That's why you put a panel of experts in charge; so that they can make whatever decisions need to be made form day to day. Practical and technical decisions, not political ones. — Vera Mont

It could still all go pear shaped but in general, I agree with your suggested processes.

I had to look up winged putti and noted that it was the plural of the Italian word 'putto,' described as:
A putto is a figure in a work of art depicted as a chubby male child, usually naked and very often winged.. I do like the idea of supernatural entities, shitting on the heads of politicians from a great height, who have been proved liars. The trouble is, putti don't exist, so, I think I would actually prefer a real, fully clothed, teenage Glaswegian NED (Non-Educated Delinquent), who simple said something like 'Aye pal, but yi better no be a bullshitter by ra way!' every so often, and then made physical gestures towards the speaker after every manifesto pledge, such as switching a pointed finger between their own eyes and the politicians eyes, in a threatening manner, BUT that's just my strange tastes. The exact check and balance we should employ remains fully open to democratic debate.

Did the whispering slave trick work? Of-bloody-course not! — Vera Mont

Well they didn't have a surround sound system or close circuit tv, displayed on big screens so that all the people present could witness the warning to the general that the senate was trying to deliver. The senate did carry out their warning in the case of the vile Julius Caesar, when they correctly decided to kill the monster, but you are correct, that the fact that Octavius became the first Roman emperor soon after, proved that particular attempt at a check/balance, failed.

You remember Donald Trump? The whole disaster of his presidency and its aftermath could have been prevented by the simple expedient of denying him media coverage. He's an attention-junkie; it's his main reason for disputing the election and wanting to be king: he can't bear the thought of losing the spotlight. He should have been ignored to death long before all those other died. — Vera Mont

Ha! if only I could refer to him in the past tense. I think vileness like trump only grows and gets fed, when so much discontent and fear is allowed to fester for so long amongst a population. We need a politics which allows individuals to air personal grievances properly, and we need to establish a pathway of arbitration that such folks can take, which will earnestly try to find the best compromise solution that would best suit all parties involved. It's the notion of justice that we all favour the most, imo.

I did not expect that answer from you, that's very interesting. I had assumed you were an atheist, through and through, well, perhaps pandeism is pretty close to atheism, as such a divinity would be so non-interactive with anything in our universe that its existence would be as inconsequential to us as its non-existence. In that case A would be equal to not A when the measure is 'consequence for humans,' and A refers to an existent deity.

From your link:
0. Deity (Boltzmann brain?) ...
1. Deity becomes – fluctuates until symmetry breaks – not-Deity (aka "planck universe").
2. "Non-planck universe" begins @maximum degrees temperature and rapidly – explosively ("Big Bang") – expands as it cools off.
3. Cosmic + thermodynamic entropy. (WE ARE nowHERE.)
4. "Non-planck universe" ends eventually – dissipates completely – having become an absolute zero degrees vacuum.
5. Absolute zero degrees vacuum – unbroken symmetry restored – is indistinguishable from Deity.
0. "Omega point" > the universe (or multiverse) constitutes memories (or dreaming) of Deity (Boltzmann brain?)

If I understand this list correctly, you are positing an eternal cycle, via your numbering of events, yes?
Does event 1, 'not deity' just mean the deity is no longer involved?
Does event 1 'Deity becomes' suggest a 'before' when deity did not exist?
Does this list mean that you accept that a first cause with intent is likely or 'at your most speculative?'
Do you think the universe is fully deterministic, as opposed to all events that happened in the universe, up until the first sentient life capable of decision making appeared, being fully due to random happenstance alone?

That's the safeguard I was asking for. Once it's decided, set up a committee for the duration and declare it hands-off to the sitting government until its completion. The same with a communications network or a hospital: no tinkering by amateurs or fickle voters. — Vera Mont

Sounds reasonable to me but there would have to be some wriggle room. There is no such an existent as perfect pre-planning that has been exhaustively tested and every possible barrier to completion has been identified and all needed contingency plans established. Unforseeable happenings can occur that could make the completion of a large project, untenable. Hopefully such would be very rare but not impossible.

That's been known since prehistory. I can't recall which tribe it was that considered seeking praise a major source of corruption - I'd have to go back to the book — Vera Mont

I remember watching the old film, 'The rise and fall of the Roman Empire.' They had a scene where a conquering Roman general has re-entered Rome to the ticker tape parade style adulation of the population. The senate placed a slave in the chariot of the general, with orders to whisper gently in the ear of the general, every so often, during the adulations, the words, 'remember you are just a man.'
It turns out that such an action by the early Roman senate, was historically accurate.
Perhaps we could get a small innocent looking child, to do the same to all world leaders (male and female), who are about to deliver a political manifesto to the population they represent.

Yea, we've always been here, mostly ignored. — Vera Mont

You don't get ignored here Vera! You are not a force that is easy to ignore. :smile:

I think what is interesting in connecting my exchange here with ucarr and the very interesting and enjoyable exchanges I have had with 180 Proof on AI, is this.

How would a notion like cosmic 'intent'/god/a deterministic universe etc relate to a notion/prediction such as humans developing an AGI or causing a technological singularity which results in an AGI eventually creating an ASI, all of which may result in humans being made extinct/getting replaced or becoming a merged aspect of some future ASI.

Surely if an original 'intent' existed, then it could have gone straight to the ASI state, why would it create over 13.8 billion years of deterministic events, that just seems a total waste of time to me.
I wonder if @180 Proof would agree with me that a universe with intent, or a deterministic universe, would mean that existents as scientifically slow and inefficient as humans could only be born of a very incompetent cosmic intent, or in the best case scenario, a cosmic intent which had very limited capabilities and no longer exists (akin to my 'mindless spark' description of a first cause for our universe, if people insist on a described first cause.)

Cox and I describe a continuity from matter-energy to sentience within the animal kingdom. Cox and I ask what it means to be sentient matter-energy that examines itself. He and I conclude that sentient matter is an example of the cosmos examining itself. How is this not a description, on both our parts (include Sagan as well), of cosmic sentience? — ucarr

Brian Cox and Carl Sagan describe a conversion of fundamental energy/matter to sentience of some existents within this universe. You invoke a term like 'continuity' to try to find a gap where you can fit your claim of an underlying/first cause/prime mover 'intent' to the process. Brian and Carl are very careful to state that WE, humans, are the medium through which our collective effort, could be romantically described as 'the cosmos examining itself.' They offer this notion, as a possible 'emergent' networking of all efforts of all sentient life, trying to understand the structure and workings of the universe they exist within. Neither scientist has ever supported your notion of a cosmic intent, which predates the random happenstance event of life forming in this universe/cosmos. So you are wrong in your assumption imo.
Why don't you send Brian Cox an email and ask him. I predict he will dismiss your 'cosmic intent' notion that you have labelled 'cosmic sentience,' either outright, or by stating something like, 'well, no one knows for sure, but I don't think such a first cause agent of 'intent' has ever existed.' Carl Sagan would have certainly dismissed it as highly unlikely imo.

The argument goes thus: logic, which can be defined as an organizing principle for correctly assembling continuities, encounters superposition as a modifying organizing principle. This means logic faces a logical imperative to subsume and thus reconfigure itself to accommodate the discovery that non-contradiction is conditional, not absolute. This accommodation parallels the accommodations of Newtonian physics after the advent of Relativity. — ucarr

Your mathematical propositional logic is skewed. Superposition demonstrates that at a sub-atomic level, an atom can be at two places at the same instant in time. This is not a contradiction, it does not violate any propositional logic law. Object A appears at coordinate (x, y, z), at time unit (t). Also at time unit (t), object A appears at coordinate (x1, y1, z1). This can be experimentally demonstrated. You keep performing an equivocation fallacy by suggesting that A = A → ¬ A = A relates to superposition.
Can you cite mathematicians and physicists that agree with you that the propositional logic statement A = A → ¬ A = A, relates to superposition?
My go to guy on TPF for mathematical insights is @jgill
Perhaps he would comment on the above.

I think the below video briefly talks about heat energy from a system being radiated into a fourth spatial dimension. — ucarr

I have watched this video before and a few more by this same doctor of physics. Many scientists talk about the work of 'Carnot,' 'Kelvin,' 'Clausuis,' 'Boltzmann,' etc, when describing the history of entropy and the laws of thermodynamics. As confirmed in this video, there is no 100% efficient, perpetual motion machine, absolute zero cannot be reached and heat flows from hot to cold and not the other way round, as reasoned via the probabilities described in the video. The Earth is not a closed system due to energy from the Sun. The 'Past Hypothesis' he mentioned, describes the initial low entropy conditions after the big bang and how entropy has been increasing ever since. Hawkins confirmed black holes have entropy. This video supports the heat death of the universe. Nowhere in this video does the physicist mention any notion, at all, of energy being radiated into a fourth spatial dimension ucarr!!! There is also nowhere in this video where the physicist narrator supports your claim of 'cosmic sentience' or cosmic intent. The content of this video offers your claims zero support.

I'm reminding you how she shows a progression from the 0D point through the 5D penteract. — ucarr

A tesseract (or hypercube) or penteract are mathematical constructs. They exist mathematically, that does not mean they exist physically. You can describe or simulate a hypercube in 3D space,:

but you would need a physically expanded 4D space to create a real one. We have no conformation that 4D expanded space exists in our universe.
"4-dimensional: Two parallel cubes ABCDEFGH and IJKLMNOP separated by a distance of AB can be connected to become a tesseract, with the corners marked as ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP. However, this parallel positioning of two cubes such that their 8 corresponding pairs of vertices are each separated by a distance of AB can only be achieved in a space of 4 or more dimensions."

This also shows how there is no solitary self. The self can only be itself through entanglement with another self. This is my argument for an essentially binary universe. This argument, in turn, grounds my claim there are no closed systems. — ucarr

Pure speculation on your part, with no compelling scientific evidence to support it. Not much different from a theist insisting that they know, that they know, that they know, that Jesus Christ is god!

Now, of course, you think the above is just more word salad. That's why your best chance to cotton to its meaning is to scan said meaning through your own laughter. The strangeness of our universe is sometimes funny. — ucarr

I realise I must sound mocking towards you at times ucarr and I apologise for that. I do honestly enjoy the way you think. You are not merely an irrational theist, you go into great depths in how you make connections between concepts and I think that is to be applauded. I just don't agree with some of your conclusions/personal projections. I think it would be more accurate for you to consider my dissent towards you as more based on a mix of academic and layperson complaint, rather than attempts at personal mockery towards you on my part.

Female bodily autonomy is imo, the most important controlling factor in any abortion scenario.
I agree that if the decision to abort has been made, medically, 'too late,' then major efforts have to be made to try to convince the person to opt for alternatives such as adoption etc or the state agreeing to take full responsibility for the birthed child.

We have the technical capability now. But money doesn't build roads and bridges; it only buys the materials, energy and labour. For a big, project, resources have to be allocated and dedicated over some considerable period of time. Once begun, it can't be left up to popularity whether to continue working on a costly project or abandon and allocate the material, energy, equipment and human supervision to some idea that sounds sexier during election week. — Vera Mont

When you say 'costs' here, I assume you are referring to the material resources required to complete a large project and not money, as we want to remove money. Yes, if a large project was started then it should be finished or else there would be a lot of wasted resources and the reasons for such bad and costly mistakes would need to be rigorously investigated and prevented from happening again.

Anyway, a career without pay or kickbacks has only the rewards of social status and admiration, and one can get as drunk on that as on any kind of power. — Vera Mont

I agree that can happen and I have no problem with that if it's healthy enthusiasm, but not if it has became a personal addiction towards a goal of establishing a cult of celebrity. I am fine with 'hero worship,' at the level I myself have for such as Carl Sagan, but yes, I would be concerned if the admired person was being damaged, due to developing an addiction to the praise of others. I agree that dealing with the praise of a multitude of fellow humans, needs to be psychologically 'supported'/rationalised/grounded.

The other danger of long service is the formation of influence-networks, from which cabal is not a step too far. You're teetering on the edge of what happened last time: a good leader was made chief; in the next conflict he became the war-lord; victorious, he was crowned king... next thing you know, his eldest son automatically inherits the throne, collects tribute from vassals, carves his legal code on an obelisk, stamps his ugly mug on a gold coin... — Vera Mont

Yes, a very worthy warning flag to raise and always wave, especially considering how many historical examples there are of such.

I would like to see a firmly established civil service of professionals, administered by a council - parliament, congress, what have you - drawn form the general population. Maybe by lot or rota system, like jury duty, serving short overlapping terms of two or three years. That way, the governing body really would be of the people. There would always be enough members - half, two thirds? - with experience for continuity and enough fresh minds for perspective, and civic service wouldn't remove people from their own regular life long enough to deform them. No medals, no accolades, no parades, no bloody statues or name carved into schools and libraries - just another job that gets done because it needs doing for the common weal. — Vera Mont

See, lots of good people have lots of idea's for trying to improving things for the better.

Please click on the link below to hear physicist Brian Cox talk about the universe in a way that nicely dovetails with a part of my theory about human cognition (evolving as a simulation of original cosmic sentience). To be sure, Cox gives no indication of believing in original, supernatural, cosmic sentience. I don't mean to falsely ascribe to him such belief. — ucarr

I watched it, and you confirm yourself what I have emboldened in your above quote I think your projections of what he is saying is your attempt to try to get it to 'dovetail,' with a part of your theory but I don't think that attempt is successful.

Even if superposition proves to be limited to the sub-atomic scale (I don't expect this to be the case), its confinement there is irrelevant to my argument: sub-atomic superposition has a constitutive bearing upon logical relations regardless of the scientific-evidentiary question about the scale at which it propagates. — ucarr

You need to be much clearer on what I have emboldened above. If you are just repeating that superposition violates the logic law of non-contradiction then we are just engaging in a panto exchange on that issue. 'Oh yes it does,' 'oh no it doesn't.'

Let’s avoid mixing apples with oranges. The integrity of logical relations is a separate category from the integrity of experimental evidence. You’re trying to use the latter to counter-example the former. Your attempt exemplifies irrelevance.

You can only counter-example my symbolic logic representation of superposition as an exception to non-contradiction through use of another symbolic logic statement that reveals a fatal logical flaw in my symbolic logic statement. — ucarr

I have no idea what you are referring to here? Are you talking about this?:

Why Non-Contradiction Needs to Soften
A_not-A_B ∧ B_not-B_A — ucarr

the fourth spacial dimension is present within our 3D-spatial universe in collapsed form. This collapsed form is exemplified by superposition. Superposition, in collapsed form at the level of a 3D-spatial universe stands as an exception to non-contradiction at the level of 3D-spatial universe logic. At the level of a 4D-spatial universe, wherein the fourth spatial dimension is expanded, the paradox is resolved within 4D-spatial universe logic which, for contrast with 3D-spatial universe logic, I will name as hyper-logic.

You need to utilize hyper-logic for your counter-example to my claim superposition is an exception to non-contradiction. It's a winning argument over a limited domain. — ucarr

Your first sentence in the above quote, has no empirical evidence to support it in physics. Superposition has been confirmed in 3 dimensions, there is no current experimental evidence for the existence of a 4th spacial dimension. You are asking me to provide a counter example for a claim about superposition being a 'collapsed form' of a 4th spatial dimension, that has no supporting evidence. In what sense can you 'collapse' a spacial dimension in physics? What mechanism are you referring to? Are you suggesting that any travelling waveform traverses a spatial 4th dimension? A vibrating string may vibrate in up to 10 dimensions but in what sense would such quanta collapse into only 3 dimensions? There would be no 'collapse,' it's just that we can only detect or observe 3D events as those are the only extended spacial dimensions.

Speaking more generally, the logic of each multi-dimensional matrix will be contradicted at the dimensional boundaries of that matrix. This is why I claim paradox is a portal to the next higher dimensional expansion. Paradox is the gateway between the levels of the multi-dimensional matrices of our upwardly multiplexing poly-verse. — ucarr

This just sounds like word salad sci-fi to me ucarr.

If you click on the link below, Toby, in less than one minute, will explain what I'm elaborating here.

Going One Dimension Higher — ucarr

I watched it, again and I already responded to this,in a post above.

This means that for a moral precept to be deemed verified logical and practical, it must first be vetted by a broad consensus of numerous people across a wide demographic. — ucarr

Broadly speaking, I agree but more generally, secular humanity needs a moral code which insists that we respect all that exists and we make every effort possible to not place our own survival, our own pleasure and our own prosperity, above every other existent in our environment. This is another reason for my anti-theism, as they consider this earthly existence as prologue only and the important existence happens after death, but only for those who have complied with human created BS religious moralities, which they claim are 'the word/dictates of god.'

As a secular humanist, do you not have a deep interest in cosmic sentience as sourced from secular humanist science? As for it being a goal approached asymptotically, do you not have serious speculation about evolving science making a close approach, as evidenced by your deep interest in an information singularity? — ucarr

Not a deep interest no, just an eyebrow lift of curiosity. Any notion of a cosmic sentience can only be emergent and not pre-existing or currently existing. Even panpsychism does not suggest a currently fully developed cosmic sentience. I have had a few exchanges with folks like @180 Proof regarding an information singularity and the development of an ASI as a creation of the human development of an AGI. The term 'information singularity,' is an interesting one. I asked chat GPT and it responded with:
The term "information singularity" is not a widely recognized concept as of my last knowledge update in September 2021. However, it seems to combine two distinct ideas: the "technological singularity" and the notion of information.

Technological Singularity: The technological singularity refers to a hypothetical future point in time when technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization. It's often associated with the idea that artificial intelligence or other advanced technologies could rapidly surpass human intelligence and capabilities. This concept was popularized by mathematician and computer scientist Vernor Vinge and later expanded upon by various futurists and researchers.

Information: Information is a concept relating to the communication or representation of knowledge, facts, or data. In the context of technology and artificial intelligence, the handling and processing of vast amounts of information are central. The growth of data, the internet, and computational power has significantly influenced the development of AI and other technologies.

If someone is referring to the "information singularity," they might be suggesting a point in the future where the rapid growth and evolution of information-related technologies reach a critical juncture, potentially leading to unforeseen and transformative changes in various aspects of society, communication, and knowledge management. However, without further context or a specific source, it's difficult to provide a more precise explanation. It's also possible that the term has emerged or gained significance after my last update in September 2021.

I accept that a technological singularity moment is a possibility but I remain unconvinced that such would mean our extinction. I think it more likely that an orga mecha merging would ultimately occur, but I wont repeat the discussions I have had with folks like @180 Proof on this, on other threads, such as Emergence and the many posts there, on this topic, such as this one. The owner of TPF, whose handle is @Jamal, got fed up with that thread, so he will not allow it to appear on the main page any more.

This becomes true about ten minutes after you remove the influence of money from the political system. If there is no social or financial gain to be made in governance, it's just a civic duty. — Vera Mont

Absolutely but not just a duty, a very worthy cause and vocation, which offers those who take on such, a respected status. A career which can allow an individual to make a real positive impact of the lives of so many and help direct our entire species in new and better ways to be and exist. The politicians who serve the people well or exceptionally well, will really deserve the memorialisations we dedicate towards them and the legacy they leave. Imo, this is a far better thing an individual can do with their life, than they have ever done before, especially when compared to becoming a Putin, a Thatcher, an Elon Musk, a Kardashian, a Roman Abramovich, etc, etc.

Only, make sure that essential services and institutions are protected from government interference, because people elected for a short term in office may not be able sustain long-term projects. — Vera Mont

Individual good politicians can get re-elected. You might serve as one of the 650 for much of your life, if you represent your constituents well enough. Long term projects which are popular with and valued by the electorate, will be sustained imo.

(Eg. Look at the roads. Nobody can build a proper road, because it's too expensive: allocation for any single project is determined by the lowest bid and annual budgeting means the infrastructure can only be patched, a little at a time, when absolutely necessary. All the patching and repair over the lifetime of a road ends up draining ten times the resources and worker-hours than building well in the first place. Obviously, all this is even more costly when done by private contractors, who also make a hefty profit, both on the initial construction and on the annual maintenance.) — Vera Mont

These issues will no longer be present in a moneyless, resource based economy which employs automation as its backbone. Future roads will be built and maintained by automated systems. We just need to develop the necessary tech capability.

The real way for countries to have become rich is through trade. — ssu

In my opinion, the human story will remain, and forever be, a corrupted story, until our extinction, if we are mainly about 'countries' and 'becoming rich.' These are the kinds of notions which I find soooooo 'unsatisfying.' We ask questions and we seek answers, that's what we do! that's who we are!
The real way for people to live better lives is to create a global system where the basic means of survival do not have to be the daily focus of any individual person. In such a global society, the human race might become a net positive for the universe, because we have the ability to create meaning and purpose. Such is non-existent imo, in a universe without lifeforms such as humans.

But it suits perfectly the typical anti-Western anti-capitalist rhetoric. — ssu

It is hardly a shock that those who support capitalism, see the claims of its critics as merely engaging in rhetoric. I am sure we are both more interested in the conclusions any readers of our exchange come to, rather than the conclusions each other comes to.

You really think that everywhere, starting from Soviet Union to Pol Pot's Cambodia there was somehow behind a class of very rich people, plutocrats? — ssu

No, I think the recipe started when we were wandering hominids in the wilds. An individual rise to power has always corrupted humans and the gaining of absolute power via political intrigue and economic competition has always corrupted absolutely. This lesson has been demonstrated, time and time again to all humans who have the wits to perceive such. Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. It's long overdue that the human race finally bars all individual pathways to too much individual or small group power and influence.

It really helps transactions, is a great way to measure tradeable stuff. Been there in our society a lot longer than present day capitalism has existed. — ssu

So has god posits and kings and aristocracies and class systems and caste systems and familial dynastic, inherited wealth, privilege and power, regardless of mental suitability or stability, etc etc. The fact that such phenomena have been around for a long time does not dilute how pernicious they are.

So you ban parties, won't accept them, assume 650 mp's act as "independents" (ahem! No grouping around tolerated), yet then in 5. you say there would be a second chamber either with just two people (male / female) or two from all stakeholders (I didn't get that part, sorry) as varied places as youth to LGTBQ+ to military and police??? — ssu

No, group forming of similarly minded individuals will happen, and is encouraged on an issue to issue basis, for the 4 years the elected 650 independents govern. Each action taken by an MP will however be scrutenised, at the constituency level. Once a month, the MP must report to a meeting held within the constituency they represent. Any voters from that constituency can attend that meeting and ask the MP questions regarding their report of their activity. All political meetings of the first chamber will be recorded and can be viewed by the public, as a way of ensuring that the MP has acted in the way they report they have acted. The second chamber would have as many members as required to allow one male and one female rep from each group.

So you are literally putting military and police into the legislative branch when they clearly belong in the executive branch — ssu

The military and the police would be represented at all levels of government, but the military and police would not be under the full control of the first chamber. The first chamber would not have the exclusive power to declare war, they would however have complete access to all military and police forces, in the situation where war had been declared against us, or an attack was immanent or in progress. They can unilaterally defend but they cannot, as the first chamber, unilaterally attack.

Sounds great, eh? — ssu

No, it sounds misguided. Those who represent the people in a parliament are the people, they are of the people and they are elected by the people and they are tasked with acting for the people and if they don't, then they must be removed and the system must have robust enough checks and balances that those who abuse the trust put in them, can be identified and removed, easily, quickly and fairly.

The point of this is that what some formal political design looks like theoretically, isn't what you are going to end up with, especially if there aren't any kinds of safety valves. — ssu

History absolutely confirms how correct this statement is, so we need to be wise and not repeat the same old mistakes and make damn sure that we do employ 'all kinds of safety valves.' One aid towards this goal might be to encourage ssu not to keep over-stating congratulations towards the not fast enough and not significant enough tiny improvements in global poverty imbalance or ecological damage.

Ancient Rituals — ucarr

So, I watched this what I would call sensationalist, click bait offering. These historical 'urban myths' may or may not be actually true or they may have existed as extreme examples of individualised behaviours. If there is a recorded event of a Scottish clan leader and some of his followers, rubbing whisky on their bollocks, because the clan leader claimed the god 'Lagavulin,' appeared to him in a vision and confirmed that such action would improve the chances of his wife giving birth to a strong male, rather than a weak male, or a female child. Does that mean this process was part of Scottish/Celtic traditional religious practice? No, such on-line video clips are of little significance.

Going One Dimension Higher — ucarr

Did you notice how the presenter struggled to represent a 4D shape on a 2D drawing surface.
Are you familiar with the Calabi-Yau manifolds of superstring theory?

Such image notions of multi-dimensions is quite old hat now and does not, imo, do much to aid human conception of such. I do not see how any such attempted visualisations aid your claims about paradox, layered space, dalliances with theism, notions of determinism vs random happenstance, etc.

What's wrong with money? — ssu

Oh Just that it helps create and maintain the rule of a nefarious few 'haves' over a vast global population of 'have nots.' It's a human invention that has proven to be toxic for the vast majority of human beings.
A global resource based economy supported by as much automation as possible, can be locally/nationally/internationally and globally organised as centrally controlled, and/or distributively controlled systems, as dictated/required by the conditions/human needs in a particular area.

Hows that going to work? And how are these elected persons then go and agree on what to do? What's wrong with representation and fellow minded coming together? — ssu

The details of how I and others think it could work are heavy in detail. Initial ideas include:
1. Historical political systems are taught in all schools, as a subject with a similar standing to that of Maths or science today.
2. Political debate is established as free online and via publically owned, state funded, televised channels. Anyone can take part at any age. Just expand what's going on on sites like TPF on a gobal scale.
3. There is a pathway from local politics to national/international/global politics open to all who wish to apply. This would be issue by issue politics and not party based politics.
4. Using the UK system as a base example. 650 mp's would be elected as independents. They would all form the government for 4 years and argue and legislate on an issue by issue basis. No prime minister and no official opposition required. Any one of the 650 can be chosen to represent the UK on international or global issues.
5. There would be a second elected chamber to check and accept or reject all legislation agreed on by the first chamber. This second chamber would consist of two (one male, one female) elected independents from all significant stakeholder groups, (youth, middle aged, old, education, medical, military, police, LBTQ+ etc, etc)
These 5 suggestions are of course, only the smallest beginnings and are open to full democratic debate.

What's your definition of being too rich? Or too powerful? — ssu

Too rich or too powerful is a measure of an individuals ability to influence political policy. If they can do so by use of their money then they have too much of it and are too individually powerful

Whose going to decide that? — ssu

We, the people through our directives to our elected representatives, regarding the checks and balances we insist they establish and rigorously maintain.

I think that things like Montesquieu's division of power, term limits, keeping secrecy of government actions at a true minimum etc. are the ways to fight autocracy. — ssu

I agree with 'division of power' and 'term limits'but certainly not 'keeping secrecy of government actions at a true minimum.' Fully open, transparent, full disclosure governance is an essential check and balance.
UPDATE: Sorry ssu, I misread your sentence 'keeping secrecy of government actions, at a true minimum' So I would change my disagreement with that goal to agreement.

Should we not speak of them, but just say the West has gotten it's prosperity by stealing from it's colonies or what? — ssu

Scotland, Ireland, Wales were not in themselves historical colonialists either. Their warrior men were employed or press ganged, by the far larger and more powerful Anglo/Saxon/Norman English nation.
I am not suggesting that the wealthy Welsh, Scottish and Irish nefarious few were not fully complicit in benefiting from building the vile 'British' empire. I am sure a minority of nefarious Finns, benefited from using those with a Finnish warrior mentality, who fought for the Swedes or the Russian actions to plunder and pillage their neighbouring peoples. Those who embark on conquest, pillaging and plundering have notions of personal gain, more than they have an interest in establishing the empire notions they were probably not even aware they were establishing. That's why the term mercenary was and always has been part of our bloody history. With all due respect, you seem to have a very naive, 'picture book' sense of human history.

In the reasons why countries have gotten more prosperous indeed the workers movement and trade unions do have an important part. After all, if I remember correctly, Marx himself was worried that the Proletariat might not opt for the revolution, but simply demand higher wages. Well, fortunately he was in this case right! — ssu

That's a bit better!

An opportunist you say, I think it is you who should show that Stalin indeed wasn't a Marxist-Leninist. Or you think that Lenin and other leaders would have taken a vile opportunist on their ranks? — ssu

Back to naivety I see. Lenin was also an opportunistic butcher. I think Trotsky was a true believer in the socialist cause and did hold true to his cause of trying to make the world a better place for the Russian people, which is why Stalin's need to have him assassinated, was a top priority, when the Russians were stupid enough to let him take power. Such a pretty picture you posted, they almost look like friends, don't they. :lol:

Actually yes. The term plutocracy means rule by the rich. The term autocracy means rule by one. Who rules matters here — ssu

Oh come on! how deep does your naivety go? Can 'one' maintain control without a supporting plutocracy? The one autocrat will get assassinated or brought down/replaced, if they don't keep the plutocrats happy. The autocrat will try to keep his/her closest supporters a bit terrified of them, yes, all gangster leaders do this but as Gandhi correctly pointed out:
"When I despair, I remember that all through history, the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it, always."

And there is absolute poverty too. — ssu

Do you think that in the current western cost of living crisis where many who are fully employed, still have to go to food banks, is a big improvement on the Dickensian days of the poorhouses and soup kitchens?
Do you think that people, currently dependent on food banks, should be sooooooo happy and should spend their time celebrating that things are not as bad as those Dickensian days and should they also spend their time celebrating the fact that they are not suffering in the same way as those who suffered during the Irish potato famine or the Scottish highland clearances or the various ethnic cleansing projects that have been imposed on various populations in the past, or perhaps the deliberate horrific actions of Stalin such as the deliberate starvation of millions of Ukranians during the Holodomor. or his slaughter of the Kulaks? Is that the message you offer? That we should all be grateful for the tiny crumbs the worlds poor has been allowed to enjoy from the vast resources the nefarious rich control? Are you f****** serious? I don't mean to sound annoyed at your suggestions, but it's hard to disguise the fact that I am, even if you don't care that I am. I hope others can see how misguided your suggestions are.

Somehow saying that things have improved seems (from the emotional outburst) to you as an acceptance that everything is fine. Well, that's not the case. Yet not accepting that things have improved is biased, because there really are ways to eradicate poverty, starting from the obvious, absolute poverty.
And yes, if India and China have improved the situation of many of their people, why do you think it's misguided to acknowledge this? — ssu

Thanks for at least asking that question. It's misguided, because you have presented your argument in a completely imbalanced way, imo. You have suggested, imo, that it is the mimicry of the dictates of western style rich and powerful individuals, and the acceptance of capitalist doctrine, the money trick and the free market economy, in places such as India and China, that has lifted so many of the poor, out of absolute poverty, and into a state, that you are trying to peddle as a great improvement that the global poor should be sooooooo grateful for.
I am suggesting that your position is misguided and naive because, I think that the truth is, that the nefarious rich and powerful, are becoming more and more afraid of the great mass of poor people who are getting more and more pissed off at them, and are sharpening their pitchforks and getting braver and braver in their wish to organise and protest, the imbalances they suffer, every day, which are beyond their individual power to influence/combat.
The nefarious rich are throwing the poor more and more little crumbs, in the hope that they can do enough to placate them but still maintain their own vile position and lifestyle. You are suggesting the poor should be content with the little crumbs they are receiving and they should also sing the praises of the crumb givers for their efforts. I am insisting that you are talking BS and that the people of this planet should continue to organise globally and increase the pace and power of their just demands. It's time to end all plutocracy/autocracy permanently, everywhere it exists.

But the artwork, jewellery and impractical garments can never be sent back to compensate the people who suffered for their making. — Vera Mont

I am sure humanity can absorb such a hit. I like your other suggested uses for the ill-gotten gains, obtained sycophantically by the nefarious rich, from the toil of the many, via the money trick. I think we should also take all church property into state ownership, without compensation for the current owners and turn them all into shelters for the homeless. We could also turn all Vatican wealth over to the current poor, cold and hungry of the world. Surely Jesus (if it ever existed) would approve of such actions.

Please watch the short video by clicking on the link below.
Ancient Rituals — ucarr

I will and comment on it later.

Is it your settled opinion that allegiance to cosmic sentience has had no bearing whatsoever on discrediting some of the ancient rituals? — ucarr

As I have already stated ucarr, the term 'cosmic sentience,' has almost zero value for me, I am not a panpsychist, I can at best raise an eyebrow of recognition towards the term as a possible goal for our human species and a possible common cause for all currently existing sentient life in the universe. But, a goal that will forever be, an asymptotic approach.

Isn't confining superposition and its logical implications to the sub-atomic level what you're doing here? — ucarr

No, I am following the evidence. The only evidence we currently have for superposition is at the sub-atomic level. We have no evidence of superposition at a macroscale. The multi-verse/many worlds theory has only the sub-atomic scale evidence. We have not detected another Earth or person in a superposition state. I do not claim that we never will, I just hold the opinion currently that we probably never will and superposition may well be a phenomena that only occurs at the quantum level.

Superposition in principle, in accordance with the law, you endorse. Superposition as a real phenomenon in practice, which would be an exception to non-contradiction, you reject. This means you, like some logicians, put superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction into a box wherein it's a principle of QM you accept as legal but reject in practice. I claim you can't have it both ways.
As for your justification, what bearing has intuition upon the question of superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction?
I think superposition vis-a-vis non-contradiction is a major theme within our dialog.
Upward dimensional expansion takes infinity-undefined and rationalizes it into an integer. — ucarr

I have already stated that I completely disagree with you labelling of superposition as an 'exception' to the logic rule of non-contradiction. I have accepted that it is 'intuitively' weird, but so what? The universe does not have to comply with human notions of how it should be, that was the notion being exemplified by the HH quote you employed, yes? How can superposition be an exception to the logic law of non-contradiction when there are other exceptions, such as those I have already stated, quantum tunnelling, entanglement and also possibly dark matter, dark energy etc. How many exceptions do you need before you accept that these are not exceptions to the natural workings and structure of the universe, but are integral parts of such.

Paradox is the portal to the next higher dimensional expansion. Superposition of a particle is a formerly 3D expanded particle one-upped to 4D expansion. At the level of 4D expansion, there is no contradiction within what we, at the level of 3D expansion, refer to as superposition. — ucarr

There is no paradox in superposition! Superposition may be 10 dimensional, if string theory is correct, but if string theory is correct, then you and I are 10 dimensional creatures,

who can only physically experience 3 expanded dimensions, because only 3 physical dimensions are expanded, the rest are curled up. We have already discussed this!

Please click the link below so Toby can demonstrate what I mean.

Going One Dimension Higher — ucarr

Ok!

I think they do not seem relevant to the Chinese people, because they are our govenment's decision. — Hailey

If that's true then why do you think the Tiananmen Square protests happened ? and why were Chinese people, willing to put their lives on the line to protest against the political system being imposed on them.

As for the people, we have limited info sources and even these are controled by the government. Also, there is this fear of saying something wrong, which, I'm comtempleting today, — Hailey

I can only try to place myself in the frame you present. If I felt a threat from my own government, described as you describe it above. Then I would join those who wanted to end them as an authority in the country I lived in (in my case, Scotland.) I accept however that can be a very scary prospect and I also accept that often, those fighting for a fairer system, lose, like those hero Chinese who stood against the Chinese regime at Tiananmen Square and the brave Chinese who are trying to fight to maintain the freedoms of Hong Kong people. The original Chinese revolution was a socialist movement but as was the same in the French and Russian revolution, it became corrupted by opportunists and leaders such as Mao who let their own narcissism and self-aggrandizement, overwhelm their original cause. Animal farm , by George Orwell best described this phenomena that has plagued humanism and socialism, in it's cause of making a better world for all. Surely we have had enough historical examples of this phenomena now and in the future, when next humanists and socialists overthrow a tyranny, we will not allow any single leader or small group to 'fill' the power gap created by the blood and sacrifice of the people. This first priority must be to establish, very powerful checks and balances, so that no individual or small group can ever hold autocratic or totalitarian power in place of the tyranny just removed. That is the lesson of Animal farm and all failed people revolutions such as those in France, Spain, Russia and China.

the Chinese stock market. — Hailey

These words alone, suggest to me that China has decided to engage fully in the capitalist system, so look to America for a prediction of the future of it's people. Do the Chinese people want to become a society that mimics the current American society we see portrayed on TV and on the internet everyday?
We need new approaches. A true socialist system has never succeeded anywhere in the world yet, it has always been thwarted by the cult of personality phenomena, but, I think we have learned a great deal about such phenomena and how to combat it.

If a moral precept is verified logical and deemed pertinent to empirical experience, does its source matter? — ucarr

Oh yes, very much, yes! If the people in a city are living very content, happy lives, after they deemed it logical and demonstrated via empirical evidence, that if they enslaved and subjugated all the peoples around them, they would prosper for ever more and be rich and powerful and treated like 'the chosen ones,' then such a moral precept is vile even though it would work and would be fit for the purposes it was intended to achieve.

Just been interrupted ucarr and I have to deal with an issue. Will pick this up again soon.

do you think that historical examples of how now more prosperous countries did eradicate widespread poverty is still informative on what at the present should be done? — ssu

Only if the facts of the 'how' can be fully understood and can pass a basic secular morality test. For example, Much of Glasgow in Scotland, was built on the profits of the tobacco lords, which was built on the cheap, forced labour of slavery. Many of Britain's cities prospered on the profits of slavery and on the fact that the British military, pillaged other civilisations, just like other vile groups, such as the Romans, the Vikings etc, etc did before them. Are those the kind of historical examples you wish to exemplify as resulting in less poverty for their stakeholders? Historical examples of humanist/socialist/labour and suffrage movements, which actually did improve the lives of many, should indeed be championed and in fact always have been, by true socialists and humanists.

There is no valid reason for famine, anywhere on this planet today! No valid reason at all. Apart from due to the actions of the nefarious rich and powerful elites.
— universeness
You do understand that what your saying is populism, if everything are due to the actions of the nefarious rich. — ssu

It's a pity you don't understand the local/national/international and global responsibility the nefarious rich have for the economic and power imbalance they created in history, and continue to create today. Calling it 'populism,' is a simplistic and very poor attempt to hold up an irrelevant shiny, to distract from and dilute the truth.

First of all, Stalin really was a socialists, or a Marxist-Leninist. If you argue otherwise, you don't know much about him or the Soviet Union. — ssu

In my opinion, you are just displaying your naivety more prominently. Stalin was a vile opportunist, and a narcissist, who would dress in whatever political identity suited his only cause, that of his own aggrandizement. Its a well known, common pathology. I am surprised you cannot see past such disguises. Do you also believe that Donald Trump is a true man of the Christian faith? :rofl: and Boris Johnson was a genuine brexiteer, based on principle? :roll:

And for the Chinese system, how much really power those billionaires have in China? Haven't you heard about China's missing billionaires? The Chinese Communist party has power in China, and the CCP is ruled by one man. — ssu

So the difference for you, between characters like Elon Must, Roman Abramovich, and Zhang Yiming (owner of such as Tik Tok etc) is that the Russian and the Chinese examples of nefarious rich, ultimately answer to a political overlord (King)? Whereas in the West, the billionaires are more independent and can abuse global populations, more freely? What other distinction between such characters do you think exists? Do you really think political doctrine is an important distinction between such individuals?

Dying of poverty is quite drastic, but yes, still if you don't die of starvation or cold or something like that poverty can really be bad. And I don't think at this level the statistics are wrong: thing like widespread famines or food riots not happening show that. — ssu

Dying as a slave or dying as an enslaved gladiator, for the entertainment of an audience in an arena, is quite drastic, yes? Such public atrocities do not happen anymore, as an acceptable part of a 'civilised' nation, do they? Does that mean we should focus on the fact that 'well that shit doesn't happen much anywhere today,' so we should all be very grateful for what we have, because no one has died as a gladiator in an arena for a long time, so we are doing well!

Famines and food riots have not even ended yet. They have globally reduced, yes but that is f*** all, to pat anyone on the back for, as it's at best, tip of the iceberg improvements. We have sooooooooo much further to go, and you, trying to congratulate, whoever it is you are trying to congratulate, for what has been done so far, is at best misguided and at worse, sinister.

Sovereign states being sovereign is a good start, at least. A good guideline, let's say. — ssu

No, No, No, No, No! ( as I have heard some on-line debaters such as Matt Dillahunty exclaim, when dismayed at an interlocuter.) We need global unity, not more 'nationhood' that uses outdated monarchistic words, such as 'sovereign.'

If it's so simple, then you think the answer is simple too? — ssu

Yes, simple in concept but not so simple in execution, due to the current power and influence of the nefarious rich.
1. Get rid of money and build a resource based, global economic system, using automation as its backbone.
2. Abandon party politics and employ a system that allows an individual to vote for a person to represent them and not a political party.
3. Create very powerful checks and balances which would prevent any individual or group from becoming too rich, too powerful, autocratic, totalitarian, etc, etc.
I could go into much more detail on each of the above three changes I advocate but I doubt you would be interested. So I merely state them here, again, as I have stated such for many years, in the hope that others will find common cause with such ideas, which of course have been around for a long time.

Really, is it a pathetic improvement that there hasn't been a famine in China in the last 50 years, but before that there indeed were? — ssu

Don't cherry pick my sentences. Quote them fully.

The evidence of improvements in the charts you posted are pathetic, in comparison with what should be happening globally. — universeness

There is no valid reason for famine, anywhere on this planet today! No valid reason at all. Apart from due to the actions of the nefarious rich and powerful elites.

Well, those leaders in China still think of themselves as devoted Marxists. — ssu

What??? How naive of you! Do you really think there is much difference between a western billionaire and a Chinese or Russian one, no matter which political doctrine they claim they champion. Do you really believe Stalin and Hitler, etc were socialists for example, as well as being very, very rich and powerful?

You call a billion people going out of absolute poverty a "small improvement"? — ssu

Yes, especially when moving from absolute poverty to almost absolute poverty. That is not much of an improvement. Don't forget, you can manipulate stats. "There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics." Sometimes that quote is very true!

Why there a persistent large class of poor people is a complex issue. — ssu

No, it's fundamentally very simple, it started off with the majority of humans, in small communities, allowing the 'strongest and scariest f***wits,' to become their leader/king and accepting the primal fear manipulations put forward by the theosophists around at the time. It's such a pity that at the time, humans did not have a standard community policy of joining en-masse, every time it was needed to kill the brawn based gangsters, who would be king, consistently, from day 1. it's also a pity we had no effective antidote to religious BS at the time. The other reason that the rich and poor was created globally, was the application of capitalism via the money trick. Fundamentally, quite simple, but soooooooo destructive for our species and this planet.

Weak countries are exploited, that is true. — ssu

I assume that is not ok in your opinion, yes? and if it's not, then what reparations do you think are due for such abominable violations of basic human secular morality and how are you helping to stop such from ever happening again?

You are correct, I don't know Nozick's theory. I am more interested in the 'realpolitik,' than what others claim are mere value judgements. That of course, does not dilute the very important issue of taking all human based value judgements as worthy of political attention, because if politicians don't pay attention to such then they will perish on that particular rock (at least under political systems such as that of the UK). I did not think you would be able to answer my questions but thanks for the exchange anyway.

Sadly, despite the small improvements you cite, I think words like the ones in the song below are still horrendously true about the world we live in, do you agree?



Lyrics:
Come and join the score (it's a) very holy chore
(You must) Fight for freedom, Liberty (you must)
Fight for old men just like me
Now i'm not in the mood (to fight)
But I'll give you clothes and food (Alright you see)
Someone else is making more than me
And that can be, an economic policy

Ain't it funny, ain't it shame
While the fat man is snoring
You can die for his games (economy)
Ain't it funny, ain't it a joke
As you die for the fat man
He is lifting your joke

See I have no arm (for giving)
See I have no legs (to run away)
See I have no nose, no eyes
Don't hear no lies, I'm monkey wise
Guess I got my gun (You didn't run?)
Back in '41 (Where are you now?)
Now I wish I could just swim in the sun
Because whatever I won, it wasn't much fun at all

Ain't it funny, ain't it shame
While the fat man is snoring
You can die for his games (economy)
Ain't it funny, ain't it a joke
As you die for the fat man
He is lifting your joke

Your country needs you today
Your country needs you to die

At this moment, I don't think China is a socialist country. From my understanding, China has had a Nozick-style libertarian economic system since Deng Xiaoping. However, this system has changed in 2018. China has set goals for more economic equality and is trying to move towards a socialist system. — guanyun

I am not familiar with Robert Nozick but based on a google search, what examples of Chinese policy do you think are in line with what this wiki article states about the notions of Nozick?
Robert Nozick (/ˈnoʊzɪk/; November 16, 1938 – January 23, 2002) was an American philosopher. He held the Joseph Pellegrino University Professorship at Harvard University, and was president of the American Philosophical Association. He is best known for his books Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), a libertarian answer to John Rawls' A Theory of Justice (1971), in which Nozick alsopresented his own theory of utopia as one in which people can freely choose the rules of the society they enter into, and Philosophical Explanations (1981), which included his counterfactual theory of knowledge. His other work involved ethics, decision theory, philosophy of mind, metaphysics and epistemology. His final work before his death, Invariances (2001), introduced his theory of evolutionary cosmology, by which he argues invariances, and hence objectivity itself, emerged through evolution across possible worlds.

I know the words underlined in this 'first paragraph only,' from the wiki article regarding Nozick's work are at best 'a simplistic overview,' but even with the limits of that in mind, the people of China do not, to me, seem to have the individual voice or collective 'people power,' needed to achieve any such notion as that reportedly espoused by Nozick in the words I underlined above.

Can you give me an example of a current governmental policy, that demonstrates how "China has set goals for more economic equality and is trying to move towards a socialist system."

But it is very clear that the current government is trying to create a more economic equality environment, so I could say that China is trying to be socialist and trying to get rid of elite capital, only the process is painful and the result is the current economic slide. — guanyun

Again can you give an example of a current policy which exemplifies what you are referring to?

I know that the reality in China is very cruel and complicated, which involves the clash of different clan concepts, different regional concepts and different ethnic philosophies. — guanyun

All nations on this planet have this problem, but few agreed to a one party permanent governance with a party elected undemocratic autocratic leader, as the solution. The Chinese government does not seek the regularly renewed consent of its population, to govern. It is therefore in no way socialist and your reason for that current reality as stated above, is in my opinion, an unacceptable one.

We are powerless to talk about China from philosophical concepts. — guanyun

What do you mean by this?

So my libertarian ideals are all confined to my personal actions, without trying to influence others. — guanyun

But personal actions of any significantly public kind, will influence others. Are all such actions you choose to take hidden and secret? You are posting on a public platform but I do accept that your identity and exact whereabouts are more protected, is that what you mean?

Actually, the academic field in China is quite free — guanyun

Do you feel free enough to critisize the Chinese government in the same way as I can criticise the UK or the Scottish government here where I live, in Scotland, without fear of physical attack from that same governments military or/and police forces?

What do you think of leading Chinese dissidents, such as the artist and filmmaker Ai Weiwei and his articles such as, 'Too late to curb China's global influence.'

I don't support the surveillance of people, but I also see that people around the world are really not rational enough in their virtue. It's hard to evaluate. — guanyun

I noticed you offered no opinion on the Tiananmen square protests and the many Chinese people who were killed by the Chinese authorities. That's fine, and I am sure you have legitimate reason why you choose not to comment. Does that also mean you would choose not to respond with your true opinion to such questions like:
1. Does the Chinese government currently have a policy of aggression and subjugation towards it's (traditionally Muslim) Uyghur population?
2. Most of the world powers support Ukraine against the current Russian invasion, even though the current Russian regime considers Ukraine, Russian land, in a similar way to the current Chinese regime in their claims on Taiwan. Does China have a legitimate claim to Taiwan?
3. How can China ever be considered socialist when it is not democratic, and it currently stands accused of:
- acting like an imperialist conqueror in Tibet.
- imposing a permanent government/dictatorship in mainland China and in Hong Kong.
- currently performing a military build up and an aggressive posture in the south China sea.

I currently hold the opinion that the Chinese government is a horrible regime that must be overthrown by its people, but do you think I am merely duped by western propaganda? and my current low opinions, of the Chinese political system are incorrect, and the majority of the Chinese population generally supports the current structure, workings and domestic and foreign policies of the current Chinese regime?

As a socialist, I cannot call the current Chinese government anything other than a regime, which is forced upon its people. I also insist that no government can ever, ever be called socialist, if it does not have regular, fair and free, democratic elections, of, for and by its population.

The evidence of improvements in the charts you posted are pathetic, in comparison with what should be happening globally. Our planet and the majority of our species, still suffer severely, from the wealth and power imbalances caused by global plutocratic elites? Are you seriously trying to claim that the improvements, (since we came out of the wilds,) made in the number of individuals globally, who are in abject poverty, is down to the trickle down crumbs that fall from the capitalist table, rather than from the social and political efforts made by humanists/socialist movements world wide?
Any improvements made, come from the pressure applied to the elites, from local/national/international and global humanism/socialism.
The following WHO information is a small indication of how much work still has to be done:
In 2020 an estimated 5 million children under the age of 5 years died, mostly from preventable and treatable causes. Approximately half of those deaths, 2.4 million, occurred among newborns (in the first 28 days of life).
While the global under-5 mortality rate (U5MR) fell to 37 deaths per 1000 live births in 2020, children in sub-Saharan continued to have the highest rates of mortality in the world at 74 deaths per 1000 live births- 14 times higher than the risk for children in Europe and North America.
The leading causes of death in children under 5 years are preterm birth complications, birth asphyxia/trauma, pneumonia, diarrhoea and malaria, all of which can be prevented or treated with access to affordable interventions in health and sanitation.

Things are getting better for many poor people in the world, that is true, but the reasons have almost f*** all to do with the actions of the rich, and have a lot more to do with the political pressure that comes via the utter revulsion felt by the more and more informed people amongst our species, regarding 'what is really going on.' The actions, lifestyle, imbalance and narcissism of the global elites are being exposed more and more. You need to be clear on what you are suggesting has caused the improvements you cite.

The link seems concerned with love and I am not into love — Athena

???? So why do you choose to help strangers who seem unable to help themselves?

but you did inspire me to Google for an organization that is about civics education. I signed up for their newsletter. — Athena

Good stuff.

I ask if earthly religion has an upside. — ucarr

Fair enough, A direct answer from me, is a resounding no, religion has no upside. My foundational reason for saying this is consolidated quite well, imo, by Carl Sagan's quote:
"Better the hard truth, I say, than the comforting fantasy.” Those who try to exemplify a positive effect of religion, ignores such points as made by Carl, to the peril of all of us. I am with the four horsemen, Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett and Harris, 'all religion is pernicious!'

Are you a panpsychist ucarr?

Modern theists have yet to conquer those ancient primal fears. Science is the antidote. Good, logical philosophising can also be an assist.
— universeness

Do you include moral instruction on your list? — ucarr

Morality born of secular humanism, yes.

Okay. You acknowledge that superposition is an exception to the principle of non-contradiction confined to the sub-atomic scale. — ucarr

No, there is no exception here, just in the same way that empirically demonstrated quantum entanglement or quantum tunnelling, or quantum fluctuations (with it's 'virtual' particle' and 'zero point energy' notions) are not exceptions to non-contradictive logic, as they are natural occurrences, at the sub-atomic level. Such may be, classically, non-intuitive, but we have already covered that. A human who finds the workings of QM, classically or macroscopically, non-intuitive, is not a statement/position that can be compared, with scientific rigour, to the logic law of non-contradiction.
As I said earlier ucarr, I find you a very interesting thinker, but I will not let you make equivocation fallacies, without challenging them or at least, pointing them out to you, for your consideration.
That does not stop me enjoying the way your mind ruminates.

However, this exception operates in the real world as truth de jure whereas the principle of non-contradiction operates in the real world as truth de facto. — ucarr

Only if you don't accept empirically demonstrated superposition, as current scientific fact, that persists not for days but for as long as we have no evidence to contradict it. I do accept that superposition could be being misinterpreted or could be some kind of illusion, in the same way 'gravitational lensing' creates repeated, skewed images of galaxies, which are in fact behind other galaxies, within a particular viewing angle of a directed space telescope. But we know images created by gravitational lensing are not real, so I trust that the scientific application of skepticism, will discover, if quantum superposition and quantum tunnelling are misinterpretations of what is really going on at the sub atomic scale. I therefore assign little significance, to your 'truth de jure' label.

A quantum gravitational reality at the scale of human experience, being existentially vastly different from the establishment Newtonian lens of perception, argues plausibly as a viable candidate for the label of neo-natural. — ucarr

Do you support the current 'loop quantum gravity,' proposals? Have you heard any of the current proponents of loop quantum gravity or List of quantum gravity researchers, label their work as 'neo-natural' research? Or are you alone, applying your term to such research? Who from the list I linked to, can you quote as agreeing with you, and in what context?
What does the concept of 'new-natural' compared to 'that which we cannot yet confirm is part of the natural workings of the universe,' offer us? I think you are fighting tooooooooo hard to find a gap that your theism can find respite and maintenance within. But, for you, it seems to be important to constantly defibrillate theism, rather that relieve yourself of it and that's ...... fair enough, but does, ironically, imo, conflict with the logic law of non-contradiction, due to such conflicts as 'if god is an immortal then in cannot die like a human can. So humans can die/terminate to oblivion, in a way that an immortal god cannot. How can an immortal god be omnipotent then? There are many such possible contradictions in theism as presented by theists. I would look to theism, for many many examples of confliction, with the logic laws of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle.

Based on this:
I'm reading Political Philosphy in China, I do support socialism, however I'm skeptical of Marxism.
I would find it very interesting to exchange views with you.

I consider my own political/social labels as 'democratic socialist' and 'secular humanist.'

What do you think about socialism & Marxism? — guanyun

They are related in many many ways but are certainly not synonymous. If you wish to discuss the differences that I personally perceive, then I would be willing, but there may not be much value in that exchange, for either of us.

What question you want ask about socialism in China? — guanyun

Do you think China, since the revolution, was ever correctly labelled as socialist?
What for you, is evidence that the label 'communist,' is more apt, than socialist, for the current Chinese regime or is 'autocratic control backed by a rich/plutocratic/patriarchal, capitalist elite,' more accurate as a description of the current Chinese government, in your opinion?
How can a system be socialist, if it is one party rule and not based on the regular democratic vote of the people?
Do/did you support the Tiananmen square protesters?

My next question I would ask you, is probably totally spawned from Western propaganda but It's still important to ask, in my opinion.
If you are typing on TPF from a networked computer in China, are you worried that the Chinese authorities, do have a system of monitoring the internet activity of its population, with the goal of identifying dissidents?

Next, we reference our verbal equation: Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine. This equation sets no volumetric limit on the degree of strangeness allowable for our standard deviation. This is because it places degree of strangeness beyond human consciousness as instantiated by imagination. Strangeness, vis-a-vis humanity, is unlimited, i.e., infinite.

Our standard deviation, then, must employ an equation that approaches a limit. — ucarr

I think you have stretched the intended meaning behind this HH quote too far, and the elastic snapped a while ago.

In the above quote you tip-toe to the threshold of acceptance of the supernatural because your denial is followed by a stipulation that mitigates the denial down to almost nothing. If the supernatural is overburdened, as you say, then, in saying so, you acknowledge its existence and your acceptance of same.

Note: In our context here, supernatural simply means higher-order logical conceptualization of an empirically real category that encompasses nature. In effect, then, super-natural is just another (albeit more inclusive) category of natural. — ucarr

Let me be very clear, that I do not accept the existence of the supernatural, in the form of god posits or angels and demon posits etc. The supernatural posited as natural science, that we have not confirmed exists yet, such as strings or superstrings, supersymmetry, dark matter, dark energy, the graviton etc, is over-burdening the word. So, yes that's what I meant by the term being over-burdened but such a statement is, in no way, me tip toeing towards god proposals.

This tells us science cannot embrace strangeness beyond imagination and at the same time cherry-pick what qualifies as allowable examples of strangeness-beyond-imagination. — ucarr

Science would reject such a silly phrase as 'beyond imagination.' It's an acceptable phrase in sci-fi or in a quote from a scientist, who is being emotive for dramatic effect, but logically, like god posits, it is an unfalsifiable claim.

For this reason, speaking logically, natural science wants to ascend to super-natural science as it progresses forward in its simulation of cosmic sentience. — ucarr

This is just a conflation of the goal of human science to seek truths we don't yet have. You are attempting to sprinkle non-existent 'magic dust' all over science and 'real' scientists, to suggest that they are also interested in the esoteric or metaphysics. They are not and never have been or will be. They leave such to the philosophers at best, and the theists and theosophists at worse and they get on with the job of applying the scientific method, logically and rationally.

Cosmic sentience, as mediated on earth by humanity, has a deep, horrific downside. This you are eager to trumpet. Does it also have an upside? — ucarr

There is no 'cosmic sentience,' so there is nothing to 'trumpet' and it follows that it cannot have an 'upside.'

I will speculate that if I could time travel to an era preceding monotheism, I'd be appalled by the state of human relationships. The human ascent from the barbarism of the caves has many causes. Is the supernaturalism of belief in cosmic sentience not one of them? — ucarr

Why do you need to time travel? You will find plenty of examples of appalling human relationships all around you. Human progress has been made, despite the proposal that gods exist and are 'better' than us and we must be subservient to them and worship them. That BS does as you suggest, originate from the primal fears we experienced from our days living in caves, terrified of all the scary noises coming from outside the caves, at night, and from wondering what all those shiny things in the sky were. Modern theists have yet to conquer those ancient primal fears. Science is the antidote. Good, logical philosophising can also be an assist.

If you query logicians about discarding non-contradiction as a foundational principle of logic, I expect you'll get pushback. — ucarr

What ???
When did I suggest that the logic rule of non-contradiction be discarded?

Dismantling non-contradiction means radically overhauling the general methodology of science. You're extremely optimistic if you think the standard prohibiting inconsistency within logical arguments will either be relaxed or waived anytime soon. — ucarr

I have no idea where you are going with this. I fully accept the logic rules of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle, so where are you going with this line of thought?

I think there's a vast field of work to be done by philosophers either in effecting or rejecting such an overhaul. — ucarr

Who is suggesting such an 'overhaul' is required? I have suggested that the supernatural has no existent and it never has. In the case of the over-burdening of the label, when it is used to refer to that which is in fact natural but is for now undiscovered or unconfirmed science. The only action required, is to disallow or not accept (as I generally don't) the use of the word to describe currently undiscovered scientific truth about the natural structure and workings of the universe.

But that's just an argument from classical intuition.
— universeness
I’m unsure of the meaning of classical intuition. Please clarify. — ucarr

I combined the two words to express that what seems intuitive to us today is different from what seemed intuitive to folks during the days of Newton and through the lens of classical physics (which is mainly at a macroscale). So, I can understand that 'superposition' would seem ridiculous to those alive during the days of Newton but superposition is now demonstrable, but god and the supernatural is still, not, and unlike the majority of current scientific projections, zero progress has been made in proving any god or supernatural posit.

Superposition does not contradict reality!
— universeness
It doesn’t. My focus, however, isn’t on the simple issue of the truth or falsity of a claim. It’s on the lens of interpretation through which a critic views a narrative; my argument is centered in the issue of context. — ucarr

So you will accept then that this:

Superposition of the wave function flies in the face of one of science's foundational principles: non-contradiction. — ucarr

is not true.

Even with the brilliance of his scientific mind, Einstein was obstinately uncooperative in his attitude toward QM. He publicly acknowledged it as being correct, but incomplete. This was not a small bone to pick because he believed, until his death, that probability being essential to QM was incorrect. He thought his Unified Field Theory would ultimately vacate quantum uncertainty as an essential and permanent feature of our universe He has a famous quote: God doesn’t play dice with the universe.
Also, he disdained QM entanglement as spooky action at a distance. — ucarr

Einstein was wrong regarding QM. I think hat is now well established.

allowing such pure speculation regarding the supernatural to influence peoples daily lives... moral code... political policy... LGBTQ+ rights
— universeness
The Heisenberg_Haldane quote: Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine.
— ucarr
Despite what I stated above, I accept that this quote is a very good and likely very correct comment about the nature and structure of the universe.
— universeness
Your two above positions, as you acknowledge, stand in conflict with each other. This surprises me because the Heisenberg_Haldane quote, in my interpretation, exemplifies super-ordinate logic transitioning into embrace of the supernatural. I claim this because the statement, by making an unrestricted claim about the strangeness of the universe, authorizes the universe as a broadly inclusive system that allows supernature as one of its components. — ucarr

No, my purpose in fully accepting the HH quote was in no way, an acceptance that the supernatural was not, imo, total woo woo, it was more an acceptance that the 'label' supernatural is way, way over-burdened. There are no ghosts, gods, angels or demons but I do think that the actual structure, workings and origin story of the universe will indeed be quite strange. I think superposition, entanglement and quantum tunnelling, would, as you suggest, have seemed 'supernatural,' when viewed through a lens of classical Newtonian physics, but now we know they actually exist, they are not supernatural.
But none of these quantum phenomena, involve dead humans haunting live ones, angels helping humans, demons attacking and possessing humans, gods existing, etc etc. No quantum phenomena has progressed the evidence for god one iota imo.

Many people have been killed due to the religion they held, represented or preached since we came out of the wilds. These 12 men are no more important than any of the millions who have died in the name of religion.
— universeness
I argue that your above claim is a sweeping generalization of very low veracity WRT to certain individuals lumped together within your broadly inclusive set of millions.
My argument proceeds from the following parallel: Einstein, Bohr and Haldane are no more important than the multitudes of seekers who have made explorations in the name of science. — ucarr

The main difference is that the scientists you mentioned, existed. Jesus and its band of chosen, probably did not, and were satirical parodies, and even if they did exist, they were of no more value, than the characters described in any other of the thousands of historical religious stories, which imo, have the exact same level of veracity as the Christian stories. Zeus, Odin, BAAL, and EL are no less plausible than Yahweh. Jesus and its chosen 12 are no more likely that the Earthly Hercules, Jason etc or even Gilgamesh (and its chosen friend Enkidu).

I think we can infer that valid, useful ideas come from historically real persons (or combinations thereof) even if we don’t have correct information about the true identities of those persons. — ucarr

I agree, stories from folklore can be of value, when it comes to human moral dilemma, but that's the full extent/maximum value of such, and it is very important to state, that the events depicted in such stories are folklore and there is almost zero significant evidence, that any of the characters described, actually existed. Whereas, Einstein and Heisenberg really did live, and the majority of events described in their life, were memorialised accurately, in reliable ways.

I understand you as concluding Peterson raises the status of the tale of Jonah and the Fish from literal nonsense to instructive folklore. The elevation should not, however, be misconstrued as having established a special status for theism's claims. The tale is an undistinguished member of the broadly inclusive set of instructive folktales, many of them not theistic. I agree this is a correct understanding of what happened. — ucarr

:up:

Can you give me an example, where a QM claim viewed 'through the lens of Newton,' makes a 'comically stupid' claim? — universeness

Superposition of the wave function flies in the face of one of science's foundational principles: non-contradiction. One identity being in two places at once plays as laughable absurdity through the lens of Newtonian Physics. Because the legitimacy of Newtonian Physics for centuries opaqued the possibility of superposition, we now celebrate the pioneers of QM. — ucarr

But that's just an argument from classical intuition. Superposition does not contradict reality! Superposition has been experimentally, and therefore empirically demonstrated: 2000 atoms in two places at once: A new record in quantum superposition. I also don't agree that even an academically incredulous dismissal of superposition, from someone viewing the universe at the macro scale of Newtonian physics, would be equal in its comedic aspect, compared to a story like Jonah and the whale/big fish, or the order of events in genesis, where the Earth is created and water is around, even before light or the sun enters the story, which is anti-scientific.

I can't make a rational case for supernature. I can make a rationalistic approach to supernature, but there will be no arrival. Given the rational bent of human mind, it’s natural to reject supernature and, well, supernatural to embrace it. — ucarr

A fair comment on the broad issue, but I am sure that you agree that allowing such pure speculation regarding the supernatural to influence peoples daily lives in the many pernicious ways organised religion uses it to do exactly that, to use religion or scripture as a dictated moral code, based on divine commandments, to allow political policy to be influenced by scripture, in any way whatsoever, is absolutely unacceptable. Other policy issues such as LBTQ+ rights should also be completely free of religious pressure or influence. I think personal dalliances with any theosophism, related to religiosity, is fine, as long as it does not cause the problems I outlined above.

The Heisenberg_Haldane quote: Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can imagine. — ucarr

Despite what I stated above, I accept that this quote is a very good and likely very correct comment about the nature and structure of the universe.

I claim religious narratives have special status among the corpus of narratives on the basis of their absurd claims. They are especially absurd because, unlike secular narratives that make absurd claims refutable by exercise of reason, religious narratives make absurd claims refutable by exercise of reason and then dig in in defiance of that reason. On this basis, Maher and other wits mine their comedic gold. What could be more laughable than absurd claims debunked yet persistent in their confidence? — ucarr

:up: Your prediction was correct, I do find you 'disagreement,' agreeable, in your treatment above.

Eleven of the twelve disciples were brutally murdered. General humanity enjoys a good laugh at fools persistent in their foolishness. So why were eleven disciples murdered? The obvious answer: when belief in the absurdity of religion is evolving and spreading, natural human reacts against it. When reason overbears absurdity, the laughter returns, the threat of stupid supernature having been put down. — ucarr

Many people have been killed due to the religion they held, represented or preached since we came out of the wilds. These 12 men are no more important than any of the millions who have died in the name of religion. I have read Joseph Atwill's, Caesars Messiah and I have listened to many debates and discussions on Derek Lamberts youtube channel Mythvision. I have listened to some of the most respected biblical scholars talk about their doubts about the true historicity of the characters depicted in the bible. From Prof Robert Eisenman, Prof Rod Blackhirst, Dr Harold Ellens, Dr Jan Koster, Dr Richard Carrier and they all don't think the historical Jesus or the Historical Moses existed. Even the famous Prof Bart Ehrman, seems unsure regarding certain biblical characters, like moses:


So you may well be talking about the murders of 12 disciples of a historical Jesus, who never in fact existed, and I personally agree with all the academics listed (but not Bart Ehrman, who still thinks Jesus probably did exist) who don't think the historical Jesus existed either.

Yep and all power to them!!!!

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. This might be less of an issue in fundemental physics though because it is generally accepted that fundemental particles lack haecceity, that they have no discrete identity. Or, as Wheeler put it, we could as well imagine that only one electron exists in the universe and it is just in many places as once. — Count Timothy von Icarus

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?

But I find it more concerning what Rovelli's model is supposed to say about what happens when isolated photons or protons go for a bit without interacting with anything. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Surely such is still interacting with the spacetime it exists within. Quantum fluctuations occur during every planck time duration, at every spacetime coordinate, do they not? So what is meant here by 'isolated proton or photon. Also, if QFT is correct and particles are in fact 'disturbances' in a field then again, the term 'isolated' or 'without interacting with anything,' seems incorrect.

maybe this is fixed if we think in terms of fields, which are always interacting, instead of particles. But his book mostly avoids talking in terms of fields, although that might be just to help make it accessible. If we take Wilzek's conception of space as a "metric field," or aether, then it seems it could resolve that problem since all "particles" are always interacting with spacetime. Although it still seems like certain of their properties are snapping into existence at some times and disappearing at others. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Is the book you are referring to 'Helgoland?' Your paragraph above seems to deal with some of the issues I raised but is the last sentence not just a further reference to the quantum fluctuations that we think exist but we have no explanation for the source of other than 'the energy of the vacuum.'

@Vera Mont
@Athena
This is a really promising group as well guys:
Citizens Network
Maybe they would particularly help support the work you do Athena.
This is their North American sub-group:
Citizens Network, North America

I have not read Rovelli's books but I have watched his youtube offerings.
I think he proposes that each of us, experiences our existence, as a localised phenomena. Time is also an individual localised phenomena.

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, — Count Timothy von Icarus

I am not sure I understand you here. Why could we not say that an object is defined by its instantaneous states and relationships are a measure of how these instantaneous states affect other objects and/or are themselves a measure of all the instantaneous states of all other objects present? So its the same 'you' object in the dining room, as in the living room but your instantaneous states will change.

You reject the observation Peterson stops Maher's initial lampoon of scripture? After his opening volley, Maher's critical near-silence is literal. How can it be denied? — ucarr

I am quite willing to accept your words above, in the context you use them, but I don't think it's as significant as you do. Peterson simply redirected the exchange and focussed on a different angle, which Maher was willing to accept, due to Petersons credentials as an academic, credentials which Maher stated he respected. This does not mean Maher's initial scorn of the literal bible stories was unjustified or incorrect, it just means Peterson was able to divert him from that line of argument, but he in no way (imo) defeated Maher's scorn of the biblical stories, when peddled as actual, literal, historical events.

What do you have to say about the critical role of the lens of interpretation WRT the following parallel:
Through the lens of science, scriptural narratives, in some instances, make comically stupid claims whereas, through the lens of allegory, scriptural narratives, in some instances, convey actionable ways forward.
Through the lens of Newton, QM narratives, in some instances, make comically stupid claims whereas, through the lens of Bohr, QM narratives, in some instances, convey actionable ways forward (as in the case of logical coding for computers). — ucarr

But we have alternatives to allegorical scriptural narratives, in that we can find 'actionable ways forward,' based on ' human dilemma style,' scenario's projected from the wide range of historical non-religious folklore. You have yet to acknowledge your acceptance of that important point.
QM is an advance to classical Newtonian physics. The important difference is that Newtonian physics works perfectly well at the macro scale, but QM experimentation, demonstrates, that it does not hold for the sub-atomic scale. Can you give me an example, where a QM claim viewed 'through the lens of Newton,' makes a 'comically stupid' claim? Contrary or even weird or non-intuitive claims, yes, but it what sense could you apply 'comical or stupid,' in the way you are attempting to?
Also, let's even suggest that you are correct. In what way is it useful to defend bad practice within one methodology, by citing bad practice within an opposing methodology? I am sure you would agree that two wrongs have never made a right.

Neither I nor Jones make any claims about atheism being trounced in the Maher podcast. — ucarr

Well I think Mr Jones is more flawed than Mr Maher is, especially with his 'warning from the theist camp' of 'beware or you to could become like Maher.' Jones does not use the more emotive language on a public platform, that he might choose to use when sitting amongst a crowd of enthusiastic theists. He chooses not to use words like 'trounced,' to attempt to impart the idea that he is a reasonable, rational theist that non-theists might find more appealing, at least enough to consider what he is saying. I have watched atheists employ the same manipulative but imo, nonetheless, legitimate technique.

My takeaway is your acknowledgement that scripture, when perceived as allegorical literature, in some instances forestalls attacks upon it as a compendium of preposterous claims. — ucarr

Yes, I agree, but as I stated previously, you have yet to acknowledge that this is true of all folklore, with or without theistic references, and you have also yet to acknowledge that this removes any 'special pleading,' that the biblical fables have a higher significance, and deserve more attention and consideration than the massive database of non-theistic folklore.

What do you think of Carlo Rovelli's proposal that wave function collapse is very localised. The entire waveform does not collapse, only a local section 'collapses' due to the measurement process. At least I think that is what he proposes.

Yeah, I appreciate your interpretation and think that it's one that the theist side would more readily accept than my own interpretation. If you take the stories in the OT as literal truths, then they are comically stupid and the god described is a monster, so I think Maher's original comments regarding the bible are correct and Peterson does not counter Maher's points. Peterson merely uses the scientifically ridiculous story of Jonah and the big fish and comments on how it could be used allegorically, and such therefore can have value, to human notions of human dilemma. But this is true of all fables, including all fables which are not religious or theistic in any way. From humpty dumpty to Goldilocks and the three bears. The problems begin when theists try to peddle such fables as either literally true historical events or the most important allegorical stories or metaphorical messages in existence.

Do you think Peterson managed to change Maher's mind and give him a new respect for the fables in the bible? I doubt it. Perhaps he did, but I personally would not find that particularly significant, to the current overall status of the atheism vs theism debate. I think Maher did not repeat his scorn of most of the content of the bible as Peterson made no attempt to argue the point, he simply pointed out the allegorical value that can be garnished from any fable or folklore story.
You will already know that the vast majority, if not all the stories in the bible were taken from earlier stories from Sumerian, Egyptian, Canaanite, Akkadian etc mythology. Very little in the OT is original.

In any atheist/theist debate analysis I have ever watched on youtube, each side always says their side trounced the other side.

Well, it was only 17 mins, and was a guy commenting on the clipped exchange between Peterson and Maher. I assume it's the person who is commenting on the exchange between Peterson and Maher that is doing the strawmaning, and the mischaracterisation, you indicated, if so, then I completely agree with you, that that is exactly what he is doing, especially with comments like 'or else you will end up like Bill Maher!'

I have quite a low opinion of Peterson, but he is correct about the power of storytelling, to the human psyche and how fables such as Jonah and the 'big fish,' are allegorical by design and can be used in many ways, to support theistic claims or general claims about the human psyche. Jordan is careful to suggest that humans can make 'deals with the universe,' as opposed to, or perhaps as a comparison with, making a personal 'covenant with god.' Peterson is good at such conflations, but his various offerings that describe his viewpoints regarding essential and necessary human hierarchies and his patriarchal and anti-trans stances ( to mention but a few disagreements I have with him,) make him quite unpalatable for me.

Thank you for your kind words. My knowledge of cosmology and physics is also quite surface.
My quals and experience is mainly in Computing Science. I don't know who has the highest qualifications and the most experience in cosmology/astrophysics/physics on TPF. @noAxioms posted that he has been/or still is, a moderator on a physics site, so perhaps he is the best one to go to, as a reliable source, but perhaps the mods could recommend a TPF member to ask about cosmology/astrophysics/physics issues.

I liked your bullet pointed list as guidelines for discussions of threads.
Have you read the TPF guidelines posted 7 years ago by @Baden, perhaps there is some content of your bullet pointed list, that could enhance/improve them. Only the TPF mods have the power to decide.

I will watch the vid you posted on my TV youtube, as my laptop screen is too small to appreciate a debate. I will make brief comments here, after watching it. I enjoy exchanging views with you ucarr, you are an interesting thinker. If you find the time to watch the debate I posted, perhaps you could send me a brief PM regarding your opinion of it, or post one here.
Richard Swinburne is a big voice in the theist community. I am not as familiar with the two ladies, but one is an expert in Hinduism and the other, an expert in Judaism. I don't know the host, but It was a good debate.