We can assume that there has to be at least similar if not larger amount of infections at the spring as now. — ssu

Are you serious? What do you base that on, the death rate? The first wave swept through the most vulnerable, and exposed, the nursing homes, where the numbers of vulnerable are concentrated and the virus spread easily. The second wave is sweeping through the general population, where the vulnerable are scattered. The death rate has not reached its peak.

You say, 'we must turn to something other than science to determine the criteria for truth,' and I do believe that on a daily basis most people search beyond the findings of science, which are just the foundations. And here, is where I would say that relativity comes in because everyone's search is unique. — Jack Cummins

The point was, that before we can judge a particular piece of work which is presented to us as science, as to whether it gives us truth or not, we need some idea as to what constitutes truth. It's probably the case that every person has one's own distinct way of judging that matter, implying relativism in truth. But then you posit a "collective unconscious". Isn't this posit an attempt to nullify that relativism?

The reason I use the word 'myth' is based on the idea of the collective unconscious, as stressed by Jung, and he said that, 'There is nothing mystical about the collective unconscious.' Of course, I realise that many people reject the idea of the collective unconscious and many find Jung's writings to be a bit mystical. — Jack Cummins

Approaching this supposed collective unconscious is a difficult task, because it is conceptual, and we can flip it around to approach from one side or the inverse, finding its weakness which allows one to penetrate, annihilate and reject. The concept appears first as a myth, but that is how it appears to the individual conscious mind with an inclination toward a relativist truth. Mysticism provides us with principles whereby we can suspend the inclination of the conscious individual to judge truth or falsity in a relativist way, providing an appropriate approach to this concept. But this means that the concept is mystical because it is through a mystical approach that it makes sense. Other approaches will render the concept as a myth. And that is an example of how we might bring a myth away from the judgement of "falsity", which one might be inclined to impose, by recognizing that such a judgement is based in the relative perspective of the individual.

One again arrives at the problem: we have a supposedly non-physical thing indirectly observed through its physical effects and its physical causes, just like a physical thing. What distinguishes it as non-physical, other than sheer insistence? — Kenosha Kid

The insistence by physicalists, that the supposed non-physical thing is imaginary, is what distinguishes it as non-physical. The supposed thing is incompatible with physicalism, therefore it is non-physical. Take God for example, indirectly observed through His effects (physical existence), yet claimed to be imaginary by physicalists, and so He is necessarily non-physical. By refusing to accept the reality of the supposed non-physical thing, the physicalists force it into the category of non-physical, as incompatible with physicalism.

Merkel didn’t stoop to criticize Obama when Snowden revealed his NSA was spying on her. Is this the normal you’re speaking of? — NOS4A2

For as long as I've been alive, everyone's been spying on each other, they just kind of take it for granted that they're being spied on. "Lower the cone of silence Max" "Not the cone of silence chief."

Obviously, I do not agree with the idea of a non-conscious observer. Nor do I agree with the idea of information which is not dependent on consciousness to exist as information.

but if we can discern that time was ‘passing’ before there were conscious observers, then differences such as molecules relating to each other over time must have been observed non-consciously (ie. integrated into molecular structures) for this temporally differentiated information to be perceived now. — Possibility

I think you only derive this conclusion from a false premise concerning the nature of time, so it doesn;t persuade me at all in changing my mind. The false premise seems to be that if time is passing, observation is necessarily occurring.

Say you read the same paragraph over and over again. Reading it won't necessarily cause you to remember it. You need a strategy and put effort into adhering to the strategy.

"Training" implies a method. If you repeat the same thing over and over again, and you always have an error which you must adjust for, then you cannot just continue forever adjusting for the error, you need to change your method if your desire is to prevent the error.

Sorry Isaac, I just don't see the relevance.

You get that the grounding is through feedback against a target specimen? — bongo fury

But the goal is to produce the pitch without the specimen or feedback. Do you have a strategy toward this end?

So, I am asking about the whole question of truth arising from the clash between religion and science and divergent systems of thinking. Is there one which is the ultimate in terms of establishing truth? — Jack Cummins

The problem is that science, though it might be capable of delivering the truth, is incapable of determining what constitutes "truth", or the criteria for truth. So it is by some means other than science that we determine whether what science has given us is truth or not. This is a fact which is simple to apprehend if you respect the fact that science is a method, you might say a system of rules, and it is impossible that by following a set of rules, one might create the rules which are being followed. Therefore we must turn to something other than science to determine the criteria for truth, and provide the guidance for science, to ensure that it delivers truth rather than something else.

I am thinking of mythic truths, although I would suggest that for many the word myth implies false fantasies. — Jack Cummins

To avoid this problem I suggest you look toward mystic principles rather than mythic.

If I decide to drink some and vomit onto a blank canvas, that's creative. — Outlander

Make sure it's not red wine because that's been done before. I've seen some pretty colourful margaritas. Maybe try it more than once, with the same canvas, and different coloured margaritas each time. A visual beauty with a nasty smell!

Hopefully completing stage one. Have started to try and produce a (piano) g4 image in the midst of other music. — bongo fury

I haven't completely grasped your use of "image" in this thread. Surely you are talking about an aural image rather than a visual image, but what method would you use to distinguish one pitch from another, within the image? Is it just a matter of trying to perfectly remember and repeat the exact sound, or is there a technique you could employ to distinguish one pitch from another by features inherent within the sound?

It seems like you've been trying to locate your image by relating it to other tones. But this would be like ungrounded logic, you could have a complete scale in your mind, with nothing to connect it to reality. perhaps you could relate it to an image from another sense, like a visual image for example, so that when you produce the designated visual image it would automatically recall the correct pitch through association. You might even cheat, and use a real sensible object to create the association. A hit of smelling salts, quickly followed by g4 on the piano, for instance. Repeat a few hundred or thousand times, and according to Pavlov, a hit of smelling salts, followed by g4 in the mind without the need for the piano.

Yeah, I also doubt his intentions were purely motivated by ideological beliefs about the dangers of technology. Like you said, fifteen years is a long time to go without any explanation as to why the attacks are happening. — darthbarracuda

His work place was a University. His targets were Universities. So he displays elements of classic 'going postal'. And as a letter bomber he gives the expression a whole new dimension.

Regardless, I don't see much use in focusing on his actions. It's his ideas that really matter. — darthbarracuda

The question then, do his ideas really have merit, or is it just a case of being an interesting read because it's written by a very intelligent and capable human being, who experienced an extremely messed up life.

K claims it was meant to draw attention to his ideas, but who knows how sincere he is when he says that. — darthbarracuda

The writings are anti-societal. The acts were anti-societal. We can ask, which came first, the writings or the acts, to see if the acts were meant to bring attention to the writings, or if the writings are an attempt to justify the acts. Before the acts, wasn't the man a mathematical genius who got disillusioned with society? It's possible that he later turned that incredible mind of his toward justifying some terrible acts. Fifteen years of violence before his manifesto was published doesn't look good for the idea that the violence was meant to bring attention to his ideas.

I don't know man, civilization moving in and squeezing me, hardly seems like a good reason for bombing it.

A very smart, but twisted man. I think he should have stuck with the math.

In 1967, Kaczynski's dissertation Boundary Functions[42] won the Sumner B. Myers Prize for Michigan's best mathematics dissertation of the year.[11] Allen Shields, his doctoral advisor, called it "the best I have ever directed", — Wikipedia

So, perfection?
Maybe it's one of those things, like learning a language, easy when you're a child, but difficult when you're older.

Sorry Isaac, I didn't know you had changed the subject from Covid deaths to TB deaths, when you mentioned "nearly half a million excess deaths". Do you really think there will be an increase of half a million deaths from TB in the US because of Covid lockdowns? That seems extremely far fetched.

Language doesn’t lend itself to clarity here. My understanding of ‘observation’ as not requiring consciousness comes from the definition used in physics. Noticing something happening is different to noticing what is happening. So observation often refers to the content as well as the act of observing. The former depends on consciousness, the latter does not. — Possibility

Sorry Possibility, but I've read this over numerous times and I just can't apprehend the distinction you're trying to make. To me, "noticing" implies necessarily a discernment of "what is happening", even if that discernment might be judged by another as completely wrong.

Now I do not see how you proceed to your conclusion "observation often refers to the content as well as the act of observing". Are you saying that there is a verb "observation" which refers to the act, and there is a noun "observation" which refers to a stated description, "an observation"? If so, how does this relate to the distinction described above? Both, the active "observation", and the noun, "an observation", involve a discernment of "what is happening". If the act of observation requires no such discernment, then you might say that a rock is observing.

However without that spoken word thinking I would imagine you would only think in images. — Thinking

As I said, I think that spoken words in the mind are just images, aural images. So thinking in words, and thinking in images is essentially the same thing. What has happened, is that in modern human evolution we have come to use vision as a very useful tool. In some philosophy of science, "observation" is employed as equivalent to watching, because seeing has become so useful to science. However, we often neglect the fact that our ears have evolved to be extremely sensitive tools, and so we also neglect the role that aural images play in thinking.

The actual content of thinking, the act of thinking, is much more difficult to describe, because it might be pretty much restricted to subconscious habits. It appears like actual thinking is some sort of process which establishes relations between the images. You can see that from this perspective, the type of image is not important, because the images are like symbols, each having meaning dependent on the relations which have been established. The act of thinking is what establishes the relations and commits them to memory. So there is a whole lot of previously established meaning, which the act of thinking is continuously drawing on, mostly in a subconscious way, but the thinking is also continuously establishing new relations between the images (symbols) and committing them to memory.

You would think that there ought to be some sort of truth at the bottom of this structure of relations. The act of thinking cannot simply be a relating of symbols to each other, there must be something apprehended as reality, to ground belief in some sort of truth as correspondence. Something must support the thinking mind's faith in the meaning behind the images or symbols, the previously established relations, which the conscious mind allows to be processed subconsciously. I supposed there is some sort of principle having to do with the success of repetition.

From conceptual thougths into language. — god must be atheist

Can you explain to me what you mean by "conceptual thoughts", translate this into language for me? I'm not trying to be overly critical, just trying to understand your way of thinking. For me, thinking is as I described above, relating images or symbols, but the actual thinking process, which is the act of establishing these relations is almost completely hidden from me, subconscious.

When my mind is at rest, so to speak, I don't have images. No images, no language, only meaning, and concepts. One concept bears another. I often try to pin myself down on catching myself what I am thinking of at the moment -- impossible. There is no dialogue in my head, in my mind... just one concept morphing into another. A linear monologue, with tons of lateral jumps, of course. — god must be atheist

What I'm asking is to take your use of "concept" in this paragraph, and explain to me, or describe, what a "concept" appears like within your mind. You are saying that you can free you mind from words and other images to have "only meaning, and concepts" present within your mind. So I am asking how does this meaning and concepts appear to your mind, can you translate it into words, describe it for me so that I might be able to understand what type of form this subject matter has. If it has no form whatsoever, how could you apprehend it as concepts? So I am hoping that you can describe some sort of form which constitutes the existence of a concept within your mind.

If you're going to be that flippant about nearly half a million excess deaths then there's no point talking to you. — Isaac

The article was concerned with "US Covid-19 Death Counts". You flippantly mention "nearly half a million excess deaths", and accuse me of being flippant.

Nope. Uniform expansion doesn't involve overlapping points.

Consider ordinary Hubble expansion.
I assume that you would not contest that we see galaxies as redshifted, and the further galaxies are away from us, the more redshifted they are?

If a galaxy 1 megaparsec away from us is travelling at speed N away from us, a galaxy 2 megaparsecs away is travelling at speed 2N and so on. From our perspective, we look like the center of the universe's expansion. But, when we do the maths, we find that it looks like that from the perspective of any galaxy. — Mijin

Right, so if the evidence indicates that every galaxy is the center of the universe's expansion, than the evidence indicates that space expands from central points. And, since we can see from one galaxy to another, the evidence is that the expansion from these central points overlaps.

I don't think in words or language — god must be atheist

How do you ever decide what to say or write?



I think in spoken words, but generally not in written words. I can think in written symbols to an extent, like numerals, but isn't this just a way of thinking in images? Come to think of it, isn't thinking in spoken words just a way of thinking in aural images?

Ever notice the dual meaning of "original"? In one sense, a brand new idea, never before thought of, is said to be original. In another sense "original" is the very first, so that would mean the very first idea, from which all others proceed. The two are sort of incompatible because if there's an original in the sense of first, then all others that follow are some sort of copy of the first, and there is no original in the sense of brand new.

might be a lot of counting ahead of us. — Hippyhead

I think there's going to be a lot of counting for Trump. He's going to end up having to get out there and personally recount every single vote cast in the good old U.S. of A, as well as those from abroad, because no one else seems to be willing to do it for him. While he's at it, he'd better check every signature too. Maybe that'll keep him out of trouble for a while.

Observation is unconscious sensory interaction, perception is a process of consciousness that integrates sensory information, — Possibility

In my mind you have these two reversed. Perceiving is the simple receiving of the sensory information. It may or may not require consciousness as a necessity, this is debatable. If it does require consciousness it's to a very minimal extend, as we can perceive things in a very limited way, when we are asleep, and these sensations might enter our dreams, or wake us up . Observation is a noticing of what is happening, so this is necessarily consciousness at work. So observation requires apperception as a sort of medium between perceiving and observing. To make our perceptions into observations requires apperception which is the conscious acknowledgement of the act of perceiving. This is why I say that observation is very close to describing. Describing is just one step up from observing, in the conscious mind, as the act of putting what is observed into words.

The description is false — Possibility

But don't we have as a goal, to make true descriptions. Why would you say that descriptions are necessarily false, if we have as a goal to make true descriptions?

Unrelated, I think stylistically art is going to become more interactive and exploritory. With Sleep No More and Then She Fell in NYC, you have the transformation of a typical play into a haunted house type scenerio where each audience member sees different scenes as events play out across a large building simultaneously. The audience also gets brought into the performance. VR art (the Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art has some up right now) is a promising direction, allowing exploration into a scene. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree with this in principle. I think we will start to see some very radical experimentation with visual effects in the medium of time. In ancient times stories, plays, and poems were the main form of temporally extended art. Then music took the center stage for temporal expression, with melodies, harmonies, chords etc.. Now, in modern times we have untapped technology as the potential for all sorts of temporally extended visual displays. Until now, the field has been mostly confined to moving pictures, movies, which are basically recorded stories or plays, though special effects paly an important role in movies. But that's where the industry has led the artists, to the movies. In reality though, movies as an art form are very basic, and the technology which exists right now provides so much potential for artistic expression using temporal visual effects, it's time for the artists to lead the industry. The visual changes within the temporal medium can be so much more rapid and dramatic than the changes found in music, as demonstrated by the simple strobe light.

Dealing with the world the way it really is? More like denying the way the world really is. "We won the election by a lot!"

An observation is a process of relating one 4D structure to another; what has been observed is a 4D structure of difference between them.

A description is a linguistic rendering of information, not necessarily confined to what has been observed. It includes linguistic structures, probabilistic patterns of prediction and concepts that enable what has been observed to make sense in a conceptual system. — Possibility

We disagree fundamentally here, and I see no route to compromise. I think a description is necessarily confined to something observed, and I see no need for a description to relate one 4d structure to another. You hold the opposite to this.

Complicated, but not contradictory. Having described an event, your perspective of it may have changed. ‘Half an hour ago, I ate crab sticks over there’ describes an event from a perspective which is ‘fixed’ within the description. You would need to describe that same event differently a week later, because the description has a fixed perspective, but NOT the observer. — Possibility

This doesn't resolve the contradiction. To simply describe the perspective as fixed, when you have already premised that the perspective is changing, means that either your premise that the perspective is changing, or your description which includes a fixed perspective, is false.

Well of course not, if you’re only going to read half the sentence. This is difficult enough to explain without you skim-reading. Yes, the ongoing observation is an event, but not an observed “event that has actually occurred”, as you were arguing. — Possibility

But the ongoing observation really is an observed event, because it is this act of observation which is being described. So the relation between the ongoing observation, and the observed event, is a relation between two events and this is being described as observation.

What I’m referring to is thinking of ‘time’ as boundless. — Possibility

I cannot think of time as "boundless" because I find the essence of time is found in boundaries. The present is the boundary between past and future. It is the beginning of the past, and the end of the future. Further, any period of time has a beginning and an end, which are boundaries, and to name a particular point in time is to mark a boundary between prior and posterior time. I find that there is no way to talk about time except in terms of explicit or implicit boundaries. So the idea of time as boundless seems incoherent to me.

Why would you just prima facie disbelieve this? — Isaac

I disbelieved it "prima facie" because it appeared completely unreasonable to me, because of the specific claims which were made, and the way that they were presented. So I placed one of the many dubious claims made there, onto this forum, in the form of an example. And you confirmed that you also believed, as I do, that the reporting practice was not as stated in the article, by saying that Covid-19 must be apprehended as a contributing factor in the death. Remember, the article which I see as deceptive, states that the person merely has to have tested positive for Covid-19 at some prior time in their life, then died, and it is reported as a Covid-19 death. This I see as completely unreasonable, and that unreasonableness, along with other unreasonable claims, presented in a way so as to act as premises toward an implied unreasonable conclusion, is good reason for disbelief.

Since then changes have been made to include epidemiological evidence that Covid -19 was indeed an exacerbating factor. — Isaac

OK, so at the beginning of the pandemic, when there was only a few people in the population of a given country who tested positive already, there was even less people who tested positive and died. The practice of counting everyone who tests positive and dies would produce a very small number of mistakes, even if it might have been a somewhat significant percentage of the overall count, at that time. Then this practice was changed. Now when there are huge numbers who have tested positive, and large numbers of those who have tested positive are dying, the practice is no longer used. Therefore relative to the overall numbers, the mistakes reported at the beginning when there was a very small number, are very insignificant, constituting a very small percentage of the overall numbers.

What's interesting here is not the facts themselves, which are as indisputable as it gets, but the way in which, without even researching the article's sources, you've already assume it is — Isaac

Yes, of course, when a deceptive proposal is poorly fabricated, I can readily identify its mal-intent without looking for discrepancies between it and the claimed sources. It's just like when a telephone scammer calls me. Most of the time it is obviously a scam, as evidenced by the unreasonableness of the claims, and the way that the claims are presented, in an unreasonable way, pointing toward mal-intent. For the scammers to get beyond this intuitive, or learned capacity, to identify mal-intent (that you seem to find very interesting), which we all possess in varying degrees, the scammer needs to put some serious effort into constructing the deceptive proposal. But because the intuitive, or learned capacity, varies from one person to another, some are more easily deceived than others, and the ways in which we are gullible also varies.

but you carry on with your preferred narrative, don't let any of these tricky complications... — Isaac

By "tricky complications" you really mean deceptive speak. Maybe you should try that line on your telephone scam day job, if you have one. "Wait, wait, don't hang up on me, it only appears like a scam because you are not grasping the tricky complications required to make what I'm saying seem reasonable". That's why Trump made that 46 minute speech (highly extraordinary for him) the other night, to present the tricky complications which the professional judges refused to consider, deeming them as unnecessary in making a reasonable judgement; because those tricky complications are smoke and mirrors.

You’re missing my point here, which is about describing an event, as opposed to observing it. — Possibility

The problem is that we seem to disagree on so many fundamental points, that I cannot even get to the place where your "point" might even start to make any sense to me. See, here's another example. I believe a description is just an extension of observation, it is to recount what has been observed. The two are not "opposed".

‘The present’ is not a universal perspective, but a subjective one. — Possibility

As you may have noticed, I strongly disagree with this.

In reality, your position of observation is an ongoing event that changes in relation to the event you describe. So each time you describe that event, it is from a different ‘fixed’ perspective. — Possibility

How can this make sense to you? If "your position of observation is an ongoing event that changes in relation to the event you describe", then it is contradictory to say that you have a "fixed perspective". What could possibly indicate that your perspective is "fixed" if it is an ongoing change?

Each description is inclusive of a fixed point of observation, to which we relate as ongoing events. — Possibility

So this makes no sense because your description denies that a point of observation is "fixed".

So this variability that I’m talking about is in a relation not between two events that have actually occurred in relation to an observation, but between the event and an ongoing observation. — Possibility

Perhaps I can make sense of this statement. You have posited an ongoing observation which you say is itself an event. Now you say that the variability is not between two events, but between an event and the ongoing observation. The ongoing observation is an event though. See why I can't get anywhere in trying to understand what you are saying?

And yet we describe objects of our imagination - a ‘description’ is just using words to render information, and doesn’t necessitate observation, only perception. — Possibility

Actually, we describe the dream, or the imaginary experience, we do not describe the "objects" of our imagination, because we do not think of them as actual objects. So I might describe something which came to me in a dream, or in my imagination, but I describe them as things of my imagination, and that is an observation of something past, as I said. We cannot describe future things because they have not happened and cannot be observed. If I imagine a future scenario, I can describe what came to my imagination, but that is a description of something past, the imagination which came to my mind.

But where an ‘event’ or ‘time’ appears infinite, it is really bound by the perceived potentiality of the conscious observer. And where potential appears infinite, it is bound by imagined possibility. — Possibility

Here again, I have a hard time understanding your use of words. How could something appear to be infinite? I don't think "infinite has any sort of appearance at all, because no one has ever sensed it. I think what we do is designate something as infinite, like the natural numbers. We say something like, let's make the natural number infinite, so that we have the capacity to count any magnitude we come across. But mathematics uses "infinite" in strange ways, so that sometimes when they apply mathematics to a problem, infinity will pop up, and people will say that it appears like the thing referred to is infinite. But that's just faulty mathematics, making the thing which the math is being applied to appear as infinite, when in reality the thing just cannot be understood by those mathematics.

Time exists as a four-dimensional structure, but passes only in relation to a conscious observer — Possibility

This I completely disagree with. I think that geology demonstrates to us that time was passing before there were conscious observers on earth.

This is what I propose. If spatial expansion is real, and occurs everywhere, then there must be a distribution of points everywhere, each being a center, with space expanding from each of those points. Since the points must be distributed everywhere, they would interfere with each other, as the expanding space from one point would bump into the expanding space from another point. If, in some places of the universe, like where there is no gravity, the points are far apart, this would allow for rapidly expanding space, as the space expanding from the points would not interfere with each other so much.

We could posit this as the base, the boundary condition, such rapidly expanding space, without interference between points. Then we can move from here toward understanding density. Massive objects must be areas where the expansion points are densely packed. Densely packed points results in interference between points which slows expansion. Slowed expansion is a deviance from the norm, which is rapid expansion, and rapid expansion forces things to move apart at a high speed. Therefore massive objects appear to move toward each other, as a deviance from the norm, which is rapid separation. Unless we posit things moving apart at a high speed as the norm, gravity appears to us as if things are moving toward each other, when in reality they might just be moving apart at a slower speed. So the conception that objects move toward each other because of gravity might just be the result of a faulty frame of reference. It conceives the movement of objects solely as relative to each other, without factoring in the effects of the true backdrop which is the rapidly expanding space.

There's a post mortem which will still try to establish the cause of death. If the person in the car died from their injuries at the scene and one excaserbating factor was a covid infection then it would be listed as a covid death. We're talking unlikely circumstances at this stage, but it would be recorded the way the article describes, and for good reason too. — Isaac

But the article says it would be recorded as a Covid-19 death even if Covid-19 wasn't an exacerbating factor. That's a big difference.

In that they're both asking for a recount? Surely the significant factor in Trump's actions is that he's asking for legitimate votes to be discounted. The legitimacy of the picture presented by the statistics for the job at hand is what matters, not the superficial resemblance anyone making such a request shares. — Isaac

The principle is the same as that demonstrated by the president . The author is dissatisfied with the way that something has been counted, and makes exaggerated, deceptive, and arguably false claims, in an attempt to discredit the count.

It doesn't invalidate the consequences the author highlights on the counting of non-covid excess deaths. — Isaac

Yes, but the same principle as Trump arguing for a fraudulent election applies here again. Sure there are going to be some improper ballots, and some wrongly counted deaths, but using a deceptive presentation to create the appearance that if some insignificant mistakes had been prevented, this would have resulted in a significantly different outcome, is simply wrong.

It's pretty much uncontested that policies designed to reduce deaths from covid will cause a rise in deaths from other causes. — Isaac

Actually I think this is a very dubious statement. I remember seeing some statistics showing that when the lock down was in effect in the spring, the number of deaths in the US was down sharply from the same period in recent years. In general staying at home is a lot safer than going out.

When you describe an event in the past, this is relative to a fixed point of observation: a relating event in itself. So the ‘actual relations’ you’re referring to as invariable are a relation between these two events, not the relations of the event itself - the variability of which transcends this description. — Possibility

It is not a fixed point of observation, the present is not fixed. And the present is not an event itself. It is contradictory to call a fixed point an event, as you do here, "event" is incompatible with "fixed point". Clearly, what we are discussing is whether or not it is true that relations are variable, as in your definition.

In my understanding of "event" as something in the past, the relations of any event are necessarily fixed, invariable, so it makes no sense to say that there is a variability which transcends the description. The opposite is the case. There is variability in description, but no variability in what has actually occurred, therefore no variability in the relations between the events which actually occurred.

Right - so describing an ‘event in the future’ is not just a mere possibility, but can more specifically be a calculated probability or potentiality wave that maps changing relations between observables. — Possibility

Talking about an event in the future cannot properly be called a "description" because that refers to observation, there is nothing observed in the future. Talking about a supposed future event is a projection, not a description.

Time is bound by materialisation - and events ‘fixed’ - only in relation to a point of observation. — Possibility

I disagree with this too. Materialization is bound by time. And the point of observation is also bound by time.

So an event can only be observed in matter as time passes, but it exists regardless of the observer’s position as a four-dimensional structure. — Possibility

An event can only occur as time passes, regardless of observation. The occurrence of an event requires the passing of time, whether or not there is an observer.

If their recovery was in any way hampered by Covid-19 (even having had it) then it would form part of the chain of events leading to death (the other being the car crash injuries) and so it would form part of the Covid-19 statistics, yes. — Isaac

Obviously there is no recovery in my example. The person died "in" a car crash, not in a hospital. The article said that in some states, if any person who dies had previously tested positive, it was counted as a Covid-19 death. The article doesn't mention any judgement of a "chain of events".

But just pointing that out that the issue of 'excess deaths' is consequently complicated by by this decision is not in the least bit reminiscent of Trump's nonsense. Partisanship in politics is one thing, but when millions of people are dying or at risk of dying what we need is good data and dispassionate analysis, not mob rule shutting down any discussion not totally on board with the Hollywood version of this disaster movie. — Isaac

Did you read the article? It seems to have been written with a very bias slant, to me. The way they suggest that Covid deaths ought to be recounted to exclude a whole bunch as illegitimate seems very similar to the way that Trump suggests votes ought to be recounted.

No one is "shutting down any discussion". The article is right there for you to read, and we are discussing it here. Of course I am free to say shut up, I don't want to hear your nonsense, and walk away from this discussion, which is what the judges are doing to Trump. But the thing which Trump is complaining about, a presidential election, seems to be a lot more important than the other thing, number of Covid deaths, which is just statistics used for models. And, I think we all know that error is inherent within descriptive statistics. Is the point, that maybe we do not all know this, and so the various possibilities for error ought to be pointed to?

The decision to count all listings of Covid involvement as a Covid death was a perfectly rational one, and a good idea, in my view, but subsequently pointing out that the result of this decision is that the statistics, particularly related to excess deaths caused by policy responses, needs to be treated with caution is not — Isaac

As I said, the article appears to be written with a slant, as evidenced by my example. Have you read the article? Here's the quote:

The over-counting of deaths goes even further than Ezeke and Birx suggested because most U.S. states (including Illinois) include in their Covid-19 death tally anyone who has tested positive for the virus at any point prior to death.
...
2) most states go even further and include anyone who tested positive for the virus at any time and then died, whether or not they actually had Covid-19 or were an asymptomatic carrier;

This does not even address the authors claim of "90% or more effective false positives" in "various types" of testing. I don't know which agencies would be using different types of testing which are known to give results with more than ninety percent of the positives being false positives.
.

The Apollo project was funded by NASA which was specifically intended to be a non-military, civilian government agency.

Process philosophy is a starting point - I don’t see ‘events’ as fundamental, rather I see the capacity to describe reality in terms of a variability of relations between 4D ‘events’ rather than a changing of relations between 3D ‘objects’ as simply a step towards a more accurate perspective. This term ‘thing’ refers to an indeterminate concept - neither particularly three, four or five-dimensional, rather whatever is being related to. — Possibility

I don't see how there could be variability in such relations. An event is something which has occurred in the past, therefore its relations are fixed, invariable, as the facts about the past. There might be variability in our descriptions of these relations, but there is no variability in the actual relations. As for the future, there is no such thing as events in the future, because the future has not occurred yet, so there is only possibilities for events in our understanding of the future.

The unfolding universe is commonly viewed as one all-encompassing event: a temporal duration of changing relations between physical matter, from the ‘Big Bang’ to heat death (or some other predicted future end). — Possibility

An event only occurs, or unfolds, at the present, as time passes. It doesn't make sense to speak of past events as occurring or unfolding, because they've already occurred, nor does it make sense to speak of future events as occurring. If we say that the present necessarily has temporal extension, then we can extend the present as far as we want into the past, and say that all time until now is the present, but we can't extend it this way into the future. The future has not materialized yet, so there really is no time on that side of the present. So as much as we can extend the present into the past, by understanding the real fixed relations of real past events, we cannot extend the present into the future this way because there are no real fixed events, only what is imagined, predicted, or inferred.

That said, too much science is funded by technology companies and institutions, including military. — Kenosha Kid

The Manhattan Project, for example, was huge, and hugely expensive; probably one of the finest examples of a large group of scientists working together toward one goal. Look at the gift it gave us! However, its great success was probably hugely inspirational for the space program which followed, culminating in the Apollo Project, which might have employed even more scientists than the Manhattan Project.

I don't think we get these huge projects of scientists working together toward a common goal anymore, the money is in the hands of private companies, and they compete. Even something like the covid-19 research and vaccine is carried out by numerous different companies in competition.

The article is strangely reminiscent of Trump's attempt to disqualify Biden votes as illegal. And so it all adds up to the claim of "very significant mistake". Do you think that if a person died in a car crash, and they had previously tested positive for Covid-19, their death would be counted as a Covid-19 death?

This is why we posit a "soul" in dualist philosophy. The physical body of a living being is always a manifestation of some prior learning. We need to have something to account for that original learning which resulted in the first physical manifestation of a living being. We cannot allow infinite regress, nor can we allow the circle which panpsychism leads toward. So we posit a soul as prior to the physical body, to account for the fact that the living physical body is the manifestation of prior learning.

The precise causes of my beliefs are important, not solely because of the physical mechanisms in the brain that yield them, or the physical configuration that stores them, but because the _external_ causes are not equal. — Kenosha Kid

Are you overlooking the internal causes? Surely things like instinct and genetics ought to be classed as internal causes. And these are evident in the subconscious or unconscious levels, being very influential in our emotions. Since the internal, and external causes are completely different classifications, how could you propose any sort of equality, or a single system of measurement which could account for both?

You can train a neural network to infer, say, the interests of a shopper looking for t-shirts based on similar shoppers who bought t-shirts. The operator infers nothing: they accept the inference, until evidence suggests the neural net is systematically wrong. The error is in assuming that humans do the same thing in a significantly different way. — Kenosha Kid

In the case of internal causes, the so-called training is what has already occurred, and the results of that training lie deep within the genetic codes and things like that. I suggest that the error is in your assumption that training an already existent "neural network", which is already constrained by a specific physical manifestation, is somehow "the same thing" as the process of self-constructing such a network. Notice that in the self-constructed model, the training is already built in to the physical manifestation. That is why the internal causes cannot be balanced or scaled with the external, being far more important, because of all the training (a huge amount of external influence) which has already gone into the construction of the system which produces them. And, this internal system, which is the product of self-training, determines how the external will affect us. But be careful where you go with this, because we still need to avoid that circularity you referred to.