This little work is representative of the early stages of a larger theory being formed from nothing. The components of this thought are related to each other in deep and possibly hidden ways. I sense greater dimensions of depth of the nature of this work which I shall not go into for lack of time.

This is a window into the fruits of my thought over the past few months. I grope around in the dark trying to develop a fundamental appreciation for the nature of ideas and the intellect. In other words, I’m drawing intellectual graffiti. There is no set order or structure and no axiom guarding against contradiction. This attests to the fluid nature of this essay. After some time a global thought structure will emerge which I will then use as the face of the society of ideas presented within. The emergence of a unitary global character will impel a phase change and cause the ideas to spontaneously self-organize into something coherent and cogent.

Commentary on the nature of this emerging work

Were I to spend more time thinking deeply about this all and developing it further, this work would evolve into a philosophy and theory of cognition/psychology. The rigorous phase will be finding my axioms, the conditions of all these theorems and the precise definitions of all ambiguous terminology.

Formalizing this work will necessitate having intuition for all that which it does not cover and trying to cover it to the best extent possible. In conclusion, I need a theory of how to make this work comprehensive.

Consider the logical–intellectual-theoretical as well as the practical-psychological-emotional components of all ideas in this work.

There are few traces of religion in these ideas – as they are meant to be universal ideas for guiding thought and shouldn’t use religious arguments.

The most daunting thing on my mind is that remarkable work only comes through remarkable effort, considerable commitment and iterative development, not spontaneous ideating and interest. Problems are hard and the learning process to be able to solve them is hard too. The scale of magnitude between being a beginner and being able to solve real problems is overwhelming for me. And that big things take time means you can’t just start something new. You need to have already worked on something for a while.

The response to this is that growth comes as a result of accumulation of small success. With only a few successes the delta is tremendous.

Aposteriori Note

A few minutes of total exploration leads me to an understandable but negative truth – that all these issues have been thought about before. Negative because some part of me hoped I would be saying something useful, positive because it confirms I’m thinking in the right direction.

Rationality Deltas

I’m starting to notice ways I can enhance my rationality or make optimizations to my own way of perceiving the world. Instead of throwing away these valuable opportunities for growth, I’m going to keep note of them:

General Equations

Rationality Delta

Actionable Insight

Actionable insight is more valuable than the general theories: applications of general theories are hard to compute. Possibly, an application of a general theory can be as novel or even more novel than the theory itself. General theories are usable to the extent they can be used to solve particular problems. The mapping from problem to theory necessary for it to be solved is not always trivial.
Analyze very carefully: beware unforeseen nuance.
Be aware of skillset categories:Don’t assume interacting with thing A will enhance the depth of your interaction with B; even if both are in the same category intellectually they can be in different categories behaviorally. For example, having a good mathematical intuition doesn’t mean you are an expert at symbol manipulation.
Be aware of what you do not know: and don’t suppress the truth or the facts to aid your position. Try to build your position from an absolute perspective as the Gemara does.
Don’t initialize my essays with a random anchor word or clause. I’ve noticed when I write essays I fumble on the introduction. Instead of contemplating how best to begin the essay from an ideological perspective my brain searches for random words and tries to evolve from that word a topical sentence. This process usually brings me to a local minimum in terms of writing optimality.
Don’t prematurely invalidate your opinion: the hava amina may be correct even if your intuition says otherwise (tosphot assumes there is no blanket rule for “Shave Kesef KiKesef” in his long comments on “Pruta U’Shave Pruta” on the first daf of kiddushin, but Meharsha questions this implicit assumption Tosphot seems not to pay attention to).
Don’t unnecessarily tell people about what you’ve done: it comes across as bragging and their trust can be won over through less blunt means.
Don’t fear destroying things you’ve built: to escape a local minimum you need to make stochastic jumps. This means forgetting about where you are now and choosing a completely new direction to go in.

Don’t just say you’ll figure it out
- Eg: human medical knowledge, the United States of America, the scientific method. We wake up into these realities that were once non extant.

Either abolish or fully capture hazy intuitions: so I can be extremely particular about my ideas. So that it is clear precisely what my point is. And so that I know which ideas are real and which stem from a superficial understanding.
Embrace Approximation, Know when Perfection is Unnecessary: One of the strongest abilities that comes with expertise is the ability to accurately gauge the complexity of a project. This enables you to deliberately devote just enough energy to approximate optimal output while still conserving resources.
Embrace Iterative Processes: in my autodidactic pursuits I’ve noticed I jump frequently between disciplines and rarely get to the fundamental ideas in a textbook. Perhaps this stems from my needing the material as a means rather than an end. (However, there is a mistake in my approach for I haven’t yet the expertise to deeply make use of complex math. I need to master the art of thinking like a mathematician first and then all this will become first nature.) I feel somehow rushed and therefore make superficial brushes across large planes of mathematical ideas instead of investigating them deeply.
Everything can be thought about to a depth of infinitude:
Focus: this should be the first one on my list
Initial solutions need not persist to be part of the ultimate solution. One fallacy I have succumbed to is failing to update my existing perception in the presence of new inspiration. My mind had perceived what already existed as permanent or feared the possibility of exerting extra energy in deleting existing productions when I really could do better with a new understanding. This really comes down to having the courage to fundamentally refute initial or semi-initial hypotheses. For example: classical mechanics was broken at very small and large scales by quantum mechanics and general relativity.
Intellectual Collaboration: can be a path to more absolute truth. The exposure to unforeseen variables is enlightening. Additionally, it takes intellectual theory into practice in a society of thoughtful individuals each with their own intellectual theory.
It is important not to develop philosophy using an intellectually absolute model of [the state of] the world: developing a theory of meaning for instance can easily be built on the notion that every person has the capacity to create absolute impact. It’s really more nuanced than this and most people aren’t able to be outliers in the distribution of creating absolute impact. This statistical reality means a theory built on outliers wouldn’t be useful to most of the population – you wouldn’t know this if you didn’t realize your model is built on implicit absolutes.
Jump into new things: otherwise you risk never gaining momentum.
Know what your biases are: so you go towards an absolute truth and not a relative truth.
Know where you are in the growth landscape: (This is a non trivial corollary of the previous dictum) always be aware of what your growing goals are and whether your current and projected activities cultivate that which you seek to develop. Awareness of being in local maxima is important too to ensure you achieve your global growth potential.
Maximizing production over consumption. Optimal output in life comes from implementing not theorizing about how to implement or yak shaving and not actually implementing.
Minimizing delay between having a hypothesis and testing it out: theory alone won’t do it; building and experimenting is the best way to make progress.
Optimize mindset: for optimal open-mindedness which creates more opportunity and brings with it happiness. For instance: assume professors want to hear your questions, or if in a new situation convince yourself you belong, convince yourself all problems are solvable, etc. Mindset, or the perspective you choose to view reality from can influence your experience in reality.
Parsimony
Perceiving every problem as easy until I learn it is hard
Push yourself far beyond your comfortable limits, even to the point of braking.
Record where you learn things from: so their sources are quotable in the future.
Relentlessly pursue new heights: it’s really nice to struggle and eventually master a local skill. However, experts at any level can be challenged. Optimal growth productivity comes when you are always pushing forward.
See universal abstractions
Setting processes in motion a priori: a fallacy one can make is foregoing a potentially transformative experience on the basis it’s fruit will only be born later in time and hence deciding it is not worthwhile to engage with that opportunity now when he could just as easily engage with it when the time comes. However, this is wrong because some truths are truer and advantages are advantageous and the most successful people give themselves advantages - asynchronous processes that aid them along the way.
Step outside of myself when investigating my own work: try to find fallacies and ask fundamental questions against it.
Stimulate both the spirit and the intellect
Stop rounding time quantities: so every moment counts. I’ve noticed improvement here. The idea is to maximize my production/consumption. Create more information than I take in. But with respect to time, every moment becomes valuable as a discrete piece of value and not a point in a continuous time manifold whose clusters shift as the hours change. Time is viewed as absolute and not relative to itself which would cause weird deformations in my relation of it.
Structure in the world may subconsciously be altering the way you think. Try to develop the most absolute perspective.
Super Time Maximization. Always be creating, writing, thinking not sitting around staring out the window.
Urgency Fallacy on micro (life), macro (projects), nano(yak shaving)
When making estimations, make them reasonable:
Write down every single idea I have the it enters my short term memory. It can decay and I would lose it. This would be the opposite of hashovot aveida, effectively stealing my own thoughts from my future self.
Proportional Rationality Fallacy: I’ve found myself making this so frequently not because it is a cognitive heuristic but because it is so hard to avoid; and would be present regardless of the level of intelligence of an individual so long as they are dealing with a problem proportionately hard. When the decision making process demends intense rationality, i.e. strong mental power (dW/dt) in the scientific sense of the word, it is very difficult to meet this standard perfectly and an individual is likely to only approximate it. To be clear (assuming cases of deliberate rationality): this fallacy suggests people tend only to approximate pure rationality when they are at their cognitive limits
Choice Detachment Fallacy: following from the proportional rationality fallacy, in cases that demand ones limits of rationality but where the decision making process is abstracted from the outcome, rationality will be undermined by the a of entropy because it is very hard to keep the system at absolute rationality maximum. The abstracted nature of the decision making reduces the incentive to exert that extra power needed to keep rationality at a maximum. IF this isn’t clear, I hope it approximates something that is clear.
Lazy Rationality Fallacy: giving examples, explanations, making connections, or insight that seems sound but having a hazy intuition that you are being imprecise.
Easily being overwhelmed by complexity
Cognitve Load limits, how to we go beyond this?
Don’t just make arguments that seem to make sense to you because of the perspective from which they were formulated
Talking about things in the absolute when in reality they live along a spectrum
Allowing your own mental structure to reflect how the external notions it represents are structured/emphasized.

On Intuition

Can have the tendency to overestimate the strength and reliability of one’s intuition
I am interested in what distinguishes two types of understanding. My present [and hopefully temporary] mathematical ineptitude prevents me from seeing the global picture in mathematical arguments. And hence, each time I want to understand the result I must recompute the proof. In contrast, complex ideas I have an intuition for already need not be recomputed each time I want to make sense of them. They are already deeply embedded in a mental framework; I can think and speak about them with ease and recognize them in all their manifestations. That is, I have an intuitive grasp for such complex ideas. What is the process of acquiring a heuristic for complex ideas? How are these two types of understanding represented in the mind and what are their characteristics? What distinguishes an expert heuristic system from a novice heuristic system?

Optimal Mindsets

This is a list of perspectives that can enhance particular situations if used correctly. They are different perspectives on cost-benefit analysis, and can be thought of as narrowly applicable rationality deltas – they are only relevant in particular contexts

Depth need not be found in the individual: rather in the collective.
- Read Collective Intelligence of Life, Collective Memory in Psychology, etc.
- When you may become depressed that the depth of the individual is shallow
If progress is an increasing function of effort on average, maximizing effort maximizes progress over the long term. The short term JND is too small to feel like progress is actually being made.
Because today’s problems are so complex, they can only be solved through remarkable effort and expertise.
We need to be prove something is not impossible to convince ourselves it is possible. To prove something to be impossible, we must exhaustively search the entire space of options and prove every single one of them to be impossible. Only once we arrive at an empty set of possibilities is something really impossible. Even if it’s possibility is very, very small, enough energy will actualize it.
Consider all matters always. Otherwise, your perception and behavior will be derived from possibly inaccurate information (epistemological definition of knowledge). Determining the variables involved is not closed-form, so end your search after some dynamic threshold.
ENTROPY IS NOT ON OUR SIDE: in terms of mindset, depth of thought etc.
Don’t rely on an intuitive grasp of a theory: Theories are developed and optimized approaches to resolving particular issues. Assuming you understand a theory without first delving into its nuance is a self imposed failure-trap. If it were that obvious, the theory wouldn’t need to exist. So consider what the theory is really saying, what new understanding is it bringing to the table, what is its nature?
Go beyond simplicity: when you encounter a theory that seems simple, see beyond this simplicity and consider more nuanced situtations, how to apply the theory, how it can be expanded. Everything can be thought about to a depth of infinitude.
Complex changes need iteration to converge on the change. Rapid change is bad because it ignores nuance and this dissonance between nuance and the general nature of the new system will eventually undermine the change – the face is different than the core. This disparity will have random and possibly negative consequences.
Complex systems are built on rigorous hierarchically organized detail. Understanding x/n leafs doesn’t mean you understand n/n leafs because the (n-x) leaves you do not understand cannot be derived from the x leaves you have – by the definition of a leaf.
Actionable Insight over General Theory: it takes creativity to find use for generality. Finding applications of generality can be as innovative as the generality itself. So to create structure, enumerate over some applications of general theory or present the general theory in its applications. This is relevant to some of the very general rationality deltas, eg: considering all matters, or know what your biases are.
Reality is Continuous not Discrete, A Frequency Distribution over States: making assumptions is an inevitable part of the pre-rigorous phase of theory development. However, once the rigorous era begins and the theory begins to concretize, to take on a mature, solid form, to be stated as an absolute, the theory needs to realize that reality itself is not concrete, that structure in reality is a human conception, that there is nuance, there are shades of gray, that systems fluctuate and their nature is really a frequency distribution over a spectrum of other natures. When talking about theory, I mean an individuals’ own theory of their life, or their guiding principles and worldview.
If existing structure impedes progress, work around or destroy the structure
Instead of “yes or no” questions, ask “to what degree” questions – don’t fall for the existence of dichotomies. It clouds reason and judgement
The integral of minor changes to the nature or class of one’s activities can be quite major: this issue is a very broad and ubiquitous one. The face of complex systems emerges from a nonlinear average over the states of its constituents. Even the very smallest changes to routine, or the focus on detail results in nonlinear global effects.
**When dealing with new material which you only have a very superficial grasp of, expect the nature of the approximated understanding and skillset you will need to tackle the material. **
**Expect your own person meta-understanding to expand as you encounter new situations and forms of ideas which you will need to place into your mental structure. **

Any time you encounter a theory or construct, consider what other minimal formulation may produce exactly the same results as that construct. Eg: the Lagrangian function

Cognitive Bugs

This is my psychology class getting into my head. Here we’ll look at bugs in human cognition. If fixed, they could lead to a far more deliberate existence. However, it is very hard to maintain control over these things because we tend to regress towards equilibrium cognitive depth–mental energy until our cognitive depth catches up when our psychological control becomes second nature.

The very problem is that there are bugs in our heuristic systems. Here we’ll enumerate as many cognitive bugs and their respective fixes as I can think of.

A general rule which is only useful if applied is that we should be aware of our intellectual input and output and gauge whether the output is within the range of a specific error bounds function. For example: does our initial perception of a given situation make sense?

The problem is always going to be an optimization between time and mental effort. We simply cannot extend 100% mental effort 100% of the time so that we can logically analyze every step our mostly heuristic cognition makes.

Established Bugs:

Cognitive Load
Availability Heuristic
Representativeness Heuristic
Familiarity Heuristic
Confirmation Bias

Theories to Develop

The Philosopher King has the following list of theories to develop on his agenda. Why? Simply for the intellectual benefits of having a deeper understanding of truths in the universe as perceived by the human [philosopher]. This creates some useful heuristics to solve for a global maximum in [mission critical] real world problems. It fosters a mindset of deliberation, of considering all variables and all their dimensions, the multidimensional landscape before making a decision.

NOTE: This list extends the post-its list entitled “Theories to Develop”

P.S. These theories may be perpetually latent. It is uncertain if I’ll ever actually want to spend time writing about all of these theories. Time could be better spent getting directly closer to the goal of doing something remarkably remarkable (Remarkability theory?)

This list can better be interpreted as a list of topics I am interested in investigating while I have been unable to attend to them.

Satisfaction vs Happiness theory: when to stop climbing. Why?

Legacy, Potential, Thinking Massive Theory: becoming amazing like Elon Musk
- What does it mean to spend your life dedicated to that which is not absolute?
- What does it mean that not all scientists will win a nobel prize?
- Isn’t your success ultimately random?
- What does this mean in terms of the secular theory of life?

Orders of Magnitude of Mental Computation Theory: what it takes to turn hazy ideas into something discrete and nuanced.
Theory Development Theory: how theories are imagined and built into something, when are theories added to, what differentiates a theory from a collection of true ideas that incomprehensively covers a topic (this clause is ambiguous)

Metatheory: what the nature of a theory is, how it is used, what does it mean for a theory to be generalized, exhaustive vs non-exhaustive theories, and related issues.
- Depth of Theory: studying the nature of theories and their intellectual density
- What is our working definition of the word Theory?

Subjective Field theory:eg: some subjectivities are greater than other subjectivities, finding subjective axes, operationalization of subjectivity–>objectivity and inverse.
Theory Worth Theory:theories that exist only for themselves with, in practice, no applications.
- Computed theories vs. BS Theories stemming from Armchair Speculation
- What does a set of ideas such as this one represent and to what extent are they valuable?
Development Theory
Thought value theory
- Rigor vs Creativity
- Art vs Science
- Solving hard problems, simple applications of complex ideas, complex applications of simple ideas. Eg: what is the value in simple physics derivations.
Ultimate Reality Theory, Humanity Theory
Structure of Ideas theory: how new ideas are built as a structured composition of others
- Conveyal of Ideas through language theory
- Mental Organization Theory
Axiom and Definition theory: becoming rigorous on subjective things. How to have these arguments. Useful for psychologists and consciousness debates (which theory holds) or for color blind people, etc. How argue with people who disagree with your axioms.
Skill theory (What is the nature of skills, what does having them mean, etc)
Individual and Collective Theory (what is the nature of the individual, the nature of the collective, the interplay of both, the worth of both)
Expression theory: what is the nature of human expression
Recursivity Theory: what is recursive logic, how to avoid or get around it? Self reference and what that means?
Abstractability and Universality Theory: why are there universal themes. Why can everything be abstracted? Where do these categories come from? Do we create them or are they absolute. Questions of this nature plus some clarification and nuance.
Persistency of Initial Mental Model Theory: sometimes our initial intuitions are false (this should be a rationality delta).

Question Theory: what levels/types of questions are there? What differentiates a question from a lack of foundational knowledge or false assumptions.
- Eg: can we develop a philosophy of general questions? To what extent are general questions meaningful?

Values Theory: what levels of depth are there to the decisions people make about their values, how some value-systems are greater than others. The problem with being open minded in finding a value-system is that once you try one out it is unknown whether you feeling an attachment to it is for absolute reasons or because you have become conditioned to it. That people’s values change over time and how this connects to absolute values. Social Values Theory (Values Theory over a set of individuals).
The Psychology Behind Motivation to Pursue Values and Behind How People Actually Choose Values.
The Theory of Existence:What does it mean to exist? What does it mean for an idea to exist? What is meant by saying all ideas exist? What is meant by the so called idea-space where all ideas reside, irrespective of whether anyone had the idea? Is anything absolute or are the most fundamental mathematical axioms only existent in the human consciousness and are not matter in and of themselves? Do abstracted quantities of nature actually exist?
Theory of learning new things: how to develop an intuition for things.
Dimensions of Cognitive Matter Theory or Representation Theory: constructs ought to only be thought of as absolutely meaningful if they describe the state of the system as it were actually manifested and not as some abstraction. That is, cognitive and physical matter exists in certain dimensions. Abstract dimensions have no meaning beyond the strictly theoretical role they play within a theory. For example: there is no explicit physical concept of energy. It is merely a theoretical model which can explain the limits of motion in a physical system in this universe. Or to speak of an abstract ideaspace as actually existing and then using this model to reason about other aspects of idea-theory is ridiculous. Ideas exist in the dimension of the human mind and no more than that. There is no abstract ideaspace. In other words constructs only exist in the structures that sustain them.
Philosophy of Physics: what does the existence of the possibility of derivations actually say about the structure of the universe and of the science? What does the fact that simple symbolic equations such as F=ma only work in certain situations – what is the bifurcation point and how does the symbolic equation just spontaneously change, or does the symbolic equation actually exist in some function space? Even the most general, abstract ideas about the universe must begin with Assuming X is true, P(X, Y, Z,…)
Structure of the Universe: certain truths are inherent in the structure of the physical world.
Semantic Continuum Theory: semantic or symbolic matter which is presented as a constant may actually be a function of state. This allows for certain theories to be context specific and introduces the possibility for theories to reorganize their predictions under different situations. It allows for a computational element to theories by giving them the intellectual scaffolding/structure to be formulated as a point or a function on a continuum as opposed to arrogantly being an ultimatum/constant. Putting theories in this meta-structure adds an essential bit of nuance. For example, classical mechanics is a state function of the level of abstraction; as I touched above in Philosophy of Physics, classical mechanics exists in a continuum of physical theories. An example of a theory formulated on the intellectual scaffolding of Semantic and Symbolic Field Theory is Social-Cognitive Psychology, which allows for behavior to be context specific. **Bifurcation points of symbolic fields. **
Symbolic Field Theory: the study of function spaces, symbolic bifurcations, the study of symbolic structures as the primary objects on which functions operate
Formal-Semantic Translation Theory: the theory of how cognitive-semantic matter can and ought to be translated to and from formal and rigorous formulations.
Synthetic Complexity Theory: those problems which do not need to exist but are created by humans. Essentially the entropy of the ideaspace is constantly increasing as new disorder is added to it by humans. I ask a problem in symbolic logic and I cause an increase in entropy. I create modern art, I increase entropy. This increase in entropy is synthetic from the absolute, existential perspective because the disorder (1) doesn’t necessarily exist if one doesn’t acknowledge its existence (representation theory), and (2) the disorder transcends purely nature disorder in the sense that it is in the ideaspace as opposed to the physical space. Therefore, the disorder is synthetic. This is really an opinion and an absolute one (which is not necessarily a good thing, see Subjective Field Theory)
Meta-Social Theory or Human Interaction Theory: the theory of the nature and absolute philosophical value of friendships and human interaction. Is it really meaningful or is it animal and is the ideal to be purely intellectual and focused on G-d? Are friendships philosophically meaningful or do they emerge from biological needs?
Philosophical Poignancy Theory:*the set of metrics by which to weigh the so called absolute/philosophical value of matter which I keep mentioning throughout this paper. This theory also studies the semantic continuum in which philosophical poignancy metrics exist and when to apply which. *

Universal Laws

It is fascinating that it seems some [ possibly abstract and vacuously true ] truths about the character of the universe may be discovered with logic alone.

Axiom: The below laws are universally true under the axiom that their axioms are independent of the human mind.

Were the above axiom not, these theorems would be vacuously true and so would the axiom. Which is why it is required.

We must also define law, universal, axiom etc.

Systems are built from an arbitrary many number of smaller subsystems, making the supersystem very, very complex because it is built on nuance.
Cognitive Matter
Natural recursiveness. Think about it.
Punishment
Optimization, Increase in Disorder, Loss of Structure
Economics of Everything
Intelligence in nature
Networks

See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/laws-of-nature/

When manipulating a theorem is futile: when looking at a particular theorem, sometimes it is possible to manipulate the theorem in a way that adds no additional information, or information that merely cancels itself out. Ex: y+2=x. We can make this 3+y+2=x+3 – this manipulation has added no information. However sometimes this manipulation is useful insofar as we may have another truth that 3+y=4z. Now we know that 4z=x+3 without needing to manipulate the second expression. However, in truth no new information was added because instead of manipulating the first expression to conform, we could have added the second. So this observation may be useful but for now serves the very purpose it bemoans.

The Theory of Cognitive Matter

All these ideas depend on axioms (see theory of existence), which I will have to define in the future after I have them. Additionally, that I am able to draw these conclusions without being able to articulate their underlying axioms is a situation which I will also have to analyze. A third question is that of the precision of ideas. I do not think it is possible to ever define a pure idea, that is nothing more and nothing less. There is always the possibility re/para-phrasing and the original idea loses or gains meaning that may not match exactly the emotion that was expressed in language by the person who originally had the idea.

Philosophical Forms of Matter

Note: Plato has atheory of forms

Let me make a distinction. There exist two dimensions relevant to this discussion (depending on your frame of reference, either from the cognitive or physical universe, yes this is a recursive definition, I think):

1. Physical dimension and physical matter

2. Cognitive dimension and cognitive mattter

It is easiest to explain physical notions from the frame of reference of the cognitive universe. The mind is capable of perceiving the physical universe and drawing conclusions pertaining to the nature of what it observes. Such conclusions transcend the physical manifestation of the observation. The Cognitive Decoder It is possible to depict a physical reality mathematically, but the mathematical representation cannot wholly describe the reality. It is limited to being capable of only describing quantitative and computational truths. A higher level is that of a conscious observer who can comprehend neuronally encoded information. This ability I will call cognitive touch .

Cognitive matter (which is cognitive matter) has two forms (which are the cognitive representations of the Philosophical Forms of Matter )

Form A: Cognitive representations of physically manifested matter - the derivatives of expression of ideas through language. Everything else is
Form B: Cognitive representations of matter that transcend physical reality. Theoretical math falls in this category, verbs, nouns, math, adjectives, etc. This is all fascinating because this articulation of ideas, in fact this very sentence and my using the word articulate in it, lies at the fusion of the cognitive and physical universes, is cognitive matter expressed in a purely cognitive form.

You can talk about cognitive matter in cognitive matter –> conclusion. Therefore, it is possible to reason and arrive at conclusions about physical truths in a purely cognitive way, which is a powerful idea. But this ability has its limits. Therefore, any simulation of a neuronal network will always be incomplete. The neuronal information are quantitative truths but quantitive truths cannot themselves transcend the barrier of physicality. The physical cannot somehow transplant itself into the cognitive dimension - i.e objectivity enter subjective realm.

Awareness/Cognitive Depth What differentiates two seemingly different worldview’s can merely be matter of awareness or cognitive depth. Humans automatic ability to formulate things (reflex, not deliberation), and subconscious meaning embedded in the text (see Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, 2.3.5 Jessica ). You need computation to comprehend language.

Lifetime Value of an Idea The physical and cognitive dimensions can alter each other through the human. How can you estimate how valuable cognitive matter is? In some part by how large a change it induces in the physical dimension. Similarly, how do you estimate the value of physical matter? In some part by how large a change it induces in the cognitive dimension. Infinite

Extrapolation How deep do ideas go? See awareness/cognitive depth , limitations of thought as language . Writer vs Reader. How deep a meaning can be embedded in a text before it starts to become you and not the text? Good vs Bad ideator

The Universality of Abstraction of Information

The Universality of Matter Composed of Smaller Parts

**The Limitations of Thought as Language **

relating to representation theory

Do Ideas actually Exist: Sematic vs Literal meaning (symbol vs intuition)

Now another question is what is the resolution of language is? How well can it approximate an underlying emotion. What is language? Look into the work of Nicholas Georgalis: {}

Psycho-Philosophical Ideaspace:

There is no such thing as an ideaspace – it is all the human psychology space
Ideas are just as they manifest themselves in the human mind. That’s it. There is no tangible idea, they are just expressions of relations among entities which themselves dont exist. So boo-hoo to kant’s ideaspace and the space that I mentioned in my Treatise on Cognitive Matter
Arguments on matters of definition – such as the question of machine creativity.
Dealing with this new psycho-philosophical ideaspace, how do we understand the nature of different levels of abstraction?

Recent results from metatheory propose theories are built from the integration of detail, not approximate generalizations. Detail and nuance build a theory which can solve the whole spectrum of problems that actually exist, not the bug-free ones generalizations can.
The human abstraction heuristic serves us well in many cases. In absolute terms, abstraction can be to the detriment. For example: say you are reading this article about graviation waves and realize you lack the math background to understand it fully. So you realize you need to learn about manifolds – but maybe you really don’t need to know about just manifolds. Maybe you really need to know a very particular detail or theorem involving manifolds. Because as an autodidact you tend to fall into the pathfinding trap, getting ever deeper and deeper into a wikipedia train. You want to take a moment to think about what the first node is and come to manifolds from there, not start at manifolds and go outwards.

Essentially what I’m trying to get across here is that ideas may be looked at only as what they are and not some translation of them into a nonexistent, abstract philosophical space. This ties to the culture theory of language.
Nuance: Relating to this humanistic understanding of the nature of a thought: we should investigate the relationship between the organization of a complex theory which synthesizes many smaller chiddushim during its development and when the logical order is shifted around for clarity of presentation. What is the difference between these two structures of the idea – to what extent are they the same idea? What does it say about what complex ideas really are (i.e. that they are fundamentally human constructions), and et. cetera. As an example, the Gemara invites you into the process of developing halacha instead of stating the chakira and ultimate resolution; it is not clean and can be quite confusing as nothing is ever certain until the resolution. There are hazy intuitions, false assumptions, an incredible amount of pathfinding/computation that must be done to arrive at a conclusion. The ideological structure of Torah and Halacha itself is evident in the fact Gemara is designed this way.

In establishing an understanding of the relationship between our subjective conscious experience and the external reality, it is important to have a philosophy about how real ideas and emotions are – in what ways are ideas and emotions real?

The Nature of Art

Synthetic complexity argument – lacking absolute meaning?
Perspectives on reality, express an idea requiring computation?
Evoke emotion?
Transactional, Psychoanalytic and Deconstructionist approaches
When a work should be studied. You see something someone random wrote — should you study it?
Use story about famous guy who said don’t study my work. Is it the art or the artist? Solve this chicken and egg problem
The limit of subjectivity is objectivity
Synthetic complexity, exercise in futility, only in intellectual realm is it relevant. Solving intellectual problems.
Art as an intellectual problem (and its flaws) and as not well defined
The argument that art is beautiful is included in the premise of synthetic complexity theory.
Address the recursive nature of this story and how I have the ability to make fun of artists because I am operating at a higher level than they.
A = interpret(interpret(art)), where A is this essay.
Why the universe is like a piece of art and mathematics is an interpretation of the universe
Why two diametrically opposed views can exist in harmony - why my arguing this is also going to be pointless, but it is necessary. There will always be someone from another viewpoint who has a different opinion. Therefore, I must address the nature of subjective argument itself and why it is not futile.
Address the fact that any piece of literature needs to be viewed as pure objectivity.
Not that one shouldn’t engage in art, but because of this argument, it is much deeper to study objective things.

On Society

To change the fabric of society and make it more absolutely meaningful. We want to create a society of depth, of thoughtfulness, of meaning at the level of the individual and at the level of the collective. What is best for us as human beings – in practical. It wouldn’t be ok to force change. We need to be pluralistic and understand the theory of subjective fields, but also take into account that some subjectivities are greater

Societies can be thought of as complex systems on random variables. They have local and global dynamics emerging from the behavioral and cognitive tendencies of the individuals that constitute them.

The deep theory of culture: going to the level of the individual’s conscious connection to their values, their behavior in relation to these values, how details of the individual comes to define a broader general culture, how cultures interact, how disagreeing cultures interact, how the macro and micro of society interact, how society evolves and oscillates. The history of culture, the history of values and how people have lived their lives. How economics plays a role in this as well. This is basically the nature of humanity and the human experience. All these very deep issues.
Cognitive Dissonance and the value system. Why do people break a value system. The psychology of sin, the psychology of depth – why even people who have it don’t always have it.
The theory of halacha: why is it the way it is. How does it work, why this is the absolute. What discrete laws do better than general ones relating this to the absolute.
The theory of movements. How have they spread, how are they accepted by different people, what is the path from initial conception to physical action.
Ephemeral vs Practically Infinite Change: iterative processes, changing face versus changing core.
Theory of reality: what revolutions mean, even if they accomplish their goals, is the change real or is it synthetic? Is the change better for society in an absolute term or just in the eyes of the revolutionary figure? Would it have been better to let society go on a natural course?
The psychology of opposition: How do you approach opposition in theory and practice (taking into account the psychology of the opposition). How do you navigate through a field of mines, how do you break down barriers in change, how do you create a pluralistic society and not impose things.
Misinterpretation of Movement: when the theory/movement takes on a new identity created for it by the public because of their own psychology. This is the question of how do general societal trends emerge from the level of the individual?
The presence of reality in all of this, all its economical, physical, and emotional hardships. When things do not go well, when we are not in good situations. How can we be more open about talking about evil? How do we integrate this into the theory.
How do two groups or individuals which fundamentally disagree with each-other interact?
We must take present, past and future into account. What are the predicted future dynamics of change. How does change happen.
We must also look into the theory of societal organization. How do countries emerge, what is the psychology of nationalism, of the nation, the philosophy of government and of leadership.
How good ideas can be defiled and made evil, how ideas develop and are touched by different people, how people accept ideas, and then going into the cognitive depth of their consciousness in relation to these ideas.
Understanding the relationship between human beings and deep thinking. That entropy is not on our side and we converge to a stable minimum of subjective fields and cognitive depth. It is very hard to stay thinking deeply and to get there in the first place is harder yet because the difference is intangible. That one subjectivity is infinitely greater is a very hard realization to come to and even harder to adhere to it.
The psychology and theory of what life, values, goals actually means to people. How do we look at the distribution of all these things in a society? How do we understand what level of depth people actually have. What do people want out of life? Why do we see certain trends. How do we make these changes? We can’t change faces we need to change cores.
The phenomenon of societal phase changes: both when the face of society itself undergoes a phase change or some process that emerges from society

We can use the theory of network computation, information flow, and topology evolution to answer these questions.

Emotion:

An essential element of being human.

These are observations not prescriptions. Take with a grain of salt

Not thinking about something doesn’t make it disappear: mystery can be better than confirmation of facts. This is an observation, not a prescription
Having periods of existential thinking is inevitable in thinking man: the state of mental life can oscillate up and down between depression and eureka. I believe this is normal, at least for me there is no constant mental state. But I don’t want to generalize too much from my own emotional experiences here so I won’t give any more emotional advice until I can add more nuance. Otherwise it just seems like the kind of uselss sayings on the back of cereal boxes.
Know who you are and what your ability ought to be; do not have absolute expectations for yourself, do not put yourself on an absolute scale, know your self-estimation will be off.
A balance of emotions is important (Aristotle)
Can’t reliably estimate how our preent behaviors will impact our future action

On Practicing Ideas From Thoughtbook

My biggest fear relating to these ideas is that they will sit in the dust and not have an impact on our thinking and ultimately on depth of our mental lives and our relationships with ourselves, other people and nature. How the thoughts are presented is vital to the thoughtbook actually adding value to humans and to society in practice.

There are three problems with applying the thoughtbook:

Doing so takes time and deliberate effort
Is not immediately valuable to people / most will be uninterested because have life. Only to a small set of early adopters
Cognitive Load Threshhold means practically it is impossible to solve all these problems

Implicit Issues:

What does it mean that the Thoughtbook cannot be perfectly applied?
What does it mean that most people live their lives while falling for what the Thoughtbook warns against?
What is the predicted impact the Thoughtbook could actually make in society?
How valuable can these ideas be to people?
What depth have I not added to these ideas – what would a deeper thinker add to them?

The End of the Beginning

These pages are beginning to flow with ideas. It is necessary to begin revisiting these ideas to refine or destroy them, to create overarching structure and add nuance, detail, and actionable insight to these ideas and place them in a continuum. Doing this would mature the theory and make it more well defined, give it an identity.

In absolute terms, this theory is far eclipsed by others. However, the fuzzy reality considered, this theory must not be looked down upon as inferior, rather as an essential element of the intellectual and emotional growth of its creator. Do not assume the creator believes this theory is ultimate – heaven forbid; the mediocrity of this theory must be overlooked and theory itself overlooked. It is not an end but a means to bootstrap to something greater

The Thoughtforge

Beginning of a Treatise on Cognitive Matter