the basis of reason

In certain situations, it is possible if you have illogical beliefs, for someone to gain an advantage over you so that you have benefited none and they gained all. This is considered in economic terms as a money pump. If you have preferences that don’t follow the right logical properties, you can engage in a series of trades that result in you receiving the same thing in the end, while having to give away extra money. This would be contrary to the existence of any object if it was able to not guard against these schemes. Therefore, to continue to live and thrive, you must be able to form coherent beliefs or clear ideas. Mathematics and logic, therefore, are the beliefs that are most clear and coherent. Therefore, to not be exploited by the universe, we have developed abstract systems to clarify and distinguish beliefs and thereby actions we take upon them.

We can see how structures are formed from randomness in the process of ciphers and encryption codes. Changing a message into a cipher is a process that maximizes the change of randomness of a piece of information. To change a text into a code you need to maximize the randomness of the phrase to the encoded. And therefore, to decrypt the text you need to minimize the entropy of the text. Because those functions which minimize entropy are rare, they cannot easily be witnessed and recreated by someone who doesn’t know the secret. Therefore, thermodynamics and information, and therefore logical principles, have a close connection. For example, “Landauer’s principle holds … that any logically irreversible manipulation of information, such as the erasure of a bit or the merging of two computational paths, must be accompanied by a corresponding entropy increase in non-information bearing degree”. Although this principle and its application to our world is disputed, it shows that there can also be a physical interpretation of logic. This means that logical principles can be derived from the rareness of their contradiction when set into the world, and therefore a material account of meaning.

Given a set of objects with N properties and an arbitrary weighting of , the most ethical set maximizes the ordering of objects given the weighting of ethical principles. But still assumes that we can say that is exhaustive - that ethical categorical attributes, can fully describe an object? So, given that a property of an object is one that expresses a general state of relations with the object: An object is because it has a relation with other objects. So, is there an exhaustive description of the relationships of any object that fully determines the object? Either an object is fully determined by relationships, or that objects are individuated - that is, they have a spontaneous existence that is individual from other objects. Let us assume it is true that objects are fully determined by their relationships. This means if we destroyed an object, we could perfectly recreate its relations and therefore itself. However, there cannot be a single universal unitary operator that can clone a physical state, according to the quantum no-cloning theorem.* Therefore, there would be no way generally to perfectly recreate an object. Therefore, objects are individuated and spontaneously exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burali-Forti_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace's_demon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonoff's_theory_of_inductive_inference

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_infinitesimal_analysis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_book_arguments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof

Regress and the Absolute

Given the right conclusions before, it is conceivable that we could derive a proper whole for any domain of discourse. Given an end state or whole, one can derive a rule that describes things already given a conclusion – termed “God’s Algorithm”. For example, given a solved puzzle – a whole, we could scramble up the pieces, and know perfectly how to solve the puzzle in reverse. This was experienced by many a logician who attempted to construct a universal and descriptive a priori language, like Wittgenstein and Leibniz. However, this is an illusion of hindsight and should not distract us. The question then is the mereological claims that Kuhn denied: is there a proper way to determine from the parts the proper whole, and the proper parts from the whole? To determine the proper whole would require finding a complete justification for whatever whole we require. For any complete causal explanation, we need an exhaustive series of justifications. To find this exhaustive list we must deal with the inevitable regress it produces. Foundationalism, which states that there is a universal prior for establishing the justification of all other justifications has already been brought into doubt earlier in this essay. Next then is holism, which is equivalent to theory-ladenness, which states that confirmation brings in the entirety of causal relations. This commitment has been echoed by thinkers as diverse as Hegel in his dialectical holism, and Derrida – il n'y a pas de hors-texte - “there is no outside-text". How can knowledge, or scientific knowledge otherwise be derived in this schema?

The question of theory-ladenness brings into discussion of whether confirmation holism is possible – that to derive any universally grounded knowledge we would inevitably bring in all corollary hypotheses – leading to an infinite regress towards the entire universe’s causality. The universe then would be the proper whole for any given theory, and any theory must be situated within that whole. However, is this logically consistent, can we conceive of a proper whole that logic can be reduced to? Cantor, the famous mathematician and philosopher, believed so. After deriving the scandalous transfinite cardinals, he sought to rescue the infinite from the relativization of the multitude jungle of possibility. To many mathematicians it seemed abhorrent and violate Occam’s Razor, that which sought to reduce the ontology of infinite being. Cantor assured onlookers that there was a logical end of being – also implicating that of justification. Finding infinitesimal numbers inconsistent, he speculated that there was an Absolute Infinity, which bounded all other infinities. However, this brings up a logical problem with the absolute – that of self-negation. Alluding to similar contradictions in formal logic which were addressed by logicians like Tarski and Gödel, the Burali-Forti paradox states that the set of all Von-Neumann ordinals (well-ordered, or hierarchical numbers) could not be bounded, otherwise it would produce antimony. Given that well-ordered numbers cannot be larger than themselves, the proof by contradiction is like one of those against perfect inductive inference. If one constructed a number that was greater than any other number, it would itself be a number. However, then it would have to be larger than itself – which leads to a contradiction with the definition of ordinals. Therefore, we can conclude that given the strongest logical system compared with the alternatives – that given by the axioms of Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, that there cannot be an absolute ordinal, and no end to justification.

an infinitely delusional god which contains within itself facets even logically inconsistent logical universes all of its parts are logically independent its facets are completely alienated from itself it is it's own other

for that god to be identifiable with a facet would mean the it abolishes itself therefore it would not be infinitely delusional

in its limit it abolishes itself it is justified because of its lack of justification

choice - you have infinite delusional "free choice" time can be measured by the number of propositions

it could imagine the complete system and it would suddenly no longer exist

permanence is exactly what is trve but you can never know what is permanent the existence of thought of