I commented at M-Phi (Mathematics Blog)

http://m-phi.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-space-of-languages.html

Update on Soon-to-be-Published Books (2014)

Tractatus of Dualities will likely be sidelined for now, although it is complete.

I may or may not publish a book on writing aphorisms this coming year.

The plan for the Dimensional Psychologist's Toolkit is going forward.

I have been listed on SCSU philosophy department student accomplishments

Here is the link, which I think is slightly impressive, considering so few have been listed:

http://www.southernct.edu/academics/schools/arts/departments/philosophy/Student%20Accomplishments%20and%20Activities.html

Distinguishing Between Analogy and Categorical Deduction

We will use the following terms:

'Good', 'Bad'

'Cat', 'Dog'

An analogy would say that:

Good : Bad :: Cat : Dog

The conclusion would be that dogs are bad, and cats are good.

Simple enough.

An analogy would not draw the comparison as follows:

Good : Dog :: Bad : Cat

Because, according to analogies we could only conclude that we are relating two distinct things, a bad cat and a good dog. Or, so goes the reasoning, we could equally compare a bad dog and a good cat.

Suffice to say, in conventional reasoning (that is, conventional analogy), this type of comparison is considered meaningless. It is considered to be relative, or ambiguous. It is a form of amphiboly.

Consider for stark comparison what happens when, instead of analogy, a categorical deduction is implied in the system.

First, we set up four quadrants, in which opposites are held in diagonal locations.

A. Good. B. Dog. C. Bad. D. Cat

The conclusion is that A. A good dog implies a bad cat, or B. A bad dog implies a good cat.

If cat and dog are indeed opposites, then this holds to be true.

And if they are not opposites, then it could only be a rough analogy. In this way it proves what an analogy cannot prove. Furthermore, it establishes complex conditions which an analogy could not establish.

Consider that 'bad' and 'good' (just like 'cat' and 'dog') are really some of the simplest opposites to choose. In other cases the comparisons are more meaningful. In fact, there is even room for imagination, so long as the oppositeness cannot be disproven.

So it may be that geniuses in the large part of recent history have conducted a major mistake, the Folly of Amphiboly, by assuming that nothing could be drawn from comparisons of opposites, except so-called one-to-one-correlations. In the last several months, I have detected people attempting to re-define the meaning of one-to-one. And I think the simple explanation is that there is a new device, with a new standard of definitions. And it's name is the categorical deduction.

Cite my blog. Or better, buy my book and read the source material, if the above material appeals to your intellect. I hope it's infectious.

Nathan Coppedge is the Inventor of the Categorical Deduction

Here are arguments and supporting evidence for a statement that I am promoting, e.g. that I am the inventor of the most important method of philosophical logic ever invented.

A. As of April 2013, the term 'categorical deduction' was rarely used as a set of connected words. Instances included references to Nathan Coppedge's book, published in January of that year.

B. As the term propogated over the internet over the course of the months since January 2013, I saw many instances of its being misused. For example, when I spoke about the term and related terms on Yahoo! Answers, people often mistakenly believed that it was identical first to a categorical imperative (Immanuel Kant's), and secondly to a categorical syllogism (Aristotle's). In fact, neither of these assumptions is correct. Categorical deduction is a diagrammatic or correspondent, non-causal method of inference.

C. Categorical deduction is a coherent theory method which applies to some degree to any type of information (defined as having a quality) that can be measured as relating to one of any two opposite terms. It is thus utterly different from the categorical imperative, which was specifically a moral claim based on general applied reasoning, rather than a general application which applies a neutral system to language statements.

D. Categorical deduction is not a causal method of inference in the normal sense of the word. It's conclusions often refer to genus categories in a highly absolute sense, but always providing an alternative. However, the alternative has different truth conditions. In this sense, it is highly original. A categorical deduction does not depend on premises in the same way as Aristotelian reasoning. Thus, the distinction between categorical syllogisms and categorical deduction is actually very broad.

Article Published

Secret Principles of Immortality, Edition 25

I'm the author of the previous 24 articles as well. See my Ezine Author page at: http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=Nathan_L_Coppedge

The Sacred Principles of Traditional Economics

We will have as much money as we have
We will not have what we do not have
We will desire what we do not have
We will owe if we do not own what we have
We will have possession if we own what others have
We will earn if we know what we do not have
We will project to determine what we will earn
We will invest so others earn for us
We will disinherit what does not serve our interest
We will stock what is held in demand
We will require our debts are paid to us
We will lend to those in our trust

Signs of the Perpetual Motion Gods

The date was the night of September 12th, 2013

Periodic Link to My Art Pages (Hyper-Cubism)

Commercial Gallery: http://www.etsy.com/shop/HyperCubism

Old Non-Commercial Gallery: http://www.impossiblemachine.com/Gallery2

On the Incoherency of Mathematics, A Primer on Dimensional Mathematics

MANAGERIAL SOLDDE

SHE

https://hypercubics.blogspot.com/2026/04/republican-design-101.html.

Part I.

I have acknowledged for some years a stipulation of my studies of philosophy, which is the following:

Systems must be dynamic or they involve work. There are two choices: mechanics or a labor-intensive project. This insight was first introduced by the late philosopher Alfred North Whitehead, who was the progenitor of process philosophy. However, he did not introduce a dynamic system in a coherent sense. That would involve the insight that Aristotle had no exclusive proofs, and that exclusive proofs required the Cartesian Coordinate system, which supposedly only came later.

Anyway, the theory that the choice is between mechanics and labor-intensiveness comes about by considering the alternatives. Those two are really just neutral categories. But, I think, only so many neutrals are possible in extant reasoning. For example, easiness or laziness is one alternate neutral category, and reduces to semantics. (Mechanical easiness is determinism, which reduces to semantics). The strong categories which are non-neutrals are absoluteness or pure energy, which when combined with labor is also a form of semantics, that is, relative effort, which must be concluded to be either labor or non-labor, but cannot be both. The other non-neutral category is passivity, which is not really a principle at all in most views. Combining passivity with mechanics yields dysfunction, rather than an alternative. In most views this is not open to interpretation. Another option for neutrals in the context of passivity and energy is magic, but that has been discarded in prior history. Some, anyway, would consider it to be a form of mechanics, or to involve labor. So the circuit of the diagram looks like this: [Energy] [Magic] Mechanics [Passivity] Labor [Laziness]. All the terms in brackets have been eliminated.

In conclusion, the two options remain mechanics or labor-intensiveness in any system. And labor-intensiveness has many forms, whereas mechanics is the efficiency of these forms, and it is always dynamic. Consider for instance Pascal's Numbers, or E = MC^2. They derive their value from dynamic operation, which is only possible when they involve dynamic organization. And that is not to say that they are prime examples of this phenomenon, in terms of pure theory. They may not be.

Part II.

Cartesianism, in dimensional terms, that is, "axiometric" terms, is a two-variable calculus (meaning calculus in a simple sense). It takes two operators, plus and minus, which express the single dimensional axis running diagonally. If it had four variables (as mathematicians evidently unconsciously assume), then multiplication and division would not be capable of being expressed in terms of addition and subtraction. But they are expressible in those terms. Indeed, a chart in which multiplication and division were a separate opposite comparison from addition and subtraction would be ridiculous, because it would be at least partially redundant. The only conclusion is that, in the simple terms of the original intentions of the Cartesian Coordinate System, it is a two variable calculus, that is, we can treat multiplication and division instead as simple functions acting on a single diagonal axis of comparison. See the following diagram for reference:

Part III.

What is the conclusion?

Math that does not state the problem of dynamics / labor-intensiveness in an obvious way runs a serious risk of being systemically incoherent. Accepting labor-intensiveness is not a good alternative. So the only option is to express systems at the functions level. When these systems are not coherent, the result is incoherence. According to this observation, much of math as we know it today has made a fatal error---very likely the types of errors which are now deemed to be mathematical knowledge, but which according to my system are no more than semantic references to the prior failure of mathematics. Math is possible. But it is really proto-math. Just like meta- (after) physics is the only study of reality.

Cite Nathan Coppedge if using this material, as a novelty or otherwise. I welcome inclusion of my ideas in student papers.

I have hints of new physics principles

Cite Nathan Coppedge if you re-use any of these ideas. If you want a more official answer, you will have to wait for my controversial encyclopedia volume on physics, which won't be due out for perhaps ten years. Actually: REVISION, the 78 Binary Laws has been published as an Article HERE. See also a different related article, The Physics: 232 Laws.

I am printing this material with the knowledge that it is more difficult to buy a book than---for some prodigious individuals---to immediately and impromptu develop equations based on the merest hint.

So here is my greatest feat of physics genius so far, by conventional standards. The method is still further developed when a method of categorical deduction is applied, yielding (currently) seventy-eight 'binary laws'.

All statements refer to forms of matter or energy, as might be present in physics equations.

THE BASIS FOR THE BINARY LAWS OF PHYSICS

Interaction is relative and gradual
Size is quantum and neutral
Energy is rational and finite
Mass is always definite and infinite
Excess is exceptional and relative
Mergence is neutral and correlative
Newness is quantum and gradual
Projection is redundant and coherent
Surface is gradual and redundant
Source is quantum and coherent
Guidance is finite and definite
Association is infinite and rational


The 78 Binary Laws (not repeated here, but based on the above) were inspired by an article in the New York Times, raising questions about contemporary physics in the context of Einstein's Relativity and the growing uncertainty about the true nature of black holes, e.g. is there a firewall effect preventing us from knowing about other universes, is the universe genuinely matter-neutral, and what is the fate of quantum information, etc.

Interesting Ideas Encountered in Philosophy History Class

https://hypercubics.blogspot.com/2015/08/platonic-moments-in-life-of-nathan.html NO, HE HAS BETTER MEMORY

Thales, the Greek philosopher known to have begun philosophy in the West by predicting an eclipse, had an interesting theory of how magnets had souls. He is also popular for the idea that in some way, everything is composed of water. Later commentaries attributed water to 'one of the five (logical) principles', suggesting they borrowed it from the five Chinese elements.

Anaximander, the second Greek philosopher, introduced a combination of two principles, Arkhe and Apeiron---the original and the unlimited. In some way, a sourceless substance was the beginning and end of all things. This is similar to the Chinese concept of Wu Wei (Wikipedia).

Anaximenes had a simpler concept that all was made of air or mist which becomes compacted into other elements. For him, air was an eternal and boundless substance (apeiron).

Collectively, the first three Greek philosophers are known as the Milesians.

I added a psychological tractatus to my Psychologist's Toolkit

for those interested in that type of thing.

The Dimensional Psychologist's Toolkit will eventually show up (next year) in my Amazon Profile at:

http://www.amazon.com/author/nathancoppedge

Interface Euphoria 3.0

he'sss wor

I have been making efforts to compile lists of qualities and language expressions which evoke psychological sublimity for virtual reality environments.

There was the much earlier article (Interface Euphoria 2.0) using the expression PlayDolphin and SecretCloud and some other recommendations.

Now I will add to the list:

* "I will sequester in sleep"

* "The priest made a pattern of preambulations"

* "The gamer ambited over the course of the green"

* "The puzzle de-machicolated"

* "Heaven opened like the application of the will"

* "The worried stones had finally developed a fear of their own, to migrate towards the river"

* "Music gathered like water in the math"

* "There was a certain fitness, which could impress anyone"

* "The monster sat under the wall like it was a tree, and counted his tokens carefully"

* "Fear brimmed over the wall"

* "Chemical lightning, falling in forks upon the brain"

* "Idioms lost to silence"

* "Foreign words merged with her mouth"

* "The enemy was evacuated"

* "The roses were green"

I found a new psychological technique

LEE LA LE LI

They would vit

They would

They would

Vit

They

Woult

Vitt Vit(t)

I Turned

...

although I have a hunch I borrowed some of it from my therapist.

Essentially, it involves using a set of specific definitions which interrelate in the same manner as a categorical-deductive typology. The end-result is the ability to differentiate multiple categories of personality and corresponding accurate prospective advice, based on only four category questions.

Another similar technique that I call psychic prediction involves an assessment of personal significance based on reference and negation.