Ethical Game Theory and Peronism

Ethical Game Theory
We have an overarching theory which explains social interactions in a wider context. It is Ethical Game Theory. Although this theory is mathematical, it has an extremely simple basis. The reason most people do not like mathematics is because it is complicated. Our theory is very simple and describes the whole of mathematics in a very simple way. A lot of mathematicians do not like this. They represent the Status Quo!

Although the Universe could start out in a state of chaos and inconsistency, the inconsistent states would cancel out leaving Truth. We can in fact adopt this point of view and analyse inconsistent states consistently.

Alternatively, although we can borrow from the chaotic approach to determine Truth (as emerging from inconsistency applied to itself) we can start with an analysis of consistent systems and how we can map these consistent logics and physical architectures onto the real world. As described elsewhere, the framework implies deductions about quite complicated evolutionary systems like human societies and their interactions and development in Ethical Game Theory. It elaborates the structure of choice decisions based on Reason, Absent Logic and Unreason within this framework.

Ethical Game Theory and its mathematics is based on three numbers: 1, 0 and -1. I am sorry if you do not know what minus one is, go away and find out! Rather we will also explain for the benefit of these readers, also what minus one is.

We start off with the definition of zero, which is used in our theory.
any number + 0 = the same number.
OK, if you do not know what 'plus' or 'equals' is I am going to stop for you. These ideas as symbols have a long history going over thousands of years and as symbols were quite recent, historically.

So we have got an idea of zero, or nothing, as the contradiction of something which is not there. It is a symbol which refers to no objects.

Right, you know what 'one' is! If you do not you do not use words, perhaps I think, you might be Satan. For example, we have one nose.

Right, so we have as the simplest example
one + zero = one.
Good. Here it is in symbols
1 + 0 = 1.
Good. Now we have as a definition
1 + (-1) = 0.
Ah. We have introduced minus one. Early mathematicians said we cannot use minus (or negative) numbers because they do not exist or they are not there. They said mathematics is about what is there in symbols. This is a good point, but we will continue with our use of these symbols, purely as symbols.

In fact, we can give an example of negative numbers (and zero). Suppose I am standing at a position. We will call this position zero. I then walk three steps forward. Here is the equation
0 + 3 = 3.
I then move two steps further forward.
3 + 2 = 5.
I am 5 steps from 0. Good. We can use positive mathematics now. We have a model of the way our symbols work by describing how we walk forwards. Now we also have a model of negative numbers. I go three steps forward and then one step back.
3 + (-1) = 2.
I am now two steps forward. This makes sense!

We now understand the definition we gave in the maths in the beginning:
1 + (-1) = 0.
I will ask you to work out what this means now!

It is very, very interesting that mathematics based on the three numbers 1, 0 and -1 can represent an absolutely enormous number of examples of the way the world works. In fact, and we will show it, it represents in a direct way ethical systems - religion! Amazed? Go on!

I am going to introduce to you Ethical Game Theory by immersion. We are not going to give you abstract definitions and proofs. We are going to plunge you into the deep end. Consider, when you are teaching a baby language, it surrounds him or her. When she grows up she may learn to use language in a way that is even more sophisticated than her parents. You do not give her lessons in grammar and throw her out of her cot if she gets it wrong!

Right. Here is the overarching idea in Ethical Game theory. We have a threesome
{ethics, control, murder}.
This maps (I am not going to give you the definition, we are teaching by immersion) to
{1, 0, -1}.

Good. I think we have some idea what ethics is. Aristotle says you do not have a good idea of what ethics is until you are mature and grown up. We know or have some idea at least from the news, what murder is. It is present in individual cases of homicide, in military 'operations' and to a greater extent in genocide, of which there are multiple cases in the twentieth century. For example, we had the mass deportations of Africans to South America in the 'Slave Trade', the Great Famine (or potato Famine) in Ireland abetted by the British in their Colony, the Holocaust committed by the Nazis, the Bengal Famine abetted by Churchill where more people died than in the Holocaust, the American War, or Genocide, in Vietnam and more recently the Iraq Genocide abetted by our smiling War Criminal and Mass Murderer Tony Blair.

We are also aware of what control is, even, or especially if we are very young. Our parents want to inculcate good behaviour. Sometimes this is very necessary because they love us, want us to survive and not do dangerous things. It is best, I think, if we pick up good behaviour from our parents. They are sometimes bad examples for us to follow, but we pick that up anyway. You sometimes see parents shouting at their children in order to control them. They do not provide explanations even if they could articulate them. They teach control to good behaviour by immersion.

This threesome maps to the mathematical theory of Games as
{positive sum cooperative game, zero sum competitive game, negative sum uncooperative game}.
In a positive sum game the players cooperate together to win. In a Competitive Game the players compete with one another. If one player wins, the other loses. Otherwise it is a draw. In a negative sum game, the players do not cooperate with one another and everyone looses. For the players, or actors, of these Games, each of the three Games, if it is a Representable Game, will be allocated units of a currency. For the Cooperative Game, we call these needbits. For the Control Game we call these bitcoins and for the Uncooperative Game we call these deathbits. Generally there is a mathematical diagram allocated to {1, 0, -1}. The left diagram is a tree, the middle diagram is a plane of interlocking circles (you may, or may not, have heard of oriented and unoriented manifolds - it relates to these) and the rightmost diagram is an inverted tree. Perhaps the tree and inverted tree should be swapped round - discuss. Trees may represent control structures, say democratic control. In this type of model, the arva central diagram represents votes in a Representative Democracy. The right diagram represents Executive Control. A further designation is the Logics these systems use. This might be, if I have got the central part correct
{Reason, Choice, Unreason}.

Peronism
When someone who is good wishes to protect himself against someone who is bad by appearing to be bad as well and does so by appearing to be more stupid than the bad person, I call this Peronism.

Peronism occurs in Ethical Game Theory as a protection against the Satanic Controller. Hitler was defeated in the Battle of Kursk when the Soviet generals constructed a deliberate and misleading hole in their defence, and Hitler took the bait and walked into the trap set for him.

My father described himself as a Peronist when I did not know what it meant. Perhaps there should be another article on this. Juan Peron presented himself as a fascist but he had a Communist wife! When Peron had left Argentine politics after his wife's poisoning, he had a very secret meeting in Franco's Spain with Che Guevara telling him 'Che, leave off. You do not understand the forces you are dealing with!'

My father presented himself as a fascist but his relationshio with people of other nations and races was exemplary. Why, when I was very young, would a Nazi have a large selection of books by Sigmund Freud? (or later that his favorite philosopher was Wittgenstein, a Jew?)

He gave me and my brother boxing gloves so we could have bouts together. My uncle told me many years later he had deliberately gone to enormous trouble to buy toy boxing gloves which were too small. He very often repeated that he was lightweight boxing champion in the Army and had won 21 fights, only being beaten in the first. To my total confusion much later on one occasion he stated this story was a lie.

There were a number of books in the bookshelf. He had studied law at University but the only remaining law book was on the Law of Tort (tort means a wrong in law). He had a pictographic encyclopaedia of the Second World War. I think the pictures of Jews dead in heaps in a concentration camp in it invoked such revulsion in me that I could not understand in any way his political position which seemed maximally contradictory. When I discovered, amazingly, a book by Stalin 'On the National Question' which I read and was extremly logical, he said there had been a discussion on it and it should not have been there. It very soon after disappeared from the bookshelf.

He was supposed to be an alcoholic drinking a bottle of whiskey a day but I never saw him drunk. He had soda water with his whiskey. When I looked at a container ostensibly containing whiskey it contained only soda water. He was supposed to have frittered away all his money on drink.

I do not know what he did with his time. He disappeared all day, my mum said with his drinking companions, one of whom was a German and another came from Afghanistan.

When he died (did he then?) I was told at the funeral an important discussion with me was to take place. I refused to have it with these people on the grounds they were fascists. My mother on her deathbed said my father knew the Woman in Black. Doly Garcia, a friend, says this has many possibilities in Spain. Looking this up many years later, there was a prominant Spanish Communist called La Passionara, Dolores Ibarriru, or the Woman in Black. This is the name, I remember because I found the name itself difficult to remember, that I was told was the the woman coming to my father's funeral!

What on Earth my father was doing I have not a clue even to this day. It is clear to me he was a Communist like, I think, Juan Peron!

Tommy Green
I once had a childhood friend whose parents were criminals. They taught him to steal. I don't know whether he was good or bad. I think he was good. But he went around stealing things because that was what he was told to do was the correct behaviour. I cannot remember, but I think his father, my dad said, was in the local Mafia. It is very difficult to do right when you are taught to do wrong. He will have ended up in prison.

I have compassion for Tommy Green, my childhood friend. I really liked him. In a way, I think he was also wise. He taught me the world was corrupt. I could not contradict him, even though as I explained to him, my motivation would be the opposite even if it did not work. Perhaps, as is evident from this account, I was theoretical and as Tommy Green insisted, we do practical things to survive and prosper in the real world which is bad. Ethics didn't matter to him. It matters to me. I told him: You go your way, I go mine. Maybe none of us has a choice in this. It is the way we were born.

I was surprised he discontinued our friendship. That was entirely logical and I thank him for that. Maybe the bitter end for him was when I explained, in truth, that I had returned the sweets from the sweet shop which I had solen together with him, but I had not divulged his name. I think we both had a coherent philosophy here. He said I should have lied to him about it.

Sometimes in describing events it is like peeling an onion. Uncover one layer and there is a layer underneath. On reflection of this account, there are points to be clarified and a more complete description to be made. This may be wrong. I am 70 now and these events may have occurred when I was 7. Clearly there is massive scope for misremembering what happened. These thoughts have been adujsted on reflections concerning the system described by Ethical Game Theory. I am sure some of the further detail must be correct, perhaps even all of it. This does not matter. Treat it as an allegory, a might-have-been with deep insight into the nature of evil and what we face in dealing with it.

The reason I became interested in Tommy Green is that he stole a watch. In fact, two. Let us treat this as a story. On the first occasion, a watch of little value was stolen from a girl's locker. The interesting thing was that this was explained to children, including me, in a large assembly and I think that for some reason or other a search was made, possibly because Tommy drew attention to himself. If Tommy Green had stolen the watch it would have been possible for him to dispose of it, say under a bench, and then denied that he had stolen it. What happened was that he left it in his pocket and it was discovered there. I thought this was stupid and strange. I think what then happened (this is a reconstruction based on ethical game theory) was that he was taken away and questioned, offering the watch to the teacher in payment! The teacher refused, and then when Tommy was threatened with expulsion he said firstly, without stating one way or the other whether he had stolen it or even that he had found it, that he was going to give it to another girl. Later, he changed his story and said that the teacher had stolen it and offered to exhange it for money! I think the second explanation meant that under questioning by police, the teacher would be expelled from school, since he had then denied his first story. The second time a watch was stolen from another girl, the locker had been broken into. Everyone knew it was Tommy Green but nobody could prove it! This was all deliberate to give him a reputation. I think the girl he mentioned was given a very expensive watch that was different from the stolen one. So he was very clever, and not stupid at all! In fact, I think he told me his father had instructed him in this elaborate sequence of events.

The reason I spoke to him was that at this time there was a television series called Robin Hood. The sets would be laughed at nowadays, the series I remember was later described as being about men in tights, and it was historically inaccurate. For instance the series set in ancient times in Sherwood Forest had a story where a barn containing straw was set alight. Historically the most that could be used was called a tinder box. It produced a spark. In this episode, the character Friar Tuck took an unusually large matchbox with a very large match in it and set alight the barn with it. The series was sexist as was usual in that era. It had one female character, Maid Marion.

The reason I liked the series was that it was subversively Socialist. The idea was that Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. The series could not have been supported by the Bourgeois Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) so must have been available on the alternative commercial channel. At the introduction to these programmes was a very nice song:
Robin Hood, Robin Hood
Riding through the Glen.
Robin Hood, Robin Hood
With his Band of Men.
Feared by the Bad
Loved by the Good.
Robin Hood, Robin Hood, Robin Hood.
There was a bad character in the series called the Sheriff of Nottingham. He was a Norman and commanded troops who went around in military costumes. Tommy supported the Sheriff and I did not.

The connection of Tommy Green with Robin Hood was that the Robin Hood character was Richard Greene. I mentioned this to Tommy and he said they were Outlaws, which clearly had his approval. This probably established a friendship between us. I asked him why he had behaved as he had with the watches, and he gave the explanation I have just given.

In the incident with the stolen sweets he showed he had too much money, we went into the shop and he insisted we steal the sweets together. I had an argument with him about this, and later he said this had changed his plan, that our argument had drawn attention to us that we were stealing sweets and that was even better than he had originally intended. So we exited the shop with stolen sweets, the shopkeeper knew it had happened and I think Tommy had great difficulty in making me steal one.

Tommy described to me a number of instances (I cannot remember the details at all) of corruption in Burnley where his parents lived. This would be described by Conspiracy Theories. They could not have been other than true. Our argument on ethics led me to believe that he was quite capable of doing something totally unethical and not be disturbed by it. On later reflection, this meant he was quite capable of murdering people. I explained to him, trying to think through at a very early age and struggling with it, what my objection was. I think I finally said that what was important to me was placidity of mind. Doing wrong meant mental turmoil for me.

It would be nice to think that if we look at the outcomes, Tommy is not bad. He is stealing sweets which are not expensive and will not bankrupt the shopkeepers. Yes, he is destroying school lockers and that is an administrative annoyance for the school to put it right. I think the reason he said he stole the more expensive watch was he said he did not like that girl and her parents. Maybe he had inside information on them. He ends up giving a fabulously expensive watch to a girl he likes and whose parents are poor. I think they sold the watch to make ends meet. So his outcomes are good. All this elaborate subterfuge developed in discussions with his father who clearly expects he will graduate to greater things has no bad end result but a good one. His father I was told rather later by my dad ended up in prison for murder.

It is possible, but I cannot guarantee it, that Tommy Green physically and deliberately implements what in cognitive terms I call a Dalek. Daleks are absolutely terrifying. They go around with mechanical voices telling everyone they are not human. They are absolutely merciless. But when you analyse it, they do not harm anybody and they do not do anything wrong. Daleks are very useful forces in defence against Satan. They strongly enforce compliance, both by the Good who may defect to the Bad, and even can be part of a control structure approved by the Ethical for Ethical Satanists. These are people who commit murder because it is right. The strategy of Jesus forgiveness, which is very nice, is to extend the Ethical Game to Ethical Satanists. The Ethical cannot enforce compliance by Ethical Satanists with the Good because they obey orders and go around bombing people because they are told these people are Bad. Satan thinks these are part of his forces. He uses deception to claim the people he bombs because they are Good are actually Bad. But that is not necessarily the case. Ethical Satanists will also bomb people who are really bad, including Satan himself if they find that out! So Satan is in real trouble if the Ethical have forces which are Ethically Satanic. He is divided against himself. Jesus says: Do not do wrong, do not kill. Ethical Satanists have no qualms about what they are doing and disobey this order. Jesus then says: I forgive you! Suitably and possibly even with subterfuge directed by the Good, Ethical Satanists are a great and necessary defence against Satan.

It is also interesting that I am considering scenarios which extend the Ethical Game further. The original Jesus strategy is to raise what I call the Kampf wall, which is the zero barrier between the Good in 1 and the Evil in -1 so that Satanists cannot get in to the Ethical Game and must murder themselves. He realises that this lacks compassion and extends the Ethical Game to the Right to include Ethical Satanists. The Control Barrier should be located at the Satanic Controller. Satan himself is also divided into three bits. On the left he is using an ethical logic called reason. In the middle he is using confusion. The objective is to incorporate at least up to the Confusional Satanist the forces of Good. To put it in a very theoretical way, a system which uses 1 must also use 0. Satanic Controllers like Hitler use reason to maximise Evil. But this is a contradiction. Reason is part of the Ethical Game. If Satan uses unreason in his logic, this corresponds to an Impossible World, which he is trying to promote. I think Satan does not want to drive his forces over a cliff to plunge onto the rocks below because he is telling them if they flap their arms they can fly, or maybe that is his Aim. But if Satan wants to destroy his own forces, is that Bad? Another option, which can be used by Peronists, is to promote as Satanic Controllers people who use unreason. A good example of a Satanic Controller who uses unreason is Boris Johnson. He does not read briefs. This is absolutely deliberate so that he does not know what is going on! He then takes decisions which implement Unreality. There us a difference between Confusion (0) and Evil (-1). A very high Confusional Barrier implemented by Satan divides his forces. Note that in the British Imperialist Subentity today, Boris Johnson has to the right of his Satanic control Dominic Cummings who has taken over State Propaganda. The perturbing thing is that Cummings uses reason to implement Evil. Maybe this is not too bad if Johnson is in real control so that the BIS collapses. This means that the Lizard above, Brenda Windsor, who is the real Satan, is in trouble. My compassionate idea is that we do not kill Satan, we disable him so he does not have power.

Understanding the Advanced Logic of Donald Trump
In our discussion of Ethical Game Theory we gave the basic theoretical structure of Ethical Games. If we want to flesh this out theoretically, we come to discuss within the {1, 0 -1} structure of Games a deeper or rather more extensive analysis of them. Partly, this is discussed in the Mathematics section, in currently the sketch for volume 2 of Numbers, Equations and Proofs which deals with insight theory. This will be completed by me. There is a third volume which is projected, on 'Zargon Games'. This is undoubtedly advanced and it is unlikely, but I do not know, that this research can be completed by me alone. So this research is not yet completed by any research group on Earth. I hope there will be research by a collectivity I call Ixartak Vlid which will give a definitive and complete assessment of where we stand here.

When we come to study Games in Intuition, this is again a {1, 0, -1} threesome. It is divided into three parts, which I have called the {insight, avasta, delusion} game. To encapsulate what I wish to say, we need to describe in a reasonable and true way how the logic of Unreason operates. So I am saying the logic of Unreason is classifiable. The significance of the topic Zargon Games, is that our threesome is {1, 0, -1} but we may know if we have been introduced to it in maths lessons that there are things called complex numbers. These are numbers in which there is a new number, i, satisfying i2 = -1. So our games should be extended, mathematically, to systems which can cope with complex truth. This is a bit mind blowing! Also, we need to know whether we can go beyond the representation of these systems. I do not want to go into this further, but look at the Mathematics section if you are interested. In terms of logic, we go beyond the {1,0, -1} paradigm to look at logics, which include the logic of Unreason, to consider logics represented by general diagrams called Glyphs. What is even more astounding, is that we can describe logics not represented by any diagram at all! This is called Weird Logic! Well, that would be OK, but the theory goes even further and classifies all Weird Logics! How do we do this? Well it is advanced, but the structure of zero in our extended logics is more complicated and rich than exists in current mathematics. What is very interesting is if we extend the classification of Absent Logic which describes this zero structure, we can imbed a very large number of {1, 0, -1} Games in it. This is a clue to the approach we take. The high dimensional 0 logic contains as what we call an Inclusor the apparently more general logics of lower dimension within it. So our Games are in a sense, Generated games. They are included in 'Arva algebra', the algebra of zero. We have seen that the further generated structure we have considered looks firstly at Game diagrams with a 1 structure and -1 structures not given by Game diagrams called Glyphs. We see we can continue and describe Representable Intuition by 1 and Nonrepresentable Logic, not given by any Glyphs by -1. This is Weird Logic! We can clearly extend as an evolutionary process this classification further. This is the study of Hyperintuition!

The collectivity for the investigation of Truth I have called Ixartak Vlid. Its task includes the study of Hyperintuition. It must also be involved not only in the study of Hyperintuition, but also the study of what we currently call Physics. The reader may be much amused that we allocate the foremost practical exponent of the application of Weird Logic to Donald Trump. If the reader looks at the Sunshine and Happiness section we note that I allocate jokes to two parts: jokes about children giggling (1) and jokes about Boris Johnson (-1). Those who now understand the background to Arva algebra now know there must be a third component. These are jokes about Boris Johnson giggling as a child.

So we now have the techniques to study the advanced logic of Donald Trump.

We can analyse those parts of his speeches which have an advanced theoretical structure and have no examples at all. These are the sections of his speeches which use Absent Logic.

Then we have counterfactual statements which are simply impossible. These refer to a world which does not exist.

On looking at statements about this or about the real world and what we should do about it, we come across Unreasonable Deduction in which the argument in inconsistent, and therefore, unless his description of the world is completely wrong so there is a double contradiction which is true, cannot reasonably refer to anything we might want to do.

Finally, there are statements which put together cannot be represented in any symbolic form whatever, and are therefore totally Weird.