I'm here to convince people of my philosophy, so that they will make work of it, and make the world a better place.

Other people, generally everyone except me, is stupid. Anyone who objects to being called stupid, that is really a big part of how you become to be stupid. Generally everyone must be in their comfort zone, and really they just argue what feels good, disregarding logic.

Especially also the socalled science minded people. Everything they say, everything, is just about the feeling of certainty that is commonly associated to facts. Ooh they like this feeling of certainty very much.

But this feeling leads them astray, and it is total morbid fascination how utterly stupid they are. All they really do is emoting from this feeling of certainty, disregarding logic.

It is basically like drugs or alcohol. They have some argumentation where they can get a HIGH feeling of certainty to go with it. Their argument somehow releases the drugs which the brain produces itself. It's like a 40 percent alcohol liquor argument.

And then some other science minded person may come along, who has a different argument, that totally goes against the logic in their argument. But what happens then is not that they clash. Instead the other person also is just an addict who enjoys the feeling of certainty associated to statements of fact. So they just commend each other on their great arguments, while their arguments are totally opposite.

This theory I saw on the internet I appreciate very much. The default theory should be that the theory of everything is mathematics itself, but then mathematics properly understood. Because mathematics works everywhere in science. Any of what you might imagine the origin of the universe to be, it's got to be described with mathematics.

So then basically the universe would start with what is exhaustively described with the symbol 0. Then "somehow" we should derive the rest of mathematics, all the numbers, all the operators, and all the rest of mathematics in it's many strange forms, from the symbol zero.

For instance starting with 0, then we rewrite the 0 as a 1. (rewriting is same like in a computer you can rewrite from ram to a harddisk, or usbstick. or DVD. It's the same information, but then in a different form). So now we have the symbols 0, and 1, and we also have the boolean operator between the 0 and 1. (because 1 is a copy from 0, it's interchangeable).

etc. etc. "somehow" deriving all mathematics from the symbol 0, step by step

So then we would get an ordering of mathematical structures, ordered in respect to how many steps the mathematical structure is away from the symbol zero.

Supposedly then, the universe would originate, same like how the ordering of mathematics develops.

In the beginning there would be few options available to choose from how the universe ends up, later on in the universe there would be many options available to choose from.

And God the holy spirit can be said to be the agency of those choices, that's categorically a matter of chosen personal opinion.

Underlying the political division is the division between materialists and creationists. The USA was conceived of as a creationist nation. The spirit is cherished and decides, as well individual spirit, as shared national spirit. Materialists don't believe in the spirit, so they want a formula to determine policy, and people's lives.

Creationism is basically banned in academics, which produces an endless stream of materialists coming from education. So a large share of the population is materialist, especially higher educated, but they are living in a profoundly creationist nation.

Eventually materialists will win, as their position in academics is currently unassailable. But it will take a long time to get rid of the inherently creationist constitution. Only if understanding of freedom becomes to be essential in producing technology, and so becomes essential in education, will creationism start to win again.

But it is not likely that understanding of freedom will become essential, because there is no point in producing a car or washing machine with free will. So freedom continues to be regarded in education as a cultural fantasy, and the spirit that chooses, is ignored.

Materialism seems to provide 2 flavors for politics, communism and nazism. And mostly in academics they are proud to have chosen communism over nazism. But they still have the option of nazism in their mind, because it naturally comes from the logic of materialism.

Social democracy is a kind of middle ground of materalists parasiting on creationists. The creationists provide the emotions, the materialists then live of the emotions provided by the creationists. Basically like a parent child relationship, but then the child is in charge. The child making ever increasing demands on the parents. That is how it works in europe. Very non descript leaders, non descript political parties, trying to accommodate the ever increasing demands of materialist children part of the population. Creationists will then work less, because there is simply no happiness to be attained from achieving materialist goals.

So the trend is toward non descript politicians, who are ingenious in meeting the ever increasing irrational demands of the materialist populace. Meanwhile the motivation to work is lowered, requiring immigrants to take up the slack, and producing goods in 3rd world countries.

Trump is probably the last creationist president. He probably won't even get reelected.

1. There are alternative futures A and B, A is made the present, meaning A is chosen
2. Then there is the question "What was it that made the decision turn out A?"
3. Then the answer is a choice between subjective words X and Y
4. Where either answer X or Y is equally valid, but a forced answer X or Y is invalid.

It means that emotions can only be identified by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, resulting in an opinion on what the emotions are. As well someone's own emotions, as someone else's, can only be identified with a chosen opinion.

So if someone chooses A, then you can express a chosen opinion that he chose A out of fear, jealousy, lust, hate, love, joy etc. And any answer would be equally logically valid.

Some answers may then in turn be judged (with a chosen opinion) as weird, mean, unfair, stupid, but it is not actually a logical error to be weird mean unfair and stupid.

The subjective spirit (emotions), chooses which way the objective material turns out.

So actually the original poster saying that anger is a varying set of behaviors is error, because then one is forced to conclude it is anger if the behavior corresponds with the definition of angry behavior. Forced opinions are a logic error, because basically they assert that a choice is free and forced, which is an error of contradiction.

But one can first judge a general behavior to be an expression of anger, like stomping feet, so then you have a preformed judgment. Then when someone stomps their feet, you only have to decide if or not to follow your preformed judgment.

That's basically how the laws in court work, they are preformed judgements about what's right and wrong.

Philosophical creationism. Where choosing is the mechanism of creating, how material things originate. Also the same as the underlying structure in various religious creation theories, but then without specifics as to who created what when, which are variables.

I don't really see what the error is. Material and fact are validated in category 2. Creationism does not deny there is material.

In creationism, objects in fantasy are also classified as creations, material, and factual.

The materialist has to cram the concept of free will, choosing, emotions, personal opinion, in the material "category".

To do this, the materialist redefines choosing in terms of sorting. As like a chesscomputer calculating a move in a completely forced way. Then the emotions become to be the selection criteria in the sorting process. Making emotions factual.

Then to say a painting is beautiful, means to make a statement of fact of a love for the way the painting looks, existing in the brain. So that personal opinion becomes to be a subcategory of fact, namely facts about particular brainstates.

Then there is a lot of emphasis on the complexity of the brain, on the many different factors involved in a decision, which then provides variation of personal opinions.

Superficially, materialist choosing looks very similar to creationist choosing. But there are incoherencies in making opinion a subcategory of fact.