The First Amendment
Start at the beginning. This is subtle, but it's huge. The First Amendment, we made a coding error, a tiny one, but it broke everything. Now the first Amendment is dope. it's about as perfect as anyone could want. So none of the words need to change. No re-write needed.It's the order in which we applied it. Ok I'll write it out, it will kind of make sense. Hopefully you'll see one of the stupidest mistakes in American political history. Now there is no blame here, this was more like a typo. Plus, it fits in perfectly with my conclusion that America is not a political/economic entity, nor a business but it is a piece of technology, a huge system of sub-systems, literally.
(we can't really do any of this, this is theory)
So let's fix America by addressing our "Free Thought" System, The 1st Amendment. Instead of using politics and economics to design and deploy, lets treat it like some broken code in our software, a system, because it is a system.
Belief: A strong conviction in and idea, absent proof.
Proof: Math or Science. That's it. Nothing else. In the Universe.
Weather you like it or not. Nothing else proves anything, other than math and or science. Don't like it, tough. (Why do so many people not like this, it is the best thing ever??)
So, if you have an idea, and no one can prove it's true and no one can prove it's false, then your idea is a belief.
If you have an idea, and anyone can prove it's true, your idea is not a belief it is knowledge.
If you have an idea, and anyone can prove it's false, your idea is not a belief it is knowledge.
The first Amendment protects the expression of these types of ideas. How shall we deploy this?
Types of Ideas
Beliefs or Knowledge, I think that's it.Belief Knowledge
----------------------------
? True
? False <-------This guy broke it
False destroys knowledge, all the rest are cool. Hard to protect the true and the false at the same time. But not that hard, lol. You can say "No your haircut is fine" all you want, in fact you probably would, and less people would say "Yo your haircut sucks ass and kind of looks like one", I mean this small bug would change everything, how we think and speak, right?
Beliefs: As long as you are not hurting anyone, we will protect your rights to believe whatever you want. For religious people, your religion is safe, always. No matter what. Even the order of operations can't change that. Please take off any religious hat because that is safe, forever. Let's wear the citizen hat.
Knowledge: Proven true, proven false. We need to find a way to protect all the speech, we got beliefs covered, now we need to deal with true or false. What should we protect next?
Well, let's understand that we can't always protect both at the same time.
True) It's sunny out side
False) It's raining outside
Which one is more important to protect? If we protect the false, then anyone can go on tv and say it's sunny, when it's pouring. Some will believe that and make decisions on that. Even though others might say on tv "it's pouring rain". This is confusing. By protecting the false, we attacked the true. We destroyed the truth. It destroys the truth every single time. People would die, that public speech is in fact a crime, while the private version of it is not. This is good. How does this play out? We are doing this backwards, mathematically, lol.
So should we allow people to go into their kitchen, put some baking soda and hydrogen peroxide together and go on tv and claim that for only $20,000 my potion will cure your cancer? No. Actually, that provably false speech is a crime and people are in prison for that right now. We already do this, the road is not paved all the way. Look, this is how they rob us. Once you see the consequences of this tiny coding error, it's seems big.
Hmmm, protecting the provably false before protecting the provably true is kinda complicated and like, people actually die and stuff.
Let's try it in the correct order.
2) True Gets protected first
1) Beliefs get protected second
3) False Who cares
So if we protect the provably true first what happens. Well, You can say "I wish my potion cured cancer" or "I made my potion for cancer but there is no proof it does anything and it's not approved and it's never helped anyone". It seems weird, like how can you make some one speak a certain way? Yeah, exactly the same thing as the potion/cancer thing, it is exactly the same thing. Exactly like the weather, the exact same.
See we already do it, but not for the big stuff. You do know the big stuff is where the big money is right? So we let them lie about the big stuff, where all our stuff is. Sure, sounds logical. Yeah we should get a handle on that, lol. We might want to do this the other way.
I mean this is so stupid. We literally decided to protect the provably false, before the provably true. It's a coding error, here is what the code looks like.
function ProtectSpeech()
if isBeleif then
result = true
else isFalse
result = true
else isTrue
result = true
return result
End If
it's always true! which of course it is not.
Bug Fix: Change order and one value
function ProtectSpeech()
if isTrue then
result = true
else isBelief
result = true
else isFalse
result = false
return result
End If
That is the code fix, the order of operations.
{for geeks
return not isFalse, one line of code, they were calling me stupid, they get it.}
See, it's a coding error, in the application, of the amendment. Ok this is really fucked up, I am not sure this can be fixed. This is enormous. It explains so much. We would literally be healthier, happier, have more, with this one bug fix, but our whole economy and government is based on the idea that we must protect the provably false.
The political system and the economic system are based on lies. Not like usual lies, not calling anyone a liar in that way. I mean the system itself, the way it is now, they are allowed to lie because we protect false speech. Turns out lying makes it easier to win. And hey, it doesn't violate the rules, so, it is designed to promote lies, the system itself.
Anyone thinking "NO!", um, probably the ideas of "belief" and "proof" is a struggle. There is a reason for that. It's way too common. So let's try and make it less difficult.
Belief: A strong conviction in an idea, absent proof.
Proof: Math and or science, only.
See, they are opposites. One has math and science, one must not. Opposites.
So Galileo gets born, and Newton. Later people like Fermat and Pascal and others. Math comes first, the Greeks, about 2500 years ago in earnest. But, we had been humans wandering around Africa for a couple of hundred thousand years before that. For all those years there was no proof. There couldn't be, math had not even been described yet.
So "no proof" ruled, exclusively, there was nothing else but "no proof", or belief. These 200,000 years are in fact "belief time". That is a long time. Way longer than we have been proving things. That's only 2,500 years, that's the "proof time". I mean compared to belief time, look how much we've done in only 2,500 years compared to 200,000 years. No contest.
That is why there were no airplanes 100,000 years ago. Think about it, we had been bumbling about Africa for 100,000 years already. We were stepping on iron, stubbing our toes on gold, literally slipping in puddles of oil, for 100,000 years already. And in all that time, we could not sort out what to do with any of it. Of course not, you have to prove it. You must, it is not an option. It is a choice, and we chose not to, it's stupid.
Let's be clear, at the end of belief time, they couldn't figure out sewers. People died of typhoid, it stunk and it was disgusting. After 200,000 years of no proof we had like swords and catapults. Nothing. If belief made stuff, it had 200,000 years, it would have made stuff. You wanna go live in belief time, go ahead, have fun. We are going the other way. There are, they say, 10 dimensions in this universe, we are trying to sort them out and find all the answers, like what, why and how.
We can talk about four of the ten dimensions and see evidence of a fifth, we are almost half way there. We teleported a photon from earth to space recently, we have a satellite that will see the particles from more than half way back in time. Let alone, medicine, smart phones, planes, cars, economic systems, literally every single system ever. Period. Every single one. All that in 2,500 years.
We got catapults and no sewers in 200,000 years of belief. That is good enough for me. We might try to prove it and stop choosing not to if we want to get better. Morality and intelligence are causal.
The Wright Brothers did not believe us the airplane. Wanna know why? It is not possible. You must prove it. It's required, if you want to get the thing you're trying to get. Proof is required, wanna know how I know? My first president was Johnson, and today and everyday since the potholes got worse. See, they can't system. That's how I'd start my candidate selection process; if they can't system, they can not get my vote. What would be the point, that's what we have been doing and it's worse. No matter who is in what office or what side controls what, that's how they split up their share of our stuff I think.
It's optional, and we opt not to, and that is expensive. The Wright Brothers used math and proof and science and truth. Because that is the only way to make an airplane fly. Belief is how you make an airplane fly into a building. It's destructive. not entirely, it has it's place (Yankees not red sox, obviously, religion, wanna do a back-flip). But it also has exclusion zones, like the economy, hmm let's see how should we design a financial system??? Let's put guns in school?? Go to war?? Proof or belief?? See, it's stupid. We literally not be at war now.
We are not just floating around aimlessly. If we have a purpose, we will find it. If not we will have learned a "the lesson", I think, not sure, it's "we", not "me". Empathy, the highest form of knowledge. Maybe, that is where the answers lie. Turns out morality and intelligence are related, seemingly causally. The "better" we become as a group, the more intelligence we have available to us. Intelligence comes from context.
No comments:
Post a Comment