The human race is not alone, but part of a larger whole. 'Being part of' means it is nothing without it, cannot exist without it.
Constant improvement of human beings, via science/growth, at the cost of the rest of the whole cannot be an improvement is what socialists don't seem to get. — ChatteringMonkey

No, you misunderstand me. I am convinced by all of Carl Sagan's great demotions. I do not assign prime importance to the human race from a Universal perspective. I think we are significant as we give meaning and purpose to the Universe, that it might otherwise not have, especially if we are currently the only intelligent life in the entire Universe (which I think is highly unlikely considering the number of planets it has). I also recognise the importance of protecting/understanding/progressing the sentience of all other lifeforms on Earth. That hasn't yet turned me vegetarian or vegan but that's a whole other debate I am always willing to take part in.

I do not advocate for a true socialism which 'ignores the cost of the rest of the whole.'
On the contrary, earlier on this thread, I typed about my limited interest in the cultures of GrecoRome, Germany etc as cited by @Xtrix and my preference for those tribal groups who tried to live in harmony with the environment and did not seriously damage it.

I therefore reject your accusation that socialists ignore ecological threats to our planet. Any true socialist must be fully cognisant of climate change. We are not motivated by a desire for personal wealth/power/status, If any true socialist demonstrates such desire then they instantly forfeit their claim to the true socialist label. Capitalists rape our planet for profits not true socialists.

Imagine being an electron. A virtual one. You travel on all possible paths, with all possible values of E and p, forward and backward in time, at the same time. A real electron does the same, but only forward in time and with fixed E and p (or corresponding t and x, their conjugates, obeying uncertainty relations) — EugeneW

I wish I could imagine such and I have quite a vivid imagination, in my opinion.
I can only imagine virtual as it is proposed in virtual reality simulations, which I think is a very acceptable manifestation of the term applied to the 'science of reality,' as a human being might perceive it.
Earlier in our discussions on another thread, you stated that you had difficulty with the logic/evidence behind my predictions of the possible future transhuman manifestations which may become possible due to technological advancement.
I have similar or perhaps even more difficulty with the logic/evidence behind:

"You travel on all possible paths, with all possible values of E and p, forward and backward in time"

and
"A real electron does the same"

I know this is from Feynman and I hold him, as most people of science do, in very high esteem but it's when the words "This literally happens" that an electron travels on all possible paths through the slits in the double-slit experiment, that I have great difficulty with. I understand it as a 'mathematical thought exercise' of Feynmans and that he used this thought exercise to collapse all these paths into a single 'average' REAL physical path. I can make that 'logical jump,' but I can't conceive or accept that all possible paths are literally traversed by an electron or photon emitted by a source towards a screen behind two slits in a card placed between the source and the screen, producing the wave interference pattern viewed.

I do want to give man a chance, I really do, but I don't think it's up to me... Socialist utopia may just not be in the cards.
Take care — ChatteringMonkey

I know the song 'in the year 2525' very well, it was an old favorite of mine during my 70's..80's teenage to young man period of music. A song which, (if you pardon the pun) was way before its time.

Giving the human race a chance is a matter for every one of its members that has the cognitive ability to consider it. You are either part of the solution or part of the problem. I don't accept the term utopia and I don't desire such. I desire continued effort to improve the lives of all human beings so that fewer of us live with constant despair or/and suffering. Such despair can even have the horrible effect of turning good, deep thinking humans into misanthropic, pessimistic, antinatalists.

In union and in fellowship, thank you for the exchange of views.

It's a bit hard to visualise, because we are used to particles going forward in time with definite position and energy, mutually related. If energy is zero then momentum squared is −m2−m2, according to E2−p2=m2E2−p2=m2, and this relation doesn't hold for virtual particles. They can have independent values to fit the boundary conditions of two asymptotically free particles. In other words, if the two incoming particles have specified E and p, as the outgoing ones, the virtual particle adjusts to fit these values. It could also adjust to other values. All have certain amplitudes to occur. Qft calculates these scattering amplitudes by means of Feynman diagrams — EugeneW

I was reading something similar to this on Wikipedia and a physics site. I also read a discussion on this on quora. I understand some of it but will have to do a much more detailed reading on it to improve my understanding. I think I need a very detailed example from a starting title such as:
'a day/hour/minute/second/plank time in the existence of an electron.'
There must be such worked examples available. If you know of such a link then I would appreciate it but I can do my own searching as well.
One to add to my 'to do' list or more accurately, my 'to improve my understanding of quantum physics' list.

Carlo Rovelli is great. — EugeneW

I second that emotion!

That's exactly why hidden variables are invented! How can a particle have a probability to be here or there? Where is it then? — EugeneW

Well, I understand the probability of an outcome as simply 1/all possible outcomes.
The probability of a particle having a particular 4 coordinate position (3 spacial and 1 of time), would I assume depend on its starting position and its known or predicted path.
But I would also assume that the 'geometric expanse' of the particle involved would also be a factor as to how much space it occupies at any instant of time.

Another problem solved, thanks EugeneW!

Isn't there an on top of the comment space? With all the other symbols? — EugeneW

Ah! I was just using my keyboard @ symbol. Lets try the site @

@EugeneW

On my computer, the @EugeneW appears as just black text. Does it show as a profile link on everyone else view?

press the , and fill in the name you wanna link — EugeneW

But I did so in my post at the top of this page, have a look! It did not produce the link, why not?

Let me try again here: @EugeneW

A particle litterally travels on all possible pathways through spacetime. All paths have a probability, and are taken at the same time — EugeneW

Oh, This is Richard Feynman's mind, isn't it. Yeah, I have read about this many times in relation to the double-slit experiment. Never been able to get my head around this one. How can every possible path be traversed by the 'same' particle in an instant of time? I know I should not conceive of the speed of light as a limiting factor here but I don't understand how to do that.

How did you do that @universeness profile link. That's one of the things I was asking the elusive 'Baden' mod about and relates to the 'general' post I made at the top of this page.

Here's a fun aside, every time I type 'mod' instead of moderator, I get images of a large group of mad teenagers wearing fishtail parkers with Harrington jackets and turtle neck pullovers underneath and mostly white drainpipe trousers, driving Lambretta scooters whilst heartily singing in loud unison:
"We arra mods, we arra mods, we are we are we arra mods! repeated ad Infinitum and ad nauseam.
As they search for an equivalen group on 'Rockers' on real motorbikes who they invariably got beat up by. Go figure my thought processes? Perhaps I need some time with an analyst:
We arra mods, we arra mods...............

Part of the problem, and reason, we don't already have that is because what 'we' decide is partly determined by those that are in power. At no point in history we get to actually step outside these power-dynamics, and draw up these rules from some fair and balanced point of view. — ChatteringMonkey

I agree, but technology such as the internet, offers the global mass of humanity more opportunity to debate, form groups, organise, protest, harass current imbalances in local and national political systems, with a global viewpoint in mind. So perhaps we really can now 'step outside these power-dynamics' if we unite to do so.

And global legislation is even more difficult because you need actual consensus for that, because there is no decision organ with majority rule or something like that...
I mean I agree that this is how you would need to do it (if you could do it), on a global level, but that isn't going to happen it seems to me. The last 50 years we saw the opposite movement with globalization and neo-liberal abolishment of barriers. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes you do, so let's keep chattering with each other all over the world, with that general goal in mind. There is a lot of time left based on the expected natural lifespan of our pale blue dot planet. We have only been at this 'create a good/fair/equitable/global human civilisation,' which has earned the right to and can be trusted with 'stewardship' of the Earth, endeavour for around 10,000 tears. Okay, so far, its been mainly 10,000 years of tears and slaughter due to failed attempts and nasty individual human and groups. But Carl Sagan's cosmic calendar shows a time duration of 10,000 years to be a drop of water into a vast cosmic ocean.
As I have politely typed many times, in consideration of the potential duration of time available to our ever-busy procreating species, "Give us a f****** chance!" A single human lifespan is very brief.
The cause of the true socialist, is to progress the cause of true socialism, so that's my cause within my own short lifespan. Unless of course I can live long enough for science to invent that which will allow me the option of living longer.

We probably only would know if they work if they have been put into practice. As a legal practitioner, if there is one thing I have learned it is that people always find loopholes to circumvent the rules. People seem to think rules are the solution to everything, they rarely are — ChatteringMonkey

Again I fully agree. As a legal practitioner, you are of great need to all true socialists. Run after those who find and abuse 'loopholes,' and attempt to circumvent the rules. We need you to totally defeat their attempts. I don't think rules are a solution to EVERYTHING. I think they are necessary but they must be wise and constructed in such a way that they demonstrate firmness when they are required to and demonstrate the correct flexibility in the case by case basis of the realpolitik.

Only when something really really bad happens, I could see countries actually coming together to draft something up that is fair and balanced — ChatteringMonkey

Putin is causing something really bad to happen right now. I hope that the final outcome of what he has started will be exactly what you suggest above. Do what you can when you can to help, that's all that can be asked of you individually. You have a very important skill to offer as a legal practitioner.

Like I said what we want doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what we can do. I probably agree all of that would be nice in theory, I'm just not so sure we can get there. — ChatteringMonkey

Keep the faith brother/comrade/fellow earther! We won't progress if we are not determined to succeed.
I go with Obama on this one "OH YES WE CAN!!!" :strong: :strong: :strong: :grin:

So, a virtual particles have no direction in time. They just go up and down — EugeneW

The wave function is a complex-valued probability amplitude — universeness

Is it the quote above from wikipedia, that 'marries' with your 'goes up and down' proposal?
The idea of a wave 'amplitude,', if so, an amplitude must take time to form an it forms in a direction from rest to up (in the case of a crest) or rest to down (in the case of a trough). Does this marry with the proposal of 'rest up to crest as current to future' and 'rest down to trough as current to past?'

So, a virtual particles have no direction in time. They just go up and down. Since the beginning of time and before — EugeneW

But up and down are opposite DIRECTIONS on a straight line. This could be perceived as the universe of 'lineland,' such a universe could still support linear time (past present future), so I don't get your 'virtual particles have no direction in time,' proposal. If they have no direction in time then they have no direction in space by virtue of spacetime. Does this not mean they can't actually exist and they are merely a convenient 'tool' to aid some current theories of the structure and workings of the Universe.

Especially you... Tedious indeed... :fire: — EugeneW

Well said! :clap: :wink:

Waveforms certainly exist in electronics, — jgill

Are you referring to traveling analogue waves as data packets are transmitted through the air using from source (DAC (Digital to analogue converter)) to destination ADC (analogue to digital converter)?
or digital waveforms (Castle turret shaped)?

Based on the wikipedia entry I pasted on my most recent response above, to noAxioms, I think the waveforms of computing would be described as belonging to the 'classical' category and differ from that produced by a 'wavefunction' in quantum physics.

As a maths expert, do you have anything to add that would aid my understanding of the difference between the terms wave /function/form/equation as they are used in maths compared to quantum physics?

This is an aside folks but I sent the message below to one of the moderators, 'Baden,' 22 hours ago as a PM. I am probably being too impatient here but he has not got back to me yet and I just noticed that my @EugeneW above did not work, it did not appear as I thought it would. I thought the @member handle resulted in that member being informed of the mention. Perhaps one of you reading this thread could answer my questions below faster than 'Baden' seems able to.

Hi,
Could you answer a few quick questions for me. How do you refer/mention another member in a post?
I have seen the @member handle, reference used by other members. But I just tried @Garret Travers and it did not appear as a link.
Oh, I've just realised, his handle is Garrett Travers (two t's in his first name), is that the reason it didn't work?

A couple of other questions.
Is there no way to change the size of text in a post?
Can you insert a direct link within a current post, to a previous post earlier in the same thread or to an earlier post you have made in another thread? If so, how do you do this?

Then the videos are likely to be of little use to me since it is precisely the philosophical implications that have a direct bearing on the OP question. — noAxioms

Perhaps you would be more interested in offerings from Carlo such as:


I have not watched this one myself but I probably will do at some point.

I'm not going to disagree with the physics of those guys. I'm in the wrong league for that. — noAxioms

That you have no idea about this means you need to spend more time learning physics from reviewed textbooks and not pop videos and articles — noAxioms

I think we are in a 'similar' league when it comes to command of physics. If by 'pop' you mean popular then I think there is value in using any source of physics-based facts or musings. I am happy with my own attempts to improve my knowledge of physics and philosophy and require no advice from you on how I could best progress.

I have had direct communication with Tegmark and don't disagree with any of his physics, but there are some metaphysical points on which we disagree. — noAxioms

That's good to hear! There you go @EugeneW, some of these guys will enter a discourse with us humblebums! I have mixed emotions when it comes to the term 'metaphysical.' Definintions like 'after physics' or 'beyond physics' don't help but I normally do find some value when I read/view 'metaphysical' discussions.

Some molecule of Napoleon's dying breath interacts with the rock, changing the state (the momentum perhaps) of at least one particle of the rock. The rock is now different than it would have been without that measurement, thus Napoleon exists relative to that rock — noAxioms

I may have garnished more value from this if you had typed something like 'Some molecule of Napoleans consciousness (not his dying breath), as his physical body starts to disassemble, after his death...interacts with a rock.' I personally think this idea is nonsense and that such an interaction would leave the rock completely unchanged. I think it's much more likely that disassembled component parts of a dead human consciousness (whatever such quanta might be) could only 'interact' with a live conscience or a forming fetus in a woman or perhaps any living creature, but not a rock.

It is a description of a system (somewhere) from a point of view. It doesn't necessarily 'produce' anything, but the future state of the system in question, if closed, can be described by evolving the wavefunction over time using Schrodinger's equation. Not sure if you'd consider that the production of a waveform. — noAxioms

Thank you for this one. It made me search the internet with 'Wave function and the quantum world.'
I clicked on wikipedia for 'wave-function' and read about A wave function in quantum physics. I think I have been confusing wave function and wave equation. Wikipedia states:

"A wave function in quantum physics is a mathematical description of the quantum state of an isolated quantum system. The wave function is a complex-valued probability amplitude, and the probabilities for the possible results of measurements made on the system can be derived from it."

and

The wave function is a function of the degrees of freedom corresponding to some maximal set of commuting observables. Once such representation is chosen, the wave function can be derived from the quantum state.
For a given system, the choice of which commuting degrees of freedom to use is not unique, and correspondingly the domain of the wave function is also not unique. For instance, it may be taken to be a function of all the position coordinates of the particles over position space, or the momenta of all the particles over momentum space; the two are related by a Fourier transform. Some particles, like electrons and photons, have nonzero spin, and the wave function for such particles include spin as an intrinsic, discrete degree of freedom; other discrete variables can also be included, such as isospin.

and

According to the superposition principle of quantum mechanics, wave functions can be added together and multiplied by complex numbers to form new wave functions and form a Hilbert space. The inner product between two wave functions is a measure of the overlap between the corresponding physical states and is used in the foundational probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, the 'Born' rule, relating transition probabilities to inner products. The Schrödinger equation determines how wave functions evolve over time, and a wave function behaves qualitatively like other waves, such as water waves or waves on a string, because the Schrödinger equation is mathematically a type of wave equation. This explains the name "wave function", and gives rise to wave–particle duality. However, the wave function in quantum mechanics describes a kind of physical phenomenon, still open to different interpretations, which fundamentally differs from that of classic mechanical waves.

I also used the linked pop-ups for more info on terms such as 'degrees of freedom and 'commuting observables' as used in quantum physics. I think I now understand more about the term wave function as used in quantum physics.

and all waveforms moving in 3D space will produce a worldline as it traverses space from its origin.
No. Wavefunctions are not objects that move around. They're descriptions. — noAxioms

I was referring to waveforms not the term wavefunction as I now conceive it based on the wikipedia stuff above. I was referring to something like a light wave with traditional peaks, troughs, wavelength, frequency etc, physically traveling through 3D space. All such will produce a 'worldline' based on my understanding of the term. I base this on a comment made by a physicist on Quora:
"the worldline of light behaves as ligtht-like curves in spacetime"

To word it differently, only the state of the distant star a year ago is in our past light cone, and thus the wavefunction of that star from the point of view of Earth is collapsed only to its year-old state, and its present state is not in any way fact, relative to us. Likewise, a star sufficiently distant (say 50 GLY) doesn't meaningfully exist at all relative to Earth. Unmeasured state is not meaningful to a local interpretation. That's a very hard pill to swallow, but I find it an even harder pill to abandon locality, that information can travel backwards in time or anywhere else outside its future light cone. — noAxioms

Yes, so the picture of hubble deepest field image (I have a very large framed print of it in my bedroom)
mainly contains objects which probably don't exist anymore.

I cannot understand EugeneW, so I don't think an explanation of what I mean is going to come from him. — noAxioms

He has been quite patient with me when I have demonstrated my limited knowledge of physics. He has demonstrated his deeper grasp of the topic and has not 'dismissed' me as 'not worth his efforts.' As a retired school teacher myself, I appreciate and celebrate his approach and passion for physics and I prefer it to the more pretentious and unwarranted, almost sad, aloof attitudes of other members of this forum, be the thread philosophical, scientific, religious or political. Thankfully, such attitudes are also in the minority on this forum.

What would "true" socialism be, in your view? — Xtrix

Well that is a big question and we would need to sit in a room for a great number of sessions with many others to memorialise/document what I see as True socialism but I can start with two prime directives and two basic 'rules' if you like:

Prime directive 1: No one can be placed in a position of political power without adequate checks and balances. Any nefarious conduct will result in swift removal from power. Removal from power must be easy.

Prime directive 2: The military is not under the full control of the sitting government. There are at least two further publicly elected bodies who hold equal control and can block any military commands given by the government until the people sanction the order by vote, if required.

Rule 1: Every member of all three elected bodies are monitored by 'legal scrutineers' and other public representatives and a non-political free press which is owned and ran as a public cooperative and cannot be manipulated by commercial interests.

Rule 2: No rich people. Small businesses yes, entrepreneurs yes, individual freedom yes but no multi-millionaires or billionaires, all required large national or international concerns will be publicly owned or be full cooperatives.

We can debate the problems you envisage with these 'starter suggestions,' if you wish.

I like meritocracy as well — Xtrix

Yes, but having the merit to participate in governance must never mean you are able to abuse the power you have been entrusted with. No personality cults or cults of celebrity will be able to maintain their position of authority if they abuse it. The checks and balances must be able to identify and stop them.
No individual personality or group should ever be able to achieve autocratic or totalitarian control. This must be made as impossible as possible by means of powerful checks and balances or else we will never achieve true socialism.

The virtual particles dont go in one time direction. They oscillate in time — EugeneW

is this mathematical modeling or something that actually happens?
Oscillate in time in what sense? Current/past or current/future?

All I really understand about Feynmann diagrams is they have inputs and outputs and nobody really understands what happens in the middle

So do you mean all interacting wavefunctions (which produce actual waveform disturbances yes?) in the Universe collapse?
— universeness

Rìght — EugeneW

I, like many people, I think, only understand wave interactions based on water waves, waves passing along strings from either end and meeting up with each other. Waves passing through prisms etc, peaks, troughs, frequencies, trig etc. Waves can interfere, cancel each other, merge etc.

When you say all interacting wavefunctions IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE collapse, what do you mean by collapse. I assumed that this means the function no longer produced a waveform.
So you get nothing when you try to measure what happened due to the interaction between system X and system Y because the action of trying to measure, stops the wavefunction from producing waveforms so you don't get the interference pattern you get in the double split experiment if you try to detect which slit each photon(massless) or electron(mass) went through. I thought this was the basics of 'the measurement problem,' yes/no?

I meant their wavefunctions — EugeneW

So do you mean all interacting wavefunctions (which produce actual waveform disturbances yes?) in the Universe collapse?

Yeah, definitely the white flag from me for now.

Everything in the universe that interacts collapses — EugeneW

But two galaxies can interact by colliding and they don't collapse, they effectively merge!
Collisions within accretion disks merge into planets, I know my examples are of the very large rather than the very small but I still don't really understand.
I think I will just raise the white flag for now and keep watching Youtube cosmology vids and continue my reading on the subject until I can demonstrate more depth of understanding. I will continue to make some comments now and then however.

Wilhelm Reich — EugeneW

Read about him on Wikipedia. An interesting character who had an eventful life. Seemed to have had a lot of affairs with his patients and he designed some dodgy-sounding machines. Interesting that he worked for and with Freud and he wrote many influential books.

Wilhelm Reich was something else! His books got burned... In modern day! — EugeneW

Never heard of him but I will do a quick google search.

If the spin inside the Schrödinger cat cage is measured the superimposed spin state is projected on one of the two states, up and down. Even for the observer observing the combined cat-observer state. — EugeneW

Nope, sorry I don't think I understand this. Are you simply saying the cat is alive (spin up state) or dead (spin down state) Does spin up mean spin faster and spin down means spin slower? or does spin up mean 'starts to spin' and spin down mean 'stops spinning'?
The observer has to open the box to find out which possibility is true, I get that. If the box remains closed these both outcomes remain possible so one state is 'superimposed' on the other.
Are you saying that in your opinion, the structure and workings of the Universe are knowable, even though we are trying to discover such, as component parts, inside the universe we are trying to understand? Do we have to open all the Schrodinger style boxes and do all the measurements?

An event in physics is not actually an event. It's the time and position of a particle. — EugeneW

I think the 'event' label is a perfectly reasonable/logical one from the standpoint of natural human perception. Surely time and positional data are 'details of the event.' Why is such a distinction important?

If particles were devoid of charge all individualities of partìcles would be lost and the universe would spread out into a uniform mass in which nothing could be defined or have outlines. All would be one. — EugeneW

But is magnetism or repulsion/attraction the only reason for the existence of quanta?
If the universe is made up of multidimensional vibrating strings for example then an electron and its properties are merely due to a particular string state.

When particles interact, by their charges coupling to the omnipresent field of virtual particles, their evolving wavefunctions (which are, loosely speaking, the temporal cross sections of quantum fields) collapse every time upon an interaction. The standard view doesn't speak of collapse but the objective collapse approach does. — EugeneW

I get that an interaction between two electrons involves the exchange of a virtual photon from one to the other and this causes a change in momentum of the receiving electron and this causes them to repel each other. At least I got that from a question posed to a physicist on Quora. Is it the collapsing waveform that causes the repulsion or the change in momentum? Is the waveform collapse, similar to disturbed, undulating water, becoming still again?

So particles tract characteristics and identity because a relation with other particles. Their condensations in spacetime are relational. — EugeneW

I have no idea what this means.

There is a field of virtual particles in empty space. If a charged particle moves through space it couples to this field. How can they couple if they are point? Simply because they are no points. Their coupling to this field cause that field around them to change. Same for other particles. This means that if a particle enters a region of space where that virtual field is disturbed by another charge (say both charges are electrical, which couple to virtual photons only), it will not move the same as before (unchanging velocity, apart from the "Zitterbewegung"). It's accelerated because of the potential created by the other charge (which actually is a so-called virtual photon condensate). These interactions happen in measurements, and take place continuously to maintain individuality of the parts. Bosons though don't have individuality when in groups. — EugeneW

So space is therefore not empty, it's full of 'virtual particles.'
By 'coupling' do you simply mean 'connects to' or is 'affected by' or 'reacts to'?
What do you mean by 'Point'? a dimensionless point which has coordinates only or a tiny 'packet' or 'concentration of mass or energy?
So the charge/spin direction causes a disturbance in the 'virtual field' (why is the field virtual rather than real?) and the result is that the particle gets accelerated away? Am I understanding this correctly, so far?

The charges couple to this omnipresent virtual field. — EugeneW

So this virtual field must permeates all space if it is omnipresent, yes?
So why does the particle not accelerate forever if it encounters a constant expanse of 'virtual field'?

Was I really born? Did I really woke up? Did I really take a breath one second ago? Did I really blink my eye a millisecond ago? Do I even really exist? These questions you end up with when not believing las Thursday didn't happen. Only in the creation myth this makes sense. The creation myth doesn't make sense though — EugeneW

'I think therefore I am,' is convincing enough for me. No need for gods, an emergent pan/cosmopsychism is the absolute limit of the projection of my naturalism.

Just send a message! I'm curious what happens now.. — EugeneW

You may need to do more than send him a 'message' but I hope he responds anyway.
I have had recent responses from questions I sent to Dan Dennet and Joseph Atwill but no response from Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins. My questions to all of them were about Mr Arwill's book
'Caesars Messiah.' I was content with the responses I got.

As I said, I hope Sean treats you well, but don't be too downhearted if he does not.
I will send him a letter of complaint if he does not and I hope anyone reading this thread will do the same. United, people have the power to impress an intensity of objection towards an individual or a group. I don't mean in the 'unruly mob' sense but in the sense of a united legitimate complaint. So, I await your report of your attempt to communicate with him.

If we are talking about societal structures, it's about the long term, right? Maybe the founders of google had all the best intentions, and with those initial intentions amassing power seems a good thing... problem is they aren't going to be in power for ever even if the structure keeps on existing. After Lenin came Stalin — ChatteringMonkey

It's the old adage of 'power corrupts and total power corrupts totally,' but this has only been historically true due to a lack of the necessary checks and balances. As it turned out, Lenin was directly responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents, he was not much better than Stalin.
Surely the lesson learned must be that NO ONE can achieve such power and influence as that currently held by individuals such as millionaires. billionaires, totalitarians etc.
We need to get on with creating the powerful and fit-for-purpose checks and balances and not become unhelpfully apathetic due to too much focus on past failed attempts or the complexity involved in dismantling the current societal imbalances. So yes, we have to look to the long term and create checks and balances backed by global legislation which will outlast individual human lifespans.

when you get to a certain number of people hierarchies seem to become necessary — ChatteringMonkey

Yes and I agree that such is necessary and will always be so but it's the checks and balances which will prevent the historical abuses of power we have memorialised. I can describe the kind of checks and balances I am typing about if you wish. I have done so in other threads. They are not of course from my original thinking, they have been around for centuries and attempts have been made to establish and apply them. Most Western political systems have quite good examples but few have the power or structure they need to effectively prevent abuses of power or the excesses of unfettered capitalism.

I don't think we have as much control over these systems as we'd like to think, and no matter the original intentions, it seems like it tends to go in certain directions — ChatteringMonkey

We don't currently, your right, but we must get it right or we will not survive as one human race, living on one little pale blue dot of a planet. We are all responsible for Putin who now threatens the existence of our species. One pathetic little prat should never have been able to do what he is doing.

but the fact that they were overthrown because of their aloof attitude kindof proofs my point, namely that they have to take the wants of the peasantry into account at least to some extend. — ChatteringMonkey

No it doesn't, for me, it proves that we need to demand economic parity for all human beings and only allow authority which is under effective scrutiny and can be removed EASILY due to the checks and balances in place against abuse of power/cult of personality or celebrity/mental illness/attempts to establish totalitarian regimes or autocracies/aristocracies/plutocracies.

There is an absolutely disgusting TV show where — EugeneW

Almost all of 'reality tv' is an attempt to distract the population from focusing on injustice.
They are 'shiny objects' of distraction. Vile programs where the rich are actually ridiculing the poor.
From Dragon's Den, The Apprentice etc. All those 'Real housewives of Miami' type clone shows. Rich, creations of plastic surgeons flaunting their wealth and meaningless intrigues for the poor people to watch and be convinced that such should be their own aspirations. Such rancid shows anger me very much as well.

Man, I could kick him in the ass, or slap him on his solarium-browned face! I would be arrested by the police — EugeneW

If they are not careful, they will need a lot more Police because they will need to arrest me too and as time goes on, too many others for them to handle.

I was just listening to him! In his interview with Rovelli! About the quantum nature of spacetime. I can relate to Rovelli. An iconoclast. I think I should send something to him too. I dont agree with him though. What causes space curvature? Einstein doesn't have an answer, nor Rovelli — EugeneW

Good stuff, I really enjoy the cosmology offerings on youtube

Im gonna ask questions on Carroll's podcast! Ill let you know the answers — EugeneW

I hope he treats you well and by doing so he will give the rest of us confidence that cosmologists such as him are not members of an aloof, exclusive group who are unapproachable by the majority of us.

Maybe it's best to be just satisfied with what I know, but people wanna share. I have the story written in prose almost, with as little math as possible. Somehow math seems to turn people off. — EugeneW

Sean Carroll seems a 'good guy' he also currently has a youtube podcast where he answeres all submitted questions. The last one I listened to was 3hours long. You might get a response from him.

Jesus just had a Jesus complex!
Why did they create a world with so much pain? I really don't know — EugeneW

Non-existence is their one and only defense!

I have send stuff to Tamara Davis. She seemed open minded. No reply. Ive send stuff to Verlinde. No reply. Hope they don't run with my idea! No, I wouldn't care. But why they don't reply? — EugeneW

There can be many reasons, some fair reasons and some not-so-nice reasons. Maybe just too busy.
I would send to 'all of them' and I would pester until they responded, even to just get me off their back.
Sometimes you have to be stubborn in your determination to gain an adequate response.
It is of course vital to always stay within the law.

Every time I look at you I don't understand
Why you let the things you did get so out of hand.
You'd have managed better if you'd had it planned.
Why'd you choose such a backward time in such a strange land?
If you'd come today you could have reached a whole nation.
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication. ( I don't get this line, it makes no contextual sense!)
Don't you get me wrong.
I only want to know.

CHOIR

Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ,
Who are you? What have you sacrificed?
Jesus Christ Superstar,
Do you think you're what they say you are?

VOICE OF JUDAS

Tell me what you think about your friends at the top.
Who'd you think besides yourself's the pick of the crop?
Buddha, was he where it's at? Is he where you are?
Could Mohammed move a mountain, or was that just PR?
Did you mean to die like that? Was that a mistake, or
Did you know your messy death would be a record breaker?
Don't you get me wrong.
I only want to know.

CHOIR

Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ,
Who are you? What have you sacrificed?
Jesus Christ Superstar,
Do you think you're what they say you are?
(Repeat many times)

Well, enjoy the struggle against those who hold the current cosmological high ground.
It's been done before. I think there are enough influential cosmologists who are open-minded.
You should summarise your ideas and send a copy to all of them, you have little to lose.
Neil Degrasse Tyson's career started when he sent a letter, as an undergrad, to Carl Sagan.
Tyson was amazed when Sagan invited him to meet him and talk about his interest in physics and cosmology. One of the many many reasons that I hold Carl Sagan in very high esteem.

And look, if your only argument is that you don't want it to be so - which it usually is when people fight these things with a lot of zeal - I kindly bow out of the discussion. What we wish has nothing to do with what is necessarily the case — ChatteringMonkey

One snowball can create an avalanche. I don't dismiss the 'wishes' or determinations of any individual or a group you define as 'we', as impotent. Doing so, can often allow the nefarious to gain power and influence. I act based on my 'wishes.'

I always respect and accept your judgment to 'bow out' of a discourse, especially if you think impasse has been reached or you feel that continued discussion offers you little value.

I'm not saying aristocrats are altruistic philanthropes, I'm just saying that there are limits to what they can get away with because they at least have to uphold some public image, unlike faceless capitalists who operate entirely behind the scenes — ChatteringMonkey

Perhaps you are conflating historical aristocrats with modern celebrity culture. The French aristos only had interest in what their fellow aristos thought of them or/and the King/Queens inner circle. They had little interest/conception/concern about what the unimportant/starving/abused mass of the French peasantry thought about them. The same applies to all historical aristocracies. Such an aloof attitude proved to be their biggest mistake.

I'm curious about the video! What did you upload? I can't see it.. — EugeneW

I am suprised you cant see it. I can, along with your own posted tune.

I posted an excellent version of Andrew Lloyd Webber's 'Jesus Christ Superstar,' by an artist called Laibach. I really like the words of that song. It's an old recording but I like Laibach's very deep voice and dramatic arrangement. Use the song title and the name Laibach on a youtube search and you will find it.