Я телепатически слышал вашу пародию: “Ленин: Я-ыка, я-ыка, я-ыка”.

]]>– No fact-checking: Some things that are not proved facts can be published on-equal (with the same amount of grants and editorial scrutinity) with facts.

– Some facts (even from the usual pure mathematics) cannot be published, because not conforming to new ethical rules I am developing now.

– Not logic: Logic can be defined as adding at every step a new proved statement while keeping the current set of statements non-contradictory. In my “not logic” we indeed can add a statement that contradicts to other “facts”, but my algorithm that is not logic is required to ensure that the false statement will be eventually removed. In concise math terms: “Logic” is consistent, “not logic” isn’t but it’s eventually consistent.

– It seems that we should make possible publication ONLY of interdisciplinary research. (“Interdisciplinary” is yet to be defined in precise mathematical terms.) So, we could make easier publishing my “actions of ordered semigroups” because it connects semigroups (algebra) with general topology, by eliminating non-interdisciplinary competitors. I follow my idea of ethics: Ethics is connecting together two models (e.g. the interests of a scientific advisor with interests of the researchers) in such a way that one of two models benefits (not harm) the other. In mathematics this may mean that one of two branches of mathematics is proved to benefit the others (some connection that cannot be made without resorting to use another branch of mathematics).

As a consequence in the present system everybody is a failure: scientists are thieves and amateurs claiming to be scientists are fake scientists.

]]>From this theorem it follows an epistemological and economical model in which:

– We don’t require ourselves to rely on checked facts (e.g. we just “believe” that God exists).

– If our knowledge is wrong, we will in some future correct it (if no God, we will eventually know it).

– If we keep doing so infinitely, each of our assumed facts eventually becomes the same (false or true) as it really is.

It is contrary to science where we always fact-check before publishing. So I invented a non-science, a new kind of science which is not science like as BitCoin is not money or car is not a telega.

]]>Suppose you are given a fact-checking task of something being unethical by somebody unknown (let’s call him “Baal”) about which you don’t whether it’s ethical in the case if it’s true (positive value that you want to attain in some measurement system) to start a process that solves the problem.

Should you accordingly this ethics try to solve the problem or not?

Assume that the task is unethical. Then if you solved it true, that’s a failure: you did an unethical thing. If you solved it false, you didn’t accomplish the task – zero value + spent time. If the problem is insolvable, you just spent time.

Assume that proving it is ethical. Then it’s true, that is you solved the problem.

Theorem. Assuming it is ethical and ignoring all other variants is the most ethical variant under the above conditions.

The above is almost exactly formulated. It is a task any Bachelor or even associate of mathematics should be able to solve in a few minutes (after I find time, I am to write about this a scientific article). Moreover, it can be generalized for partially ordered sets instead of real numbers.

So we have a MATHEMATICALLY EXACT PROVED consequence: If we don’t know whether proving Torah is ethical, we should not work on it.

Ugh! The entire story of Torah was just a silly behavior of some Baal. It was a very big useless spent of resources of at least intergallactic size. This is a mathematical consequence from theological statements accepted by all both Jews and Christians. We participated in something wrong.

]]>We can assume that it’s true until disproved. Then we either:

– eventually disprove it

or

– never disprove it; in this case, it’s not disprovable and therefore we can assume it’s true, until we need it. Why may we need to assume that “trueness of Torah is sometimes needed to be proved”? Only if we need to check it. But in this case, if my earlier musings are correct then we already have the result that Torah should not be proved and therefore will never need to prove it!

Hm, maybe the above reasonings can be simplified to something formal in our usual, human mathematics and proved by us by eliminating the word “Torah” from consideration and replacing it with just “an ethical problem such that…” with some formal terms in place of ellipsis? If so, we humans get in some sense above the level or Torah just from simple math ideas that could be explained even to a teenager.

]]>Therefore, when God brings me in a cloud of time machine, to Nibiru, should we follow or not follow this axiom?

– If we don’t accept this axiom from the very beginning, then we inevitably will start to prove Torah, and this seems immoral.

– If we accept this axiom, we may fail, because it is not proved that it is true.

But there is a solution circumventing both of these axioms being bad:

– Assume this axiom from the beginning and follow it (probably forever), until we disprove it (if it can be disproved).

Oh, it is also a recommendation to human economists: Never assume that to reach results we need to torture poors, until this becomes a proved mathematical fact. All the rest variants are unethical.

]]>