
Fundamental
Problems for Research and Resolution
Book and Journal of Mattanaw
Draft
Publisher: PlaynText, Tempe, Arizona
Copyright © 2024 by Mattanaw. All Rights Reserved.
Publisher: PlaynText Location: Tempe, Arizona
PlaynText is dedicated to the publication of high quality journal
publications issued in premium book format, as book/journal hybrids.
Each publication is intended to be an illustration, potentially, of the
maximum and least-inhibited use of free thought and free expression.
Copying, distributing, plagiarising, processing, storing, and serving
the contents of this book is a violation of intellectual property,
unless otherwise indicated by the copyright holder elsewhere, as it
relates to this specific issue of the Book and Journal of Mattanaw. For
permission to use any contents of this book, please contact the author
at http://mattanaw.org/com.html.
Published by PlaynText, Inc, companies wholly owned by the author,
Mattanaw, Mattanaw, (formerly “Christopher Matthew Cavanaugh”).
Printed in Tempe, Arizona, in the United States of America.
Published and printed by PlaynText, an imprint of PlaynText, Inc.
The Publisher is not responsible for the content of others produced
on websites, applications, social media platforms, or information
related storage or AI systems. The processing of this Book and Journal
by an AI System is prohibited.
Library of Congress Control Number (pending)
Library of Congress ISSNs: 2998-713X (Online), 2998-7121 (Print)
Artist/Author: The Honorable Dr.9 Mattanaw, Christopher Matthew
Cavanaugh, Retired
Interdisciplinarian with Immeasurable Intelligence. Lifetime Member
of the High Intelligence Community.6
- Masters Business & Economics, Harvard
University (In Progress)
- Attorney, Pro Se, Litigation, Trial, Depositions, Contracts (E.g.
State of Alaska v. Pugh, et. al., Alaska Superior and Supreme
Courts)4
- B.S. Psychology, University of Maryland, 4.0, Summa Cum Laude1
- B.S. Computer & Information Science, University of Maryland,
3.91, Magna Cum Laude2
- B.A. Philosophy, University of Maryland.3
- G.E.D., State of Maryland, Montgomery County, 1999.
- Lifetime Member of the High Intelligence Community, Mensa
Lifetime Member
Former Chief Architect, Adobe Systems
Current President/Advisor, Social Architects and Economists
International.
CEO PlaynText | CEO PlainText
Contact:
Resumé
- 156 Wanattomians, Epoch 1735975679, Saturday, January 04, 2025
15:27:59, Perth, Australia
- Monday, July 25th, 2022, at 4:48 PM Alaska
Time
Introduction
Recently I have considered that in a number of settings we do not
have simple lists for working on tasks that would benefit many. For
example, in government, there is no backlog of tasks that have been
identified that should be prioritized for future politicians and
leaders. The result of this lack of backlog and tasks, is that they
don’t know what to work on next, or can find things to do, unrelated to
our needs. This helps them avoid work, because if we don’t know what
needs to be accomplished, they can get away with doing things unrelated
that simply benefit them or allow them to avoid work.
Additionally, since there appears to be a lack of creativity about
which problems are worth working on, many fields would benefit from
having some pointers about where to spend time and attention. This is
known in mathematics as a notable mathematician left a list of important
unsolved problems that did end up being fruitful for the development of
the field.
Below I have prepared various lists by category on problems that seem
very important to be solved. These problems may indicate that other
problems are illusory, meaning it may be that people are working on the
wrong objectives and tasks. The first list prepared is on social issues
which appear to need resolution. The very first social issue and problem
being tackled here, is the need to have lists from which to work, rather
than no lists at all.
- Fundamental Before
- Fundamental After
- Fundamental Outside
- Fundamental Within
- One and the Many
- The problem of the one and the many is an ancient problem that has
not been totally resolved to anyone’s complete satisfaction. This
problem concerns the nature of objects, their relations, and their
parts, and interest in this question involves other questions such as
“Is the universe a whole or is it merely composed of parts?”, and “What
does a name or word really represent that’s real?”. The second of these
questions is related to this problem because there are ambiguities about
whether larger composite objects are “things” that have unity and
reality apart from the constituent parts, and this creates confusions
related to language and naming. “Do I name the apparent larger composite
thing, or do I simply name the parts? If I find it useful to name the
larger thing, does it matter that the parts outlive it, and that it
comes to an end? How do we account for the fact that it undergoes
change, which are explained by the parts but changes the whole?
Mathematically, do I assign a one to the whole, or do I focus on
numbering the parts, modeling on the basis of the parts without regard
for naming the whole? Notice that naming a whole does not model the
whole, it just refers to it and is a pointer?” Here I am adding in my
own instinctive understanding for related problems and questions and not
only those that have been contributed historically by other
philosophers. The problem of the one and the many affects almost
everything that one can think about, because it involves fundamental
mathematics and linguistics. If our understanding of this problem were
altered at a popular level, culture would be dramatically changed, and
how we speak would be different.
- Is/Ought
- The is/ought problem was articulated by the Philosopher David Hume
in his work “A Treatise of Human Nature”, and concerns the issue of
transitioning logically from facts to inferences about what shoudl or
should not be. Hume has written that he holds the view that there is no
way to transition logically from how things are, to what one should do.
I do not happen to agree with him on this point, and have a resolution
to offer that will appear eventually in the text Inferring to Moral
Conclusions. In this text, it will be shown a process for analyzing
how things are such that one can determine what one should do, in a way
that is not definitive with great specificity about acts that are to be
performed, but those that are preferable or optimal in various ways. I
will not give away the answer to that here, where I am merely sharing
the problem that many philosophers have not resolved. Hume has really
identified a serious issue to be solved. If one looks at the current
state of the world, people are quick to make claims about how one should
act, what one should do, how things should be, how lives should be
lived, and all these conclusions are supposed to inferred from various
truths and facts, but one finds that people do not know in what way!
This means they have no foundation for these concluslions, although some
of the conclusions they would come up with, would include some good
qualities. But they are not final, and they do not identify right acts!
Only optional acts! An implication is that disagreement between people
with radically different viewpoints cannot be settled, and since
identification of what one ought to do is about what how one would
proceed morally, it happens to mean that there is an unsolved
indeterminacy, for all humankind, stretching back to the beginning of
time, about what morality really recommends. Additionally, people hold
that cultures are equal, which would imply that there is no way to
determine which of any alternative recommendation from different
cultures is the one that ought to be followed, which means that people
are in a limbo of believing both that morality is definitive
and that it is relative. That is a contradiction. This problem
then is one that is a severe cultural affliction and it happens to tell
us something somewhat negative about the state of the world that we live
in today, and the state of the world of humans living since humans have
come to exist.
- Beginnings and Ends in Inanimate Nature
- Is it justifiable to say there has been a beginning and an end to
something, when a celestial object stops rotating? Conservation of
motion, and other conservations, indicate that there is a non-terminus,
and this non-termination may cause us to think that the stopping of a
rotation was not an end to anything so significant as we might think.
This relates to the existence of the object too. If the object is
absorbed into another object, or has been spewn from an object, in what
sense has it begun, and ended, when it would simply be the end of a
process potentially, involving that body that spewed it and later
consumed it.
- Object Existence Or Non-Existence
- Sometimes an aggregate mass will separate from another aggregate
mass in space, due to conditions that create separation. Does this
separation justify the thought that there are two new bodies? Like with
cell division, if an inanimate body is cleaved, are there two? Suppose
those two were never recombined, are they always until they are changed,
two things? But then, was the first ever one? Because we simply have not
had its history, to know that it has been earlier combined with another
aggregate. This question would relate to the entire solar system, and
galaxies too, since what each body is, is simply an aggregate cleaved
from other aggregates, or aggregates formed from other smaller
aggregates.
- Backlog for politicians. This problem is of not having a
clear set of items to work on in government. While there is much that is
argued about, from topic to topic, there exists no list which indicates
what work really needs to be done by a new leader, or by government,
which can be openly examined and prioritized by the public.
- Lawyer Presence vs. Non-Presence. This issue relates to
relationships with law enforcement. What would change in interactions
with Law Enforcement if a very good lawyer or set of lawyers were always
present for every interaction?
- Ejection of Trespassers. If someone is breaking into your
home, or property, or is trespassing on your land, what actions may you
legally take to eject them? What does ‘ejection’ mean and what are the
legal consequences of various common acts of ejection? Is one in danger
by ejecting a trespasser or someone breaking and entering, by simply
ejecting them? It appears there is a serious issue unresolved in being
able to repel dangerous or unwanted individuals from self, on one’s
property.
Draft, more soon