If my hypothesys is true, this have a lot of applications.
Have you heard the word "Egregore"? This is something like a mind in the collective unconscious; we have the Christianic egregore, Comminust ergerore, etc. From my point of view, an egregore is an analouge of a state of a social network, which uses the quantum entanglement instead of common ways of communications (more exactly, a combination of both). In other words, an egregore is a pseudostate or pseudosocnetwork in the same meaning as the pseudotelepathy I mentioned above.
The concept of egregores can be of a great practical use for political science, because it explains a lot of problems in the Western world (the explanation is that the Western democracy is illusory to a significant extent).

This sounds very like what I know as citizens' assemblies. They seem to be very helpful in formulating policy. But I don't think that anyone sees them as a possible legislative bodies. For more detail, see, for example, On Citizens' assemblies — Ludwig V

From this link it is not fully clear for me, what principles do these assemlbies use. Firstly, using a lot (random selection) has a problem: if a small number of people who received the offer accepted to participate in this group, these people are not a representative sample, and their opinions do not represent the opinions of the whole population. To solve this problem, sufficient sums of money must be offered to these people for participating in these groups.

The population of ancient Athens was about 250,000 people with only about 30,000 able to vote. That's comparable to a large town or small city. In the US, about 250,000 million people are eligible to vote. — T Clark

Are you sure with these numbers? Why onle 30 000? I thought the right to vote had all free men (not slaves), and this must be approximately 60% of men or 30% of all population.

So decisions on major public issues now hinge on a video of people - 200 people! - arguing? I'm trying to imagine the sound level and clarity. — Vera Mont

As far as I know, in ancient Greece the "lottocracy" was trusted more than democracy, because in usual democracy, usually not best but the worst people come to power. You can clearly see this in the US now. This phenomenon is explained by the fact, that in usual democracy, for comong into power a man must become a part of some elite which already has the power. With the "lottocracy", average people come to power and the average is better than the bad.

So somehow you’ve gone from hundreds of millions of people voting on laws to 200 people voting. I don’t think you’ve thought this through very well. — T Clark

For me, a better solution would be as follows: these 200 people will perform a vote, also they can vote for spending some state money for creating a video illustrating their argues and decisions; and after the vote of these 200 people, all nation will vote on a referendum with the suggestion to simply accept the result created by these 200 people. If the referendum will be rejected - a usual voting for all nation is performed.

And who would set the question for this Friday? Do the voters get advance warning to inform themselves on the subject? It's not a lot of time to prepare. How would a new mandate be implemented, when, and by whom? Who owns the platform on which the voting takes place and how are votes tallied? What percent of the votes would it take to win, and would that be the same requirement for imposing a parking fine, changing a zoning regulation, eliminating/reinstating the death penalty and declaring war? What if the public mood shifts before the law goes into effect? — Vera Mont

Some of your questions are trivial. Concerning the necessity to gather information before voting, I have an idea of using a lot: a group of 200 random people would be chosen, the state will give them the money for studiing the subject, and possbly they will vote instead of the whole population. This is one implementation of the "lottocracy", for me there are better ones, but they are more difficult for explaining.

Can we vote to create a representational democracy where we have a House, a Senate, and a President so we no longer have to vote on everything personally? — Hanover

You have this "democracy" now, and in fact, the President and expesically the Senate use their powers for serving the financial aristocracy ("300 familities"), they have the full power and do not allow other people to become their competitorr; and it is becomes clear that smart people are not allowed to become presidents in US, because a smart president can become a threat for the power and money of these people.

I'd like want to formulate my thoughts concerning the ranking vote again. If the voters have e.g. three candidates and the voting with the scale, it is possible that they will tend to vote "10 for one, 0 for two others". This vote seems selfish, and the state must try to fight the egoism of voters. If the ranking system is used. each voter will have to vote "10 for one, 5 for second, 0 for third"; and this distribution seems more fair for most cases; it represents a more common distribution of opinions. If there are not 3 candidates but e.g. 100, but most of them are spoilers, the ranking vote wil not help.

At the same time, for referendums, the ranking vote can't be used. I think that the voting with scale will be good for the referendums anyway, but the state must try to solve the problem of unfair voting (if a person votes 10 instead of 6).

Why would we possibly bring in a new system when there is an existing one, ranked choice voting, that has been in use for a long time and works well? — T Clark

Probably there is no big difference, but I am not sure these two systems will always produce the same results. For me, the system I described is evidently optimal.

There is already a better system than this in place in a number of jurisdictions. It’s called ranked choice voting. This from the web — T Clark

This is a good idea, but maybe I don't fully understand the principle from your quote. For me, the best system can be as follows: if we have e.g. 3 candidates, each voter ranks each candidate with 1-3 numbers, and rank 1 means 10, 2 means 5, 3 means 0. So this will be similar to the vote with scale I proposed, but the voter will be unable to choose 10 for one candidate and 0 for each of two others.
In my example in the op with A, B, C candidates, with this system, each of them will finally get 33%.

Roger Penrose has suggested that quantum effects are working in the nervous system of living organisms. Currently there is some experimental evidence in favour of this hypothesis:


https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be

https://www.mdpi.com/2624-960X/3/1/6

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2018.0640

https://opg.optica.org/opn/abstract.cfm?uri=opn-30-4-42


If this is true, then we can assume that there is quantum entanglement between the brains of related individuals in nature; and then it is easy to assume that the evolution has "invented" quantum pseudo-telepathy which helps animals to survive and reproduce. Then a new science is needed to study this - quantum ethology. Has anyone proposed it?

It does. — Paine

Ok, I have deleted the link. However maybe I can post a link to my channel at my profile? Do the rules allow that?

God bless. The "game theory" of anything-relationship must keep in mind that male and female psychology are wildly different. Women don't like, respect, or feel attraction towards push-overs. It is just another instantiation of the "nice guys finish last" universal. — Lionino

I have some experience of successfull relationships and I understand that it is not useful to be a simp, on the other hand you must give your wife presents from time to time, otherwise the love will slowly leave your family. And for me, being obsessive/intrusive can a form of egoism. Maybe I don't know the correct word and "obsessive/intrusive" are not fully what I mean, I mean a strong wish to prove with doings that you love her.

Reducing divorce by getting husbands to simp even harder? If simping harder were the solution, there would be no divorces to begin with. In fact, the opposite is much more likely to be true. As a man, you can reduce the likelihood of divorce by simping less. But then again, why sign a contract in which you are at the mercy of someone else who can just break it and then cash out on you? It is the modern incentive structure of the contract that explains why it gets broken so easily and so often. Therefore, the only way to avoid divorce is not to sign that kind of unreasonable contracts. — Tarskian

Sorry, I am not a native English speaker and I don't understand the word "simping". Maybe you wanted to say that the husband and wife become "Sims" with my approach? One more person told me so, but I don't understand this argument.

↪Linkey In your example, the husband is a simp if he doesn't go to the football match without her — 180 Proof

People prefer to do anything together, for example they watch movies together, go for sports together and so on. Let's say that the husband gets 0.5 units of pleasure if he goes to futball alone.

How do you justify that statement? Or where is the evidence? I have a book about Persia that I haven't read and no book about Macedonia. So I have no idea how Macedonia was more civilized. The Persians had impressive architecture and crafted items and art. They had religious freedom. How does that add up to being less civilized? — Athena

I suppose, the Persians had a larger oppression of the lower classes by the rulers. The Persia was an Oriental Despotism, and the Greeks considered all Persians as the slaves of their king.
I had read a book "Sex and the evolution of the human nature" by Matt Ridley which describes the Briffault's law in human societis, including the Eastern empires. In all these empires, the monarchs and his feudals took a lot of women from the lower classes into their harems, and I heard that rather often the men from the lower classes remained without women because of this.

People vote with their feet.

They reject rule by the mob.

Millions more would want to live in Dubai and be governed by its emir instead of the mob back home, but they cannot afford it financially: — Tarskian

Even if that's true about the Dubai, it does not contradict what I have said: the rulers of UAE can't allow themselves to become despots, because otherwise they will get a revolt.
And yes, the authoritrian rulers like Napoleon or Lee Kaun Yew often become great reformers, maybe more often than democratic leaders. I understand that.

So essentially you are saying that even if a state is not democratic, the people living in it are likely advantaged if there is a nearby democratic state, simply due to the necessity of the government to please its citizens in order to avoid revolution? — Igitur

Yes.

United Kingdom declared war to Finland in December 5th 1941. I assume the both countries were then democracies even back then. — ssu

Of course there are some counter-arguments against the theory, but they do not matter really much. Finland had to join Germany because Germany started a war against the enemy of Finland. A similar situation was an alliance between USA and the Saudi Arabia, because Saddam became the enemy of the latter.
And there is no case in histiry where a war of annihilation (sorry if my English was bad, I hope I was understood) occured between two democratic countries (well, maybe we can speculate about ancient Greece, my knowledge of it is incomplete).

I have written on Medium an article describing my idea:

https://medium.com/@grandrienko22/the-achilles-heel-of-modern-authoritarian-regimes-699c25d6d9a8

Can anybody help me with the information, how can I pay for boosting (promoting) this article in Medium? I was unable to google this information.

Yet I think there are still Russians who support the war simply fearing what will happen to Russia if the war is lost. You see, Russia isn't a normal nation-state, it still is built on an Empire. That's the real problem. Still many Russians believe Catherine the Great's words: "I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them." This pure imperialism hasn't yet died in your country. — ssu

Do you know about the democratic peace theory?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory

Democratic countries unite instead of dissipating, and the people in the West must try to make the Russians know about that.
Again, if the West is afraid of Putin's nukes, maybe the most weak points of the Evil is China: as I have suggested, the US should declare that they will build military bases on Taiwan unless a referendum is performed in PRC with a suggestion to unban youtube. I think this is really a strong idea: as far as I know, many people in China (probably most) don't like the censorship in their country and the social credit system. I am sure that they will vote for unblocking the youtube, and this will quickly make the democratization of China the only way for Xi. After that, the same processes will start in Russia.

The US government doesn't want to provoke a war or attempt to bring about social changes through threats. — frank

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement

Oh, wait, another thing - opening up the possibility of a limited nuclear war makes it much more likely. — T Clark

If this risk exists, maybe a better decision will be using this approach against the CCP instead of Putin. The US should declare and spread this information in the Chinese web: the US will install a military base in Taiwan, but they can reverse this decision if CCP performs a referendum in China, with the suggestions to unblock youtube and wikipedia in the Chinese web. I am sure this can work.

In a conspiracist's world, perhaps. Or perhaps both a controlled by a third, hidden agent? — SophistiCat

For me, this is rather not a conspiracy but something Freudian.

Some many of those popular people live much better than me, I don't envy them at all. In fact I feel sorry for them having to work so hard to be popular. — Sir2u

Such people as you are exceptions, as I think.
I have heard that according to American psychologist D. Myers, an increase of crime level in USA happened in 1951-1955 because of the appearance of TV shows in which the heroes showed a high lever of richness and consumption. I mean that the TV viewers started to compare themselves with rich TV heroes and feel envy to them.

No, Linkey, mate please. Don't feel bad about yourself in that way. There are members here who love Russia and Russian culture. Don't mix up things! Maybe politics in Russia are screwed, but your culture is awesome: pianists, painters, writers, scientists, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Shólojov, Chejov, etc... — javi2541997

I don't like this point of view. Currently the Russians are insane fascists, and I hope they will be cured by the West, as the Germans were.. And yes, both Russians and Germans had had a rich culture before the insanity.

An example of a situation which can be studied by the game theory is aTruel:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truel


One example of this game was described in a book of Martin Gardner. Three shooters A, B, C have chosen a truel. A never misses, B hits 80% of the time, C hits 50% of the time. In such a game, C has the best chance of winning because he can shoot into the air first while A and B are shooting at each other.

My question is: is it possible to suggest some variants of this truel in which players have access to the Mach–Zehnder interferometerwith bombs, and this can change the probabilities of the outcomes. I mean something like this: player C does not shoot either A or B, but creates a superposition of these two states, and in one of the states also sends a message to B - if you don’t want me to shoot at you next time, do as I ask. I hope my idea can be understood.
Quote ReplyReport Edit Delete

What is your native language? — Paine

I am from Russia. Please note that I support Ukraine, I am even a russophobe.
If the English in my previous post was bad, maybe I should use ChatGPT more often for word translations. How reliable is it for this task, what do you think?

This sounds like an AI generated thing. — Paine

Well, I used the google translator since my English is not perfect...

This is true, for example Switzerland, a quite stable democracy, had it's later Civil War in 1847 the Sonderbund War. Hence being a democracy (or a democratic confederacy/federation) doesn't mean that political deadlocks cannot turn into Civil Wars. Especially the case of succession can brings these things on. The insurgency in Northern Ireland successfully has been portrayed by the UK as "the Troubles" still had it's roots in a quest for secession. The UK has successfully avoided the secession of Scotland and in Spain with constitutional crisis of 2017-2018 came close to military action. So just being a functioning democracy doesn't mean that there cannot be civil wars, even if it still holds that if the majority of the people are happy with their economy and position, no need to go on to the barricades and grab those rifles. — ssu

Ok, I understand you, and I want to add something. With democracy, the "tyranny of the majority" is theoretically possible: roughly speaking, if 90% of the population votes to make the remaining 10% slaves. And theoretically, it is possible to find a solution to this problem: if each voter, when voting, indicates on a ten-point scale how important this decision is to him personally, and if it is possible to achieve the honesty of this assessment. The same scheme can solve all the problems of separatism in democratic countries. Do you guess what I mean?

I have a question: how much were the taxes in the north states and in the south states prior to the war? Maybe the latter were higher?

The Game of Chicken illustrates cases where people can win through "rational irrationality":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_(game)



This is an explanation of the politics of Kim Jong Un and Putin, and my idea is, that in the quantum reality the civilized world can find solutions against this.I hope my idea does not look crazy, because the EV bomb experiment is "crazy" already and the physicists must know that.

Meaning? — tim wood

Before the Linkoln's speach, the States were "states" in the meaning of "countries" to a relatevely big extent. And a war betreen these countries started.

The idea is that before the Civil War, it was the United States are, and after, the United States is. — tim wood

Then, if we are still using analogies, maybe it can be said that the civil war was just a war?

Not really philosophy, better posted on a history board. — Lionino

Sorry, I am a newbie here, maybe the thread can be moved?