A Surprising Confusion of Categories: Law and Science

The concept of a “scientific law” or sometimes dubbed “laws of physics” have often been challenged by philosophers.  Their point in short stems from the fact that a “law” has to be universal, while the samples or instances from which the law derives run far too limited in number to prove the point of a “law.”  This problem, the extrapolation of “all of the same kind” from “just a few of this kind,” has sometimes been called the problem of induction.  It forms a kind of mainstay in philosophy classes ever since the publishing of David Hume’s Magnum Opus (1776).

I wish to add a little something  new to the mix, the fallacy of equivocation.  This fallacy, or error in reasoning, ensues when one uses a word or phrases in two distinct ways, while the one employing them pretends the meaning in both instances is the same because the word or phrase is the same. Consider what we mean in ordinary language by the word “law.”  The first point to note is that the legal context seems invoked immediately upon the use of it.  Here, a “law” either functions as a command to perform some action, or else a prohibition (usually it is a prohibition), meaning a command that forbids some action.  When one violates a law, an attending punishment follows, the degree for which ranges from a simple fine at minimum, all the way to the maximum penalty (death).

The use then of the concept of a “law” in the sciences would seem wholly inappropriate, not only for the problem of inductive inferences that overdrive the point, but also because the deterministic features of the world like “gravity,” or “hubble’s law,” do not come with varying degrees of punishment, after due process, for their violation.  The legal context suggested (connoted) by the use of the word “law” has precisely nothing to do with these deterministic features, and thus do in fact form an instance of the fallacy of equivocation.

Recommendation: we should rewrite the use of the word “law” in our science textbooks employing excellent synonyms for the intended point, e.g. Hubble’s induction, or the second RULE of thermodynamics, etc.

Think on these things.  I believe it will become almost “obviously true” upon significant reflection.


Ghosts From the Past: Sticky Problems in Legal Theory (Resolved)

What exactly does one do about edicts given from previous rulers, over whose (later) jurisdiction a different party — sometimes a radically different party — comes to bear rule?   This problem has plagued rulers since ancient times, and what one does or says about previous authority could easily be used against what they themselves intend as a lasting juridical legacy to aid the cause of justice for more than just one’s own generation.

In particular, how do you prevent someone from leaning to the past in what seems like fringe (or even bizarre) ways that seduce others into rebellious kinds of thinking or actions that can easily lead to breaking the law?  Cultic groups have done this, and this kind of practice has gone on since the days Flavius Josephus (ca 90) made mention of Messianic pretenders who led rebellions against the “Roman” authorities.

Let us take the case of the “Medes and the Persians,” “whose edicts cannot be changed or annulled once given” from the Book of Daniel.  This is a problem for later (thoughtful) Emperors, rulers of various kinds and kings, especially since the Medo-Persian kingdoms (120 or so “Satrapies” or regions) seemed to span what we now regard as the “Western World.”  What was the situation?  The Medes and the Persians came to loggerheads under the rule of Cyrus by the account of Herodotos of Halicarnassos (in Asia Minor).  They decided that sharing power was a better option than a total war, so they opted to alternate kings — now this time he would be a Mede like Darius I, but the next one would then have to be a Persian ruler.

Now, in order to keep each from simply canceling the orders of his predecessor — Democrats overturn the laws of the Republicans, only to have the next (Republican) ruler do the same (edict cancelation wars) to the Democratic laws passed —  they made the laws of both permanent standing orders incapable of cancelation of modification.

Today the parties just say, “oh sure we’ll pass it, but ain’t no way in Hades we’ll fund it; on second thought, we got us a filibuster on right now.  Probably kill it by noon.  What you got to trade?”

But then later emperors happen along as time passes, and Justinian reads a list of edicts given by Persian and Mede emperors from the past, or else Egyptian pharaohs, that did in fact apply in some, or else all, parts of his jurisdiction?  What if they seem lopsided, superstitious, bizarre, or just dead wrong? If you had someone — one person (or body) with worldwide authority — capable of making extremely wise and just judgements, who could obviate the problem by carefully issuing a general cancelation order that supersedes all previous imperial orders for scope and authority rating, you could in fact solve the problem.  But you would have to be careful not to overthrow too much.

If you overthrow too little, you would simply offer a great improvement to the legal landscape, removing a massive headache for future leaders.  This is in fact what Justinian himself attempted upon the completion of his famous Corpus Juris Civilis (533).  He issued a general cancelation order for all the “Roman” (they were actually Greek) legal codes from the various municipalities, which he had had compiled in order to create the CJCiv.  Justinian’s effort (IMHO) was exactly on target, but did nothing about the problems of the earlier empires (prior imperial and royal edicts), and not only the edicts they proffered, but also the oral traditions that function as law (de facto), and the earlier written legal codes.

As far as I am concerned, three very important specific targets of such (potential) judicial entanglements ensue in our day — these are those which we cannot afford to leave unchallenged (the first area is ancient law):

  1.  All imperial, royal and other edicts — whether commands to perform or prohibitions,whether edicts general or special in their scope
  2. All legal codes of the ancient world, until the time of Justinian, inclusive of his own, whether oral or written, de facto or whether de jure

The second target was created as a Christian brotherhood of royal rulers throughout Europe, forming the “Holy Alliance,” (1815 – 1822) which bound all of Europe in a Christian compact together, as led into the oath-based alliance by Czar Alexander II of Russia.  At the first, Great Britain declined to join; but it eventually caved in from pressure by many others by 1822.  The lone dissenting voices — those who refused to join — were the Vatican and Turkey (then the Ottoman Turks.

The third is called the “Solemn League and Covenant,” a compact formed in part as the result of the Confessional work of the Westminster Assembly (1646-47) in Scotland, which many (usually Presbyteriabns) have falsely taken to bear international and CURRENT authority in lands that were once (formerly) under the rule of the British empire.

All 3 of these categories of law and compacts have to be “abrogated, nullified and rendered altogether of no legal authority whatsoever” for the safety, security and sovereignty of all current nations, empires, leaders and governments worldwide to ensure the peace and safety of their domains and jurisdictions, and to prevent the unlawful abuse of past standards, no longer justifiable in our generation, and which may readily occasion the rebellious temptation to tamper with present and future authority.

I suspect that Justinian would agree that the Medes and Persians left a very dangerous legacy (and very bad legal precedent) behind.  Therefore, by the international authority I have been granted worldwide, I am ordering exactly the general cancelation order discussed just above — the categories of ancient law above, the Solemn League and Covenant (1646-7), and the Holy Alliance (1815-22), are hereby “abrogated, nullified and rendered altogether of no legal authority whatsoever” for the safety, security and sovereignty of all current nations, empires, leaders and governments worldwide — to ensure the peace and safety of their domains and jurisdictions, and to prevent the unlawful abuse of past standards, no longer justifiable in our generation, and which may readily occasion the rebellious temptation to tamper with present and future authority.

This category is being added as an addendum — all ecclesiastyical and religious councils, their anathemas (formal curses) and edicts are in like manner forever nullified, that is, rendered of no authority whatever, as a perpetual standing order along with these others.

It is so ordered.  Yet any legal code or order of current authorities, which may take its queue from any of the above, to incorporate some aspect of this or that advance at law — is perfectly acceptable, so long as it is carried out according to the law of the land in which the legal innovation in question transpires.

Surprised By Research: The Myth of The Roman Empire

At first glance, the reader may wish to entertain the somewhat obvious question: What in the world do you mean by dubbing the Roman empire a “Myth,” since it has an extremely well established archaeological foundation?  My answer provides nothing like a typical or expected response.  Instead, it adduces several well-known points (non-controversial) to render an altogether surprising, but nearly “common-sense” repartee.  Given the initial sticker-shock one would expect for my apparently outlandish claim, I can only beg the reading audience’s indulgence here.  First read, THEN judge.  Here, the order of events waxes all-important.  Here, I will now begin to present the facts for my case.

  1.  Every one of the “Western” and “Roman” emperors, from Caesar (transitional figure) and Octavian, all the way to Justinian, whose death in 565 spelled the end of the “Roman” empire to the satisfaction of latest plausible date (some like 463), had one interesting feature — They were ALL Greek-speakers.  Justinian’s wife, Theodora, could not have been more Greek if you had been a dish of Spanikopita.
  2. In 221 B, when Rome began to overrun the Greek empire, and in the years following, the Romans self-c0nsciously adopted (and later adapted) the Greek culture nearly wholesale, from their religion — they only changed the names of the gods but observed dynamic equivalence between the almost scrupulously.
  3. This transition had already begun by an interesting precursor [of the same type], when the Spartans — a Greek empire very much like the Roman one — sacked Athens, winning the Pelopennesian War in 404B.
  4. The Roman aristocrats sought to hire Greek (intellectual) tutors for the high-brow education — one worth bragging about in high society — of their children.  Their education was Greek, their religion was Greek, and their language was Greek.
  5. As late as 250, according to Princeton’s Dr. Bruce Metzger, the predominant language spoken in the city of Rome was Greek, not Latin.
  6. When Julius “Caesar,” (Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s) after whom, in the minds of many, the chief principate of the empire was named, wrote the Gallic Wars, he wrote in good Greek, not Latin.  So also Suetonius when he wrote of the 12 Caesars.  This assumes Greek as the language best befitting the biography of “Caesars” (Presumably, Caesar writing in Greek had something to do with this choice).

Punchline:  The Roman empire was never uniquely something other than Greek.  It was both a continuation (self-consciously) and later a transformation by social, political and economic forces not foreseeable in the early centuries of the empire.  There was no Roman empire AS SUCH.  This is a long-standing historiographic fiction.

The empire in question, was by every standard typically employed by historians — religion, language of leaders and commerce, education, a Greek empire that was far more like the Spartan empire than the Athenian, and later the Hellenistic (Ptolemaic-Seleucid) empire — which we should say ended in 30b on the early side of the calendar (when Cleopatra died).  The Neo-Spartan, Greek empire — the proper name for the purposes of real history — was thoroughly Greek in every way important to historians, but it was a special KIND of Greek, hearkening back to 404 — and we should have noticed this earlier (Peace be upon the historians; they are our final judges).

What does this important correction to our historiographic grasp of the ancient world mean?

  1.  It means that the Greek empire continued unabated, though significantly altered, from the Athenian, to the Hellenistic, to the Neo-Spartan, and then from the death of Justinian (565) and after, the Constantiopolitan (notice that Constantinopolis is a Greek name for the capital of the Neo-Spartan empire, not a Latin name). From Justinian, the Greek empire continued all the way to 1453, when it was decisively trampled and burned by the Ottoman Turks.
  2. This reconstructs western civilization as almost entirely Greek by cultural indebtedness and historical trajectory.
  3. This challenges the existence of any legitimately ROMAN church, and shows this by an interesting fact. The closest thing we ever had to what the (false) donation of Constantine pretended was the choice of Justinian by way of imperial edict to be crowned by THE PATRIARCH of CONSTANTINOPLE, not the pope of Rome, who was just as self-consciously rejected for this role as the patriarch was self-consciously chosen for this role.  Given the conditions of early church, the original could have been nothing but Greek (not Roman).
  4. A certain falsity accrues to the notion of any Roman church as the official one, since there was no “Roman empire,” only a Greek (Neo-Spartan) one, followed by it Byzantine counterpart (until 1453).
  5. The old canard about the “Holy Roman Empire,” (Somewhat funny actually) that it was not particularly holy, certainly was more Frankish, Austrian and Germanic and Spanish, than it ever was “Roman,” and that it was more, well, a loose confederation of states and not-so-much an empire [The HRE was an empire like, er, Cobol was a “highly-advanced programming language”  — well, it was programmable anyway, in a broken Chinese kind of way].
  6. In light of this as a second historigraphic blunder — the “Barbarian empire” (that is what its nomadic constituents were considered in the 3rd and 4th centuries — note that the “barbarians” at the gates is a Greek category and “barbarian” a very Greek concept, meaning “uncivilized,” meaning not able to speak the Greek tongue with any facility.

Update: I Have Returned by much Reflection to the 24 Letter Greek Alphabet as Best For Future Use

My earlier decision to attempt the 10 letter (best Greek alphabet as “short greek”) has taken an unexpected turn or three.  First, I underestimated the importance of the development of that language as a thoroughgoing SYSTEM.  The systemic character of the natural language in question implies that we should retain its earlier form, with the one possibility of restoring a letter dropped from the alphabet.  Some of the letters are, however badly formed and we should alter them to reflect the otherwise UNIFORM character of the alphabet.  “No curves allowed” remains a policy I pursue b/c of the linear character of the majority of the letters – the “B” I rewrite as a capital (but upside down) “Y.”  The Omicron is a diamond, as is the theta, but with a horizontal line bisecting it.  And the omega is a diamond with a straight (small) diagonal line transversing the lower right hand corner — looks a bit like a Q, but diamond-shaped. The Phi is also diamond shaped.   The “psi” is a square “field goal post” with the vertical beam ranging beyond the crossbar about half the way of the height of the other two (parallel) beams.

Moreover, the “qwerty” keypad on our computers shows the vowels grouped first, and then the consonants — H, A, E, I, O, V, Omega (Q). Then B, Gamma (and upside down L), D (a triangle), etc., in the same order as the consonants naturally appear WITHOUT the vowels intervening.

The numerical system I am using amounts to a geometric and universal (visual) form of mathematics.  The number 1 is simply a vertical line.  2 is a V. 3 is an equilateral triangle, and 4 a square, 5 an equilateral pentagon, and so on until 10, the equilateral decagon.   There is no zero, and there are no negative #’s, which (following Diaphontos of Alexandria), I regard as nonreal or imaginary — he called them “absurd.”  In the real world, it is not possible to distinguish the referent of “-3 oranges” from the set of “-3 apples.”  Both represent the null set.   Here apples and oranges form identical sets, showing the falsity of the implied referents (and their respective sets).

100 we write as “Decagon” with a small V raised to the exponent spot (upper right hand corner), meaning 10 to the second power.  22 we write as VV.  The resulting 10 picture-number system [the Geometric numeral system], where the number of laterals (sides) shows the values of the numeral used could easily be understood by an alien visitor from outer-space.  He could simply note the increasing number of laterals by the progress of 1 each time he moves from the number on the left to that next on the right.  Thus he could infer what he was looking at even without knowing one word of any human language.  This shows that the math system is rooted in the universal light of nature, and that Plato was in fact correct in arguing that the basic (or one of the most basic) form of human reasoning is geometric reasoning.   I followed Plato on a trial basis (from the Timaeus) to determine this form of alpha-numeric system as the best.

I am now working on plans for designing a brand-new computer technology, perhaps beginning with a hybrid between a calculator and a laptop, that employs this alpha-numeric system, together with other aspects of the new and developing “Dolphin” technologies implied by it. In other words, I am working on a new computer and a new computer language, to create a new first in dolphin technology –  a computer uniquely for dolphins that represents the first laptop supercomputer.   It aims to support the dolphin research platform, as well as supporting ambitious, hyperintelligent individual innovators in the cause of enhancing the value of free markets.

To this end I have been studying some of the current technologies of like kind, and have been shopping for languages and their best features — SGML tag-pair symmetry, etc. — in order to develop the ideal computer tongue for the dolphins and free marketeers (my favorite people).

I shall expand upon this blog post later when convenient (Providence permitting).

Surprised By Research: Why I No Longer Believe in Entropy (Anathemic Time) or Anathemic Science

When Sadi Carnot, Rudolph Clausius and William Thompson formulated their expressions of what we now think of as “The Second Law of Thermodynamics,” we (the whole blinking planet) were blissfully unaware of the changes that would take place in the philosophy of language after the mid-20th century we would later come to call the “Deconstructionist Turn.”  Had we known then what we know now, we would have noticed the obvious – the various expressions of this law took place in the “curved space” (cultural context) of [ridiculously-] Christian thinking, and in light of a view of metaphysics best described as “overly-Newtonian.”

Consider that Einstein’s notion of “time-dilation” would greatly affect the rate of entropic expansion within an isolated system.  Then we could ask about the effects that might inflect entropy if we assumed Brownian concepts of motion or Reimannian notions of space.  Taken seriously, these altered ways of thinking (some would say more advanced, but not the only ones would could include in the set of “ideas that would materially affect how we both view AND CALCULATE the nature and progressions of entropy within systems”).  Ladies and gentlemen, it is time now to think.  Let us think.

Early notions of entropy show us that the cultural environment in which they were born were bound to display such notions as affected, or even created, by cultural concepts of the day that formed some of the tacit intellectual capital then taken for granted.  This intellectual capital might seem grossly medieval by modern standards.  I wish to suggest that my own studies reveal that the original conception of entropy is anathemic.  It makes sense in a world characterized by a Great Fall, where God “cursed the man, the woman and the ground.”   It would not make much sense in a thought-world characterized by inevitable progress and basic goodness, where we would expect Moore’s Law, but not entropy, to prevail universally.  But in Christian-world of the 19th-century — “Jesus-Time” (Time as the progress of Anathema, unto the Apocalypse) formed the culturally-inflected background to the developed conceptions of entropy.

The culturally-inflected “Newtonian” assumptions standing behind the earlier entropy-concepts should alert us to the non-universal nature of our grasp of the entropic notion.  Culturally-constrained notions of “what is universal” should warrant our suspicions.  Moreover, various later conceptions of entropy (and their formulae) assume the tacit intellectual capital of mutually incompatible worlds — Newtonian, Einsteinian, Quantum, etc.  It’s only funny until the wave function collapses on YOUR cat.

But let us consult a scientist on another matter — one that seems to work against entropy over time.   Albert Einstein once averred thus: “There is no such thing as magic in the real world.  But the closest thing to it is compound interest.”   This I believe.  If one were to graph the development of a steady-state accretion of the growth of compound interest, it would yield the traditional “parabolic incline.”  Entropy (if we showed its converse — orderliness — would start off a little sloped downward past the point of a linear descent, showing declining “order within the system” (useful energy available), and that available energy would eventually fall to zero.  But it could progress downward no farther.

Compound interest, on the other hand (representing to my mind Moore’s Law) could turn upward sharply past the knee of the curve and soar upward INDEFINITELY.  If you pit the one against the other, compound interest wins.    I believe in Moore’s law, so I regard entropy as an ephemeral (fly by night) fiction, not an actual law of physics, but rather a Christian and anathemic phantom.  If Maxwell had a few demons, then so also Thompson.  Here (We can expect ongoingly) I will be listing and challenging counterinstances to the various formulations of entropy to show that the law of progress is the actually law of the light of nature, and not entropic encroachment.  I propose a more scientific end to all such Christianized silliness.  There is no good reason to believe that our universe will end in heat death (The Christian apocalypse by refrigeration rather than by fire).

It is interesting to note, that like many born in his native Scotland, Kelvin was a religious man.  According to http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/24535331

“Kelvin believed science must be treated with reverence, as he explained:

‘I have long felt that there was a general impression that the scientific world believes science has discovered ways of explaining all the facts of nature without adopting any definite belief in a Creator. I have never doubted that impression was utterly groundless.

‘The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe science excludes atheism. If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion.’

Attendance at a chapel was part of Kelvin’s daily routine and he faithfully studied the Bible.”

Kelvin’s [religious] background and his father were considerable influences on him as Dr Andrew Holmes, a lecturer in the School of History and Anthropology at Queen’s University Belfast, explains:

“In all his endeavours, Kelvin sought to integrate his faith, politics, and professional interests. His Irish background was very important in shaping him.

“He came to the same position as his father: that the universe was a designed system that could be understood because God created the human mind in order, among other things, to understand the natural world.”

Here, I wish to present a view of entropy contrary to the one suggested by the Christian “anathemic view” of it.  I hold that, instead of succumbing to it, we will progressively defeat entropy (that is both the nature of human progress [after a fashion] and the record of human achievement (Science tends to defeat entropy with the help of technology)], until we render it negligible in the course of future human progress.  In the market place, they speak of “greed versus fear,” where greed indicates the buyers (bull market) and fear the bears (sellers).  In my economic metaphor, we can shortsell entropy (make money and order declines) and invest long in science in technology to drive it back indefinitely until we render it negligible.  With the wisdom of science and technology, and the persistence and pecuniary chutzpah of the greedy bastards, we cannot lose.  Never underestimate the power of greedy bastards.

Please note that the use of negative numbers, non-referential indicators (in some thought-worlds, “Quantity-Lies”) the progress of accruing value on the negative side of the ledger provides the numerical counterpart to entropy — the growing “negative” value.  This growing negative value proceeds only upon the non-referential side of the number line (No one can point to -50 oranges), and the “number” of -50 shows a false conflation of an operation (subtraction is repr. by the “-” sign) and the actual quantity “50.”  This is known as a “category mistake” in informal logic — here, one confusing the ideas of a mathematical operation with the notion of quantity — united in a numeral supposedly displaying only quantity, and not operation + quantity — the actual false conflation conveyed.

Entropy also purports to show WHAT IS LACKING — a lack of order is a (referential) fiction, just as “absurd” (conceptually muddled) as is the concept of “-7.”  Instead, entropy notions will eventually need reformulating to show available and usable energy — what is present — not what is absent.

More about this topic later.

Rethinking Church: From Public to Private Domain

Churches do not impress many these days.  Something has always seemed excessive and ostentatious about their ancient, and sometimes quite ritzy displays.  Justinian’s magnum opus — the famed Hagia Sophia — burnt to the ground (fell over and THEN sank into the swamp).  I wish to make a suggestion here.  The practice of religion should always have remained private.  It should never have gone public.

  1.  Early Christianity started off this way.  They met in houses and intimate “places of prayer.”
  2. The original situation of humanity had no church or clergy (no priesthood or sacrifice) to offer.  The light of nature would necessarily have rendered prayer and service a family, and a private, matter.
  3. Judaism’s chosen public place of temple service was a slaughterhouse of the poor (sacrificed) animals, but not the synagogues, and houses in which they sometimes met.  These were far more private than the places of holiday meeting.
  4. Holiday’s and holiday meetings in most religions involve public gatherings, and they almost always involve the killing of huge numbers of animals.  This makes holidays abominable to God.  Rather, “the righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, ” and again, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain.”  This means we must show kindness to animals, not kill them!!
  5. The rise of public religion has in fact given birth to crusades, inquisitions, witch-burnings, extreme animal abuse, and a host of other social ills we would have been much better without. And without the public formation of such religious “teams,” (armies sometimes) we could have obviated these ills and crimes. Private Jihads do not often result from household religious activities.
  6. Ockham’s Razor seems to render churches simply unnecessary.  People can meet in their own houses if they wish. If they want teaching made more generally available, technology makes convenient for this purposes radio and other electronic connectivity devices, or simply books, pamphlets or website publications — or courses audited at universities, online or brick-and-mortar.  Parks make good places of prayer for an intimate setting, as do campfires at the beach (or in a backyard) — the natural settings for praying and/ or singing.

For the Sophic, Ethical Monotheist, the LON rules the form of life that our Beloved Creator expects us to follow.  It had only two people originally, and for many generations could not have had prayer and sharing the goodness of God as anything but a family matter.  It is too intimate a kind of thing to bear one’s heart in public.  This appears quite indiscreet and unseemly (What in Solomon’s tongue we might call “inadvisable and unfitting,” perhaps even dangerous) to expose to others (strangers) what God and one’s family alone should be privy to — sins and problems for which one asks divine aid.

Religious councils have often — by claiming authority they should not bear — challenged the real and regular authority of both national and international governments, threatening the good order of society — when the KJV says — “He is God’s minister” to bear the sword on behalf of justice.  It is fine for people who wish it to hold councils (board meetings are even quite profitable — well, when they guide up); but it does no one any good when they start claiming RELIGIOUS authority that could later provide a competitive alternative against the state, as has often happened in the history of western civilization.

These, and other telling considerations, make the devotional attendance of divine concerns, a private matter, and not one suited for public consumption.  The wise (Sophic Ethical Monotheist) community will want to consider this matter well in forming its opinions on such matters, and in deciding, when and how they conduct any public meetings — perhaps only to pray for wisdom and to study together.  Setting wise limits on such meetings, in accordance with the LON, suits best the purposes of wisdom and profitability.

Qualitative Time: Historians and the Notion of “Periodization.”

Historians are a brilliant lot, but sometimes they do odd things.  One of those oddish behaviors aims at constructing a kind of timekeeping that borrows from the socio-economic “qualities” or attributes of an era.  This “period” of time then receives a name, say, the time of Renewal or “Renaissance,” for those who love French cooking.

One could name periods of time (eras) by any number of different kinds of qualities.  In different fields of history, say “art history,” they refer to the “Romantic Period,” while those less concerned with cultural history might simply dub this “the 19th century,” or “Industrial Revolution.”  Finance people think of this as the era of “the Unstoppable Rise of the Forward Contract” (before they had “futures,” they had “forward contracts”).

Periodization, the art and science of naming specific periods of time with historically-credible labels, began early on with historians. At the first, they used empires to label periods, while imperial Presidencies helped with this labeling process after WW II — in the era of Postmodern historiography.  I am hoping next for the era of the rise of the imperial historian. Remember, historians always have the last laugh, and they control the power of collective memory.  So be nice.  Or you could end up a robber Baron extreme with multiple psychoses, and a horrific personality.

But let us return to the fascinating idea that one might keep time by labeling specific eras in historical writing — this keeps time by noting the salient features (qualities), rather than by numbering a sequence of time units like years (e.g. this happened in 1492).  Quality versus Quantity. Sometimes an event conveying a quality can even serve to begin a timeline — for example, the event we call the beginning of writing systems. Historians account the beginning of history as the same thing as (coterminous with) the beginning of writing.  The same is true with check-cashing.  You simply cannot bounce a check until you learn to write.  “History” without writing is called “pre-history,” an era when things were run by a bunch of illiterate Neanderthals who couldn’t do a damn thing write.  They invented the DMV.

Different disciplines will necessarily have an outlook that views history differently, each from the others, since each field of inquiry has a distinct value system, placing its work as “central to the development of the human potential.” Logicians could easily labels eras as “Aristotelian, Platonist, Nominalist, Scholastic, Predicate calculus/ Set Theory, Logical Positivism, Computational logic, the rise of Mathematical Logic,” and the like.  Yet this construction of “eras” seems in no way arbitrary, but roots itself in very important features of actual historical, and socio-cultural trends and event-complexes (e.g. “Civil War”).

It does raise some further, interesting questions, however.  If one might label eras variously, what about the ways in which the scholarly past has viewed time (Empires often conscribe the “Assyrian Period” or “Neo-Chaldean” in older textbooks); or some other important or foundational question — how we view “government,” or “math systems,” or religions.  We now live in a post-Christian era (on my view).

Again, on my view, the history of humanity is a history of a very specific kind.  It is a history of progress, the continuous, if bouncy and uneven, growth and development of wisdom and understanding — of many different kinds of cultural activities, from logic and science to art and literature.  What if, instead of using the art of periodization to indicate this progress (which is fine by me), we instead created a math and logic system that shows or accounts for this progress?  Okay — what does that mean?

For example, the growth of humans in a specific population occurs by a kind of doubling process that can be described (back to numbers again) in terms of a geometric progression and a “geometric mean.”  The population bean-counters already know this shorthand.  I have begun a “hobby-like” quest to see if I can combine both relatively simply math and relatively simply logic into a hybrid system that accounts for human history’s innovative and progressive trends.  I am not as pessimistic as are many on this idea.  People often follow in the collective rational kinds of patterns that individuals do not, and some of these patterns might escape our notice for some time.  Population growth, money growth, the growth of the value of real estate, cost of life insurance, number of people involved in charity, the administration of justice, number of patents granted (of specific kinds), and many other markers can be used to study the value and growth of human progress. I believe that the correct approach to this subject, trimmed and managed by the principles of the LON (light of nature), will in fact to some extent, show a rational set of patterns we can identify as rationality describable.  Moore’s Law expemplifies this tendency, and shows a kind of rationality to human (cultural and technological) development, or at least certain aspects of cultural development.

I shall try to keep readers up to date of my adventure in looking to this or that kind of math of logic, and how the LON inflects this or that application of it to describe the history of our progress.  This math-logic system (prob. a hybrid) will attempt a first — show the rational development of “math over time” or logic as it unfolds over time as human progress.  This effort will prove a “dynamic math-logic” that unfolds over time — transchronic math-logic system: that shows the logic of progress — without periodization.  If you think it would take a miracle to get it right, remember this.  On the Sophic, Ethical Monotheist view, three miracles form the necessary preconditions for our being here (and doing anything scholarly).  The LON is thus itself an immediate creation of our beloved, and most excellent King.  The whole enchilada is miraculous to begin with.  I still cannot get over this.  Life is a miracle (transcendent), and wisdom is its crown and glory.

Periodization, move over.

Transcending Time, AGAIN. This Time, It’s Universal and Humanitarian.

We are going to need a more universal clock than I have before suspected.  My previous blog-post, I have realized, did not go far enough in reconstructing time, as it did, by eliminating all the “temporal epicycles” that I could.  What we will need amounts to something like a way of averaging events that occur at the quantum (or at least atomic) level, that is, averaging them out over a specific period of time to create a basic unit like “one second.”  From this basic unit, we can reconstruct all of time in a progressive-linear (non-cyclical or epicyclical) fashion, one that has no need of days (Sunday, Monday, Tues, etc — which are “Christian time-units”), or weeks or months, or years (which are also the stuff of “Christian Civilization.”

The one I propose would run much, much simpler, consisting of only one unit of time, moving forward from a point of origin (say, the first writing system?), with the expected (and plotted out across history) development of human progress.  The principle of progress forms a legitimate principle of the LON (light of nature), and follows from the fact that the LON consists of the ideal = wisdom.  The closer we move toward the ideal, the more progress we display.  This is in fact what we have been doing all throughout history — progressing.

Example of legal codes and material — law code of Hammurabi, then of Draco and Solon, the Roman legal codes, the Salic Law, that of Theodoric, the Magna Carta (1215), modern Constitutions, the Geneva Convention Protocols, legal innovations in civil rights and in animal rights, etc

The Christian conceptions of time are tribal (Old Testament), primitive, superstitious (named after “gods,” like “Saturn day” — more obviously in Latin languages that from Anglo-saxon), tangled, and completely unnecessary.  Mine is neither Julian nor Gregorian.  It is scientific and universal.  Consider that one day, we will move away from our little revolving hut (planet Earth) to other planets to begin living there.  Technology and time favor this view, just as does “Moore’s Law.”

When we move even beyond our own “Milky Way” galaxy, one day, we are going to have a good laugh at the primitive thinking that suggested what my previous blogpost did —  assumed that all solar systems would use the Earth’s concept of a day, season or year.  These same concepts would amount to something quite different in a different solar system, and then commerce between them would require more “time zone” changes than the one’s we already have.  Eventually this would become unmanageable and convoluted as the number of solar systems involved multiplies.  What to do?  Defeat the problem in advance with a universal time-keeping system — one that employs events commonplace in all galaxies — perhaps subatomic ones, averaged out, to create a universal calendar.

This is what we should start using when convenience allows, since our sciences are easily advanced enough to manage the project, AND it is counterproductive to continue favoring a time-system developed in the Middle Ages (Julian and Gregorian) that has nothing to commend it, and much to rebuff it (Ockham’s Razor, etc).  You will recall that this was the same “authorizing bunch” who came up with this time scheme who also argued about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, and burned witches at the stake — in under 10 minutes.

My suggestion?  Never ask THESE people what time it is (It could be five minutes til the next stoning).  Ask Stephen Hawking instead.

During the first Copernican revolution, we were increasing our knowledge at both the level of the large scale (the telescope) and the lesser (the microscope).  We having been moving by way of improvements in both directions ever since, PROGRESS-ively.  Strangely, the one that I believe will rule the day among the stars is NOT the large-scale, but the small-scale (quantum), by providing the best basis for a unit of time as foundational as the atom was thought to be by the Greeks, or as in our day, the Higgs-Boson.

What is the optimal time-unit?  It may well need construction from an averaging process (stochastic time).  It should be managed, if I am correct, in units of ten, and as the simplest among apparently “optimal” choices.  These principles of the LON will lead the way.  I believe that it may be the result of several inferences using such principles, but there is an optimal, most basic time unit (temporal Higgs-Boson).  This will replace the entire Christian system, centered on crucifixion, or “crucified time.”  Crucifixion? Nah, he said I could have freedom.  (Monty Python knows).

The stochastic-temporal model instead would be based on the “freedom,” or rather, the contingency of quantum events.  The Wikipedia entry for “quantum clocks” indicates that we already have progress in this direction:

“In March 2008, physicists at NIST described a quantum logic clock based on individual ions of beryllium and aluminium. This clock was compared to NIST’s mercury ion clock. These were the most accurate clocks that had been constructed, with neither clock gaining nor losing time at a rate that would exceed a second in over a billion years.[42] In February 2010, NIST physicists described a second, enhanced version of the quantum logic clock based on individual ions of magnesium and aluminium. Considered the world’s most precise clock in 2010 with a fractional frequency inaccuracy of 8.6 × 10−18, it offers more than twice the precision of the original.[43] [44]     The accuracy of experimental quantum clocks has since been superseded by experimental optical lattice clocks based on strontium-87 and ytterbium-171.”

Although this kind of accuracy transcends the needs we have in regard to establishing a universal timekeeping unit, it remains quite impressive. And the most accurate might form the basis for the time unit we are looking for.   Quantum clock technology will certainly aid in the quest.  I have no doubt.  What would Lucretius do?   Good science versus bad religion.  The choice is clear enough.  Universal time needs good science. Perhaps light itself (the photon) might provide the answer, since it seems basic to all life.  Since our beloved Creator placed us here on Earth, we might consider it an objective point of reference that the Sun is about 93 million miles from Earth (the Anthropic Principle, as they call it, does something quite humanitarian — it places life at a premium: plant life, animal life and human life).  This kind of point of reference for constructing time goes precisely in the opposite direction of “Crucified time” of the Christian system.

The speed of light across this distance could form the basic unit of time (as “the speed of life”).  This (93 million miles divided by 186, 000 miles per second) would yield a basic unit of time that compares to the one we now use as something like 7.5 minutes (roughly) as a basic unit — the basic unit of life, as the basic unit of time. Then we could impale and replace the Christian system (Vlad time no more).

Once we decide on the basic unit of universal time, we could easily create wrist-watches that keep time “as universal time,” and that could display it translated into the time-frame anyone else might be using — all on the same digital face, and at a glance.

Contra “Ekklesia:” A New View

This blog post offers something that might be regarded as a startling insight.  I regard the Roman emperors who outlawed Christianity, or more particularly, the Christian Church (before Constantine). to actually have been correct in this particular prohibition.  By doing so. they were actually protecting the best interests of the state.

Ethical Monotheists believe in only ONE transcendent Source, and in one authority chain following from it, for all real authority — wherever its jurisdiction may situate.  This would (and does) preclude any church from having authority, in addition to that of the state.  Indeed, the “paper pope” of the Protestants, and the real one of the Catholics, both pretend authority beyond that of the state, implying a clear and distinct challenge to the former, if and when they disagree — or are interpreted by church leaders so to do.   Even their own “Bible” makes clear the “incommensurability of paradigms” here — one with Jesus as a living emperor (a false emperor and a fiction on the SEM view represented here), having authority over churchgoers in every land, as well as that paradigm of the real state authority, which has no such emperor ruling within its boundaries — the USA does not allow either kings or emperors to act within their office, exercising authority from it, within its borders.

This precludes Jesus (assuming hypothetical the Christian view) from exercising any authority as emperor on US soil.  This implies a ban on Christianity, since such exercise of authority is implied by their (illegal) baptism, which comes with the confession that “Jesus is Lord” — where “Lord” means “Son of God, and highest human authority.”  The prohibtion of the USA against domestic kingship and the like aims at forbidding the conflict of material interest involved necessarily in having two separate chains of authority in any one land.

The separation of Church and State was a good start in the USA (Brown v. Board of Education, etc), but it does not go nearly far enough to protect the actual authorities from the usurpation of such forbidding incursions against real authority.

Fathers should shepherd the family, not churches.  And the state should have its authority protected.

More on this topic later.

Quitting Theology Like a Man

Another of my late-night insights bids me suggest that doing theology tempts one to take the wrong cognitive course of action.  We should instead be studying economics, philosophy, history, the literary arts and sciences.  Theology, it will turn out, pinions on the study of “religion as rooted in holy (divinely-authored, that is, forged and pseudonymous) books” — just what we do not want.

Philosophy, on the other hand, looks to the transcendentals (categorical and propositional), to rational, empirical and profitable modes of thinking — not Peter Pan mythologies and bogus, crucified-superman traditions.  We should “be doing philosophy” and not theology.  I have decided to quit theology like a man, and to embrace philosophy — the true love of wisdom — instead.

Its time for theologians to man up and drop out.