engineering problem as a greater problem that involves social dynamics.
• Assumption mining
  • To discover as much assumed premises as possible
  • This when applied to personality or daily life as a whole, can change a lot.
• Chaotic sources
  • Some sources may be mined to have more ideas to come to you. There is no value in playing rough. Exposure to sources that are as chaotic as possible may give you surprises.
  • This came as a major accelerator in my reasoning trajectory. Such sources may include close contact with an eccentric person, and niche forums.

What is existentialism, nihilism?

The two are perhaps the most confusing terms on internet. Most people don't understand them.

Internet, and people in general are just constantly marketing their own ideas in the names of philosophers, since nobody can check them anyway.

Existentialism and nihilism are closely related, two clusters of ideas.

They aren't exactly like theories, but in essence, immediate attitudes on life that you can hold at any given moment.

• Existentialism is a deep reconsideration against one's existence itself, through that you cease the tasks at hand, you give up your past and pre-held ideas, prejudice, beliefs, such that you are fully immersed in the contemplation, where you are radically aware of yourself and not external things.
• Existentialism is a rejection of a determined future, a struggle against prophecy imposed by yourself and others.
• Existentialism is the acceptance of an apparent lack of meaning of life or universe in general, where one is aware of his freedom and ability to create. (acceptance, awareness)

Nihilism is interesting, because there are many circulating concepts equally labelled as 'nihilism'.

• The notion that 'love does not exist because it's all neurochemistry, chemicals'
  • It's a sort of 'apples to oranges' fallacy.
  • I don't need to expand on this because readers can derive an answer based on the essay.
• Nobody cares about anything. It's all just money.
  • This one is cynicism mislablled as nihilism.
• Probably many more misnomers.....
• That life is wireheading with extra steps. The universe is a question that looks for answer which better off not exist in the first place.
  • This one is legitimate
• That my life is deeply troubled, repetitive, unfulfilling, going nowhere.
  • I regard this as 'personal nihilism' as a reaction to the personal predicament. It's very heavily leaning towards dealing with the problem of one's own life instead of some general statement about the universe.

To really dissect nihilism, we have to consider the exact mental states.

Emotive nihilist state (anhedonia, depression, withdrawals) $\to$ Formation of an opinion, an argument

The 'emotive nihilism' is very prevalent but there is probably nothing to analyze in that because it's just a mental state. Take some stimulants and it will be gone. The emotive nihilist state can, indeed be a source of inspiration, despite being tormenting at times. Sometimes I get new ideas in that.

Certain philosophilical perspectives lead to dead ends

There is always a choice on the set of primitives to start with when beginning to analyze a problem. You can theorize about free will and it will be some sort of litigation around the nature of free will. You can also choose to build a theory upon a primitive adjacent to 'free will', such as a person's apparent ability to choose among a set of possible courses of action.

This is what I consider to be the 'algebraic method', algebraic as in abstract algebra. There is a particular set of primitives chosen and your theory unfolds to analyze the relationships of the primitives. A bad primitive set can lead to dead end. There is no reasonable theory to build on 'consciousness', 'desire' in itself, because its impenetrable, resistant to analysis, for example.

Math is spectacular because the entire field works on good algebraic primitives, readily corresponding to real world phenomena.

Abstract algebra is also not concerned with whether group, ring, or field exists because they are all figments of language anyway. Hence, when building theories I am also not very concerned with the existence of my primitives either. They just need to plausibly exist such that the theory has use. ie. Existential claims are irrelevant.

Cognitive architectures are the new racism

The superficial resemblance of humans have casted a great bias that we must think alike. At most distinctions are made at race-level, such that people only really differntiate each other through appearance, and a couple figments of culture which in modern day nobody really cares. Yet, the greatest distinction among humans, and of greatest importance is the fundamental architecture of cognition, which no-one talks about, not races, not appearance, not sexual organs, not wealth. Thereby I am setting politics right.

Thus, the ideologies like racism are false ideas that mis-prioritizes the factors if any tribalism is to be formed at all. This is not a psychology study of mental illness, not about ADHD, not about autism. Completely disregard these labels. Psychology shall not tresspass into the field of philosophy, ie, they have no right to say. This is a discourse over the mode of substrate of mentality of healthy human beings that is ultimately grounded in verifiable neuronal behavior.

I am not talking about temporary worldviews or modes of thought, but the biological foundation of how a person's mind works, persistent urges fears and mode of reasoning. It seems to me so far human cognitive architectures can fall into a few groups.

My mind for example, is hyper associative and divergent. Random and meta ideas come into my mind unprompted. I have barely observed this trait in other people.

Speaking of urges, here I emphasize more reason-relevant urges, which shape reasoning and worldview, such a tendency to deny ideas because of emotive fears, ego, and other reasons, a tendency to draw meta-ideas and reflect on the trajectory of thought itself, a tendency to follow a tribe or conform, the ability to disregard external influences other people's opinions during an internal course of reason with a heart of iron, what ruminates in your mind, some phrases going on repeat, in case of a depressive episode or a serious emergency, a strong urge to follow one's internal discourse of thought instead of being led by others, a tendency to be crushed by emotions and carry out acts that one later regrets.

Secondly I emphasize the urges that shape personality.

And, let me clarify what this racism is, the current system oppresses the divergent kind of cognitive architecture. Based on this differentiation, people do in fact form tribes and oppress each other, despite not declaring it in public or even being aware, although the tribal behavior is usually preceded by racial and other buckets first.

Non-linear nature of causality and activation function as an inherent part of reality

I previously view reality as a graph of causality, where inputs drive a specific outcome visualized on a graph.

• Whether an outcome happens, is a non-linear sum of multiple causes, gated by an activation function such as a sigmoidal function.
• Pareto principle is explained by the fact that (1) some outlier, exotic causes may drive an outcome to a very 'unfair' degree, when connected to an intended outcome, (2) additional input at the active region of an activation function is 'unfairly' decisive.
• The sigmoidal effect is pervasive in nature, such as IC50 of pharmacology. Most drugs have optimal effect in the active region, saturating at the end, negligible effect at the beginning.
• Diminishing returns is explaind by the either end of the activation function, where further input does not create more gains.

The landscape of causlity is increasingly similar to artifical neural networks, which I think is some kind of homomorphism (as in abstract algebra, structure resemblance)

The pareto principle is defined to be that 20% of causes dominate/cause 80% of outcomes, which can manifest as that 20% of people change 80% of the world, and account for the status quo that 20% of people own 80% of the wealth and much more.

Metaphysical questions can never be answered directly, but approximated infinitely from other directions

The question of existence of God has never been directly addressed in rebuttal, but the advances in science and other fields, have gradually discredited the weight of theological arguments.

This upsets a lot of people. They say you can't refute a metphysical argument from arguments of physics, as they are disconnected territories.

A person's worldview is a whole that demands logical closure, so there isn't anything that is disconnected.

By logical closure, I refer to, internal consistency of a worldview by any definition or standard.

Envy

I'm also not addressing whether envy is good or bad like typical moral lecturers. I however found an interesting conjecture.

The envy for a real life person that you have seen or heard, is not different from envy for a fictional character.

Bottleneck of consensus

If a system has to operate on consensus, it's capped by the weakest link.

Race to the bottom

Hobbesian trap describes the typical gang violence scenes, and I see race to the bottom as a weakened version of it as society it currently is.

• I suspect that he will take my life; there is no way to prevent him from doing that other than killing him (lawless place); therefore I must kill him first.
• I suspect my competing businesses will cut down their costs in unethical ways (It's possible); there is no way to prevent them from doing that; therefore I must do that too sooner or later, or I will eventually be outcompeted and bankrupt; or otherwise not having enough money to bribe the very same politicians.

In a world of gang violence, a person kills another. Nobody is wrong. It's a causal necessity of their survival.

Yet, it's possible that one person, out of all the options in life, decides to not play the game of violence, but proceeds to change the rules.

It's called civilization when enough people have done that.

Price reduction isn't the only thing that matters

The classical view of capitalism ingrained in a lot people's minds considers prices falling, cost reduction as the central sign of progress.

This is false, a dimensional reduction of the plural reality into a single metric.

Price reduction is at most a tactic by which firms rise to power. A new product can not be reduced to a single metric of price. Reality is multi-dimensional. Is the product opensource, does the product respect you, and many other dimensions.

Market tends to favor one winner

Some would argue that price signal isn't a problem when it compresses information, because when user values 'opensource', the prices would reflect it and keep the firm afloat.

The market however, is often cannibalizing. Usually only the largest firms survive and make a profit, set standards. Many things only turn profitable at scale. The market forces a single decision.

This is how dimensionality reduction of price signals do evil.

Heard of Economic Calculation Problem; here is the Economic Dimensionality Problem

Capitalism has an information problem. It can not integrate information properly

Entrepreneurship of human relationships

I value created relationships (friends, partners, republic, state, corporate) over blood relationships (siblings, parents, kids that you gave birth to out of tradition/without explicit planning, nationality, race, tribe)

Hume's bundle theory, and gender identity, and identity in general

Hume asserts that the 'self' does not exist. There are only a bundle of perceptions.

• gynephilia, androphilia
• auto-androphilia (appreciation of self as a male), auto-gynophilia or lack of both
• urges to manipulate people (present in typical males) or the approximate opposite
• any valid intepreration that you assign to the bundle, a story that you tell yourself

sometimes the story can be pretty convincing. sometimes you cant find one. the traits are arbitrary.

there is no gender. there are only stories. If you believe them, you believe them. belief can be quite powerful as you follow it, but that only makes the stories functionally relevant.

Hume's bundle theory finds excellent use in intepreting modern gender identity issues. But, I consider it a blank slate of starting point. And while a blank slate is free of biases, it's not useful.

Hume's ethics theory is an excellent blank slate.

The world is a backtracking solver

Some call it evolution and survival of fittest. I call it a backtracking solver. The solver has no purpose. Or, I mean, it seems to be solving something?

When it reaches a dead end, a person dies of some disease abruptly, or gets drafted and dies in a meaningless battlefield or, commits suicide.

Dialectics, and local minima

Even following perfect methodology of dialectics, it's possible to enter local saddle points, such as believing in a cultist worldview which is itself consistent.

It's also quite prominent in many political frameworks of worldview. Often, worldviews are not amenable to typical scientific method because the methods of invalidation are also provided by the worldview framework itself.

Bombardment with more stochastic but meaningful information. That's what I try.

For the local minima, let's informally take it as perceived inconsistency of one's own worldview.

Evolution is not stochastic, it's gradient descent

If you optimize your learning by taking better methods (analyzed by past), it's a form of gradient descent because you are, taking a specific direction (guided by past) and direction is direcly equivalent to a vector/gradient.

People always assume that evolution is a random process where, random molecules recombine and produce life.

The stochasticness in evolution is very strongly constrained by current world state. Evolution can only happen towards a subspace of possible future physical configurations (like phenotypes evolve towards a subspace, which is, guided in a sense). So this is where it gets interesting. It's not random. It's guided by past.

Any directedness can constitute a gradient. Discrete landscapes can be viewed through continuous models.

The current civilized society is a further evolution of the natural world, where the rules of survival (determined by status quo) are completely different from that of primal world, which in turn guides the evolution.

Politics is about ego, not profit

Politics, and the unfolding of history is about ego, not profit

Material conditions do not matter.

Everyone is trying to seek profit

a lie.

But without profit you go bankrupt and starve?

Profit is a causal necessity of survival, not anywhere a direct cause of motives.

People who chase profit has an ego problem of financial insecurity, which is still a symptom of ego.

Here we have this paradox

The people that can actually direct the fate of humanity, are already rich. Profit means nothing to them.

Therefore politics is a matter of ego.

If you try to explain current world politics with "profit", you fail miserably.

Politics is about ideology

No, ideology can not hold positions. People hold them.

Teleogical collectivism

There is one and only one kind of collectivism, the collectism over telos. We are individuals, we are not the same. I don't identify with a culture, a tribe of biological identity, or a collective bound by some false constitution. I identify with the collective that marches through the clash of reason and technology up to a historical fate that is not determined.

Whats the purpose of this position? Through collectivism I renounce the urge to compete, or consider it obsolete. I stop obsessing with my individual capability. I only care about my contribution to the telos.

Collective shaming

I noticed a very prevalent pattern in human community. Online arguments are usually not arguments. They are arguments loaded with emotional weapons. They don't argue for an objective fact.

you are coping

This is a loaded 'argument' that does not deal with matters of fact, but encourages the interlocutor to value immediate hedonism over everything else.

The good ol' emotional manipulation of religions are mirrored back into modernity through mass social media.

People no longer attend churches to get manipulated. They get manipulated on their phones at any moment. They want validation. They want fame. They want to be liked. They fear being exiled.

Mockery is very effective at challenging a person to identify their illusional views. Yet, when all facts and reason have been exhausted. It provides zero value, because irony from both sides are equally plausible at this point. I term it as ego-equillibrium where nobody is getting any more truth out of the flame war. Before that point, it's a useful tool of reason.

Dizziness of a thousand lives

One profound kind of dizziness I experience after reading a whole series of fiction, or TV show. I do not feel morally lectured. I get overwhelmed by the sheer amount of phenomenological experience on par with living a thousand lives that do not belong to me.

The shift in a perspective may be conducive in keeping me aware of my persistent bias over the self, which is subtle as I can't stop narrating everything in relation to myself. The vertigo is also immensely comforting. Admittedly I like the reality as it is, fractured into countless figments not anywhere explained by a grand theory.

Irreducible calculus

I notice a tension that is pulled by two sides, the great theories of reduction, utilitarianism, teleological narratives that tell you are a cog in a machine (and that its good), hedonism, negative hedonism, and the other camp, existentialism, phenomenology. The tension is a matter of mathematical reduction specifically of dimensionality.

Utilitarianism tries to reduce every life down to 2 scalar values of happiness and pain. The negative utilitarians disregards happiness. Teleologies reduce individuals to scalars of contribution. Reality reduces individuals to scalar or vectors of profit. Thus, the main struggle of existentialism is to preserve the local richnesss of dimensionality.

You might think this paragraph is apolitical, yet I regard it as politically potent.

On the self-defeat of sentimentality

One of the core debate in my style of life is whether I should adhere to reason, long term planning, or a life of sentimentality.

By reason I would choose to do a lot of things, to avoid persecution of my group by active pursuits in technology and politics.

The very same kind of people of my group (or in a greater sense. future young people that I would like to favor; in particular those who can habor enlightened empathy) may adhere to sentimentality and accuse me of being 'failing to serve myself or immediate hedonic objectives'

Then they get persecuted as a group, because of course, nobody cared, and caring for non-hedonism is shamed as 'a cope'

Altruism is dead, or in other people's terms, civilization.

The world is haunted by a machine of capitalism where the mechanism is more to blame (classic Marxism)

I challenge this view because modern society is more organized, productive, and well communciated than ever. The mass suffering is a calculated, intentional apathy.

Extrapolated life quality: be born or not

I summed up my views on birth with, so far, the most concise argument. This is the single condensed view of mine on procreation.

Consider whether a person should be born.

It's overwhelmingly sure whether certain circumstances will result in better or worse extrapolated life quality by standards at any given moment. The data is available, and it's a pure predictive modelling task. No politics needed.

I always adhere to reason when the computational result turns counter-intuitive, or seems morally outraging.

People constantly complain about life circumstance. That's because nobody optimized it for them.

The perspective extrapolated life quality reduces a moral litigation down to a pure empirical concern. And I really suggest not giving up this powerful means of reason in favor of weightless figments of hope that is grounded in nothing but platitudes, because individuals bear the weight of your decision.

Worldview functions to minimize error

I have a mental model that worldview is a predictive system that tries to minimize error, the error between current anticipation and perceived new information.

If you get triggered over a new fact of observation, your model has high error. There are 2 ways to handle the situation, adjust the model and move on, or invent an elaborate psychological defense mechanism (overfitting to get a local minimum)

Bayesianism and graph causality are inferior to linear algebra

Bayesianism seeks to construct a world model, more precisely, a state model over a Directed Acylic Graph, which was popular in Lesswrong.

The concern is what makes the most plausible nature of reality, or, what is most functionally useful model of reality.

Trivially you can pack everything into a graph or more graphs, where the relationship of nodes is isomorphic to relationship in reality, and the nodes correspond to states in world. I consider this the trap of trivial model.

While boths graph causality and linear algebra can construct isomorphism over reality, linear algebra is superior.

Adjacency matrix represents binary relation over the magma of discrete objects being represented (graph nodes), which can be more efficiently represented in linear algebra as an inner product over vectors in a vector space.

Adjacency matrix encodes all possible products of the binary relation, ie. defining the function by enumeration.

Reframing the dead 'meaning of life' as phenomenal silence

meta philosophy?

I've somewhat come to a conclusion that the old topic of 'meaning of life' can be traced to a few camps.

I use a common phenomenal piece of text to grab this notion. You feel wronged in life, or utterly perplexed. You scream at a wall. There is no response. I call it phenomenal silence, which is in the same bucket as loneliness.

Phenomenal silence as to quest for an answer is loneliness as to quest of socialization.

• The existentialists
  • They tell that talking to yourself is enough
• The absurdists
  • They tell you to scream at the wall
• The teleologists
  • They tell you the silence would disappear once we've built enough things in the room
• Logical positivists
  • It's an artifcat of language, which I consider it not.

The world may have a very well-defined meaning, purpose on its own but the artifact of silence, does not disappear. The mind perceives the silence in same the way it perceives logic, an artifact of cognition of this specific neural substrate.

The problem with philosophers is that they tried to lump 3 problems into one term, the phenomenal silence (a perception), the factuality about world-level meaning (a fact), morality (an imperative), and in some cases, clinical depression or sub-clinical mood depressive swing. When they got depressed, they wrote down the thoughts and generalized such a mere perception all over the place.

I have not ever experienced such 'silence' when I am on stimulants, or enough benzos.

The Golem and Nothingness

An attempt at condensing existentialism and recent computational philosophy

People are not really people. They are golems with a fleeting void of emptiness. The golem is Sartrean facticity, and the nothingness (free will) comes from Sartre.

Golem politics

People look at their golem, race, nationality, looks, class, and form tribes.

The narcissists derive pride over the looks, wealth, and race of their golem. They say God gave them the golems because they are the chosen. However they try, they are not the golems. They are Emptiness.

The existentialists know the golems are piloted by an existential Nothingess. The pessimists look at their inferior golems, develop depression, despair and resentment.

In particular, I pity those who hate their golems but at the same time, the amount of resentment is disgusting. They have their golems their whole identity.

The problem with resentment over the golem (facticity) is that, the more you resent, the more you become the very golem you hate.

I am not arguing aginst the particular poverty (flaws, discrimination, economic disempowerment etc.) of their golem, but that the fixative indulgance alienates them into the golem and obstructs communication.

The collective shame you when you think while detached from the golem. They think you are 'not being who you are', 'not knowing your place' or 'coping'.

You know you are not because you are more familiar with your golem than anyone else. You have contemplated enough about it. You chose to wander into the void of free will.

The existentialist looks at his emptiness that he is not the golem but the Nothingness that pilots it, enters hypomania.

The absurdist looks at his finitute of the golem, enters frantic laughter.

There is no pilot because it is Nothingness. The biological self and desires belong to the golem.

The phenomenal impression (Hume's definition) of me is a biological artifact. See 'Bundle Theory'

Not all people can notice that they are not the golems. They live as if they are the golems. People who deviate from the roles of golems are often shamed, exiled in all possible ways.

You are said to be 'coping' if you don't identify with your golem.

You are warned other countries will not accept you either, if you don't identify with your golem that has a particular skin.

Aristocratic existentialism. You have to earn it.

Personally I believe, those who live as if they are golems themselves, do not really have free will since they don't use it. They receive all the blame for whatever crimes their tribes have commited.

The golem is not the self. Therefore it would be illogical to get depressed over flaws of the golem, social rejections over the golem.

I deliberately do not argue over the nature of the Nothingness (whether free will exists or it is really free).

The past philosophy has been obsessing with nature of things that can never be proven or disproven, such as useless questions over existence of free will My conjecture is, it will be probably easier to generate free will than prove its existence. We already generated reason via LLM before we ever proved its objective existence. It might even be harder to prove free will than generating it, since proving requires deep interpretation, while generating does not. I address this in part because some people attack existentialism from "you don't have free will"

In this stage of philosophy I only care about data and that the illusion of free will always meaningfully changes history.

Philosophers can not accept coexistence of categories, but in vector algebra, coexistence is the default. Vectors can be projected in infinitely many ways.

The self and universals (reason, justice) are convenient clusters of points that we call manifolds. The points, form a fascinating landscape of phenomenology.

Some normies pacify themselves by ignoring some flaws of the golem. They shame others for pointing out the flaws of golems.

You can not call my kid ugly, because it is my kid.

The existentialist is fully aware of flaws of the golem, and also his free will.

The doomers are crushed by the weight of the golem.

The gamers treat as if the golems are nothing to them, detached, never take the lives seriously.

The workers live as if they are the golems.

People say you have a soul, and your suffering is meaningful. It comes with a caveat. If your suffering is really meaningful by any metric, theological, teleological, it becomes necessary, and your existential pain becomes invalid.

You will never be a golem.

You should be ashamed for not acknowledging your freedom.

You can not argue that your golem is a God-given, divine, superior, pretty golem. It will never be you.

Your bloodline is not yours. You did not choose your homeland.

The golem (facticity) is a result of cosmic random chance. When I say I like your looks without knowing you, it's equivalent to complimenting a beautiful scenery.

I do not need the existence of soul to justify my essay.

And to have me know you, I have to be sure that you have more than a golem.

Golem equillibrium

My specific meat golem deserves more resources, happiness, and less working hours than your specific golem, because I am (I exist).

My specific tribe, lineage, country, and people deserve to have kids and more benefits because I am (I exist).

The problem is that the inverse argument can be equally justified. The debate runs into a stalemate, because Nothingness can not be compared with each other.

Hence, justice must be found outside individual (or particular group of) ego.

Politics over golems can not work. Arguments must be drawn from phenomena (to its maximal information load) and universal reason.

The greatest existential care is when everyone can feel the texture your loneliness at that cafe 2 years ago, without comments. This is what phenomenology, literature, and poetry try to do. There needs no virtue theory or endless comments over social media over why that was terrible or not. Cognition is virtuous. Reduction is violence.

The ego's war on facticity

The war began when people started treating diseases. Cancer is regarded as a universal enemy for whatever reasons.

The battle on gender phenotype began when Testosterone (1935), Cyproterone Acetate (1961) were invented.

Do you know what your ego really wants? Or you only care when it hurts?

on definition

The ego is defined to be detached from any particular golem. The caveat is that most people can not act in this state.

Their ego is often a typical product of that particular kind of golem they are born with. Therefore it doesn't wage war on itself.

Levels of detachment

Existentialisms can be roughly conceptualized by their levels of detachment from the golem.

• Kierkegaard's knight of faith. They want you to accept the flaws and imperfections of the golem, and pursue the freedom of the ego. I regard this as bad-faith.
• Nietzschean Amor Fati. They want you to fully embrace the golem. I regard this as self-alienation. I owe no loyalty to anything including the golem, because I am free.

I regard both forms of existence as cowardice, those who can not acknowledge the deeply free nature of their ego and continue to live a scripted life of repression; and the Nietzschean Amor Fati who have to turn it upside-down and identify themselves completely with the golem.

The delusional kind can not acknolwedge the deficits and ugliness of their own golem. They live out of a fake script of superiority because they can not stare into the abyss. They need to compete and stay afloat because they can not ever accept that possibility.

The delusional kind may otherwise become Buddhist, denying the existence of pain, pleasure, the existential tether and the significance of everything altogether.

Lattice is from Order Theory of maths.

The detached ego does not fear imagination of a life that does not belong to him, since he belongs to nowhere but tethered by an arbitrary physical fabric. His life is entirely immersed within the infinitude of phenomena of life, where the lattice of well-being grades them.

An accidental neurochemical drift

One of the most existential changes in my life was getting into pharmaceuticals. I was met with the vaccum nature of my consciousness.

I was severely agonized by the male-typical sex drive during teenager years, until I was put on a year's worth of SSRIs.

I stopped defending my sex drive because it's no longer part of me, because I am Nothingness all along.

Yet, I still know what it felt like to be such a male.

The Scream of Outliers (Pending rewrite?)

Tribute to Kafka.

There has always been a strange feeling in countless encounters in my life, the moment I was misunderstood, the moment when I was left alone, estranged. The feeling stayed through my life until I gradually started to put it into words. There is not a single instance of such feeling, or situation that is worth noting down here. Nor is it worth sharing with others, because they are doomed to be not understood, Kafkaesque. I always believed, however, the true answer to human compassion is through reason, not emotions, with the all-encompassing sweeping generalizations.

The concept of pain was a good one, capturing a huge range of negative feelings. Then, here comes the estrangement, or being an outlier, which I use due to its mathematical undertone. The estrangement is perhaps even worse than pain, which is perhaps just dull and bland.

Modern society has harnessed reason as a tool of ruling. Reason, as defined by governments. Reason is defined to be a set of barely changing laws. Reason is defined to be a set of institutions. Reason is upheld and justified. The law applies its "reason" equally tolerating no exceptions or outliers.

The communists have tried. They established a new dictatorship. They executed the rich, tolerating no outliers. The racists tried, setting up concentration camps, shutting down immigration. What is truly wrong with humans. Is the problem, a class struggle, a racial struggle, or, just the struggle of outliers?

Praise the outlier. The one Chinese who goes against his own race with critique hasher than outsiders. The one man who is different from the norm of his gender. And most importantly how he then goes agaisnt the norm of "the queer community" he used to, or you think he would, belong to.

The outliers may become regonized, occasionally, rising to the status of "the minority". They stopped being outliers the moment that happens. Yet, the outliers continue to exist. You become the outlier when you disagree with "the minority". There is never any recognition of the outlier in the current way the society think about things, because the minority is recognized due to their political status, not as an inherent element of thought.

The dialectic is almost shaped by a constant betrayals of communities.

• I betrayed my own race or nation, marked by the sharp criticism which many of the nationals see me as dissident.
• I betrayed various online communities such as those who shared my same criticism of the nation and race, due to differing views.
• I betrayed 'queer communities' or things of this kind that I do not want to name more.

The outliers shall not fear betraying communities. They stand with nothing but the dialectic motion itself, whom I consider a physical embodiment of the dialectics. The problem with many current problems in politics is the problem of minority. The current social-dynamics can not handle a constant movement of thought process, or in other words, the consensus moves too slowly to follow the dialectic. Despite that I find the idea of 'minority' and 'legistlating laws to protect them or such regular legal process' an orthogonal solution to the very problem. People are often educated to recognize the minority, but not the constant existence of different kinds of outliers.

Outliers have no homeland. Nor are outliers affilated with anything. Just as how absurd and crudely rational the modern conception of nation-states and borders are. The mechanism of market is not that different from the institutions of state, regarding to its treatment of outliers.

The masses adapt their morals when the outliers are in power

• The innovators are outliers.
• The rich are outliers. They do not obey the rules.
• The history is shaped by outliers. (not workers)
• The masses always want to shame the outliers because they don't obey a norm, yet the rich oppress them.
• The masses preach property laws yet the outliers rig the markets. They see it as just.

There is always exception to rules which the masses constantly follow and many genuinely believe in the justness that they are forced to follow the rules. Rules however, always come with exceptions, the regulators themselves, and the rich. The masses turn a blind eye to such facts. I have met some communists online and they seem to believe in a revolution by the masses, for which I later found some excellent rebuttals.

Identify the causally important elements towards a causal goal, effect or consequence. The history is always shaped by outliers. If there are mass movements, it's usually initiated by a few people, or sparks of thoughts from a few people. It would be massively fallacious to attribute the change to the masses. Innovators are, by tautology, outliers.

The majority deserve the treatment

Outliers exist? Does that mean we ought to abandon our fruitful constructs of reason over categories, or in other words, the immensely useful generalizations? No, never.

History has made two biggest mistakes, the grave generalization committed by fascists and communists, with their overwhelming mass movements. The other mistake is a total renunciation of generalizations, in favor of a reckless equality.

The majority deserve their treatment. The outliers are their own breed.

Kafka's socialism

• The eros are fragile (against modern hedonism)
• The collective is opppressive and alienating.
• The absurd and unexpected is endless in every corner. (against wholistic design)
• The absurd must be extinguished with human power
• The exact means to such socialism is left to readers.

The socialism of last century was Kafkaesque. The next one shouldnt be.

It's then imperative to think what should this whole theory of Kafkaism land in. The various ideologies of past century have been dealing with class struggle, production, races, various aspirations. Imminent development in the future can drastically change the goals we want to pursue. I'd want to anchor the thought onto something that will probably, persist into foreseeable future for a quite a long time. That the very goal of next socialism should target the problem of Kafkaesque predicatement of individuals itself.

Is socialism just about bread, or the production of material goods, or the triumph of a society maybe of some specific race? All of them will eventually fall into some sort of Kafkaesque dystopia in various corners unseen in the official propaganda. Think this idea as a pointer that points far into future, rather a specific prescription of the blueprint of a future socialism.

The Juxtaposed Outlier

Why do I write this? I don't like your attitude. Existentialism is about attitude. The goal of philosophy is to guide the 'right now'

Juxtaposition, Antinomy, 二律背反, irreducible paradox

Teleologists cope with the individual's lack of power with a grand picture of goals and fate.

They stare into the future but deep down they feel baseless, and the absurd may rip through their veils at any time—when the telos fail, the state faces an economic setback, or the nation degrades into a dictatorship.

They outsourced their ego in exchange of security, stability and hope, yet the angst comes back unsolicited once in a while because they can not extinguish the fear, and humans can only really live in the moment.

Hope is poisonous.

Future is fundamentally a juxtaposed state over failure and triumph. Clinging onto hope makes you miserable; alienated if you believe in a kind of teleology; you stop being yourself, but a slave to the future self. You fear looking into the abyss of defeat. You refuse to imagine a future where you get drafted into a meaningless war that sentences you to an undigified death in the middle of nowhere. They assume a peaceful life. They go into panic the moment cancer hits them.

Retreating into fatalism is the avoidance of the bizarre nature of juxtaposition. They choose cowardice. They go for a peaceful, guaranteed life.

They chose cowardice because they are shamed by the herd into dismissing the statistically impossible, over success or whatever goals.

They have made a demonic trade, batering their infinitude of the ego for a sense of comfort.

On the perimeter of reason thrives juxtaposition. They ignore it, silence it, because they fear it. The juxtaposed people are what I call outliers.

They demand you renounce your juxtaposed past to join a collective. They demand assimilation and conformity.

They crave coherence and harmony to manufacture peace. The outliers have no choice but to habour their juxtaposed past because the imperative of authencity demands it.

Juxtaposition is irreducible by reason, despite great leaps in modern systematic reason.

They devolve into either doomers or narcissists because they opted for one side. They opted for life-long loyalty over one lifestyle where either they are fated to fail or succeed.

I find it highly polarized that these days people are either hopeless incels or rabid narcissists.

The juxtaposed get raised in one culture, change mindset and immigrate to another country. They end up being rejected by both cultures.

Juxtaposition is—that one white supremascist on the news who is brown, the born-males who hate being male.

There is no way to resolve the juxtaposition, except by you. The system fails you, and the crowd hates you.

The juxtaposed person suceeds; the media write stories about his greatness and how hard he tried to seize the success.

The juxtaposed person fails in silence. He's remembered as a weird nobody, and forgotten soon enough.

The juxtaposed nobody dares envisioning what he would do if he was the president. The crowd dismiss it as unrealistic, cope, irrelevant and a waste of time for his life.

Juxtaposition is—the absurd manifested in the phenomenal reality. Reason can only work backwards.

Juxtaposition is a state of nature. You can not avoid it. You can have a well-managed personal life and a broken family.

Juxtaposition is not a matter for the business of causality, logic or epistemology. The world does not care whatever juxtaposition exists or how it torments you. It just happens. The world does not demand a lesson to be learned or a synthesis to be offered. There is no meaning in the absurd fact.

Young people in their prime years get drafted to meaningless war. Excellent juxtaposition. Does it imply a synthesis of peace will be developed? It won't. The world follows causality not reason. It will happen over and over unless some people stop it.

Here comes the meta-juxtaposition, this essay is a cope of mine, and truth.

You hate juxtaposition. It's devastating.

You love juxtaposition frantically. It's a local spike of the absurd.

You know universal reason as it currently is accepted breaks down here. Nobody understands you and your motives. They can not name you as a typical case of loser, because you defy their categories. They can not seduce you into a nihilsitic surrender. The absurd resists totalizing reason.

This is where true confidence, freedom and unparalleled madness grounded in reason begins.

You did not abandon reason. You are at the frontier.

From explanation to emulation: An epistemic paradigm leap

I recognize a profound change in scientific method.

Science used to be a Popperian loop over inventing a falsifiable hypothesis, find new evidence to increase confidence or find one counter example.

This method was the mainstream until the raw speed of computation far-outpaced the speed of rationalization.

The OpenWorm project discovered many hidden variables that was impossible without emulation.

LLM emulated reason (or the illusion of it; I only care about illusion and appearance) before any explanation can be drawn.

Reasonably, I predict free will to emulated or generated before it can be explained.

Capacity outpaced reason.

Leap of definition, post-hoc relabelling, and dimensionality expansion

I characterize dialectics as happening in 2 stages

• Leap of definition; the subject has new intuitions lacking proper terms. the intuitions may be inspired by reading perhaps a book, yet completely new to the subject.
• Post-hoc relabelling; the ideas are labelled with seemingly socially-agreed terms

A classical example is economic-freedom vs economic-non-freedom, a juxtaposition of labels. The juxtaposition urges people to make a binary choice and there is no way to take the benefits of both.

It was believed that in order for economic freedom to happen, governments must not intervene; which leads to monopoly. This contradictory consequence is another juxtaposition.

The solution is not taking a random position in the middle of the perceived spectrum, although many people would suggest that compromise is somehow a good idea.

Instead, the entire spectrum was dissolved, and new ideas were proposed. The term 'economic-freedom' was slapped onto the new ideas. Monopoly is not longer seen as a thing of economic-freedom. Government-intervention in this case, is seen as proponent of economic-freedom.

This theory suggests that communication does not happen. It is a process of de novo thought production by a subject, and a post hoc relabelling.

Speaking of the dimensionality expansion and whether the dimension is inherent to the data, representation is independent of actual signal. There are many many ways to represent the same data or signal. Also, refer to manifold hypothesis.

Just read the books/theory

No, you can not read the books. You ingest some words and reconstruct a world of your own, and slap the words back onto it.

In my past experience, talking to real people and working things out (engineering) on my own have always been the fastest path to my leaps (gaining such profound intuitions), not reading some words.

I have deliberately avoided terms like 'ideology' or 'contradiction' because I don't need a panel to check my citations. They can only delude junior readers into adopting their existing mindset, sabotaging my goal of presenting my idea because readers are busy validating their past reading; or grift reputation from academia.

Wirebrain as an abstraction fallacy

The popular conjecture of wirebrain posits an apparent dystopian or nihilistic realtiy of a wirebrain feeding on hedonic loop devoid of thoughts at Lagrange L4, without any infrastructure or any past/history as to why such a brain can sustain existence whatsoever. Now that I spelled this out and you saw the problem; the illusion is inseperable from the conjecture.

There is no such 'abstract brain' that exists in the vaccum. If anyone says this is a doomed nihilist outcome, the meaning of everything (if exists) lies in its past and the reality that is infinitely fertile in information.

Humans have been building this meaningless loop of hedonism for centuries, a worse version of wirebrain, now consisting of doomscrolling and sex. Yet, we aren't arguing how nihilistic this is, because we see a reality that is rich in information not a sterile conjecture.

Isolated abstraction is fallacious.

I also found this to be present in ethnic war narrative. Some people like my parents believe the Japanese have a problem with the Chinese. They are imagining the average Japanese, going to work, have dinner, and constantly contemplating contempt against the average Chinese, with no other emotions, thoughts, details, stories whatsoever. Unfortunately this is how most people think.

I want to go as far to say they are imagining mindless, faceless beings devoid of attributes working at factories without names in perpetual motion, but vague enough that they aren't aware they are doing it.