Nick Hazelton & Todd Lewis


property. mixing labor and homesteading is absurd because it is not efficient.  protecting property merely on a first come first use basis is a dominated strategy in allocating property based upon production and trade. im going to talk about this in greater detail in my presentation on the exclusion criterion/axiom of property.  the property ethic of ego-utilitarianism and the free market.

animal “rights”

egoutism says we dont respect animals because we cant trade with them. this is the same reason why nations that do not trade with eachother are more likely to go to war. it has very little to do with genetics or not being human. also, domestic animals are dependent upon us.  we can manage their lives better by owning them than they can and derive utility in the form of companionship and home defense etc.

and pleasure and happiness is just a meter

utilitarianism is based on subjective value (pleasure)

problem with utilitarianism is its ambiguous (poorly defined). which is better 10 utility units with 20 people or 20 utility with 10 people?  having two primary objectives, greatest good and greatest amount of people, creates inconsistencies when put into an extreme rivalrous contexts.

ego-utilitarianism is based on objective relative value (evolutionary value to the meta-self). it says pleasure is just a natural meter to detect utility, but it is far from perfect and can malfunction into hedonism.

relative theory of value playlist

consequentialism is general, egoutism is a subset of consequentialist moralities.  but consequentialism isnt specific, it  doesnt describe how to assign value to action/strategy (define a value/utility function) on the consequences itself

egoutism morality function adds up all the costs and benefits (payoff) of all meta-selves in reality, that includes a weight distribution determined by each meta-self’s contribution to the existence of the meta-self under consideration.  if this sum is greater than any other strategy, then that action is said to be moral.  one can also calculate pairwise morality (payoff) between two actions.

knowing all possible utility of all options is not necessary since evolution punishes you proportionally. poker analogy

payoffs are dependent upon all actions and conditions

there are two types of paradoxes.  resolvable and genuine contradictions.

resolvable paradoxes conflates ideas and creates an illusion of contradiction.

zeno’s paradox conflates an infinite amount of infinitesmally small time intervals with an infinite amount of time (never catching up to the tortoise).

zeno’s paradox is not a genuine contradiction and therefore cannot be used in proof by contradiction of infinite regress.

you can add an infinite amount of decreasing increments of time and come to a finite amount of time (the time achilles catches up).

so for instance, in zeno’s paradox, if achilles is twice as fast as the tortoise, and the tortoise starts 10 meters ahead.  assuming it takes achilles 10 seconds to reach the 10 meter mark. at that time the lead will be cut in half to 5 meters.  it will take 5 meters for achilles to reach the 15 meter mark and then the lead will be cut in half.  the point at which achilles catches the tortoise will be the sum of all the time it takes to reach mark.

so the total time will be equal to 10+5+2.5+1.25+.625… = 10 + (1/2)10+ (1/2)²10+(1/2)³10+…

and therefore the total time it takes for achilles to catch the tortoise is 10/(1-1/2)=10*2 = 20 seconds

which is entirely consistent with the position equations given by:

x = 0.5t +10

x’= t

where x = tortoise position and x’ is achilles position.  and therefore t=20 is time where achilles catches the tortoise

infinite series can converge by the geometric series test

mathematical proof of an infinite sum of a geometric series (zeno’s paradox)

the universe can be “eternal” and have negative infinity time.  thats why science assumes that things like energy and momentum have existed eternally in their conservational laws.

as we say in math, time can be mapped to the real numbers and therefore are infinitely divisible.

one can easily disprove the biblical god IF they define god as omnipotent.

if you define ominpotent as being able to do anything and god is omnipotent

therefore god can create anything

therefore god can lift anything

so can god create a rock he cant carry?

this is valid proof by contradiction.


also if a religious person believes god is omniscient (including knowing the future)

then they cannot reconcile that with the free will they need to be able to justify punishment by god.





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s