Philosophical Research:Molecular Democracy/4.4r/6951 reverse-nobility

r1

the statement that capitalism makes sense because households will never be equal in social status to each other is really dumb because the divergence between different "families" or "houses" is almost exactly what created nobility and feudal orders.

you think it's fun to say your family is better than other families until you have to answer to the best family in the region known as "the count" or the best family in the country known as "the queen". and then you start going on and on about "freedom" and "democracy".

honestly this is what made me so confused about dragon ball because I legitimately couldn't see the difference between spatial rank and feudal orders materially so of course I just assumed that if Saiyans had a spatial slot hierarchy they must have a feudal order. nope. the Particle Theory for Saiyans goes directly from spatial competition to form a population shape to everyone being exactly in position to have to pilot empire and expand empire. just like the United States.

r2 2-22

can we reverse the laws of history to predict the world's futures? -

the mathematical equations of physics hold that processes happen because one arrangement of things is equivalent to another arrangement of things. "e = mc^2", and so forth. this raises the question of if processes operate under more or less the same laws if we were to run them in reverse. this question has a complicated series of answers.

some processes in nature really are just a series of conversions between equivalent things. there are chemical equations that can input the requirements of one side to go forward and input the requirements of the other side to go backward, and which keep going back and forth with no regard to which side of the chemical equation should be considered the past or the future, simply ending up in an equilibrium of back and forth applications of the process.

some processes in nature seem to be more than a mere conversion between things. many times when scientists discover a new fundamental process in the field of quantum mechanics and subsequently find experimental evidence for it, there is a breaking of what were previously thought to be symmetries in the mathematics. at one point the equations are symmetrical on paper. but then after experimental results come in scientists realize that the masses or other basic characteristics of particles are not what was predicted by the other side of the equations. there is a glaring pattern to every time "symmetry breaking" has occurred in particle physics. every time there is symmetry breaking, it would strongly appear that this is tied to the sheer existence of emergent scales and new processes being discovered below what were thought to be fundamental processes. fundamental processes were thought to have a certain kind of symmetry, and then the Z and W boson field was discovered below that with its own rules that did not quite obey the predicted symmetry yet still produced the overall process of the weak-force field and particle interactions inside atoms. once the Z and W boson field was discovered, it was possible to create a model that predicted the scales above it using the rules of the Z and W boson field, but before the Z and W boson field was discovered, it was not necessarily possible to accurately predict what its physics would be as it existed in an independent capacity as Factical reality. similarly, scientists have recently been discussing an axion hypothesis that the constant theta is actually generated by an underlying axion field. [check what exactly theta is again, i think it was about neutrons] the axion field is said to be "symmetry breaking", and what this means is that if this particular hypothesized axion field was discovered, we would only for sure know that there was an axion field and exactly what its physics were with experimental confirmation against the real physical process we would then come to know as the axion field. all the hypothesizing and mathematics we do in universities would never necessarily be a substitute for the independent existence of the axion field itself, which is the only thing that can truly justify the fact it physically exists and in what way it exists as more correct than any other material hypothesis. whenever we are missing information about physics, it is always the case that real-world physics beyond the perception of a particular body of scientists fills in that missing information about physics — because the point of physics is to predict or discover those unseen real-world arrangements of things before we then translate real-world physical objects and processes into mathematical information.

this is to say that in some senses, the outward "arrow of time" to physical processes may actually be an arrow of Facticity. we know that the concept of running predictive scientific equations backward is not literally meant to be the same thing as running events backward with the same requirements to produce them in the backward direction as forward — that in more formal terms, time reversal symmetry is not the same thing as time reversal invariance. yet in recognizing such a simple detail about deterministic physics models, the key to everything might already be in front of us. it could hypothetically be the case that the entire thing that separates the forward flow of time from the backward flow of time is simply the requirements on each side of the chemical equation, and the question of which side of an equation is currently easier to satisfy; our primary mistake on understanding time could simply be that every scientific field but chemistry does not put arrows in its equations. in this hypothetical model of time, time would be near-synonymous with history and simply be emergent from small timeless events that become biased in one direction and become "timeful" as they stack up to increasingly larger scales. the earth progresses around the sun because the properly directional physics equation for the earth-continuing-around-the-sun process is easier to fulfill than the equation for suddenly turning the earth backwards around the sun and running the seasons the other way.

if we were to imagine that historical periods were nothing more than spatial arrangements of things, such that the Shang dynasty was one arbitrary arrangement of atoms and the Western Zhou was another, then it would be the case that reversible chemical reactions run history back and forward all the time. the only outwardly-observable difference between the reversibility of historical periods and the reversibility of chemical reactions would be that chemical reactions happen at a much smaller scale where there are fewer unique kinds of objects. if we were to conceptualize cellulose as a historical period performed by atoms, then there would be many fewer historical periods possible for most chemical environments we commonly find on earth than there would be for the case of possible historical periods composed of arranged human beings — there are less than 200 elements on the periodic table, but human individuals can be distinguished from each other by innumerable different industries, spoken languages, and many other such divisions; there is a vast number of conceivable ways to arrange the activities and shared understandings of individuals to build a society.

despite many processes that arrange societies being different across different unique societies, there are some basic processes that repeat relentlessly. one of these is the spatial slot hierarchy. every industrial society or society containing towns and Artisan types has a spatial slot hierarchy, as well as perhaps some agrarian societies consisting of disorganized individual households. a disorganized, freeform society increasingly orders itself through the sheer activity of individuals being born or moving into the society and having to settle themselves in particular spatial locations. in early days this process might be inconsequential because no particular place that people choose to live has notably different characteristics compared with any other place. as more events of people joining the society happen, it increasingly becomes that different areas differentiate either by being considered "prestigious" or "useful" areas, or perhaps purely through the spatial sorting of people into separate localized social graphs that think they know what kinds of people belong next to them and are choosy about what other people to let in. areas filling up for utility or social reasons can cause property values to rise to the point they will only go to people with a whole lot of money or some very important reason to live there, and leave only more distant areas affordable. areas with a lot of turnover can end up in a spiral of lower and lower prices and yet no real ability to produce anything or earn money because nobody is consistently living there and accumulating money and productive capacity. productive households build up in a cumulative process in exactly the locations that support productive work or the creation of business territories, and become able to go where they want and take risks in testing out what places are actually productive, while newer households are often stuck following the productive households wherever they idiosyncratically decide productive civilization ought to be. gentrification is the result of spatial slot hierarchies suddenly and rudely sending arbitrary households, either privileged and productive or simply not yet placed, across previously-drawn areas in space believed to represent loosely- or tightly-associated "communities". the spatial slot hierarchy simultaneously regulates which people are allowed to have spatial slots, and drives people to push each other out of slots as the only possible way of ordering and shaping society. it actually operates in many directions: perhaps an outside immigrant or ethnic minority wishes to move to a White town, and everyone in the town attempts to defend their precious slots hoping they can preemptively toss somebody else into the same place before the outsider stays, or perhaps people have arranged an entire effort to try to move into historically prejudiced areas and are having to compete for spatial slots in order to have any say in getting that area to nominate progressive representatives who will finally stop harming other regions. anarchist Catalonia produced a spatial slot hierarchy; particular anarchist operations filled up and sent people elsewhere.

as feudal orders went away, some of the very most coveted slots in spatial slot hierachies went away and ultimately became replaced with groups of people. centrally-appointed nobility went away and became replaced by figures such as elected governors. royal households became irrelevant and became replaced by figures such as governing councils and prime ministers. during early Bolshevism, factory owners were replaced with various other structures which included state managers who could be expelled by the workers and councils of workers per factory section.

if we study the mathematical reverse of these societal transformations as if they were chemical equations, we can gain a clearer view of what the forward processes in any particular historical period are supposed to be [*p] if we take the process of feudal orders going away and formally reverse it we see groups of people being replaced with specific wealthy or capable families who keep passing positions down to their children, or contributing to science because they have the time and large estates to do it on. there are no specific routes for this process to happen directly and literally restore a feudal order, but we can take good note of what state of things is on each side of the process. a competition to build up talent and wealth is on the past side and a group of various people in the top slot is on the future side. if Dinesh D'Souza and Donald Trump are arguing that the top capitalist owners should aggressively compete to secure the country's top slots away from The Left, not on policies but on small-scale societal structure which cannot be regulated and the sheer promise that the correct nation of people will be united between the local people and the top slot, which side of the process does this go on? it goes on the past side. if D'Souza and Trump truly were talented, this would mean they would be Careerists, and even then, Careerists also belong on the past side of their particular historical process, because Careerism is the concentration of functional purpose into particular households and the conflation of particular households with purposes and points in space, as if everybody is being slowly turned into nobility except immigrants. of course, at least one of these two is not even a Careerist, and purely an owner. D'Souza explains this in his book: Donald Trump is worth something because he was really good at owning a hotel the correct way instead of the wrong way. this makes the issue even clearer: while theories about Careerism and Careerists are largely unheard of up to now, we all know at least two possible things that lie on the future side of the capitalist equation. soviets and non-owning managers. the third unfortunate possibility is that Careerists periodically show up to shove out whoever is in charge of businesses and sometimes each other. Careerists as a class are always moving around and climbing up positions in businesses just to have more money, so it would be almost easy for them to go about their usual behavior and then claim to have "solved" the problem.

this observation about the capitalist and Careerist processes brings up an important problem for Existentialists and Gramscians. modern Gramscian movements seem to hinge themselves almost entirely on hegemony politics, but what side of historical processes are hegemony politics on? on the surface, it would seem that whoever gets into an industrial slot for political reasons on sheer talent is attempting to conflate that slot with a particular limited group of people versus its basic definition, or even conflate a slot with an individual. what is the proper future form of a Job Slot itself? what is the proper future form of the specific placement of a progressive individual into an institution that might or might not currently have outdated and prejudiced practices? clearly we do not want a whole institution to be insular and prejudiced. but if we were to imagine some hypothetical scenario where a Gramscian were to end up in deadlocked competition for a Job Slot against a Maoist or a Hegemony Trotskyist or both, would it then be a good or bad thing for the Gramscian to tirelessly defend the slot? the answer to this question is far from obvious. in real-life situations of Gramscians or Existentialists trying to fill slots, there is always a dynamic of entire graphs of people flowing around at once; the situation does not neatly reduce itself to matters of specific individuals belonging to specific classes. Tories attempt to claim institutions as large connected graphs, and Gramscians attempt to claim institutions to form large connected graphs. the "class" that is carrying out all the action is a whole population, often one which wishes to present itself as the only existing population and invalidate the existence of the other population. the historical process that is happening superficially looks like a contest over an empty area to create an independent nationalism based on a socially-linked population and national culture. this is to say that if we wish to search this messy process for the proletariat, we would have to first acknowledge that there is a separate localized proletariat for the Tory population as well as the Existentialist population — in addition to a separate local Careerist layer and a local layer of proper capitalists. the overall question is whether the Existentialist proletariat benefits from supporting the efforts of the Existentialist Careerists and owners. the Existentialist-Gramscian proletariat almost certainly will not get along with the Tory proletariat, which very often wishes to make full use of its capitalists and Careerists to harm them. thus, within the arena of hegemony politics the Existentialist-Gramscian proletariat has either its Careerists and capitalists or purely itself.

what do historical process equations tell us about populations? [unfinished]

[this entry was off to such a good start but honestly, when I started trying to cover Gramscianism in all its endless complexity I think it kind of turned to shit. revisit later]

2-22

> the axion field itself is the only thing that can truly justify the fact it physically exists and in what way it exists as more correct than any other material hypothesis

I detest [in an ironic tone] that this sounds like Existentialism, but I can't deny that it's true. it could easily end up being the case that Existentialism is true for all inanimate objects but somehow isn't generally true for people — that even though it's true of everything else, the theory all about Subjects is ironically never true of Subjects.

=>

6951 plus v4.3/ toward a new Marxist mathematics [unreleased]

;

:: cr.

2025-02-22T01:49:11Z

:: t.

reverse-nobility

:: t.

v4-4_6951_reverse-nobility

;

v4.4-5.1 scraps/ can we reverse the laws of history to predict future structures?