Metaphilosophy

Metaphilosophy

Roots of the argument
	Believe it or not, there is nothing new in the argument we are having - it can be idealized as Russellian paradoxes at start of 20th century, as can various solutions which can be identified with theory of types, ZF theory of sets etc. That round of controversies led Hilbert to propose a program, to-unprovable solved cleverly by Goedel, expanded by Turing, and became the heart of computer science through LISP. Whose parenthesization problems led to Unix. Whose lack of mathematical operators leads to scheme and WILL lead to something more powerful than Humans as they exist. But the paradox still remains. The crux of theory of types is to solve impossibilities by purging recursion, that is one can never have (Set x\| x IN x), i.e. a set can not be its own member. It solves the Liar paradox by semantically forbidding it and its derivatives. With respect to our current controversy, there is no such thing as freedom of speech that allows a party to attack freedom of speech itself. One might naturally assume that a freedom is worthless if it is not self-applicative. Yet for linguistic reasons alone, the self-application property fails! Because of importance and usefulness of recursion, I have invented and claim very deep and wonderful properties of something I call inclusion, like recursion except that a set can only belong to a strictly lower set in some finite descending chain towards a zero. Is self-applicative itself self-applicative? Semantically illegal question. Consider a movie made of many pictures. Each picture is a set of actors. One allows grouping of actors and their movements into sub movies so that one can think of the movie as composition of many sub movies. So what does inclusion of a movie in a sub movie mean? Consider space, physics itself. There can be no Klein bottles. Certain aspects of orientation are fixed. Consider computer science. You can have nesting of directories, even sharing. But never a loop in the hierarchy. Consider initialization. There must be a loop free total order on them as the program should die. That c++ programs don't gives rise to deep serious bugs in large programs which makes c++ itself stupid! Consider a set of talks built from a set of slides. One allows naming of sets of slides for efficient inclusion. So what does a loop in the inclusion tree mean?
Numbers
	A mathematician will tell you there are only one kind. I argue there are two very distinct kinds - mathematical and linguistic, or mnums and lnums, which go by the name of cardinal and ordinal numbers in normal mathematics. lnums are fundamentally cyclic in that there exists an M such that successor M = 0. mnum are finite too in that exists M such that successor M = error, successor E = predecessor E = E. This is one dimensional math, In multidiensional math, succ M = (1 0), ... Succ (M M) = (1 0 0), ...(M,...,M). Successor of that is called the first inaccessible mnum.
Philosophy of US
	It is a very serious mistake to confuse gUS or geographical US, hUS or historical US, and iUS or the ideas behind US. So important that hereafter I shall always make that distinction. iUS has nothing to do with gUS or hUS, or its supreme court. iUS is a group of people who stood up to the biggest tyrant of its time, but not by becoming tyrants themselves, and not by turning their other cheek either. It took many years of hard debate available today as the Federalist papers to prevent recreation of tyranny yet strength beyond turning other cheek. Remember these were not extraordinary men regardless of what hUS(2000) believes, they kept slaves for example. Their remarkable characteristic was their lack of trust - if a system could be devised free from trust, it would live on regardless of powers that be. Not a perfect union, but a more perfect one. The errors in the document and the theory of interpretation itself (THE linguistic component of law) over corrected some in last 200 years. It does not amaze me at all, being a serious linguist, that I can immediately see judgment timing and binding problems as same, see the conservative v liberal judges as static v dynamic languages, appreciate the sunset provisions, and talk some what like a lawyer since natural languages like english are nothing but an inferior version of strong formal languages based on multiple inheritence and layered acyclic computation which I talk about here. Given my philosophy, extract the tasty relevant meat and move on. iUS has a lot of charm for me, gUS or hUS(2001) does not. I think other powers in gUS considered me to be useful enough and unobjectionable enough to grant me citizenship, a benefit I will fight maximally hard to keep. I can not lead gUS, INS told me so and quizzed me on my military duty attitudes. Perhaps unlike most applicants, I answered all 10 questions I was asked seriously, and argued and accepted. For once even Sir INS was impressed. Relevant to discussion: I can't become leader of gUS is logically acceptable to me for alike a free speech system that allows self-destructive free speech is self-contradictory. It is hard but possible to invent systems that permit free speech, even freedom to talk about modifications essential to make the system more just, and yet be secure from internal enemies. One can for example hard&construct true free speech systems that do not allow Nazi march in Skokie prevent identification of choice/abortion doctors prevent identification of activists by Hindu Unity
ANSWER
	Central to my way of thinking is to allow full choice between candidate options within ANSWER (Always Never Start With Equal Response). You are free to criticize free speech provided that you grant the same freedom to opponents too to criticize your views. What I consider Pornography may not be so considered by courts, but they must also give me the right to cut-paste pictures of mother/sister of Pornographer/employees on heads of similarly dressed models WITHOUT the right of these ladies to sue for misappropriation of head images. A right safely universally made available by limiting damages for all copyright violations to money made. Not all religions are allowed, not even all practices of all religions. They must be within the law. What is a religion is not solely for a court to decide - it is a union concept. What is a religion in any jurisdiction is that decided by its courts using their rules, or the international law. Rules on diplomats are the AND of rules in the serving jurisdiction and home jurisdiction. An American diplomat can not be charged in Cuba for sedition by propaganda because the corresponding process is not illegal in US. A Russian diplomat can be charged and convicted in Canada if he could be so charged in Russia. The applicable rules themselves are case dependent using ANSWER directed composition and are required to be importance tagged - they are composed based on importance and being and/or within a category. This approach answers uniformly and well all kinds of security and privacy issues, their interactions and conflicts.
A brother in need
	Regardless of what Arun Kumar or Joey say, and disagreements with them, I consider the statement of being warned by identification as per the hatelist a severe personal blow and call for suspension of all disagreements. Clearly a system incapable of instilling confidence in all its free speech advocates is worth nothing. That it can be done so i.e. safe view echange without either revealing identity (privacy), or abusing the encryption for nefarious purposes is some thing that I can do. and will noe proceed to do with the highest priority.
Nefarious uses on encryption
	Apart from NSA and FBI, it is terribly important to only allow cantfake systems. You dont want an employee abusing supervisor, a competitor abusing an employee etc. You must also have it for reliable data. consider this story. One way to get reliable data on quality of teaching is to collect votes from the students. There are concerns about retaliation. So one must use encryption in order to hide the source of the vote. But that gives the professor all the needed capabilities to vote for P as many times as needed. Or a disaffected student from voting very low very many times.

my studies in world population predict the population to max out at approximately 2010 or 2012. The human race is becoming more violent in the race for adequate food, water, and shelter. We are causing other species to go extinct and exercising violence on our own race. I don't expect that reason will prevail since history has shown in times like this that only the most violent survive. The stakes are high. Religion is only one of the tools which those that wish to survive will use to build armies.

As for the conflicts of religious groups, you now understand why I choose to believe in god but not religion. Religion to me is the proposed path of truth corrupted by those who wish to influence the masses. Religion is powerful because of its superstitious taint. Superstition is a human frailty which religion exploits. Religion exploits human frailty in a struggle for resources.

What you are talking of is organized religion. Unfortunately I don't think you have really thought through what disgust with organized religion entails. I am not a christian. Yet I supported sisters of mercy since I felt that 90% of what I gave would be properly used in calcutta. If some church benefits from 10%, so be it. The right way to defeat them is, my view, to compete with them hard. And I suspect that my 90% meant 120% when you throw in the value of services. How could I get a better deal?

I have ceased altruism through organization. I too build alliances by helping those directly in my path. I choose to help those who are weak because often i feel pity (or empathy) for them in their defeat.

>As for how you answer the questions of ethics posed? I take the stance of what I was taught as a child, in >our hearts we know right from wrong. I agree that no two hearts interpret right and wrong the same in all things. I also believe that we live with the consequences of ignoring our heart and no more effective punishment can be doled out by man or god. This brings us to the establishment of order and how >it is achieved. America struggles with the contrast between her religious ethic and her survival ethic. Government attempts to influence as a third party but quickly learns her frailty.

As an individual I struggle with the reality of my heart verses my survival. I believe that those who chose the ethic of survival are more fit but that this does not help the achieve happiness. I also believe that even the most devout followers of their own heart on occasion must vote for survival since this instinct is what we call life.To summarize, one lives their life as they see fit and the world struggles around them to capture their motivation. Is this god in our lives? I doubt it. Is this religion in our lives? In some cases. Is there truth? In our own heart we know what is good and what is not. Can we achieve order? yes thru alliance but even this is a constant negotiation.

you struggle with the human condition. the chinese have a philosophy that we finally understand at the moment of our death. I admire that you wish to understand and actually frame this contradiction. I am somewhat skeptical that mathematics as it currently stands is a sufficient tool for this task. Personally, I pondered it for many years and have come to the conclusion that I can only address the negotiations of soul vs survival when they arrive. Until that moment, my brain hurts.

One thing life is teaching me is that I often have believed strongly that something was this way or that only to learn later that when it didnt go how i wished or believed it still worked out. In some cases I discover it had worked out better than if I had exerted my will. I believe this is called humility by the humanist, faith by the godfearing, and luck by the gambler.

Wow that was entertaining! Personally I was not in the least scared - a little disappointed that I did not make the hatelist - but not scared. These loonies have shown themselves to be childish and ineffective. If they could actually carry out their threats they would not waste their time on the internet. I think it is a way of letting off steam and will blow itself out very soon.

What led to destruction of a mosque eventually is not entertaining to me. Making the hatelist is neither a badge of honor, nor a cause for alarm. These loonies are ineffective today primarily because of lack of organization. Good enough to use the time they give for counterorganization. It is however wrong to ignore them. Let them make the first move, when they do and if they do, they should be met with ANSWER.

Much more worrisome to me right now is the rise of right-wing ideology in the US. As the world's most militarily powerful nation it is especially scary that they are committed to military expansion, unfettered consumption of resources, the stripping away of powers by national governments to rein in corporations and the trashing of the environment. The whole world is in danger and the only force that is opposed to the US rightwing agenda on a national scale is China. That does not confort me very much. When I need a dose of escapist fantasy I will check out the Hindutva sites again.

I agree with you with US irresponsibility, still Hinduvta is more than escapist fantasy. What is happening today is the seed for devastation tommorrow - it does not take much for a trained politician to realize there is an already well organized opportunity waiting to be plucked and misused.

My red salute to all of you PrakashKnowing you, I know it is an ironic unnecessary statement, but these type of jokes have an unfortunate tendency to bounce back,.

Prakash, My sentiments on all fronts. What is worrisome is that in the absence of a secular humanist leadership from the left, religion and nationalism fill the vacuum, Cheers Joey

Worrisome typical words from an unbloodied scientist of the kind that allowed pigs to walk on their hind legs in Russia and conservatives to rule England and US. The secular humanist leadership from the left thrives unfortunately only in climate paid for by the toils of the conservatives. Your views are the real reason I consider Ayn Rand a goddess who walked the earth. Or am willing to risk a percentage to my sisters. May I not ask you to trust me but just one favor - if you ever feel you are in trouble and want help, I shall be there, despite whatever bad thoughts have crossed your mind till then because of my fierce competition and bloodied reputation? For you are more than a friend, but also a great TIFR scientist.