1 One needs empirical beliefs in order to be an agent in the world.
2 Empirical beliefs are a response to the facts in the world.
3 There is a limited variability of facts one can encounter during one's life
4 From this variability stems the changing nature of beliefs.
5 The number of facts in the world that are taken into account in belief formation we call verisimilitude.
6 The greater the degree of verisimilitude the better predictive power of predictions on secondary statements (as a general trend, no necessarily monotonous).
7 As we evolutionarily strive to appear as reliable and consistent agents, coherence is innately vital for us.
8 Coherence of beliefs requires examination of them; here being no unknown incoherences - only after examination it’s seen .
9 Verisimilitude of beliefs requires examination of facts in the world.
10 Interconnectedness and multitude of our beliefs and facts in the world make it impossible for a human being because of a limited computing power and storage.
11 While aggregated computing power of groups of humans is several order of magnitude greater, group biases come into play, power struggles and egos undermine the original aim of coherence-verisimilitude.
12 Computers do not possess the (11)flaws, have other, but why not try them.
r1 - using the Internet [ coverage in the world around 50% and projected increase (taking into account that that is in the best interest of big tech companies)] appears to be the best bet
r2 - as it is a public database having no central censorship (one must count that some people are denied internet access by state censorship, but that does not interfere largely with Lully purposes, as long as there are some expats from this country with access to the internet, living similar way of life, having similar beliefs.
r3 the option of anonymity in posting appears to guarantee the most we can hope for
a1 no such assumption is needed with lully. There might be troll users, but any feasible connection of ideas is permitted; bad connections will just be ignored by the users.
a2, a3 - lully in principle is a way to agree about political fundamentals, also the best possible for today's world and technology. Nevertheless, political agreement is just one of the possible results, not the main target.
Let us suppose an uncontroversial assumption: Person A says ‘I believe X’. Person B says ‘I believe X and though some think that Y contradicts it, I say it is not the case, because Z’. The knowledge of A is inferior (poorer epistemologically) to the knowledge of B. X, Y, Z here are beliefs. Z can be anything in this case, it can be even a logical fallacy - what is important is taking Y into account. The accusation of fallacy is just another Y type fact. Person C says ' Z is K, therefore it cannot serve to refute Y, so I abandon X'
Similarly the Chinese philosophy, as adopting the One as its basis, has been alleged to be the same as at a later period appeared as Eleatic philosophy and as the Spinozistic System; while in virtue of its expressing itself also in abstract numbers and lines, Pythagorean and Christian principles have been supposed to be detected in it.
Hegel's Philosophy of History page 82
Another issue which might indicate that it is worthwhile to pursue comparative analysis of beliefs is the phenomenon of similarities between ideas. The three examples below might not all be real convergence (independent arising). One for sure can find many more of them:
The questions to be asked concerning these similarities after translating the ideas into Lully are:
The mapping of the debate structure is based on the supports/attacks as a basic model. The amount of statements is finite, so the hierarchy is limited. The ideal scenario is if all statements are at the top of the hierarchy - sages, taking into account all possible worldviews and arguments, having read all the books. This is called 'the philosopher's dream.' The project's goal is éclaircissement, which is attempted in many ages with the best attempts.
In our current world that is not possible. There is not enough time. What if there was? what if a thousand of philosophers settled around a black hole? They would have all the time in the world! Assuming no one bothers them, we should expect them to arrive at the best philosophies possible.
Black hole experiment would means withering away the material basis of beliefs. We need a Conveyor which makes the whole amalgamate, the Great Cauldron of human made statements available to anyone and each of us, computed in a meaningful way.
Existential comics has comic about a similar scenario.