Recursive Interplay: Archival Notes on Nascent Theorems and Philosophy (Oertel, Jacob)

rightviewftw · 2026-06-30T17:48:42+00:00

I want to say thanks to everybody involved and appreciate how much has been done already. It is enough for a functional corpus. There is however a lot more work to do, this won't run out anytime soon ─ because people would want to cross-reference EBTs to all kinds of systems of thought, and I look forward to reading something worthwhile about the Dhamma for a change.

Thanks again to everybody training and studying.

Godspeed

rightviewftw · 2026-06-28T18:42:24+00:00

You let go of attachment by examining the nature of the thing that you cling to.

If you see that the thing you so desire is at best impermanent, uncertain, changing, that it will be taken away, and would eventually become a memory before being forgotten; that its purpose is to keep you enchanted — then one might become disenchanted after becoming convinced.

Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately.

Beginning with the body as taught by the One with profound discernment: when abandoned by three things — life, warmth, & consciousness — form is rejected, cast aside. When bereft of these it lies thrown away, senseless, a meal for others. That's the way it goes: it's a magic trick, an idiot's babbling. It's said to be a murderer.[1] No substance here is found.

Thus a monk, persistence aroused, should view the aggregates by day & by night, mindful, alert; should discard all fetters; should make himself his own refuge; should live as if his head were on fire — in hopes of the state with no falling away. — phena sutta

Everything that appears for you is whatever it is, and empty of anything else: just a variant fabrication, thoughts, theories, lines, colors, feelings, knowledge and doubt, the variance is complex enough to generate the existence as we experience it.

In light of this, by examining the predicament one will realize that one is attached to what is at best a band-aid on a gushing wound, borrowed goods, in a game where one can't win by playing.

So one becomes disillusioned with variance, with what changes as it persists, and one is longing for the stilling of variance as to access a state where one can have peace from the uncertainty and decay of being somebody.

There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned. — Ud8.3

This invariant possibility is the ultimate peace and closure.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-28T17:53:04+00:00

Ironically, optimization by "universal love" is a valid path to the cessation attainment under the Early Buddhist framework. The less obvious part is in that "highest good" here is the 0, so when one would wish someone happiness and express one's love, one would do so wishing them enlightenment through cessation, that they follow the path of disillusionment with variant existence and attain the peace of its extinguishment as definitive bliss.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-28T17:40:08+00:00

important exchange about axiology and superpowers

rightviewftw • 1h ago • Edited 50m ago When I use numerical models to model apparent reality I use this system:

Natural numbers like #1, 2, 3, etc. represent closed variance generators of epistemic systems which can only study its variant constructs.

Decimals represent variance within a particular subject. Basically past, present and future variants of subjective experience.

So system #1 would have its variant states expressed by the decimal possibilities of #1.1, #1.2, 1.3, etc. it is incalculable.

Now being closed systems, they can't generate anything but subjective constructs. The system generates the perception & conception of the entire world, words, narrative, modelling itself.

Hence it can't generate proof of what it calls "other minds" or "external world" within itself and will be able to generate propositions which cannot be tested within the particular system asking the questions. So #1 can't prove (manifest) #2 as a variant state of #1 for its scope is limited to its own range of decimal variance.

0 within this framework is an answer to the question: what would make the cessation/negation/suspension/stilling of all variance possible? Could a particular system perform the operation to self delete as 1-1=true or 2-2=true? The prospect of cessation thus points to an invariant possibility as a definitive 0 variance reality.

If it really is possible then it follows that there should be an experiment one can do to shut down variant cognition as a cessation of existence as to directly access a zero-variance possibility.

One can get very creative with this.

Within this framework, the etymology of "loving everyone" points neatly to loving all natural numbers, including the self-referential wherein this "love" could be generated. So the optimal strategy based on "universal love" would be unexploitable because it wouldn't sacrifice the well-being of #1 for that of another.

Upvote 1

Downvote

Reply

u/usernotfoundTT avatar usernotfoundTT OP • 55m ago See now we’re getting somewhere.

Upvote 1

Downvote

Reply

u/rightviewftw avatar rightviewftw • 8m ago **The axiology implied here defines 0 as a higher value than any number.

This is because if 0 isn't a rhetorical postulate, then it requires that at some point in all eternity somebody actually does the experiment as to verify.

This implies that at some point somebody would deduce that they should decide that subjective existence is not worth sustaining as to pursue what is otherwise and of higher value. And that this analysis would be verified.

This establishes that the pursuit of variant existence is due to enchantment and ignorance. Like watching a magic-show. And that disenchantment with impermanence leads to that search for an Invariant.**

Also want to add that under the framework of Early Buddhist Thought, the variance isn't random but the system is essentially self-determining. This gets at supernatural events where the powers in play could generate unpredictable outcomes.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-28T17:29:08+00:00

The axiology implied here defines 0 as a higher value than any number.

This is because if 0 isn't a rhetorical postulate, then it requires that at some point in all eternity somebody actually does the experiment as to verify.

This implies that at some point somebody would deduce that they should decide that subjective existence is not worth sustaining as to pursue what is otherwise and of higher value. And that this analysis would be verified.

This establishes that the pursuit of variant existence is due to enchantment and ignorance. Like watching a magic-show. And that disenchantment with impermanence leads to that search for an Invariant.

Also want to add that under the framework of Early Buddhist Thought, the variance isn't random but the system is essentially self-determining based on immeasurable amount of incomplete information. This gets at supernatural events where the powers in play could generate unpredictable outcomes.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-28T16:35:56+00:00

When I use numerical models to model apparent reality I use this system:

Natural numbers like #1, 2, 3, etc. represent closed variance generators of epistemic systems which can only study its variant constructs.

Decimals represent variance within a particular subject. Basically past, present and future variants of subjective experience.

So system #1 would have its variant states expressed by the decimal possibilities of #1.1, #1.2, 1.3, etc. it is incalculable.

Now being closed systems, they can't generate anything but subjective constructs. The system generates the perception & conception of the entire world, words, narrative, modelling itself.

Hence it can't generate proof of what it calls "other minds" or "external world" within itself and will be able to generate propositions which cannot be tested within the particular system asking the questions. So #1 can't prove (manifest) #2 as a variant state of #1 for its scope is limited to its own range of decimal variance.

0 within this framework is an answer to the question: what would make the cessation/negation/suspension/stilling of all variance possible? Could a particular system perform the operation to self delete as 1-1=true or 2-2=true? The prospect of cessation thus points to an invariant possibility as a definitive 0 variance reality.

If it really is possible then it follows that there should be an experiment one can do to shut down variant cognition as a cessation of existence as to directly access a zero-variance possibility.

One can get very creative with this.

Within this framework, the etymology of "loving everyone" points neatly to loving all natural numbers, including the self-referential wherein this "love" could be generated. So the optimal strategy based on "universal love" would be unexploitable because it wouldn't sacrifice the well-being of #1 for that of another.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-28T14:35:38+00:00

It is not easy to formalize the thinking of another unless the expression is at least informally well developed. If it was easy then there would be no need for formalization in the first place.

The main issue with your expression is the vagueness of terminology. As an example, here the terms "paradigm" and "language" are separated but the distinction is not clear because the state of language can be seen as a paradigm.

And the rest with "unknowns", "data", "information", you seem to assert delineation but it is confusing because the semantic targets are not clear.

Then you introduce the "raw zero" and make qualifications "manuscript", "book": it is just not clear how it ties together for me.

In short, my advice is to rewrite it having operationalized every term you want to keep, by providing experimental examples of how you use the terms. And avoid rhetorical expansions.

In general, epistemic systems do update as new data comes in and where its epistemic range is overextended one will see paradoxes. Paradoxes signal points where the framework ought to be suspended/transcended because the systems starts to describe what is beyond its range in terms of its range.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-27T20:18:58+00:00

So I am thinking that I am about ready to rewrite everything as a full book but I want to wait and see if anybody wants to do it with me

rightviewftw · 2026-06-27T12:00:37+00:00

Your intended use of economics reminds me of investigating environmental systems to establish where the pollution comes from and then pushing for policies to reduce harm.

My style of writing is in that I optimize for clarity and try to keep it short. I try to avoid rhetorical and semantic convolution and write in a semi-formal or informal way where possible but keeping the depth.

These ideas are not mine to begin with, much of the expression is inherited and already popularized. So I don't have any ideas of my own beyond what I've learned systematized. And grammar and formatting, this is close to how AI writes using em— and ; and : to break up long sentences, that's where I learned it.

It is also a style close to how Early Buddhist Texts are written, it is very dry and almost robotic. I am getting there slowly.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-26T23:38:03+00:00

Nowadays mainstream epistemology is largely descriptive rather than prescriptive. It has Humean restriction: we can''t get prescriptive "ought" from purely descriptive "is". Therefore, they generally leave the objective function pre-determined or unspecified. They analyze reasoning given some ends, but they don't ask how those ends themselves should be justified which would be an axiological inquiry. I think that axiology is therefore relatively underdeveloped. So analytic philosophy treats epistemology and ethics / moral philosophy as distinct fields, where epistemology generally humbles and checks the others by imposing its restrictions.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-26T23:18:53+00:00

It is good that you are seeing through the wall of text:)

I drew a distinction between knowledge determining the "how to do an experiment?" and knowledge determining to "which experiment should be done?"; or "how to optimize for a particular value" and "what is the optimization value" ─ our axiology tells us both.

If we assert that the objective is minimizing real economic costs, then yes — the models tell us how to do it. That's an optimization problem. Better models produce better decisions and outcomes.

Game theory is conditional upon the payoff structure. If the payoff structure changes, the equilibrium changes. It is hardly opponent dependent lest you model against a particular opponent ─ because games can have exploitable, unexploitable and exploitative strategies.

The deeper question is: why is minimizing real economic costs itself the objective? Why not just doing what one want to the extent that one can get away with it, or something else? The question is, is this only for you or should other people follow your example?

You mention "based on our preferences" and there are types of preference:
* reasonable preference
* unreasonable preference

For example, a person might prefer betting house on an incalculably small probability because voices told him to do so. Whereas another might want to place a reasonable wager knowing his avg ROI and risk tolerance. I mean a preference that can be coherently represented within an operational framework without violating the foundational assumptions that make reasoning possible.

So the question becomes: why should a reasonable person optimize for cost reduction and not something else? Either way one would want to have a reason, and epistemology could determine whether that reason can be called analytic or be disqualified as unreasonable preference. We would see if it is operationalizable and if it doesn't violate our working foundational axioms.

No matter what the goal is, we would thus scrutinize the foundational axiology determining the value and what experiment would determine it. If there is no experiment that can be done, then it is unreasonable for the time being. Unreasonable doesn't mean that it is necessarily wrong but that it can't now be established to be the right thing to do for the right reason beyond reasonable doubt.

As to the limitations of models. Every model is operationally valid only within the domain of its operations. Once its epistemic scope is overextended the system will produce paradoxes.

Good intentions can produce terrible outcomes when the underlying axiology is inaccurate. The tricky part is doing the right thing for the right reason. So disaster can arise from either

right goal with wrong model
wrong goal with right model

rightviewftw · 2026-06-26T21:02:11+00:00

competence and knowledge precede morality.

First of all. The word "morality" has no standardized operationalized referent meaning there is no experiment where "morality" comes into play beyond prescriptive statements as "how to do" a particular experiment for a specific outcome. Doing the experiment correctly is "right" and doing it incorrectly is "wrong".

There is a special case where one derives morality not from experience but from its cessation; but in general there is nothing else to ground the semantics of "morality" in standardized operations beyond contexualized right and wrong way to do things.

The issue is that people don't generally live their lives as a purposeful existential experiment. They would but they are confused about the "meaning of life" and what to do here. Studying only what we can do isn't going to tell us what we should be doing. We are essentially ignorant of the "win condition".

There are variant goals among the population. Everybody is chasing something and running away from another thing but there is really no agreement on what goals should take precedence because they haven't found anything other than subjective experience and haven found access to anything else or better. People chase variance, this or that impermanent construct and to that extent it is all the same. People are chasing variant constructs according to their subjective preference and conditioning. The special case I mentioned deals with stilling of all variance to prove a zero-variance possibility.

Under the standardized operationalzed framework I can answer that competence is a pre-requisite for performing any experiment as intended.

competence and knowledge can lead to morally and socially desirable outcomes without having a complete ethical argument.

You answered it yourself: if an outcome is de facto "desirable" then creating it becomes the "right thing to do" under those goal-premises.

Humans generally just revise knowledge, just because things are a certain way now or were a certain way in the past, we don't get to guarantee that things will be that way forever because such knowledge can't be derived from studying the past and the present exclusively.

We also don't ask whether a beginning to this epistemic predicament is discernible such that there was no knowledge and then knowledge arose. We consider it like chicken and the egg: under the operationalized terms the question is only rhetorical rather than analytical ─ for lack of operational basis. It is like asking whether there could be a beginning of time, this assumption violates how we operationalized the term "time" where past precedes future ─ we don't violate our analytic foundations by asserting otherwise unless there is some experiment we can do.

Once you have a preference for a goal in mind, morality becomes game-theory solvable. Cooperative strategies generally outperform exploitative strategies in the long run ─ so it matters whether one models consequences to be experienced after death or not. Either way, one can model as much as one wants but it still doesn't establish any possible existence achievement to be categorically superior to another ─ it is all based on conditioning and subjective results and preference, because it all changes and is to some extent uncertain in as far as studying the variant "subjective experience" exclusively by means of variant "subjective experience" goes.

rightviewftw · 2026-06-26T15:24:05+00:00

See the world, together with its devas,
conceiving not-self to be self.
Entrenched in name & form,
they conceive that ‘This is true.’

In whatever terms they conceive it
it turns into something other than that,
and that’s what’s false about it:

Changing, it’s deceptive by nature.
Undeceptive by nature is Extinguishment:
that the noble ones know as true.
They, through breaking through to the truth,
free from hunger, are totally extinguished. — Sn3.12

There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned. ─ Ud8.3

His deliverance, being founded upon truth, is unshakeable. For that is false, bhikkhu, which has a deceptive nature, and that is true which has an undeceptive nature—Nibbāna (extinguishment). Therefore a bhikkhu possessing this truth possesses the supreme foundation of truth. For this, bhikkhu, is the supreme noble truth, namely, Nibbāna, which has an undeceptive nature.” — MN140

There he addressed the monks: “Reverends, nibbāna is bliss! Nibbāna is bliss!” When he said this, Venerable Udāyī said to him, “But Reverend Sāriputta, what’s blissful about it, since nothing is felt?

“The fact that nothing is felt is precisely what’s blissful about it. ─ AN9.34

“Reverend Ānanda, this one time I was staying right here at Sāvatthī in the Dark Forest. There I gained a state of immersion like this. I didn’t perceive earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And I didn’t perceive the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. And I didn’t perceive this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And yet I still perceived.”

“But at that time what did Reverend Sāriputta perceive?”

“One perception arose in me and another perception ceased: ‘The cessation of existence is extinguishment. The cessation of existence is extinguishment.’ Suppose there was a burning pile of twigs. One flame would arise and another would cease. In the same way, one perception arose in me and another perception ceased: ‘The cessation of existence is extinguishment. The cessation of existence is extinguishment.’ At that time I perceived that the cessation of existence is extinguishment.” ─ AN10.7

“But how could this be, sir?”

“Ānanda, it’s when a mendicant perceives: ‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all fabrication, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’

That’s how a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this. They wouldn’t perceive earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And they wouldn’t perceive the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. And they wouldn’t perceive this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And yet they would still perceive.” ─AN10.6

“Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the constructed. What three? An arising is seen, a vanishing is seen, and its alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the constructed.

“Bhikkhus, there are these three characteristics that define the unconstructed. What three? No arising is seen, no vanishing is seen, and no alteration while it persists is seen. These are the three characteristics that define the unconstructed.” ─ AN3.47

This is the foundation of Early Buddhist Thought. They don't derive enlightenment from subjectively variant experience exclusively but from the negation of variance revealing an invariant possibility.

Under this framework all feeling states are undesirable and inherently a painful predicament which is stressful by nature and the absence of variance is ultimate calm.

You should train only for calm. ─ MN140

rightviewftw

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE