All my readings in different domains of study have led me to discover a very clear pattern of the design of the algorithm that powers our conscious thought process. Human consciousness has a definite algorithm. It represents the capability of classifying the experience into a broad but definite spectrum. What we call subjectivity in ideas is basically the position of information on a particular point of the spectrum of consciousness. If we consider the distinction in the ideas of Plato and Aristotle, we find the extremes of this spectrum. Plato’s idealism and Aristotle’s empiricism lie at the opposite ends of this spectrum. Same can be said of Berkeley and Locke. Immanuel Kant tried to dissolve this distinction or partition in the understanding of the reality through his ideas of ‘categorical imperative’, ‘analytic a-priori’ and ‘synthetic a-priori’.

This spectrum does not just exist in philosophy. A similar spectrum exists in economics. At one end is the selfish capitalism while on the other end of the spectrum is altruistic communism. In terms of social behaviour, at one end is individualism, while on the other hand is collectivism. In terms of governance, there is democracy and dictatorship at opposite ends. In terms of market, monopoly and perfect competition lie at the opposite ends of the spectrum. The spectrums, therefore, span from the purely idealistic realm of ideas to the purely empirical realm of experimental experience. Everything else lies in between these extremes on the spectrum. For example, Oligopoly and monopolistic competition lie in between the extremes of monopoly and perfect competition on the spectrum of the market. Along with the horizontal spectrums, there are also vertical spectrums. For example, the market is studied under economics, while economics is studied under social science. There may also exist cross-relations between different spectrums. Therefore, a dynamic equilibrium between the positions on these spectrums may help in better predictions in a model.

If laws of physics have shown us anything, it is that the description of concepts that seem to be complex is almost always simple. If the human thought process is a product of a reality that is physical, then the laws governing these processes must also be simple, or at the very least emerging from simple processes. Also, it is important that a theory that explains certain phenomenon must explain it in the widest possible instances, even those that are yet not known. Philosophy as a theory of knowledge has failed to achieve this more than any other field. The reason is that we don’t have anyone framework of philosophy but many competing frameworks. If the inconsistencies between these frameworks are not resolved, then the problems of epistemic relativism will continue to negatively affect our understanding of human nature.

But why do relative interpretations of one reality exist at all or is the reality itself fundamentally relative? These are the questions that have plagued philosophers from the very early days of philosophical in almost all the traditions. But this distinction has lately become more prominent in the domain of human culture, as is evident from the wildly different philosophical paradigms that have taken root in the common space occupied by different people. This has caused wide intellectual as well as social conflicts and divisions in schools of thoughts leading to different directions that the development of knowledge has taken. The philosophically opposite positions of inequality being a characteristic of every system and that of inequality being unnatural and part of the power structures has led to many conflicts between humans on different sides of the ideological positions. This is not a small problem to any extent as it has been responsible for millions of deaths in the 20th century alone and continues to plague the world. The question then arises how the problem of inequality can be solved under one epistemic framework rather than appealing to frameworks that are built on assumptions that are competing. The real question then is that what is the common framework for these assumptions themselves before they contribute to any philosophical and/or theoretical framework.

What we need to build now is the theory for the relationship between most fundamental human concepts of which all the other concepts are a product. This is a Lockean distinction of the difference between simple and complex ideas. If a complete set, let’s say *V (c)* of the simplest human concepts *(c)* can be conceived and collected, then these concepts can act as elemental degrees of freedom in the human algorithm of thought. Ever elemental concept can be treated as a dimension. Another feature of these elemental concepts or degrees of freedom is that like any other human concept, they exist on a spectrum. For example, goodness. If goodness is taken on a single dimension, then the characteristic or the abstract concept of goodness can be conceived as to lie between absolute badness represented by negative infinity and absolute badness represented by positive infinity. If, similarly, other elemental concepts are treated as dimensions in human thought, then, the coordinates on each dimension and the multi-dimensional qualitative space occupied by these elemental concepts define the unique ideology of any individual or group. These ideological shapes are, therefore, part of the power set *P(V(c)) *of *V, *on qualitative space and are not point-like as every individual and group operate between a range on the elemental concepts. These shapes are dynamic and change as the individual or group whose ideology these shapes describe changes when subjected to new information and new knowledge (*K*) over time (*t*). Therefore, by adding the element of time, philosophic calculus becomes path dependent and evolutionary. The ideological space x ⊆ *P(V(c, K, t).*

### Philosophic Calculus and Qualitative Space

Philosophic calculus is, therefore, the qualitative space-time of all the possible thought processes and ideologies that are possible within the framework of human thought. Now the relevant question is that whether each and every human being occupies or has the potential to occupy the complete set of all positions on the Philosophic Calculus. The answer to this question requires a bit of neuroscience. If the answer is to be given philosophically, then the answer is no. Although even through neuro-scientific evidence we reach the same conclusions, we focus first on the philosophic argument. Philosophically speaking, every individual is subject to three notions of space-time[1], one of which is purely objective, while the other two are subjective in nature. They are as follows

- The qualitative space-time of inner thoughts of every individual (First-person perspective).
- The qualitative space-time of thoughts of humans as a collective (Second-person perspective).
- The objective space-time of which all the qualitative space-times are but incomplete products (Third-person perspective).

The size of complete sets of all the three space-time is not the same. This is due to the assumption of limits to human knowledge and ‘*Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems*’. If the power set of objective space-time is represented by *P(S_O)* the power set of qualitative collective space-time of humans by *P(S_C)* and the power set of qualitative individual space-time by *P(S_I)*, then the following relationship exists between the three.

P(S_O) ⊃ { (P(S_C) ⊇ (P(S_I) }

What this relationship implies is that the qualitative space-times are the subset of objective space-time. Philosophic Calculus takes into consideration the qualitative space-times because there is a possibility of certain knowledge in these categories. On the other hand, the knowledge of objective space-time is fundamentally uncertain as argued in the arguments for limits and limiters to human knowledge, the two fundamental limits that can never be transcended.

In the above equation, a paradoxical condition arises if the concept of infinity is taken into consideration.

Let us suppose that infinity is not part of the objective space-time. If infinity is not objective, then infinity is purely subjective. If it is subjective, then, subjectivity must either only partially intersect with the objective set or objectivity is the subset of subjectivity itself. The relationship between the power sets then reverses.

(P(S_O) ⊃ { (P(S_C) ⊇ (P(S_I) }

If it is assumed that infinity is the property of the objective universe itself, then the relationship changes as follows

(P(S_O) ⊃ { P(S_C) ⊇ P(S _I) }

Philosophic Calculus attempts to find the best possible theory to describe the data at hand, and because the elemental concepts exist on a spectrum, the ultimate theory should also account for these differences. Therefore, Philosophic Calculus is first and foremost a theory about the elemental concepts which I call the “First Principles of Philosophy’. The philosophic schools of thought that we are accustomed to accepting as the basis for our philosophies are only special products of these first principles. I call these higher order philosophies, the “Secondary Principles of Philosophy”. These secondary principles are inconsistent with each other because they emerge from stronger assumptions regarding some elemental concept than are necessary. For example, perfect competition. It is a complex concept made of two elementary concepts, perfectness and competition. The dimension of perfectness can lie between complete imperfectness to complete perfectness. Any change in the coordinate of this dimension will change the entire theory altogether. This means that there are infinitely many theories possible even by changing positions on the spectrum of a single elementary concept. Similarly, we can choose to change the degree of competition from complete collusion to complete the competition. This is how we come across one of the basic assumptions of capitalism, communism as well as other economic doctrines, i.e., that of the nature of competitions. All other assumptions are also a product of the elemental degrees of freedom and their combinations.

What we have achieved in laying out the theory of knowledge and its epistemic landscape is a foundation from which all of the existing school of thought can emerge as its special cases.

### Philosophic Calculus and Contextualist View

The contextualist view that there can be no absolute truth in most situations is wrong when viewed in light of the theory of Philosophic Calculus. The contextual view arises because the subjective experiencer constructs a representation of reality for himself/herself that is dependent upon the information they have. As argued in the Philosophic Calculus, these points of view are second principles. The contextualists, therefore, are concerned with the second principles and, therefore, come to an unsettling conclusion that there is no absolute truth to most propositions. The propositions not only have a subjective context but also have perspectivally blind context attached to them. The sum of subjective context and the perspectivally blind context make up the total context of the individual. This distinction between two kinds of contexts, one which the individual is aware of, and second, which he has the potential to be aware of, but has not construed in his representation of reality. Now it can be argued that there are local truths which are contextual in nature, but, according to the theory of Philosophic Calculus, a case for global truths can also be made. As such, a case against epistemological contextualism can be made.

### Philosophic Calculus and Mathematics

It is a priori assumption in the traditional physical sciences that mathematics is the language of nature. Others argue that it is a special case of metaphysics applied to the concepts of numbers. Whatever be the case, mathematics has proven extremely useful in modelling theories into logically consistent frameworks. Only when the most fundamental assumptions of these frameworks are challenged do the systems break.

In my attempt to scale the elementary degrees of freedom of human concepts, I have proposed a framework in which all of the human thought can be organised onto a familiar higher dimensional space-time, where all the laws of mathematics can be used to treat these concepts. As mentioned in the last section on qualitative space-time, the elementary degrees of freedom are treated as independent mathematical dimensions that provide a cartesian like intuition on the human thought process.

### Philosophic Calculus and Physics

It has been the case historically that physics has been the field that has utilized the complex of mathematics in describing its theoretical systems. There are two reasons for that. First, mathematical intuition was first developed to explain physical concepts. Secondly, it is easier to construct mathematical concepts around physical objects as they are comparatively easy to conceptualize as against highly subjective human phenomenon.

But as the academic world has been changing extensively from the past century and more to accommodate subjective factors, mathematics as a subject has evolved to model uncertainties and subjective behaviour. The tools that were developed to describe physical nature came to be utilized in subjects related to human nature and the tools that were developed to model human decisions started being used in physical sciences.

The marginal revolution in economics came about as the utilization of rules of calculus to model human decisions. Similarly, probability theory started being utilized in quantum mechanics to model uncertainties observed in the physical phenomenon.

*Its a work in progress for my research.*

[1] For a similar treatment of the first-person, second-person and third-person perspectives, see, Przyrembel, M., Smallwood, J., Pauen, M., & Singer, T. (2012). Illuminating the dark matter of social neuroscience: Considering the problem of social interaction from philosophical, psychological, and neuroscientific perspectives. *Frontiers in Human Neuroscience*, *6*. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00190