Differences in axiomatic systems

2017-11-01

• When two people have a sufficiently logic-like disagreement

• Logical tracing back to what causes discrepancy of opinion can lead to discrepancies in axiom (working hypothesis).

• A person with a background in mathematics or philosophy (or in the case of philosophy, especially a person with a background in theism and relativization of correctness) can tolerate axioms that differ from his or her own axiomatic system as a separate system.

• The choice of base axioms is different, but they both utilize the same logical thinking skills, which makes it easier to emulate. #emulate

• axiom

  • The real world is fundamentally complex, but humans are incapable of thinking in its complexity, so approximations are made, and the method of approximation
    • abstraction for deep contemplation economics of abstraction # thought economy theory

Specific examples of axiom discrepancies

• Consideration for the emotions of others
  • is necessary
    • Some people might be offended if I do X."
    • Being offended is a cost, and if it can be foreseen, it should be avoided."
  • Unnecessary
    • You shouldn't care if others are offended by your doing X, because it's agnostic and out of your control."
      • I use the simple approximate "unknowable" for human emotion.
    • It is not rational to speculate about the agnostic and the cost of avoiding it.
• Whether or not human beings are of equal value.
  • Equal-opportunity group
  • Non-equal group
    • Even if someone says "equality" in a pretty way, it is just talk if it is not accompanied by actual actions to equalize the value of "oneself and underprivileged children in distant countries". If you insist on equality, you should distribute all of your income, except for the minimum amount necessary for your own survival, to ensure the survival rights of underprivileged children in developing countries.
• Whether or not to assume equal human intelligence.
  • Equal-opportunity group
    • Although there are innate differences, they are negligible compared to the effects of subsequent learning.
    • Even those who are stupid now can improve as much as others by properly motivating and learning.
  • Non-equal group
    • It is possible that people who are stupid now will improve in the future, but it is within the margin of error and can be ignored.
    • Rather than devote our efforts to raising the level of the stupid, we should spend our efforts on raising the level of the smart even higher!
• Whether or not humans are homogeneous.
  • Homogeneous: All people are about the same
  • Non-homogeneous group
    • People who live in neighborhood X tend to be Y."
    • Often criticized as stereotypical discriminatory thinking
    • However, approximation by stereotypes allows us to simulate the brain assuming a set of people with different properties.
      • This is true because it has practical benefits and is useful from a pragmatism point of view.

2025-03-29

• The choice of base axioms is different, but they both utilize the same logical thinking skills, so emulate is easy.

• Once you acquire their axiomatic system, you can behave like them in [emulation
  • Therefore, you will be able to behave as someone who stands for both sides of an opinion, and you will be able to understand better (?) / have more freedom (?) than if you could only behave in one way or the other. / More freedom (?)
  • You can decide which side to adopt based on its usefulness to you.
    • If you have already acquired Mr. A's axiomatic system, you can emulate Mr. A's thinking
    • If you want to go in the same direction, you can adopt their axiomatic system of thinking.
      • Because I can emulate Mr. A's thinking, when Mr. A is having trouble communicating his thoughts to Mr. B, I can ask, "What Mr. A is trying to say is that ...?" and can give a helping hand to Mr. A.
        • I can use my general commentary skills to explain the thoughts of others.
        • This is quite useful.
    • When you want to proceed in the opposite direction
      • Mr. A's axiomatic system, "I think you're implicitly assuming ~~, is that correct?" and you can shake it up.
      • They usually argue, "I didn't make that assumption."
        • If you take that as a yes, and develop the story, you're denying the axiomatic system you're standing on and developing it, so it's going to break down somewhere.
      • Rarely does someone say, "You're right.
        • It's, "Why?" and dig deeper.
        • Often circular argument because it digs under working hypotheses that are usually assumed to be True.
    • Related: double standard.
    • You can use it as Winning Arguments, but it is basically [fruitless (resultless) debate
      • Use delving into to acquire an axiomatic system for someone who has not already acquired an axiomatic system
        • When a person becomes circular reasoning, that's his or her axiomatic system.
        • digging down to reach bottom
      • It is rare to acquire an unknown axiomatic system, but there are real benefits in life when you do.
        • Knowing allows you to emulate the thoughts of people who think differently than you, so you can predict the future.
        • For example, if you give power to a "force is evil" axiomatic person (Sklavenmoral (slave morality, as a philosophical concept of Nietzsche)), he/she will try to disperse the power because the state in which he/she has power will be inconsistent (= Let's all decide by majority vote!) ), or try to distribute the power (= everyone decides by majority vote!), or try to follow the rules made by everyone instead of making decisions with power, so you can prevent problems before they happen.
          • Related: People who want you to make the rules....

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/公理系の違い using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I'm very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.