Cosmic consciousness is an exponential category error. Consciousness is a subset of mind, which is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain, and brains only exist in biological creatures, which are themselves a tiny subset of the universe.

Math is a language and like all languages is as useful as it's ability to describe reality.

I trust that the system is based on measurements that replicate because things keep working, which they wouldn't of the measurements used to create them were arbitrary.

You are the internal story you tell about how you fit into the world and society. If you don't have that story, there is no You.

The same input continues to match the output and poof, you have a yardstick, or whatever. The act of measurement is the act of validating causality. Reality/truth just keeps acting the same way every time we check it. It is that which we can be most certain of.

Solipcism is irrelevant. Your experience of the external/other is what the word reality refers to. How precisely that replicates is a separate question. If that reality is ultimately a delusion or an illusion or a trick of an evil genie is irrelevant because none of those things have been shown to be possible, much less plausible, much less likely, much less actual. They're indistinguishable from fiction and should be treated accordingly. "Wouldn't it be cool if...?"

No, there are no a priori things. Or did you mean the replication occurs in the context of nature? Rephrase?

•Science is rigor, or the body of knowledge rigorously obtained.

•Logic is relationships which always replicate; a subset of science.

•Math is relationships of quantity; a subset of logic.

•Quantity is recursive boundary conditions - the extent to which you can divide something into equivalent parts.

talk about them meaningfully*
typically understood*
class of ideology*

duck autocorrect

Both those terms have many definitions and variations, so to talk about them magically we must look to the most central element of them.

Communism is most tropically understood as the workers owning the means of production. That has rarely been tried at scale.

Socialism's most central aspect is caring for the well-being of everyone. Reciprocity is the cornerstone of civilization and no society or government has ever yet been legitimate at scale.

Even if a particular ideology meets that criteria, the nuances will completely charge the way it expresses, as will any number of arbitrary factors like how technology advances. Every instance of an ideology must be judged on its own particulars. Every class is ideology believes it's doing good.

As for the myriad of people who say socialism leads to mass murderer, that's a logical fallacy. Mass harm is Always done in the name of the some common good. Until a government actually exhibits caring for everyone, socialism hasn't been tried.

Science is rigor, or the body of knowledge rigorously obtained. Logic is a subset of science that describes relationships that always replicate. Math is a subset of logic that deals exclusively with relationships of quantity.

Meaning is the desire for things to be other than they are and it comes in two flavours, avoid and approach.

Science is rigor. You can study anything rigorously, but if it's based on fantasy, the results will be too.

The common core of all versions of religion is dogma, an instance of faith. Faith is belief without appeal to evidence and is always intellectually regressive.

Metaphysics is all of the deepest "What is the nature of" questions; time, space, energy, matter, self, consciousness, truth, knowledge, infinity, paradox ... Not! the 99% of woo nonsense that is called metaphysics.

I think you summed up my point very neatly there. Anecdote is the lowest form of evidence precisely because you cannot know how strong it is all on it's own. You must appeal to other validation (the addition of additional evidence from prior experience, etc.) in order to substantiate it.

For example, the problem with holy texts lies not in how they are interpreted, but in that they must be interpreted.

universal taxonomy - evidence by certainty
0 ignorance (certainty that you don't know)
1 found anecdote (assumed motive)
2 adversarial anecdote (presumes inaccurate communication motive)
3 collaborative anecdote (presumes accurate communication motive)
4 experience of (possible illusion or delusion)
5 ground truth (consensus Reality)
6 occupational reality (verified pragmatism)
7 professional consensus (context specific expertise, "best practice")
8 science (rigorous replication)
-=empirical probability / logical necessity=-
9 math, logic, Spiritual Math (semantic, absolute)
10 experience qua experience (you are definitely sensing this)

My metaphor for that relationship is that matter is low entropy, entangled energy, but i'm not a physicist. Anyhow, you've got the idea straight.

It's the vernacular definition, the relationship between parts. Test it by replacing the term relationship where you'd otherwise use the term emergence and see if the relationships still holds true, if the sentence still makes sense. Weak emergence, weak relationships > The emergent properties apparently aren't very strongly connected to the parts. Makes sense. And it points to missing casual data.

Emergence is identical to relationship. Build a Venn diagram of any two things. The overlap is where emergent qualities exist. Whether they are relevant enough to be considered as separate things themselves depends on intended use. Emergent properties are a different metaphor for the same things but at a higher level/scale of understanding.

Matter is low entropy, entangled energy. Particles are an instance of matter.

No, and it's not hard. Mind is a metaphor for the patterns in the brain and being like something is merely a redescription of experience itself. Why it exists must either presuppose intent or be an empirical question of How.

Change is the universal substrate of the universe and all physical processes can be understood in relation to it. Time is measured change.

Whatever that is out there, represented internally by our external sensory experience, it's what the word reality refers to. Solipcism answers nothing and isn't even potentially meaningful.

Why questions may mean either How?, in the mechanistic sense, or Why? as in "from what intent?" or "toward what end?" They are clearly different categories of question.

Also, they are always scale bound. Why? in the context of society is not the same thing as in the context of an individual, though both may have had a part to play.

Anecdote is always the lowest form of evidence because it can never be verified directly, or if it is, the verification is always stronger than the anecdote by way of being more direct. All knowledge (justified belief) rests on replication. Logic replicates because it is descriptive of real-world relationships that always good true. Science is rigor; replicative measurement essentially.

Not really. One can be a historian of What without caring a whit about how things developed or how they work.

1. Which propositions are true/knowledge? [Instances of truth/knowldege]

2. How can we tell which propositions are true/knowledge? [Definition of truth/knowledge]

Knowledge is justified belief. What evidence counts as sufficient justification depends first upon the desired intent. Truth is an individual perspective on reality (consensus experience). This understanding is necessary and sufficient for all related epistemological questions and problems.

universal taxonomy - evidence by certainty
0 ignorance (certainty that you don't know)
1 found anecdote (assumed motive)
2 adversarial anecdote (presumes inaccurate communication motive)
3 collaborative anecdote (presumes accurate communication motive)
4 experience of (possible illusion or delusion)
5 ground truth (consensus Reality)
6 occupational reality (verified pragmatism)
7 professional consensus (context specific expertise, "best practice")
8 science (rigorous replication)
-=empirical probability / logical necessity=-
9 math, logic, Spiritual Math (semantic, absolute)
10 experience qua experience (you are definitely sensing this)

Interpretation is one contingency that must be accounted for - perspective. It might also be wrapped up in another - priority. In all cases, salience must be accounted for.

Ask more questions?

That's easy enough. (tiny.cc/epistemology) The external/physical/material world is that which we access through our senses.

Both. We have the semantic version only because it keeps working that way. The ontological answer is that individual things do not exist until and for a particular purpose. But i'm feeling like i'm not tracking this conversation very well right now and this could go a million directions. tiny.cc/realityis tiny.cc/ontology and tiny.cc/epistemology hold the foundational elements of what i'm getting at. There is no Practical difference in why or how these things work. But a lot of things become clear when we understand that our intentions set the framework in which all else matters. Man is not the measure of all things precisely, man is the measurer of all things. Until then it's just stuff. Unless we're trading physical stuff, math doesn't have a purpose, and so forth.

Maths doesn't even exist beyond useful. There's no way to strictly delineate one thing from another, so individuation is subject to the same rule. There's only numbers to the extent we use things distinctly. There's one apple to someone interested in one apple, but there's only the barrel to someone interested in making applesauce. Likewise there is no zero/nothing in reality, only the lack of specific things in context. Math, in other words, is about organising our experience and relies upon nothing else. There's no reason to believe it exists anywhere else or any way else.

Both. We have the semantic version only because it keeps working that way. The ontological answer is that individual things do not exist until and for a particular purpose. But i'm feeling like i'm not tracking this conversation very well right now and this could go a million directions. tiny.cc/realityis tiny.cc/ontology and tiny.cc/epistemology hold the foundational elements of what i'm getting at. There is no Practical difference in why or how these things work. But a lot of things become clear when we understand that our intentions set the framework in which all else matters. Man is not the measure of all things precisely, man is the measurer of all things. Until then it's just stuff. Unless we're trading physical stuff, math doesn't have a purpose, and so forth.

Justified "true" belief is a step too far. If everyone in the entire species thought something was a fact and it turned it not to be, it would still have been true "for all intents and purposes" until the new information came to light. Hypothetical future changes are an unknown unknown and so can never be accounted for.

I'm a relativist, yes, but that doesn't mean arbitrary. The truth isn't relative to imaginary transcendent knowledge, but to our best attempts at verification.. "for all intents and purposes.

As for numbers; math is descriptive of the relationships between idealised entities that do not exist in reality.

Math rests on the same foundation as logic - it keeps working. It has, as far as we can tell, always worked, and will, as far as we can tell, continue to work. As long as the sun keeps rising, there's no reason to question it. Our purposes are met by using these tools. That's how we know they're good tools, not because they're true in some esoteric transcendent sense (which we cannot know).

Truth in any more absolute sense is inaccessible to us. It's statistical probability at best, which is a sort of knowledge, but not a fact. It's not "popular" or "conventional" at all. It's the extent of whoever is involved. The truth for humanity is something like the sun will rise tomorrow, but the truth for an individual might be "i'll be dead by then." which clearly usurps the sun rising in any sense relative to them. If the best knowledge available turns out to be wrong, should it not have been considered truth before that? If the best available information isn't enough, there is no truth at all. If it is, my definition stands.

Justified "true" belief is a step too far. If everyone in the entire species thought something was a fact and it turned it not to be, it would still have been true "for all intents and purposes" until the new information came to light. Hypothetical future changes are an unknown unknown and so can never be accounted for.

I'm a relativist, yes, but that doesn't mean arbitrary. The truth isn't relative to imaginary transcendent knowledge, but to our best attempts at verification.. "for all intents and purposes.

As for numbers; math is descriptive of the relationships between idealised entities that do not exist in reality.

Sure it does. But can you ever be 100% sure that you used it correctly? Can you be so sure of the premises that you plugged into that 100% certain logic? You can certainly get to epistemological warrant with logic, and that's the line that's always sufficient.

Yes. Logic works for 100% of applications that i'm aware of, but i'm no expert in logic.

You can never know anything is "true" with 100% certainty. Certain *enough* for a given purpose is all that knowledge can possibly mean.

If you don't know it, it's not a fact to you, or for any of your purposes. Likewise if we collectively don't know it, it's not a fact for all intents and purposes. In other words, identical to fiction.