Recent Additions to History of Philosophy

The Counter-Calculus (Feb 2018)
Multi-Modularism (Feb 2018)
New Existentialism (Feb 2018)
Group Formalism (Feb 2018)
Emergent Contractualism (one of my favorite theories, Feb 2018)
Black Ideas (Feb 2018)
Integrated Progress (Feb 2018)
Alternative Systems (Feb 2018)
Non-Causal Systemology (Laws of Timeless Nature, Feb 2018)
Subtle Physics (Mar 2018)
The Dubious Process-Coherence (Mar 2018)
Proof by Machine (Mar 2018)
Minima Ontology (Mar 2018)
…

ABSTRUSIST MORALITY (1993)

What if the key to everything were nothing?

Maybe if it were good later it would be really good.

Maybe the only good cheating is cheating at cheating.

We should focus on 'savoring the last crumb' by which we appreciate everything.

THE COUNTER-CALCULUS (FEB 2018)

(Prescript: Before there were idiots it was all malarky… Know all the alternatives, climb the magic steps).

I know it will be cold tomorrow, because I'm not going to wear my coat. It happens my coat is enchanted with warm weather.

Sometimes pessimism is the best theory of optimism, because it creates awareness and raises the standard.

We progress when we think of the alternatives. How were we ever right? Well, through our degree of being concerned.

We may have moved on, but it is all necessary.

We can create necessity, for it defines proof.

A higher proof defies necessity.

Back to our roots, magical reasoning.

There is ‘something in there’, for I do not comprehend.

I may as well be an expert, to limit my options.

I should seek sacrosancts, because they have formility!

Calculus is really a forge of concepts.

Little more, that is what we are looking for!

Amalgamated feeling!

Dove-doors!

Proscilitution!

Grimacing gnomes!

Sophisocracy!

Eliadics!

Eddes!

Meaningful attractions!

Mechanical speed!

Sublimation!

Divine information!

Philosophical problemation!

Elidation!

Sophreyzation!

Composit samplification!

Exponential effication!

Significant vivification!

Conceptual animation!

…

(I reached this in Feb 2018)
...

MULTI-MODULARISM (FEB 2018)

[Coherent Systems 2.A.3.C.3.]

X = Number.

M = A module.

Number of Ms = X.

Number of Ms (X) = Coherent result R.

M(0) = Empty coherence.

MX = R1

MMX = R2

MMMX = R3

MMMMX = R4

If (R1, R2, R3, R4) is a coherent set, then MXMMXMMMXMMMMX = Coherence.

(Soul: Expecting a four).

…

NEW EXISTENTIALISM (FEB 2018)

Essentially, it adopts a new framework → uses the framework for some new notion → is useful → may be open to meta-interpretation.

Existential Coincidence

...

GROUP FORMALISM (FEB 2018)

Also called Group Formalism, as opposed to formal grouping. I do not consider this list comprehensive.

Pure Theoretics

Modal Formalism

High-Minded Formalism

Survival Formalism
...

EMERGENT CONTRACTUALISM (FEB 2018)

I think its more like this process:

1. Learn how to negotiate, or encounter a higher intelligence.
2. Negotiate, either through intelligence or interaction with higher intelligence.
3. Have an idea.
4. Contract the idea.
5. Locate a body of ideas or objects (‘setting’) as a result of the contract.

Now, we can ask whether the ‘setting’ has ‘emerged’ but it is much smarter to see the setting, from our vantage point as a contractualization of our prior ideas, and from others’ vantage points as a continued attempt at bargaining.

My general thesis is that the universe, that is, the real living universe, is far more intellectual than we think. Everything that is not intellectual tends to encounter something supernatural. That is the part we forget when we encounter the physical largesse of our own often inevitable contracts for dominion.

The supernatural aspect mostly only exists in order to ‘reproduce’ — to interact with the contractual, core-idea forming elements, and it may be predatory, but it remains blameless because there are necessities, ideas, and compensation built into the system.

Once we have a contract (with the universe), we can say whether we are being wise or foolish, or if we are just not getting what we want.
...

BLACK IDEAS (FEB 2018)

For awhile things don’t seem to get better, they seem to stagnate.

Then you are sure that you’ve evolved a little bit…

You have a black idea, something to add to your other ideas, until things seem to get a little bit better.

Now we cannot prove that we are not evolved.

Such is the influence of the idea.

And from then on, you decide you are allied to the ‘blackest ideas’ — that is, the ones that are most evolved.

Even so, it is a delicate balance, and it is possible—although difficult even—to imagine another approach or technique going equally far.

The black ideas are one of many methods—although not the worst, to prevent civilization from crumbling.

How high the day, how good the honey—when you can afford more than one!

Things will surely change for the better. How funny it was to think you were being blackmailed!—

It looks the same, but it is different, such is the nature of the best ideas!

One must therefore concern oneself with this mythological thing, this elephant in the room—which is merely one’s ability to comprehend with some completeness the importance of any one of these true ideas.

It is a bit like gambling, but with more reassurance, and within a few measures great things come to pass.

Therefore, acknowledge greatness, and stand in the shadow—civilization is non pareill.

...

INTEGRATED PROGRESS (FEB 2018)

It is much like how a mouse-brain thinks, as exaggerated by the human mind. Potentially advanced, in a smallish form.

“When the present integrates the thoughts of the future, then progress is integrated. Thus, progress is the past of the future, so progress is now. Thought integrated with the present is integrated progress when the present integrates the future. Thoughts of the present are the future of integration.”

The method is the following:

1. Look back from the future.
2. Think about what remains of the present.
3. Act with future knowledge.
4. Gradually resolve the presence of the future.
5. See the present as an element of the future.
6. Calibrate ideas by their arbitrary distance to the future.
7. Guess future ideas.
8. Plan history coherently.
9. Refine timeless models.
10. Adopt relevant paradines (paradigmatic paradigms).
11. Use standardized or better metaphysics.

ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS (FEB 2018)

[Coherent Systems 2.A.3.C.4.]

Proof is Proof (if it exists as such, or to the extent that its considered proof).

What is a proof?

Okay, what we have just stated as the definition of proof is indeed proof as such or considered as such.

…

Implications:

• There are many, many variations of proof.
• Each is a true proof by its own standard, if it has a standard.
• Everything has its own kind of proof.
• Everything is proven to the extent that it has a standard.
• We should seek the best standard.
• The standard of standards is the standard of proof.
• There is no proof without standards.
• The proof of proof is the proof of standards.
• Proving standards are standard proofs.
• The standard of proof proves a similar standard of standards, such as universal.
• The proof, for example, of the universal, is proven by the proof of standards regarding the universal.
• Universal proof is a universal standard.
• The proof varies with the standard.
• The universal proof varies with the universal standard.
• If the universal standard constitutes the laws of absolute logic, then if such logic is absolute, the universal proof depends on it.
• Then where the universal standard is absolute logic, the universal proof derives from it, and similarly for other logics.
• What constitutes the universal standard will be the ultimate basis of proof.
• Therefore the ultimate basis of proof has a universal standard.

...

NON-CAUSAL SYSTEMOLOGY (FEB 2018)

Otherwise known as The Laws of Timeless Nature.

[Coherent Systems 2.A.3.D.2.]

SUCCESSFUL TYPES:

VERTICAL IMPOSITION

A translation with the same meaning.

(—crude analogies)

COHERENT CYCLE

ABCD and ADCB using polar opposites in diagonally opposite positions.

(—categorical deduction method)

TIMELESS REGRESS

Proof is proof. What is proof? Okay.

(—Alternative Systems )

ETERNAL ORDER

The such (universe) works because it is such (complete), by infinite mastery or sufficient coincidence.

(—Scientific or theological approach)

PARTIALLY FAILED TYPES:

IMPOSED COHERENCE

Venn Diagrams.

VERTICAL CYCLE

Gödel's defense of mathematical vitality and objectivity with Completeness and Incompleteness.

TIMELESS IMPOSITION

Incoherent Coherentism.

VERTICAL REGRESS

Specific metaphysical theories.

COHERENT REGRESS

The Infinite Trumpet.

TIMELESS CYCLE

History.

ETERNAL IMPOSITION

Legality, vanity, espousal, pretext.

VERTICAL ORDER

Replacement, elimination, simplification, objectification.

ETERNAL CYCLE

Disclosure, deanimation, nothing, unexceptionalism.

COHERENT ORDER

Labeling, assuming, exaggerating, electrifying.

ETERNAL REGRESS

Ambiguousity, greed, collapse, impossibility.

TIMELESS ORDER

Insubstantiality, hesitation, emptiness, requirement.

MORE COMPLETELY FAILED CASES

COHERENT VERTICAL

Function, equivalence, justification, awareness.

CYCLE OF IMPOSITION

Strategy or strategizing, cheating, modifying, changing.

TIMELESS VERTICAL

Discovery, singularity, solving, credit.

IMPOSED REGRESS

Destruction, non-existence, over-complexity, confusion.

CHANGELESS VERTICAL

Death spiral.

CYCLE OF REGRESS

Delay, usurpation, maxing, incidiousness.

ETERNAL VERTICAL

Discovery, singularity, solving, credit.

IMPOSED ORDER

Temporality, ugliness, dysfunction, doubtfulness.

ETERNAL COHERENCE

Transparency, exception, paranoia, example.

CYCLICAL ORDER

Imperfection, multiplicity, parity, holes.

TIMELESS AND ETERNAL

Ultimate, unsurpassable, refined, shrewd.

REVERSE ORDER

Incomplete, undone, irrational, historical.

...

SUBTLE OR SUBTIL PHYSICS (MAR 2018)

[Coherent Systems 2.A.3.D.3.]

1 SUBTLETY IN FORMULAS

In one case, an object is defined by a number of separate formulae… The formulae are collectively, so to speak, what makes the object subtle, which makes it physical. The larger the number of formulae, the more complex the object is relative to the physics, and so any subtlety which depends on more than one formula will also have a subtle physics by some definition.

2 PHYSICAL SUBTLETY

On the other hand, there are cases defined by a single law, in which case it is what is physical that is subtle, because many physical things pertain to the law, and where the number of physical things is many, the difference between physical things is subtle relative to the law, and so, the law is subtle.

3 SUBTLE LOCATIONS

On the other hand, there are things (objects) which vary not by law, nor by formulae, but rather by location, and these things are subtle because their location is subtle, for otherwise, there is nothing to distinguish locations, as the difference in locations cannot be great unless it is lesser between the majority of other locations, and so the difference represented by a location tends to be subtle, unless it is expressed as a law, or a formula, etc.

4 LOGICAL SUBTLETY

Too, there are things that may vary by logical reduction, and here it is clear that if objects do not logically reduce, the logic is subtle enough so as to be NECESSARY, which means that there is something necessarily complex about it, which implies that it is subtle, as it is hard to see why if something were already partially reduced, that it would not be reduced further. Therefore, what is not physical, or formulaic, or subtle in location, is actually subtle logically.

5 INFINITE SUBTLETY

So too, if an object is necessary but not logically subtle, this implies that it cannot be even partially reduced, in which case the object is infinite, which is again another form of subtlety which is hard to comprehend.

6 CONCLUSIONS

Therefore, all indications show that physically, in terms of formulas, in terms of locations, in terms of logic, and in terms of infinity, every thing (objects) are subtle, and therefore we may surmise that physics has a rule of subtlety.

Now we may determine that there is something special about physics:

(1) It may be partly ambiguous or random.

(2) It may be self-determinative in some way.

(3) It may be small and ingenious, and hard to comprehend.

(4) It may be composed of some type of essence or abstract substance.

(5) It may be on the whole inexplicable, because no explanation is large enough.

Therefore, unless further concepts of substantial subtlety present themselves* (*As may be the case) we may assume that physics in its subtlety takes one or more of these forms.

A corollary is that physics adopts those properties that are subtle, insofar as formulas, physics, locations, logic, and infinity are implied within the subtle.

The alternative to subtlety is then also likely to be subtle in at least one way, unless the thing is contradictory in some way.

THE DUBIOUS PROCESS-COHERENCE (MAR 2018)

Not much in this category for good reason, nor can it be considered fully-coherent so far.
The Coherent Dialectic

...


PROOF BY MACHINE (MAR 2018)

Ask someone: Relatively speaking, all the potential of life comes from immortality.

If they do not agree with you, in a high-minded sense they must be a robot.

MINIMA ONTOLOGY (MAR 2018)

Everything is true in some way about everything → Law by Universalism.

Nothing is true about nothing → Illusion.

…

to be continued. My brain is not functioning this morning.

See also:
Shortlist of 'souls’ of Ancient Philosophy

Programmable Heuristics Will Be Available as a Book!!!

PROGRAMMABLE HEURISTICS AND --> BIG IDEAS!,

This text is now available on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1548187380/

BOOK DESCRIPTION

This is the long-awaited text edition of Coppedge’s valuable philosophical heuristics, designed to aid programmers (and everyone else!) in all matters of knowledge. The contents may be beneficial for economists, programmers, machine learning, and even for political advisory and more common tasks like philosophy and creative writing. This is truly a treasure trove for heuristic analysis! Included at the end are eight or so writings on big ideas to give needed perspective and clarify problems, as well as provide a little education.

FROM THE INTRODUCTION

Alan Hájek, who earned his PhD. in philosophy at Princeton in 1993, argues that “philosophy has a variety of heuristics” (1). And goes on to say that “such heuristics can enhance one’s ability to make creative contributions to philosophy.” (1). As recently as 1972, Karl Popper did not even consider philosophical objectivity (in other words, progress) possible. He writes: “From a rational point of view, we should not ‘rely’ on any theory, for no theory has been shown to be true, or can be shown to be true.” (Popper 21). This is a strange absoluteness to hold, which must be self-contradictory. Typology, which is perhaps the closest to realizing coherence outside of mathematics, emerged as recently as the 1870s (145 years ago) with Charles Peirce. (“This theory  of meaning (‘speculative grammar’) was to provide foundations for his writings in logic” OCP). Nicholas Rescher’s book (1973), dates work on coherence somewhat more recently. However, not all heuristics involve coherence. I have made an effort to include anything that might be helpful to my readers.


BIO


Nathan Coppedge, b. 1982, is an author and member of the International Honor Society for Philosophers. He is a famous quotable, and visionary artist. His recent project has been to re-construct the lectures of Socrates. He lives near Yale University.

First Major Quadra of Coherent Systems Complete (256 Systems, 1 Coherent degree of qualified coherent knowledge).

https://nathancoppedge.quora.com/Coherentist-Philosophy-256-Omni-Sciences-Systems-1-to-64-Big-New-Ideas-Data-Innovation

A Reply to Critics of Coherence Theory

There are objective-oriented theories of coherence as well, predominately in my own work. See: https://www.quora.com/What-is-categorical-deduction/answer/Nathan-Coppedge

You will also find that Wikipedia on coherence does not support the idea that it concerns subjectivity or relativism.

The real question is, ironically, whether coherentism has a rational foundation without an empirical one, which is one reason I agree with the older notion that coherentism is opposed to correspondence theory rather than foundationalism.

Recently, correspondence theory has been dominating in academia for strange reasons, and people are beginning to assume that coherentism is a form of correspondence theory. But that is not very true.

My theory relies on the idea of exclusive categories that are accurate relative to the ability to construct knowledge. This is not relativism in any traditional sense.

For Those Interested in Dimensional Philosophy

I will give a full example of a means to formulate categorical deductions on a sixteen-category diagram. This will allow me (hopefully) to progenitate the method in light of disappointing book sales.

Also, I make the excuse that this expansion of the system is not present in the published book, and deserves recording somewhere. It seems unlikely at this point that I will have the opportunity to publish a condensed version of the methods, as I very much would like to. So here is a way of meeting the prospective reader half-way.

There is an initial context of sixteen categories. I will show how these reduce to four. The method has none of the weaknesses of permutation. The categories are listed in order of closest approximate axialarity, from the beginning point to the oppositemost point.

D, C, B, A
H, G, F, E
L, K, J, I
P, O, N, M

A-B-F-E is taken to be one category box (quadra diagram), say CC: Quantity, Texture, Quality, Amorphous.

C-D-H-G is taken to be one quadra, say Physics, Coherency, Abstraction, Correspondence.

K-L-P-O is taken to be one quadra, say Pessimist, Permanent, Optimist, Temporary.

I-J-N-M is taken to be a final quadra, say Perfect, Subject, Complex, Context.

First, a method yields the following for the first quadra:

Quantity-texture is an amorphous quality, or
Amorphous quantity is texture quality

Second, the same method yields the following for quadra number two:

Physics coherency is abstract correspondence, or
Physical correspondence is abstract coherency

Thirdly, the same method yields the following for quadra number three:

Pessimistic permanence is optimistically temporary, or
Temporary pessimism is permanent optimism

Fourthly, the method yields the following for the fourth quadra:

Perfect subjects are complex contexts, or
Perfect contexts are complex subjects

Since only opposites combine [If, as in the sub-methods, the four macro-categories express opposites, something I was not careful to ensure this time, but which is securable in many cases], and there are two choices for every four opposites when it is determined that the relationship is non-arbitrary by virtue of oppositeness, then there are four large categories produced from the initial sixteen categories:

A. Quantitative texture is an amorphous quality so that temporary pessimism is permanent optimism when physics coherency is abstract correspondence so that perfect contexts are complex subjects.

B. Quantity texture is an amorphous quality so that temporary pessimism is permanent optimism when physical correspondence is abstract coherency so that perfect subjects are complex contexts.

C. Meaningless quantity is texture quality so that pessimistic permanence is optimistically temporary when physics coherency is abstract correspondence so that perfect contexts are complex subjects.

D. Meaningless quantity is texture quality so that pessimistic permanence is optimistically temporary when physical correspondence is abstract coherency so that perfect subjects are complex contexts.

These simply go to demonstrate the method. They would be more rational if opposite macro-categories had been chosen, such as if 1.3 were a suitable but separate opposite from 3.1 (vs. 3.3). The numbers provide a foundation for organizing the properties of the boxes.

Notice again, that the product is four from sixteen, made possible because of the double-tier of oppositeness, a kind of effect in which it is determined that there is one and not two layers of significance. This is not the same as a failed method in which only a fraction of the categories are compared, or in which fallaciously opposites are only compared to opposites, or in which fallaciously any detail is reiterated.

The general form of categorical deduction seems to follow the formula "the nth root of n-dimensions", so 4 = 2, 9 = 3, 16 = 4. If this is the case, it could be considered flat and vastly efficient. This is essentially possible because the property of opposites is protracted over every dimension of the hierarchy.


A simpler example in the extreme is the case of the beautiful stoic, who is said to be sensitive to ugliness.

For those using this article, I highly recommend citing the author, Nathan Coppedge. Further information about how to operate categorical methods may be found in The Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit (2013), available from Amazon.

Author News

My publisher, Authorhouse gave me a free deal on a Book Return Program for my two forthcoming books.

That means that there is a small (actual) chance that I may be in bookstores afterall.

Very good news, as far as that goes.

The two books I plan to release in the first four months of 2013 are the following:

The Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit or, Essential Criticism: The Dimensional Encyclopedia First Volume (2013)

and,

Creeping Cadence and Cadence Continues: Poetry in the Life of a Schizophrenic (2013)

The first is pure philosophy, the second attempts to make my schizophrenic poetry into a useful clinical study.