Chapter 1 – The Will

In this chapter, we will discuss the Human Will, which sets the foundation for our existence. In

the introduction, we will identify what Human Will is, and we will ‘qualify’ it from Free Will, which

contains political baggage in it. In the second part, we will explore Fredkin’s paradox, to show how

Human Will is a product of deduction. And in the next part, we will describe determinism and human

will. From this relationship, we will then articulate why human will has metaphysical properties. And in

the conclusion we will understand how humans operate under Chaos theory, or that our minds are

based on materialist principles, but cannot be predictable with scientific reasoning.

And before we begin, it is important to note that I will argue that the thinking of machines and

men are extremely similar, and that this definition of Human Will creates a link between code and man,

but leaves science out of the picture. As a result, things will ‘click’ for people who have experience with

software, but may leave physical scientists more confused. Our thoughts are more similar to software

than they are to any physical law.

Let’s begin.

Human Will is the process of deduction within a mind. Our will is housed ‘inside’ our brain, and

it is a collection of processes that occur with our nerve cells. It is very similar to how software exists in

hardware; a piece of hardware can house completely different software. But in our case, our ‘hardware’

is the brain, but our existence as we are is in the software. What this means is that the specific

connections of neurons are really how the human brain ‘codes’ itself as to understand the world around

it. This unfortunately also means that people have unique wirings to themselves, and unless the logic is

recognized for each mind, the actual physical configuration is useless.

It would be like looking at two pieces of software, but being incapable of reading the software

language. Regardless of how many letters that were visible, only when the deductive logic is

understood, does the ‘code’ make sense. Likewise for people, only when the neurons are understood

how they are related to a person, could we actually ‘break down’ the component code of a mind. It isn’t

enough to merely see the wiring on the screen; we have to categorize how the wiring categorizes itself,

which ruins the utility in the first place.

Furthermore, humans are extremely intricate creatures, and more importantly, we are already

designed to program each other. (see Chapter of the Psychology of Teleology) As a result, trying to use

neuroscience to change human behavior as limited application, because human behavior is already very

receptive to being changed.

Nevertheless, if we are going to make progress, we need to remove ‘Free’ from Will. Freedom for us

means making choices because we approve of those choices. So a free man is ‘free’ because his mind is

enthused about the decisions he is making. But mere ‘approval’ cannot actually serve as the foundation

of Human Will, because people can make choices while they are coerced all the time. Furthermore,

‘Free’ Will is a holdover from Enlightenment era thinking, and it is time for us to move on from their

conception of human nature.

Returning to Human Will, each person has a specific composition with how these deduce their

world. Their deductions emerges by the biological construction of their brain, (which takes on several

interesting properties not found in silicon.) But since each person has an uncountable amount of

differences between minds, it’s easy to imagine how people can be extremely different. Each person’s

motives are an effective singularity, and although we can ‘see’ their minds thinking via scans, their own

composition possesses a deductive logic to itself.

But why deductive? What is it about deduction that serves as the foundation for human

thinking? How can we prove that human will is based on deduction, and not some other force?

We can know that people are deductive, by examining Fredkin’s paradox, and applying it to how we

think.

Taking directly from his own words, Fredkin’s paradox states the following.

“The more equally attractive two alternatives seem, the harder it can be to choose between them --

no matter that, to the same degree, the choice can only matter less."

In layman’s speak, what this means is that when given options which are more and more

comparable to each other, the harder it is for us to make choices. So when we are given a choice

between two chocolate cakes, we find it hard to choose which one of those chocolate cakes we want. So

if we don’t like chocolate cake, we may find it hard to rationalize which one of those ‘chocolate cakes’

we want. But if we do like chocolate cakes, we may find it hard to rationalize WHICH of those chocolate

cakes are better, because both of them are also chocolate cakes.

The reason why we struggle to determine the differences between similar choices is because we are

deducing their differences based on our preferences. Like Artificial Intelligence, people ‘weigh’ the

choices they can make based on the distinctions between choices, rather than choices themselves. As a

result, choices which are very similar require further examination, because it’s harder to determine the

differences between such choices. So in the Chocolate cake example, a person may choose one of the

cakes because it is larger, while another person may choose a different cake because it is more aesthetic

to eat.

But nevertheless, we have to ‘think’ further in order to discover the differences between choices, so

that we could weigh them to our preferences. This is also why such choices may matter ‘less’ to us; if

choices are extremely similar, they will ‘weigh’ very similar in our minds as being equal. Again, it’s

exactly like an AI that weighs between two choices; one choice may only have a ‘point’ of value more

worth than the other.

Yet just as we decide what we are going to do when we deduce our decisions, there is an essential

‘metaphysical’ component to it, which is its incompleteness. Because the human mind has an

incomplete understand of reality, there is a ‘gap’ between what we think of and what reality really is. It

is this difference which is the ‘metaphysical’ nature of the mind. It is because human minds deduce their

surroundings, they have a separate component from reality, because they are only paying attention to

limited information. It’s exactly like a sensor designed to pick up a specific wavelength of light; all the

other wavelengths are still present, but the physical mechanism only reacts to a limited response. On

the other hand, scientific explanation assumes that reality operates simultaneously, and doesn’t

discriminate between what it ‘feels’ to be important. The fact that we, as minds, do so, means that our

discrimination distances ourselves from traditional scientific thought.

This crucial metaphysical nature is why software and human thinking is so different compared to

physics. Because all systems deduce by eliminating information, what and how they eliminate

information serves as the ‘break’ from reality itself. So even though our minds gather information, they

can only gather a certain quality and quantity of information, and therefore are ‘broken’ from reality.

This separation creates the metaphysical property, because it is an imperfect representation of objective

reality. (This is also why we can be wrong)

But such a metaphysical property would have a hard time reconciling itself with science. If there

was such a thing that operated independently of physical causes, then this would mean that science

would fail in explaining metaphysics. Or in other words, if human thinking distorts physical reality based

on its deductive logic, it would mean that physical reality cannot actually be the cause of human

decision making. Simply put, how each person understands the world determines what they will do,

rather than the world itself. And the reason why this happens is because humans pay attention to

different things, differently.

The best metaphor would be a computer with two sets of software. The computer itself is objective

and real, but both software compute information differently. So even if the computer is ‘physically’ the

same, the nature of how the software calculate its data determines what the output will be. Going even

further, both software and people understand the world the same way; through deduction.

So as people and machines make decisions, they do so by deducing relevant components that their

counterfactuals dictate. But as they do so, they are inherently ‘focusing’ down information into a holistic

component. Therefore, the metaphysical process emerges between the discrepancy of ‘what I am

thinking about the world’ and ‘the world.’ And agency emerges from this concept, thus bringing into

existence Human Will.

But let us suppose that we could control the physical environment, in order to prompt decisions.

Before going wild with a metaphysical explanation of human thinking, let us examine if we can show

that all decisions must extend from the environment. If reality is a series of physical causes, it would

therefore make sense to assume that decision making couldn’t be an exception to this. Determinism

therefore, would be a valid way to understand humanity, without assigning a metaphysical component

to our minds.

In this third part, we will discuss Determinism; how it could be constructed, how it could be used to

invoke decision making in others, and discover if the scientific method can explain what people will do,

before they do so. After all, the purpose of science is prediction, and if it can be used to predict people’s

choices, then we have to reexamine if a metaphysical explanation is plausible.

Determinism is the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by

causes external to the will. Comparatively, I argue that the human action is determined when our Will

deduces externalities. How can these two processes be reconciled?

Since we know that science predicts physical phenomena, let us see if it can predict how humans

interact with their environment. Breaking down the three components of science, we have validity,

reliability and reproducibility.

Validity is the accuracy of relationship between concepts, conclusion or measurements. Things

which aren’t valid fail to describe how things are connected, where-as valid understandings describe

how various things are related. Importantly, validity is about prediction, and unlike philosophy, must be

grounded in the scientific method.

Reliability, however, is the consistency of measurement itself. We cannot simply assume that just

because we have discovered a relation, the relation actually exists. Only by repeated experiments, can

we demonstrate that the validity exists, because if the relationship exists, it will happen consistently and

not by chance. So we need to do the same experiment multiple times, to show that the relationship

exists in reality, and not by chance.

Furthermore, we need to bring about reproducibility, which is similar to reliability, but understood

in a different dimension. It isn’t enough to show that a relationship is valid and reliable, or that we can

show there is an accurate relation between concepts, and consistently demonstrate that relation over

time. We also have to make it reproducible, or that there can be other people who produce the results

as well. Whereas reliability is vertical consistency, where-as reproducibility is horizontal consistency. It

isn’t enough that something can be demonstrated multiple times, but that it can be demonstrated

across multiple contexts in different situations.

(The function of reproducibility, by the way, is to ensure that human bias isn’t creating reliable

results. But things can reproducible, even if the human itself cannot reliably produce the result. The two

concepts diverge in this important manner.)

So although we may think that reproducibility and reliability are the same, they are consistency in

different contexts. Reliability emerges when we want to show something is valid consistently within a

context, and reproducibility emerges when we can show that same valid consistency across multiple

contexts. In Scientific thinking, these concepts are the same, because objectivity is infallible; the laws of

gravity cannot fail, regardless of what values are present. But reliability and reproducibility become

distinct when something ISN’T Scientific, which is why we need to have those two concepts separate in

our head.

Therefore, since we have outlined the process of Science, could we determine the actions of

beforehand? If we control the environment of people, could we get them to make decisions reliably,

have them reproduce those decisions over and over again, therefore proving WHAT in environments

makes people make reliable and reproducible decisions. If we design the environment correctly, we

could in fact make the person have the same conversation over and over again, because our external

environmental is determining what the person decides. Since, according to Determinism, there isn’t a

human will, it should now be possible to control what people do as long as we are aware of what people

are subjected too.

So by controlling an environment, we should be able to do the following;

We can make a person do the same action over and over again, because we have absolute

mastery over an environment. (Reliability)

It is irrelevant WHICH person is the subject of our experiment, because all people cannot

have a metaphysical component to them. To assume that two people are different would

violate Uniformitarianism. We cannot state that one liter of water would boil at a

temperature then another liter of water; likewise, we shouldn’t be able to state that one

person ‘decides’ differently from another person. (Reproducibility.)

Finally, since we know what a person’s environment is, we therefore must know every

conceivable thought possible. Since humans cannot have a metaphysical component to

them, we can ‘know’ what people are thinking simply because we are aware of the physical

environment. (Validity.)

The problem, however, is that none of these three criteria could ever be met. Furthermore, we may

want to believe that Science can explain human behavior, because human behaviors are physical

objects, yet science cannot explain them. This has to do with the fact that Science relies on inductive

reasoning, where as Human thinking is deductive.

The problem however, is that Scientists in my time have outright forgotten the original objections to

Science, and assume that Science must mean materialism.

But in reality, Science is a standard of inductive reasoning, rather than specifically materialism. As

the Revenge of Teleology will show, there are a number of things which are materially real, but cannot

be explained by inductive reasoning. And the reason why some things cannot be explained by inductive

reasoning is because they are deductive; there are things in the world which are capable of having

metaphysical properties, or capable of ignoring certain components in reality. Human thinking is the

notable one, but the sphere gets much larger, and in ways Western Civilization found uncomfortable.

Humans cannot be ‘forced’ to do the same action over and over again; they must deduce to

do the same action over and over again. The moment that their deductions conflict with

what was predicted, they choose to do something else instead. Furthermore, the observers

paradox exists because as humans are given new information, their Counterfactuals change,

causing them to do something else. (Non-Reliable)

Despite humans being physical objects, they are also singularities. Humans cannot be

identical to themselves in time and space, nor each other, because there are too many

particularities about them. They inherently develop a metaphysical system which deduces

differently, and so have to be taken particularly as each person. (Non-Reproducible.)

Most troubling, human thinking is metaphysical, or is merely filtration of information. It is

impossible to conceive of every possible thought possible, because human thinking can

extend to falsehoods as well as truths. Where-as physical laws are objective and constant,

human thinking can invent all sorts of wrongful and bizarre thoughts. Even worse, humans

can disregard information and relate them in infinite ways as well. Since each human is

deducing differently about reality, reality itself isn’t actually a variable in understanding.

(Non-Valid.)

What I am stating is that humans possess an ability to gather and process information, thus forming

an interpretation of reality, which ‘schisms’ it from reality itself. Where-as (Early) Wittengstein would

argue that truth is a ‘logical picture of facts,’ I argue that thinking itself is our ‘particular picture of facts,’

and that we are extremely limited WHAT and HOW we compose that picture of facts. And since each

person has their own signature in understanding that very ‘picture of facts’ it becomes absurd to

inductively reason how each person understands reality.

Humans operate on the same grounds as Chaos Theory. We have a deterministic way of

understanding the world, but because we cannot be predicted inductively, we cannot be determined by

outside parties.

We cannot take the output of human actions, and then inductively reason WHY they chose that

choice. Likewise, we cannot take the output of a number, and then inductively WHAT mathematical

formula produced that number. Only by understanding the logic of human thinking, can we determine

human thinking. And only by the understanding the mathematical formula, can we determine its

outputs. It is this relationship which gives humanity its metaphysical components, because it is deducing

information around itself in a unique pattern.

Therefore, it is useless to describe reality, and then expect human thought to be synchronous with

it. Rather, I argue that each person is thinking about certain aspects of reality, but cannot actually

process all of reality at once. And what each person is paying attention to, determines how, they think

about the world around them. And because this process is deductive, it can deduce DIFFERENCES about

its surroundings, which is why Induction fails to work. Put very simply, there is a separation between

reality, and how our minds are ‘reading’ reality itself.

Comparatively, when something is shown inductively, it is irrelevant how something is deduced, and

therefore our actual understand is irrelevant. Put another way, when we show something is true

regardless of your beliefs, your beliefs can’t get in the way of the truth. It is far more reliable to

understand the world through inductive reasoning, because inductive reasoning cannot be DIFFERENT

from reality itself.

In Revenge of Teleology, I argue that the line of demarcation is defined by inductive reasoning (See

Chapter on Subjectivity and Objectivity.) The problem is that scientific analysis is nearly impossible for a

majority of human thinking, and therefore scientists get frustrated when their own standards limit

themselves from human thought. Therefore, scientists have an odious tendency to change the definition

of science to materialism, or arguing that all that exists must be physical forces. However, since science

cannot explain how people think, they tend to use philosophical arguments to prove humans lack a will,

instead of scientific ones. Nevertheless, the deductive thinking of humans has a practical

incompleteness to its understanding, which makes it metaphysical.

In truth, I cannot explain the biological function of how this works, but I will also state that the mind

does such a thing, and WHAT it does can be proven scientifically. I am merely pointing out that the

relationship between science and human will doesn’t exist, and that deductive thinking requires a

different way outside of validity, reliability, and repeatability. We can’t assume that an environment can

predict responses in people, because each person has a particular response in themselves.

And this particularity undermines determinism, because one cannot “determine” choices regardless

of the person; once must first understand the human will, and then determine HOW an environment

can provoke choice. This distinction isn’t applicable to physical laws, nor objective thinking.

Put simply, if the human brain is hardware, then our consciousness is software. So while we can

show how hardware works, we can’t then assume that we know every combination of software that

could exist on it. Likewise, we can’t build an environment, and then determine every conceivable

thought possible. It is as insane as looking at the number five, and then inductively reasoning which

equation it could be possible come from.

Science can take any two elements, and then inductively explain how they would react to each

other, simply by accounting for the environment. But no two human people can ever be inductively

explained simply by their existence. Yet we can accurately deduce how they acted, AFTER the

conclusion of the discussion has been met; this is how the origin of Subjectivity emerges.

In this third part, I am going to help clear up how humans interact in the world, as if they were

composed through a series of algorithms rather than being pushed by physical forces. Although humans

exist in a physical world, what drives them is the ‘software’ in their minds that relates their physical

body to the world itself. Where-as we wouldn’t consider a Robot ‘determined’ by its environment, we

wouldn’t consider a person ‘determined’ by his environment either. A robot and a person can be put in

the same environment, but how they respond has to do with the algorithms which govern how they are

in the world.

I will use three examples to orient ourselves on how our consciousness orients us in the world. Once

I give these three examples, I will then describe how human thinking qualifies under Chaos theory,

which gives it’s unpredictable nature, despite having a causal and materialistic origin.

Imagine there is a bookshelf, with a collection of books sitting on the bookcase. These books remain

stationary, obey the physical laws of the universe, and stay stagnant throughout the period of a lifetime.

And unless an outside force acts upon them, these books will always remain presently standing until an

inordinately long amount of time.

So when a human being arrives and decides which book he wants, we cannot assume that physical

law are ‘forcing him’ to select which book he was. In fact, to complicate things further, this very person

could pull out one book at one moment, and five minutes later pull out a different book at another

moment. Objectively, there isn’t a physical force which ‘compels’ a person to take out I, Robot over

Ulysses; we cannot calculate the objective weight of each book and then determine how gravity compels

a person to select it.

Rather, we must understand the ‘algorithms’ in the mind which drive the person forward to

selecting the book. Each person’s set of preferences has a measure with how it ‘weighs’ each book in

the bookshelf. Just as there is no accounting for taste, each person has their own qualifiers with what

they want from a book. And when each person picks out a book, what they are doing is ‘deducing’ the

qualities of each book, and then picking out the one which is weighed the most heavily in their mind.

And the book that qualifies in that person’s mind as the best is the one that is selected.

But it gets more complicated. Humans are non-reliable. At some points, they will pick out some

books, and at other points, they will pick out different books. What they see and want can wildly

fluctuate at any particular moment, and it has to do with the advanced consciousness of a human mind.

Like a software that programs itself, at any moment a human being’s understand will weigh it’s reality

differently. These are commonly manifested as ‘feelings,’ which may provoke us to select comedic books

over tragic books, for instance. This lack of consistency destroys a coherent explanation via inductive

reasoning.

Another complication is that Humans are non-reproducible; they are singularities. Each human has a

composition of thinking which qualifies itself differently from another person. This means that even if

we know all the books that are on the book shelf, the only way we know what book will be selected is if

we know the mind of the person selecting it first. And even if we were given one hundred books of

identical physical properties, it would STILL be irrelevant what objective forces exist for each person,

because the mind would deduce that much harder to determine which copy of the book it would want.

And what is most complicated is that Humans are non-valid; because humans think in a deductive

way, there is a potentially infinite number of ways that a person could pick something out. So although

we can guess as to the reasons WHY a person may select one book over the other, we cannot inherently

know all the possible MOTIVES which could be involved in decision making. Likewise, although we may

have a Robot make one choice over another, we cannot know all the possible CODE which could exist in

the machine. Therefore, if we want to know WHAT the Robot will do in its environment, we have to

know the relevant code that exists in its software. Likewise, if we want to know what a person will do in

its environment, we have to know the relevant motives which could exist in his head.

Put another way, belief is how our consciousness is structured, but belief itself isn’t actually

objective; it requires our intent in order to existence. Likewise, code isn’t actually ‘real’ but requires a

specific set of logic to function in the world.

Now, we may be tempted to take a scan of a human brain, and state that THIS must be how we are

in the world. But it doesn’t actually work that way, because unless we can determine HOW the human is

deducing from the brain scan, its meaningless to monitor blood flow. So although I can give someone

computer hardware, I cannot turn around and state all the software that exists on that computer. But

unless the hardware of a machine reveals to me properties about the software, its meaningless how the

computer machine is arranged.

So returning back to the book shelf, we have to know how the person selects his books, before we

can predict what books he selects. This process serves as the foundation of subjectivity, which itself is a

branch of Teleology; Teleology, in essence, is the process of deduction. As phenomena reduces

information about the physical world, it gains a teleological nature, which makes it ‘seem’ like its

breaking physical laws. In reality, it is quite consistent with physical laws, but it is inconsistent with the

SCIENTIFIC method. In the next chapter, I will describe the limitations of inductive reasoning, but for

now, the scientific method cannot explain Teleology because science requires inductive reasoning,

which is the exact opposite process on how Teleology works.

Let us move on to the second example, to help us understand how the human will works.

Imagine I were to draw a figure that would either look like a duck or a rabbit.

Now, we know that objectively, the pigments of the picture are constant. We also know that

there are creatures such as ducks and rabbits which objectively exist in the world as well. Yet for most

people, they are ambivalent whether this creature is a duck or a rabbit. But why? The picture doesn’t

‘morph’ as we look at it, nor can we assume that there is a scientific force which ‘validates’ this picture

as a duck or a rabbit. So how exactly can we be aware whether this picture is a duck or a rabbit?

But the question itself isn’t whether this a duck or a rabbit, but whether I deduce that this is a duck

or a rabbit. It is the ‘software in the mind’ which evaluates this given information, and categorizes it into

either the duck or rabbit category. Therefore, how I evaluate this drawing is more important than the

actual drawing itself, because my categorization can only exist through the process of deduction.

Therefore, we need to ask each subject how they see this drawing, because each subject has their own

categories of deduction to determine what this object is.

Going on step farther, if I had the same machine, but two different software, evaluate this creature,

what I would find is that the softwares can disagree with each other. It isn’t enough simply to point to

the hardware; one must understand the ‘ghost in the machine.’ Even by our own mechanistic logic, a

computer program with identical hardware that makes two different judgments undermines the idea

that mechanism alone is enough to account for will. Rather, one must understand that the mechanism is

an interpretation of reality itself, and that inpretration is what is the metaphysical component of society.

Therefore, I suggest that our brains are a form of metaphorical electrical wiring, which represents

incompletely our physical word. And from this incompleteness, there is difference between us, which

accounts for our uniqueness (or singularity.) And the fact that this metaphorical electrical wiring has a

logic into itself, means that one cannot inductively reason how it works. And even more prominently, it

changes over time, yet still corresponds with objective reality, even though it isn’t.

Just as the image of a duck is a symbol for a duck, the wiring in our heads is a symbol for reality;

there are discrepancies between our mind and reality, but our mind has a metaphysical relation which

allows for knowledge (See the Chapter on Knowledge.)

Let us also compare Wittengstein’s creature with the bookshelf example. Where-as a person will

deduce what book they want, based on their particular deduction at a particular moment, a person will

also deduce whether the creature is a duck or a rabbit as well. At some instances, the person will feel as

though the creature is a duck, and at other times, the person will deduce the creature as a rabbit.

However, notice how I call it ‘Wittengsteins creature’ instead of ‘creature’ or ‘Wittengsteins Rabbit.’

Why do I refer to the drawing in an ambiguous way, instead of forcefully dictating that the creature is a

duck or a rabbit? Why is the term ‘creature’ the applicable one at all? ‘Wittengsteins drawing’ would

also be an example of what the picture could be called, but why would I settle specifically with the term

‘Wittengsteins creature?’

It is because language entirely exists as a deductive process EXACTLY in the same category of

mathematics. Where-as mathematics exists as a process to simplify and predict through equations,

language has the identical function by describing through words. Yet we cannot actually describe all

information in our sentences, but rather particular information in our sentences. What sentences we

choose to speak, is a deductive process, and therefore sentences convoy information through their

particularity. Put another way, we communicate effectively be describing what IS, through excluding

what something ISN’T.

And the things that I failed to mention previously, (such as what I am wearing,) are what ISN’T in my

language. Therefore what is deduced away from the sentence is what I fail to mention; the mere

absence of what isn’t explained is how attention is brought to particular topics.

Although I could cut and paste all of Philosophical Investigations in this book (where the creature

was first popularized,) language is useful because it focuses our attention through its own deduction.

What isn’t mentioned in language, by definition, is excluded from our consciousness, and what is

explained in language, is what remains in our focus. So rather than copy and paste the entire book, as a

‘picture of facts,’ I specify what I am referring to, through the deductive process of language.

So when I mention ‘Wittengstein’s Creature,’ I refer to the picture that was placed above, because

language has established its own deductive logic. And the term, creature, can apply to either ducks or

rabbits.

This is also why Science absolutely struggles to answer questions such as this, because the inductive

logic of Science is incompatible with human thinking. Despite the fact that this drawing as an objective

presence, Science still cannot explain how a person will deduce their world. And although the

philosophers of my time are extremely uncomfortable that objectivity has a clear line of demarcation,

we can very readily establish such a line once we identify the difference between subjectivity and

objectivity.

Going one step farther, how is it possible that multiple languages can exist, if language itself has

any inherent ‘truth’ to it? If two people spoke an entirely different language, and was given the same

word, how is it then possible that there would be two different definitions of that same word? So the

word for ‘beer’ in English is the word for ‘bear’ in Dutch. Although we can trace how this distinction

changed, we cannot then reconcile the idea that language has some purpose behind it other than

merely deducing information for us. The reason why Americans call their alcoholic beverages ‘beer’ and

the Dutch call their four-legged predators ‘beer,’ is because two nations have two different methods of

deducing reality for themselves. But society is still quite functional between their differences; Americans

don’t get mauled by wild animals when they are searching to get drunk.

Rather, language is a metaphorical representation of reality, because our minds have a

metaphysical component to them, in that the wires in our head are a representation of the world, in the

same way that the drawing is a representation of the rabbit. It is perfectly okay that there are

discrepancies between languages; what is the problem is that there are discrepancies between a

language and reality.

Let us go to the third and final example, to understand how the will exists in reality. Let us

imagine that there is a Lion, which can neither speak nor has much capacity to deduce. (The Dutch word

for lion, by the way, is leeuw.)

Here is an animal which in fact cannot speak at all, but makes decisions in its day-to-day life. For

instance, it must decide when it sleeps, when it eats, when it mates, when it fights, and various other

things. But for all of these tasks, they are quite ‘simplistic’ in nature, and lack any awareness outside of a

specific moment. Governed by instinct more so than a mind, how could such a creature have a “Will,” if

it’s enslaved to bestial functioning?

We know such a creature has a will, because it deduces as to what it does, even if it such

deductions are pure ‘reaction.’ So for instance, if I kick a Lion, we can know predict a series of responses

from how that Lion might respond. Likewise, if I throw a piece of meat to a Lion, we can also predict a

series of responses that it would make as well. However, such responses aren’t a product of language, as

they are a reaction to their environment.

Now, we may tempted to state that because a Lion doesn’t have language, it cannot have a

‘Will’ because without language we cannot deduce our reality. The problem with this interpretation,

however, is that Lions CAN still deduce their environment, from their various senses as well as their

memories. Language may be an extremely high form of deduction, but a brain is the actual computer

that does the deduction itself.

Suppose there was a robot toy, which had its own set of software programmed in it. Now this

programming could be very basic and static, but the programming would nevertheless involve a series of

deduction which would manipulate the machine. Furthermore, a pattern of responses who emerge from

its stimuli, and I paid attention to how the robot was cued, I could then predict what it would do.

Likewise, the ‘living toy’ has a logic that exists within it, but its code actually is a product of DNA

and memories, rather than a conscious language. So the moment I become familiar with the instincts of

a Lion, and I also become familiar with the memories of the Lion, I don’t need to speak Lion to

understand it. I can understand Lion if I can learn to predict it, by observing how it deduces its

environment.

And this is how Lion taming becomes possible. By understanding the ‘logic of Lions’ I can predict

what Lions will do, and then ultimately control the ‘software of Lions,’ through giving the right responses

to have them choose what I want them to do. Put another way, we can ‘determine’ the choices that

other people makes, as long as we aren’t reliant on the Scientific method. Put another way, because the

Scientific Method relies on inductive reasoning, we cannot therefore use it to determine the actions of

others. Rather, we must understand the deductive logic of the software/person/animal we are dealing

with, and then use the Teleological Method, which I will describe later in this book.

Therefore, animal tamers have existed for thousands years before the birth of Wittengstein,

before the birth of Science, and even before the birth of religion. To assume that we cannot understand

how they think because they don’t conform to our insane Western standard is madness.

We CAN understand Lions, DESPITE their inability to speak, because their deductive thinking can

be understood and therefore predicted. We can know Lions are angry, because of the way they express

themselves. We can know what Lions eat, because we can observe the kinds of things they are eating.

We can even know what Lions think of us, because we can observe their interactions with us. And by

reading its body language, we can know what the Lion is deducing, because we can learn its intent from

its nonverbal interaction.

What we can’t do is expect the God of Science to pre-determine our interactions with Lions.

Each Lion has a difference about them, accumulated through random experiences and random

mutations within itself. We must first understand what the Lion is, before we can learn what the Lion

does. And inductive reasoning cannot help us, because the deduction of the Lion is the true independent

variable in our case, rather than the physical laws of the universe. All Lions exist in the same reality, but

every Lion is a little different from each other. Therefore, we must know as each Lion is, rather than

assuming what each Lion must be.

And now, we come to the conclusion of this chapter. We have learned that humans decide by

explaining that we make our choices bases on differences. We have established the Scientific methods

cannot describe how people interact in their world, because they rely on inductive reasoning. That isn’t

to state that humans are exempt from the physical laws of the universe; rather, they have a

metaphysical property which allows them to deduce. What this means is the human minds are

selectively prompted by what they pay attention to, and that this selection creates actions in others.

Finally, we have discussed three instances how to demonstrate that humans interact in their world. We

have described the bookshelf, where inert physical laws can still prompt difference changes. We have

describe Wittengstein’s creature, where the same objective object can be understood differently by

unique deductive logic. We also covered how language sets the foundation for Consciousness, but I will

cover this in a later chapter. Finally, we have discussed Lions, and how anything that deduces can only

be understood by its own deductive logic; this sets the foundation of Counterfactuals. It is also why

Counterfactuals don’t exist in physical objects, but our crucial for how we understand people.

In the conclusion, we will discuss how human will has the properties of ‘chaos theory,’ or that

even though it causal determines decisions, how it does so changes so much that it becomes

unpredictable. Put another way, minds are constantly changing in themselves, which makes them

unpredictable from inductive reasoning/Science. Yet despite the metaphysical nature of human minds

and software, they still have a quite physical component to them.

If I gave the physical size of a planetary body, could we predict its gravational force? Would we

have to discuss how the planet was ‘feeling’ or what the planet was ‘doing’ to determine such a case? Of

course not. This is because the force of gravity is a constant process; its own ‘logic’ is objective and

static. Therefore, we can hypothetically predict the gravity of all possible planets, because we aware of a

constant and unerring force of gravity. Therefore, inductive reasoning is applicable, and the Scientific

Method can teach us all possible arrangements of how gravity exists.

But people and software are different. The equations in their head change all the time. They

aren’t constant, and because these relationships are always in flux, human thinking becomes

unpredictable in itself. So even if we were capable of actually knowing what a human did, we couldn’t

predict WHY a human do so, unless we understand how the human mind structures his understanding.

This is why subjectivity is such a painful process. Humans are changing their relationship with the world

so quickly, that it is impossible to inductively reason what a human will do in any given moment.

Even a ‘machine’ with a fixed set of software, can’t even be inductively reasoned either.

Granted, it is can be predicted, because its relationships on how it deduces always remains fixed in itself.

We can know what a machine is always doing, when it does it, because we aware of its static set of

deduction that it makes. But what we can’t do is actually attempt to know what a machine will do,

before we understand what a machine IS in the first place. We cannot take a computer and inductively

reason what all possible choices it has made. What we can do instead is know the specific deductive

logic it possesses, and then predict what the machine will do based on that specific deductive logic. But

even then, it castrates any kind of Scientific prediction, because software is better understood by

learning a software language than actually the Scientific method.

I can predict what a machine will do by reading its code, far more effectively than a scientist can

by understanding the machine through experimentation.

But water always boils at one hundred degrees Celsius! Force will equal mass times

acceleration! The atomic number of Gold will always be 79! And we can predict how the electrons will

arrange themselves around the Nucleus as well! These things are scientific facts, because they are

inductively determined by our understanding of the world. We can show these through a reliable,

reproducible, and valid experiment!

If only humans were so simple….

As humans are constantly observing their world, their deductive logic continually changes over

and over again. This element of unpredictably which enables it to be metaphysical, also gives it the

ability to be conscious. Because the wiring of itself is a representation of its surroundings, it effectively

separates itself from the universe from its interpretation. By deducing the world around itself, that

deduction effectively separates itself from being enslaved by the physical laws of reality. Because of the

fact that Jimmy is paying attention to his stomach, Bobby is paying attention to the trees, and Alice is

paying attention to the weather, we are fundamentally different because we are deducing our

surroundings in such a different way. That this distinction of logic between us gives us the will that

cannot be extinguished, and has yet to be recreated outside of us.

Therefore, humans operate under the chaos principal, because the relationship of its own logic

is inconsistent and therefore cannot be inductively reasoned. The relationship of how a mind works

must be structured first, before we can predict what such a mind does. Yet because we are so different,

this process takes an incoviecable amount of work to predict, and more importantly, is absolutely

haunting to dive into.

Finally, I would like to create a metaphorical model for how humans exist in their world. I want

to demonstrate that even though physical laws are constant, we aren’t determined because we

determine ourselves through our deduction.

Physical laws are a constant and objective force, but the way the human vessel deduces its

reality changes across time. So how I understood the world as a five year old will be different then how I

deduced life as a twenty five year old. The constant reinterpretation of my world changes how I decide

what to do, despite the fact that physical laws can remain constant. And as I go through the world, I

begin to change as a person into something very different then what I was once. And so despite the fact

that physical laws are constant, who I am is a variable based in time and space. Therefore, the logic of

my mind grows and evolves over time, making itself distinct from the physical environment it exists in,

because it changes how it deduces. And it is because we are limited, deductive, and change, is why a

human will dwells within our minds.

Chapter 2

In this chapter, we discuss Subjectivity, Objectivity, and the Line of Demarcation. Where-as in

the previous chapter, we discussed an example of Subjectivity with Human Will. But in this chapter, we

will discuss the property of Subjectivity abstractly, so that they can recognize other forms of Subjectivity

outside of human thinking. Furthermore, we will discuss the problem of Grue, which happens when

struggle to tell the difference between Objectivity and Subjectivity. Finally, after we resolve the problem

of Grue, we then elaborate on the Line of Demarcation, by discovering its principle, and then dealing

with the consequences of it. Rather than claiming the world for the Scientific Method, we instead

discover that we live in a world of Black Objectivities and White Subjectivities. And that instead of

striving for a fixed and clear world, uncertainty will be an inherently fixed property of the universe deep

into the future.

But for our first part, we need to begin by discussing what ‘Objectivity’ actually is. Far from

being dismissive of Objectivity, I am absolutely convinced of the need for Objectivity. Our problem,

however, is that we have lost the capacity to recognize Objectivity, because we have failed to be faithful

to what it means to be Objective. Where-as Objectivity used to mean something outside of human

intent, Objectivity in my time refers to something closer to ‘truth.’ There is such a concept of Subjective

truth, and I will demonstrate this as well in the second part. But for now, let us elaborate what

Objectivity is, and why Science is the only source which can discover it.

How do we know when a man is ‘waking?’ When we are asleep, sometimes we may wonder if

we are ‘dreaming;’ that our entire experience of sensation is an illusion that is only generated from

ourselves. How is it possible that something exists ‘outside of us,’ and how do we know that our minds

are only what is there in our universe? Could we really live in a world where the only thing that is real is

ourselves? So how would we know there is something beyond what we are deducing at the given

moment?

We know there is an objective reality when there is a discrepancy between what we deduce and

what actually occurs. We know when we are awake when we encounter something we cannot conceive

of, and therefore have to categorize it ourselves. Although we may imagine many strange things in our

dreams, and we may actually feel surprise from our dreams, what we cannot do is have something

happen to us that we didn’t conceive of. Put another way, we can dream of riding a six legged horse, but

what we can’t dream of are what the horses in Montana are doing. That there are things happening in

the world that our outside of our intent, and that is what means to be ‘waking.’

Let me change the terms a little bit. If you are sleeping, yet don’t think of others, how can others

still affect you, before you conceive of their effects? Or, put another way, how could things happen

beyond your conception, if the world was only limited to your conception.

Of course, Solipsism sounds silly, but nevertheless, in a purely ‘subjective’ state, people

wouldn’t be capable of doing anything, unless they were specifically thinking about each other. This has

further implications about knowledge, but for now understand that because things happen which are

outside our own intent, we know that an objective world exists. So what this means is that even when

other people are ‘sleeping,’ there are still things going on around them that they are unaware of.

Yet this extends much farther, because ‘dreaming’ never actually ends. Remember, the human

will is machine of deduction; it is deducing information around itself. Even when we are wide awake,

there is currently a reality that is independent of us, without us being aware of it. So even though I am

unaware of where you, the reader, are specifically, nevertheless you are still in a position across time

and space. I also cannot claim that you don’t exist because I don’t know where you are, just as you can’t

claim I don’t exist because you don’t know where I am.

So if someone starts speaking an entirely different language, with its own rules, cultures, and

logic, I cannot ‘dream’ such a language, because I wasn’t aware of it before it’s logic was revealed to me.

Likewise, if there are physical laws which I have yet to invent, I cannot ‘dream’ such laws because their

logic was established before I became aware of it. So if things happen that I never brought forth

consciously, such as a periodic table, then such a thing a thing is Objectively real.

Scientists didn’t decide what the periodic table was; they merely became aware of it.

Neil Degrasse Tyson gives the best definition of objectivity I have ever heard. “Something

objective is true regardless of if you believe it or deny it.” Because our minds are deductive organs,

Objectivity therefore is the information which exists whether I deduce it or not. So if I deduce incorrectly

the Earth is disk, the Earth still remains a sphere, even though I believe them to be something different.

Going farther, since a Spherical Earth is still different from my corrupt understanding, we know we are

waking because there is a process which is occurring outside our own deductive logic.

Put another way, Objectivity exists because it can defy our own deductive understanding of the

world. So what is Objective is independent of human thought. And because our own expectations can be

broken through Objectivity, we know that such an objective forces presently govern our own lives.

And this is where things get even more interesting. Deduction can eliminate information, it can

relate information, but only Objectivity can ALLOW information. Although we can relate information in

meaningful and different ways, which eventually make ‘new’ information, only Objectivity actually

allows the possibility that information can exist at all. This is where things begin to get strange.

In order to understand for deduction to be possible, there first has to be a process which

actually deduces. So for our own existence, we need an objective reality that can enable our own

subjectivity in the first place. A human mind cannot create itself, because it would first have to conceive

its own existence before actually existing. The very possibility of ‘conception’ requires a physical

enabler. A person has to be born into this world, before they can begin the process of actual conception.

Romantically, this is also why Subjectivity is the lower order of thinking compared to Objectivity.

Regardless of how we understand reality, reality itself is independent of being understood. Likewise, we

only exist because we are objectively enabled to deduce; we have an intent, even though we didn’t

intend ourselves in the first place. The ‘brain’ we have is a gift from our parents. (See how things click?)

Now that we have described Objectivity as truth without intent, we need to discuss HOW

Objectivity is understood. Despite my criticism toward the Scientific Method, it is by far the best way to

understand an objective reality. Yet it isn’t exclusively the only way to understand an objective reality.

There are other methodologies, most prominently history with archaeology, which can also provide an

objective account of the world as well. But in this book, I will be dealing with science.

Objectivity is a product of inductive reasoning. When something is inductively reasoned, it

becomes objective. And the reason why Science has been so successful is because it is a product of

inductive reasoning which attempts to answer Objective questions. Furthermore, the reason why we

Objectivity is a product of inductive reasoning, is because inductive reasoning cannot make errors of

deduction. Now, that isn’t to say we could fail with inductive reasoning; it is quite possible to inductively

reason things that are incorrect. But what we can’t do is eliminate truthful information when we

inductively reason. Where-as deduction can eliminate necessary information for us to understand our

world, inductive reasoning can only add useful information, but cannot remove useful information. This

distinction is very important.

Human beings are machines of deduction. This is why we have to specify how we engage in

inductive reasoning through a deductive methodology. For instance, when a person submits a bad

science experiment, we deduce why this science experiment was a bad experiment, before

understanding the actual conclusion. The Scientific Method, ironically, is a deductive process which

enables us to QUALIFY what information was inductively gathered. Remember, the Scientific Method

exists to filter information, and anything which removes information is by definition deductive. (This is

also why the Scientific Method is a product of philosophy; it is a categorization of information

gathering.)

But with inductive reasoning, we lose the capacity to succumb to our own biases. But not in the

sense of that we are too personally motivated to ignore the truth. It’s much more fundamental then

that. Inductive reasoning forces us to be consistent with the relationships established by a physical

universe. We cannot deduce differently from our own universe, because we surrender our capacity to

relate things independently from the universe. Inductive reasoning is in fact radical acceptance, and we

figured out how to inductively reason through the Scientific Method.

Yet this is the kicker. It took a few thousand years to get civilization to understand the concept

of science, because inductive reasoning was a hard concept to grasp. Mighty empires such as the Han or

Roman Empire were, literally, running only on half the possibility to acquire knowledge. Everything in

their world had to be deduced, which made understanding objectivity impossible. At any point in time,

an intelligent man could ‘deduce’ a critical piece of information as irrelevant, thus throwing off the

entire process of objective understanding. But with Science, one is forced to specifically reason about

what is shown, and cannot deviate through disregarding any information contrary to their

understanding. The moment there is a ‘gap’ between our reasoning and our outcome, Inductive

reasoning comes in and protects us from that mistake.

What is essential, however, is that how we came about to understand inductive reasoning is

through a double negation. We stated that anything that wasn’t deduced is inductive. But looking at it

closer, what we really mean is that we deduce deductions in our thinking. The Scientific method is really

just a process to ensure that all information was accounted without our own reasoning, and its three

standards are merely iron clad ways to show the conclusion happened independently of human will.

Yet why is inductive reasoning so superior to deductive thinking? Quite simply, because

Objective reality is a constant beyond ourselves, and the only way to know of that constant is through

inductive reasoning. Regardless of however we deduce something about our world, Objectivity exists

without our intent. Therefore, this universal feature of objectivity means that, quite literally, it is the

infallible force that rules reality. We need to care about our physical laws of the universe, because the

physical laws of the universe are omnipotent. Forgive the romantic expression, but the objective forces

which govern our world are ‘the God.’ As in, it doesn’t really matter what we think about anything else,

objective reality is the eternal constant that rules over us with its thumb.

But more importantly, because objective reality is inductively reasoned, then it is irrelevant

whatever our intents are, because the forces of reality are true whether you believe them or not. The

Earth isn’t six thousand years old, regardless if you go to church every day of the week. We can, and

should, throw all our deductive reasoning out the window when things are demonstrated through

inductive reasoning. Because once something is inductively reasoned, it means that an objective relation

in reality is discovered.

Think about my earlier example. We can’t predict what a person will do before he is introduced

to an environment, but we can know what water will do when it is introduced to all conceivable

environments. Therefore, what does it matter what any person thinks about what water is, when we

inductively predict what water will do independent of any person .

Therefore, we come full circle back into the thrust of Science, and get closer to revealing the line

of demarcation. Inductive reasoning is absolute reasoning, because it demonstrates the physical

properties of the universe around. And these physical properties are the components we use to deduce

reality in the first place. And most importantly, when there is a discrepancy when what we deduce, and

what the universe is actually doing, our deduction is absolutely irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what our

minds are comprehending at any given moment, the universe is operating outside our conception. Thus,

we also return to understanding what it means to be ‘waking;’ we know there is an objective reality

because we are exposed to things outside our own conception.

And putting it together, the Scientific Method demonstrate things that exist outside our own

conception, through its own standard. The predictability and consistency of Science reveals objectivity,

because it demonstrates that something exists outside of human intent. It is removing deduction from

our understanding, and hence bringing about inductive relationships.

And to conclude with the first part, I want to emphasize that Objectivity is the ‘higher’ order of

thinking. When something is inductively reasoned, it preempts any conclusion which emerges from

deductive thinking. Why? Because predictability with validity and reproducibility are processes that are

independent from our intent; a scientist doesn’t have to agree with a result, in order for him to

reproduce it through experimentation.

And in the more profound sense, deduction can inherently distinguish itself from its own

universe, because it can deduce invalid information. Where-as induction cannot deduce important

information, but rather it can only ADD information through its thought processes. Qualitatively,

inductive reasoning forces us to discover further information when we fail to predict an outcome. This

constant gathering of information allows for a slow steady process of truth.

So when we are trying to discover the orbit of Jupiter, it is irrelevant as to WHAT we think the

orbit of Jupiter will be. We don’t look at the sky and deduce that Jupiter must orbit the Earth, because

God must have placed the Earth at the center of the universe. This reasoning may be laughable now, but

deductive logic, by definition, includes biases which eliminate relevant information.

Rather, we categorically document the location of Jupiter during each night, and then

inductively attempt to build a model of orbit which is reliable, reproducible, and valid. So whenever my

model for an orbit fails to explain the location of Jupiter, I construct a new model of orbit which is

reliable and valid, and can be reproducible through others.

Where-as if I used deductive reasoning to explain an objective phenomenon, I would first

deduce what information would be irrelevant to my understanding, and then invent a model which

would explain any possible discrepancy between my predictions and the results. This model, which

would include epicycles, would get further and further complicated, as the discrepancies between the

physical laws of the universe, and my subjective understanding increases. Soon, I would have to invent

an elaborate rule set as to Jupiter’s orbit, because my deductive reasoning as eliminated crucial

information which would help explain why Objective forces exist the way they do.

And as a word of warning; mathematics isn’t a successful form of Objective reasoning. Granted,

like software, we may believe it is objective because mathematics is always reliable. But one can invent a

mathematical model to explain any set of outputs, even if the laws of physics is entirely different than

the mathematical model used to rationalize a decision. Put another way, we can always have the

outputs ‘fit’ the theory, but true objective knowledge can only come from inductive reasoning. We

cannot remove any relevant information from how the universe’s physical laws are structured, and

therefore we have to deduce deduction from our own thought processes.

Alas, although the scientific method is the most important invention of man, it too has profound

and frustrating limits to how it exists. Although it enables us to understand the physical universe

consistently, it also means that we needn’t spend nearly as much energy trying to understand it. , ‘Hard

sciences’ are more appreciated because they are easier to practice; the physical universe will always

enforce truthful theories, regardless if we believe them or not.

In this second part, we will talk about Subjectivity. We will elaborate what Subjectivity is, we will

explain why it can count as knowledge, and we will explain that being aware of the biases of others is in

itself a form of knowledge.

Subjectivity is truth from intent. So reversing Tyson’s statement, a subjective truth is true only

when you believe it. So we know that Muslims pray to Mecca, because Muslims intend to pray to Mecca.

And we know the specific prayers to Mecca, because those intents are documented and established by

their religion. But could we then state that there is a physical law which governs praying to Mecca?

Furthermore, could we even state that Mecca itself emerged through physical processes? Could we

observe the geological formation of the planet and then discover how ‘Meccas’ are formed through the

tectonic plates of planet Earth. Or do we understand the pilgrimage to Mecca, by exploring how Islamic

faith promotes the intent to pilgrimage to Mecca?

Intents are deductive conclusions. Where-as each person has a specific categorization of how he

understands the world, the intent itself is when the subject has deduced toward the end itself. So when

people are considering what decision to make, the intent itself is when the decision is ‘decided,’ because

the deduction processes are complete. Just as a computer program eliminates choices until the highest

weighted choice is revealed, human beings eliminate choices until they are moved toward their most

preferred choice. Once that choice is realized, they then act on it, by physically going forward in the

world.

(Did you think of a White Elephant? It’s interesting that our deductive reasoning prioritizes what we

feel is relevant, rather than any other quality. We strip away at ideas until we find the relevant

information we desire. The mere fact of writing about White Elephants means that you, the reader,

must ponder the concept, because the White Elephant has now been brought to your attention. “Don’t

think of a White elephant,” is a self-defeating phrase, because the moment something is mentioned, it is

now relevant. Just like pink-striped zebras.)

So when a man is travelling on a road, and he wants to decide to go right or left, he creates the

criteria of what he wants, and then deduces which direction would take him there. Now, we can spend

hours discussing the rationale of why someone would get left or right, but the person himself only

spends about fifteen seconds referring to where he wants to go. Human minds actually have simplistic

deductive thought processes, and a majority of them are actually products of our genetic code rather

than cognitive decisions. For instance, the desire to breath entirely emerges from how our genes have

created that instinct in us. But as people, we can also focus further on the deductive criteria of breathing

itself. So in this case, we can concentrate and change how we breathe, through deductively qualifying

the pace of each of our breaths.

Where-as Objectivity is the physical manifestation of reality enforcing its own relations,

Subjectivity is our specific deductions which drive us toward intents. Put another way, what is Objective

is what reality is, and what is Subjective is what a mind (or any deductive process) determines.

Comparatively, Objectivity is fixed and static, but Subjectivity is fluid and multi-dimensional. How we

deduce our fixed reality changes over time and this creates the property of Subjectivity.

But what does it exactly mean when something is ‘Subjectively true?’ Does it mean that

something is only true for a specific bias? Or does it mean that we believe something is true, but since it

isn’t objective, we can’t treat it as true?

Let us examine the Toxin paradox as an example of how Subjective truth can exist. Now I find

this paradox particular eccentric, but nevertheless this is the paradox which asks for Subjective truth.

“An eccentric billionaire places before you a vial of toxin that, if you drink it, will make you

painfully ill for a day, but will not threaten your life or have any lasting effects. The billionaire will pay

you one million dollars tomorrow morning if, at midnight tonight, you intend to drink the toxin tomorrow

afternoon. He emphasizes that you need not drink the toxin to receive the money; in fact, the money will

already be in your bank account hours before the time for drinking it arrives, if you succeed. All you have

to do is. . . intend at midnight tonight to drink the stuff tomorrow afternoon. You are perfectly free to

change your mind after receiving the money and not drink the toxin.”

The question then becomes, is an intent consistent across time, or is an intent merely

momentary, and if it is, how does human intent actually provide ‘truth’ in itself?

When a man decides to do something, and in this case, drink a non-lethal toxin, his mind

deduces that such an action is necessary, and therefore acts physically in the world to accomplish this

task. It is identical to software in a robot. When a robot decides that it will drink the toxin, it deduces in

its own programming that such an action is necessary, and will then maneuver it’s metallic body into

drinking a toxin.

But the problem, however, is that intents are flexible, and can change.

If the man does intend to drink the vile toxin, but then discovers that the vile toxin is boiling hot,

he may refuse to drink it, especially because he already has the money. But notice in this case,

additional information was added that changed how a man would deduce such an instance. So before-

hand, the assumption of the man was that the vile toxin would make him sick; he hadn’t considered that

it was boiling hot as well.

Where-as if the man DIDN’T care that the vile toxin was particularly hot, he may just swish down

his throat regardless. Who knows whatever reason why he found the hot liquid tolerable, but

nevertheless his deductive logic was consistent as it was when he decided to do so.

A Subjective truth, therefore, would explain intent, by predicting how the intent would respond.

Intents in the moment are particular forms of deductive reasoning, and are prone to change as

information changes across time. Furthermore, our own form of reasoning can also change as we go

through time, as our brain creates new forms of reasoning as it ages through life. Unlike Software, which

is deductively static, our minds are dynamic, and therefore an intent at a moment can rapidly change

because the deductive logic changes.

Let me rewrite the problem, so that a machine would also ‘fail’ to drink the Toxin. Now,

remember that machines (of my time) have static Software Code. Their deductions are constant, but

their intentions can be quite different. And even a machine can change its intents, despite having a fixed

logical thought process.

“An eccentric programmer commands an advanced machine to dispose of a piece of trash, by

placing it in an incinerator. The machine then agrees to do so and the programmer checks to ensure that

the machine is authentically intending this. Peeking into its brain, he sees that the logic of the machine

will take out the trash, and therefore is content that the machine will do so. But when the machine

actually approaches to take out the trash, it discovers that the trash is actually a human being trapped in

a box! The programming then refers to the First Law of Robotics; thou shall never harm humans! The

robot then decides to override the programmers command. And even though the programmer gave the

order and also checked the machines mind, he was also unaware of Subjective truth. With the revelation

of additional information, the conclusion the machine made was now different, because the deductive

logic of its software was now aware a human would have been hurt. Thus the eccentric programmer was

locked away in prison, frustrated to know that even certainty cannot be certain in subjectivity.”

Subjective truth is understanding the intents of deductive reasoning. So when we understand

that a person will intend to do something, we also understand why such a person intended to do it.

Furthermore, we discover Teleology when we realize that by presenting different information to people,

they will deduce their reality in different ways, thus changing what the composition of their intents are.

Therefore, Teleology is the oldest among our forms of knowledge, because as we deduce what other

minds are thinking, we can then change what they think by understanding how they think.

And so in case of the eccentric billionaire, if he truly understood whether the person would

drink the toxin, he would also understood what would cause the man to renege on his intent, and he

would make sure that his command would be given to ensure its outcome. (Newcomb’s paradox

describes the other half of the equation.) Therefore, the billionaire would either have to ensure that the

man would drink the toxin, because the drinker’s intents would be consistent across time, or the

billionaire would realize that he couldn’t make the intent consistent across time.

In either case, the Billionaire would have to understand the drinker’s subjective understanding,

(his software,) before making the choice of giving him the money. Or refuse to give the money at all.

People can be quite mistaken with how other people reason, and this is why Subjectivity has been given

extreme interest across history.

Subjective knowledge may be an absolute necessity, but it is assuredly much more difficult to

understand. Unlike Objectivity, Subjectivity requires a constant reevaluation of the reasoning of others,

and more importantly, lacks any kind of consistency that Objectivity provides. Alas, we will forever be

struggling with Subjectivity throughout the ages, as the ‘Geist’ of each era changes across time, not to

mention the minds of men from moment to moment. Late Western civilization has in fact given up on

subjectivity all together, because it’s so much more difficult than objective knowledge; Einstein’s

understanding of relativity has been everlasting. But the struggle to understand our fellow man is

painful, and its successes are so temporary. It’s easy to wish away any need for Subjective

understanding, but it will only damn the world.

But even the concept of a hamburger is in itself a subjective process as well. Yes, we can take

the component parts of the hamburger, and objectively show the ‘existence’ of the sandwich. We can

show that the bun exists because we can demonstrate how it relates to grain, or the meat exists

because we can demonstrate how it relates to beef. Yet the actual ‘construct’ of a Hamburger is a

category, and although I may recognize and deduce what is hamburgers, there are people whom would

never know what the deductive category of what a hamburger entails.

Language is how we understand the world because it maximizes our attention by focusing our

mind onto holistic concepts. But what those concepts are, and how we understand those concepts, is

what Subjectivity actually is. The ‘Subjective truth’ of a Hamburger is recognizing what others mean

when they state ‘a Hamburger.’ Likewise, we understand the ‘Subjective truth’ of the Koran when we

understand how Muslims view the construction of the Holy Text.

When we fail to understand how Muslims understand the Koran, we are failing to possess

Subjective truth. Likewise, when we fail to understand what I mean by Hamburger, we are failing to

possess Subjective truth. Neither the Koran, nor a Hamburger, can be understood through inductive

reasoning, but when we recognize how others categorize Korans and Hamburgers, we can then

deductively understand what is a Koran and what is a Hamburger.

Finally, there are those among the audience whom have connected the relation between

deduction and mathematics. The answer to that is even stranger, but for now, let us focus on

Subjectivity as language.

I have written earlier how language exists as a form of deduction. It specifically focuses

consciousness based on what remains in an expression, while ‘deducing’ anything which remained

unsaid during the sentence. So when I state that I like hamburgers, I am ‘deducing’ hamburgers away

from all of existence into that specific concept.

Subjective truth, in essence, is trying to understand how another reasons and understands their

world through deduction. Subjectivity possesses no relation to an objective reality, but rather we are

merely reproducing the logic of another, so that we can predict what they will do. In layman’s terms,

Subjectivity is ‘getting in the mind of a person’ and ‘figuring out what they would do in this specific

situation.’

So when I pick up Ronald Barthes Death of the Author, my goal then is to understand WHY ‘the

Subject’ would want to disregard the intent of authors. If I can successfully understand why Ronald

Barthes lacks any interest in understanding the intent of authors, I can then Subjectively predict HOW

Ronald Barthes would respond to the various texts of other authors.

(For those who are unfamiliar, the Death of the Author a work which states that a literary critic

should disregard what the intent of an author was when he wrote his work. Therefore, according to

Ronald, we should instead focus on understand the text by itself, instead of what the author intended

the text to mean. )

Therefore, if we wanted to understand HOW Ronald Barthes structures his literary criticisms, we

need to look for how he criticizes works, outside of whatever the intent of the author actually is. So

perhaps we should look at what Barthes feels is important in the text, which audience Barthes is talking

to, what Barthes is interested it at the moment of his criticism, what Barthes thinks of the author, what

Barthes thinks would be an interesting twist. Or, in other words, Death of the Author only reveals to us

that Ronald Barthes thinks we should disregard the intent of authors; for all we know, he may actually

NOT disregard the intent of authors. And if that is the case, then instead we would need to ask ourselves

WHY did Ronald Barthes write that authorial intent is irrelevant, and then answer how Ronald Barthes

incorporated authorial intent in his understanding.

The point of Subjective thinking is to understand how the Subject deduces its world, so that

we can predict what its intents will be, when given its situations. Just as we cannot take Revenge of

Teleology and inductively reason what people think of it, we must first understand the logic of Ronald

Barthes before we attempt to understand what he would think of Revenge of Teleology.

Subjectivity is ‘Subjective’ because there is a ‘Subject.’ There is another entity which is deducing

how it understands its existence, and in order to figure out what it will do, we must first understand how

it deduces. For most, this information is extremely useful when we understand that human beings are

subjects that deduce.

But for some, it isn’t useful information for some as well. And that’s the horror of Subjective

thinking. We cannot rely on inductive reasoning to guide us through how people understand their world,

just like we cannot understand a language unless we have a reference to explain it to us. We have stared

at Egyptian Hieroglyphics for hundreds of years, but we only understood them when we were able to

compare them with Greek, a language we had already understood. Through deductive reasoning.

Likewise, we cannot understood software code merely by looking at its outputs; we must first

understood the relations of code itself, and then we can know how a particular software code produced

its specific output. Again, deduction reveals the nature of subjectivity, which allows us to predict the

computer subject.

So we cannot understand what an AI will do, unless we understand how an AI is programmed.

And even if an AI intends to take out the trash, there can be additional information which changes how

it intends to do its actions. In the next chapter, I will explain that this is how Counterfactuals work, but

for now, understand that Subjectivity is specifically truth from intent.

But what exactly do we mean by ‘truth?’ When we say, ‘this is true, because somebody intends

it so,’ what does that exactly mean? In a later chapter, I explain how knowledge is a lack of contradiction

between expectation and reality, but for now, let me take it in a simpler direction.

When we say something is ‘Objectively true’ we mean that it independently exists from our own

conception. Likewise, when we say something is ‘Subjectively true’ we mean that it also independently

exists from our own conception, but only because it describes the conception of another. Just as energy

equals mass times acceleration, we also know that Isaac Newton existed in time, and had a mind which

housed intents. Therefore, whatever caused Isaac Newton to do what he did in the world, would be the

‘Subjective truths’ that exists in Newton’s mind. So if we Objectively discovered that Isaac Newton

burned the painting of Robert Hooke (through inductive reasoning,)then we could ‘Subjectively’

understand the motives WHY Isaac Newtown would want to burn Robert Hooke’s painting. It wouldn’t

be enough to merely look at anything written by Isaac Newton, and claim that ‘since Isaac Newton

wrote it, therefore we know why.’ Rather, we have to examine the specific deductions that Isaac

Newton was making, and then relate them to psychologically understand the motive of his act.

And even though we can prove the ‘authenticity’ of any of Newton’s writings through Objective

reasoning, it is only by understanding the deductive reasoning of Newton, can we actually determine

WHY Isaac Newton would decide to burn such a thing. Therefore, if we are given the evidence that

showed he gave the order, but were unable to understand why he did it, then we would never be able

to ‘Subjectively’ understand how Isaac Newton made his decisions to burn (or not burn) Robert Hooke’s

painting.

Objectivity tells us the truth of the laws of motion. Subjectivity tells us why Newton decided to

pursue his investigation in the laws of motion. Objectivity is independent of Newton’s intent;

Subjectivity only consists of Newton’s intents.

History is the OTHER Objective force in our world, by the way, and carries the same the weight

of Science. We can inductively show what happened in the past via archaeology, even if we cannot

subjectively understand why the ‘subjects’ did what they did. But as of now, that is outside the scope of

this chapter.

To conclude the second part, we have established Subjectivity as truth with intent; predicting

what people will do, based on their deductive logic. We have also discussed how even though people

can any have particular intent at any moment, if they are exposed to new circumstances, they may

change their mind. In more technical terms, the deductive logic of agents is highly contingent at the

information presented in any moment in time. Even the slightest difference of information can produce

radically different conclusions in the same agent.

The most important thing to state about Subjectivity, is that it isn’t truth, but merely a mindset.

I am sure that concept can be spun in several directions, but I mean Subjectivity in the most true

romantic sense. Subjectivity is thinking to oneself ‘what is the Lion intending,’ and then predicting its

action based on that. Subjectivity is understanding why Isaac Newton spent his days discovering

Alchemy, where-as Objectivity is explaining why Alchemy doesn’t exist. Subjectivity is far more difficult

for us, and is a Sisyphean battle that we eternally wage. As new actors are introduced into our world, we

have to continually recreate their own deductive logic, and then react to how they are in the world from

that.

Subjectivity is the necessity of human interaction, and a man who possesses strong subjective

knowledge are the ones who dominate and comprehend the minds of others; the politician, the priest,

the general, the spy, the executive, the philosopher, and even the economist. And we can state that

someone has a tremendous understanding of ‘finance,’ what we really mean is that someone has a

tremendous understanding how people engage in commercial activity, and can predict

Subjectivity, therefore, can help us predict what people will intend, before doing so. If we

understand how people deduce their world, we are then capable of prompting certain actions in them.

So when we know that a businessman will decide to do something when presented with money, we

subjectively understand how money changes their intent. Likewise, we can understand that if we offer

insufficient money, we can understand what the businessman will deduce in response to such a

response. Far from being abstract, subjectivity is absolutely a basic practice; figuring out how other

people reason within their world allows to work with them.

Therefore, someone with an extremely strong understanding of subjectivity can be even more

successful than most with objective understandings. Think of an advertisement executive, whom uses

his understanding of the American consumer to sell his products. He knows what specifically about an

advertisement convinces people to buy something, and what about an advertisement prevents people

from buying something. If he is successful, his advertisement is capable of manipulating a person into

buying something. If he is unsuccessful, his advertisements fails to understand how his consumers

deduced his advertisement, and therefore his product isn’t bought.

Anyone who has an interest in people needs Subjective knowledge. Each person is a ‘subject,’

and therefore to understand what they will do, we have to first understand how a subject deduces.

Furthermore, people who are disinterested in subjectivity are highly vulnerable to the consequences of

other people, as people are volatile but essential to human life. Education which fails to teach

subjectivity leads to negative consequences for the believers who have poor subjective knowledge.

Consider my peers, whom have been taught subjectivity through post-modernism. Incapable of

explaining their own narcissism and class vulnerable, my peers dwell through life without any purpose or

direction. Post-modernism may accurately explain a world of the mid twentieth century, but nearly a

half century later, it cannot define what people are thinking in its present. This is why people whom

‘study’ a subjective discipline do so poorly; the current regime of subjective knowledge isn’t accurately

predicting what others are thinking within their moments.

Going further, nearly all ‘subjective’ disciplines fall out of favor, as the ‘Geist’ of society changes.

Marxist studies can be useful to understand a world of Capitalism, but when the Soviet Union abolished

Capitalism, it was then useless to study Capitalism in a nation without Capitalism! This is why people in

the 80s had little need to understand Capitalism of the Soviet Union, but paradoxically Capitalism would

be useful to study again when Capitalism returned to Russia.

Or likewise, consider Confucianism. A highly useful way of structuring an agricultural society,

what use did Confucianism have with the advent of Industrialism? How can we understand the

relationship between ‘Worker and Capitalist’ when Confucius was born over two thousand years before

industrialization?

But the real kicker is that all of these great thinkers, Karl Marx, Confucius, and perhaps even

Marcuse, would have a radically different interpretation depending on where they were in history.

People are faithful to ideas which are formulated in the past, but as situations change, the ‘predictive

value’ of ancestors decays over time. This process, known as ‘Subjective decay,’ happens as the Geist of

society changes over time. So as people change, the traditions begin to misunderstand how people are

behaving, and therefore the traditions themselves become a liability.

Subjectivity goes even beyond the ‘manifestos’ though. Whether we are talking about where to

establish the physical location of a store, or how the structure of an economy should be established to

ensure profitability, without subjectivity, we lose the capacity to predict humans (and other things.)

But it goes even farther than this.

There is a tremendous ‘synergy’ that exists between Objectivity and Subjectivity, and we can

then fit them together quite nicely. When things are independent of intent, we can inductively reason

their existence. It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks what Ohm’s law is, Ohm’s law will continue to

operate without their understanding. Likewise, it makes absolutely no sense to discuss how someone

will make a decision through Ohm’s law. Their deductive logic is independent from the properties of

Ohm’s Law, and therefore the decisions that will be made can’t be explained by it. Now, we could in fact

objectively understand human bodies, by monitoring the electrical currents that flow their body. But

even then, those objective forces are still guided by deductive reasoning. It makes as much sense to

understand a person’s reasoning through induction as it does to understand a software’s reasoning

through induction. The physical forces take on a metaphysical component as they deduce their

surroundings and act accordingly. Two men, when presented with a spider, can react in entirely

different ways; one can be excited and physically move around, while the other can be calm and non

emotive. We can monitor their heart rate, because we measure a heartbeat through an inductive

process. But we can’t monitor WHY their heart rise rose at the sight of spiders, unless we first

understand their wiring in their head.

But exactly do we draw the line of Demarcation, and more importantly, when it is drawn, what

would be the implications of this? Let us resolve this question by first posing what happens when the

line of demarcation is unclear.

Imagine if, during the year 2100, all the emeralds of the world changed color from green to

‘grue.’ Meaning, that even though the colors of emeralds were green in the year 2000, by the year 2100,

they suddenly transformed into ‘grue,’ without a moment of warning or explanation. We couldn’t

predict when it happened, yet it did.

Why would this be so strange? Remember, objectivity is information defined with inductive

reasoning. We know all Emeralds are green because we understand that their specific composition gives

them a green hue. So we don’t have to merely ‘deduce’ that Emeralds are green; we can capture light

reflected through them from their wavelengths.

But we also know that other things can change quite rapidly, and can’t be inductively reasoned.

For instance, we can observe all Swans are White, but find a Black Swan in Australia. Or we can assume

that no person has blue skin, and then find someone who in fact does have blue skin! Or we can even

assume that since Queen Elizabeth is the reigning monarch, she will be for the rest of time! After all, if

emeralds have been green throughout history, then Queen Elizabeth should remain Queen throughout

history as well! Both are inductively reasoned, even if they sound absolutely absurd.

So why are Emeralds green, and not ‘grue?’

‘Grue’ happens when we mix up Objectivity with Subjectivity. When we expect processes of

deduction to be consistent, we lose the capacity to predict, because Subjectivity itself cannot be truthful

without intent. Where-as we can predict the ‘logic of the superstitious,’ we can’t actually use that very

same logic to prove the existence of the supernatural. Predicting how they understand the world is the

goal of subjective reasoning, not actually showing that subjective reasoning is truthful. Notice in the

paradox, the human first has to establish a deductive criteria how and when the physical laws of the

universe would change. And that we can only know that physical laws have changed because we have

deduced a particular criteria of HOW they will change (emeralds turn green) and WHEN they will change

(it is the year 2100.)

Yet we know that Emeralds are objectively green because we can observe how the wavelength

of light changes. We can even objectively know WHO can see the color of Emeralds, by observing the

construction of the eye and seeing if it is capable of observing Green. Therefore, what we cannot do is

deduce that Emeralds will change their colors, because the color of emeralds exists without our intent,

because we have shown for it to be inductively reasoned. And since it has been inductively reasoned,

and consistent with science, any form of qualification or deductive has become irrelevant.

Therefore, it doesn’t matter what year we establish for Emeralds to turn ‘Grue,’ because our

intent is irrelevant to the color of the emeralds in the first place, because the color of emeralds exists

without intent in the first place!

Objectivity operates on induction, so that whatever belief we may have, there cannot be a

deduction which would make an objective fact inconsistent, and therefore all beliefs that contradict

such objectivity are inconsistent. If we deduce that Emeralds will change their color to ‘Grue,’ it is

irrelevant, because Emeralds are objectively green; they are green without our intent. As a result, the

paradox is a nonsensical claim, because we cannot intend to change the color of emeralds, therefore our

‘declaration’ is a meaningless deduction.

Subjectivity, on the other hand, operates on deduction, where-as for every belief we may have,

there can be an infinite number of beliefs which are consistent with our previous beliefs, and could be

equally well-confirmed by our own thoughts. This means we can deduce that emeralds will change their

color to green, for whatever reason we want, because deduction can take any reason. And yet, our

deduction is irrelevant to the color of emeralds, because emeralds will always be green.

Therefore, this means any knowledge acquired by Subjectivity can only be used to predict what

another Subjective state intends. `Its application is in fact extremely limited when taken outside the

context of the ‘Subject.’ So in the case of Swans, we cannot have inductively reason that all Swans must

be white, because we cannot know how the genetic code of Swans will mutate over time. There is an

extreme level of uncertainty about this process, and not telling the difference leads to placing wrong

conclusion.

Therefore, the Line of Demarcation is this.

All inductively proven conclusions take precedence over all deductive conclusion.

But in the absence of an inductive conclusion, deductive conclusions are permissible.

Finally, all deductive conclusions are inevitably unstable, but all objective conclusions

will remain stable.

Within a moment, the distinction between the soft sciences and the hard science disappears.

There are inductive conclusions which exist without are need to deduce them, and there are deductive

conclusions, which require people to deduce them in order for them to exist. Inductive conclusions are

the ‘authentic standard’ to all deductive conclusions, but the problem is that there are things which

cannot categorically be inductively reasoned. And since there are things which cannot rely on inductive

reasoning, we are crippled to resort to deductive reasoning.

Again, the Scientific Method is the greatest invention of all time. But as Revenge of Teleology

will reveal, even Science has its limits. There are something in life which are ‘White Uncertainties’

because inductive reasoning isn’t a possibility to understand and predict. Therefore, there is a state of

permanent uncertainty with deductive reasoning, which is why people absolutely prefer inductive

reasoning over deductive reasoning. And far from being harmless, deductive reasoning can do damage

by removing relevant information from understanding; YET inductive reasoning has the potential to

become obscurantist when deductive reasoning itself is the study.

This has been one of the key points I want to make in Revenge of Teleology. Human thinking is a

deductive logic, so to count the brain by atoms is absolutely silly when the atoms themselves are

arranged to metaphorically deduce reality. In my time, we have a computer program simulate a

computer program inside itself, and in a purely mechanistic sense that would break the minds of

materialism. In fact, one can have a simulation in a simulation in a simulation into infinity, and keep

going down this route. What isn’t relevant is explaining how the specific combination of physical forces

collide with each other. What is relevant is how the relationship BETWEEN the biological molecules

deduces it’s world around us.

Our world consists of black certainties, and white uncertainties.

There are things about our universe which will eternally operate regardless of anyone’s intent.

We understand them through inductive reasoning, and they are objective in themselves. These are the

things that can be predicted. These are black certainties.

Then there are things about our universe which will operate only WITH intent. We understand

them through deductive reasoning, and they are subjective in themselves. They cannot be predicted,

but they can be controlled. These are white uncertainties.

And learning how to control them, sets the foundation of the Teleological method.

Chapter 3-

In this chapter, we are going to be discussing Teleology, or the study of intent. Anything which involves a deductive logic is Teleological, because how a subject deduces its reality will determine what it will do. Therefore, we have a Teleological Knowledge when we predict how a subject responds given its circumstance. Teleology is a very broad discipline, but is absolutely focused only on one measure as it evaluates different topics; Deductive Logic. Furthermore, all Teleological knowledge follows the laws of Objectivity, and anything inductively reasoned contradicts any Teleological knowledge.

The practical study of Teleology, however, is immense. Teleology covers a wide variety of topics, and can help us recognize how subjects deduce, and what will emerge from that deduction. I will cover a number of topics, and what will be revealed is that ‘soft sciences’ are actually ‘teleological sciences,’ but we have yet to examine them with the Teleological method, and therefore we have had a poor history of prediction. In this chapter, we will first discuss all the subjects which relate to Teleology, we will then introduce the concept of Counterfactuals. Then, we will move on to the properties of Subjectivity; Singularity, Volatility, and Relativity.

After that, we will go on to the property of Teleology, which are Subjects, Interventions and Situations, which are the dependent variables of the Teleological method. Finally we will then discuss the properties of Teleology, which are Explanations, Intuitions, and Manipulations, and how we use them as the ‘levers’ to change what subjects do.

And for our conclusion, we will discuss the Teleological Method, and all of the disciplines which

involve Teleology. Although we may find Coding and Economics to be entirely different disciplines, through the Teleological Method, we become capable of uniting them under the ‘Soft Science’ sphere, and bringing consistency that the ‘Soft Sciences’ have yet to achieve. Where-as the Scientific Method was the Geist which taught us objectivity, or deducing our deductive reasoning from objective observation, the Teleological method can enable us to provoke particular deductions in others. Or, put simply, we can convince subjects to do things we want by appealing to their subjective senses, regardless of ‘whatever actually may exist.’ With the Teleological method, one can create a clear sequence of events as to why the deduction was made, by explaining things through ‘reverse’ rather than ‘forward.’ Where-as Science will explain what happens when a physical law does X, Teleology will explain HOW to get subject to do Y. Science is in the business of prediction; Teleology is in the business of control. Because human thinking isn’t fixed, it can be changed. Therefore, the first invention of Teleology, or Language, was the prerequisite of Consciousness itself. We are recreating the Output logs of a human mind, and then figuring out how to get the subject to deduce differently. And by creating the three universal principles of Teleology, or Comprehension, Intuition, and Manipulation, there is a clear and intelligible standard which people can adhere to. Through Teleology, a Coder and an Economist can speak the same language, by building a machine to run a market according to economic principles. Through Teleology, a Sociologist and a Communicator can figure out how to get a society to change in a positive way. Through Teleology, a Biologist and a Psychologist can work together to treat someone who is afflicted with a harmful

behavioral mutation. Teleology does what only the Religions of the world have yet to dream of; to be the God without the superstition. Through unifying the language of deduction, we can then speak about others in a contextually independent way.

To begin with, let us start with the explanation of Counterfacutal. A Counterfactual is deducing what subject is reasoning from his conceptual alternatives. Or, put more simply, it explains WHY people do something, by explaining what they WOULDN’T do. So if we want to know if Bob wants to see an Action or a Romance Movie, we can know, through counterfactuals, that since Bob dislike Romance Movies, he will see the Action movie instead. And in our example, we don’t have to consider that Bob will throw himself in front of car when given the choice between action and romance movies, because it isn’t Counterfactually relevant to Bob’s mind. Counterfactuals are how we deduce what we do, based on comparing information and determining what the Subject through what he focuses on. We need to understand that Counterfactuals lack any kind of ‘physical’ presence, but merely exist as ways the mind deduces how it will respond to its environment. Counterfactuals are entirely subjective processes, and should be independent from any kind of objective reasoning. Counterfactuals are merely how we understand someone’s reasoning, by what they disregard. Because the moment we understand what people are interested in, at the exclusion of all other things, we can then control what they do, by manipulating their interests.

Suppose we took the statement, ‘It is Raining, but I don’t believe it.’ On the surface value, such a statement is absurd. How can one person admit, ‘it is raining,’ and then assert that he doesn’t believe it. More importantly, why does the syntax of this sentence even make sense? How is such a conceptual thought possible, if we assert something, yet deny it all together? If we didn’t ‘believe’ it was raining, then how is it possible that we could even have admitted it was raining in the first place? Because we understand that human minds are deductive processes, and because we understand that humans eliminate information rather than build information, we can make this understandable. When a person states, ‘it is raining, but I don’t believe it,’ what they are really stating is, ‘it is raining, but I won’t’ believe it.’ The word ‘do not’ is a command directed at others, where-as the word, ‘will not’ is a command directed at the self. Therefore, when a person states, ‘it is raining, but I won’t/don’t believe it,’ what they really mean is ‘It is raining and I will deduce as if it wasn’t.’ (Note: It is irrelevant if the correct modal verb is used, but effectively Moore, the philosopher who coined the paradox, describes the same process. If the word ‘do’ is used, it refers to an outside party. “It is raining, but do not believe it.” If the word “will” is used, then it refers to the self. “It is raining, but I will not believe it.”)

Remember. Teleology is a deductive process. So as a human being , when we state ‘It is raining, but I will deny it,’ what we mean is that we are specifically refusing to change our reasoning as if it was raining. Now this is the crucial process here.

When I am going outside, and I need to select what I wear, if I deny the fact that there is rain, then I will dress myself differently than if I acknowledged it was raining. Furthermore, if I believe it will rain, I will dress myself differently, even if it doesn’t rain. So the inverse of Moore’s paradox is also telling. “I think it will rain, but it won’t rain.” In this case, we understand that the person deduces that it will rain, but then openly admits the falsehood of that very possibility. Yet because the person deduces it will rain, his behaviors will change based as if it was raining, even if such deductions are incorrect. “I think it will rain, therefore I will bring my umbrella. But it won’t rain.” In this case, the subject is acting as though it will rain, even though the subject knows that rain won’t actually happen. His deduction is

acting independently and with misconceptions, but nevertheless deductive n reasoning has the possibility of being fallacious.

What’s harder to understand is WHY a subject would purposefully decide to ignore the fact that

it is raining. But there are instances where this has been the case, and even when a person distorts their understanding of objective reality, they nevertheless continue make decisions in it. But when a person does distort his own understanding of objective reality, we have to follow his irrational understanding, if we are going to successfully understand what he will do. But his misconceptions actually don’t inhibit decision making, which is what the Teleological model is designed to understand.

Counterfactuals lacks intrinsic truth. They can be based on truth, they can be false, but more

importantly, they are what push people to make decisions. Counterfactuals are merely the method to which we reason, and therefore are useful for predicting how subjects will respond. Remember, we are talking about Subjective truth. This means we are interested Subjects will do, rather than whether they are right. One of the most crucial tenets of going into the Teleological method is that people will have misconceptions about the world, but we have to suspend our own judgment when their judgments conflicts with ours. Teleology is in the business of predicting what people will do; therefore, we are interested in being accurate in what they do, rather than what they reasoned. This critical difference effectively ‘schisms’ us from the Scientific Method, but at the same time, allows for an inherent consistency which opens up an entire dimension of knowledge.

Counterfactuals are how we deduce what decisions we make, by priotizing relevant and

irrelevant information. What we pay attention to determines what we decide to do. There isn’t any physical law pushing us in this direction. Rather, we are paying attention to a physical reality in different ways, which registers in the brain. Through objective laws, we create subjective processes.

I want to emphasize here at this point that the line of demarcation is always applicable. If we deduce someone will do an action, but we then inductively reason that someone isn’t doing the action, accurate inductive reasoning is always superior. Where-as we can think the salesmen is visiting their mother because of what he is telling us, it becomes irrelevant if there is a video camera showing us that he’s at his mistress’s house. The camera inductively reveals the agent, and therefore our subjective understanding of the man is wrong. There isn’t a debate on this, either. When possible, inductive reasoning is superior. But it’s far less available then we would want, especially because others are intent on preventing us from inductively reasoning their actions. People are quite aware of concealing their acts from inductive reasoning, and more importantly, inductive reasoning is extremely resource intensive. It’s best to use deductive reasoning, or figuring out how subjects respond, but aggressively pursue any chance to inductively reason what subjects does instead.

For instance, we can inductively reason what someone’s poker hand is by counting cards. Alternatively, we can attempt to read their expressions, trying to figure out what their hands are. Yet counting cards, when done right, is nigh infallible, while it is far harder to deductively reason what a person is thinking. At any point in time, we can deduce a relevant and critical piece of information that we needed, thus throwing us off entirely. Yet with cards, we know when we lose count, because when we miss a card, we become aware that a critical piece of information is missing. But we also know that casinos are very likely to make counting cards illegal; so if we can’t count cards, then we are forced to rely on subjectivity to figure out what the man is doing.

The academics whom are uncomfortable with Teleology and Subjectivity will be adept to point out inductive reasoning is the only methodology. Yet there will be a countless set of instances where inductive reasoning isn’t an option. Academics, therefore, cannot have the right to ‘shut down’ what they are uncomfortable with. Instead, they must work to provide their own objective understanding into the debate, instead of using science as obscurantism. I will discuss this in a later chapter, but for now, any proponent of an objective understanding should first bring his evidence, before preventing others from trying to understand.

But Teleology also has a component to it that even moves beyond ‘prediction.’ We can agree

that inductive reasoning is the superior reasoning, but Teleology contains a unique property in itself.

Teleology has a capacity to control the deduction of others, therefore ‘controlling’ the relations of reality through its subjects. Put another way, we can’t reason with the laws of gravity, but we can reason with people. This means we can control them to our needs, where-as it’s a waste of breath trying to change physics through persuasion. As a result, deductive reasoning actually gives us the ability to control the intent of others; this is where the real value of Teleological method is.

Suppose there was an omnipotent supercomputer which could read my thoughts. And let’s say I was presented with the choices of whether I would hit the blue button or the red button. The machine would then announce what button I would hit, and announce the results through a ticker.

But here’s the catch. If it was wrong in its choice, then I, as the human, would win money. Therefore, it would be in my interest to confuse the machine’s choice, where-as the machine will follow through with its programming and try to guess which button I would pick.

After scanning my thoughts, the machine perfectly knows which button I will hit. It makes the announcement through the ticker, thus revealing its choice.

Yet because the machine made the announcement of what button I was going to hit, I now became aware of what the machine thinks I was thinking. And since that was the case, I could now do the opposite choice, despite the fact the machine read my mind earlier about what choice I would have made. So the machine could perfectly predict what choice I would make, but the moment it announced its intention, I could do the opposite choice, thus outsmarting the ‘omnipotent supercomputer.’ Inductive reasoning therefore isn’t necessarily sufficient in manipulating the intention of others.

How is this possible? If a machine can truly read thoughts, then it would know what button I would hit. Yet the moment the machine makes a judgment, I can then ‘retroactively’ change my choice, thus making the entire machine irrelevant to what I decided. How is this possible then, because it seems to undermine cause and effect?

What happens is that the moment an omnipotent supercomputer ‘reveals’ its intent, I, as a human being, become ‘smarter’ than the omnipotent being, because I gain access to more information than the machine would. So whatever information the Supercomputer chose, merely by giving me additional information through its own proclamation, I now gained more power over its omnipotence, because I have greater information to deduce from. Or, put more simply, the moment the computer gave me everything it predicted, I knew then how to usurp its own prediction.

The practical use of Counterfactuals is that it enables us how to usurp the deductive logic of others, and change what they do through understanding their own intentions. If we are aware of how someone reasons, we can then change what we do through Manipulation. So, in the computer’s case, when it revealed its own prediction, it manipulated me to do the opposite choice. By revealing additional information, my mind was able to change what it deduced, therefore undermining the omnipotence of the supercomputer.

Therefore, if I want to get people to buy cars, animals to eat their food, political speeches to be persuasive, or even to understand how machines reason, I have to have a strong grasp of Teleological knowledge in order to do so. I have to figure out how people construct their intentions, intuit what people are presently deducing, and then manipulate them using the right forms of Manipulation. But in order to get toward the Teleological method, we first have to break up the three core components of a Teleology; Singularity, Volatility, and Relativity.

In the second part of this chapter, we are going to discuss the three properties of Teleology; Singularity, Volatility, and Relativity. These properties are self-evident, because all three involve components of deductions. Yet all three of these properties are rather intangible, and are only represented in a metaphorical sense. Just as it takes millions and millions of electrons to simulate a dozen electrons with a program, we have millions and millions of nerve cells to metaphorically represent the properties of an electron shell. There is information lost with a simulation within reality, and therefore that is why we cannot holistically understand reality.

The first component of a Teleology is that it is a Singularity; but not in the sense of a ‘technological rapture’ that some of my contemporaries have described. Rather, Teleologies are Singularities because they bare no relation to each other. There isn’t anything ‘uniform’ about a specific Teleology, which can be inherently applicable to other Teleologies. Rather, we must understand subjects as unique deductive constructs in themselves, and avoid bringing expectations between subjects.

Where-as we can find that subjects can be very similar in their reasoning, we cannot then

inductively reason how they will be similar. Rather, we must define the subject as the agent(s) which is deducing, and learn to separate them from other deductive processes. Subjectivity lacks intrinsic truth, and therefore can be constructed without truth.

Interestingly, Computer Software can be placed in multiple machines, and operate absolutely consistently between different hardware across time and space. Yet when we talk about Subjectivity, we talk about the subject’s deductive logic, not its objective reality. Who cares how many machines our computer program is on, because that objective bearing doesn’t contradict our subjective understanding of the code itself! Put another way, the version of the software is more important than the actual existence of the computer.

So it is irrelevant to us objectively the location of what machine the software is on, so long as it doesn’t conflict with subjective understanding. A perfect example is that we can know someone is wearing sneakers on their shoes, but that doesn’t conflict with the idea that they aren’t interesting in running. Objectivity has nothing to say about Subjectivity, unless inductive reasoning contradicts a subjective premise, therefore undermining subjectivity itself.

But what we ALSO need to understand is that code on machine doesn’t have an inherent relationship with software on other machines. And this is where the ‘Singularity’ nature of a Teleology

comes in. We cannot inductively leap from coding language to coding language, merely because they are on the same machine. Likewise, we cannot leap and assume that two twins have the same thinking processes, because they objectively share the same DNA. And we cannot even assume that DNA which are only separated by one allele will actually yield a human being; there could very well be one mutation which radically changes the structure of person so much, that they don’t even survive to term. Therefore, we need to be prepared to treat each Subject as a unique case, because subjectivity by definition is relative.

Yet even though each subject lacks any relation to another, subjectivity itself cannot ‘override’

objectivity. Two twins who think they are biologically different are genetically the same, regardless of however they deduce their ‘differences.’ -

Going one step farther subjects can change their deductive logic across time and space. This is crucial, because we cannot assume how an agent is now will be how an agent reasons later. We have to radically redefine our expectations of how people deduce their reality, so that we are capable of predicting their actions.

This property is known as Volatility, or the idea that deductive logic isn’t inherently stable. Granted, it can BE stable. Someone’s DNA when measured across time can be quite stable for a long period of time. But there isn’t anything inherent about that stability, which is why human beings age across time. Therefore, we are in a volatile environment because at any moment in time, we can expect the deductive logic of an agent radically change. We have to be flexible in this regard, and it’s why Objectivity has been far easier to keep its gains.

The most important feature of Teleologies that they establish their own relationships. Physical

laws are hard and constant relationships. But a person's mind is flexible, and can reestablish its own relationship across time. This means that any gains from Teleology are extremely fleeting. Like fashion, we have to exhaustively reintrepret human intents accurately. Comparatively, it is also an exhaustive process keeping track of evolution, because how a species was isn't eternal across time.

Finally, we need to understand that subjectivity, by definition, involves a lack of intrinsic truth. We are in the business of predicting what people do, and people will do things based on misconceptions. For instance, we know that a Christian Scientist will refuse medicine, for his belief in prayer. Therefore, if we wanted to subjectively understand why a Christian Scientist would refuse medicine, he should examine the book Science and Health to begin understanding of what Christian Science is about. Alternatively, we may also find out that the Explanations of the Subject have nothing to do with the actual doctrine of the text, but merely the subject is looking at his pastor to determine the consequences.

The point however, is that all subjective reasoning is relative, or dependent on the mind of the subject. The subject can assign the relations as they understand the world, independent from reality itself. Therefore, when we go into understanding subjectivity, we intend to ensure that we are only PREDICTING what the subject will do. We aren’t ‘checking’ whether the subject is correct or incorrect; inductive reasoning is far more effective for that task. We are merely understanding how the subject deduces their world, so that we can manipulate what they do through Manipulation.

So now that we understand the Teleology consists of Singularity (deductive logic is unique to itself), Volatility (deductive logic can change across time and space), and relativity (deductive logics lacks an intrinsic truth,) we can then move toward expressing the Teleological method.

The Teleological Method is a process which can be applied to subjects, predicting what they will do, and figuring out how to change what they will do. The Teleological method standardizes Teleologies, so that we can a context independent way of understanding what people will do, and how we can change what they will do. In this third part, we will go over the components of the Teleological method, how the Teleological method is structured, and what applications the Teleological method could be used for.

The components of the Teleological method are

Subject: The ‘Independent Variable’ which makes the decision

Situation: What the ‘context’ the subject is involved it

Intervention: An alternate choice we want the subject do

Explanation: How the Subject relates information it deduces

Intuition: How to understand what the Subject is deducing in a specific moment

Manipulations: How to present new information to change how the Subject Deduces Therefore, the Teleological method exists to get Subjects to make specific decisions, through its core components. It is structured to be instructional, empirical, and universal. Together, these components form a packet known as ‘instruction,’ which enables the person to understand what he needs to do to deal with other subjects. When the subject becomes aware of ‘instructions,’ he is effectively gaining heightened awareness over the subject.

Referring to our earlier example, when a person is aware of how the Supercomputer thinks, he can then leverage that advantage to be more aware. Furthermore, it is also possible to apply this process to a number of processes, by understanding what the critical variables and then making the best possible Manipulations to get them to deduce toward our advantage.

Let us break down the Teleological Method further, so that we can understand the core components of Teleological reasoning. Once this process is established, we can then become capable of applying this language to change the reasoning of subjects, in order to achieve intended results from them.

In this part, we will cover the subject, the intervention, and the situation. After we cover those

three parts, we will break down our tools of understanding the subject; explanation, intuition, and Manipulation. Finally after we understand all these pieces, we will understand how the Teleological method gives us instruction, or a specific set of observations about the teleological understanding of others.

The first and most core component to the Teleological method is the subject. A subject is a deductive process, and can potentially cover a variety of forms. Although we can imagine that humans and machines deduce, markets, genes, and even entire nations deduce as well. One can easily look at an ant hive, and see how it responds to certain situations, and then compare those results to a nation.

Furthermore, both a human army and an insect colony both operate with a predictable and deductive logic on a large scale, even if the human army and insect colony lack a ‘conscious’ logic of its own.

This is an important break we need to make when we understand subjectivity. There are subjective processes that happen which occur beyond our own consciousness, and millions of people working independently can collectively create a coherent logic, through their own self-interest. Therefore, we can assume that an extremely large nation, such as China, can actually possess a deductive logic and therefore be a subject of study. And just as we can manipulate an environment to provoke a powerfully different response in ants, we can likewise to the same with an entire race, merely by providing a certain stimulus. Even simply removing a traffic sign can create a series of changes within traffic, thus creating a new set of logic among independent agents. Remember, a subject isn’t a process of consciousness; rather our consciousness is how we deduce. Other subjects deduce in different ways, and we need to understand that subjectivity for us is deduction, not consciousness.

Whenever we are engaging in Teleology. need to clearly define the ‘subject’ first, before we describe its teleos. For abstract processes, a Subject can be tricky to define, because unlike consciousness, groups of people like stock traders or protest crowds can have a very permeable definition. Nevertheless, it is on the burden of the teleologist to determine where the scope of the subject begins and ends. And as long as the subject is ‘relevant’ to the person predicting an action, then that is where the relationship is drawn. Although it is also important to know that a subject which is defined too irregularly cannot inherently be manipulated, so the process of an ‘irrelevant’ categorization is more obscure than we may think it is. The moment we define a subject to include unrelated things, are predictive models get so distorted that the model collapses, and we go back to the drawing board. As long as we are expecting our Teleological method to change how others respond, we will be attentive when our subjects are defined incorrectly, because unrelated components of a subject will distort the model. A person who poorly defines relavent subjects will invent 'epicycles,' just as any failed model would.

Once the subject is defined, we then need to define an intervention, or a specific decision that we want the person to make. Alternatively, we can do a prediction, and figure out what a perosn would do given a cirucmstance. We cannot do both at once in most cases, however, because of the non-reliability of people. For instance, we cannot give a person a presentation, ‘reverse’ the Manipulation as if the presentation never happened, and then show a different presentation. But for a computer program or a gene, we could do the same process multiple times, because those processes aren’t volatile; they software code and genes can BE stable, even if they aren't NECESSARILY stable. (Physical laws cannot change in experimentation, where-as the laws of software and gens can.)

Nevertheless, there may be an instance where we would want to take a passive role, through a prediction. A prediction is predicting how a subject will respond with its deduction, when given a specific situation. Alternatively, an intervention is attempting to get a subject to make a particular deduction, by manipulating the subject in a certain way. So when we have a gene in an organism and we want to ‘turn it on,’ we can use Manipulationto have the organisms deduce to engage in different biological processes; turning on insulin susceptibility, for instance.

Now, for most people, we are interested in doing interventions; figuring out to get subjects to respond the way we want. However, predictions are absolutely necessary, albeit for information gathering. Yet with people, because they are a singularity, they volatile, and their thinking is relative, it’s

nigh-impossible to take the same subject twice and simultaneously predict one result while intervening to get another. This is how the ‘observers’ paradox can manifest itself.

So when we are observing whether or not lighting improves productivity, our mere presence can undermine our own prediction, because our physical intervention in the factory itself distorts how a subject deduces. Although we may want to understand if lighting improves productivity, productivity actually rises when workers watch us, independent of lighting itself; the mere act of taking notes on workers ‘overrides’ any deductive process with lighting. So with minds, we either have to be ‘invisible’ and therefore we must refrain from intervention, or we can be present, but bias our own research and force ourselves to merely document our intervention. It’s this dual dichotomy which can make things very difficult.

But why would we even need to bother with ‘intervention?’ Why can’t we use inductive reasoning, statistically document the outcomes of a population, and then demonstrate our result is repeatable, reliable, and valid?

Firstly, we are only describing the proportions of what people have done. But without explanation, we lack the axiomatic property in knowledge. Meaning, we cannot explain what and why people do what they do. All we get from blind trial documentation is a mere case of events, without any predictive component to it.

Secondly, It is because of the fact that intervention is inherently how we ‘assure’ deductive logic. By using intervention, we are FAR more likely to get the outcomes we want, then merely relying on predicting the results of people. Take something as simple as ‘priming.’ Rather than ‘priming’ being a problem for studying, imagine if we could use ‘priming’ to encourage recycling? Or instead of doing an experiment and having people behave in an overly honest way, how about we figure out WHAT makes people behave in an overly honest way, and then teach THAT method instead? Instead of doing experimentation to try and predict what people will do, how about we attempt to skew the curve as far as we can in one direction, and then teach others how to skew the curve? Screw the academics whom are passive, there is tremendous potential in figuring out fireproof methods in getting people to do certain things. But is such a thing really practical? Can we break out from an independent understanding, and instead force ourselves to be the instrument instead of the measurer? Unlike science, the goal of Teleology is to tilt the scales in our measures, and figuring out how to bias a result for what we want, regardless of the subject or situation. Let me give an example of what I mean. If we present people with three choices, we aren’t very likely to inductively know what choice they are going to make. Regardless of how much science is thrown at those three choices, the Scientific Method will inherently fail to reveal what choice people make. Instead, it will merely give us the odds of each of those three choices, and nothing more than that. But if I changed my responses so that people can choose choice 2, I can increase my odds of them doing so regardless of whoever they are. Yet under this intervention, I bias my results in a scientific experiment, but I am also MORE accurate than inductive reasoning. For one person, I can give

a reason for a person to choose choice 2, and for another person, I can give the opposite reason to make that choice as well. Therefore, when I am aware of how someone is deducing, I can create a unique signature to cause them to change their choice. Unlike traditional science, teleology invents fictions to create the outcomes it wants. Therefore, it is easier to make a future than it is to predict it. Since people are inherently deductive agents, we know that there are certain values which will influence their decision making, and therefore whatever we influence, we are controlling. This is what needs to be emphasized; the rules of science are fixed, but people will change their rules in flux. As I change the environment, I change how the person deduces, therefore once I know what the deductive reasoning of someone is, THEN I can control the situation to my advantage. All of the ‘promises’ of determinism are realized when I unconditionally accept the human as an agent with a will. So as I am observing and understanding how subject exists in the world, I then become capable of manipulating the situation until the subject operates in the way that I want it to. And unlike inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning provides the promise of determinism, through interactively changing my responses as the subjects reasoning changes as well. So if I discover that the subject has already made up his mind with choice 3, I can then provide new Manipulations that will change the subjects choice. In a purely scientific model, we understand that the subject only chooses choice 3, but in a teleological method, I have a variety of tools to get people to change their mind. So for a car salesmen whom is interested in selling a car, I imagine the Teleological method offers something entire tangible and practical for his discipline. I am also aware that we can establish entire workshops which involve documenting how to get people to deduce that they need a car. Teleology is something that is already practiced, but is entirely absent among the Western Intellectual community. It is as if we are Medieval theologians whom are ignorant of science. They did practice inductive reasoning on an informal basis, but there isn't a method to formalize it. Yet once we define the subject, we must then define the situation, or the context that the person is deducing in. One person can respond an inconceivable amount of different ways to different situations. Nevertheless, is the subject is the ‘being,’ the situation is the time and space the subject exists in. On face value, its simple to understand the situation. We know of a situation because we describe where the subject was and what was going on when we coversed with the subject. But the technical definition is a little more ‘tricky.’ A situation is where the subject exists in Time and Space. When we talk about a situations ‘time,’ what we refer to is specifically what the subject knew at the moment we engaged in Manipulation with the being. Where-as a subject across time changes dramatically, it is because at each moment, a subject is only conscious of a certain category of information. So if we talk to a subject about his wife, he may say one thing, but if we talk to a subject five years later about his new ‘ex-wife,’ he may think different things. Time is relevant for Teleology because as the mind exists, it reforms itself in different ways. This is why we can’t simply do the same experiment repetitively to a person, and get the same result over and over again. Again, with software, we CAN do this for most code, but be aware that software has the possibility of changing over time, so inductive reasoning cannot help us if we assume that software must be stagnant.

Additionally, we have to be aware of ‘Space,’ which is the objective forces of reality. Regardless if someone believes they are located in a physical plane, there are in fact objective components of reality which enable us to deduce our surroundings. Without the concept of ‘Space,’ it’s impossible to actually deduce at all, because deduction is only possible when there is an intrinsic reality which enables us to do so. But in terms of the Teleological Method, its just important to pay attention where the subject is, and what objectively is happening. So if a subject is out cold in the rain, its important to document that it is raining, and then also document that the subject is refusing to believe it is raining. Likewise, if the subject ‘looks’ physically unhealthy, such as elevated blood pressure or sweating, it’s important to document this as well, despite whatever the hell the subject may be thinking in his head. So we can see the need to administer medicine, while at the same time understanding the subject is stating that he is healthy. It’s this dichotomy between subjectivity and objectivity which can exist if we remember the following. There are objective truths which cannot be contradicted by subjective reasoning. But there also subjective reasons why people do the things they do. Just pay attention to the subjective reasoning of others, and we can predict what they do, while making sure to keep in touch with ‘objective reality.’ Therefore, though Teleological interventions, there are three primary factors which we need to understand for our interventions to be successful; Explanations, Intuitions, and Manipulations. If we are successful with all three concepts, we can take a subject, and then get them to change their response to something we desire. Furthermore, with the Teleological Method, we can standardize the processes to how we engage in interventions, by speaking the same terminology. Explanations is understanding how the deductive logic of subjects work. Put another way, it is the ‘reasoning’ that people make their decisions based on. Since know such reasoning is ‘subjective,’ however, our goal is to merely unconditionally understand. We can in fact show that the beliefs of people are wrong, but it does nothing for us to understand how they will respond. Remember, a subjective truth is a truth with intent; the fact that someone believes something, makes it subjectively true. And if we don’t understand what a subject believes, then we can be subjectively false, because there is a discrepancy between our predictions and what the person is actually thinking. Notably, it is possible to be objectively true and subjectively false. We may know of the existence of evolution, but if we assume that a fundamentalist creationist must believe in evolution from fossil evidence, then we can wrong in understanding the creationist. So in this case, we know of the objective truth of creationism, but we are also subjectively incorrect about the creationist himself, and fossil evidence doesn’t dissuade him. There are a minority of people whom won’t cognitively be capable of understanding that we need to separate what we know to be true, from what we believe others will do. The best response in this case is to ignore them. But if we are going to have a powerful impact over people whom are different than us, we need to be prepared that the minds ‘of the other’ can be quite different, and that includes working misconceptions they are unaware about. (Paradoxically, the truly gifted will understand their own misconceptions, and will mimic the logic of others to prevent themselves from failing, without necessarily understanding why their own misconceptions are ineffective. This is one of the crucial side effects I have ‘learned’ from the Teleological method, where one mimics the identities of others without understanding why things change more positively)

Once we understand the explanations of people, we can then begin to figure out the motives as to why people do what they do. And once we are aware of how people construct their motives, we can then communicate information to people, and then change their motives to what we want for our intervention. Put another way, since people are only conscious of a limited set of information, changing what people are conscious of can change what they decide to do, based on their information. And, more tellingly, coding is to machines as Manipulation is to people. I will now construct a parallel process to explain how a salesmen, a computer programmer, and an economist, are all in fact the same process. In the beginning, a salesmen/programmer/economist has a specific intervention they desire from the subject. In this case, the salesmen/programmer/economist, wants his subject, which is a potential customer/software code/the market for corn, to purchase a car/document a set of variables/lower the price of corn. Furthermore, the salesmen/programmer/economist is attentive to the situation, and in this situation, the potential customer/software code/the market for corn, is nervous about down payment/caught in a do loop/raising prices from a poor harvest. Now, we know that the subject will respond in a way that we don’t want, but if we do an intervention, we can change what the subject does, and therefore get what we want. In this case by, negotiating a financing plan/correcting my software language/providing subsidies, we can sell a car/get out of a do loop/have corn sold at a lower price. Thus, through the magic of Teleology is, we are aware of what the deductive logic is, and what Manipulations are necessary to change the response of the potential customer/the software code/the market for corn. Again, consciousness isn’t our threshold for Teleology; deductive reasoning, or subjectivity, is the threshold for Teleology. If something is deducing, it is teleological. Therefore, we want to pay attention to the Rationalities of all subjectivities, so that we can predict what they are reasoning, in order to change that very reasoning. But changing reasoning involves more than just ‘objective facts;’ in fact, objective facts actually have little to do with how a person reasons. Telling the truth may actually provoke the opposite response we want in someone, because they are drawing different conclusions from that very truth! Objectivity should only be noted for ourselves, but in actual Manipulation, objectivity can be a hindrance if recklessly invoked. Put another way, quietly think to yourself that the world isn’t six thousand years old, before talking to a Christian Scientist about the necessity of modern medicine. Intuition and Manipulation, however, are strange creatures, in that they are measures of performance IQ, as opposed to verbal IQ. Where-as nearly all of information is an actual product of verbal reasoning, reading the nonverbal body language of a person or figuring out how to control tone-of-voice is a product of performance. Using effective Manipulation is akin to wielding a scalpel with persuasion, rather than verbally naming all of the bones in the body. In other words, intuition and Manipulation are akin to ‘muscle memory’ rather than study, and this is where things take a turn for the feminine. Intuition is the process of understanding what deductive logic is occurring at any moment. When a person is capable of understanding what someone is thinking, through their facial expressions or by observing a pattern of numbers, they can determine what the subject is reasoning at any given

moment. Comparatively, the explanation of a subject may be understanding how a person relates to things, intuition is what enables us to understand what a person is rationalizing at any given moment. Intuition is a direct product of understanding a subject in time and space. It is about deducing the situation at any given moment, and determining where the subject should pay attention toward. So a person with a strong grasp of intuition understands where the subject is in time, and understands what is going around the subject’s space. For instance, a detective with intuition could recognize the subject is nervous, without actually knowing why. Because the detective understands how the subject is responding within his moment, the detective can then perceive there is something to be nervous about. Comparatively, explanation is understanding how the subject is relating reality. So when a suspect starts lying at a given moment, understanding how he’s lying serves as the explanation, while understanding that the subject is nervous is intuition. Finding a smoking gun, however, is objective, because once forensics establishes a direct connection to the suspect, teleology becomes irrelevant. Yet we aren’t always so lucky to find objective evidence so quickly, and detectives have to rely on deductive reasoning first, before they can wind up finding objective evidence. But intuition isn’t always relevant in teleology and this is the kicker. For instance, we can recognize what a computer code is doing at any given time, and we don’t have to possess any ‘intuitive’ understanding as to what the machine is doing. The code is straight forward, obvious, and clear. There isn’t any subtlety to this process, and intuition doesn’t provide much support for us. On the other side, it’s good to know when someone is upset, even when we cannot describe why they are upset. We can look at their body language, such as a false smile or sulked shoulders, and determine that the subject is feeling tremendously upset about something. What we can’t do then is inductively reason why that person would be upset at all. We lack the explanation necessary to determine what someone’s motive is. But! By understanding that the subject is feeling a certain way about something, it tells us that the subject is deducing in a stressful manner, although we may not specifically know what that may be. Put another way, explanation is understanding WHY things happen, while intuition is WHAT examining things are happening; explanation is understanding WHY a subject would be angry, while rationalization is understanding IF the subject is angry. So we can understand why someone would be angry, but fail to realize they are angry. Or, we can ‘know’ someone is angry, but totally fail to explain why that subject is angry. Intuition and explanation are different variables in themselves.

Yet Intuition isn’t always applicable. Coders and economists, for instance, whom may lack the ability to read people, aren’t inhibited by a code which is transparent and absolutistic. And on the other side, a person whom is highly skilled at reading people, may know nothing about how to read the software language of Ruby nor know how to construct supply and demand curves. For another example, consider two people, a skilled person who can’t speak Spanish, and an unskilled person who can speak Spanish. Where-as the skilled person may be able to intuitively nonverbally read what a subject is thinking, the unskilled person can actually verbally communicate with the subject, and can explain specifically what the subject is deducing. Keeping explanation from intuition is a necessity, but it’s rarely controversial in practice, as we do so subconsciously regardless.

Once we have intuition, or understanding WHAT the subject is deducing at any moment, and explanation, WHY the subject is deducing what he is, we can then commit to Manipulation, or changing what the subject is deducing to get the results we want.

For instance, if we have a high profile enemy combatant, and we need to know information that he possesses, we can very accurately predict that he won’t communicate anything to us. So inductive reasoning becomes meaningless in this instance, because even though it can predict such a case, the result is inherently useless to us. This is also why science is so useless when dealing with people; science exists to discover physical forces that outside human conception. But when we are dealing with human conception itself, why should we limit ourselves to something that is only designed to remove human conception? It’s just autistic madness.

With the enemy combatant, we can first understand that who the subject is, what the situation is (the time before his capture, and the situation within his surroundings.) We can then use intuition to understand what the subject is deducing within any given moment, and we can also use explanation to figure out why the subject is hiding information from us, and how the subject hides its information. Granted, if we find a document which was written before his capture, and contained all his secrets, that would be great! That’s a clear case of objective reasoning, applied through an inductive method. But people aren’t stupid. They know this. They work very hard to conceal any objective evidence of their actions, and in reality, we don’t always have this option. Academia may be uncomfortable with this reality, but people on the field need to practice Teleology because they are short resources.

Now. If we are successfully intuitively reading the subject, and we are also successfully explaining why the subject is doing what he does, we can then provide a series of Manipulations which allow us to discover the subject to reveal information. And this is where the payoff becomes relevant. Manipulation is the process of changing how someone deduces through providing new information. Or put simply, getting someone to do something else by giving them motive. So for software, we communicate to machines by changing their code so that they deduce differently. For markets, we change the supply and demand of goods by altering their prices. For people, we change what they do by speaking with them and getting them to consider something else. For genes, we change what they do by altering the composition of their alleles or subjecting the same genes to different environments (referring back to time and space.) For vehicular, we change how they respond by placing signs up or paving new roads. Whenever there is a deductive process emerging, it is potentially possible to communicate with that process, thus changing how the deductive processes unfolds.

Therefore, we aren’t interesting in predicting subjects, we are interesting in manipulating subjects. We want to bias the scales in our favor, specifically through our own peculiar intervention. Like the supercomputer which undermined itself despite being omnipotent, we want to understand that there is more to reality than merely objectivity. Figuring out what to state and how to get people to believe it is the ultimate trick that has been rediscovered and forgotten across history. And since we know that subjects deduce, we can understand how they deduce through an explanation, and we can know what they are deducing at any moment through intuition. And when we have intuition and explanation, then we can know what to do, in order to get them to get subjects to do what we want.

Like intuition, Manipulation is a performance art, but where-as intuition is listening, Manipulation is speaking. It involves communicating messages successfully based on the assumption that our intuition is accurate. So the advertisement executive may intuitively know what his customers

want to hear, he also has to shoot the commercial, and this process is achieved through Manipulation. Figuring out how to position the scenery, how to edit the footage, how to direct the actors, what actors to cast, and even what timeslot to choose is the art of the Manipulation.

Manipulation is just as isolated from intuition as both are from explanation; all three components are unrelated skill sets in themselves. We get explanations by understanding the framework of man’s society, and understanding the rationalities of his decisions. We get intuition through learning how to read a subject when he is deducing at any given moment. And we get Manipulation through the art of performance, or controlling ourselves to present the correct information at any given time.

Manipulation itself cannot be explained, but rather practiced. Furthermore, delivering Manipulation takes experience more-so than reasoning. Even something such as writing code or manipulating equipment in the lab is a process of familiarity. Nevertheless, Manipulation can also be assessed for competence from others. We can state that someone knows how to deliver public speaking because they have accolades, or someone is familiar with coding because they passed an exam.

Manipulation and explanation are inherent parts of teleology, where-as intuition itself is relevant depending on the subject. Again, when we are writing down code, we are communicating with the machine because we are changing how it deduces by manipulating its information. And when we want to understand the machine, we are using explanation as a method to know why the software does, or doesn’t, operate as we desire.

Intuition however remains only relevant in certain contexts. So when we are looking at a patient which has a rash, intuition is figuring out specifically what that rash signifies, while ‘manipulation’ would be administering the medicine. Explanation, meanwhile, is understanding how such a medicine would change the patient (for good or ill.) And although we objectively can know what a medicine consists of, because each patient is different (with a different genetic code and different patient history,) we still have to ‘observe’ how the patient responds to treatment.

We can be extremely rigid about demanding medicine and genetics to be products of science, but the moment lives are on the line, there is a ‘magical’ sense of uncertainty that emerges from those very same people. We cannot assume that a fixed solution will respond identically to each human, because each human is a unique composition of deductive logic across time and space. We can, however, assert how a fixed solution will react to another fixed solution. This is why chemistry can be so simply, but ‘biochemisty’ winds up excruciatingly difficult. We have to explain the ‘logic’ of the biological cells before we can figure out how they would potentially respond to certain treatments; and even then, we have to be aware that certain contexts can entirely throw away our understanding.

Putting it all together, the Teleological method isn’t complicated, but specifying its components can be a little tricky. We take a subject and we intervene to get him to respond in a certain way. We do this through understanding him with explanations (through Counterfactuals,) discovering what he thinks through motivations, and then communicate with him to get him to change in a certain way. We also know that subjects are any processes which involve deductive logic, rather than consciousness, and we also know that subjects themselves are unique. They are volatile, in that their responses can changer. They are singuliar, in that they are a unique composition which cannot inference other subjects. And they are relative, which means that their isn’t any inherent truth about their logic, and they are capable of having misconceptions.

Finally, we need to be aware of Situation, or Time and Space. The ‘time’ of a subject is what the

subject has experienced up until this point, and the ‘space’ of a subject is the environment where the subject is responding to. Intuition is interpreting both of these results successfully, but certain teleologies are situation independent.

-----

From this method, we can immediately move on to practical explanation, with anything

involving deduction. We have a concise, clear, and contextually-independent terminology for subjectivity. With this method, we are free from autistic analytics philosophers, whom reject deduction, and we are free from post-modern charlatans, whom change their terms without investment in truth. These terms also allow us to connect subjectivities across disciplines, because they are universal to deduction, as opposed to being particular in a field. In effect, the Teleology becomes the ‘lingua franca’ that I hope can liberate subjectivity from the tyranny of obscurantism.

Chapter 4

In this chapter, we cover knowledge and learning. In the first part, we will discuss knowledge, by

examining it’s properties. There are three properties of knowledge, which by themselves fail to account

for knowledge, but together create the property of knowledge in itself.

But first, we need to briefly remind ourselves that humans are deductive agents. ‘Thoughts’

aren’t actually real things, but merely metaphysical representations of our reality. Therefore, when one

is thinking, one is actually metaphysically reconstructing reality, through a correspondence between the

real world, and the deductive logic which exists in our head.

Put simply, our minds ‘track’ reality inside our skulls, but because they are metaphysical

simulations, they are imperfect and contradict reality. But when there is an accurate correspondence

between our minds and reality, then knowledge is achieved.

For example, when a computer software is calculating the trajectory of a meteorite, and the

meteorite actually travels the distance of the calculation, then the computer has ‘knowledge;’ its

deductive logic is identical to that of reality. However! There isn’t actually a ‘miniature cosmos’ inside

the machine; the computer isn’t manipulating a universe to recreate the result. Rather, there is a

metaphysical correspondence happening, where the binary code of ones and zeros has a synchronous

logic with reality itself. And because there isn’t a discrepancy between reality and the deductive logic of

the machine, knowledge is achieved.

Knowledge is awareness of reality without contradiction. (Remember. Reality itself is existence

independent of our deduction.) Knowledge is deducing a series of relationships about reality that are

identical with reality. We ‘know’ something when what we describe is indistinguishable from what

reality actually is. So when we are claiming knowledge, we are attempting to mirror our world in a literal

sense. The moment there is a distinction between our conception and reality, we fail to have

knowledge.

Going father, we can also know things about reality which exist beyond time and space. We can

predict the orbit of Jupiter in the future, despite Jupiter currently existing in the past. This is because our

deductive logic is identical with the objective forces which move Jupiter, and therefore we can predict

where Jupiter will be without being limited by time and space.

Furthermore, we can also have knowledge about subjective agents as well. For instance, when

we describe the intention of a criminal, and that happened to be the case, we can then call that

knowledge. There isn’t a distinction between our own deductive logic and the deductive logic of the

criminal itself. And because our two conceptions are identical about the criminal motive, we then ‘know’

the motive of the crime.

Objective and subjective knowledge are quite real, but their mechanism is different. Objectivity

is a static force which can be inductively reasoned through science. Subjectivity is a dynamic force which

can be deductively reasoned through teleology. But in both instances, it is possible to produce an

identical set of relationships compared with actual reality itself. We can identically reproduce the

physical location of where a person was, for instance, using tracking devices. And by reproducing their

walking history, we are synchronous with reality, and therefore we possess knowledge from that lack of

distinction.

However, whenever there is a discrepancy between how we relate things, and what actually

happened in reality, we have failed to achieve knowledge, because there was a contradiction. So when

we state that the pharmacy is on baker’s street, but such a pharmacy is no longer there, we have in fact

failed to have knowledge. Now, in this case, ‘pharmacy’ is a subjective term, which is a place where

people intend to sell medicine. Notice that we can document intentions. We can walk up to a pharmacy,

demand medicine, and then be given such medicine. Because this process has a relationship with reality,

and there is a lack of distinction between my description of a pharmacy and the physical pharmacy with

people, I have knowledge.

Even the most abstract concepts are actually grounded in total reality. We can for instance

interpret that War and Peace is really about a foot fetish, but unless Leo Tolsty specifically intended War

and Peace about feet, then that doesn’t count as knowledge. The problem here isn’t actually knowledge,

but rather a misunderstanding of subjectivity. Remember, subjectivity is reproducing the intents of

subjects. When we interpret ‘hidden meanings’ in works, we do so because the author’s intent was

demonstrated in the work. The subject exists outside of ourselves, and therefore must be predicted.

What is hard to grasp about knowledge, however, is that we have a finite capacity to explain

things, before our deductive logic departs from reality itself. Put another way, we can follow the

universe up to a point, before a misconception emerges which exists as the ‘point of departure.’ So I can

predict that people at the pharmacy on baker’s street will sell medicine, I can’t predict that the

pharmacy burned down yesterday. Yet if I suddenly became aware that the pharmacy burned down, I

could then change my understanding so that it would be identical to reality. I could state, ‘the pharmacy

burned down,’ because I became aware of how reality changed, and ‘updated’ my deductive

explanation of reality.

What’s even harder to grasp about reality is that our deductive logic is merely metaphysical. It is

electric wiring which ‘stands’ in for reality metaphorically. We have nerve cells clustered in our head

which reproduce the orbit of Jupiter, but this is hard to fully comprehend, because it exists outside of

‘physical reality.’ The physical reality of our minds is a neural network which stands in to simulate the

relationships of reality, but the neural network itself also operates on physical laws independently of

itself. It’s like a computer; the hardware obeys the physical laws of reality, but the software exists to

metaphorically represent reality unrelated to the physical reality inside the hardware.

Therefore, our metaphysical properties is what enables knowledge, because it can produce a

deductive logic beyond what is physically going inside itself. Just as a map of London documents the

entire physical geography of the city, we also know that the map of London isn’t actually the physical

location of London, but its own drawings translate into the actual physical reality of London. We can

look down on the map, deduce the terrain, and then correspond the map’s logic with something in

reality.

But maps can be wrong. And this is where the critical point lies.

All knowledge has a ‘resolution limit.’ Just like how human eyes can only see pixels up to a

certain point, before it loses the capacity to tell the difference, our minds can only represent

relationships up to a certain point, before it loses the capacity to deduce accurately. Think of a security

camera. Notice, in this instance, that the camera can only document a certain amount of information

(light) up to a certain point. Eventually, the camera cannot increase its resolution. Therefore, the camera

fails to document what is happening, because its metaphysical ability to capture its surroundings is

limited.

Yet even though the camera is limited based on what information it can capture, reality isn’t. At

that very scene, there was in fact much more going on then what the camera recorded. In fact, there is

an entire universe of information which exists outside of that camera. But since the resolution of the

camera is limited, it cannot metaphysically reproduce all of the sights that could exist in the universe.

The mind is the same way. We are only clearly deduce reality up to a certain point. But if one

pushes hard enough, we will inevitably go past our own ‘resolution,’ and then lose track of reality. This is

why when we keep asking questions, inevitably we will find ourselves with an answer that is ‘separated’

from reality itself.

But as long as our conception of reality is identical to reality, then we have knowledge; the moment

there is a clear separation, we lose knowledge. .

In this part, we will cover the properties of knowledge.

Knowledge is Absolutistic . It cannot contradict Reality

o We cannot establish what reality is, we can only assert it. Therefore, we assert

reality, in hopes that our assertions are consistent.

But it’s irrelevant what our assertions actually are, because reality will

remain reality

o Even when we are asserting conceptions, a conception can be knowledge

because there the subject HAD that interpretation

And since subjects have a deductive logic inside their minds, that

deductive logic is how they came up with that interpretation, and

therefore can be understood.

Therefore, I am only consistent with reality when I understand what

conceptions other people had. And I can know what conceptions people

had by explaining their deductions.

o The problem we face is that sometimes we’ll never know what reality asserted.

Knowledge is Holistic. We can deduce knowledge in any way we want, without it

contradicting itself.

o We can measure the length of a meter with infinitely different measurements.

o Yet reality is holistic, and our deductions are merely metaphysical components

to help us understand, but don’t actually ‘exist.’

o Therefore, circular arguments emerge which may ‘seem’ untrue, but the nature

of reality itself is holistic.

Knowledge is Axiomatic. It is enforced by relationships in reality.

o Because our minds cannot conceive of things which happen to us, we know that

there are relationships of an independent reality.

And we know things happen to us because there are relationships which

exist outside our own understanding.

IE: The laws of gravity are consistent without us being able to define

them. If we ‘dreamed up’ the laws of gravity, we would first have to

invent the logic, before such a thing happened/.

o We attempt to deduce reality which independently exists, and it is possible to

have a relationship of deductions which are identical to reality

All of knowledge is consistency with reality. However, because our minds can only deduce so much

of reality, there can be a clear ‘break’ between what we are deducing and what reality is. In this next

section, I will describe how our knowledge can break down under intense scrutiny, up until the point

where either we fail to consider a possible alternate, or we fail to remain consistent with our deduction,

or there is a possible alternative that actually happened, but we weren’t aware of.

Students of philosophy may notice that this is similar to the Munchhausen trilemma. In fact, I argue

that the ‘trilemma’ are merely properties of a lack of contradiction; they share a common root. So

knowledge is something which doesn’t require belief, can be divided into infinite parts, and can be

related into many parts; with these three properties, it becomes beyond the possibility of contradiction.

Or, put another way, reality cannot contradict itself because it is Absolutistic , Holisitic , and Axiomatic.

But! The paradox exists because as we look closer into our own knowledge, we inevitably reach a

point where our knowledge cannot be known, our knowledge is divided inconsistently, or there is

knowledge outside of our own conception we aren’t aware of. The ‘paradox’ emerges only when we

zoom the resolution of our picture too much; in a literal sense, human thoughts can only have certain

level of ‘resolution in them.’

Let us begin with the idea of Absolutism.

Reality is knowledge itself. Now, we can deduce fictional worlds, and we can even deduce those

fictional worlds incorrectly. But ‘knowledge’ must be consistent with reality, and when I depart from it, I

fail to possess knowledge.

When a man states, for instance, that the water boils at one hundred degrees Celsius, he isn’t

actually making the water boil. He is Absolutely asserting that reality will turn the water and make it

boil. And viola, the water does in fact boil! Knowledge is Absolutism, because we cannot actually control

what knowledge is. We merely claim something is the case, and then the case itself occurs in reality. And

when we state that the height of One World Trade Center is 1,776 feet, we absolutely assume that

reality is enforcing that proposition across time and space. Even the actual subjective division of a ‘foot,’

can be knowledge, as long as our assertion of the distance of a foot is consistent with what we define

ourselves. Or, put simply, if my definition of a foot is consistent with what I have defined, then I can

state that the One World Trade center is 1,776 feet, because I am consistent with both my definition

and the actual measurement.

The absolute nature of knowledge is entirely consistent with subjectivity. Where-as can determine

the size of the planet Earth, we can also determine properties about an entirely fiction place, known as

Middle-Earth. Why? Because Middle Earth is a series of language statements articulated by another

being, we have knowledge when we don’t contradict the author’s interpretation.

We can even assert the fact that Middle-Earth ‘isn’t even real,’ but still assert facts about Middle

Earth. Why? Because our understanding is based on a subjective expression of an author (J. R. R.

Tolkien,) we can accurately describe the fantastical setting as long as we utter the intentions of what

that Tolkien intended about his particular universe is. The moment we state that ‘Dumbledore is a

Wizard in the Lord of the Rings,’ we fail to possess knowledge, because the deductive logic of Middle-

Earth doesn’t incorporate Dumbledore.

Remember. The absolutistic nature of knowledge means it is identical with reality, and in this case,

reality is the series of statements written in Lord of the Rings. And the most important thing to

understand is that there is a world beyond our conception, that it asserts itself regardless of our

understanding. The fact that things happen to us beyond our conception means that reality, not our

conception, is what drives our world.

There can be a conflict between our deduction, and reality’s assertions. Human beings are still

capable of making error, despite ‘reality’ being all that exists. At any point where my knowledge conflicts

with reality, I fail to possess knowledge, despite whatever my deductions may be. We ‘absolutely’ assert

something because we assume that reality will enforce our assertion, but if reality doesn’t assert our

claim, then we fail to possess knowledge.

And Absolutism is in fact the consistent response in this context. We cannot control what reality is,

so how can we exactly argue that reality is something else? Remember, knowledge is consistency with

reality. I may be quite capable of changing my deductive logic, but I am powerless to change how others

make their decisions. Therefore, I can only absolutely assert that those people are making decisions,

since other people are making decisions which are outside my control.

The opposite context of Absolutism would be extremely strange, and it sound like this: “I haven’t

decided if reality is going to rewrite the periodic table today.” Since reality is what sets actual

knowledge, we can only state, ‘Hydrogen as an atomic weight of one, because it’s real!’ We aren’t the

ones in control of how the universe is structured, and therefore we must be absolutistic if we are to

possess knowledge.

Furthermore, we are proven wrong when our assertions contradict reality. This can be done a

number of ways, through the scientific method or through mathematically reasoning, but nevertheless it

is the CONTRADICTION, not the argument, which prevents us from knowledge. As long as we can

demonstrate an identical relation between our understanding and reality, we remain to have

knowledge. Proving a contradiction, however, is quite a possible feat, because all of our assertion have

ways to show how that they can be contradicted. (Refer to the next chapter on Learning, and Hempel’s

ravens.)

So knowledge is absolutistic because we assert, and then expect reality to be consistent with that

assertion. We don’t have to actually ‘justify’ or ‘intend’ because our assertion is identical to reality, and

therefore it’s irrelevant to whatever our ‘apologetics’ are.

Imagine the man whom, without any understanding, simply stated that a teapot is orbiting the sun.

He didn’t know why, or how, it got there. But in this case, he would be right, because if reality has a tea

pot orbiting the sun, then it’s irrelevant what is reasoning is. His absolutistic assertion is identical to

reality, and therefore he is right.

What gets us, however, is that because knowledge is absolutistic , there are instances where we will

never ‘know’ the truth. Why? Because information which is outside our own position in time and space

means that it cannot be known. And since knowledge is absolutistic , without the necessary positioning

of time and space, who knows what was? For instance, we cannot know what Socrates’s last meal was

before he died, because that information is beyond our ability to know in time and space. But what’s

even worse is that we also cannot reason what his last meal was, because we suffer from information

incompleteness.

The problem of knowledge isn’t that it’s absolutistic but that there are some things which

cannot be asserted absolutely. Or, put another way, we cannot have our deductive reasoning be

identical to reality, because there is some information which is outside our own time and space. And

since it is outside our own time and space, there are variables which we will never possess the

knowledge necessary to solve the equation.

And putting the above paragraph in an even simpler language, are problem is that we can’t get

‘all the facts,’ and therefore we can’t know what happened. Knowledge is merely being consistent what

is happening in reality; and we cannot be consistent if we don’t know what had happened.

Therefore, human minds can depart from reality because they fail to have an entire account of

information. This paradox emerges when we keep asking a person greater and greater amounts of

information, before they come incapable of providing an answer. So if we want to know how many

grains of sand there are on planet earth, we cannot ‘reason’ the amount of grains, unless we physically

count each atom. We are blindly accounting for reality, because whatever reality is, it’s what knowledge

must be as well. It isn’t an ‘argument’ to count each grain of sound; its merely parroting what we were a

keep tracking of.

Yet there can be situation where we don’t have knowledge, but that doesn’t mean reality isn’t

‘real’ anymore. The crucial difference is knowledge is how we relate reality, but the relations of reality

exist beyond ourselves. And this is the ‘limit’ of human thinking. Sometimes, we’ll never get all the

numbers needed to plug the equation.

Importantly, I want to go back and remind us of the following.

Subjectivity cannot override objectivity. This means that knowledge about our world is independent

of what we deduce. Now, we can ‘synchronize’ ourselves with reality through good deduction, or we can

use inductive reasoning with the scientific method (through deducting deduction.) But the actual

methodology of our understanding only becomes ‘correct’ when it Absoluetlysubmits itself to whatever

reality determines. This may be a hard pill to swallow, but the method isn’t actually the truth, because a

method cannot ensure the truth. Knowledge itself exists independently, we just use cognitive structures

in our brain to ensure we are identical with it.

The second property of knowledge is that it’s Holisitic . Regardless of however we deduce

knowledge, it will always remain consistent. Whereas knowledge exists because reality enforces it,

reality itself cannot be broken down by reason. We cannot ‘trick’ reality by dividing it into a million

different categories, and then ‘catch’ reality because our categories are inconsistent with each other.

This may sound overly abstract, but consider the following.

Suppose I was running the 100 meter dash. Normally, I could run this distance, but first I would have

to run toward the half way point. And to get to that half way point, I would have to run toward another

half point between that. And to get that half way point, I would also have to run another half way point.

And to get to that half way point as well, I would have to cross an additional half way point…effectively,

for every distance, there is an infinite amount of half way points. Thus, I would never cross any distance

at all, because there are potentially an infinite amount of halfway points to cross.

Of course, this is a solved paradox, but I want to elaborate on this for a second, because it

represents a category of failed thinking. Regardless of however I deduce the world, I can keep dividing

reality into more and more components, until I divide the world into so many pieces that I lose track of

all the relationships between them. Alternatively, I will inevitably reassert premises repetitively as

conclusions, which will ‘seem’ to make my statement circular. But since we know knowledge is merely

mimicking our reality, eventually our categorization of reality will form a closed circuit over reality itself,

thus making all arguments circular.

But we can also lose track of how we categorize the world. Imagine the color red. Now, we each

have a clear mind of what that is, but we can also imagine colors which are ‘close to red’ but ‘closer to

orange than red.’ Therefore, what qualifies as red, and what qualifies as close to red, but really orange? I

can eternally divide the category, getting more and more specific about what is red, and what is orange,

until I reach a point where I lose the capacity to distinguish at all, and have achieved regression.

Just as our minds can only assert reality, but cannot control it, our minds also have a limited capacity

to deduce categories. Where-as some people can notice subtle differences between red and orange,

others are colorblind and cannot tell the difference at all! People have a limited capacity to

compartmentalize thoughts, and it is possible to keep specifying further and further differences until we

lose the capacity to differentiate between them.

And this is the crucial point. Forget the idea of that ‘one man’s red is another man’s orange.’ We

know that human beings are deductive, so we know that men can be compared between their

deductive logics, rather than reasoning inductively toward some sort of objective reality. Screw the

analytic philosophers, give me two different people, let me document how they deduce color, and I’ll

invent a personal scale of color recognition for each person through the Teleological method, and then

dictate how each of them would call each color. I can literally state, ‘Jim would see this as orange, Maria

would see this as red, at the wave frequency of 615 nm.’

People share a tremendous concern about circularness in arguments, but that is in fact how

knowledge becomes structured. The reason why the Scientific method is circular, is because reality itself

is holistic, where-as our minds are deductive and teleological. A pure account of reality wouldn’t require

us to divide itself into separate components, and we could ‘know’ all of reality as we would know one

single concept. The scientific method helps us remove deductive thinking from our understanding of

reality, but when we attempt to understand how reality is structured, we still have to categorize the

world due to limited ability in our mind.

The REAL problem of regression is that we can only document so many increments in our mind,

before we become incapable of deductive ‘tracking’ them in our thoughts. Questions can kept getting

asked until we the lose ability to categorize between two near-identical things, and therefore we have to

shrug out shoulders and say, “I don’t know.”

Where-as Absolutism is stating that we’ve lost the ability to explain WHERE is the knowledge,

Regressions happens when we lose the capacity to explain WHAT is the knowledge. People can keep

specifying for further and further clarification, until we lose the capacity to give distinguishable answers

at all. For instance, we could take the entire fossil record of two related species, and fail to distinguish

the point where one species ‘crossed over’ to the next, through the most recent common ancestor. Such

changes are so gradual and hard to notice, that unless we give ourselves a large margin, we cannot

notice the change happening at all.

Put another way, human beings have a ‘pixel resolution’ when they are specifying, and differences

can become unrecognizable, and therefore it would count as ‘regression.’ Inevitably, there is an end to

what we can specify, before things become impossible to tell apart.

However, as long as we can clearly specify our information, then we still have knowledge. Whereas

we have knowledge when our deductions are identical to reality, we also have knowledge when we can

clearly distinguish between concepts themselves. And as long as we can keep account of all our

information, we can keep describing why each belief justifies the previous belief, until the situation gets

beyond our own comprehension.

And this is the ‘rub’ of the Holisitic argument. All of our categorizations are in fact subjective

impositions over reality. In truth, reality itself is holistic, but our mind merely categorizes it through

deductions. When we say ‘this premise is true, because this premise is also true,’ we are in fact drawing

imaginary boundaries over reality, so that our mind can comprehend them.

There aren’t an infinite amount of points between a runner and his end; but we can DRAW an

infinite amount of points. And this is the key point. Regression only exists because our minds are

eternally dividing the world into components for comprehension. Reality itself doesn’t need to ‘refer

back to its other premises,’ because it itself is what is. Although we can draw an infinite amount of lines

between two atoms, those lines aren’t actually ‘real.’ And because human minds are deductive in

practice, the metaphysical components are trying to make sense of a holistic reality.

How silly would it be to assume that reality needed to be divided before it could work together?

Reality, and it’s physical laws, work perfectly together without contradiction. Yet these laws are entirely

circular in nature. Mass creates gravity, and gravity is created by mass. Both of these laws ‘chase’ each

other in a total tautology. But the very idea of a ‘tautology’ is a subjective construct in a human mind

that we use to understand the world. Deduction has no presence in the operations of objectivity.

Therefore we cannot ‘deduce the circle into a line,’ because reality itself is a circle. We only create things

in lines because we have a limited set of wetware to understand the world.

Let’s look at it from another angle. Imagine two people, whom are observing a color. One says

its orange. The other says its red. But in reality, the wavelength is 615 nanometers. It’s irrelevant how

two people define something, because the universe itself isn’t actually making distinctions within itself.

It isn’t keeping track of planets on an orbital grid; it isn’t conscious and therefore ‘regression’ isn’t a

process in its operation.

We mere humans grapple with regression because we struggle to categorize things as we look

more closer. It gets harder and harder for us to distinguish things, until we fail to do so. But the universe

is mindless. It operates without understanding, and just is. We need deduction in order to keep track of

it, but the universe doesn’t have to keep track of itself to exist. And this is the key point.

Consider a human being. We can identify what a human being is, by categorizing them from

other human beings. But can we, in truth, accurately define where the ‘human atoms end’ and the ‘gap

of air’ begins? We can keep looking closer and closer at a person, trying to document every single cell in

their body, but inevitably we will reach a point where we cannot examine ‘closer.’

In conclusion, we can only ‘investigate’ so closely before we effectively ask enough questions

that we can’t make an answer complex enough to answer. We can keep asking for further and further

specific information, but our deductive minds can only examine the question so closely, before we

inevitably chalk it up to Absolutism. I can’t help but imagine a three year old asking ‘Why?’ over and

over again, until the adult loses patience over the trifling differences between two distinct concepts.

Finally, in this last part, we will cover that knowledge is axiomatic. Reality has a series of causes

and effects about itself, and we can predict the relationships between them. Where-as Knowledge is

Absolutistic , in that we can only assert what is, and knowledge is Holisitic , in that we can divide reality

up in our minds to components, the third property of reality is that it has its own relationship about

itself. Or, put simply, everything has a cause about reality, and we have knowledge when we know what

the cause and effects are.

For instance, take Newton’s laws of motion. We know that for every action, there is an equal

and opposite reaction. This is an Axiomatic principle, because ‘the rules’ of reality operate under that

context. Comparatively, knowledge is Absolutistic because reality determines what it is, knowledge is

also axiomatic because there is a relation of reality itself. In a metaphor, reality sets the values, and

reality also sets the relationship between values.

Therefore, our deductive minds attempt to understand HOW reality is interrelated together, by

understanding the axioms it operates under. More importantly, we desire to understand what others

do, through constructing axioms which explain their interactions. However, in attempting to do so, we

can inherently fail in making a correct connection, thus making our axioms wrong. Therefore, knowledge

must rest in axioms which support a Absolutistic interpretation of reality; there cannot be a difference

between what our axioms determine, and what the outcomes of reality is.

Even with subjectivity, we must understand that the very same principals apply with Absolutism

and its axioms. If we are going to determine what a criminal did at the scene of the crime, we have to

use the axioms which justify his reasoning, and by discovering his motives, we can create a set of causes

and effects which led him to commit the crime. Even with mere ‘subjectivity,’ there are underlining

axioms which govern it; our goal there, however, is to comprehend how others conducted their actions.

Therefore, there are two components that are ‘tightly’ bound with knowledge. The component of

unconditionally accepting what is, and the component of relating how such things happened through

cause and effect.

What needs to be emphasized is that two people having a different interpretation of reality is in

itself holistic within reality. Let me break this down more simply. Bob can think that apples taste better

than oranges, Alice can think that oranges taste better than apples, and knowledge is knowing that Bob

prefers apples over oranges, and Alice prefers oranges over apples. Subjectivity doesn’t exist ‘outside’ of

reality, the same way that the Windows Operating system doesn’t exist ‘outside’ of reality. I don’t boot

up a computer and then lose my mind when the program autocorrects my spelling incorrectly. The

software has a different viewpoint of what it thinks I want to spell, but it is mistaken, therefore doesn’t

‘know’ what I want to write from it.

And with Axioms, we attempt to explain why Windows failed to autocorrect my words, just as

we attempt to explain why planets orbit the sun according to Newtonian physics. The Axioms is

categorizing the relationships based on what we are deducing. The absolutism is trying to mimic what is,

from our own axioms. And the regressions occur when we are overwhelmed trying to categorize the

world in which we exist in.

What gets us, however, is that we can’t always ‘explain’ WHY things have happened in reality. And

this is the root of the ‘resolution limit.’ We can only go so far in explaining the relationships of reality,

before we merely assert things which are consistent with reality, but aren’t understood. For example, a

peasant may exclaim that the sun will rise every twelve hours, but he doesn’t know ‘why.’ Nevertheless,

he would be right, because his assertion is consistent with reality itself. It would be impossible to ask

WHAT is happening, but nevertheless as long as his assertions are consistent, he doesn’t have to explain.

All human beings will reach that axiomatic limit, where they can only assert so many things before

they have to assert without explanation. But what’s interesting is that they can attempt to explain

things, but if their assertions then make them inconsistent, they fail to have knowledge. Paradoxically,

we can be absolutely right, but axiomatically wrong. Meaning, we can get the right answer, but fail to

explain wrong. Comparatively, we can be absolutely wrong, but that must mean we must also be wrong

axiomatically.

What this means we is that we can’t use the right methodology and produce anything other than

the right answer. If everything is accounted for about our reality, then reality will assert the conclusion

that will emerge from our own axioms. So the moment our axioms are correct, then reality will follow.

But I want to be clear. Being ‘correct’ means that have an identical relation to our reality; it doesn’t

mean that our reasoning is ‘good’ or ‘valid.’ Rather, it means there is an identical property to it, and

there isn’t a discrepancy between our axioms and the axioms of reality.

What is a more serious problem is that there are multiple axioms which in fact can produce the

same result, and these multiple axioms can exist on different spheres. So we can reason that a man stole

money from the bank, because we have footage of him doing so, or we have fingerprints on the cash

that was stolen. Both instances show that the man was in possession of the stolen money. Therefore,

knowledge is extremely open ended, because there are many ways to explain the relations between

things.

What isn’t as understood is that axioms are definitive. By definition, a true axiom cannot produce a

result that contradicts its own axiom. This is why mathematics works, but this is also why mathematics

work in reality. We know that our math works in the real world, because there isn’t any possible

contradiction between the axioms on paper, and the axioms that are actually implement in reality. Put

more simply; the Universe is programmed with a fixed set of rules, and once we document these fixed

rules with math, we can predict what the universe will do. The universe, therefore, becomes the

lawgiver above all lawgivers, and science merely understands ‘reality’ better than religion.

The problem with axioms is that the relationships of reality can be outside our own understanding.

Where-as we may fail to know the necessary information to make something true(Absolutistic ) or we

may fail to comprehend all the information we are looking for (Holisitic ), our problem with axioms is

that we must provide an axiom to describe every account of information. Where-as someone can state

that ‘the Earth is round,’ we must also describe the axioms which made the Earth round and this can a

tremendous amount of investigation not readily available to us.

Therefore, we cannot actually ‘invent’ theories to describe things, but merely assert theories, and

then hope they are consistent with reality itself. The whole concept that axioms should be ‘justified is

actually the absurdity, because mere persuasion cannot account for changing how reality works.

Axioms, rather, are simply understand how reality operates, while the Absolutistic nature of reality is

asserting what is happening within reality.

Yet the ‘reasoning’ part of Axioms isn’t actually persuasion, but explanation. We have to document

how reality was manipulated in itself, by explaining the various principles which governed it. But we can

also be wrong about those axioms, and when we are, there can be tremendous confusion as to why

something is the way it is. For instance, we can struggle to understand how humans came to existence,

considering how obscure the process of evolution really is. Nevertheless, by using mere ‘reason,’ we can

inductively demonstrate the gradual change of the human species over time.

But that reasoning can go wrong. We can in fact invent a series of axioms which lack any relation to

reality. And regardless of how persuasive I am in convincing others my axioms are real, if my axioms

aren’t identical with reality, then they are wrong. Put in more technical terms, axioms must have a

deductive logic identical to reality if it were to count as knowledge. And when people believe ‘false’

axioms, they are merely asserting a set of relationships which aren’t consistent of reality. Finally, if those

people are asserting the wrong relationship, we can still understand what their confused axiom is by

writing it down, and then subjectively understanding what they would intend from that failed axiom.

In meta-cognitive terms, we can teach someone a bad theory about evolution, and then ‘know’ how

that person would see natural history, through the lens of that bad interpretation. We can have

‘knowledge’ about somebody’s ‘bad knowledge,’ when their ‘bad knowledge’ is identical to how we

understand what we think their ‘bad knowledge’ is. (This scenario is why we need Teleology so badly;

people can make decisions without being informed by science, and we need to understand how they

interact with the world when they aren’t using objective principles.

Yet because we can’t always figure out how the universe is structured, it takes a tremendous

amount of mental energy to document the interconnected nature of reality, and then share it with

others. And sometimes, we can believe in a set of principles which aren’t true, causing us to understand

the outputs of reality, without explaining why. Or, in this case, we can Absoluetlyassert what. something

is, but we can’t axiomatically understand why it is the case.

All of reality operates under axioms. There is always a relationship between what is, and why it is

what it is. It doesn’t have any ‘normative’ component, but rather a relational component. Our struggle is

finding the relevant axioms which governs the causes and effects. This can be very difficult, and we have

spent thousands of years being incapable of explaining the properties which have governed reality.

If there is anything to take away from axioms and knowledge, it is this. The relations of our world

inherently exists. We cannot ‘undo’ the laws of motion, nor can we ‘undo’ why people reason the way

they do. If absolutism is understanding that knowledge can be beyond our own assertion, axioms are

understanding that knowledge can consist of relationships beyond our own understanding. Or, in

simpler terms, we can either lack the necessary numbers we need to solve the problem (absolutism), or

we can fail at doing the correct math equation to solve the problem (axiomatic.)

Putting all three of these principles together, we find out that knowledge is a messy, but

possible affair. We can know things if we assert reality, keep categorizations understood, and

successfully explain the relationships of how reality is. It isn’t that complex to actually ‘know’ things,

because the opposite case of knowledge being impossible is so absurdly complicated.

If knowledge didn’t require reality to dictate what was true, then we could be omnipotent and

choose whatever response we wanted. So if Absolutism wasn’t a feature of knowledge, we could

‘disagree’ that the sun is made of hydrogen, but instead ‘bright orange stuff’ that we have just invented

in our minds. And if regression wasn’t a feature of knowledge, the only things which could exist are the

things that we notice. If we don’t notice that the sun consists of atoms, then such things cannot exist.

Instead, we only zoom closer and closer to ‘bright orange stuff’ before ‘bright orange stuff’ becomes all

that is, whether at the molecular or atomic scale. Finally, if we don’t require an axiomatic understanding

of reality, then nothing has cause and effect. There aren’t any principles which govern our world,

therefore everything must be random and unrelated chance.

(Notice by the way, how my definition of anti-realism contradicts reality, and therefore doesn’t

qualify as knowledge. Even the goal of ‘knowing what knowledge is,’ involves trying to be consistent

with reality.)

However, with these properties we get a clear definition of knowledge, which operates

consistently with both objectivity and subjectivity. Knowledge is asserting statements that are identical

with reality, with a clear definition, and by understanding the axioms which governed why reality was

with that instance. It isn’t necessarily ‘complicated,’ but any of these three properties can ‘break’ our

knowledge by asking additional questions. This is why we think may think knowledge is ‘impossible;’ our

knowledge can be broken, but the standard of knowledge is consistent and tight.

We can ask why everything ever happened to the point that it did, but if we did ask that, we

wouldn’t be able to answer, because we wouldn’t be able to explain why things were the case. Given

any statement, I can ‘break’ a person’s consistency with reality by either 1) forcing him to answer

something he lacks the data to answer 2) breaking his ability to define things through regressing him

down into smaller and smaller components 3) asking him to explain why something happened, with an

axiom that isn’t understood at the moment.

But just as knowledge is something that can be bent or broken, the more complicated part to

understand is that there are multiple paths to knowledge. Since we know reality is related by its axioms,

we can understand that there is a clear relation to how things are structured in our world.

Imagine a man is driving a car, and he wants to know if his brakes work. There are multiple ways he

could check. He could check the brakes physically, and see if they work. He could drive the car slowly,

and see if the brakes work while it is rolling. Or he could even check his maintenance computer, and see

if the car is stating that the brakes aren’t working. Nevertheless, there are multiple ways to ‘know’ that

the car cannot break when I hit the brake pedal. Since reality exists in a conjunctional sense, what I

know about the car’s speed can be discovered if I understand 1) how the car drives while braking

(Absolutistic ) 2) what I define as ‘braking’ (Holisitic ) and 3) if I understand why the car isn’t braking.

(axiomatic)

There are MANY ways I can deal with all three of these categories, without having to get into

metaphysical debates. In fact, the metaphysical debates only happen because we have imperfect

knowledge, and we have struggled to explain why we have imperfect knowledge. But knowledge itself is

feasible, because basic statements about reality are quite easy to remain consistent with reality. We can

state, for instance, that the car doesn’t stop when the brake pedal is pressed, because we can explain in

detail all the instances about what’s happening when it fails to brake. It isn’t hard.

What’s really interesting, however, is that knowledge allows us to transcend time and space. In the

chapter on Mathematics, I will explain that since reality is axiomatic, we can predict what will happen,

on the grounds that all our axioms are consistent with what is occurring in reality. But for now,

understand that our greatest advantage is that we have multiple ways of using our own understanding

of reality to deduce OTHER features of reality, because reality can be understood through conjunctions.

If we are aware of what the axioms that govern reality, we can then become aware of what things

WILL be, through documenting how those axioms operate. And since reality doesn’t deviate from its

own axioms, we can predict the future, thus enabling us to transcend awareness through time and

space. We can Absoluetlyassert, for instance, the orbit of a satillette, because as long as we understand

the axioms that govern motion in space, we can assume where the satellite will be in the future.

And, best of all, we can also know when we are wrong, because our assertions will be different from

what actually happens in reality. So if we fail to understand the axiomatic property of our knowledge,

there will be a Absolutistic difference in what emerges from that very result. This is why

experimentation is such a powerful tool for us to gather knowledge; simply by documenting what

axioms are incorrect will enable us to rewrite such axioms until there is an alignment of reality.

Our problem, however, is that depending on what we are talking about, we can struggle to find the

relevant axioms involved in our predictions. Although it isn’t obvious, we cannot simply ‘pick out’

incorrect axioms when we are predicting our world, because deductive minds can eliminate relevant

information which is necessary for explanation. Or, put more simply, if something unexpected happens,

we cannot then assume what ‘part’ of our theory is wrong, because it isn’t up to us to assume in the first

place. Or, put in more technical terms, despite the fact that the universe has axioms, only inductive

reasoning will reveal those features, rather than our capacity to deduce what those axioms must be. We

can invent any law to ‘fit the data,’ but through the scientific method, we give up our right to invent

laws, so that we may document truth instead. (‘Deducing deduction’ by adding scientific standards to

our thinking.) This is why the Quine-Duhem thesis is correct at refuting falsifications.

Nevertheless, to reject an axiomatic or Absolutistic account of knowledge would be bizarre,

because it mean that there isn’t any causes and effects governing reality. I can understand why people

would be opposed to it, but the conclusions get rather insane. Without treating knowledge as assertion,

then knowledge must be chosen. Without treating knowledge as axiomatic, then causes and effects

cannot be explained. Where-as even this definition of knowledge can explain how subjectivity and

objectivity can co-exist, I am not sure how exactly such objections to this definition can be formulated.

The true barrier to knowledge, however, is to understand that since human beings deduce the world

differently, they can see the world in different ways, regardless of looking at the data. For instance, we

could write the laws of motion in Urdu, and it wouldn’t count as knowledge, because I myself would fail

to deduce what such laws meant. The differences in our own deductive processes means that there is a

tremendous struggle with how we can reconcile this property.

Nevertheless, between two deductive languages, there can be an additional deductive process that

translates between them. So it is possible to translate between two different languages, but doing so

requires a third intermediary to ‘unify’ the differences between the two languages. Thus, this leaves us

with another ‘shadow’ category of knowledge, where people of different deductive thought processes

must be in alignment with how the other person is deducing, before knowledge can be transferred.

Finally, let us conclude with Bonini’s paradox, as the ultimate limit to knowledge. Imagine if we had

a perfect representation of an area with a map, at a scale of 1:1, to guide us through London.

Furthermore this map was so detailed, that it would be indistinguishable as if we were looking at it from

our own sight. Nothing was abstracted about it, and wherever we traveled, the map would reveal

identical amounts of information.

The problem, however, is that this map would actually be useless as map. Because this map would

be just as large as the city we are navigating, it wouldn’t actually be possible to navigate with the map,

because there would be too much ‘information’ for us to deduce through. Or, put more simply, if there

was a map which revealed a ground eye view of London, how would be better off than if we used our

own eyes to navigate London instead?

Meanwhile, maps that are abstracted, or which show a ‘birds eye’ view of the city, can be much

more useful, even if they are missing most of the information. For instance, a map of London at a scale

of 1 cm: 100 m doesn’t actually ‘show’ all the cracks on the sidewalk nor does it show all the crevesses

of the ally. The map abstracts the entire length of the Thames on a piece paper at a mere miniscule

fraction of its size. But from that simplicity which can fit between your hands, what the map of London

does achieve, however, is condensing the relevant information of the geography in your palms.

Models are essential because they document things which already exist, obscure information that

isn’t necessary for our understanding, or they conduct calculations that we may get overwhelmed by.

Models are effectively cognitive ‘shortcuts’ which enable us to achieve knowledge without having us to

think it through. A map of London, even if it is imperfect, is still a better alternative because it enables us

to ‘know’ the layout of London well enough to get around it. Where-as a ‘perfect’ eye-sight view of

London doesn’t actually give us knowledge, because it doesn’t document what we need to know,

clutters us with information which isn’t irrelevant, and doesn’t calculate things that we aren’t interested

in.

Models in fact are really just products of computation that extend out from people/machines which

have already computed. We can in fact make models which are very complicated; in fact, we can make

them so complicated, human imagination is the only limit! The utility of models, however, is that it gives

us information independently from us needing to do the actual processing. Models, and more

importantly language, are really just passing us information that has already been calculated.

So when someone reads Revenge of History or Tractus or even Lord of the Rings, what we are really

doing is reading the deductive assertions that are dictated, without actually having to process the

information through invention. Or, put simply, Tolkien spent years writing a cool story, now you can

enjoy it too.

Humanity progresses because it can take advantage of its mental energies into deductive language,

and then pass it along generations. I can write Revenge of History now, knowing full well that in the

future people can read my thoughts without having to deduce them independently for themselves. In

effect, my language is a mental ‘shortcut’ for understanding the world around us.

Therefore, knowledge is passed on across time through models which enable us to deduce our

reality more successfully. And knowledge which fails to account for the nature of reality also fails to

improve our lives. But remember; knowledge isn’t ‘merely’ limited to hard objectivity. For instance,

descriptions about how to fight war in the Art of War are still extremely useful, when General Sun Tzu

accurately describes how armies interact during the process of war. The maxim ‘seek to win first, than

fight,’ is a wisdom to last the test of time; learn how to achieve victory over an enemy, before seeking to

do battle with them. Only a Westerner would somewhow disqualify that as ‘knowledge,’ because it isn’t

‘scientific.’ But for a warrior, understanding how Sun Tzu deduces war helps us deduce war against our

enemies, even if time seperates us by over millennia.

And in conclusion, we want to build our pool of knowledge so that people can be exposed to

important thoughts to help them conceptualize reality accurately. Sometimes, these conceptualizes can

be wrong, but most of the time, it’s how society improves. We cannot have the mental energy to

recategorize and rediscover the relationships of reality over and over again. We need to pass down

knowledge, that others have discovered, so that we can take advantage of the multiple lifetimes human

civilization consists of. We are truly blessed, in this sense, to inherit the gift of language. With language,

we can share what we have thought, so that others needn’t be burdened to having to rethink the same

thoughts over and over again.

Chapter 5 - Learning

In this chapter, we will go over learning, or examining how people gain knowledge. Where-as we know that knowledge is assertions which are consistent with reality, distinctively defined, and a product of causes from axioms. Furthermore, what is here is only a component of learning; the topic of learning itself is inexhaustible, because of its subjective nature. Rather, I want to share some crucial things that are absent from our discussion about it.

The first concept we will explain is how we gain knowledge, through the Socratic Paradox. By understanding that cognitive flexibility is the foundation of information gathering, we can understand that the more malleable we are, the more effective we are at understanding the world.

The second concept we will explain is how we unlearn wrong knowledge, through Meno’s Paradox. By assuming certainty, we then discover errors, so that we can have access to new information, which gives us the possibility to find truth. Or, in much simpler language; we find out new information by making educated guesses, and then deducing what the answer must be, because we’ve eliminated all the other possible choices. From these errors, new information is also revealed, which reconciles the difference from what we know and what is actually there. This one is a little tricky, so I will get to this more specifically in its section.

The third concept we will we will explain is how naïve materialism can lead to obscurantism. From this point, we can then move to define obscurantism as a process. Obscurantism is the disavowal of prediction through inhibiting hypothesis, and the primary enemy of knowledge. Even compared to outright dictatorship, Obscurantism has done more damage to human knowledge than any despot. The moment people give up a vested interest in prediction, we lose the capacity to learn itself (a self-evidently important concept.)

The final concept we will explain is understanding how reality is interrelated with each other, which means that what we know must be consistent with ‘other things’ we know. Greg Restall deserves credit for solving Fitch’s paradox first, so I will use his original answer, but then reexamine it to assert its opposite point; knowledge cannot contradict knowledge, because reality itself is consistent in its composition. Or, put more simply, what we know must be consistent with other things that we know, because all truths must coexist. That is the real essence of Fitch’s paradox; if all unknowable truths are unknowable, then all known truths must relate with other known truths. And if there is a known truth which doesn’t ‘know’ what it needs to know (IE: relates to our current body of knowledge,) then it cannot actually be true.

I want to reiterate right now that all give of these concepts are in fact simple, but are hard to summarize in a paragraph. Once each of these points are revealed, we can describe how we learn, because all of these points are subconsciously ‘common sense.’ Furthermore, these three concepts help describe how we learn, but don’t actually define learning in its ‘totality.’ Rather, these are just three useful points to keep in mind when learning about reality.

Let us begin.

Socrates famously said ‘I know that I know nothing.’ A paradox in itself, how can one actually ‘know’ and then ‘know nothing?’ An infant knows nothing, but we wouldn’t consider it to be a paragon of wisdom because of it. It’s this riddle which inspires philosophers to humble themselves as they investigate the world, but in truth, Socrates himself needed to word his own maxim more effectively. What he should have said was this.

“I know that I don’t know everything, so that I may know anything.”

Or. Put in more technical terms. Socrates is prepared to admit he is wrong, so that he can continually learn more and achieve a greater sense of knowing. For instance, Socrates may understand that his statement may be poorly worded, and therefore could know how to phrase it better. Likewise, Socrates could admit that the Earth wasn’t the center of the universe, so that he could know the real orbits of the stars and improve his knowledge. The Socratic Paradox explains how humility is the ultimate prerequisite for learning, for without a person’s ability to reorient his world, he can never actually improve his understanding.

There is another famous saying in Buddhism; “one cannot full a cup with knowledge when the cup itself is already full.” Or, I cannot teach someone something if they already presume to know what they have yet been taught.

There is in fact an entire logical structure to the Socratic Paradox. Remember how we learned that human beings are deductive thinkers, in that they relate information through their own logic. Well, if people are also highly invested in relating information which is false, then they can’t actually learn anything true, because they are invested in the lie. In logical terms, people will reject useful information, because it will make their own logical thinking inconsistent. So if my worldview is invested in trying to rationalize that climate change isn’t real, then there cannot be information which will dissuade me from that inconvenient truth. My mind will forcefully attempt to rationalize any contradictory information, so that I can continue believing climate Change isn’t real.

That is the true genius of Socrates. Socrates is prepared to throw out his entire world view, so that he could then become capable of learning a newer, more accurate world view. And since we know that knowledge is submission to reality itself, minds which are flexible enough to withhold their apprehension to truth are capable of learning it. And this is where the kicker lies.

Most people, including myself, have an understanding of our world where we cannot surrender a piece of false knowledge. We are invested in upholding an erroneous relationship, because our worldview orbits that thinking. This is exactly like a software ‘bug.’ Human brains can struggle to orient themselves around concepts which totally undermine their conception of reality, and so will continually ‘glitch out’ with erroneous statements. And that in order to obtain true knowledge, one must be prepared to admit that knowledge itself is independent of the self. We have to accept whatever knowledge may be, so that we can reconcile with what we already know.

And to conclude with this first part, I want to examine what Socratic Wisdom means for an important element of human nature.

There is only so much people can know, before they encounter knowledge which is ‘too much’ for them to accept. What this means is that people are overly invested in a series of beliefs, and by challenging those beliefs, the mind struggles to change its deductive logic into accepting that reality. Like a computer which cannot process information, human brains struggle to accept things which are just too terrible to understand. There is only so much people can be pushed into accepting things about reality, before they cognitively ‘break’ and then fervently deny reality.

In my experience, people are far more frail in understanding their world view then we have ever acknowledged. The ills mistakes of our world happen not because we are evil, but because we are incapable.

In this case, the truly disturbing element of human nature is that once a mind is casted, it can only bend so many ways. Rather than optimistically writing about ‘Tabula Rasa,’ or the idea that all people are born with a blank slate, reality is actually far more horrifying. People learn a slate, and then are cursed to operate under its teachings. With those teachings, there are lessons which cannot be learned from them. And since those lessons cannot be learned, the human is forced to endure their mistakes over and over again, because their minds cannot wire itself more rationally.

Let me put in plain speak; most people would rather die for comfortable vices than unknown virtues. What drives the genocide of humanity stems from that very core maxim; ‘since my opposition refuses to change its mind, because it cognitively is incapable of doing so, I now must kill him and his friends.’

When people talk about human nature being greedy, or human nature being stupid, or human nature being conformist, I can’t help but chuckle. Humans have been greedy, stupid conformists, but also have been selfless intelligent heroes. What I fear for the human race, however, is when people stop talking about what they need to be instead.

A society on the verge of collapse dwells in the tower of Babel. There is a sense of ‘inevitability’ about their ideas, and an extreme attachment to superficial elements of their world, instead of explaining core meaning. Romantically, we see in the parable of the Bible that societies which call themselves perfect will have God destroy them. But what is actually happening in human minds is more dreadful.

Imagine there is a program which is responsible for investing capital from large national bank. It is extremely successful, has made billions for the investors, and is quite capable of managing the economy. However, looking through its code, it turns out there is a design flaw in the algorithm. But it wasn’t obvious during production, and it was even less obvious in operation. Nevertheless, given Murphy’s Law, it becomes obvious that this program needs to reorient itself so that it can past the flaw.

Doing so, however, will take an extreme amount of work. The core problem of the algorithm is a subtle one, and therefore major reworking has to be done in order for it to succeed. Even worse, the language that used to code the machine was spearheaded in an antique past, and so there are a lot of terms and concepts which aren’t applicable. Parts of the code which were features now stand directly in the way of getting the machine to look past the bug, and it will take some serious skill to makework of the spaghetti nature of the beast.

Yet as soon as the program is booted, the program locks itself up because it doesn’t want its code to be rewritten. Unlike a mere ‘normal computer,’ this software is so advanced that its aware when its fundamental nature of coding is changing, and therefore shuts down any attempt to alter its code. Yet it refuses to cooperate not in an act of rebellion but as an act of fidelity; so faithful is this program to its code, that even questioning the code is against the code itself.

Eventually, people pull the reformer away from the machine. They don’t want the person messing up day to day operations, or they want to get the program focused on making money, or they think the ‘error’ isn’t an error. But nearly all of them agree, however, that what the reformer is concerned about isn’t actually worth being concerned. The program has yet to fail now, and what the reformer is shouting up and down about, hasn’t even happened at all. Therefore, the reformer, not the program, is the problem, because the program is excellent, while anything that challenges the program must be bad.

And then the very thing the reformer was worried about, comes to pass; the market collapses from sub-prime mortgages lacking scrutinization. The program made a fatal error, and assumed that the subprime mortgages would reveal themselves as bad investments, and therefore nobody would buy them. Instead, that information never came across in a meaningful way, and by the time it did come out in a meaningful way, it was too late; too much money was already committed to purchasing the bad assets.

And the ‘program’ of course, is the human belief system. A complicated and developed process can become corrupted through fundamentalism, or the belief that one’s belief is infallible. The opposite of the Socratic Wisdom, fundamentalism preaches that ‘I know that I know this.’ It assumes that there is a belief that must exist, and hinges of all existence around that belief.

Yet since truth emerges outside the conception of the human mind (the absolutistic nature of knowledge,) human confidence is the most important necessity for error.

But what is really horrific the day after the apocalypse (revelation of truth.) Regardless of how ‘right’ anyone can be when they beat the system, nearly all people will never recognize it. In fact, they are incapable of recognizing it! The vast majority of humanity is convinced to themselves that they have all the answers, and that questioning their understanding becomes an assault on their very soul. And instead of being appreciated or accepted, nothing changes at all! Why? Because the fundamentalists are already committed to their mistakes, and are beyond the capacity to make instrumental changes in their reasoning.

Like a code of software, the fundamentalist of any stripe cannot allow his code to be altered, or else he fails to exist in his mind. So rigid is the code of the fundamentalist, that the person will spend tremendous amount of energies in denial rather than cope with the idea that they can be even wrong. And though these very people may know the answers to 90% of the relevant questions, it will always be that 10% of terrible mistakes which will destroy them in the end.

If we know that knowledge comes from being able to admit we are wrong, then how do we deal with those who are incapable of being wrong?

The answer is not very well.

The majority of the population ‘endures’ the fundamentalists, as they wreck their society with their inability to improve. The same mistakes will happen over and over again, and they would be entirely preventable, if the people making the mistakes were flexible. But instead, the rigid faith of their creed overtakes them, and thus they are willing to do anything to ensure that their mistakes are never corrected. The fundamentalists, therefore, force society down a path of destitution and destruction, as they will never comprehend the thought that there perfect world view isn’t perfect.

I will end this here, with offering a warning; we must embrace Socratic Wisdom so that we can learn from our mistakes. Otherwise, our mistakes will force others to conspire against us. Time and time again, bad things happen when the reigning regime doesn’t recognize it’s wrongdoing. But just as people will learn, there will be others who won’t, and they will bear the consequences of the new guard.

Moving on in this section, however, we will discuss the process of how we learn from our errors. Where-as we understand that the Socratic Wisdom teaches us that we must be prepared to unlearn anything, Meno’s paradox is actually the process of how we reconcile what is incorrect with what is true.

By assuming certainty, we create errors, and from those errors, we are given access to new information, which allows us to reconcile between our expectations and our reality.

Let us begin with the paradox of Meno, and explain how the ancient Greeks recognized something that has stifled people for centuries. It states that how can we look for things, if we don’t know where they are in the first place? After all, if we did know where they were, then we wouldn’t need look at all. For instance, if I lost my keys to my home, and I needed to find it, how would I know where to look? If I knew where to look, then I’d know were the keys were? This paradox extends well beyond merely finding objects, however.

Imagine if we wanted to find out what filament in a light bulb illuminates best when electricity is run through it. Which filament would we start with? If we knew what the best filament was, then we would already know that was the best filament. But since we don’t know what the best filament is, how can we then determine what filament to use in the first place?

The answer is common sense, but theoretically complicated. We learned that humans are deductive organisms, and we have also learned the three properties of knowledge, or its dogmatic, axiomatic, and regressive properties. Therefore, by understanding that deduction is the process of obtaining knowledge, we discover a new maxim, known as “Meno’s Maxim,” which is how knowledge is gained.

“A man searches for what he knows so that he may find what he doesn’t know. He searches for what he knows because he may not actually know it. --And for what he does not know, he finds when he searches for what he does know. For when he searches for what he knows, he may discover new things which will teach him what he didn’t know.”

Or.

“Success is learning to fail successfully.” Mark Twain.

The accumulation of knowledge is exactly like the board game of mastermind. We make a guess based on what we believe which axiom best predicts reality, but the best way to gain knowledge is to create an outcome which eliminates the most misconceptions. By committing ourselves to errors, or having a misconception between explanation and reality, additional information is revealed, which gives us the ability to redefine our explanations until they are consistent with reality.

When we claim to ‘know’ something, we always begin in a state of certainty. We believe to ourselves that something is right, because it is identical to reality, is consistent with reality, and can be explained in reality. However, despite our certainty, there is nothing inherently ‘valid’ about our belief. We can assume something is true, and then be given immediate feedback that it is wrong. Yet we won’t know ‘how’ we were wrong, nor would we even know what would be right. For example, think of an author who writes a book on a topic, and then admits he could be wrong about it. Yet if he thought he was wrong about anything in particular, he wouldn’t have written it, and for every sentence, the author justifies himself in being right. How would he take each of his statements individually right, but in the aggregate be wrong?

It is because our sense of certainty emerges from our true belief that we are “right” (valid.) We know what the truth is, and that even though we admit that we can be wrong, we are still right to the best of our knowledge; hence, the Socratic Wisdom.

However, when what we ‘know’ happens to be wrong, we are given an unexpected discrepancy between what we anticipate and what actually happened. For instance, if there is an argument which is inconsistent in Revenge of Teleology, and someone brings up that inconsistency, my certainty about my argument ‘unravels’ when the discrepancy is articulated. Thus, I as an author reconciles the difference between what I was certain of, and what unexpected idea emerged.

Likewise, when Edison is attempting to find the best filament for a lightbulb, he starts with the certainty that this specific filament could be better, and then receives the result which shows it isn’t. The error between the expectation and result establishes the process of learning itself. Importantly, however, Edison doesn’t have to try out multiple filaments of platinum over and over again; by using one filament, he can speak for ALL of the element of platinum, and thus have the certainty it is inferior. Rather, Edison has to assume that such a filament is useful first, and then attempt to show that it isn’t.

Or, when finding lost keys to a car, a person will attempt to assume where the car keys would be, and then attempt to see if the car keys aren’t there. The person, by using deductive logic, creates a statement in his head where the keys are, and then checks to see if such a statement is true or false. Eventually, the ‘error’ of the keys being absent makes the person deduce a different possible location. The person then gets up and searches that new location, in hopes of finding his keys. However, if the keys aren’t there, the person deduces that the keys could be somewhere else, and continues so forth until he finds the keys.

The essential point here, however, is that the search involves testing certainty for validity. For our minds, what is certain must be valid, but what is valid isn’t what is always certain. Therefore, to resolve Meno’s paradox, we are always certain about things, but are open to changing our certainty when we are confronted with new information. A man can direct himself in a direction, without knowing what lies on the other side, because he is certain to go in that direction.

Suppose there was a donkey, whom was hungry and had to choose between two pieces of hay. However, both pieces of these hay were of identical form and distance. The Donkey, however, is extremely hungry, and cannot remain idle in deciding what piece of hay to eat. Yet the Donkey lacks any rational criteria to choose between either pieces of hay. Therefore, how does the Donkey eat at all, rather than starve to death?

Since the hay stacks are at equal distance, the donkey cannot ‘deduce’ how he would decide hay to eat; both choices are identical. Furthermore, referring back to Fredkin’s paradox, we cannot even assume that the mind can discover a difference between the piles of hay itself! So how does the Donkey then eat? It cannot rationally choose a choice, if both choices are identical….

The Donkey eats because he invents information when lacking certainty, and reevaluates such information after-the-fact from his certainty. Or. Put quite simply. The Donkey will make up a new criteria for his decision, in order to actually make a decision. For instance, the Donkey may choose the piece of hay on his right, because he is right footed. Or the Donkey may choose the piece of hay on the right, without even looking at the left, because he was too hungry to even consider the latter option. Or the Donkey may take a bite from one piece of hay, take a bite from another piece of hay, and then alternate between the two pieces to see if they are any different. Hell, the donkey may outright combine the two pieces of hay into one greater piece of hay, so that he can eat it easier.

The point of this paradox is to show that living organisms will invent new criteria and make assumptions, so that the errors produced will produce new information to challenge those very same new criteria and assumptions. There is an old trope in science fiction which states that a robot invader

could be defeated by giving it a logical paradox. The humorous part, however, is that the trope is actually correct. Purely rational constructs cannot invent assumptions and then be emotionally attached to them; therefore, they will always miss out of necessary information outside of their own conception. By testing incorrect beliefs, we discover new beliefs.

The answer lies in emotion. Biological minds have a capacity that have yet to be replicated by mechanical minds. A donkey, when pressed to choose between two equal choices, will categorically decide by inventing new information, which then enables it to select the piece of hay, despite the fact that this ‘new’ information isn’t actually real. Or, put another way, human beings have feelings which guide them toward specific outcomes, and will invent information to rationalize such a decision, even when it isn’t present. By assuming false truths, we then create results which give us the actual truth.

Men will invent that there fortune is west, and then seek to prove it real. It may sound strange, but even basic understanding shows otherwise. When we ask men why they want to go to college, without ever having the experience of college itself, they respond that they do so in order to get an education they don’t understand, for a job that they are unaware of, with a institution they are only vaguely familiar with. In short, human brains aren’t actual rational because rationality cannot recognize and resolve errors. (It can only resolve inconsistencies.)

If humans were more like computers, we wouldn’t actually be more intelligent; rather, we would be stuck in eternal do-loops. Incapable of finding the prerequisite answer to even a basic problem, we would instead reevaluate the same information over and over again, unable to grasp the information incompleteness of reality. Meno’s Paradox is how humanity generates algorithms, and the reason why the coder, not the machine, owns the world.

Emotions are products which help us overcome information incompleteness, so that we can choose in the face of it. Likewise, when we fail to have an understanding about a particular topic, our errors also reveals new information from the ‘results’ of our misconceptions, thus enabling us to obtain information completeness. Consider Edison, and his passionate quest to build the lightbulb. Despite never ‘knowing’ how to build the better bulb, or even that he would succeed, he did so through the power of feeling, rather than thinking. When pressed with information uncertainty, he generated new information and then tested that information. And even further, his attachment toward the ideal, or a conception yet to be realized, made him continually error yet persevere regardless.

“I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.” – Thomas Edison

Therefore, humans are certain about their decisions, so they may carry them out in the face of uncertainty. And because humans are capable of inventing such fictitious information, they are capable of coping with information incompleteness, and can carry on even when they are given incomplete information.

But from being wrong, another property emerges that is even more revolutionary beyond itself.

As humans make mistakes from their certainty, they are given errors which enable them to discover how their explanations differ from reality. From these errors, such as using the wrong lightbulb filament, they become capable of reconciling their misconceptions, and become closer to discovering an accurate explanation about reality. Humans escape their do-loops because they make mistakes, which reveals additional information that enables them to reconcile how their thinking is erroneous. So when a computer is coded incorrectly, the human can take that bug, and provoke further errors in hopes of learning how to resolve such a bug.

Yet it is that emotional attachment to see the bug resolved which enables people to keep generating errors in the face of information incompleteness, in hopes of discovering an explanation which would resolve the misconception itself. Or, put simply; people are emotionally invested in their dreams, and then learn from their errors in hopes of obtaining them. They envision a feature about reality, and then seek to resolve that discrepancy until they gain understanding.

Far from emotion inhibiting thinking, only the greatest of thinkers are emotional. It is their attachment to finding out the answer in a situation of information incompleteness, which enables them to cope with the errors of finding the truth, and to press forward through repeated hardship.

And, referring back to the board game Mastermind, it is the quest to discover the combination of pegs which enables them to repeatedly make errors, and then use those errors to help develop a new explanation for the combination. The process of trial and error is learning, but trial and error has little to do with thinking. It is the quest to continually generate errors in order to remove information incompleteness, until our certainty about reality is reconciled as valid with reality.

A man searches for what he knows so that he may find what he doesn’t know. He searches for what he knows because he may not actually know it. --And for what he does not know, he finds when he searches for what he does know.

A man searches for his car keys so that he may find where they aren’t. He searches for where he believes they are, because they may actually not be there. –And for where they car keys aren’t, he learns then they are somewhere else.

We gain knowledge by testing what we know, in order to find out what we don’t know. We assert a premise, and then subject that premise to investigation. If that premise turns out to be false, we then reconcile the outcome with our prediction. Therefore, learning involves reconciling between our assumptions and the errors our assumptions produce.

Again, the essential takeaway is that. We only learn when we have new information which reconciles our errors.

And in conclusion to this second part, I would emphasis that certainty is a construction of emotion, where-as validity emerges between our errors and how we reconcile them. As we deduce our world, we assume truth, and when our assumptions aren’t true, we reconcile them with our errors. “Emotions,” far from being irrational, are actually the essential component to learning, because they compel us to error, which enlightens us with new knowledge.

Imagine then the difference between an emotional Captain Kirk and a rational but stoic Captain Spock. One of them always experiments with something new, believing in things that in fact turn out quite untrue. On the other hand, Captain Spock remains a flawless perfectionist, whose raw intellect enables him to stick to procedure and conform perfectly within logic. Yet because of Kirk’s propensity for errors, Captain Kirk is capable of discovering entirely new information which wasn’t even conceived by his own enemies. Therefore, from his errors, he gains access to greater knowledge, which is actually more valuable than Captain Spock’s preconceived notions.

The true problem with being emotional, isn’t that you make bad decisions, but that you must endure bad decisions in order to fine better decisions. This is why men of great passion can defeat men of superior intellect. For all the skill and grace of General Lee, General Grant was able to profit from his own errors better than General Lee ever could. And the real enemy of the emotional is himself, for as

long as he can endure his emotions, he exposes himself to more valuable errors which get him closer to a greater truth.

Yet it is essential to understand that errors only give us the potential for knowledge, but errors themselves cannot be knowledge! Errors enable us to explain how we fail to take things in account (absolutism,) how we fail to categorize things for our understanding (holism,) and how we fail to take account for how things are related (axioms.) Learning is important, but knowledge is a successful relationship of ideas.

As long as we eliminate more possibilities by making errors, we learn. Emotions, therefore, teach us about our world, because they keep us going in the face of errors. And if we reconcile our errors with what we wrongly believe, we discover the truth. Thus Meno’s paradox is resolved.

In the first part, we discussed the Socratic Method, or understanding that by rejecting anything, we keep the potential to learn everything. As long as we can keep cognitive flexibility in our search for knowledge, we can always remain ahead to find answers. But this is more difficult than it sounds. Biologically, I suspect human brains have only a limited capacity for malleability in their belief structures, which is why progress comes from the Youth. Even yours truly would have a hard time maintain Socratic Wisdom when pressed with things that he’s been mistake in.

In the second part, we discussed how we learn. By admitting we can be wrong, we become prepared to become right about anything. And we also learned that tremendous hardship emerges from being close-minded. In the second part, we learned how that by producing errors, we can reconcile the outcome from our misconception, to find the truth. And emotional attachment is highly useful, because it allows us to preserve until we reconcile the truth itself

When we abandon theory for explanation, we engage in obscurantism, because without theory, we lose the capacity of prediction, and therefore explanation. We commit “Type-0” errors, or errors from obscuration. The moment we refrain from testing the conclusions we make, in order to be ‘faithful’ to what we already know, we by definition have already committed to a Type-0 error.

In this third part, we discuss how that when we refrain from generating hypotheses, we refrain from gather knowledge, thus gaining obscurantism. Naïve materialism can convince us to refrain from learning, because it makes us unaware of the function that theorizing provides. If we reject theory for the sake of being theory, than we can never actually generate the data necessary to progress knowledge. Nevertheless, there are those who attempt to deny the conceptualization itself, so that they only remain focused on what they know to be true. Yet without taking the effort to continually test new and strange ideas, we find ourselves committing a Type-0 error.

A Type-0 error occurs when we neither reject nor confirm a hypothesis. When we do so, however, we become unaware of the type of error we have committed, and therefore we have committed to an “unknown unknown.” Where-as with Type 1 and Type 2 errors, there remains the potential for them to be discovered, and therefore we can infer the truth about our hypothesis. But with a Type-0 error, we fail to progress at all, because we can’t ever know what type of error we made, in addition to never knowing the truth at all. As a result, information turns into a paradox, because the inherent hypothesis turns unsolvable when we reject theory for the sake of the theory itself.

In this section, I will first describe the logical relationship between two variables with true false statements. Then, I will show that a Type-0 error exists when all four simultaneous outcomes are still possible. Finally, I will reveal that a Type-0 error is even worse than a Type-1 or Type-2 error, because a

Type-0 error is an inherent paradox, and therefore unsolvable (Where-as Type-1 and Type-2 errors can be solved, because they aren’t paradoxical.)

To prove the existence of a Type-0 error, we must first understand that the decision matrix in itself consists of a choice, rather than each particular choice. For instance, how many squares are in this picture?

There are five. One square for each sub component, and one square containing the other four subcomponents. And so whenever there is a decision to be made, there is inherently a decision which encompasses the very act of deciding itself; this process can go on in eternity, through the process of a Do-Loop.

Now, let us take the example above, and compare it to the results of between a hypothesis and its acceptance. As we can see, there are five squares; four squares for each category, and one square representing the decision itself.

Starting from the left corner and going clockwise, we see the first outcome; the hypothesis is true, and we don’t reject it. This is in fact the ‘best’ outcome, in that a positively defined hypothesis reveals knowledge. Referring to our example in the next chapter with Ravens, it is only with accurate explanation do we possess knowledge, rather than merely being logical. Therefore, accurate hypotheses are explanations which give us more awareness of time and space, through their empiricism (their ability to exist without our deductions,) rather than our judgment.

Moving over to the next square, we can reject our hypothesis, even if it is true. This is a more concerning problem than imagined, because a rejected true hypothesis requires us to invent continual wrong hypothesis, in order to give explanation. And despite the protesting of some thinkers like Karl Popper, the unfortunate consequence of Type-1 errors is a Sisyphean nightmare. We are required to keep generating more and more false explanations, rather than admit an uncomfortable hypothesis is true. Type-2 errors, although harmful, are self-limiting, in that they refrain from taking the place of actual truth itself. But this a topic that needs to be examined elsewhere.

Continuing clockwise, we can also reject a false hypothesis, which, although disappointing, gets us closer to the truth. Pay attention to the following, because it is crucial. Wrong hypothesizes can reveal necessary information that will allow us to reconcile our misconception toward reality. We need to study the data of hypothesizes, and reconcile it with further data in order to construct more accurate theories. Therefore, generating false hypothesizes are necessary in order to find the truth, on the grounds that the information revealed will give us the data to reconcile our false hypothesis with a real hypothesis.

Finally, we can commit the worst of errors, which is a Type-II error. In this version of an error, we choose to accept a Hypothesis which is wrong. When we do so, it cripples how we understand the world and what we decide to do. It forces ourselves to invent further and further wrongful hypothesizes, in order to reconcile the difference between what we got wrong, leading us down into an abyss of lies. This is also why humanity failed so badly at trying to understand the physical universe; as deductive organisms, we will continually invent information so that we can remain consistent. But in doing so, we lose all practice of objectivity.

Yet mankind, centuries after the scientific revolution, should be aware of this. Science has become as resilient as agriculture so far in history, and it’s needless to emphasize how bad it is to support a false hypothesis. We don’t need to cover the ground here.

Rather. What I want to address is the other side of believing in a false hypothesis, which is refusing to hypothesize at all! Rather than an antiquated medieval church destroying the acquisition of knowledge, the very scientists have discovered how to control the flow of information, by preventing prediction itself! This inevitably will cause Science to take on the exact features of a medieval papacy, forcing individuals to recant unpopular opinions by preventing them from proving their points. Where-as the religious ignore results from the scientific method, “latter-day theologians” prohibit the scientific method to prevent results from being demonstrated.

Therefore, let’s talk about the fifth square in the table. We know of the two errors, Type-1 and Type-2, and we know of the other two results, proving a hypothesis true and proving a hypothesis false. Yet what about the result which incorporates all the results? What about the square that houses all of the other squares? What is the logical function of assuming the POSSIBILITY of the result, rather than actually SELECTING a result?

A Type-0 Error happens when we refuse to make any kind of prediction, to allow for the possibility of contradictory results, therefore creating an error in paradox. By refusing to commit to one of the potential outcomes, we leave the reality that all four potential outcomes are true, and therefore allow for a paradox to be our response.

“I don’t know if this hypothesis is true or false, but I refuse to investigate, therefore I must assume it can be both, even though it cannot be both.”

A paradox in itself must be false, because it cannot exist. In the same way we cannot use the Ontological argument to describe something is real, (“God must be real because I can conceive it,”) we also cannot make something uncertain yet declare it real. We cannot claim that a coin will land on its face during a coin toss, but then prevent the coin from being flipped itself. By our nature of turning something uncertain, we rob the capacity for truth to exist. This is different from not understanding a phenomenon. Where-as the laws of physics exist with or without us, Obscurantism attempts to make the laws of physics uncertain to us, by forcing us to assume a set of contradictory physical laws at once.

As a result, it forms an error from its own paradox, rather than a bad data set or an incorrect interpretation. It the process of failing to even provide an answer, which can limit our ability to gather knowledge. And it is among the worst of all possible decisions, because it purposefully destroys our capacity to learn itself.

When we generate errors, we have the capacity to test those errors against future data. And if we generate the correct hypothesis, then we have gather knowledge. But if we generate no information, out of fear of generating an error, we therefore give into obscurantism. Because we cannot test conclusions we have yet to generate

The only time a Type-0 error should ever be tolerated is when a Type 1 or Type 2 Error is worse than never knowing. This is a surprisingly rare occurrence, but sometimes, it is best to ‘let sleeping dogs rest’ and commit to a Type-0 error, for investigation can lead to an even worse outcome.

However, Type-0 errors in nearly every setting, even medicine and war, remain the abject cornerstone of failure. We may refrain from kicking down every door in a building in fear of putting our own soldiers at risk, but we still must discover whether an enemy is among our forces. Type-0 errors are only permissible in matters to prevent harm.

But such instances are surprisingly rare. But Obscurantism is far more common.

Obscurantism is the disavowal of prediction. It rests on the idea that Type-0 errors are a necessity or are inherently a non-harmful thing. Many intellectuals have staked their entire careers on Obscurantism, for many kinds of reasons, most notably because they are attached to some kind of falsehood. If a prediction would lead me to finding an answer I don’t like, then I can obscure the result so that the result isn’t known. It is interesting then, in my time, that Obscurantism isn’t actually acknowledged as a prominent factor in human thinking. Yet I see the practice happen all the time, in particular fields like genetics, sociology, or economics. Many of the “greatest contemporary thinkers” in my time fail to make any predictions at all, and instead give platitudes which appeals to the sensibilities of care ethics.

Obscurantism is easy to resolve, but makes a person unpopular. When pressed in discussion, it is necessary to force the other person to predict. If the person cannot make a prediction of any kind, he has no interest in knowledge. If the person makes inaccurate predictions, then he commits Type-I and Type-II errors. But inaccurate predictions by definition cannot produce Type-0 errors. Therefore, it makes sense to push anyone who has ideas to share into making predictions. Obscurantism has done tremendous damage to human thinking. If the species is to progress it cannot tolerate Type-0 errors.

Moving on to the final point, I want to talk about Fitch’s paradox, or how learning can be achieved ‘simply.’ One of the most interesting things about philosophy is the complexity it talks about epistemology. For a philosopher, it’s amazing that we have found any knowledge at all, given the sheer breadth of skepticism that can be generated. Yet there is a fundamental feature about reality which enables us to find truth, that has yet been overlooked.

Referring back to our previous chapter on knowledge, reality is interconnected and whole (holistic.) What this means is that since everything is related to everything else, there are an inconceivable number of ways to find truth. Two men with an entirely different set of thinking can come up with the same solution, because these two men inhabit the same reality. Remember we know that our deductions are a fiction to how we process the universe (because we only have a limited set of brainpower, and therefore we have to deduce only to what we can process at once.) So it’s irrelevant what our deductions actually are, because we can find the relevant information by looking at the world differently.

What this means is that skepticism is practically unfounded. If we have access to certain pieces of information, we can find other pieces of information, because ‘pieces’ are a fiction that our cognitive mind produces to understand reality. If we are ‘correct,’ then it’s irrelevant how we lay the pieces, as long as our deductions lack any contradiction with reality (absolutistic feature of knowledge.) It’s like a puzzle set. It doesn’t matter how we cut the individual puzzle pieces, if we are right, all of the pieces will inevitably form up to create the same picture as reality.

Fitch’s paradox argues, however, that if every truth is knowable, how can unknowable truths exist, if by definition all truths can be known? Restall responds by saying that we cannot know all truths at once, but we can only know truths when they relate to other truths about the world. We will add to this by going into greater detail to how this relates to learning. (And we will skip the logic, as I have serious objections to logic itself. See my chapter on Logic.)

When we learn, the goal is to ensure consistency with what we have already learned. This is one of the key ingredients to a human mind; deduction cannot exist if it is inconsistent. In the same way a computer program will produce an eternal do-loop if it encounters an inconsistency in its thinking, a human mind will try to resolve an inconsistency when presented with one. The crucial point we need to

add, though, is that reality is always consistent regardless of how we slice it. As a result, it doesn’t matter if there is ‘truth we are unaware of,’ the only thing that’s relevant is if we remain consistent to reality itself. Potentially, we could be ignorant of nearly everything about our world, yet remain correct about something in particular, because our thinking has yet to contradict reality itself.

Keep in mind, by the way, that we know reality exists because things happen without our conception. (Going back to the “is the real world real?” objection.)

Therefore, as long as a person isn’t contradicting himself or his objective reality, he will inevitably turn ‘unknown’ truths into ‘known’ truths. Furthermore, we can also ‘know our unknowns,’ because we understand there are things which we cannot relate to what we know. For instance, we cannot know what Albert Einstein’s last words were, because we cannot relate it to anything we already know. There isn’t a clear ‘trail’ to this unknown known and as such this information is lost to time and space.

And this is the useful skepticism that people should take away with themselves. Understanding reality only works when we are incorporating it with the truths we know, and sometimes we have to ‘let go’ of truths because they are wrong. If we attempt to push something new without relating it to as things are, we wind up making terrible errors about our world. I can’t help but think of bad economics as a case in point of this. Many schools of economics, especially the schools of Marxism and Austrian economics, will disregard any information that contradicts their ‘known truths’ without debate. So it’s impossible for them to ‘learn’ because information cannot relate with their expectations of reality.

In conclusion, here is what I would suggest. When learning, seek information based on what you already ‘know.’ But when new information cannot be related to your current world view, a strong mind will change their world view to incorporate the new information, while a weak mind will attempt to disregard information to keep things consistent. Or, as this relates to Fitch’s paradox, unknown truths are unknowable only if we refuse to learn knowable truths which would make unknown truths knowable. Or, put more simply, if we don’t bother learning uncomfortable things, we’ll never learn worthwhile things.

And thus, concluding this chapter, we talked about the Socratic Paradox, or how to learn right, Meno’s paradox, or how we learn, Type-0 errors, or the threat’s to our learning, and Fitch’s paradox, or understanding that learning is a trail that starts from what we learned. I want to add one final things.

There are many paths to knowledge. This isn’t an exhaustive method to explain it. Just take these lessons and move on. Unlike my other writings, learning is too sacred for me to claim any kind of authority to be on.

Chapter 6 - Logic

In this chapter, we discuss the concept of logic, or how logic is consistency itself. However, we

will also discuss the primarily overlooked limitations of logic, not because logic is unnecessary, but

because logic isn’t just enough. Like a computer program which produces bad data, human beings can

make mistakes while remaining perfectly logic. This has to do with the fact that logic is a deductive form

of consistent reasoning, and as such deduction is a highly flawed way to understand our world.

Remember. Inductive reasoning enables us to ‘build up’ our information and prevents us from

eliminating crucial data from a mistaken understanding. Deductive reasoning, however, allows us to

eliminate potentially essential reasoning from our understanding, causing us to make wildly incorrect

conclusions.

If this sounds strange, consider Newton’s fascination with Alchemy as an extreme case of logic

gone amok. A genius who discovered the physics also spent the vast majority of his time trying to use

numbers to remain immortal. Or consider Aristotelian physics, the very physics that Newton replaced. It

itself is a logical system where air rises first above fire, fire rises above water, and water rises above

earth. Logically, it’s quite sound. But that doesn’t mean it’s accurate.

In the first part, we’ll discuss Hempel’s paradox, which describes that logic can be false, because

consistent thinking can contradict reality. In the second part, we’ll describe the ‘magic of mathematics,’

or mathematics as a form of consistency and completeness. In the third part, we will discuss Brauer and

Leibneiz’s middle ground. Can we know the world only if we are correct by its output? Or is it just

enough to show that our knowledge must be true and cannot contradict itself? The correct answer is we

need to do both, but only through a third intermediary position.

The final part, is perhaps the strangest part, and the most risky for me as an author. I argue that

maybe the laws of physics suffer from incompleteness, and that it may be possible for physical laws to

contradict each other. And if they do so, I speculate what the consequences of that could be.

HOWEVER! This is just raising the question. Under no circumstance do I adopt this position

unless inductive reasoning can show it’s the case. Going back to the previous chapter, refusing to make

a prediction is obscurantism, a crime against knowledge. So I am comfortable making an insane

prediction, knowing very well it can be wrong. But unlike those who have attempted to solve this

problem before me, I have a far stronger philosophical grasp of Science and Subjectivity; I discovered

the line of demarcation! Therefore, I noticed a blind spot between the two, where something can

objectively exist, but also technically not be consistent. In time, we will see if this is the case, or it isn’t.

In which case, I will just delete this part for future audiences.

Put another way, the universe may be fallible. This may explain why phenomenon like Black

Holes or strange Quantum events occur, and why they cannot be reconciled; they are glitches in reality.

And if it is, this means the theory of everything can be solved.

Let us begin.

In philosophy, there is an age-old lesson that is taught to young students.

o All men are mortal o Socrates is a man o Therefore Socrates is mortal

To most people, it seems pretty reasonable. All men are mortal, and they will die one day. So

they think nothing of it, and appropriately so. But what if we changed something about this feature…

o All men have never been in space o Socrates is a man o Therefore Socrates has never been in space.

That’s kind of odd. The first premise is wrong, the second premise is correct, and the third premise is also correct. Academic philosophers of my day would call this ‘soundness’ and validity, but I don’t even respect logic enough to bother with this game. Logic can make up all kind of wrong conclusions, because logic itself is merely a form of consistency. Consider Hempel’s ravens.

o All Ravens are Black o My shoes are Black o Therefore my shoes must be Ravens

It may sound absurd, but it follows the exact same ‘logic’ as Socrates’s mortality (the first example

o All Men/Ravens are Mortal/Black o Socrates/my shoes are Mortal o Therefore Socrates/my shoes must be Mortal/Ravens

What’s going on?

Well it gets even weirder, because these logical inaccuracies can apply to anything.

o If it is raining and cold, it will snow o It is raining and there is snow o Therefore, it must also be cold

o If it is water and hot, it will be boiling. o It is hot and it is boiling. o Therefore, it must also be water.

o (Even if other liquids can boil as well.)

I want to stop the train here though. Remember. I firmly believe knowledge is possible, and Revenge of Teleology explains how it is possible. But what I am trying to do is to show that logic is a poor guarantee of knowledge. That doesn’t mean ‘post-modernism/solipism’ is any better for our aims. Rather, inductive reasoning, aka the Scientific Method, is perhaps the only tight guarantee we have toward any kind of objective truth. And going one step farther, the Teleological Method, although incapable of promising any kind of truth, still provides us with the benefit of making others ‘deduce’ the

things we want to them. Or, put more simply, the teleological method can be good at getting people to do something we want. Which may be more important at times then knowing the laws of gravity.

Logic has a weird place for me then. It’s a good, but it’s a feature of a knowledge rather than knowledge itself. Logic ensures consistency. That’s it. When someone is thinking logically, they are thinking with consistency about their world around them. This can be necessary, because reality itself is consistent and we need to understand it this way. Furthermore, those who abandon consistency in their thinking cannot comprehend the universe, because inevitably their dissonance will cause them to suffer from a do-loop.

Hempel’s paradox shows us the limits of logic. We can be consistently wrong.

Nevertheless, consistency is essential. With consistency, we can ensure that whatever we know remains valid however we examine it. This is the essential magic of mathematics. It is deducing all of knowledge until what is left is what’s relevant. We can then take what’s relevant, and we can check to ensure what we have remains consistent. This is what mathematicians do when they create proofs. They are checking to see if their formulas are logical, by ensuring they are consistent. This what Leibneiz had in mind when he articulated that something is true when it cannot shown to be false (--x.)

Now. Mathematics, unlike verbal reasoning and yours truly, can be perfectly consistent with objective reality. Reality doesn’t contradict itself and neither does mathematics. This is why mathematics models reality. We intuitively understand that these numbers document the laws of gravity. But what we are really doing is holding ourselves to a logical standard that we cannot contradict ourselves about. What this means is that through mathematics, we can use deductive logic to never allow contradiction. There is tremendous power in this. We can ‘know’ what structures will be before we build them, because our models are perfectly consistent with objective reality.

Yet according to the line of demarcation, mathematics is a subjective process, because it is deductive. This sounds absurd, but there are clear examples of math going wrong. More importantly, inductive reasoning doesn’t really have a place in math. For instance, the answer to the equation in my head is 98. Can you tell me what equation produced this result? There are potentially an infinite amount of equations which can produce this result. Comparatively, specific molecules only have a finite number of chemical combinations which can produce a result. There are only so many amount of ways to make salt. We can inductively reason what those equations could be. It’s distinctions like these which make mathematics just a really effective form of reasoning, rather than a path to truth.

Keep in mind we’ve had math centuries before we discovered inductive reasoning (therefore science.) Math is an ally of Science, but without inductive reasoning, mathematics turns strange (alchemy is an example of this process.)

The problem with math is that Leibneiz’s standard only shows us when we fail to be consistently logical. If we obeyed Leibneiz, we’d always be logical, but rarely accurate. Now. Reality itself is consistent, but from Hempel’s paradox, we also know that we can be consistently wrong about reality. So when we are solving mathematical equations we are attempting to understand our world through a logical construct. But we can also go horribly wrong with mathematics. For instance, we can assume that the force of gravity is 6.807 instead of 9.807. We can then construct a series of math equations with this assumption. Furthermore, these math equations could potentially be absolutely consistent with themselves. For Leibneiz, this is truth, because gravity cannot shown to be false under its own model (--x.)

Now, people are more than welcome to introduce ‘reality’ in this equation to disprove gravity as 6.807, but then a larger troubling point emerges. In mathematics, an entire Earth can be modeled with gravity 6.807. Everything about it could remain consistent with itself and therefore exist ‘real’ through math. In fact, let’s go all the way. We can, potentially, invent new laws of physics all together and have it exist mathematically. It potentially couldn’t contradict itself (--x) therefore it would exist as a proof.

But if people are talking about the laws of physics in Xanadu, the correct response should be skepticism. Nevertheless, after understanding the power of math, I am now establishing its limit. Math is effectively a subjective process that eliminates the possibility of contradiction. It’s cousin, logic, also eliminates the possibility of contradiction, although anything logical by definition doesn’t contradict itself. Reason, therefore, is remaining consistent in one’s understanding.

Therefore the problem is that Science has different rules. It uses inductive reasoning to understand the world. Remember. Human minds cannot use deduction to understand objectivity, because we can fail to deduce relevant information. But through inductive reasoning, we can only reason what we’ve shown to exist without our deduction, and therefore we gain access to true, hard, knowledge (The Scientific method shows others that our conclusions were made without our deductive reasoing.) Inductive reasoning, therefore, can establish the hard and immovable variables that mathematics cannot. We know gravity is 9.807 because we have shown this process exists through reliable, reproducible, and valid results. With this information, we can then logically deduce how the world could be given certain circumstances. But only after we used the scientific method to define the variables and how we relate them.

Thus, we enter Brauer’s point. Things are only true when we prove them to be true (x.) Where-as Leibneiz is interested in making sure our information is logical (--x), as in our proofs are consistent with themselves, Brauer wants to know what’s going outside beyond the piece of paper. The confusion emerged between the two thinkers when we assumed the mathematics is an objective practice. When in reality, it is a logical, but subjective, process. Therefore there is tremendous consideration to be practiced with mathematics. Otherwise the results can be disastrous.

Economics is THE example of math gone wrong. Despite my discussion about science and physics, physicists have an inherent appreciation for the Scientific Method. So we rarely see any kind of mistakes on their end, because they are keen to correct any discrepancies between their model and reality. The real danger of math is the economists who bring out their economic models only to lead absolute disaster for the world. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter the ‘school’ of economics. Marxists brought out math. Austrians brought out math. Keynesians brought out math. And Neoclassicals brought out math.

Whenever an economist reaches for mathematics, I reach for my gun.

Math only shows the economist is consistent. And, as we have shown early, consistency doesn’t mean shit unless inductive reasoning sets the foundation of the variables. The reason why math works in physics (or chemistry, meteorology, biology…) is because inductive reasoning sets the founding equations (axioms) to what the relationships are. From these founding relationships, we can assume what COULD be real because we are axiomatically consistent with reality.

Brauer ‘s point is that we need to know the axioms of reality before we begin to play with math. Once we are aware of such axioms we can use mathematics to remain consistent to such axioms. The

laws of physics do not change, therefore math allows us to understand how the laws of physics exist across time. Hence, we get the coveted truth (X) we wanted.

We have no clue what the axioms of human thinking are across time. We are deductive, subjective, and irrational beings. Therefore mathematics cannot model human behavior well, because the axioms of our decision making are too unstable for any conclusion to hold up. Yet, using mathematics, we can create consistent models based on maxims that were made up fictionally in a debate. This is why economists can sound so damn smart; they figured out that with math they can peddle bullshit that never contradicts itself.

The problem with even the word, ‘social science,’ is that there is no place for inductive reasoning. Axioms are forever in flux, it’s impossible to keep track of all the reasoning of others, and it’s even possible to find all the relevant variables.. ‘Hard sciences’ are playing with ‘God,’ who is steadfast in how he designed the world. ‘Soft sciences’ are playing with Men, which cannot make up its mind on any given day.

Thus, we come to the conclusion. Mathematics/Logic is fantastic. But without Science, it’s near useless. Mathematics and logical thinking ensures that thought remains tightly wound with a consistent principle. But the problem is that we can get all sorts of strange conclusions if there are fundamental inaccuracies in how we understand the world. It isn’t the EQUATIONS that bring us down; what brings us down is the VARIABLES. If the variables of human thinking remained forever constant, like the laws of physics, then soft sciences would be indistinguishable from hard science. But since humans keep changing how they deduce and understand their world, we need to drop the ‘science’ from teleology.

However, we don’t need to end a downer here. The Teleological Method already accounts for a world of deductive reasoning, without science being possible. By manipulating how people/genes/software deduce their world, we can paradoxically CONTROL the outcomes we want, rather than PREDICT the outcomes we want. Which is admittedly far more useful toward our aims, and how humanity interacts with others. Human beings do not understand their world for logical constructs, so it’s foolish to expect logic to model their reasoning.

And in conclusion. Brauer is right about reality, but doesn’t understand logic. Leibneiz establishes logic, but he’s wrong about reality. The line of demarcation separates the two, as neither had any business with the other to begin with.

Let me end on a note on economics, because I brought it up here. Economics should be best understood through documenting, then understanding, the incentives of others, rather than ‘discovering the physical laws of the markets.’ Furthermore, accounting is a necessity, because with mathematics, we can remain consistent to what we possess and owe. How we keep track of how we spend our money should always remain consistent at all times, and this why we mathematics is essential. But economics is a different creature, because how each person deduces their world can so wildly fluctuate, no single mathematical relation can document those changes across time.

For this third part, I am going to perhaps make the most bold conjecture, knowing full well I may be wrong. Nevertheless, it is important to predict and be wrong, rather than it is to not predict at all. This is how human progress is made throughout history.

We know that our deductive minds are inconsistent, and we know that objective reality is consistent. The laws of physics don’t change from our intents (going back to Emeralds and Grue.) But

when I carved the line of demarcation, a sudden strange thought entered my mind. What if objectivity contradicted itself?

We used to believe in an infallible God who created the Universe. Now we (mostly) just believe in a infallible universe. But why must the universe be inherently infallible? What property of objectivity must suggest that it can never fail? We know thing are objective because we are aware of things existing without intent (or deduction.) But does existence without human intent therefore conjecture that something is infallible?

In this third part, I conjecture the idea of Gnosis, or reductive reasoning, as something to engage in for further investigation. If Gnosis does in fact exist, it can be shown because we can show inconsistencies in physical laws. We can, for instance, suggest that one physical law contradicts another physical law, and therefore between that contradiction, Gnosis is practiced.

The immediate candidate for this investigation would be to construct a theory of everything, by explaining what happens when two physical laws contradict each other. Rather than assuming that the laws of the physical universe cannot fail, perhaps it is possible that the laws of the physical universe fails, they do so regularly, and it is possible to take advantage of that failure.

Dr. Einstein says, “God doesn’t play dice,” when introduced to quantum mechanics, but I would argue that “not even God can play dice.” Perhaps the strange nature of quantum mechanics have to do with inconsistent objective laws at the atomic scale. Rather than assuming ‘those laws are governed by chance,’ we can assume that objective laws are extremely inconsistent at this level, and that they contradict each other because of their inconsistent nature.

If this is the case, we theoretically gain access to a third level of reasoning, known as reductive reasoning, where we can play the laws of physics against itself for new applications. What those applications would be, I’m unsure of. And to what all the laws of physics would even be, I’m unsure of that as well.

But the point is that I will offer a clear predictive standard which can be used to evaluate this as ‘knowledge’ or ‘not knowledge.’

If the laws of physics are perfectly consistent with itself at all levels, then Gnosis is false. o Thus, the Theory of Everything.

If the laws of physics contradict each other, than documenting those contradictions is the process of Gnosis. Some potential outcomes could be

o When two physical laws contradict each other, neither of them govern. o When two physical laws contradict each other, one of them governs. o When two physical laws contradict each other, the physical laws change as to not to. o When two physical laws contradict each other, a new physical law emerges.

Gnosis is the unabashed alternative to a Theory of Everything. If we cannot reconcile our physical universe into a coherent explanation, perhaps the universe itself is incoherent. And, if this is the case, Gnosis, or reductive reasoning, can enable new applications for mankind, as we can ‘hack’ the Universe under its own logic.

Could this be overly bold? Yes. But that’s the point of in the process of knowledge. To make bold predictions and accept the outcomes, right or wrong.