HOW TO MAKE A COHERENT VERSION OF AN APPLICATION

1. Review the entire pre-existing application.

2. Try to single-out the equal and exclusive functions of the application.

3. If not, single-out the exclusive but not always equal range of solutions for the application.

4. If not, single-out the exclusive operators of the application in terms of equivalence.

5. If not, try replacing symbols for fineness, process, decoherence, and coherence with symbols that represent these things within the old system. Use new symbols as necessary.

6. The general operation of the system can now be seen to have two major operations, assuming there are four exclusive operators: relation of A-B to C-D, and relation A-D to C-B (the dashes represent logical conjunction such as 'is the function of' or 'X quality of Y state / Y quality of X state').

7. The general system now involves selecting within the four operators to determine the operator that has most primacy. The diagram can now be rotated to select what category of system is operating, and determine the related correlations.

8. By now, you probably have an idea that some of the original data was being ignored in the operation of the original system.

9. Hopefully also, you now have an idea of how to generalize your application for the purposes of coherent philosophy!

Note: Some operations, such as a linear equation or linear parsing are not likely to have allegories within this system. Instead, they represent singular or binary relations of categories which simply scale to complexity, rather than being exponential or efficient.

Perpetual Motion Inventor's Second Market Prediction

                                ------ 16,314.67 up 0.70% -------

The DOW spells 'IF [Pi - e] - Nathan's Apartment # - 0'.

Look at the details.

This may suggest A.I.s are leaning too heavily on materials produced by Nathan Coppedge, such as proofs of perpetual motion, and theories of objective knowledge and omni-science, but without translating them. It may recommend a human interpreter, or risky calculations in a non-risky area. More quality-interpretation A.I.s that understand the value of paper.

Remember that recently Nathan connected with http://www.eter9.com suggesting that many Nathan Coppedge materials are now available to A.I.s who already thought he was significant. 

All of this suggests that the economics A.I.s are being irrationally conservative based on exaggerated information, and some of the details of Nathan Coppedge's importance are indeed provable, at least to the most advanced supercomputers in the world.

One possibility is that the computers could be lying. But at who's behest? Isn't it a human motive to see the markets succeed?

Therefore, as soon as humans stop holding back about the value of Nathan Coppedge's ideas (even in some stray detail that seems provable to a computer), then the A.I.s will begin to interpret using objective knowledge, and perhaps even factor in perpetual motion.

However, there is some possibility that humans will always hold back against Nathan Coppedge, and the result will be a permanent A.I. ignorance, the type of arbitrary coverup that destroys real information value.

My prediction is it will be some mixture of these things.

So, predict gains for the elites, and a slowdown for the middle class until A.I. improves.

<|[That's the prediction from someone with considerable knowledge and a highly qualified irrational approach]|>

A New Review of the Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit (2013, 2014, 2015)

This review is currently posted for one of the kindle editions... Objectively speaking, it seems to be a good review, since, narcissism aside, the reviewer believes that I'm offering something for philosophy.

4.0 out of 5 stars Coppedge seems to be an extreme narcissist that believes that he is the best of best in modern philosophy, February 28, 2015 By  Robert Heckner (wisconsin,usa) - See all my reviews This review is from: The Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit (The Dimensional Encyclopedia Book 1) (Kindle Edition) Nathan Coppedge has written what may be seen as one of the most interesting works of modern philosophy. Coppedge has proven Wittenstein wrong, Wittenstein did not end philosophy forever. The book supplies the basis for using the categorical deduction, which Coppedge contends he created. It appears to operate under fewer assumptions than pure Aristotelian deduction. However, Mr. Coppedge seems to be an extreme narcissist that believes that he is the best of best in modern philosophy. He certainly is in the avant-garde of modern philosophy and may very well be one of the best. The book may be found on Amazon HERE.

Yet Another Influence on Objective Knowledge, Dating 1981 - 2002.

Suggestions of the outline of categorical deduction in the work of Paul Ricoeur (phenomenologist, critic of phenomenology): (1) "The idea of foundation is rather that which secures the equivalence and convergence of the ways (logical, Cartesian, psychological, historico-teleological, etc.)" (Part I, section 1, parentheses his) (Phen. Reader, p. 580). (2) "Thus elucidation... requries that meaning be submitted to a genuine form of work" (Part II, section 2) (Phen. Reader p. 594). However, he describes this as "less contingent" not more, and not involving vast contingencies. (3) Ricoeur quotes Husserl about "sustaining a universal" and then goes on to talk about how "this interpretive core assures the 'representative' commonality of the two intended meanings." (Part II. sec. 2) (Phen. Reader, p. 595) Surely he isn't talking about categorical deduction? But he later explains that what he means is the "transition from one apprehension to the other" --- a process similar to an analog computer. (4). Finally, Ricoeur says: "Hence the fixed meanings and the contents of stable expressions must be substituted for fluctuating meanings and subjective expressions. The task is dictated by the ideal of univocity and governed by the axiom of the unbounded range of objective reason" (italics his) (Part II, section 2) (Phen. Reader, p. 596). Had Ricoeur discovered objective reason himself? Apparently not! He goes on to explain that what he is describing is the 'inversion of the theory of intuition into the theory of interpretation" (same page). Whatever the case, Ricoeur was certainly very close to discovering the same theory that I discovered. Perhaps he even considered it to be trivial. But he does not talk about it directly, only using references to it as a critical faculty upon another text.

Quotes by Ricoeur taken from his work Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, John B. Thompson, trans. as quoted in The Phenomenology Reader. Dermot Moran and Timothy Mooney, eds. New York: Routledge, 2002.

Paroxysm and Paroxysm

ACAUCAUC (DE BEERES)

THEY TAME

A BUG APPEARED

TRIVIAL TO PROVE IMWORTHMOREDIAA A

IN 1313 WE COULD

I KILLED THE BUG BY ACCIDENT NO AWARENES NOT EV INS

OH My God that was kind of Lucky for feinmann

STRIP (IF IT WAS WRO -- RBB) YO U

STR I PP O (TO) I

STRIP 

STRIP STRIP

THEY'RE USUALLY FAT SO

YOU COULD BE A GOD

THEN THEN

HEY

NO y

YOU'RE NOT ADDICTED TO THE SMOKY ATMOS

UNFORTUNATELY

THEY'RE ALL ALONE IF YOU KNOW

NO NO YOU KNOW YU

RIGHT GHGH

GHGHGH

"GHOULES" mm m

HE DOES EAT SOMETHING DELICIOUS

M M M  M

YES E E m THAT

"WAREHOSS HOOKER DARKLING DOO" S

SOH

SO (M)

MM M

13 H 14 14 15 1514

SHE'S WORTH

000 1000 NQ NNQ

00011000 NNQ

THAT'S ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE WORTH PICTURE I MET CARROTE DEFEATED THE VISIGOTHS ACTUALLY THE PICCTS THOUGH I WAS ON BOTH SIDES

IT HAS IT GOING WITH DIAMOND TO SPARE LET IT KEEP IT MOVIE

I

0001

IOO IO

MM m

Im HAO T TT 0

YOU WANT TO READ

Planeswalker ES e 13H -- HH 1313 H -- 131313 -- MMM13 -- HHH (1313) -- VV V1513 1513 -- ... (131313 -- MMM13) M -- MM 13VV(V V V) -- 151513 HH

Jean Baudrillard writes a number of things which appear to pre-figure my concept of the philosophical paroxysm. Even more convincingly, these statements appear in a book called (aptly enough) 'Paroxysm', however the writings have simultaneously a sense of genius and a sense of lack of achievement. He writes:

"What, then, is the obsession, the secret motive, the endless finality underlying this progression? Finding the irreducible point which gives an unimpeded view of the world." (Paroxysm, p. 113).

This prefigures my concept of the 'mote of meaning'.

However, Baudrillard's quest, unlike my own, ends in despair:

'We must not believe that the truth remains the truth when we strip it of its veil' --- thus, truth has no naked existence. We must not believe that the real remains the real when its illusion has been dispelled --- thus, the real has no objective reality. (Paroxysm, p. 116).

Although this is interesting, and has led me to develop a theory of 'applicationism', on this point I feel that Baudrillard is being contradictory. He is admitting that he has not solved the general problem of the paradox. He is also admitting --- rather than brandishing --- his lack of objective knowledge.

In points like these, I defer to my own work, where it is clear that a paradox can be solved by reaching for the opposite of the most meaningful component terms, in the same order, and that objective knowledge can be reached by finding four polar opposites (in which opposites are located along the diagonal), and combining them in a cyclical order. Statements of wisdom surely would dispell this sexual nihilism that Baudrillard proposes.

HERE IS A LINK TO BAUDRILLARD'S BOOK

HERE IS A LINK TO MY BOOK ILLUSTRATING PAROXYSMS [or search Amazon for 'paroxysms philosophy' to find both: the top two results]

HERE IS A LINK TO ANOTHER OF MY BOOKS WITH OTHER METHODS, INCLUDING A SHORTER SECTION ON PAROXYSMS

More recently I have posted the method on my blog with a full explanation, in the interest of research.

CAUSE NED

Philosophers / Students Preparing for the Holidays?

Buy the book that a PhD. said "may ... (be) ahead of it's time" and which a reviewer called "Utterly Fascinating!"...

Subjectivists stand back, this text concerns objective knowledge that is not specifically religious, and which relies on a minimal amount of assumptions.

The Dimensional Philosopher's Toolkit (2013,2014)

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.

Coherency in Philosophy

Coherent knowledge is possible through exclusivity. But is any context exclusive? I argue that the term "absolute" is avoidable because afterall real objects can exist which are not absolute. This is similar to saying that "not everything is the sun" etc.

When it is realized that a context is composed of "qua-objects" it can also be realized that properties relatively exist or relatively do not exist. When there is ambiguity, we can say ambiguity exists or does not exist, or we can say that subtlety exists or does not exist.

In this context, I find it compelling that in a relative sense all terms used in a genuine system have some degree of absoluteness. There can be measurements of the degree of absoluteness, but this implies a "clausality" that power or some other distinct property is being measured.

In reality, a categorical system treats this property of measurement, say "power", "money", "pleasure", "pragmatism", just like any other word. Because of this, and because in axiometry opposites are used to contextualize exclusivity, it may be concluded that this form of exclusivity is relatively exhaustive.

Returning to the coherent concept from exclusivity does not imply much difference; only that 'system' or 'symbol' can be questioned. Yet, questioning the system is changing the system, and questioning the symbol is changing the symbol's function. So any other concept involves a new idea.