- Nietzsche
Introduction
Once in a project to develop psychohistory (a mathematical model of sociology able to calculate social movements with equations with the same precision that physics predicts materialistic events, both in the waves of huge amounts of individuals as also in the level of a single individual), i studied architecture, psychology, sociology, criminology, mathematics, law, history, civil engineering, urban planning, design, marketing, arts, economy, diet, war, biology, geopolitics, logistics and, of course, philosophy to develop the theory.
I was, in fact, successful in developing a major theory and using it to also develop some working equations that were able to correctly predict verry specific (it is as specific as physics equations) social configurations in their according tests.
Unfortunately, however, success didn't achieve a specific ´´equation-of-all`` to be used in all social configurations even with the existence of the abstract layout that is used to be filled with the timely and quantity limited information that is used to create the specific working equations. This only happened due to the lack of 2 things: information and processing power.
Also, i learned many haunting truths related to the knowledge of those studied subjects previously mentioned, and the multi-disciplinary level os points of view being connected tough me the many mistakes done by famous thinkers. Logic and epistemology were connected in my texts, showing - similarly to what is said about Hegel - showing that most of our theories (human) uses Aristotelic logic connecting dots (statements) producing a new information, developing a huge logical system that when organized looks like ever growing branches of a tree. However, there are ´´calcel`` statements that makes unable the connection of those dots. When a specific subject is developed deeply but is unaware of other statements located in other fields, it produces terribly mistaken information.
This is the reason many predictions of a distant future are wrong: the more far from the present, the more connections need to be calculated and more unknow information's must be discovered. Because a equation can only give 3 mathematical results - positive, neutral, negative - the unbalanced and mistaken prediction of future events always results in either a eternally always growing negative or positive result. For this reason, the scientists and other thinkers had always seen the future as either apocalyptical or dystopian. The fact, however, is that such information is impossible to be know, due to the fact that we don't have enough information to be certain that we know or not know all the correct logical connections to be done, with connective and cancel dots.
Hence why my equations, such as physical ones, have the term of Time in then, and have been used to only limited amounts of time.
The other logical problem found were the use of causality in discovering past events. The problem is that the same result can happen with numbers in different variables, like, 2 x 2 = 4 and 3 + 1 = 4, so causality to the past can't be well trusted due, also, for our lack of truly knowing everything from the past itself. Because the state of the present could have been created by multiple different versions of the past giving the same result.
Even with the presence of such limitations, the calculous was possible. It worked in small amounts of time and enough information to be calculated in a specific limited place that checked the result of only one variable (equations don't want to predict everything, just one result)>
At first, i was worried if i should or should not publish it. My first 2 books, specially the one in phylosophy, had unexpected readers who changed something about their lives with it, and i receive attention for the information contained in it to be potentially dangerous. However, the fact that a dumb young men like me in a third world country was able to develop it indicated that someone else in a first world country may just do it too.
I am worried, and i hope to be wrong due the long term effect of inaccuracy in predictions - but i didn't build a equation to predict - that is just a matter of time for someone to collect more information and processing power in order to expand the range of calculable equations. Currently, Big Data and AI technology could already do it. There is nothing stopping specific cities in China and USA to have enough means to know A FUCKING LOT about it and be able to control society to do specific things with an absolute precision (yes, absolute, it does not use possibilities, it is absolute in the level of huge newton equations, at least mines were still on that level).
So, i understand that i would be just trying to avoid the inevitable by not sharing it. And, because i like to share with someone, i decided to publish a but of it to you guys, and let you all know about what the future may be waiting for us: partial complete control over some of your individual acts by a gigantic AI controlled by those fucking politicians and whoever is the deepstate behind them.
The bases of the abstract universally expansive equation to be filled to your cálculos, so far, are:
(P) = Rt×{[(E)©(A)] © (T)}
Where (E)= element;
(A)= environment;
© represents interaction;
T= time.
Rt is a temporal resultant.
P= possibility, if non-existent (by a comet that will kill life on earth for a certain time, for example) then it is equal to 0, if not, then it is equal to 1.
×= multiplication.
Time is interacting because if it were multiplied by a value other than 1 or 0, it would increase or decrease the value, but it is not a merely quantitative equation but also a qualitative one.
Because i were worried with precision, i did not used probability on my working equations, but i believe that some level of reliable precision would still be possible if someone implemented probability in it, increasing the scope of predictable circunstances.
All the knowledge used to build my working equations used my philosophy with collected data of my surrounds and information of those subjects, so giving my allready filled equations to you would be stupid even when describing every variable without context of the outside, given that they rely on not universal data. All you need to do you own equations is to study my abstract phylosophical theory (that will be presented ahead), my general equation, and to collect material data of your calculated object (in the materialistic short time predictions over human action and results) pluss information on subjects about its interaction. It is that ´´easy`` depending on the prediction you want to calculate. I hope for other people to expand the equation in the future.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Valuable Prior Knowledge.
1. Much of all philosophy is just a big mistake in which one tries to define too abstract words whose meaning is not precisely defined in real life but rather felt and linguistically used in each circumstance. Extensive attempts to define terms are a waste of time. Many books and people say nothing more than completely useless definitions that reveal nothing: if you dedicate yourself to studying these details, you will only make your head slower, that is, retarded.
2. If a textual excerpt does not add something, skip to the next part until there is an innovation.
3. It is common for many authors to repeat the same things, but with different terms, this is called tautology and is a widely used writing strategy. It's good for brainwashing.
4. Most books are a waste of time. They abuse your will and prejudice through titles, covers and specific thicknesses to make you buy. They manipulate the reader into making the purchase. The main thing is not to make you big, but to manipulate. They don't care: they just want status or sales.
5. Those who specialize in a topic of study think that the whole world revolves around what they study. In this, they create a worldview that may be right, but is false: no matter how right a gravity equation is, you will be wrong if you think that the entire universe only works with gravity. Thus, these scholars live in a paranoid and prejudiced way. To the sociologist, you eat ice cream because of the dynamics of exploitation. To the economist, people date as a result of the means of purchasing and production..., every study tends to leave the scholar who delves deeper a little paranoid and worn out. Therefore, recognize that the study can lead you into a deep hole and that all these experts are wrong. Realize the plurality in the world by denying the exaggeration of these scholars and, at the same time, feel open to their knowledge: this way you will acquire the advantages of knowledge without these harms. Only scholars who realize this avoid the malaise of knowledge, remembering that the world is, in fact, much better and richer than researchers think.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction
It is possible to know the future.
In the social sciences, some have attempted to employ mathematics as a tool to unravel the intricate mechanisms of society that would allow them to predict the future and control certain social realities with the same precision that a physicist calculates the fall of an object to Earth. Faced with initial failures, instead of recognizing that the equations lacked precision, they preferred to blame mathematics itself, claiming that there was an invisible barrier between the exact and social sciences that was not their own incompetence. Thus, “social sciences do not have a mechanistic character”.
Their mistake was thinking that, if social dynamics are relative, they do not exist. However, relativity does not mean that truth does not exist; it's just more complex. Discovering that the truth is more complex is not a setback for those concerned with materiality: it is a step forward in accurately understanding the underlying conditions.
The project of building a logical, useful and evident mechanistic system.
The entire complexity of "praxis" - in the sense that it involves human existence as a whole in which the multiple human dimensions (individual, social, political, economic, epistemological, nutritional, instinctual, urban planning, architectural, emotional, geographic, etc.) - cannot actually have its parts separated and isolated from each other in the construction of a universally correct understanding – it gravitates only around the objects of study of its research. The economist thinks that all of existence gravitates around the absolute black hole that is the economy, the sociologist thinks that everything is about social division, the legal theorist thinks that everything is a social contract. This characteristic may go unnoticed in the first developments of their philosophies, but the postulates – even if certain – are later used in a system of deep deductions and inductions that do not consider information from other areas of knowledge that cancel them out, so that these thinkers conclude things completely out of reality due to the incompleteness of your worldview; because it is not enough to have certain postulates: a system of thought may not have an internal contradiction, but still be inconsistent with reality, and it is only possible to criticize it outside its box: incompleteness is an error.
Advances were made even with these errors, because what matters is not the perfection of an idea, nor its total veracity, but rather its usefulness: infinity may not exist, but it is a useful concept; Newton's equation is not perfect in all cases, but it is still useful in specific situations; Nietzsche walked in obscurity where he found productive criticism despite distorting everything and not having completed his project. The social sciences must embrace systems that, despite being wrong, have made progress. But there is a limit.
The limit is in madness. When the distortion of reality causes the researcher to become paranoid.
How to avoid the paranoia of philosophers and other researchers? Recognizing the limitation, establishing limits and being honest when there is not so much certainty.
* * * * *
Not everything is predictable.
The amount of information involved is challenging, but in practice we can achieve useful levels of certainty without needing detailed knowledge of every particle in the universe.
We are dealing with variety using variables in calculations. These variables are like pieces in an equation that represent different aspects of a situation. And only a few parts are really important for building a specific machine. The real challenge lies in the amount of information we must take into account when making predictions. In certain cases, it is necessary to consider microscopic details, but in others, macroscopic forces of greater magnitude and scope shape the outcome, allowing us to disregard much of the information. This assumes that there are different orders of magnitude at play, and the most powerful order of magnitude - the macroscopic - must be the first analyzed to find out whether it matters or not.
The environment around a person influences their actions and makes their decisions more predictable, limiting them. Therefore, it is possible to predict the impact that more independent and powerful individuals can have on scenarios.
To deal with all this complexity, it was necessary to develop a system of thought. The ´´equation`` we use takes into account elements, environment, interactions and time to calculate circumstantial results. This math is not limited to numbers; it also involves modern logic, information processing theory like programming. Although we cannot be certain, in practice we can achieve a useful level of certainty, similar to what we do in engineering and physics. Not everything can be predicted.
(this paragraph will be better understood on a second reading) We must recognize that there are moments of continuity and moments of rupture in certain things in society. Predicting based solely on the continuity of certain phenomena may be inappropriate, as appealing factors may weaken or become negligible over time. No single factor necessarily determines a result in society, as the result occurs in a multifactorial context, which factors matter will be said later in this work. The key is to understand these dynamics and the moments of continuity and rupture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Types of Moments
There are three types of moments.
I. Moment of trend: an order of constant addition or subtraction that, if continued and considered in isolation, would lead to a specific stage.
Example: a company constantly breaks profit records, showing growth of approximately 10% per year - or with a non-specific number, but always positive and large (positive trend) -, the stingy prediction would be that, in a millennium, it would be the richest company in the world.
Example: when there is a constancy in the absence of something: there are currently no dinosaurs in your bathroom, their number is constantly 0. The prediction is that it would always be 0 (neutral trend).
II. Moment of chaos: inability of the observer to perceive any type of order in a situation.
Example: the previous company stops making a profit of close to 10%, and each year it presents a different profit and loss number. And no one knows the factors that are causing these results, they can't even understand what happened to cause this change.
Example: your bathroom that didn't have a dinosaur now has one.
III. Moment of rupture: things change. Either a trend moment changes its order (for example, what was previously plus 10% per year becomes minus 10% per year), or it becomes chaotic, or a chaotic moment becomes trendy, or a trendy moment changes direction. trend...
Example: in a hospice, initially, each patient acted in an apparently random way. However, when one of them began to dance rhythmically and sing a specific song, the others began to imitate him. This brought unexpected order to a seemingly chaotic situation. In other words, it is the exact moment when a moment of chaos or trend changes.
In theory, if we had knowledge of every type of particle or elementary thing in physics, and the means to calculate their development, everything would be understandable and predictable, so that the truth of the nature of the world is – from a rational materialist point of view – of the future exactly. Unfortunately, upon our dumb and limited eyes, there appears to be something called chaos which is not a real quality of the universe but rather our interpretation of it - a psychological phenomenon, that is chaos, a mere impression - but in fact it is a moment trend for the exact right and specific future shown by this hypothetical physical calculation.
The longer the calculation, the more uncertain the result, as the multiple elements that interact with each other make its dynamics more complex and, consequently, more difficult to be understood and predicted by an analysis machine, also given the accumulation of emergent behavior. of chaos theory. We must keep in mind how factors interact with each other in order to predict moments of rupture. Yes, we can predict certain moments of change, but we can hardly predict what the exact changes will be. The amount of information and time will primarily decide what we can get right.
Furthermore, certainty exists much more in the end of something specific than in the conscious birth of something specific – which is uncertain. Therefore, there is a certain bias that the more distant and macro the forecast is, the more extreme it is, not because it actually reflects future reality, but simply because it is the quality of the act of forecasting in a long system whose butterfly/domino effect changes it and by the observed trends that either result in the death of its action or in its infinite realization (we are on the verge of new philosophical engineering).
In short: predictions are preferred whose forces to consider are simple and whose time (measured in interactions) is not huge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Types of Forces.
There are three types of forces.
I. Ignorable force: too weak to include in the calculation.
Example: vegetarian person in a mostly non-vegan context in a short-term calculation that seeks to calculate the end of the meat industry through ideological conversion.
II. Considerable strength: Influences the outcome enough for us to care about it.
Example: mental health of a 100 meter athlete in a calculation about his performance. Or its speed and direction.
III. Appealing strength: When all considerable forces are equally present and distributed in an analysis of competitive elements, we can disregard them and focus our attention on the only forces that diverge. Or the other factors are not perfectly distributed equally between the parties, but the impact of the other forces – which are the appealing ones – is much more important.
For example, if all runners are in the same health, motivated, strong, good running pace..., but different heights, we will say that what will determine who will win the competition (disregarding external factors after a calculation shows that it is an environment safe for this) will be the difference in height. So, even if the result of the competition is not only influenced by height, but all factors, we will say – after understanding this context – simplistically that it was the height that decided the result.
It is, therefore, a linguistic expression to speed up and simplify logic after making due considerations. It is also possible that there are differences in other factors, but that the height difference impacts more drastically, still being an appealing force.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scale Types
Micro: considering only the elements that our forecast seeks to predict.
Example: I want to know if the apple that I throw up in my room will fall into my hand – it is not a question merely of physical science, but also involves all of reality, all of ´´praxis`` – in my room there is something that could impact the apple like another person, a fan, a mischievous labrador that would catch it? Would I have the psychological and bodily conditions to perform the action to throw the apple in the correct trajectory or move my hand in the direction when it falls?
Macro: considering external elements that either cannot or cannot influence micro elements.
Example: while I'm throwing the apple in the air inside my room, there is a nuclear bomb coming from the other side of the world towards my room due to a war against the place I am in, and whose absolutely brutal explosion will impact the trajectory of the mace and my hand? Will a thief break into my room right away? Will an abrupt tsunami break down my bedroom door causing my mind to forget about the apple and not reach for it as I fear for my survival?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Two Universal Appealing Forces.
If the reader has read carefully enough, he may have deduced the existence of certain situations on a macro scale that he needs to know in advance to be able to predict with certainty the micro scale, because if we only pay attention to the micro, the macro could surprise us, making our false predictions.
Certain macro activities are impossible to predict. This postulate, however, does not remove the fact that some are predictable and satisfactory, and that some that are not predictable are also ignorable.
Therefore, there is a circumstantial list of macro facts that must be analyzed.
In almost all cases, the following are necessary: natural events and various types of war (between countries; civil war; crimes).
A natural event is any catastrophe caused by the forces of nature, such as earthquakes and epidemics.
War is self-explanatory, but it also considers other violent acts – but not necessarily carnal violence – between criminals and victims.
Natural events can be – in part – predicted by certain sciences such as biology and geography.
War is – to some extent – predictable by geopolitics and philosophy of war.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of war
War is the continuation of politics by other means.
This is Kant's incompleteness: the issue is not only in the development of laws that allow or not to war, but rather about the real internal and external political state that allows its implementation and creation... Do not confuse the world with the law. The law has limits in what it can change, what he did was productive and good, but insufficient considering other internal circumstances responsible for the war that are beyond laws and formal diplomatic acts, whose existence was not reached by analysis.
An analysis of geopolitics concludes that mere ideological enmities are not exactly enough to determine when and how there will be war. To know the moment of attack and defense that a country plans to carry out, it is necessary to have means of intercepting messages in its administrative and operational systems. As said, moments of rupture may be predictable, but their exact turning points may not be – because we do not have an intelligence agency capable of this in our hands. Thus, the moment of rupture in which peace becomes war is removed from my view, but there are uncertain factors highlighted as very important by certain theorists, such as enmity. However, diplomatic circumstances and other factors can prevent wars between countries of enmity. In other words, these theorists consider factors such as geography and politics as the only factors in the world to determine war, which is a mistake. There are distinct appealing forces that determine the winner of the war and others that determine who starts it. The honest conclusion is simple: apart from the means of intelligence, there is no way of knowing for sure – and without guessing or getting it right by luck – whether there will be war or not. Usefully, what I can say - from the point of view of psychological phenomena and will - is: war only happens with human intention, so the prerequisite of war is will; the following statement is conclusive: ´´the appealing force at the beginning of a war is the will``. Despite this, the probability that some circumstances make war something more expected makes human cognitive capacity useful for individual survival from an evolutionary point of view – let us not forget that reason is not something mystical perfect but rather an instrument that was useful for the human evolutionary permanence. So that it is still useful to bet and worry that situations of enmity and interest in exploring indicate where there will be war.
Note: although we are unable to possess the means to calculate sufficient information for clairvoyance, the future of calculating machines as artificial intelligence with a data collection system makes it completely predictable and possible for total social control by a state group . End of note.
(i, and you, dont have the means to make long lasting predictions that are related to war, but the future of some things about tomorrow can currently be know)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... At this moment i realised the limitations that i were and stopped improving the theory due to the mass of effort necessary to the equation that i was building to one of my successful cases. We cant, for now, know so far, but the nice stuff is that we have enough power to know specific things about macro events in, like, one month and day. So thats nice. Also, the probabilities show so much potential to the calculation of macro groups since they behave like waves. Just like those hyper populated religious or sports events when there is a Dead end street where people pushes one another always killing a specific number of people because of this. Verry predictable deaths in statistic.
