System Philosophy Base Principal
Declassified on 9-4-2014
Note: This explanatory document is for philosophy researchers on the parts of base structure of system
philosophy main branch.
Also note: This explanatory document is wrote 5 years after the private completion of system
philosophy main branch. These ideology concept were already implemented and declassified as of 9-42014. Although the original implementation had its own twists, this explanatory document will be
generally enough for full analysis of system philosophy (main branch). The method that is explained
here, and what was actually used had alternative differences but leads to the same conclusion. Reason
for the alternative make up: Information control and record tracking.
I will start the topic by talking about Descartes's approach to trying to find "absolute philosophies".
Instead of recreating one himself, he decided to search into existing database of philosophy. However,
even at that time, there was too many philosophy in existence to read all of them and to see if it stands
up to the absolute 100% certainty that it can never be flawed. For his absolute philosophy, it is really a
flawless created with ideas that cannot be questioned against, and its absolute truth of the universe. In
order to simplify his search, he decided to classify philosophy based on its principal it is created with.
Mathematica concept have to follow the basic principal of mathematics, scientific findings have to
follow principal of scientific logics.
This importance of principal, is what created the main branch of system philosophy. It is too radical,
application drive and further complications that makes it stand outside of principal of general
philosophy. Also because philosophy in my perspective at that time needed a total rewrite adding
complexity on top of existing philosophy so that its implementation can only be an improvement. In a
sense, I took existing philosophical knowledge FOR granted, that's also the reason system philosophy
isn't a starter philosophy field to get into.
One of the core game changer of system philosophy main branch or you call it as the principal of system
philosophy, was the inspiration of: "one system, infinite solution" conceptual logic. In order to achieve
such possibility, I have to remove doubts (like concept of doubt questioned by Descartes) whether or
not if all of it stands up to the most inner conceptual/logical doubts/possibility that goes beyond
physical possibility. So I had to handle the exception handler to catch the possibilities that Descartes or
any of the modern philosophers comes up with.
I figured if I can handle all of the "tier 1 and tier 2 conceptual possibilities (tier 2 conceptual possibilities
is a higher deviation from tier 1 conceptual possibilities by reaching into the category of possibility
outside of human logical interpretation, you can read more about it in detail in my high level books)",
then physical possibility would be a given. However, conceptual possibility is on the insanity side of
things where things doesn't exist can exist and flaw your philosophy. So declaration of infinite or you can
call it declaration of possibility was invented, to handle all of the way-out-of possibility cases (and yet,
you cannot prove them to be false cases) to be within control. In summary, the declaration of infinite
itself is a flawer that breaks all philosophy in the world without ANY exception. However, I used it
against itself by ruling out itself so it adds meaning to philosophy to cut down on meaningless paradox
logics. And, it is the best we have got, and it is the best implementation solution; meaning, there won’t
be another optimized alternative, it is the highest you can go.
One of the starting issue of system philosophy was: even the principal works. Its definition that it covers
is vague because not everyone knows what a system is. A system itself is a complex logic of its own, like
when I talk about value system is the system philosophy that defines the system of "human action" or
any biological action. It can be vague like when you touch something as an action, or it can detailed as
the action of your thought processing path.
Conclusion logic?
I really want people to understand this topic of impossibility, and think about it on your own. Sometimes
looking at the impossibility then confused by it, then later look at my solution would make you more
clear. And it would answers your question of why the design works the way it does. And trust me, there
won’t be ANY alternatives. Even though the philosophical battleground is always changing, but the core
logic is always eternally the same, forever, until the end of universe.
Is this also why Descartes from hundreds years ago….. And my implementation of system philosophy
had ABSOLUTE pointers met. And I didn’t know Descartes until 5 years after main branch of system
philosophy or the principal of system philosophy was first created. It surprises me that Descartes had
somewhat the blueprint in his mind, which leads me to believe he is somewhat a deep thinker who
questions himself as a way of verification; I like his thought processes, it is impressive to get that far in
his age of time. However, our cause is different, our goal is different. He was more interested into
searching for a solution, I am the one who achieve the impossibility. This is what makes a difference of
significance, perhaps…. After hundreds of years. This small variation might be the branch of separation,
and development.
However, as close as we are. We are still far away from each other.