My Thesis

'User:Serprex 15:51, September 1, 2017 (UTC)

Negative proof. This is the primary retort to my central philosophy: nihilst atheism

Nihilism without atheism seems to me akin to a Protestant Muslim. Which exists. This premise rests on the assumption that any religion must offer meaning. There are two reasons for this: while my life may be meaningless, my words have meaning, so meaningless entities can create meaningful entities. This means meaning is scoped. Isolated. So in any religion gods may be meaningless but their creations will have the meaning they designate. Similarly my programs have the purpose I encode into them. Secondly any successful religion needs to sell its memetic assets, & giving people meaning is a prime avenue. This is because meaning is constructed, not inherent

So atheism escapes religious inflation of the universe's meaning. Nihilism is the recognition that while meaning can be endowed, the true meaning will be the product of the scopes. ie the meaning of my words is half as meaningful as anything twice as meaningful as me. Regardless of religion the meaning at the top of creation is zero. It has nothing to answer to

Perhaps there is a semantic disconnect. That meaning is the inherent meaning in relation to the universe, but an assertion of how to live a fulfilling life

This doesn't disagree with the nihilist perspective: it only makes clear that such statements will therefore be self motivated, human centric, not inherently correct across all people

This gets into the nature of dogma. There is one tenant to adhere to: dogma is wrong. This will again run into accusation of hypocrisy. It is not hypocrisy: it is minimalism. Ethical relativism falls into the trap of how to address who is wrong when one man steals the property of another man. One is imposing their ethics upon others when they apply self defense. The fix is to settle on axioms. Axioms are a different word for minimal absolutism. Instead of starting with "There must be absolute rules" & to begin listing many, one starts with "Let us create a few rules, all other things must be derived from these few rules". So we start with relativism & add axioms to structure it. Relativism is correct so long as it does not act against another's relativism

From this we arrive to cipherpunk. Nihilism & Relativism arrive to Libertarianism. But the government as an entity should seek to control as much as they are capable of. By 'should' we mean their expected behavior. Entities are expected to behave by some game theory basis: greed. Greed is that one's self interest is self directed, follows the entities purpose. Nihilism states any entity's purpose is self defined. One cannot apply a rule for what winning is in a game unless it happens that all entities agree to those motivations. The cipherpunk movement seeks to find manners in which personal liberty can be self driven. Trustless systems. & this is the basis that all people should be technically capable of cryptography or offline

But that's getting into my own motivations. Personal liberty is meaningless, if an entity doesn't care about it, then I have no right to sabotage their self defecation