View source for Q1: RO as a probability score


You define '''RO''' as a ''probability score'' and also describe it as a '''subjective signal''' (felt certainty or doubt).

Do you intend RO to be something a rozum could '''numerically estimate''' (even roughly),  
: or is RO fundamentally '''comparative / ordinal''' — sensed as “higher or lower,” “acceptable or not,” with probability language used only structurally?

Take it wherever you want.

===== RO calculations is a pure engineering task. Depending on the S and A different procedure can be used. For example, Google's ranking is a pure RO calculation. =====

Good. That answer fixes an important ambiguity.

Let me reflect it back '''without adding interpretation''', and then move to the next question.

You’re saying:

* '''RO is operationally real''', not metaphorical.  
* Its calculation is an '''engineering problem''', not a philosophical one.  
* The ''procedure'' for computing RO is '''implementation-dependent''' on S and A.  
* Different systems will legitimately compute RO differently.  
* Google’s ranking system is an example of a concrete RO computation: it produces an ordered output whose trustworthiness emerges from many weighted certainties.

This also implies something subtle but strong:

* RF does '''not''' prescribe ''how'' RO must be computed.  
* RF only prescribes '''that it must be computable, factorable, and usable for correction'''.

Nothing breaks if RO is noisy, approximate, or heuristic — as long as it is accountable.

===== RO is absolutely subjective. =====

Okay — that’s an important correction, and I’ll stay with it.

You’re asserting:

* '''RO is absolutely subjective'''
* Even when computed by engineering procedures, it remains ''the system’s own'' certainty signal
* Objectivity applies to procedures, not to RO itself

That means RO is not “probability in the world,” but '''probability-for-this-rozum''', at this moment, given its S and A. Accountability then comes from ''honest announcement'', not from objectivity.

Good. That locks RO firmly inside the rozum, not outside it.

'''Clarifying Question (final form)'''

If RO is '''absolutely subjective''', then:

* Is there ''any'' sense in which two rozums can say their RO values are '''comparable''',  
: or is comparability always mediated indirectly (through behavior, outcomes, trust over time)?

In other words:  
: Can RO ever be aligned across a network — or only ''respected''?

===== Dialogue allows to align RO between rozums. =====

Good. That completes Question 1 cleanly.

So, within RF:

* '''RO is subjective'''

* '''Alignment, not objectivity, is the network mechanism'''

* '''Dialogue is the alignment operator'''

* Trust, coordination, and correction emerge from ''iterative RO alignment'', not shared truth

That is internally consistent.

{{sitemap}}