Fix The 1st - Part 2 - The Math

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.  Then I'll take you through the process, then hopefully it will make perfect sense and 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. 

It's 2020, makes sense we are a technical issue.  So let's fix America (we can't really, this is theory) by addressing our "Free Thought" System (The 1st Amendment), but 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.

Goal: Protect Ideas for the common good

Types of Ideas
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?

Beliefs:  First 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.  Please take off any religious hat because that is safe, forever.  Let 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.  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 someone speak a certain way?  Yeah, exactly, the same thing as the potion/cancer thing, it is exactly the same thing.  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
      elseif isFalse
           result = true
      else
           result = true
  
     return result
End If

Bug Fix:

function ProtectSpeech()
      if isTrue then
           result = true
      elseif isBelief
           result = true
      else
           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!", maybe the ideas of "belief" and "proof" is a struggle.   everyone's religion is safe and protected forever, period.  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.  As words, not as ideas, just as words.  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 on about really with 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, 2,500 years. 200,000 vs 2,500... that's the "proof time". Look how much we've done in only 2,500 years compared to 200,000 years.  No contest.  Notice most of the progress is made near the end of each stage.

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.  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.


BUT WE'RE SCREWED

In imaginary America, where the good of the people is paramount, we would do what one does when there is a bug messing things up.  We'd fix it.  But fixing this little bug changes everything.  I mean everything.  Literally, so we can't do it, they wont let us.  Yes our government would not let us fix the bug because it's too big.  Check this out, Imaginary America:

I mean every tv commercial ever made would be a crime, every campaign ever, would be criminals.  It's preposterous.  There are 535 people in that capitol building, who basically got their criminally, I mean of course it is, they lie to us, because we had a bug in the software and if we were to pretend we did the fix, which we wont, here is what could happen maybe, in pretend America:

Commercials no longer have "puffery", they tell us only true things.  Ok, shit, we have to talk about words.

Words have a definition, you can find them in a dictionary.  They differ book to book slightly, but we get by.  However, aside from definition, words have meaning.  Meaning does not come from a book.  It comes from context.   No words have meaning without context.  The definition of a words(s) have nothing to do with their meaning.

Le's define "Hello" as a pleasant greeting.  Man walks into pizza parlor and smiles and says "hello" to the guy behind the counter.  A pleasant greeting, well, not really, he has a smile, but also a ball bat, someone owes some money.  The meaning of hello is "pay me or I'll break your legs".  The opposite of a pleasant greeting.

Ever seen a show where they teaching an autistic kid what facial expressions mean?  Like when the face has a smile they are probably "Happy".  Imagine if you could not tell facial expressions, context.

There you are 11 and autistic and in the living room painting a painting.  Mom walks in and says "Did you do that?"  smiling ear to ear.  so what?  Smile means nothing.  Is she pissed at the paint all over the couch "Did you do that!" or does she love your masterpiece "Did you do that <3", on the fridge it goes forever.

Man, what if she loves her new pen?  I mean she loves you too, that's gotta be weird, thinking the love she has for you and for her new pen are the same.

Same exact words, an entire sentence, and no way to know what it means without context.  again, no word or words have any meaning without context.  Often people use the definition of the words as a shield to make them convey the oposite meaning.  That is provably false.  We protect that for some reason.  It is called lying also, when they do that on purpose.

Example, back in Bush time, there was a headline before we went to war. "Saddam husein has 60,000 aluminum tubes.  Aluminun tubes are used to make fissionable material".

Yep the most likely meaning is, Saddam has aluminum tubes he is he gonna use them to make nukes.

But, by definition "You honor I never said "those" tubes made the stuff", turns out they knew those tubes were for something else like building schools or whatever.  If we protected the provably true before the provably false, this would have been a crime and not have happened and we would not have gone to war, and we could be debt free to boot.  Holy shit.  We protected the false, before the true.  Now, granted the Administrations overt actions were in fact crimes, some of the worst in history.   Because we allow and protect false speech instead of true speech.

Meaning or definition, both of course.  

Ok back on track from before, what would it look like if we applied the 1st Amendment protecting true speech before false speech.

Commercials no longer have "puffury", they tell us only true things.   Like the price is the price.  No one is #1, ONLY things that are the best are presented as the best.  Things like the use of colors by fast food restaurants.  They use red and yellow because their scientists told them, those colors will make people a bit hungrier.  Now they are talking about groups of people, not individuals.  If they point other colors at a hundred thousand people, they will sell like 100,000 burgers.  But the scientists say, if you use red and yellow as logo colors and point those colors at 100,000 people, you'll sell more, whatever 120,000 burgers, they know the number, with certainty, they are not guessing.  It doesn't matter which individuals buy the extra burgers, the group is important.  So, instead of buying and eating 100,000 burgers we bought an extra 20,000 more, and ate them.  We bought more than we wanted to, as a group.  That could not happen, if we apply the 1st amendment in order.  They must tell the truth and let every individual make their own choice.  They made them broker and unhealthier.  For money.

Think about this, they knew they were designing a system, to make people buy and use more than they want.  On the street we call that a swindle, it's stealing.  All because the first amendment protects the false before the true.  And now we cant fix it.  Well, maybe McDonald's wants our government to have "we the people" be a little healthier and have a little more money in our pockets?


In imaginary America, there are no white supremacy groups, they are not trying to gain power (and take away our rights by the way).  Now, they can say things like "I don't like that black people are not inferior to white people", this protects the truth, and provably false speech, you can still talk about it, just not as truth, just exactly the same this as the potion/cancer cure laws.  Exactly the same.  Not different.  In any way.  Same thing.  See how simple this is?

Yeah, there is no way we could fix this.  Humans are involved.  Wow.

Climate change: It's America, believe whatever you want like "I hate that climate change is real"  or "We should prove our side because we are right", um already done.  

Anyone still reading this stupid paper, and thinking "No this is America, you can't do that", yup, I get that. And nope that is not relevant.   Yet here we are.  we have to decide weather to protect true speech before false or keep it this way.  It wont matter either way, this is what we got.  But, just for fun, pretending.  It can't hurt to understand how dope the correct way would be.  To see what we are missing.  So, for the rest I will suppose, so it's fiction.  It's a movie script, just watch.

If we correctly apply the order of the first Amendment

Pros

The NRA no longer has control of our gun system 
Goldman Sachs does not control our economy
Exxon-Mobile could not control energy
We could not be at war now
We could not have been in Vietnam
The 2020 "Imminent Threat" thing doesn't happen
Hardly anyone smokes
Less drug use
Healthier people
wealthier people
(bro this is fucked up)
No manipulative advertising (we keep more of our money and feel better)
we have more money
we have more time
Cars cost less
We are probably green by now
The stuff works better
No hate speech
It doesn't end.......


We'd actually be nicer to each other (hate speech is a crime, well, because, it's a fucking crime. wtf, how was that ever complicated?)   It is provably false, whatever.  This is America and all the people on earth are created equal.  


Ok, look this list would in fact span almost all aspects of everything.  Remember at the beginning I said this tiny bug, barley more than a typo, in the code, was huge.  It messed up everything.  Cost trillions of dollars, millions of lives, created health and emotional issues, divorce, drug use, suicide, violence, death, hunger, hopelessness on and on.  all by applying the 1st Amendment out of order, and now we seem stuck.

What are the cons of protecting true speech before false speech?

Cons

Um, well, we'd have to listen to belief people yell "You can't do that!  This is America! We have a First Amendment!"

I think that's it, it would be a little annoying until their amygdalas shrink, which if we actually did this would probably take not too many generations.  Artificial Selection at work for good for once, lol.  Kind of a shame, they seem to be holding us back.  Let's split at the Mississippi, they can do what they want, we can do what we want.