Or the Physics of Philosophy

A lot of my readers seem to mistake me for being an advocate for authoritarianism. Far from it! I’m so often misunderstood precisely because I am the exact opposite of an authoritarian. It may appear that I have a fondness for dictators, kings, and tyrants, but all for the same reason: because I am the most fanatical lover of freedom, and I consider freedom to be the most essential, the sine qua non condition under which all human progress is possible, can be fostered, and can even be considered at all.

And by freedom I don’t mean the purely procedural, “formal” freedom that’s conceded, measured, and regulated by the government, the eternal liar whose real function is merely to cull the masses into a false contentment, nor of the kind represented in the fictitious fables extolled by the idealists in the school of Rousseau, nor of any other schools of bourgeois liberalism.

No, by freedom I mean freedom in its fullest and most pure form, the entelechy of every aspect of power latent within each one of us, and not just in some restraint degree, but in every degree, whether it be intellectual, material, moral, ethical, or other. Freedom, in my weltanschauung, shall recognize no restriction other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, ipso facto, our Natural Law, which cannot properly be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any artificial legislator beside or above us, but are immanent and inherent, forming the very basis of our very being—they do not limit us but are the real and immediate conditions of our freedom.

And in my complete, categorical repudiation of any restraints on freedom, it becomes necessary for me to condemn equality, in every shape and in every form, repudiate equality, inveigh against equality and cast aspersions to the highest heaven against equality

Because Freedom and Equality are incompatible at the very fundamental level.

Jennifer Suzuki’s Inverse Law of Freedom and Equality:

Theorem: There is an absolute inverse relationship between freedom and equality. Whenever freedom in a society increases, equality diminishes, and vice versa.

Remark on the history of the Law:

This inverse relationship was first identified by John Stuart Mill but he never furnished a rigorous proof of the concept and merely made the observation that this is in fact true in all societies; however, in this article, I will give a mathematically rigorous proof of the theorem starting from the first principles.

Special cases:

In a society in which every one is exactly equal to another, there will be no freedom since everyone is identical, and since freedom is only possible when there is variation among the population, so in an absolutely equal society freedom will disappear completely. This may seem purely theoretical, so let’s consider concrete examples by looking at some very equal societies … such as North Korea, in which almost everyone is equal, but only one person is not equal to the rest. In this case, there is some variation—and in fact there is great variation between one individual and all the rest—but the sum of all variation, when averaged out over the entire population, becomes minuscule.

At the other extreme, we can consider the United States of America, widely considered the freest country on earth. This is where the greatest variation among the population exists anywhere. The richest man in the world, and the most powerful man in the world coexist with the most inferior subhuman species of non-humans on earth. The Gini coefficient within American society is also significantly higher than most developed countries. But the Gini coefficient only measures one aspect of the inequality, the wealth inequality, and does not take into account other factors that contribute to inequality such as genetic makeup, IQ, height, weight, disease/health distribution, and most important of all, variation in thoughts and ideas.

America is the freest country on earth and it’s also the most unequal, in the fullest sense of the word. In America you will find Marxists, Neo-Nazis, Christian fundamentalists, Islamic fundamentalists, people who champion for equality, and people who condemn equality, etc. Also perhaps famously, the most stupidest people and the smartest people all live in America. And it’s precisely because America is so unequal that there are so many people in America who are deluded into thinking that equality is actually a good thing when in fact it’s precisely inequality which made America great, because freedom can only be maximized when equality is minimized.

Mathematical proof:

In order to furnish a mathematical proof, we must first go through the definitions, but once the precise construction of definition has been accomplished, the proof, as in all other high level math proofs, will simply fall into place on its own.

I forgot which philosopher remarked this—I think it’s may have actually been John Stuart Mill—that where metaphysics ends, mathematics begins. Mathematicians take for granted what equality means without ever bothering to define what equality actually means. Mathematicians take for granted that A is equal to B, or that A is isomorphic to B, or that A is equal to B in modular arithmetic or in p-adic artihmetic, or in equivalence relation C, or etc.; but the underlying principle of what equality actually means is never dealt with, not even in mathematical logic, which is considered the meta-mathematics. I actually took a year-long course in mathematical logic where we studied three different proofs of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem and I eventually passed one of my qualifying exams in this subject but never once did we ever ask, what does equality actually mean?

So for the sake of completeness, I will offer my definition of equality. Equality is complete identity, wherein all elements are completely indistinguishable from one another. Fermions, for instance, are therefore in my definition, not equal because they can be distinguished from each other. Bosons, for instance, can be equal to each other because they are indistinguishable.

In a perfect world in which everyone is absolutely equal to one another, we become angels, we become Bosons. Because photons are a type of Bosons.

Now, let’s define freedom. Freedom, according to me, is the ability to change in a given degree of freedom. A degree of freedom is a dimension. Ordinarily, in the physical world, we only think of three degrees of freedom: up and down, left and right, back and forth. But in the quantum mechanical world, certain elements have more degrees of freedom, such as having different spin numbers. So freedom means the ability to change, and maximal freedom means the ability to change in the maximal number of degrees of freedom possible.

We have our definitions now, and our proof, I claim, is done. Given a countable set of elements with N degrees of freedom. Now, we want to reduce all elements by one degree of freedom to N-1. Then simply move all elements into the same state in that arbitrary degree of freedom, let’s call it k. All those elements now are indistinguishable in that k degree of freedom.

We can even do experiments with it. Given a set of particles. Suppose they all have different spins. Now, move all the elements so they all have the same spin number. Now freeze them. Maybe cool them to near-zero kelvin. You just subtracted a degree of freedom from those particles and they become indistinguishable from each other in that degree. In fact, if you freeze them to near zero kelvin, I believe you have restricted their freedom in other degrees as well, but at least in the k degree of freedom, you can no longer distinguish them. Or, suppose, you can somehow manage to stack all bosons into the exact same spot, in so called “frozen light” experiments, so that their spatial coordinate all become identical, and boom! You have totally equality among the bosons.

Repeat the same process and if you are able to take away all degrees of freedom, now all the elements become indistinguishable from each other and you have created your Communist utopia.

Thus, freedom is inversely proportional to equality.

Q.E.D.

Further remark: But can a free society collapse and turn into an equal society. Of course it can! My inverse law is not dynamic. It does not predict any evolutionary behavior of the state. It’s strictly stationary. And remember in my definitions of degree of freedom, you must be able to move back and forth. Time is not a degree of freedom because time is unidirectional.