Axiomatic world theory: An overview the general theory of evolution in brief

The world, its many subsystems and all their theories, starting with logic, can be reduced to two related functions: a combinatorial system generator and a hamiltonian system organizer. These can be derived, in turn, from an Axiom of Lawfulness, the expansion being guided by pseudo‐category and pseudo‐functor analysis to produce an axiomatic theory of the world or general theory of evolution. Specifically, world evolution is generated by a constrained combinatorial world generator, F:G_(X), deduced from two related axioms: I. The Axiom of World Lawfulness and II. The Axiom of World Constraint Constants, c = c₁, c₂, of primordial physical combinatee (substance), c₁, and physical combinator (motion), c₂.

Axiom I postulates a lawful analysis by an analyzer adhering to appropriate coordinate systems, CS, of a lawful analysand obeying a conservation law, X = X. The analysand consists of a base combinatee (the set and elements), X = {x₁, x₂,… x_n}, and a base combinator, namely, the universal Boolean operator, NOR = NOT + OR. Base combinatee and combinator both have attributes of quantity combinatorially generated by NOR operating on the universal number, 1, and of quality generated by NOR operating on the universal dimensions, MLT (mass, length, time), including the null sets.

Axiom II fixes the base constants, c, = c₁, c₂, thereby converting X to material substance using c₁ and NOR to material motion using c₂. This comprehensive, quality and quantity‐competent foundational science is called Universal Combinatorics. Its elements comprise the logical alphabet or metavector, A = {c, 1, MLT; X, NOR}, where c is obtained from the remaining terms. These give: (1) the attributive pseudo‐functor, F = P_(c,1,MLT), where P is the power set of the indicated attributes, and (2) the logic generator, G_(X), where G = NOR_(NOR). F then maps G_(X) into world evolution, F:G_(X) → world evolution, as follows:

Expanding the abstract generator, F₁:G,_(x), with world constants eliminated, i.e., c = 0, generates Universal Grammar consisting of (1) the substantive content of the abstract science chain running from linguistic grammar to mathematics and logic and (2) a comprehensive epistemology equivalent to an explicit theory of the strategic aspects of the scientific method, including a universal hamiltonian theory structure informally related to a mathematical category. The four epistemological theorems are:

1. I. The Combinatorial System Generator, F:G_(X), (read as “The attributive functor, F, maps the logic generator, G_(X), into world theory” or “The world is an attributive combinatorial function of logic").

2. II. The Hamiltonian System Operating Theorem, h (an abstract theory‐category structure).

3. III. The System Stability Theorem, PI?, where PI is the extremal Performance Index or controlling law.

4. IV. The Intersystem Abstraction Ranking Theorem given by the Attributive Functor/ Function, F.

F₂ admits the world constants, c > 0, to materialize the grammar generator, G_(X), to an homologous concrete Euler combinatorial physical wave generator, namely, the superstring equation of quantum theory, E_(NI) = A(σ,τ), where E is the permutational function, NI, is the set of nonintegers and the solution is the dual amplitude, σ,τ. Expanding generates the elementary particles of nonadaptive physics and, by inference, the substantive content of Universal Physics consisting of three additional primary systems comprising the world, where a primary system is defined as one having a distinct but derivative extremal controlling law:

1. I. Nonadaptive physics and chemistry (harmonic hamiltonian wave systems) : Minimize Action, subject to conservation constraints.

2. II. Adaptive physics or biology (membrane bound duplicating polymer‐copolymer hamiltonian systems) : Maximize Survival, subject to energy constraints.

3. III. Sentient physics or sociopsychology (neuromatrix hamiltonian systems) : Maximize subjective Happiness, subject to survival constraints and

4. IV. Representational physics or language (a symbolic combinatorial routine): Maximizes the Information Gain, subject to happiness constraints.

The world can then be viewed as a perpetual superfluid computer implicitly using the epistemology of Axiom I as a world program to process the physical data base, c > 0, of Axiom II into world evolution. After evolving through Systems I and II, mankind, i.e., System III, evolves as an internal metacomputer which makes the combinatorial program explicit and uses it to put all four primary systems in standard hamiltonian theory (pseudo‐category) format and terminology. This can be viewed as a generalization of the Darwinian variation‐and‐selection theme in which combinatorial‐variation is recursively hamiltonian‐selected thereby incrementing world logic and logic constraints on successive primary systems. Because Universal Physics and Universal Grammar are functor‐related homologous concrete and abstract combinatorial pseudocategories, related by a pseudo‐functor, thus, differing only in the presence and absence, respectively, of the World Constants, c ≥ 0, they constitute, ipso facto, Universal Science (Formal Philosophy, World Evolution, World Unification, Explicit Theory of Everything, ETOE, or Axiomatic World Theory).

QED: Because intricate verified predictions, ranging from particles to personality types, mental disorders, political parties and the abstract sciences, result from a system which is merely expanding to fill its possibility set, it is concluded that the world is lawful and that this means it is an object deterministic but not fully analytically determinable combinatorial system. In the object domain, the world is system‐number complete at four. Dually, in the analytical codomain, understanding of it is approximately complete, as measured by a world information gain function. Hence, the dualistic, analysand‐analyzer world program is finite and has dualistic completion criteria, as required of an involuted program.     

A two-stage algorithm for assessing violations of additivity via axiomatic and numerical conjoint analysis

An algorithm for assessing additivity conjunctively via both axiomatic conjoint analysis and numerical conjoint scaling is described. The algorithm first assesses the degree of individual differences among sets of rankings of stimuli, and subsequently examines either individual or averaged data for violations of axioms necessary for an additive model. The axioms are examined at a more detailed level than has been previously done. Violations of the axioms are broken down into different types. Finally, a nonmetric scaling of the data can be done based on either or both of two different badness-of-fit scaling measures. The advantages of combining all of these features into one algorithm for improving the diagnostic value of axiomatic conjoint measurement in evaluating additivity are discussed.     

Two new test statistics for the rasch model

It is shown that the presently available statistical tests for the Rasch model are insensitive to violation of the unidimensionality axiom. Two new test statistics are presented. The first one,Q ₁, is sensitive to the same effects as the presently available statistics, but has some desirable properties of a nonstatistical nature. The second statistic,Q ₂, is sensitive to violation of local stochastic independence and unidimensionality and thus fills an existing gap.     

一拍即合：选择闭合影响最优化型决策风格者选择超载的中介机制

本研究通过3个研究探讨最优化型决策风格者更易选择超载的内在机制、以及如何缓解最优化型决策风格者选择超载。结果发现：(1)相较于满意型决策风格者,最优化型决策风格者更易选择超载;(2)选择闭合低是导致最优化型决策风格者选择超载的心理机制;(3)躯体闭合动作能够有效启动选择闭合感知,缓解最优化型决策风格者选择超载的负面作用。本研究对选择超载和最优化研究具有一定理论贡献,同时为消费者和商家提供实践启示。     

Myers‐Briggs typology and Jungian individuation

Myers‐Briggs typology is widely seen as equivalent to and representative of Jungian theory by the users of the Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and similar questionnaires. However, the omission of the transcendent function from the theory, and the use of typological functions as its foundation, has resulted in an inadvertent reframing of the process of individuation. This is despite some attempts to integrate individuation and typology, and reintroduce the transcendent function into Myers‐Briggs theory. This paper examines the differing views of individuation in Myers‐Briggs and Jungian theory, and some of the challenges of reconciling those differences, particularly in the context of normality. It proposes eight principles, drawn mainly from Jungian and classical post‐Jungian work, that show how individuation as a process can be integrated with contemporary Myers‐Briggs typology. These principles show individuation as being a natural process that can be encouraged outside of the analytic process. They make use of a wide range of opposites as well as typological functions, whilst being centred on the transcendent function. Central to the process is the alchemical image of the caduceus and a practical interpretation of the axiom of Maria, both of which Jung used to illustrate the process of individuation.     

The combined effects of risk and time on choice: Does uncertainty eliminate the immediacy effect? Does delay eliminate the certainty effect?

Researchers have noted parallels between decisions under uncertainty and over time. Three experiments evaluated the theory that uncertainty and time affect choice via a common underlying dimension, such that delaying an outcome is equivalent to making it uncertain. To test this account we asked whether adding uncertainty to outcomes would eliminate the immediacy effect bias. We also asked whether adding time delay to outcomes would eliminate the certainty effect bias. The answer to both questions was yes, provided the prospects were presented singly rather than jointly. In single evaluation uncertainly eliminated the immediacy effect and delay eliminated one form of the certainty effect, while in joint evaluation, these effects did not occur. These findings suggest that at least in some contexts decision makers may equate risk and delay. Other explanations are possible, however, demonstrating that the interaction between risk and delay is complex and not easily understood.     

Locomotion, assessment, and regulatory fit: Value transfer from “how” to “what”

Regulatory fit is experienced when people pursue a goal in a manner that sustains their regulatory orientation. Previous research on promotion and prevention orientations has found that regulatory fit increases people’s perception that a decision they made was “right,” which in turn transfers value to the decision outcome, including being willing to pay more for a product than those who chose the same product without regulatory fit (Higgins, 2000; Higgins et al., in press). We predicted that the effect of regulatory fit on monetary value could be generalized to locomotion and assessment orientations. Participants were willing to pay over 40% more for the same book-light when it was chosen with a strategy that fit their regulatory orientation (assessment/“full evaluation”; locomotion/“progressive elimination”) than when it was chosen with a non-fit strategy.     

Neuroscience and the possibility of locally determined choices: Reply to Adina Roskies and Eddy Nahmias

In a previous paper, I argued that neuroscience and psychology could in principle undermine libertarian free will by providing support for a subset of what I called “statements of local determination.” I also argued that Libet-style experiments have not so far supported statements of that sort. In a commentary to the paper, Adina Roskies and Eddy Nahmias accept the claim about Libet-style experiments, but reject the claim about the possibilities of neuroscience. Here, I explain why I still disagree with their conclusion, despite being sympathetic to a lot of what they say in support of it.