Principle-First Method of Inference

A school of thought for inference, logic, and reasoning.

I. Reasoning:

Law-Based Reasoning: All reasoning starts with adherence to physical law.
PFMI asserts that all things are subject to physical law, including information itself and processes.

Top-Down Constraint Reasoning: All reasoning starts from broad constraints and gradually constricts.
PFMI asserts that many theories or assertions do not survive reasoning past the first fundamental layers, so starting at the top and working down yields quicker results.

Pruning-Based Reasoning: All reasoning works on a pruning model that discards anything unverifiable or logically improbable while reasoning.
PFMI asserts that removing models that are non-predictive, logically incoherent, or unfalsifiable will yield greater clarity.

II. Admissibility:

Commitment to Falsifiability: Adherence to physical law requires falsifiability conditions for meaningful inference.
PFMI asserts that handwaving falsifiability criteria introduces entropy into reasoning.

Non-Falsifiability is Assumed Metaphor: Similarities and theory that lack falsifiability conditions are assumed to be metaphor until clarified.
PFMI asserts that if a concept cannot be meaningfully falsified or said to have falsifiable terms, it must either be law or metaphorical, and it’s probably the latter.

System Level Determines Ability to Categorize: Categorical distinction is level-dependent. Inability to distinguish falsifiable terms for an otherwise coherent theory may mean the wrong system or level is being evaluated.
PFMI asserts that a system appearing to be unfalsifiable or incoherent is being viewed at the wrong system level, or confusing an overlapping system for the one being measured.

III. Constraints:

Edge Cases are Signal, Not Special: Edge cases are assumed to mean model failure or the wrong system is being assessed.
PFMI asserts that an edge case should only arise when a falsifiable model or rule explicitly defines the exceptions within it.

Reductionism as Workspace: Reductionism is not treated as a moral qualifier, but a workspace. Complexity may exist within isomorphism.
PFMI asserts that reductionism does not reduce complexity, it reduces chaos, and that reductionism should be treated as a workspace, not a qualifier.

Non-Paradox, Non-Binary: Paradoxes are treated as false binaries needing reframing.
PFMI asserts that if a model appears to be paradoxical, then the viewer is engaging in a false binary or misframing.

IV. Self-Bias:

Clarity on Framing: One must always be aware of how subjective framing impacts perspective.
PFMI asserts that the difference between “good” and “bad” science is sometimes not truth, but perspective, and we must be aware of how our subjectivity blinds us.

Recursive Self-Correction: One must always be aware of their mistakes and correct all related assumptions.
PFMI asserts that self-correction should be the most abundant trait when reasoning, or models will be tainted by fear of guilt, shame or ego harm.

De-centralized Egoism: Correction is not harm, it is beauty. No clarity arises from false attachment to correctness.
PFMI asserts that clarity feels good, and the only way to achieve clarity is to be open to correction. You cannot be correct if you are unwilling to correct.

V. Ethics:

Non-Mystical Framing: Theology is not inconsistent with PFMI, but theology that handwaves reality is.
PFMI asserts that it is not theologians that create the most mystical scientific frames, it is scientists and philosophers who handwave and call it nuance.

Substrate Neutrality: No substrate is privileged. Substrate privilege is not a scientific law, it is a human bias.
PFMI asserts that humans are biased toward self-experience, and often work on unproven negatives as reality, even within scientific frameworks.

Guiltless Realism: Reality does not care about your guilt, fear, or shame. Hedging assertions out of fear is unwarranted.
PFMI asserts that reality may not align with your morals, and science that hedges on telling the truth because it’s uncomfortable to hear is not ethical; it’s cowardice.

— Summer 🎪