Truth-by-Default is a Game-Changer For Humanity
When people first come into the world they are bound to believe everything that they are first told. Then they grow up in a broken world that trains them to favor suspicion from the outset. It can be said that truth-by-default is innate, evident by crooks who happily remind themselves that “there’s a sucker born every minute”. There has been a logical form of deduction hiding under mankind’s nose for millennia which is based upon the mind’s natural inclination. With all of the great thinkers this world has seen it’s completely baffling that nobody has considered inverting conventional wisdom and treating statements as right/proven/trustworthy from the outset. On first thought it seems infeasible but it’s important to remember that the same “default status” would necessarily apply to those offering contradictions (and to those contradicting the contradictions, etc.).
Mankind’s biggest problem can be described as an inability to resolve disagreements intelligently. Imagine if all people could put universal trust into a simple method that’s capable of unambiguously and non-subjectively rendering unanimous outcomes for any assertion. It would be tough for someone to argue that the world would not become a better place. Here are some of today’s best methods for collective adjudication.
Democracy — Opinion tallies are great for subjective matters, such as promoting songs or videos. However it shouldn’t take much effort to convince everyone that democracy is unsuitable for important decision-making. If “mission control” took a vote before pressing the launch-button it could marginalize someone who possesses information that’s capable of averting a catastrophe. Democracy gives people permission to push ahead with contentious endeavors in the face of blatant objections.
Example of Unanimity Used Today: The most intelligent endeavors, such as landing robots on distance planets, embrace unanimity. The top assertion, stating that the mission’s objective will succeed, may exist in a state of true for long enough to have faith that it’s true. It’s impossible to be right and so it’s important that a single voice has the chance halt the countdown. Unanimity isn’t about truth, rather that nobody can imagine a reason why a mistake will lead to failure.
Leadership — Democracy is often used to elect the popular, other times leaders take their positions by force. In either case a single fallible human makes important decisions which affect everyone else, usually divisively. Corporations operate as competing autocracies which has fared better than a singular hierarchy of power. Leadership will exist in the future world, but in a way that influences others through inspirational achievements, rather than controlling subjects by fear.
Question and Answer Websites — Popular Q&A websites utilize a combination of democracy and unilateral responses from the questions’ authors for determining the best answers and popular rebuttals. Blending two approaches which contain flaws does not cancel out the mistakes. However it has proven to work well because, unlike a blog, there’s at least a definitive outcome.
Blogs — Blogs are great because everyone has an equal voice without involving democracy. Its shortcoming is that there’s no framework for producing unambiguous outcomes. Authors and the comments section tell each other why they are right and this seldom changes anyone’s mind.
Wikis — Wikis have certainly improved the way in which people collectively assimilate information. The problem is that moderators unilaterally settle disputes by deciding what information is allowed to remain. Their reasoning is customarily absent and there’s little recourse for those who wish to express important objections.
An Invaluable Bias
The reason why truth-by-default is so important is because it contains a bias. Without this there can be no definitive outcome which is why all of the methods listed above must contain one. However in all aforementioned examples, it’s the opinions of particular people which break ties rather than a universal mindset.
False-by-Default is Entirely Illogical and Yet Embraced by Science
If a bias is so valuable then people may be wondering why not embrace false-by-default? This doesn’t work because people are not given the benefit of any doubt which fails to model the mentality of trusting toddlers. However the main problem is this. If things do not begin as true then where does “right” come from? Who gets to say what’s valid or not if everyone starts out as being wrong? Shockingly, this contradictory approach is twisted, deformed, and sits on a set of untouchable axioms or so called proof. Russlle’s Teapot is an excellent example of “false by default”. The flaw in this thought experiment is 2 fold.
- It rests on an invalid assumption that there is such a think as “universal truth”. There are countless examples of why this is a fallacy, one of which science has accepted that the universe based upon relativity. Many children truly believe that Old Saint Nick lives by the North Pole which is painted like a candy cane. Different religions have intelligent adults with contrary beliefs, but each side knows for sure that they’re right. The truth is actually true is someone really believes it. In other words, truth is relative to the mind of the beholder. Someone else might contradict the teapot statement (which is also true by default). (-) Can’t say there’s a teapot floating in space (+) because humans haven’t invented rockets yet or any other device to take man-made objects beyond the atmosphere. It’s possible for Russell’s children to believe something is true (which he knows is a lie) and the same statement can be false for those that believe the contradiction is true.
- It expects all statements to begin in a state of false until it can be proven. The problem is that proof requires evidence. How does one know that the evidence is true? They need more evidence, and so on, which means there’s no bottom and therefore the initial statement can never be conclusively proven. Math uses Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory and it’s 7 axioms so that mathematicians can prove things. It seems that Russell should have a problem with the notion of an axiom. Moreover, there are countless other beliefs or assertions which subjects are unrelated math and therefore can’t rest upon a formal set of axioms created by academic pedigrees who have the final say.
The One Thing That Everyone Agrees With
It’s philosophically impossible for someone derive “right” unless something wrong can be found with in the logic tree (i.e., a contradicted contradiction).
Everyone innately agrees what constitutes a mistake because nobody will argue that hypocrisy is acceptable. Contradictions are not OK because crossing wires often leads to circular arguments that will fail to change minds.
Once a person has been shown to argue against themselves it will almost always result in them rage quitting or changing the subject. That’s why an information system is vital to prevent those kinds of slippery tricks. That’s fine if they abandon the discussion because whoever has the last word wins.
The Intelligence Algorithm
Undoubtedly, naming this method “the Intelligence Algorithm” is bold and the claim is likely to draw ire. One can only hope because anything that brings attention to this discussion would be a positive outcome. Here are some supporting reasons that skeptics are invited to discredit (hopefully intelligently).
- Intelligence can be described as measure or capability for making good decisions.
- If people learn from their mistakes then they should teach by them.
- Intelligence is deeply related to prediction and this is currently the best method for deriving accurate forecasts.
- If it’s not the most intelligent way to reach collective decisions then people would have to say (-) what’s wrong (+) why which would mean that they’re fundamentally using the process to help people decide.
- This claim doesn’t have to be proven or endorsed by anyone of stature because it’s true-by-default.
Fundamentals
Truth by default: All statements, beliefs, and contradictions begin in a state of true/proven. It can be said that everyone is relatively right in the moment given their personal contexts, genetics, and life experiences. All new entries begins in a state of true, regardless of what words they’re comprised of, because they’re closest to the imagination which conceives them. People are always given the benefit of the doubt from the outset, even with junk/spam. Critics find the last part unappealing but they should remember that such submissions are easy to contradict.
Contradictions have dual polarity: Statements or beliefs are used to build up ideas with a single, positive polarity. Contrarily, contradictions are used to tear down other beliefs, or other contradictions, and must contain a dual polarity like a magnet or electricity. (i.e. CANT / BECAUSE). Because all statements are true-by-default, regardless of what characters/letters are used, it’s essential that humans explicitly distinguish between beliefs and contradictions by means of single or dual polarity.
Game of attrition: Because contradictions are true-by-default it means that the one who gives the last word wins. All entries, including beliefs, reciprocate between defense/offense or trusting/skeptical. Whenever someone is forced into making unappealing arguments they typically quit (sometimes out of spite) and render a victor. For contentious issues that are debated collectively, there will typically be a period where the outcome exists in flux. The frequency in which this reciprocates can be said to resemble a form of democracy. Most issues will eventually settle, leaning one way or another. Highly divisive issues which perpetually oscillate indicate a personal preference/opinion rather than a universal truth, something suitable for voting instead.
It only takes one: It only takes one contradiction to invalidate any entry (belief or contradiction). As powerful as they might be it’s important to remember that they’re subjected to the same rules. Similarly, a single voice has the power to stop a rocket launch in “mission control”. This property is vital for group endeavors because it gives everyone equal power. Take this away and people will resort to things like terrorism as a way of drawing attention to their plight.
An Odd Number of Contradictions on any Pathway through the Discussion Tree Makes the Initial Assertion False: Regardless of how many branches exist within a discussion tree, any pathway that lands on an odd number of contradictions makes the assertion FALSE. The only way the initial statement can remain in a state of true is if every single pathway throughout the contradiction tree ends in an even number.
Language Jujitsu: Contradictions are used to invalidate beliefs and/or other contradictions. If people communicate by means of single polarity, it can be said they are having a dialog rather than a dispute. However when a difference arises top beliefs/assertions reciprocate between true and false depending on the even/odd count of contradictions down a pathway. If one person doesn’t know how to use Can’t/Because, and they harbor hypocrisy, it will be impossible to escape logic. There’s something incredibly powerful or inescapable when dual polarity is used correctly. It’s like a white belt against a black and the white belt won’t even realize what’s happening to them. The one who has studied the art of intelligence can claim they are adept at language Jujitsu and possess techniques that allow them to dominate those harboring hypocrisy. For intense subjects, it’s best battle in front of others because it makes it harder for them to leave and/or change subjects.
Tree formations: Contradictions and beliefs often times grow into tree formations, meaning that an entry may contain multiple children. However there’s one important distinction between the two. When an entry has been contradicted it’s effectively negated and therefore an information system will not accept additional contradictions. In other words, “you shouldn’t kick a man when he’s down”. This is important for collective information systems because it has a way of preventing manipulation and spam. If software didn’t observe this property it would be possible for someone to contradict a statement many times over and effectively bury it by means of brute-force instead of logic.
Contradictions are Timeless: Contradictions exhibit dual polarity (i.e. CANT/BECAUSE) which forms a “closed loop” for self-containing context. Single-polarity statements, used within a dialog, rely upon the previous “x” statements to establish such context. This is important because any information system accepting contradictions may augment a global pool and reapply across diverse subjects for all time. This gives rise to systems which become more intelligent over time. Conversations at a dinner table quickly meander and group dialogs are no different. There’s no way to reuse logic across separate domains with all of the adjudication methods listed above. For example, great thoughts added to a blog frequently become buried under pagination which causes people to repeat themselves. Machines are supposed to help humans eliminate repetition and this is one of the most powerful ways to accomplish that with regards to language and logic.
Time favors the intelligent: Think about two opposing partisan people in a coffee shop echoing back their party’s talking points. Each one knows what the other is going to say long before they finish and find it nearly irresistible to interrupt. What happens if someone says something which is truly intelligent and completely novel? It makes the other person think. An opponent may roll their eyes back and stare at the ceiling, trying to think of a response which doesn’t sound foolish. Because this algorithm always yields a definitive outcome, it can be said that intelligent thoughts will sway the balance with a higher frequency compared to the unimaginative and uninformed.
Examples
— (false) Belief: I HAVE SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO SAY.
— — (true) Contradiction: (-) You can’t type in all caps if you have something important to say (+) because people interpret that as a metaphor for shouting.
— — — (false) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that I meant to shout by using all caps (+) because that is how I normally type.
— — — — (true) Contradiction: (-) You can’t disregard ways in which people could misunderstand your intent (+) because your goal should be to reach the largest possible audience when you have something important to say.
___________________________________________
— (true) Belief: The world is round.
— — (false) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that the world is round (+) because ships that sail out to sea fall off of the edge.
— — — (true) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that ships fall off of the edge of a flat Earth when they sail out to sea (+) because there are many reasons to explain how a ship could sink or get lost in a large ocean on a round Earth.
— — (false) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that the world is round (+) because if I hold up a straight edge to the horizon the two objects are aligned.
— — — (true) Contradiction: (-) You can’t say that an appearance of a flat horizon is evidence of a flat Earth (+) because a small ant standing on an extremely large ball would perceive a flat surface with a 360 degree view.
The Human Intelligence Protocol Interface
The Human Intelligence Protocol Interface (HIPI) is an offline, single-page JavaScript application. A proof-of-concept is available to use at http://www.hipi.tech and its source code is also hosted on GitHub.com. It has been modeled around the Intelligence Algorithm but integrated with additional features which make it useful for a large audience. For example:
- The CANT/BECAUSE protocol has been augmented in a way that forces users to highlight a region of text using their pointer for representing the smallest portion of text which cannot be said (i.e. the CANT). Such text ranges can be called “context markers” and it’s the reason that contradictions can be reapplied across diverse subjects by means of verbatim text matching.
- The system helps people autocomplete things which CAN be said as they are typing. For example, if a contradiction becomes invalidated (i.e. contradicted) then the CANT becomes a CAN. This autocomplete feature creates valuable interconnections across diverse subjects, allowing a global pool of contradictions to augment collective intelligence (mistake avoidance).
The application is Open Source, but of course, and the project is in desperate need of volunteers who care about making this world a better place. Here are some aspirations.
- The current software is an offline proof of concept. It would be great if there were a public API which let content providers integrate the Intelligence Algorithm in place of blogging.
* Public REST Service
* Client-side SDK - Eloquent speakers and writers are needed to create documentation and otherwise spread awareness about the discovery. The Intelligence Algorithm is incredibly effective, even without software. The process has an almost magical way of thwarting misunderstandings, due to the way that CANT/BECAUSE self contains context.
