Worldview

1.1   Our Truth in History

Firstly, we take an exclusively Historiographical approach to our knowledge of our past, especially our understanding of "hard facts", because we do not believe that anything can (or should) be understood outside our own self-referential viewpoint. Most view this belief as a curse of relativistic ambiguity which inevitably leads into morass: we believe that in fact it is a tremendous source of power, because old, limited knowledge otherwise unchanged can become transformed into new, more powerful understanding over time. However, this requires not making the semantic typing errors in absolute truth constructs so commonly practised in poststructuralist analysis. See Relativity Is Absolute.

1.2   Our Truth in Logic

We place paradox logic (properly known as Dialetheism) at the absolute core of our worldview, especially with regard to the specific formulation of our computer models. This choice will make most in academic Philosophy livid with anger (in our opinion it is actually fear), but then academic Philosophy is still stuck for the most part in the world of Kant and to be blunt, they need to grow up and accept that the Philosophy of Science is the contemporary Philosophy of our time in the way that Kant himself understood Philosophy to mean. One certainly realises that most of the Philosophical advances of the 20th century were achieved far outside academic philosophy if one examines any university philosophy department in the Western world, and much of their reticence in embracing the new thinking is due to the fundamental uncertainties introduced by early 20th century revelations in Mathematics (particularly the chaotic topologies of Henri Poincaré) and Physics (particularly the paradoxes of quantum physics). 19th century Philosophers see these fundamental uncertainties as a bad, destabilising thing - we, quite literally, see them as the breath of God: uncertainty => potential => food.

People will no doubt accuse us of using our adoption of paradox logic as a convenient excuse to ignore internal self-consistency. It is true that paradox logic lets you simply say "this model uses these rules and assumptions due to the use of these boundaries" and then proceed to arbitrarily burn and recreate afresh for the next model, thus causing incommensurability on a scale not traditionally accepted in Western scholasticism, even in poststructuralist discourse (see Wikipedia:Principle_of_explosion). While this accusation may have some merit from a certain boundary set, we absolutely adhere at all times to The Universal Rules Of All Existence.

In truth, we see paradox logic as that logic which lives on the boundary between cognitive systems - it is the sliver of infinitely structured chaos where formal boundaries begin and end, and just like chaotic systems or fractal geometries, it is the source of Our Creative Connection With God. This is an extension of the sentiment:

Dialetheia arise at the borders of expressibility, in a number of philosophical contexts other than formal semantics

... expressed by Graham Priest who was one of the original formulators of Dialethism (and who by the way teaches at St. Andrews University, Scotland), though do note that Graham Priest does not agree whatsoever with our inclusion of God (he holds it as a could but with an inference of unnecessary complication).

1.3   Our Truth in God

If there is one thing about our worldview more likely to upset Europeans than any other, it is the placement of God not just at the centre of our worldview, but also quite literally at the centre of our accounting and business proposals. Europeans, especially older ones, tend to be aghast with such ideas - even mid-West Americans who tend to be a fairly religious bunch appear somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of directly incorporating God into the accounting system.

From a long-term historical perspective, this reluctance seems both warranted and weird. Firstly, one of the most obvious hallmarks of every known human civilisation is the widespread and systemic belief in some form of deity (usually polytheistic, and usually partially humanised and animalised representations of vital forces) and as Wikipedia:Joseph_Campbell so wonderfully illustrates, it is we in the late 20th and early 21st century who are the aberration and much of that is due to the peculiarities of European history.

There has been a long-term European trend of extracting society from the dogmatic hand of the Roman Catholic Church which was really what the Roman Empire converted itself into in order to survive as the Dark Ages approached, and far too often the word "God" is perceived as having a strong identity with the word "religion" when religion is man's response to the fear of God and therefore has very little to actually do with God Himself per se. Religion when at its best searches for a deeper understanding of the light of truth, however once again that is man's search and again, doesn't have much to do with God. God is both the destination of the journey and is the source of motion - but God has little to do with the choice of path of journey except by enabling the existence of choice and therefore multiple paths to the same destination. It is very similar to having children: they owe their entire existence to their parents, but it is hardly like their daily choices have much to do with their parents or anything about their parents. Why we should follow one logic with our own kith and kin and yet something totally different when it involves God makes no sense except as a response of fear. We seem to like to blame God for our (usually self-created) misery, yet are remarkably ungrateful when times are good. It is almost like we try our best to not think about God except when forced to do so - again, another sign of fear.

We therefore need to stop being afraid of God, and we especially need to get over our entirely cultural association of God with the restrictive and often regressive control practised by religions. God has infinite aspects, and we see no difficulty with Him having an "accounting" or "mathematical" aspect. Indeed, our computer models sometimes treat God as infinity in time (and we approximate accordingly through induction or series collapse), sometimes as infinity in number (and once again we approximate accordingly through induction or abduction) and sometimes as infinity in variance (which is better known as "randomness" or "mathematical/deterministic chaos"). Put simply, God is where our models break down and a "leap of faith" must be made into a new "island of truth" (see Wikipedia:Gregory_Chaitin).

You don't need to believe in God or accept the existence of God in any of the proposals made in Neo-Capitalism - that's your personal choice and it remains that way. We certainly don't ram any deity down anyone's throats. Put simply, having God around makes building and interpreting the computer models easier and hence we tend to use Him for that and that alone: as a simplification tool which greatly enhances the understandability of the models and proposals. If you want, you can replace the word "God" with "Universe" or even "Karma".

1.4   Our Truth in Science

We make some significantly "drastic" changes to how we interpret science, though none of these are incompatible with empirical evidence (and in fact, our approach makes many "insoluble" problems much more tractable). Fundamentally speaking we believe in a much enhanced superset of the terribly named Wikipedia:Digital_philosophy [1] cosmology which holds that the universe is a quantum computer which computes through reduction of paradox (and therefore uncertainty) - our most significant difference is that we don't see digital states as being the primary state of anything, instead we see "unreduced paradox" as being the primary state and therefore the primary mode of computation. In particular, we hold:

1. The universe is resolved by itself into self-contradictory bits, with each bit made of smaller bits.
2. These self-contradictory bits, or paradoxes, form a fractal structure in truth-space. One can have chains of truths and meta-truths, but one can also have islands of truths and meta-truths which have no connection to other islands of truth. One can periodicity superimposed upon other periodicity yet without causation - however lack of causation has no relation to interaction as islands of truths can and do interact through their being understood via a meta-structure.
3. Anything which can understand must maintain memory. Therefore, all structure is embodied and encapsulated memory. We quite literally mean by this that a rock, through its structure, is a living memory and indeed represents a slice of all that has ever happened.
4. Memory and structure is alive i.e. nothing, absolutely nothing isn't growing.
5. Emotion is the primary communication language of the universe [2]. Mathematics is the primary descriptive language of the universe.

This equivalence of the structure of physical matter with living memory allows the traditionally disparate realms of cognitive and psychological theory to be united with physical science - in fact, holding this simple equivalence has proved a tremendously productive source of creative inspiration in generating our proposals, and one wonders why it is not commonly held by just about everyone out of sheer usefulness. Of course the consequence is that now that absolutely everything is alive and feels emotion which obviously changes the moral consequence of many of our actions.