Boo hoo hoo, those ugly white people took me from my alcoholic mother and cared for me and put me in a White school where I was treat treated like one of them because they hatefully won't let me have the culture of alcoholism, rape, stealing, and self-pity. Help me with this. I am angry about all the divineness and victim mentality and the lack of identity with a multi-ethnic democracy and united effort to raise the human potential. — Athena

It's an imbalanced statement Athena. Open to a great deal of perhaps misinterpretation.
Why do you use 'white people' in the context and imagery invocations you do?
Could this also be non-white people, rescuing white 'children' from white parents engaged in a culture of alcoholism, rape, stealing and self-pity? I assume you are not suggesting that skin colour has any influence at all, on culture? But the underlined words you typed above, could be misconstrued as such. Are you referring to that experienced by indigenous native American tribal peoples?

If I am being really honest, women, who I find very attractive, who find me not so.
I can live with such, and I am very suspicious of the primeval source of such feelings but I do nonetheless find such reality, intensely annoying. :yikes: does this mean I have an internal patriarchy gnawing at me? Pesky reproductive imperatives. I find all 'Pon Farr' style imperatives, understandable from the standpoint of species survival, but very intensely annoying!

You don't find my postulation convincing? How do you explain the "change"? — Gnomon

No, I don't find such a claim convincing, when you offer no supporting empirical evidence.
I cannot personally explain waveform collapse and the measurement problem. I am currently most convinced by the proposals that when we measure position or momentum, we are measuring an extension, so we get a 'localised' result, but this statement probably demonstrates my limited understanding of QM. I would however, further state that every measurement made, is notionally inaccurate. Even those we call 'constants' can only be measured to a fixed number of decimal places.
We eventually come up against the planck scale.

From Wiki:
At the Planck scale, the predictions of the Standard Model, quantum field theory and general relativity are not expected to apply, and quantum effects of gravity are expected to dominate. The best-known example is represented by the conditions in the first ${10^{−43}}$ seconds of our universe after the Big Bang, approximately 13.8 billion years ago.

The four universal constants that, by definition, have a numeric value 1 when expressed in these units are:
The speed of light in vacuum, c,
The gravitational constant, G,
The reduced Planck constant, ħ, and
The Boltzmann constant, kB.
Planck units do not incorporate an electromagnetic dimension. Some authors choose to extend the system to electromagnetism by, for example, adding either the Coulomb constant or the electric constant, to this list. Similarly, authors choose to use variants of the system that give other numeric values to one or more of the four constants above.
Any measurement smaller than the Planck scale takes us into black hole physics, as far as I understand.

Its the 'and its properties change' bit, that I have an issue with. — universeness

I tried google and google scholar with:
Properties of an electron?
Can the properties of an electron change?
So if I choose something like the 8 properties of electrons as listed here:
Property 1: Electrons are negatively charged particles.
Property 2: The mass of the electron is 1/2000 times lesser than the mass of proton and neutron. Therefore, the electrons do not contribute to the mass of the atom.
Property 3: An electron has an electric charge of -1.602 × 10-19 coulombs) which is equal and opposite to the charge of a proton.
Property 4: Electrons are subatomic particles found outside the nucleus, unlike protons and neutrons, which are present inside the nucleus.
Property 5: According to the Bohr atom model, electrons are continuously moving around the nucleus in orbits or shells.
Property 6: The invariant mass of an electron is approximately 9.109×10−31 kilograms.
Property 7: Electrons display both particle properties and wave properties.
Property 8: According to the principle of quantum mechanics, the position and momentum of the electrons cannot be determined simultaneously.

Then I consider, which of these can change, I garnish that property 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 do not change and 5 and 8 accommodate change, in that a bound electron can become a free electron and that the position and momentum of an electron can change.
This is why I responded to @Count Timothy von Icarus with:

Its the 'and its properties change' bit, that I have an issue with. Mass is a property and the mass of an electron is a constant, so it does not change, what am I failing to understand here? Is a snowball that gains mass as it rolls down a hill of snow, still the same snowball? I am not the same person as I was 50 years ago. Perhaps I am just not understanding, the significance in physics, of treating every electron as individual objects or treating each electron as the same 'properties' existing in many places. Would either 'treatment' significantly affect any major current theory in quantum or classical physics? The single electron theory bore no value at all, did it? — universeness

Based on some of his sentences, such as

If an object is defined by its relations, then an object is actually continually becoming a different object; I am a different person when I'm in my dining room them when I'm in my living room, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

and

The concern is generally that, if an object is nothing but its properties, and its properties change, then the object has become a different object. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It was a personal philosophical guess, based on the discussion above. I didn't ask you to accept it as a fact, just something to think about. I'm not a quantum scientist, so challenging me to "prove it" on a philosophy forum is not appropriate. — Gnomon

I accept that like me, you are not a 'quantum scientist' and I further accept that you engage in a lot of 'philosophical guessing,' and that such is the strength (or lack of) behind your dalliances with theism and your enformation proposals.

Addition: I also accept that a positron can be considered 'an electron whose charge property is positive,' but this is misleading, as an electron cannot become a positron by any method I have heard of explained in particle or quantum physics.

From Science Direct:
In particle accelerators, positrons are produced through the process of pair production. In this process a photon interacting with the electromagnetic field of a heavy charge creates an electron and a positron.

Maybe someday instead of feeling like I landed from Mars, I will feel like I belong here and have a valued point of view. — Athena

If panspermia is prove true then perhaps we all come from Mars. I can confirm that you do have valuable points of view. I think it's just that many many words are very over-burdened. Many words are also considered as 'strictly belonging to,' a particular umbrella subject. Spirituality is one of those words that is traditionally associated with theism or theosophism. Even though the etymology of 'spirit' is, 'breath'.
To be spiritual originally meant, to be alive, to breath and be animated. It had nothing to do with ghosts or gods.

That's why I think the "collapse" (change) occurs in a mind (Voila!), not in a particle of matter. — Gnomon

We just can't take your word for that. You need to prove it's true!

I found your treatment of panpsychism interesting ucarr, as I did the points made by @180 Proof.
Where we part company ucarr, is your notion that your carefully hyphenated 'super-nature,' re-forms an exhausted cycle, we currently call the universe. I assume you are using 'super' here to denote 'above' or perhaps as existing as a discrete layer/dimension. The question then becomes, are you positing super-nature as a source of many universes, that as a totality, we might label 'cosmos' or are you more offering this 'super-nature,' as the currently unknown mechanism, which creates 'local' universes in a multi-verse, each of which will experience demise, via entropy, but will then be 're-formatted via super-nature?
To me, this sounds akin to Mtheory, with each universe being created by 'clashing' interdimensional (or perhaps in your nomenclature, super-natural) 'branes.'
I do not see where in your treatment of panpsychism and in your use of -super-nature, that you identify your 'intent' and 'teleology,' as fundamental aspects of your super-nature source?
You yourself, do not suggest quarks are sentient, you suggest that panpsychism may have value as something that is 'emerging.' I assign some credence to this, as I can see how all consciousness, could be quantizable (and be rendered less and less sentient, as you further quantize) and when taken as a totality within the universe, will, over a very long time, become more and more 'networked,' and therefore could, in some distant future, become a 'pan' phenomena.

I do not understand your need to find 'room,' for your previous (and perhaps still on-going) dalliances with theism. These quotes from you:

• My belief in super-nature doesn’t entail belief in an anything-goes realm of hobgoblins and the like. I’m not trying to squeeze an inscrutable god into those gaps in scientific theory populated by suppositions not fully verified as facts.

• My super-nature, on the basis of speculation, I believe to be similar to Kantian noumena. (I haven’t yet embarked on reading Kant, thus the designation of speculation). — ucarr

Suggest to me, an impetus to distance yourself more and more from all theistic notions.

From Wiki:
In philosophy, a noumenon is knowledge posited as an object that exists independently of human sense. The term noumenon is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to any object of the senses. Immanuel Kant first developed the notion of the noumenon as part of his transcendental idealism, suggesting that while we know the noumenal world to exist because human sensibility is merely receptive, it is not itself sensible and must therefore remain otherwise unknowable to us. In Kantian philosophy, the noumenon is often associated with the unknowable "thing-in-itself". However, the nature of the relationship between the two is not made explicit in Kant's work, and remains a subject of debate among Kant scholars as a result.

To me, that which is 'unknowable,' conflicts with the word 'cosmos' which has always been related to the concept of 'knowable.' How would you choose to discern between the notions of 'unknowable' and 'non-existent'? I personally see little significant difference between them.

I honestly don't see what, in the absence of money, they would be tempted to abuse. — Vera Mont

Are you rejecting out of hand, my earlier suggestion of:

I accept your important comment about the removal of money, as a driver for bad behaviour would help a lot, but as you yourself stated earlier,power addiction and/or individual aberrations in mental pathology/psychopathology, can also be drivers of bad behaviour. — universeness

Sometimes people do bad things just because they get a big thrill from 'getting away with it all.'

That reminds me of a song by the band 'James' that I used to have on repeat, when I came home pissed and alone from a good night out, feeling a tad melancholy. I am not sure if the words can be imagineered into the topics we are currently discussing on this thread but ...... what's an important exchange of ideas without a small musical break or two. :chin:

Because not all party political systems are braindead or not working. But I guess you will not hear anything about it in your hate of political parties. — ssu

Again, you exaggerate. Hate is a very strong term that I would not choose to use against anyone who is a member of a political party or against a particular political party, merely because it exists. I would apply the term to extreme right wing members of political parties or towards such political parties just for existing. This hatred would be strongest against fascist political people or parties. So, there is some truth to your accusation but you do so exaggerate at times!

I'm not so sure if your insistence of banning political parties will do the trick. — ssu

Wow! I think I will quit while I seem to be ahead here ssu. That's the closest to common cause I think I am going to achieve with you/from you, in this exchange. You are at least giving me some hope that your view on maintaining the current party political national systems is not ossified and carved on stone tablets. :up:

Remember that in your new world order, without having to administer, allocate and fight over money, the entire civil service will be pared down to fewer departments, each with far fewer offices and white collar workers. — Vera Mont

That's the direction of travel I would prefer, but as I suggested earlier, I think automation could help greatly reduce the opportunity for personal abuse of the civil service system by long term, experienced participants.

What is going on here? In other forums arguments are terrible but here the arguments are so mentally stimulating and fun! — Athena

totally get the change in morality and that is why we must make these arguments without attacking each other. The progressive mind expects change, whereas the conservative mind may resist change and can not explore why yesterday this __________ was okay and today it is not. — Athena

Your first quote above imo, should be used by @Jamal to promote TPF.
Your second quote is is very well put, and makes me feel a little regretful that I just posted an attack on you personally :yikes: for your willingness to accept the use of the word 'sin ,' as an accusation against humans, ignorant or otherwise. :grimace:

I see things differently. — Athena

Yes, I agree that we see some things quite differently. I think you assign some value to that which may be labelled mysticism, the transcendent, the numinous, the esoteric, the 'spiritual' or perhaps even the the theosophistic. I assign zero value to such notions. If I used a word like 'spiritual,' I would use it to mean, human functional movement which results in breathing and therefore living, the 'animated/dynamic/moving human.' Nothing more woo woo than that, but that description is exciting enough, so no woo woo notions are needed, for a human to enjoy and celebrate the fact that they are alive and are animated. I don't see why any woo woo notion would make a person more excited about being alive than I am, imo.

Ignorant people can and do sin. — Athena

I am sorry Athena but I could not disagree with you more, on this important point.
Ignorant people, defined as 'people who have learned very little in their life,' are people who are manipulated and abused by vile notions such as 'sin.' This word is commonly defined as:
"an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law"

For all atheists, there is no divine law. It's existence is an utter lie and the best evidence for that, is divine hiddenness. In comparison with the crimes of god, as described in the bible or the crimes of characters like Mohammed as described in the Quran, I am totally sinless. I am convinced I am sinless anyway, as it is not possible to perform an immoral act considered to be a transgression against non-existent divine law.

Logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe. A better understanding of God than what mythology gives us. Mother Nature will do things her way and we better figure out how she does things and learn to live with her. Truth is very important and so is living in harmony with nature very important. — Athena

I try not to anthropomorphise nature in such ways, although I do fall into these old traps often.
Nature has no gender or sex. It is very important to understand the workings of our planet, for the sake of the survival of our species. We both agree on that I think. You just choose to invoke more 'esoteric,' anthropomorphised images to do so, compared to me.

Not quite so. Last I heard, there were 54 registered political parties in the disUnited States. What happens in presidential elections is that the minority parties drop out early, since they're regional and/or not rich enough to compete, so they throw their support to one of the giants. What choice do the voters have, but to go along with what they perceive as the lesser of two available evils. Of late, hate propaganda - predominantly and sometimes unilaterally from the right (What some fairandbalanced commentators tell you about "both sides" is not what I've witnessed.) has played a disproportionate role in American politics. There has always been some vulgar sloganeering, flag-flapping and hoopla, but hasn't traditionally been rife with death-threats. — Vera Mont

Yeah I have heard commentators comment on many of the early stage votes in America, being assigned to other parties, based on their stances on individual issues, but it all comes to nothing as the stages move on as you describe. Sounds like a broken system to me. If the early stages of vote distribution, demonstrates clearly, how issue by issue politics is soon subsumed and overwhelmed by party political tribalism, then the glaring problems with such party based systems, cannot be more clearly demonstrated, imo.

The first two yes; the last, I've not heard of, but will look for — Vera Mont

I think you would enjoy 'the thick of it,' its much more raw and harder hitting than Yes Minister, very funny to, in the same cringy way that 'the office,' in the UK, with Ricky Gervais was funny. They made an American version of 'the office' with Steve Carell. I assume you have watched some of that:


I remain 'uncomfortable,' with the current checks and balances placed on top civil servants in particular and on all civil servants in general, but I also accept than no political system will be anywhere near perfect. We can however, certainly do far far better than the current party political system.

Yeah I have saw some advertisements for 'madam secretary,' it looks good. I watched some episodes of house of cards, the original UK series, many years ago, with Ian Richardson, playing Francis Urquhart. Ian's sinister delivery of the great lines he was given were excellent enough for me to still be able to recall some of them. Two examples below:


I have not watched any of the American remake with Kevin Spacey.

You haven't heard a word univerness and I said, have you? — Vera Mont

I think this sums up our exchange with ssu pretty well!

You do understand that this is the way that the two parties hold on to power: the other side is so bad, so evil, that you have to vote for us, because otherwise they will win. And Americans do take play along: they back their side whatever it takes. Never they will be critical about the party that they vote, because then they seem to be giving their finger to devil, or just more ammo to the assholes on the other side. The present political polarization is a way to uphold the present system. — ssu

It's you that does not seem to fully grasp the total failure of party politics, in every country that employs it.
Your suggested solution so far, is to have more political parties, smaller ones. We could arrive at the same solution here. All you have to do is keep reducing the size of your notion of what constitutes a political party, to a political party with a maximum membership of 1. 650 of them could then form the next UK government. Then we would have a common cause ssu!!!! :grin:

In the background on my tv at the moment is a horrific BBC News story titled:
BBC news: 'Rise in children forced into sexual exploitation'
It is a very harrowing report about people in Mombasa, Kenya asking/compelling their own children to sell themselves sexually so that the family can buy food. Some kids depicted are 14 or younger.
There are not enough expletives in English to express how angry this makes me.
All this utter crap is because of the money trick and the intrigue caused by party politics means that governments just utterly fail to sort such unacceptable circumstances quicky and permanently. You did not answer this question ssu:

How will you protect us from 1 and 2 above ssu? — universeness

How will you stop such situations such as the one currently being reported from Mombasa Kenya?
Is that another question you will just ignore, because the children of Finland are not experiencing such .......... at least for now!

Simply make the civil service politics-proof by giving each agency autonomy to run itself. — Vera Mont

Have you watched shows such as 'yes minister/yes prime minister,' 'the West Wing,' and 'the thick of it?'
I realise that 'yes minister/yes prime minister,' and 'the thick of it,' are UK comedies, but their satirical approach and the parody they depicted was considered by many, to quite accurately and horrifically depict the power wielded by those in the civil service. I think such was also clear in the West wing series. I do think the potentially powerful levers, open to abuse by experienced permanently employed individuals within the civil service, would have to be countered. I accept your important comment about the removal of money, as a driver for bad behaviour would help a lot, but as you yourself stated earlier, power addiction and/or individual aberrations in mental pathology/psychopathology, can also be drivers of bad behaviour.

Grand Order of ....... Democracy (I am sure I could come up with a better 'D.'
— universeness

I'm happy with that one. Maybe for solving some problem related to climate change or mitigating its effects - a big service to all the world, that a half-decent god would have performed but failed to. — Vera Mont

Oh, I really like that comparison!

no other country could fight a war like in Afghanistan without having it's border next to it. — ssu

Really???
From wiki:
Afghanistan is a mountainous landlocked country at the crossroads of Central and South (Southern) Asia. Some of the invaders in the history of Afghanistan include the Maurya Empire, the ancient Macedonian Empire of Alexander the Great of Macedon, the Rashidun Caliphate, the Mongol Empire led by Genghis Khan, the Timurid Empire of Timur, the Mughal Empire, various Persian Empires, the British Empire, the Soviet Union, and most recently the United States.

Because now you are putting the enforcers also work as legislators.
When the military has a bigger role in politics, just look at the consequences in Egypt, or Sudan, or Myanmar.
There is a true reason just why separation of powers is important for democracies to work and it's surprising that you seem to think that this is irrelevant or unimportant. Civilian control of the military is important. But now, when you constitutionally give the military the power legislative power, it does matter. It's one matter for the military to ask for those tax dollars to invest, it's another thing when the are taking part of deciding just who or what gets tax dollars in general. — ssu

No, No, No, No, No! I am not suggesting we give such power to the military, they would have representation in the second chamber but two reps for the military and two reps for the police does not give them a majority in the second chamber! Stop exaggerating my suggestions ssu!

What I think would clear up a lot would be that the duopoly of the two parties would be finally broken. But Americans simply believe in the impossibility of the "third party" and that I think is the biggest problem. Easiest way would be if both the Dems and GOP would separate into different parties themselves. — ssu

I agree with the very real problem you cite but your solution would exacerbate the problem, not solve it.
In the UK, you even have such ridiculous waste of everyone's time, such as 'the monster raving looney party' standing for election. Americans wont vote for a 3rd party because they hate the other tribe so much that they, quite understandably, want all their warriors to face down the main enemy directly, when they are needed most and not go off to support some other 'little tribe,' who have no ability to win the fight alone, but can give victory to the enemy, as they took too many of your warriors away from the main fight.
This BS must end. The way to end it, is to offer the voters independent reps to vote for, based on their personal political stances and not based on a party manifesto, with a well established, tradition and ossified hierarchy. Vote for a person, not a party!!!!
No more national political campaigns, full of political soundbites, cults of personality, damn lies and fake news. All campaigning would be restricted to the local constituency you are standing in. All televised debates would be local. No central party HQ's and no massive party political fundraising events allowed.

And in the end, you have things like this: — ssu

You know, what comes to mind are the Soviet Politbyro members of the Brezhnev time, waiving from the Kremlin (or above Lenin's tomb) during some parade: — ssu

You keep offering evidence of how broken party political systems are but also, you keep rejecting new proposals. Why do you insist in trying to defibrillate an already dead but still deadly system?

Hence if universeness gave to various industries (I assume here the workers) stakeholder properties, then obviously the trade unions would have a large say. — ssu

As far as I can see, the inter-regional legal body should be represented in the second house, to make sure any new legislation doesn't conflict with standing agreements. The individual troops and police personnel would, of course, still have their votes, one to each rookie, one to each general. — Vera Mont

Unions exist to protect workers rights against the nefarious actions of capitalist profiteers. They would hopefully no longer be needed in a resource based economy. As long as they do exist, they would not be able to dictate who their members should vote for as reps for the second chamber but a standing candidate could be an ex-union official.

The military and the police contain workers. The military and the police are made up of humans, so they must be represented in the second chamber, or else your notion of democratic representation is farcical imo.

You seem utterly hung up on "important", as you were earlier on famines as the sole indicator of poverty.
Nobody "rules"!!! No group is more important or less important or has more say or less say. Is that really so hard to understand? — Vera Mont

:clap: :clap:

Is there an executive branch?
— Vera Mont
Usually there is. Or was the question if in universeness idea there would be. I'm not sure about that, ask him. — ssu

No, I do not advocate the separation of state into these often competing insular branches, who are supposed to cooperate but rarely do. I would advocate for bringing these sub-systems much closer together so that they work in tandem and compliment and reinforce each other. At the moment they are open to individual isolation and corruption. It is unacceptable that some sitting f***wit president can affect the balance of the supreme court in the USA. Checks and balances should never allow such. It is also unacceptable that a criminal such as Trump should ever have been able to achieve election as president of America, via the collusion of the powerful elites controlling the now completely toxic GOP.
Never forget two important lessons from history that we should all know well by now, but yet the Americans who voted for Trump still fell for both of them or/and some knew fine well what they were voting for:
1. You can fool some of the people all of the time. (mostly attributed to Lincoln)
2. “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” - Joseph Goebbels.

We must do a lot better at combatting these very serious threats to human governance via the democratic consent of the people. How will you protect us from 1 and 2 above ssu? More party based, tribal rooted competitive politics? The very recipe that encourages and facilitates 1 and 2 above and eventually allows such to be realised?

But I think we can agree on a standard of public discourse - so long as everyone has an equal share in decisions-making. — Vera Mont

Yes, this is foundational to establishing good governance.

And my questions are:
1) How are these stakeholder groups decided?
2) Once decided, can these stakeholder groups be changed? And when, in what time? When some stakeholders aren't anymore "important stakeholders", just like the aristocracy. — ssu

1) By plebiscite would be my choice.
2) Amendment to the constitution; at least 2/3 majority.
3) I doubt regions and genders will become obsolete anytime soon. I don't know who the other 'stakeholder' groups are; if they were listed earlier, I've forgotten.
How would any one or two representatives have more or less say in a democratic decision? Why would any particular stakeholder group be more or less important than another? It's nothing like the aristocracy you seem so concerned about. — Vera Mont

Vera has already offered you answers to your questions. I would add, for detail:

The majority of stakeholder groups would be obvious, under the two broad categories of worker group and social group. The initial stakeholder groups would be proposed by academics and a maximum number established, so that the second chamber is not so big that a stakeholder group rep size of two, remains significant and is not overwhelmed. The population would then vote by order of priority of which of the list of proposed stakeholder groups should become established.

Let's take the construction field as an example. So, plumbers, bricklayers, plasterers, painters, electricians, architects, labourers, steel erectors, scaffolders, joiners etc, etc. These folks would elect one male and one female rep from the candidates standing for election to the second chamber for a 4 year period, for that group.
Some folks in the construction field, will also be between 16 and 21 and some will be LGBTQ+, so they will be able to personally vote, 3 times for 6 reps overall.

The construction field is becoming more and more automated, so I think that a 'minimum membership' would be established for a proposed stakeholder group. So, yes, established stakeholder groups can change. This 'cut off' number would probably be established by consideration of the size of the average size of the most obvious stakeholder groups that would be established initially. We would then be left with 'minority' groupings. I would suggest that these could be joined, until their joining passes the minimum requirements for two reps in the second chamber.

The biggest concern I have with the abandonment of the current party political systems, is the structure, function and power wielded by a still essential civil service. I still think a lot about how to establish the vital checks and balances, that would be vital to establish, for any permanent worker in the civil service.
These people would be soooooooo important to the daily work of the first and second chambers and they would have a lot of influence. My main thought at the moment is that I would automate as much of their role as possible. What do you think about this area @Vera Mont?

Like it isn't sinful if it is love, right? — Athena

I think humans need to utterly reject that stupid term from theism. Sin does not exist!!!!!!!
If a person does not accept the existence of god(s) then it is not possible to go against it morally.
If humans break any aspect of secular moral code or human law then they have broken our laws or went against our moral codes, not non-existent gods. Godless humans cannot sin!
In my exchange with @Vera Mont regarding the love label, it becomes clear that it's an over-burdened label. I think you have acted often, in support of the well-being of strangers and that shows that you have a great capacity for compassion towards your fellow human beings. You should be awarded the NCA (if it existed,) in my opinion.

it could do worse than take its lead from the UN Declaration of Human Rights. — Vera Mont

The UN is such an important international step towards global unity but it needs a complete overhaul. The fact it exists at all, demonstrates the wish humans have to elevate the priority of cooperation, way way above the priority of competition, imo.

Could you please rename, without rescinding, the honours bestowed on persons who contributed to culture and human welfare? — Vera Mont

Yes, KBE, OBE, CBE etc, to be replaced with the NCA (National Citizenry Award). ICA(same but international), GCA (Global citizenry award) and perhaps even the GOD. Grand Order of ....... Democracy (I am sure I could come up with a better 'D.' :chin: ) I just so want to have a GOD award, perhaps even as a way to compete/combat the theist notion of GOD, by having many humans who can correctly state that they have also gained an award with the same name. :lol:

I will respond to the other posts by yourself, @ssu and @Athena tomorrow.

You hardly wan't to answer my questions, I guess. Well, I could have given the example of the whole Brexit thing...and not silly walks. — ssu

I have answered you questions fully. My answers just don't fit your agenda, that's all. I am unconcerned about that. Brexit might have been a slightly better (but not much,) alley for you to wander down but party politics does not look good in any way, under the light of Brexit. Especially, when you have such opportunists at the centre of that issue, such as Boris Johnston, whose political stance was, is and always will be, for sale to the highest bidding plutocrat or organised group of plutocrats. Then we had even more seriously vile individuals, such as Dominic Cummings, who created a whole campaign of lies regarding the benefits of Brexit. We in Scotland voted 62% against Brexit, as creeps like Cummings are better understood here, imo.

But what's not to like about silly walks? Monty Python is really part of modern British culture. Well liked and even mimicked abroad. — ssu

It's nice that you are a Monty python fan, but you need to end your confusion about the connection between UK people, political comedy and the realpolitik of life in the UK under it's current abominable party political system.

That's the idea. It's far better to talk about one's own ideas, really, on this forum because people do think and do engage seriously in the matter. — ssu

If you are smart enough to understand that, then perhaps with a little more depth of thought, you will begin to see the benefits to the vast majority of the human species on this planet that the abandonment of party politics would have. No more presidents or prime ministers, they are just surplus to human requirements, imo.

My point is that WHEN you give any stakeholder status in the upper house, be it as now the remnants of the aristocracy and retired politicians, or in your account important areas, once decided, the elected stakeholders will fight for their right to have their position in the house. They will be against change as the aristocracy has been in reality. Hence you need elections on just who are stakeholders. For starters.
You have to design a system for the existing people ...that you don't like. They'll participate, I guarantee you. — ssu

The basics of the structure of second chamber I am trying to describe to you, would not be an 'upper house,' in any sense of the term. It is a check and a balance to the first chamber or the sitting government. That is its main mission. In the system I advocate for, there would be no titled people and no monarchy. These are embarrassing, ridiculous, outdated notions. Would you bow to some dickhead who had the title King? :rofl:
I would not. I would also offer zero respect to any title such as lord, duke, duchess, dame, count, sir knight or any other such utter crap. I would legislate all such titles to the oblivion they should have been sent to after the English civil war. There would therefore be no such creatures as aristos, in the second chamber. I am not proposing anything that looks like or functions like the current UK house of lords, so stop conflating my proposed second chamber with that toilet/useless house of a privileged few.
You are correct that the current nefarious rich and privileged groups, will not approve of my suggested changes to the current party political system, but with all due respect ssu, the words I underlined, in the above quote from you, seem to be another 'no shit Sherlock,' moment for you.

Nations that have called themselves socialist and democratic have been typically dictatorships. — ssu

I don't understand why you try to labour this, when you and I and the vast majority of folks with an average political education, know well enough, the truth of such. Any historical revolution of a mass of stakeholders at a the level of 'nation' has began with 'true socialism,' as it's main driver. Animal Farm by Orwell, and a vast collection of other literature and documentation, explains in a crystal clear fashion, what often goes very wrong after that and why. The fact that the pigs who have in the past formed a dictatorship, out of what started as socialist revolutions against the actions of monarchistic/aristocratic rule in such nations as China, Russia, France etc, does not mean that continuing to describe them as socialist and democratic, is in any way valid. It is utter nonsense to suggest that it is valid, and you know that. So your reasons for doing so, will hopefully be plain for any intelligent reader to see, and only serve to demonstrate your obtuse intentions.

If there's a very popular movement in the UK that wants to save the British cultural heritage of silly walking, wants silly walking be encouraged, advanced and assisted by the government and have the objective of a ministry of silly walks to be formed, then an elected administration will form a ministry of silly walks. If it doesn't, this movement will vote for the party that will do this. Or form their own party to do this. And because it is so popular among the electorate who feel silly walking is crucial for British culture, existential for Britishness to survive and far more important than any other issue, why wouldn't it happen?
This is something very crucial to British culture! — ssu

I hardly need to make much effort here at all, to combat your claims. Your example above is an insult to all those in the UK who are serious about their politics. If your best attempt at combatting my position is to invoke a monty python sketch then imo, you defeat yourself, as your example, in the context you try to employ it, is too stupid to be taken seriously, and will do no more, imo than cause mockery, but not against my proposals, but at you.
You have some strange impressions about UK people. Its better to judge the political priorities of an individual as you encounter them rather that make bizarre blanket comparisons as your 'silly' example above try's to do. Does this guy speak for all Finn's?

For example Lebanon had (I think has even now) a very convoluted system where representatives of the various ethnic and religious groups have permanent positions on the government. It was intended for the benefit of the multicultural country, but it's made Lebanese politics even worse. — ssu

Again, you describe another example of a situation that I would be totally against. Where did I advocate that the second chamber I described to you would have permanent members? and that such permanent members would come from 'various ethnic and religious groups?'

Again, who defines what stakeholders are significant? And once you have decided that, how are you going to change it? — ssu

Where do you define the young and old? Who is young and old? And how do these differ from others? — ssu

How many times do I have to restate to you, that the people will decide such, via democratic discussion/debate and voting for representatives that best represent their personal conclusions.

No, I'm asking about the second house of the Parliament in the UK you are describing. You think sex matters are important in this case? Because you will have people representing LGBTQ+ (and wouldn't some of them be offended by the man and women division?) deciding on the British assistance on Ukraine. And then people representing the fuel industry deciding on it. And so on. — ssu

You need to ask the LGBTQ+ community what offends them most, not me. I would personally include that social group, with two representatives in the second chamber yes, if you would not then, you can use your vote against such a proposal. Is your fog regarding how true democratic socialism works, beginning to clear up a little?

What I get is this frustation on politics and political parties. Well, it's naive to think that politics will become better if we just ban politicians and political parties. As if then somehow by magic how people do politics would change. I say it wouldn't: you would simply have political groups that act like political parties but say they aren't political parties. It would just make things murkier becausethe factions deny themselves being factions...or political parties. — ssu

This paragraph is rambling and full of ridiculous projections and claims that either I have not suggested (emboldened) in any way, or are just your badly formed and somewhat ridiculous predictions (italicised)

It is a proposal outline, not a rigid system — Vera Mont

Oh, certainly... as long as the the questions are based on an accurate reading of the proposal and not on assumptions brought over form a different system of thought, a different economic organization, a different set of political criteria. — Vera Mont

Absolutely!

The actual upper house of the UK Parliament, the house of lords, is a perfect example of how rigid these systems are in reality. If in the 11th Century the system fitted the needs of the times, the role of the UK aristocracy has dramatically changed when we come to this Century. And even if the hereditary membership was abolished in 1999, there still are exceptions. So there's an example of how rigid these systems are. — ssu

So, you agree then that getting completely rid of the house of lords would be a good first step in starting to improve the way UK politics works?

I think it is good to get answers even to stupid questions. And also get feedback to own ideas. — ssu

I agree, as you are not my target ssu. You are helping me to put forward some of my opinions on how I think politics could be done in far better ways, compared to those methods that humans currently employ. My target is of course, any readers of our exchange, which will not be many here on TPF, but even 1, is still worth my effort.
If you can defeat my positions, on a point by point basis using very compelling, well structured, well reasoned, counter points, backed up by powerful historical exemplars, that support your position. Then you will help ensure that my political visions, never even get attempted, anywhere on this planet.
You can start to do that, anytime you like?

That's your personal view. How about cooperatives, public companies? So I guess you are then the dictator that decides just who get a "stakeholder position" and who don't. :roll: — ssu

I think you are rather confused. In a socialist democracy, dictatorship is impossible. I would be one voice only and I would have only my vote and ability to persuade others via democratic debate. Cooperatives and public companies are not private businesses.

Now here's the problem: your system is extremely convoluted and very hierarchial. It's really about the "etc, etc." and just who decides who are the "etc, etc." in the first place. — ssu

Only in your, imo, confused thinking.

First, you have members of second house of parliament based on like sexual minorities (how then on sexual majority, no?), then you have members based on where they work (which give a plethora of industries and services, if for example construction industry has it's own representative), then representatives (2) on companies. Then based on age. Then based on education. How about religion? (And missing is that people live in different places in the UK.) — ssu

It's very simple. The second house is made up of the main significant stakeholders from human society. These form two broad categories. Workers and Social groupings. The military and the police are workers for example. Binary and non-binary sexuality are two social groupings. Exactly who fits in to which worker or social group, is a matter of decision via democratic debate and such groupings would be open to change, as the term 'social' and what counts as 'worker' is open to change. For example, I consider all home carers as workers regardless of their relationship with those they care for.

Yet here's the basic problem: people actually are made up of nearly every category: they are either young or old, they are either in a sexual minority or not, they are religious (which can vary) or atheist, they work in some or another work. AND SELDOM none of these issues matter on what they think about policy. — ssu

That does not matter, the young and old will have two reps in the second chamber and your last sentence above is just nonsense.

How about let's say assistance to Ukraine that the country is given after the Russian invasion? Is that a sexual minority/majority issue? Is it an age issue, really? — ssu

:lol: Are you serious? Are you really asking me if I think the Russian invasion of Ukraine affects Ukrainians of different ages and different sexual orientations in different ways as well as in the same ways? My answer would be yes!, of course it does, but that would also be a rather 'no shit Sherlock,' statement for any rational thinker, yes?

The apparent reason to make such a convoluted system to my view is to make the whole system unworkable. When it's unworkable, someone other has to do the actual ruling and day-to-day management of the system. It's like Ghaddafi's Libya. — ssu

I assume that you understand that your opinion is just that. So you are a vote against my proposals. If the complete removal of party politics is ever voted on, then you can vote no and I will vote yes. I hope for the sake of our species that you and those who agree with you, lose the vote.

The system has to be understandable and simple for the ordinary person to understand it. Why cannot it be so that people elect representatives that promise to advance issues that the people want to be advanced? — ssu

It is exactly that, imo. I don't understand your last sentence, as that is exactly what I am advocating and that is exactly what party politicians often promise to do but rarely do, once they are elected, due to either being opportunists or due to being burdened and controlled by party political hierarchy.

To clarify: I think "events" are micro phenomena (i.e. relations) and "objects" (i.e. asymmetric event-patterns aka "structures, processes") are macro – emergent – phenomena (i.e. ensembles, combinatorials); thus, "events" are a-causal, or random (i.e. noise) whereas "objects" are causal, or non-random (i.e. signals). — 180 Proof

:chin: hmmmmmmm, I have just never contemplated an 'event,' such as two galaxies merging into each other, as a micro phenomena. I think we are in agreement that 'events,' such as abiogenesis are due to random happenstance and not 'intent.'

I also learned from our exchange. You are a better wordsmith than I, so I learned more about how notions may be expressed and how connections between complicated concepts may be made, in myriad and interesting ways.

Isn't that group forming, which is even encouraged, basically the function of political parties? And just what means "on an issue to issue basis"? Somehow there wouldn't be representatives that have basically "conservative" values and then representatives who have "progressive/leftist" values? How do you assume the issue to issue basis? — ssu

I cant explain 'issue to issue basis,' better than the words used to express it. Surely I don't have to exemplify to you what an 'issue' is in politics.
The views that an individual currently holds, can be impacted almost instantly, by placing you in a 'team/tribe/party,' think mode. Group forming of independents, on an issue by issue basis, is not impacted to anywhere near the same degree, as people who are faced with a very well established, long history of tradition and hierarchy, such as that established by political parties and internal party politics.
In party politics in the UK parliament, a 'free vote' has to be actually 'allowed,' and is declared by the party you are a member of, to allow you to vote, based on your own views or based on the majority view of your constituents. If a 'free vote' is not declared on an issue or proposed policy then an MP will mostly vote the way their party hierarchy dictates. That must end. Political representatives must vote on an issue by issue basis, based on negotiation between the representatives own views, the views on the issue they have garnished from their constituents, and the results of the debates with their fellow MP's regarding the issue. I may have common ground with you on one issue and none on another. No party loyalty should be able to veto my common ground with you and cause me to vote against an issue merely because my political party hierarchy demands that I comply. That is not democratic imo.
The people often benefit most from coalition governments, rather than from left or right dominated party based governance, as they have no choice but to negotiate on an issue by issue basis, as the have no majority to force legislation through. In the case of a ruling majority government, one group tends to just spend most of the 4 years they have, reversing the worse of the damage they think was done by the other side, during their administration and because nothing much actually changes for the better in the day to day lives of the people who voted them in. Due to that frustration, they vote that lot out again, move to the other extreme, or some ineffectual middle ground, and the situation repeats. There are many progressive political movements, growing today, who are calling for serious and permanent changes to how we do politics.

Who decides just who gets a "stakeholder" representative woman and man? You don't need anymore lobbyists acting as middlemen, heck, you will have everybody there simply as "stakeholders" obstructing/promoting what they need. — ssu

The people will decide. I have already indicated how it might be achieved, other stakeholder groups that I have not yet mentioned, would most likely be, two(one male and one female,) from the transport industry, the leisure industry, the fuel industry, the construction industry, etc, etc. They are there to represent the interests of the workers in those fields. All profit based businesses would have a maximum of 4 reps (2 from small and 2 from larger based, privately owned companies). That is my personal view regarding private businesses.

What about foreign countries? Aren't they too stakeholders??? — ssu

No.

You are putting part of the government (armed forces, police) that is under the executive branch in control or having partly control also of the legislative branch. This goes totally against the separations of powers principal. Because now, in your system, generals themselves are deciding on the laws that regulate them and how much will the government give money to them. There's really a difference of the generals asking politicians for money and generals deciding themselves on the money. — ssu

The army, navy, air force and police would each have two reps in the second chamber. This is because those fields all have workers, who are the same as any other worker. I have already indicated that the first chamber would not have full control over the assets of the armed forces or the police. The details involved are complex.

Because now, in your system, generals themselves are deciding on the laws that regulate them and how much will the government give money to them. — ssu

This is completely wrong, and money would be removed from our lives completely. Perhaps you should read up a little on how a resource based economy, which employs automation as its backbone, would work. You need to stop thinking of the military and the police as 'them,' when we need to ensure in the future I am attempting to describe to you, that they are an integral part of 'us.'

Yeah, there are so many over-burdened words in human language. Love and hate are definitely two of them.

So why would the physical size or level of complexity of a combinatorial of sub-atomic fundamentals cause all future events for that combinatorial to become fully deterministic?
My obvious go to combinatorial, that fits the description above, would be me or you.
Random happenstance can still have very significant impacts on you or me, yes?
It what way do you suggest, that the events in our lives have been, and will be, in both our future's, deterministic?

I know you won’t be persuaded by my argument. We have a fundamental disagreement. — ucarr

You are correct, and our exchange on the phenomena of superposition has reached impasse, but it was fun.

I tend to consider love, as a spectrum/domain, which has a very large number of emotions/members.
I primarily go to it's practical use in the history of the human species.
The label 'love' itself is perhaps too misused, when exclusively related to physical/emotional/biological partnerships between humans. At it's fundamental level I think the love/empathy/altruism/selfish genes/narcissism/hate range of our emotional spectrum, allows cooperation between humans in very simple and loosely connected ways to a maximum, whereby an individual can become so integrated and dependent on others that, their complete well-being becomes totally reliant on the relationship and then onto that which dictates the deliberate manipulation and control of others via emotion, up to and including the hatred of other people and other objects

I think @Athena does what she does, as deep down inside, she is more a persona of cooperation than she is a persona of competition. I am the same. Some folks can be as cooperative or competitive as they deem they have to be, depending on how they have personally interpreted a situation they encounter. I tend to encounter any new scenario with the golden rule in mind but I can also turn primeval, if pushed, prodded and abused enough. I think you and Athena are similar but I accept we don't know each other well enough for me to be sure of the statement I have just made.
Many other people prefer the predator label or the lone wolf label and are almost incapable of maintaining any significant form of cooperation.
I have certainly been surprised by aspects of people in the past that I did not predict and would never have predicted. I personally think that love of competition, love of fighting, love of morally unconstrained personal advancement etc, are those members of the 'love spectrum,' that belong to our 'jungle rules' early experiences and are IMHO, residuals from uncivilised and somewhat backwards thinking.

we're looking through a QM lens. Through that lens SP ∧ ¬ SP are not mutually exclusive because, by definition, SP means
SP = ¬SP! How else could the same identity be in two places at once. We're not talking about identical twins. We're talking about the same identity being simultaneously located in two different places. With SP we're saying: A is in position 1 and not in position 1 because A = ¬A which is in position 2 AND A is in position 2 and not in position 2 because A = ¬A which is in position 1. How "you as you" is "not you" is hard for us to wrap our brains around, but that's what QM compels us to do. — ucarr

No, your logic is flawed here. 'A is in position 1 and not in position 1' is not what superposition demonstrates!!!! Superposition demonstrates that A is in position 1 and is also in position 2, so your connection of A = ¬A cannot be made!!! Superposition suggests that all states that can happen will happen, but in different spatial coordinates, perhaps in a multi-verse.

Anyway, at most, I'm agnostic about pandeism (which I refer to it as a speculation, and not as a belief or claim). — 180 Proof

Fair enough. It's never easy to try to employ theological terms such as deity or deism, in a cyclical description of the universe, and not have folks wonder if you are allocating some value to the plausibility that a deity might exist. Thanks for your clarifications.

Macro, not micro — 180 Proof

But macro objects are combinations of micro objects, are they not? If you believe that the macro universe is deterministic but the micro or sub-atomic universe is not, then is it size or the complexity of combinatorials or both, that makes all future events in the macroscopic universe, deterministic?
Am I misinterpreting your meaning, again?

Why do you choose to disconnect, empathy, and altruism as facets of love.

Hey! Before, you said
a small innocent looking child,
— universeness
Don't you go shifty on me, comerade! — Vera Mont

:lol: Mia culpa!

As for the grievance arbitration, I totally agree. — Vera Mont

:up:

Could it be that during a lull in the fighting we're all on the same page? — ucarr

:rofl: Well, I'm always up for a friendly game of kickabout in no mans land, before the war restarts and we all fall down dead together.

This is a good linear time argument within a Newtonian, 3-space universe. After we usher in Relativity_QM, however, the possibility that a 13.8 billion time interval and an ASI cosmic sentience are coincidental exists. — ucarr

For me, these leaps of faith you make are fun, (NOT in the mocking sense!!!!) but are not rigorous enough to satisfy even layman level, scientific skepticism.

In your first sentence, you seem to be saying the appearance of sentient life on earth was not part of evolution; it was a quantum leap from non-sentience to sentience without any transitional period connecting the two states. Am I understanding you correctly? — ucarr

No, I am of course not suggesting any such thing. For the vast majority of the past 13.8 billion years, there was no life of any kind on Earth, much less sentient life. There was not even an Earth for around 9 billion of those years. Evolution offers no evidence at all regarding the mechanism by which life appeared on Earth. Theories such as abiogenesis and panspermia are not part of the claims and demonstrations of Darwinian evolution. They are theoretical projections that are logical traces, back from such time periods as the Cambrian. The likelihood that abiogenesis occurred in some form somewhere is very strong imo, but we have no actual evidence of abiogenesis.

Again, this collective sentience, which might be moving (notice I didn't say "evolving") toward an inflection point expressed as the information singularity, or the point of no return from unstoppable ASI, marks another quantum leap (from AGI to ASI) wholly outside of evolution? — ucarr

Such is a product of human efforts alone. No ASI is possible before humans successfully create AGI.
You are projecting human actions and ability, anthropomorphically, onto your notion of a universe with intent. That's all you are doing, as pure speculation. It's ok for you to do that but I am just asking you to recognise that such is pure intellectual/spiritual/romantic speculation on your part.

As for my alleged "God of the gaps" argument, my thinking is, thanks to you, evolving. If super-nature as a higher-order of nature is logically possible, then the unevolved inflection point cum information singularity that instantiates ASI might be said higher-order of nature, i.e., super-nature. — ucarr

Do you not see here, that it's you who likes to make such big 'leaps of faith.' Surely you can see that is what you are doing.

By equivocation fallacy I understand you are charging me with using an ambiguous term such that: in statement A the term has meaning 1; in statement B the term has meaning 2. Ultimately, you say, I'm pretending the term's meaning is the same in both statements. — ucarr

In a sense, yes, but perhaps it would be easier to throw one of your accusations towards me, back at you. You are trying to compare or 'equate' apples and oranges in a way that is outside of the fact that they are both fruits. Using propositional logic, we can propose that based on empirical evidence, superposition is true. So, SP=True. The law of identity states that each thing is identical with itself, so we can write SP=SP. Under the law of non-contradiction, we have that the two propositions "SP is the case" and "SP is not the case" are mutually exclusive. Superposition therefore does not violate the law of non-contradiction!

The paradox I'm claiming for A = A → ¬ A = A lies rooted in the equivocation inherent in the claim A wholly occupies two different locations simultaneously. — ucarr

If I translated your propositional statement into English words, it would read "A is equal to A then(or implies) not A is equal to A" It is skewed and makes no sense and cannot be 'equated' with or compared to SP=SP implies that SP and not SP at the same time is false or SP = SP → (¬ SP ∧ SP) is false.
Stating that the full extent of object A occupies this coordinate and this coordinate at the same time, is not equivalent to a propositional logic claim such as ¬ A = A. That is the equivocation fallacy I am trying to point out to you, but I accept that my field of expertise, is Computing Science rather than maths, but I did teach advanced higher maths in the Scottish school system, which did include propositional logic at that level.

Superposition IS equivocation fallacy. My propositional logic statement highlights this fact. That's why it's natural to charge me with the violation. Those of us embracing QM are collectively endorsing equivocation fallacy. Why is is logical to do this? It's logical because QM demands equivocation of the equivocation fallacy. This is a confusing way of saying superposition is equivocation and it's not. — ucarr

No it's not, how can it be, when it can be demonstrated? Superposition may be being misinterpreted, for example, perhaps, an atom can appear to appear in more than one place at the same instant of time, due to some effect we don't understand, that's akin to something like gravitational lensing. Such remains possible, but that does not make superposition an equivocation fallacy. You just have a mind that is determined to find a t.o.e (theory of everything), that can link complicated concepts together into a very easy to understand final solution such as 'god did it,' or 'cosmic intent' is the only landing zone we need. The universe just wont be the way you want it to be ucarr. Your own HH quote should have prepared you for that, well enough.