oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
I have come to a point where I really want to articulate a certain idea. Not only so I can remember it clearly myself through time, but also so others can read and think, even if only a short time, or to refute. I feel we misunderstand the fundamental moral and ethical mathematics of today. Some may think me crazy to mention mathematics with human conceptions such as morals, but never the less I will. There is a fundamental disconnect between science and unquestionable morality, but as unlikely as it may seem, I would like to use simple mathematics to draw them together. Here briefly I would like to discuss two different views, which should always be understood together as part of a total view, but have been split up into two camps unnecessarily. The first is the Law of Contradiction, or A=A, and the second, since I do not know what its academic name is I will call the Law of Infinitive Nuance.

The law of contradiction is rooted in our most basic animal instincts. I’m going to use an analogy that I usually use to explain these ideas. Let us imagine a light switch turned to the “on” position. Your mind tells you, “I know what absence of light is, and this is not it.” Since you are dealing with a switch, you understand that essentially you are dealing with an A=A, or an A=non-A. The latter formula tells you that the idea is contradictory. If you see light when the light switch is on, that is an A=A, but your mind also avoids the idea that if there is no light, and the light switch is on, that there is a contradiction. There are scenarios in life, which follow this simple mathematical formula. In fact this is where we get axiomatic ideals such as true or false. Before I move to the Law of Infinite Nuance, I want to make you think about this idea of axiomatic opposites. In this scenario, we do not pay attention to how much light there actually is. We are faced with a light switch that has two choices, on, and off. We never question:

“How much light am I actually seeing?”
“Is one photon considered “light”?
“If one photon can be considered light, when I turn on the light switch, and one photon generated, I would not see the difference with my eyes. Is it still considered to be “on” or “true”?
If we cannot see the photon, how will we know if it is contradictory or not?”

The law of infinite nuance comes into play as a second step. We must pass through and understand the law of contradiction, simply to survive, but when we think about what the law of contradiction does not address, we realize the infinite incalculable. Let us take the same example of light, but this time let us use a common dimmer switch. This is a light switch that will give you all shades of light from bright to dim, but let us say the dimmer switch cannot be turned off, nor can it be turned to maximum brightness (infinite). This idea steps out of our animal instincts of A=A, and moves to something like approximateA< = >approximateA. We know the dimmer switch has no absolutes in any other idea than that we know there is a switch. We use the law of contradiction to say, “Yes, there is a dimmer switch. Then we use the law of infinite nuance to understand that brighter is brighter than dimmer. We make value comparisons that are not axiomatic in any way, but constantly compare and evaluate. As we evaluate, our goal is to reduce the comparisons to the law of contradiction. We want to know for sure that brighter really is brighter, and dimmer really is dimmer. The problem lies in the fact that in one scenario we are given an axiomatic situation where true and false is possible, but in another, we are forced to evaluate and sift those values out of a certain amount of given information. Now, the laws of infinite nuance are just that, infinite. What is infinite in this case? It is an idea, which cannot be brought to conclusion, because all the determining factors are impossible to measure, so an axiomatic evaluation is also impossible. This is mathematically where morals come from. We are given a certain amount of information contained in the situations around us, and we are left to evaluate for ourselves fundamental axioms for our needs.

Now that we have discussed these two simple mathematical ideas, I want to branch off to some second level inferences. It is obvious that life in mankind’s environment offers some obvious evaluations to him that he can perceive obvious utility in. In other situations he tries to make the best decision he can, given the information, and he hopes for the best. Now we can take the first situation, where he is given obvious evaluations, and we can completely tear those ideas down using the infinite. Like I said, we can use Zeno’s paradox in understanding what is considered “on”, and what is considered “off”, and we can completely annihilate the idea that there is any axiomatic possibilities at all. But I ask you to take a look at modern plasma screen television. The plasma screen television of today is a triumph of understanding, and action. It is an accumulation of axiomatic correctness, and mathematics, science and evolution. These creations are proof of existent objective natural information. Think of it as a discovery, not an invention. The possibility for the creation of the Internet, of plasma televisions, of nuclear weapons was an inherent potentiality since the beginning of the universe. We also have to understand that there is an infinite amount of other possibilities that could have been, or will be determined by many limiting factors.Getting to the point, we can say that knowledge does not exist, but I would argue that technology is knowledge in evolution. We can say everything is potentially axiomatic, and to that I say mankind is not capable, or responsible to evaluate universal utility in every case, with the limits of his own understanding at any given point in time. We are not completely in control of our actions, as those attached to moralities of guilt would have us believe. In fact these are self-defeating beliefs, because they turn us infinitely against understanding clearly our current possibilities. Maybe in the future, our tools can help us understand, but right now we are retarded on the universal stage. Here is a scenario: Would you frame a man as guilty who was driving on the road, exploded a tire and swerved to kill a pedestrian? Is this murder? This is an accident, which cannot be given an axiomatic guilt assignment. Now, would you assign guilt to a man who drank a pint of whiskey, and swerved and killed a pedestrian? Yes, because many of the decisions leading to the accident were under his control. So what do we do about a drunkard who explodes a tire, while under the influence of alcohol, killing a pedestrian? Though, no axiomatic guilt can be assigned, social values of payment come into play, and state sponsored retribution comes into play, as opposed to individual retaliation. Essentially, predefined social constructs act as consensual axioms (morals).

In conclusion, I want to point out my goal with this discourse. I want people to understand that life consists of some axiomatic knowledge, some repeatability, some elusive calculations, and some need to create pseudo axioms for consensual survival. Understanding that axioms exist, attention to nuance is necessary to create pseudo axioms, and attention to nuance is also necessary, in and of itself, and will help us understand that all these points of view are necessary in and of themselves. We should understand that trying to make one evaluation into another one, where it is not meritous is the very destruction of survival utility itself. We have to learn to identify what is, and use information that has the highest tested repeatability, where available. When the situation dictates that limited knowledge is available, and a crucial life or death decision must be made, all we can do is hope we evaluated what little information we were given usefully, and, personally, I feel we should not be forced into making decisions over life and death struggles, without complete information. In a situation where we must chose over life or death struggles, usually by the march of the state, which I consider unnatural, the individual that makes the decision should only be held responsible in such a way that they were prudent, or hasty in studying the information available. If the person is prudent, then, the universal retardation of mankind’s capability of negotiating the universe’s peaceful resolution against itself, should, meritously throw the onus of guilt on the underlying structure of the rules of the universe in itself. In that the leader makes his decision in a hasty fashion, then the leader should be held responsible in proportion to how hasty he was, and how much destruction the leaders lack of prudence caused. Of course what exactly the direct cost is, tied to the individual leader of the state, I will leave to metaphysics, and the infinite, but it is these ideas of calculation that give us pseudo axioms, which ideally, should be based on accurate statistics, and accurate consensus.

In closing, I would like to say, that even the basic structure of this discourse reflects the ideal I would like to present. Start with the knowable. Understand that mathematics is this starting point, and then branch out with your inferences. You begin to understand that the underlying structure forms a kind of pyramid, not a linear scale, and when understanding this, many other concepts that are abstract to you now, will become workable.

Back