Awesome insight! who would though of misinformation on wiki.

This also explains why there is no clear-cut definition of "scientific" theory of nothing, it's obviously depends on most recent scientific discoveries.

Seems like we touched the ground of both scientific and philosophical. — SpaceDweller

Thanks. :)

Wikipedia isn't all that reliable which is part of the reason when people are writing college research papers they are supposed to not rely on it as a source of information. I don't even know if the link from which I quoted the PhD in theoretical physics is reliable or even correct since I know so little about quantum physics I really can't make heads or tails on what he is writing about. But then again I fairly certain that at least 99% of the people reading this forum can't be all that certain about it either.

To be honest though I believe there is a theoretical counter argument to the laws of conservation although it may take a little bit of mental gymnastics to explain it to you if really you want to hear it. I know that it might seem like I was being a bit deceptive for me saying earlier that the laws of conservation can't be broken and now saying that they could perhaps be broken or at least undermined, but the counter argument isn't a way to break the law itself but a means to say almost any rule we create could be undermined under certain conditions, which is basically true about any truth we assume or try to believe.

In a way I was hoping for someone to come up with another real counter argument to the laws of conservation, but of course it is almost all but a given that there isn't that many out there and it is unlikely anyone reading this thread would know of one even if they do exist. Any law or belief can be show to be faulty one way or another if one really wants to find a way to undermine it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

Since they are created spontaneously without a source of energy, vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles are said to violate the conservation of energy. — Michael

I'm not sure who wrote the wiki page your quoting but here is a link written by a guy with a PhD in theoretical physics who disagrees with your assertion:

Does quantum vacuum fluctuation violate the conservation of energy?
https://www.quora.com/Physics/Does-quantum-vacuum-fluctuation-violate-the-conservation-of-energy/answer/Luke-Pritchett?srid=OKNi&share=1
=======================================================================
Q) Does quantum vacuum fluctuation violate the conservation of energy?

A)No! Saying that quantum mechanics does not conserve energy is misinterpreting quantum mechanics.
I will use the term "Hamiltonian" as I explain what I mean. The Hamiltonian is a mathematical object that appears in both quantum mechanics and classical physics. It takes on slightly different forms in those two regimes, but in both cases it is strictly tied to the total energy of the system being studies. In general the Hamiltonian is a function of the state variables (position and momentum) of all the objects in the system, along with possible time-dependent external terms. For a system of one particle (quantum or classical) it looks like

H=p22m+V(q,t)

where p and q are the particle's momentum and position and V is a possibly time-dependent potential function. Basically what this is saying is that the total energy of the system is the particle's kinetic energy plus its potential energy. [*]

As long as the Hamiltonian does not change form in time ( ∂V∂t=0 ) then energy is conserved.

In classical physics the Hamiltonian is just a number. That is, at any point in time I can only possibly measure one value for the total energy of the system. It is easy to understand conservation in this case. At every point in time I measure the same number for total energy.

In quantum physics the Hamiltonian is not just a number. Instead there are a collection of energy eigenvalues. Any time I measure the energy I can only measure one of these eigenvalues. Each of these eigenvalues has at least one physical arrangement of the system associated with it, called eigenstates. If the system is arranged in an eigenstate then every time I measure the energy I measure the same value --- the associated eigenvalue. This is how conservation of energy works in quantum mechanics. If I know the energy exactly at one point in time then I know the energy exactly at every point in time from then on (as long as I only measure energy).

Let me repeat. If the system is in an eigenstate of the Hamiltonian then every time I measure the energy (without measuring anything else in between) I will find the same value. If I know the energy exactly at one point in time then I know the energy exactly at every point in time. Every formulation of quantum mechanics I know supports this statement.

Now, things are of course more interesting in quantum mechanics than classical physics. There are a few things that can happen in quantum mechanics that look like energy is not being conserved. However, I think you will see that it isn't really right to say that conservation of energy is being broken in these cases.

In quantum mechanics it is possible for a physical state to be in a superposition of two different states. Say there are two eigenstates associated with energies E1 and E2 . The system can be in the first state (in which case we will always measure E1 ) or the second state. It can also be in a combination of the two states, in which case when I measure the energy I might measure E1 or E2 ! If we thought we were in the first state only but then measured E2 we might think energy was not conserved. But really we were just confused about what state the system was in. That's not really breaking conservation of energy.

Another thing that can happen is pretty much the same as the last case, but more cleverly hidden. Particle physics is governed by a quantum Hamiltonian just like we've described. However, it has two terms: H=H0+V . The term H0 is usually called the "bare Hamiltonian." The bare Hamiltonian describes the simple relativistic energy of particles. In quantum electrodynamics a state with one electron with momentum p has exactly the energy we expect: (pc)2+(mc2)2−−−−−−−−−−−−√ . The energy of a state with two electrons is the sum of the relativistic energies of the two electrons. Even better, states with a definite number number of electrons are eigenstates of the bare Hamiltonian. This is kind of how we expect things to work so it seems nice.

But it's not really how it works. Electrons interact with photons and positrons. To describe that interaction we have to add the interaction term V . Doing so changes the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian. Without the interaction a state with just one electron is an eigenstate -- it has a definite energy. With the interaction a state with just one electron is no longer an eigenstate! That means we might measure several different energies of the system just by putting in a single electron.

Even weirder, energy eigenstates of the Hamiltonian do not have a definite number of particles! If we prepare two systems with the same definite energy and then measure the number of particles we might find one to have just an electron, and we might find another to have an electron and a photon. This sounds weird because we are used to finding the energy of a collection of particles by adding up their individual energies. That doesn't work in relativistic QM because the potential energy depends on the interaction between particles.

But is energy conservation broken? No. All that's happened is states that we thought would be energy eigenstates are not. We thought we were arranging a state of definite energy, but we were actually arranging a superposition.

This got long and doesn't have any pictures. Sorry. Long story short, if it looks like quantum mechanics isn't conserving energy it's because you're interpreting something in a way that you shouldn't really.

[*] Hamiltonians for relativistic particles don't have this form, but the idea is the same. They still represent the form of the total energy of the system. - Luke Pritchett, PhD in theoretical physics
=======================================================================

Since he and a few other people who also have PhDs in the field disagree with what your are trying to assert, I think it is more probable that you (and the guy who wrote that wiki page) are misinterpreting the process of how quantum mechanics/vacuum fluctuations works and that vacuum fluctuations don't actually break the conservation laws of physics.

Fair point :up: but far from "click bait"
The true reason why I started this thread is because theory of nothing is relatively new theory that is obviously not well defined, and for which I believed is good one to understand what was there before BB if there ever was anything. — SpaceDweller

Ok, I guess that is almost a good enough reason as any to start a thread but I hope that you understand through some of my posts how certain things like laws of physics (such as the law of conservation, which I was calling process theory, and the laws of thermodynamics) deal with the issues of the theory of nothing before we even knew anything about quantum fluctuations.

There may be a few people that believe that believe that quantum fluctuations somehow create something out of nothing, but from what little I have read of it the majority of scientist that work in this field either A) disagree with their assumptions based on their understanding of the mathematical proofs B) point out that theories on quantum fluctuations are based only mathematical proofs that may not properly explain the process in how quantum fluctuations work. Or in other words the mathematical proof are merely a kind of bookkeeping of the process (which is true of all mathematical formulas) and any weirdness or irregularities resulting of such formulas are mostly likely errors in the formulas themselves than anything being able to violate the law of conservation and/or laws of thermodynamics.

But I wouldn't dismiss anything however uncertain it may be, because in the end if you dismiss everything then what do you have left to work with? I guess "nothing" :meh: — SpaceDweller

Being able to dismiss theories or certain people's assumptions is a good thing and more useful then you might think. The more you can just dismiss (such as anything that is just assumed by someone without any proof) without much effort, the less you really have to think or worry about.

While there is always a chance that some black swan may come around to disrupt that status quo or the paradigm in how the world is viewed, these black swans don't really appear all that often.

Your links and propositions indeed helped me to get better understanding, thanks! — SpaceDweller

Your welcome. :D

You have it backwards. The vacuum of space isn't "really" empty because quantum fluctuations happen. — Michael

You may say it potato and I say it potato or vice-versa but there really isn't a difference as far as I can tell. The thing I read explained that how quantum fluctuations where possible because in the ether of vacuum of space the space isn't really "empty" (ie it requires some kind of matter/energy to exist) and because it isn't empty it can create quantum fluctuations. What it sound like is how it was explained to you as that we can deduce that the vacuum of space isn't because it allows for quantum fluctuations to happen. I don't know which is a more accurate description as I'm not one who has studied the field of quantum physics, but I'm not sure if it really makes a difference and/or if it really relevant to this discussion. If it is please explain it further or point out a source that does.

It could be, but we have no evidence of such a thing. In fact, quantum fluctuations as something-from-nothing are a consequence of the uncertainty principle which we have many reasons to believe is true. — Michael

I think you misunderstand the facts that you read and are merely assuming something due to some misunderstanding. The thing I have up to now have be calling "process theory" (because I couldn't remember what it was really called) is really called the "Conservation Law" in physics. There is even a wiki page about it and such:
======================================================================
Conservation law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law
"In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves over time. Exact conservation laws include conservation of mass (now conservation of mass and energy after Einstein's Theory of Relativity), conservation of linear momentum, conservation of angular momentum, and conservation of electric charge. There are also many approximate conservation laws, which apply to such quantities as mass, parity, lepton number, baryon number, strangeness, hypercharge, etc. These quantities are conserved in certain classes of physics processes, but not in all.

A local conservation law is usually expressed mathematically as a continuity equation, a partial differential equation which gives a relation between the amount of the quantity and the "transport" of that quantity. It states that the amount of the conserved quantity at a point or within a volume can only change by the amount of the quantity which flows in or out of the volume."
======================================================================

If you are ready to jump down the rabbit hole and want to find if anything can break the conservation law and similar laws of physics I wish you luck. Right now I'm a little too tired to research the subject and what I have come across suggests that most people that have something like a PhD in theoretical physics disagree with your argument that quantum vacuum fluctuation violate the conservation of energy. If you can show me some evidence that quantum vacuum fluctuation does violate the conservation of energy then let me know.

(Here is a link to explanation by a guy with a PhD in the field where he explains why vacuum fluctuation violate do not the conservation of energy. His explanation is a bit to long for me to cut and paste it into this post.)
Does quantum vacuum fluctuation violate the conservation of energy?
https://www.quora.com/Does-quantum-vacuum-fluctuation-violate-the-conservation-of-energy

Indeed it would be impossible to empirically prove "supernatural", but same way it doesn't make sense to ask for empirical (natural) proof to prove supernatural.: — SpaceDweller

If you wish to believe whatever you want to believe what you say might be true, but in order for what you believe to stand up to the scrutiny of other people arguments you have to be able to have some way to prove what you say has some validity. Otherwise as my fellow forum member 180 Proof has often pointed out:

"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens"

If you want to postulate the existence of "supernatural" processes in some way you have to something to support your argument or position. Otherwise people can dismiss it as just as a personal belief that doesn't have any merit behind it.

As for religious portion of your post I'll abstain from turning this into a religious debate.
In any case I'm not trying nor searching for any proof beyond philosophical. :smile: — SpaceDweller

Well you choose the title of this thread to be "Can theory of nothing challenge God?" and with such a title it kind of safe to assume that we would be discussing either how the theory of nothing challenges the belief in God or how similar theories do.

It is plausible that you choose that title just to create some kind of "click bait" and never was really interested in listening to anything that might challenge your belief in "God" and if so that is really your issue and not mine. However I'm simply trying to explain the situation to you to the best of my knowledge and provide you with the answer you may or may not be pretending to seek.

I may be wrong but if you or someone else really want to if theory of nothing in way can challenge the notion or the belief in "God" you should just gloss over part of the discussion just because they don't want to get into a religious debate because it is pretty much a given that any thread involving something that might challenge the notion of "God" is going to be a religious debate from the get go.

There are quantum fluctuations, albeit they don't last long. — Michael

There are two issues with quantum fluctuations and why we can not claim that they do not create energy from nothing:

* The empty vacuum of space is really not empty and the ephemeral particles and/or quantum foam that
barely exists in this emptiness can change states just enough to make it appear as if matter/energy is
popping into and then out of existence. At least that is one theory.

* Even "if" these virtual particles don't enable the quantum fluctuations to pop into and out of existence it
is a given that some other energy, force, or thing could be causing quantum fluctuations to pop in and
out of existence. In a way saying this is more or less a stopgap measure or even a "cheat" if you will
for stopping anyone from getting too excited about being able to create something from nothing.

It is a given that most of the time we have at least an idea or theory of something creating something we see that comes into existence (which is like what I explained in my first argument), but even if we don't have a clue as to what is causing something to exist or happen (such as in the big bang, ghosts, telekinesis, psychic powers, magic, etc.) we can always turn to the second argument/stopgap measure which more or less just states that anything that we observe existing or appearing to come into existence but we are unaware of what causes it to be nor imaginative enough to come up with even a theory as to why it may be, we can simply just say that something that we are unaware of is causing it to be and at some undefined time in the future we should know more about it to either know how it exist or if we still don't know we may have developed a theory as to why it may be. It is more or less a given that scientist can ever sit back and say "Oh, this thing is created from nothing" because there is an infinite number of things that need to be checked before anyone can say that about any given thing or process.


Can we create energy from nothing?
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/610275/can-we-create-energy-from-nothing
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-800-can-we-get-energy-from-nothing/
https://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-02-01_NutshellReadmore.html

Fabulous, while it's conceptual truth that only nothing can come out of nothing, the opposite such that only something can come out of something is however false because nothing can come out of something as well as something. — SpaceDweller

No, I think you are having trouble understanding the issue. It is a given with everything we know that no natural process can create something out of nothing. It is also impossible to even prove that natural (or supernatural for that matter) process to create something out of nothing.

One can say it is possible for a "supernatural process"( a process that breaks one or more of the physical laws that have applied to every natural process that human have observed throughout history)
to create something from nothing but you CAN NOT state with any authority that something CAN come from nothing from either a "supernatural process" or otherwise because it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that something can come from nothing.

Trying to prove something can come from nothing would be even more difficult than trying to prove there is a "God" because you would have not only have to show that no visible process created the thing that seemed to be created out of nothing but you would also have to prove that there is no invisible/ unknowable processes responsible for creating it either so you are completely SOL if you want to try to go down that path and say that know that no invisible/ unknowable processes created the thing that you claim that was created from nothing because anyone hearing would know that you are either a fool who doesn't know what he was talking about and/or a crackpot.

So in a nutshell one can say it is "possible" for a supernatural process to create something from nothing, but one CAN NOT say that it is a given that something can be created from nothing through a supernatural process or otherwise with any authority behind that statement because anyone hearing that would know that statement is false.

In any case I'm not sure whether "natural" and "supernatural" are appropriate words to differentiate. — SpaceDweller

They are VERY important words to differentiate for a skeptic/rational/scientific/philosopher type person. More or less it is a given that "supernatural" processes do not exist and as I explained above it is also a given that one can not even prove that "supernatural processes" exist no matter how hard they try.

If you go to a library there are sections labeled "FICTION" and "NON-FICTION". In fictional books one is allowed to talk about "supernatural" like processes like kids flying on broomsticks or a teenage farmboy fighting intergalactic evil with only the force because the books are merely fantasy and not reality. However in the non-fiction side, one is not allowed to write about books about "supernatural" processes as lightly because they are not supposed to mere flights of fancy but more about aligned with the truth.

And at the crux of this divide in western society is where the teachings of Abrahamic religions should be placed. For centuries they have been considered the truth beyond all truth, yet they often don't have to face the scrutiny that other writing have had to in order for them to be labeled NON-FICTION instead of FICTION. Understanding how and why there is this difference, why other religions and folk-lore are labeled as fiction but Abrahamic religions are not, and what this means for atheists/agnostics, followers of Abrahamic religions, and everyone else is fairly important.

In a nutshell the natural/"supernatural" process and fiction/non-fiction divide is one of the wedges used by atheist/agnostic/skeptics to undermine and/or challenge the notion that there is a "God" since it is many ways it is crazy talk to just assume there "supernatural" being named "God" when it is a given to assume that kids can fly on brooms using magic or farm boys can defeat an entire army if they are able to use the force.

There is a reality we know about that consists of natural processes called reality and there may be a reality that consists of "supernatural" processes that we know nothing about. However because we know nothing about it, it is a given that no one (not even church leaders) can claim they have knowledge of it without being a crackpot and/or fool to those that really know what they are talking about.

I believe this problem has been expressed in C.S Lewis's "Lewis's trilemma" as he explains that one is a "mad man" if one claims to know that there is a "God" and for that God not to exist.

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. ... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God." - Lewis, C. S., Mere Christianity

The problem with this admission of this issue is not only does it not help prove that there is a "God" in any way is that C.S. Lewis is admitting the great problems for any society to put their faith and trust in a "God" that doesn't exist...or in C/S Lewis's own words we live in a society filled with people who are on the level of lunacy where they are really no different than those who are the on the level as a man who tries to claim that he is a poached egg

Hopefully this help's explain some of the importance of why one needs to differentiate between what we natural consider to be natural processes and what might be "supernatural" process, that is if even supernatural processes even exist.

Lewis's trilemma
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lewis_Trilemma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma

I was able to grasp all 3, but unmoved mover makes me go crazy because I can't see anything that would contradict God, mainly because Aristotel seems to be focused on material kind of "cause" as if the "mover" has to be both material and stationary.

For example:

"nothing comes from nothing". The cosmological argument, later attributed to Aristotle, thereby draws the conclusion that God exists. However, if the cosmos had a beginning, Aristotle argued, it would require an efficient first cause — SpaceDweller

Either you are misreading something or I am and I'm fairly certain that I'm not. As far as I can tell the page your refencing says that ONLY nothing can come from nothing which more or less states that the same thing as something can ONLY be created from something which is no different then what I have been saying.

According to everything that has been written about GOD, he is a thing that was never made by anything (ie he was either created by nothing or all that which has been written about him is a lie) and he is a thing/force/process/whatever that doesn't need anything to allow for him to exist. In essence a GOD or unmoved mover requires something that can only be on the order of "supernatural" because it violates your "nothing from nothing" idea, process theory, Laws of Thermodynamics, and may other things as well.

If you believe GOD in the way that Abrahamic religions preach that he exists then you simply accept that the he (as well as the possibility of some of his angels or whatever he has serving him) are SUPERNATURAL, and just go about your merry way. If you believe that there are no supernatural beings or things then you simply can not agree with the way that Abahamic religions describe how he exists. If there is another way to perceive or argue this thing I'm unaware of it, nor can I imagine it ..but then again I have problems with migraines and my head is killing me right so I'm not too surprised that my powers of imagination can not conjure up one or more ways to approach this issue at the moment. I think I'm gonna go find me an aspirin or something.

What is the difference between Emotional Health vs. Mental Health?

And how do you differentiate the two when practicing cognitive hygiene? — TheQuestion

I imagine the difference between emotional health vs. mental health is about the same difference between belief systems and systems of belief or between terminology and nomenclature.

It might partly how the words are used in various writing by different authors or it might be how one conceptuses an abstract image when they read the two different words.

In a nutshell, they can mean different things to those who write and read them, but they can also mean the same thing to a person if they wish for them to mean the same thing.

What's interesting in this video is "we can't prove something out of nothing but it's plausible". I would find something out of nothing more "plausible" if he just dint say that but OK.

I'm correlating "something out of nothing" to big bang.
Big bang is good theory about creation but not God, for example Big bang doesn't exclude probability of God because it doesn't say anything about what was there before big bang.
Something out of nothing however is much more aggressive in that definition of nothing also means absence of God, that is before something there was nothing, not even God.

On the other side proving or disproving something out of nothing is equally difficult as proving or disproving God.

Your opinions? — SpaceDweller

I don't think the theory of nothing really says much about whether "God" exists or not other than it may help explain the universe without using religion or "God" which may help undermine religion (or at least Abrahamic religions) in some way.

I could be wrong but I believe somewhere there is some kind of process theory or something like it that goes along the lines of this, that everything that exist is the result of some previous "process" which itself was created or the result of some other process and so on and so forth to some point to some indefinite past that we have no idea of. How this is even possible is basically left unexplained partly because it is more or less a given that we can only try our universe back to a certain time and the time beyond that the state of the world or universe is beyond our understanding. This concept of how things are basically states that it is virtually impossible for things to "pop" into existence without some pre-existing thing/process to create it and it is just as impossible for something to "pop" out of existence. However, this does not mean that things that we observe can't APPEAR to pop in and out of existence due to processes that we are not aware of.

If your having problems understanding a "process" you can think of it as any size body of matter/energy or whatever that exists in a state of flux. Take for example a match stick, it is in one state before it is lit and after you strike it, it, the effort to strike it, the air around, changes it to another state. The change of a unlit match to a lit one is a "process". When you look at things not as just matter but processes you have to pay a little more attention to the state of changes of matter more then just as what they appear before you at any given moment.

Where this gets a little tricky (or at least for those that believe in gods, "God", or anything along those lines) is if this is true of all matter then is this true about "God" or other supernatural beings? The answer is simply yes, because process theory (or whatever it is called) says that both "supernatural" and natural things (or natural things that we believe to be supernatural) are all still regulated by simple process theory. Or a simpler way to put it, we have NO knowledge or experience with ANY supernatural matter or beings that can violate this rule; and because we don't know of any it is a given that we can say that they simply do not exist until it is proven otherwise. Of course it is also a given that it is IMPOSSILE to prove that there is any "supernatural" thing because anything that we observe that seems to "pop" in and/or out of existence (even sub-atomic particles) may either be created or transformed by processes we can not observe.

I also believe this more or less in line in what is defined in the laws of thermodynamics where matter/energy can only move or pass through one or more systems and can not just "magically" appear somehow. On the Wikipedia page about the first law of thermodynamics it states:

First law of thermodynamics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics :

"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic processes, distinguishing two kinds of transfer of energy, as heat and as thermodynamic work, and relating them to a function of a body's state, called internal energy.

The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed".


If you ever hear of the unmoved mover theory (ie the idea that "God" created everything from nothing) the process theory, first law of thermodynamics, and more or less the Münchhausen trilemma as well state that the unmoved mover is IMPOSSILE from what we know about the world around us and in all likely hood based on pure fiction and not fact.

Münchhausen trilemma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma

I don''t know if this answers your question but I hope it helps. :D

I start to have a bad consciouness to bring up my health. One must say too that it is still not certain that I die but several health problems combine in an unfunny way. I am very happy that so many people here give me empathy but it completely crashes the subject of the conversation :) I am very interested in evolution (especially the evolution of primates) but I am actually a believer. I am open in how I imagine god, I consider both classical theist and pantheist options possible. However in both cases death itself is nothing I fear. As you see I am unhappy with my predature nature and death is the only option to finally exchange it against something truly new. — FalseIdentity

I'm sorry that I have not posted in the last few days as my other obligations have kept me from being able to visit the forum.

IMHO I do not believe there is a God (or at least the type of God talked about in Abrahamic religions) and therefore i belief it is likely we cease to exist when we are no longer alive. Part of the reason is that I doubt that a "good"/all knowing/all powerful would create the type of world we like in. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if there isn't a God to save us when we pass from this world then maybe it might be in your best interest to extend the life that you have if there isn't one after this one. Of course that is dependent on "IF" you would really want to still live in this world if there isn't any other one after this one.

If I had a choose and money wasn't a issue I would try to live on since I believe this existence is better than non-existence and I don't believe any religions that say that God will provide us with life after we leave this world. However this is just my opinion on the subject.

I might have lost the battle (in the sense that I am dying, and that there is a relation with the strong bullying I experienced during m life) but that does not mean I have lost the war :) — FalseIdentity

I'm sorry to hear that. This may be a stupid question but if you have enough money to donate to charity then you might have enough money to pay for cryogenics. I don't know if you know about it but it might be an option if you are not against the idea of it.

You are in the moment the closest to actually changing my mind at least when it comes to using the term 'evil' :) I can see how the philosophy of Jainism could actually lead to a much more peacefull world and it as well resounds with other metaphysical believes I hold. However it was sort of a blow to my ego when I finally understood that logic originally was ment for predation and only for that. I guess that is what makes the man blind in your example. So emotionally seen I still have to recover from the insight about the predatory nature of logic. Sometimes one can repurpose stuff a bit for things it was not ment for but one has to be lucky for this to work. I think that logic is very akin to your microscope perception of reality. What good predators really do is they focus hard but only on very small aspects of reality. You can even see this from the outside if you watch how the eyes of predators are build (they point to the front, prey animals can not focus well to the front but they have a wider field of vision). What a predator does is hence the opposite of holism. — FalseIdentity

The truth is that you partially correct in saying that predatory logic that people use to today is used for "evil" at least when used in Western society and/our viewpoint. It can be said that this predatory view comes from a a notion that the individual can only be certain that THEY exist (René Descartes's I think therefore I am) and the world around them (including people) are merely objects to be used and discarded much like a hostess twinkie is consumed and the wrapper throw away after it is used. If you have a chance I suggest you read a book called "Heidegger For Beginners" as it should help explain some of the issue better than I might be able to.

Heidegger For Beginners
https://www.amazon.com/Heidegger-Beginners-Eric-Lemay/dp/1934389137

(Here are some articles relating to the US economy that show how this attitude and current political
conditions hurt the US and people that work here)
Mother Jones -It’s the Inequality, Stupid
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/05/look-numbers-how-rich-get-richer/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-union-decline/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/michael-dell-outsourcing-jobs-timeline/
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/12/how-oligarchs-took-america/

So more or less you are correct in saying that today (and in a lot of Western history) people have used logic as a weapon to control and/or harm their fellow man as well as the world around them. But that is not to say that logic has to be used that way. Logic can almost as easily be used by us to help each other (and perhaps the world itself) as it is to use it against each other; it is just perhaps easier by those in power to use their knowledge, power, and other resources to gain leverage on those that don't have it than it is to improve the lives of every one that is less privileged then them.

I don't know know if I can explain why logic itself isn't "bad" or "evil" if you can't visualize it in the same way that one might visualize a coin where side is "good" or helpful and the other side seems harmful or "evil", but the coin only exist if both sides exist. This concept is more or less similar to the Chinese idea of the Yin and yang.

Yin and yang
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that you don't have to give up your viewpoint why logic (or technology, human nature, Dukkha, or anything else) is "evil", but it might be useful to augment your existing viewpoint with other ways of looking at the world that suggest that things are not always what we believe them to be when we judge them with emotions (which is what often happens when we label something as being "good" or "evil") and try to understand the world in a way where things exist the way they independent whether they are helpful or harmful to either you or the human existence in general.

An evolved predatory logic must be by it's nature remain incapable to:
1. Understand truths that can not be chased and exploited in a physical sense (which come to mind?)
2. Understand things that are not relevant to survival such as what is "the good".

In this sense logic must be a prison that precludes us from seeing a lot of stuff around us.

A further flaw is that you can only maintaint logic thinking by killing other life forms (either by killing them directly or by eating their food away).

Are there any thought shools that attack logic? Is Nirvana for example a state beyond logic? — FalseIdentity

I just remembered an moral argument that might help you with you question.

Immanuel Kant believed that certain actions are wrong (such as lying) and he believed them wrong not just some of the time but all of the time. He even believed lying to a murder in order to save someone's life was wrong, which I believe is a argument that someone else posed to him.

Lying to a Murderer: Immanuel Kant (Lecture 12 & 13)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM6MaJAE3Qk

I believe if you think about this moral dilemma and come up with a answer, you will also get an answer to your question as to whether logic is 'evil'.

An evolved predatory logic must be by it's nature remain incapable to:
1. Understand truths that can not be chased and exploited in a physical sense (which come to mind?)
2. Understand things that are not relevant to survival such as what is "the good".

In this sense logic must be a prison that precludes us from seeing a lot of stuff around us.

A further flaw is that you can only maintaint logic thinking by killing other life forms (either by killing them directly or by eating their food away).

Are there any thought shools that attack logic? Is Nirvana for example a state beyond logic? — FalseIdentity

I overlooked this part of your argument I think where you are talking about how our existence has the problem where we have to survive by killing/eating other things that are alive. I could be wrong but this problem is covered by the issue of how our world is imperfect in many ways, the issues where we may not really have free will, as well as other problems with the human condition.

On way of addressing the problem with this world is to understand the concept of Dukkha (another Jain doctrine similar to the doctrine of Anekantavad ) which states that our world is an imperfect one and our existence is filled with pain and suffering which makes us imperfect beings. Because of this it is more or less a given that any process of thought or tool we make will not be enough to fix whatever issue that causes our world to be imperfect. It is kind of odd to say this but in our minds we can create abstract worlds that do not exist using math, logic, or other mental tools and these non-existing model worlds are "perfect" in their model worlds since they are just mental construct but when building these things in the real world they will contain all the flaws of anything that exists.

If you want to know why things that don't exist have no flaws (other than perhaps the flaw we make when envisioning them) and why everything that we create does my best answer to that the mental models/abstract objects in our head don't have to account for the problems that exist in the real world and in the real world things are infinity more complicated than we think they are and and it is a given that some of these variables that we do not or can not account for undermine that is created by our hand or any other process that can create it.

In a nutshell, it is existence itself that is flawed not logic.

Thanks that is exactly what I was looking for! Apparently when the Jains say that "no single, specific statement can describe the nature of existence and the absolute truth." this is similar to: the truth can't be cornered (to one option). I am sorry that the video is not to your liking, I found the story about that australian beetle very funny. There is as well a video which goes into more detail of how the mathemtical proof is actually done, but it is very long and less entertaining. — FalseIdentity

No problem. :D

It isn't that I dislike the video, it is just that I like the doctrine of Anekantavad better explaining the issue. I'm not sure whether it was just me being snobbish about it or if the video doesn't really explain it that well, but that doesn't really matter I think. What matters is that you have a grasp of what no one sidedness means and the value of such a concept; or at least I believe and hope you understand it.

The doctrine of no one sidedness more or less states that one is flawed when one believes something is either "good" or "evil" just as a blind man might think an elephant might be a snake or a tree. The words "good" and "evil" themselves are loaded with emotional context where one is stuck viewing the world through something like a microscope and not seeing the bigger picture of things. While this is 'ok' in our day to day lives, it makes it harder for us to understand the differences between personal morality and what might be objective morality. As long as you can see there is a difference between the two (and why logic itself may not be "evil" when one looks at morality through a viewpoint of objective morality instead of personal morality) then I believe you are one the right path.

I am emotionally sure my onw logic is evil too, that is why I started the discussion, after a life of watching what I do when I argue I have a very bad feeling about it. — FalseIdentity

You are right in questioning your own logic given the circumstances you have presented but you can't rely on your emotions to tell you what is "good" or "evil" since they are just as fallible at determining which is one or the other as logic is.

I could go into a complex theory as to what is "good" or "evil" but it might be best to just to leave it as something called a "non-trivia problem" (ie. a problem so complex it might not be solvable) and say that in many ways we are all similar to the blind men trying to "see the elephant" (true nature of reality) but none of us really being that successful due to our human limitations.

If our logic is evil, we would not be able to proof that by our logic alone, I absolutely agree with that. Or in other words: It still can be true that all logic is evil without me beeing able to proof that claim logically. The falsifiability is broken, so to say. But the fact alone that I can not proof that logic is good shatters my trust in it. Would you drive a vehicle of which you don't know it is save? I would as well deny that it is necessary to posses logic to make sense of "anything" like you suggest. I guess here we maybe have a definitions problem, because you might define logic as thinking in generall while I define logic as a certain method of thinking (cornering the options). If cornering the options (left brain) is the only mode of thinking what is the right side of the brain doing all the time? Furthermore there is at least one information that you know is true even before you start the intelectual chase we call logic. And this is that you are. Even someone who has full dementia and hence can't use logic is aware in some sense that he is. This outside metrics you are requesting for of what is evil hence could come from truths that come from direct awarness and not from logic. Maybe direct awarness is the same thing as a priori knowledge. — FalseIdentity

In essence "We do what we do because that is the way we do it.". A human cell usually can be seen as an "agent of good" in many ways because it does nearly everything it can for the greater good of the human body. However if it becomes a cancerous cell it is viewed by us as a sort of "agent of evil" even though it has no idea of how it's behavior is now harmful to it's human host and/or why normal cell behavior was helpful. In a similar line of thought many human and/or animal behavior is done without any thought of whether their actions are helpful or harmful to their environment or the planet as a whole. One of the problems about this is that animals can't understand what behaviors are harmful or helpful to those around them. While humans might be smarter than animals there have been plenty of situations of us not knowing the consequences of our actions until after the fact.

In order for someone to declare one action "good" and another "evil" one would need to be able to both ascertain what the consequences of any actions is and rule out that such actions isn't behavior derived from social programming (such as in a healthy cell or healthy environment/family) or a problem created from a defect in their social conditioning (such as in a cancerous cell or from being in a dysfunctional family). Because of such issues and what I explained above why any determination as to whether any action is "good/evil" is a non-trivial problem, it is best to say that any and all of us are fallible in our efforts to know whether something is "good" or "evil" and that because of our fallibility in knowing such things we have to weigh in such problems in whenever we say someone is doing something wrong or right.

That's not a "new discovery" but rather a purely theoretical and controversial argument promulgated by Donald Hoffman (a bona fide cognitive scientist, if anyone is wondering). — SophistiCat

I didn't even notice the video but after watching it it kind of just going over what has been said several times before in different religions, scientific discussions, and/or systems of belief.

What the guy was talking about more or less was covered in Dharmic religions several thousand years ago with with the doctrine of Anekantavada or the doctrine of no-one sidedness:

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

The doctrine is similar to the child's story of the blind men and the elephants, but the doctrine itself is the fallibility of our own human conciseness as well as any religion or system of beliefs we choose to adhere to.

In order for you so evaluate something as either "good" or "evil" you have to create some metrics to allow you to be able define something as either "good" or "evil" and of course it is a given that these metrics require you to use logic in order to make sense of anything. However in order for you to claim that logic itself is either flawed or evil you have to say that some other systems of belief and/or metrics that are used by other people is flawed or evil, if you don't and instead you say that your own system of beliefs/metrics are just as flawed and/or evil as any other then you are undermining your own argument.

in a nutshell you need to be able to point out why your logic, point of view is not as flawed as any other otherwise you are just stating that all logic and/or systems of belief are flawed in some way which is pretty much already known by anyone that has studied philosophy for awhile.

As it appears to me, after years of research, and aligning with Hebrews 11:1-3, saying that the things we sense are made of things we cannot sense, that Genesis actually reveals some much more foundational things than is acknowledged even by the Church. If we consider that in the beginning all was perfect, then this negates the existence of evil.... That is of course until we are presented with the knowledge thereof.

Perspective alone assures us of the experience of belief. Knowledge and belief are two different things. Knowledge is based on forms, the letter of the spirit behind the form. But belief is the invisible that takes form, depending upon the ingredients provided by said belief.

The belief of the existence of evil, at all, is what allows for the infinite manifestations of evil that we experience daily.

Some will say that evil is evident, and preexisting. But this belief determines the experience of said evil and many other evils that were never even thought of. Perspective is founded on belief.

I am sure there are many who will disagree, and use their experiences to validate the evil that they obviously believed beforehand, providing the life needed to experience a manifestation of said belief.

Yeshua stated quite clearly that, "it shall be done unto you as you have believed". — PseudoB

"Good" and "evil" are mostly just arbitrary terms we give to different things according the metrics our morality/systems of belief tell us to assign to them. But beyond our preexisting systems of belief there is no clear way to explain why something is good or evil.

Take for example the cells in our body. When they are behaving in the way we want them to they are generally considered "good" but when they do not (like when they are cancer cells) they considered "bad" or "evil". However such cells don't really choose whether they either help or hinder the body since they are not really conscience of what they are doing nor are they aware of how their behavior either helps or hurts their host nor if their actions really benefits them or not. this is more or less true of all any and all animals who are not sentient and can not really be "moral agents".

In essence anything that isn't human or sentient (or even human but not really sentient) falls into a category or problem called "natural evil".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_evil#:~:text=Natural%20evil%20is%20evil%20for,of%20the%20laws%20of%20nature.

However the existence of natural evil begs the question, if man is influenced by most of the same problems and limitations of as other animals, cells, forces of nature, etc. how can we are considered "objective moral agents" when pretty much everything in nature is not. Is it or is it not considered wise to expect human beings in many ways as fallible (or perhaps sometimes more fallible) then the cells in our body which can be expected to go "bad" from time to time?

For example, does anyone continuously hold an absolute truth for how to speak? Does anyone continuously hold an absolute truth for never robbing a bank? Etc. — Cidat

I believe you are talking about is do people still believe in Immanuel Kant Categorical Imperative or something along those lines.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/categorical-imperative

It is just about a given that the answer is "yes" that many people rely on such thinking, but thinking it such ways is both highly flawed and highly problematic. In a nutshell many of the philosophers and people during the time Kant was alive thought that morality and ethics were not that complicated so they treated it with some like kid gloves when dealing with it. However the issues with ethics/morality ARE NOT simple as Kant and other like him believe them to be and in fact they are what is called a NON-TRIVIAL problem (ie. a problem so complex that is so complex that it might not be able to be solved by humans or possibly not solved at all).

The first philosophy to really grapple the problem with such think (or at least the first one I'm aware of) is Søren Kierkegaard who explained that we have to use "subjective truths" to grapple with our understanding of moral/ethical issues and not reply on what we think are objective truths since there ma not be any objective truths or at least as far that we know of. It is Kierkegaard way of thinking who has guided many of the philosophers who came after him (at least in the subject of moral/ethical issue) and he is considered by some to be the "grandfather" of post-modern philosophy, although such a title many or many not be a good thing.

Objective truth or objective reality may exist, that is, there may exist truths that are true regardless of perspective or bias, but is it possible for a perceiver to be provably objective about truth? It's one thing to try to be objective, but another to be provably so. Does perception require some assumption? — Cidat

What you are asking is type of issue called a "non trivial problem", which means it is either very, very difficult to solve or can not be solved at all.

All perception requires us to use a reference point to grasp an aspect of reality, but it is a given that most if not all times we are gazing into one of these aspects of reality we are blinded we are blinded to certain other characteristics of said reality that might be perceivable from a different reference point.

If you want to understand this issue I recommend reading up on a Jain concept called "Anekantavada" (no one sidedness) which is the story of the three blind men and the elephant is based upon. There is a Wiki page on the subject but it doesn't seem to be working for me at the moment so I can not say it will work when you try it.

A good rule of thumb I have kind of learned from Anekantavada is no ideology is always "right" or "wrong" when it comes to visualizing issues and the world around us and sometimes thinking of any given ideology as a merely a tool to help us deal with the world and that some problems require different ideologies or even more than one ideology at a time to grasp an issue making it obvious that always rekying on one ideology for all problems creates a "if all one has is a hammer everything is a nail" issue when one is dogmatically reliant on only one ideology/one way of thinking.

As long as capitalism exists, this will never happen. It's been a race to the bottom to secure the cheapest labour and manufacturing costs, and the world will continue to rely on China no matter how much anyone pays lip-service to orienting the supply-chain domestically. The one way it could happen of course, is to devastate and immeserate local populations so that others can compete which China at the same level. Which, given what COVID is doing, just might happen. — StreetlightX

I more or less agree. However the corona virus has shown us one thing is security risk that comes with our reliance on China for vital supplies and what can happen if China decides not to export such supplies due to a "China first" mentality (or any other reason) during a global crisis.

Up until now it has only been a "theoretical" argument (although it was all but a given it would happen eventually) but from now on people can point to when parts of China was in lock down and when trying to recover from the virus there was either a all out stop or major slow down or various supplies other countries needed in order to help them fight the virus. Whether this point will make a difference in the future remains to be seen. IMHO globalism only helps a few wealthy individuals and really doesn't do hardly anything for the average plebs out there except make life more difficult.

Hopefully, we will get full authoritarian measures to get dumb fucks to stay inside rather than let them run about in public masturbating over their "liberty" and causing irreversible social and economic collapse, not to mention many more dead people. If not, just line the fuckers up against walls and shoot them. If they haven't learned now what's necessary, they never will and are useless to the rest of us. Social Darwinism at its finest. :heart: :kiss: — Baden

Are you talking about liberal hippies in the following articles:

Party Zero: How a Soirée in Connecticut Became a ‘Super Spreader’
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/us/coronavirus-westport-connecticut-party-zero.html

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick: 'I'm all in' on risking my health to lift social distancing guidelines for economic boost
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/23/politics/coronavirus-texas-social-distancing-guidelines/index.html

..or about non-libertarian type hippies? :D

A lot of poor people are stuck at home with not much to do but be bored, but some wealthier individuals believe this is a good time to go out for social gatherings, vacations, and whatnot instead of being slackers stuck in their house. IMHO the good thing about the corona virus is that it doesn't care whether you or republican, democrat, rich or poor it won't discriminate and will infect anyone that it can and/or those that are stupid enough to allow it.

The real question is if we make this permanent: If every time there is an outbreak somewhere in the World, are we ready to hit the breaks if it comes to our continent / country? When will there be an all clear sign given? With 9/11 it didn't happen. Even killing Bin Laden wasn't the end. — ssu

There has always been a war on infections, viruses, outbreaks, etc since before any of us were born. The only problem is up until now there has never been anything to really threaten the safety and security of enough people until this outbreak. Lately more money has been put into things like solving erection dysfunction then coming up with the cure for widespread diseases (since it is often a problem that people with the former issue have money but not people with the late issue) but with the corona virus this might change a bit.

The diseases that are out there infecting animals (such as SARS and Ebola) in the wild are always going to be out there and as long as we have wet markets, international travel, people living in close proximity, humans encroaching into natural habitats, etc and few safe guards in place for such behavior there will always be threats for some "super bug" to wreck havoc on us much as the corona virus has...so even if we are able to minimize the risk from the corona virus, there will never be a true "all clear sign" from the treat of some other threat without some miracle medicine coming out in the foreseeable future. And since there is more money to be made treat an ailments then find cures for them...expect the likely hood of more super bugs to mutate from benign viruses and whatnot then for any miracle cure to come out to stop them.

I am pretty pessimistic about it all. The worst possible thing will probably happen: things will go back to being just as they were before, after some time. — StreetlightX

I more or less agree.

The one thing I'm pretty certain of is the worse things get the more likely the cultures and societies around the world will be permanently changed by it, just as the cultures and societies of Europe were changed by the black plague. Something about either seeing your friends and/or family die around you is enough to push certain people with very dogmatic ideals to reconsider their beliefs and/or reevaluate what human life is worth when there isn't as many people around to do work for them or help them out one way or another.

Of course there is also an increased chance for wars and general craziness (such as the formation of cults, toilet paper hoarding,etc.) any time a plague or pandemic happens but often the good social changes outweigh the craziness since the craziness is always happening and the kind where people reevaluate their fundamental beliefs is very rare outside of plagues and similar stuff.

I know we have a corona virus thread generally - but in this thread I would like to consider the uncomfortable questions that no one seems to be asking at the moment as we try to, on a global scale, weather the storm. My question is once we get past this pandemic, or some countries have managed to eradicate it anyway, what will the shape of society to come look like? Although I was too young to understand the significance of it, I guess I'm framing it in a way we frame 9/11 now, with some of the most fundamental assumptions in relation to how society should work being absolutely shaken and then replaced, for example, airline security.

....

Would be curious to hear your thoughts. — Dogar

I hope that the spread of corona virus and the existential threat it creates is enough to show nearly everyone in the world the incompetence of our political leaders and impotence of our government in doing that which needs to be done in times of crisis. Constantly putting people in charge who only care about their own stock portfolios and can not act in times of national crisis (when the right actions will cost them money in the short term) is a recipe for our own extinction.

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick: 'I'm all in' on risking my health to lift social distancing guidelines for economic boost
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/23/politics/coronavirus-texas-social-distancing-guidelines/index.html

Dollars vs. deaths is the sickening choice created by coronavirus
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/23/politics/what-matters-march-23/index.html

Where I live in southeastern Connecticut we haven't been hit too hard by the corona virus yet, but we are surrounded by New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island which haven't been doing so well and there is at least a dozen cases on the western side of the state near New York City that have popped up over the last couple of days.

My sister just called a few minutes ago that the sub/military base in Groton is closing due to a sailor stationed there tested positive for the virus, which is the first case on this side of the state. I can not find any news reports about it so I can't be 100% that it is true.

..she also mentioned that some stores and restaurants are closing their bathrooms due to too many people stealing the toilet paper in them.

I heard that the toilet paper craze started in Australia, where a newspaper staged a scene of empty shelves. In fact they had taken the toilet paper off the shelves and stacked it behind the camera. — Punshhh

A prank like that is almost as bad as shouting "fire" in a movie theater considering the state of the world we live in nowadays but it would be still a little humorous if it is one of the things that started all of this.

Yeah, but how did it start going off the shelves in the first place? I understand what is happening now, in terms of the psychology involved, but I don't get how it started. — Echarmion

What also might be feeding the toilet paper frenzy is the news and social media talking about the toilet paper frenzy. Many items have been sold out for weeks now (ie dust mask, hand sanitizers, gloves,etc) which in and of themselves isn't that newsworthy but the idea of a run on toilet paper is pretty comical and gives some insight into how crazy the situation might be if out of all things for a store to run out of. Only in a zombie apocalypse (or some other apocalypse for that matter) would there be a need for people to stock up on 4 to 6 months worth of toilet paper. Also if one has that much toilet paper on hand but no food or water I don't think all that toilet paper will be that useful. However since most people can't afford to stock on half a year worth of food,water, medical supplies they might be able to buy half a years worth of toilet paper.

So in the end it may be a exacerbating feedback process that is fueled by social media, news, panic buying and the fact that people can afford to buy months worth of toilet paper whether they need it not plus the fact as pointed out by boethius that a pallet of toilet paper isn't really that much so even if just a few people start buying extra toilet paper then a store quickly runs out. However the same can be said of dust mask, hand sanitizers, gloves since such items where not commodities that where often needed before the corona virus outbreak.

Any thoughts on how this whole toilet paper craze got started? By now it's clearly a self-reinforcing cycle. But at some point, someone must have figured that the one thing they'll need in case they are cut off from supplied is toilet paper. Lots of toilet paper. — Echarmion

I believe it is partly caused by people feeling like they no longer have control over their lives and (at least for now) they have some control what they can buy it seems like "buying toilet paper" has become an outlet for people to funnel their energy into instead of biting their nails or grasping at pearls, although I'm pretty sure they are doing that now. It might also help to know that during the Spanish Influenza people where given shots that only vitamins in them (ie a placebo) in order to help remove some of the anxiety people where experiencing since they didn't have a vaccine at the time.

A couple days ago I was joking about people might start fighting over toilet paper but it has become a reality..

Shoppers charged over toilet paper brawl | Nine News Australia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1nEnOmC6IQ

How Costco is Handling Panicked Coronavirus Shoppers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsF6ezLOMC4

Effects of Coronavirus Panic Reach Far and Wide
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pAcWPZRVSo

Guess Trump was right. Godspeed, EU. — NOS4A2

Even if the WHO has declared Europe of the epicenter of COVID-19 the US isn't that much better off. As of today according to the New York Times:

"The number of known coronavirus cases in the United States continues to grow rapidly. As of Saturday morning, at least 2,170 people in 49 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico have tested positive for coronavirus, according to a New York Times database, and at least 48 patients with the virus have died."

(Link to map of where cases of reported coronavirus are in the US)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ot-lkZSQ1Bpjs2cXbbyAfxllRPrEc6Ia/view

It looks like country after country in Europe are starting to close it's borders with each other in the hopes of slowing down the spread of the virus. The US might soon follow suit with locking down certain areas as quarantine zones in order to slow down the spread here in the US. We will have to see what places outside the US and Europe will choose to do when infection rates become too high for their countries. Needless to say the economic costs of all of this is going to be staggering not to mention the human costs after this is all done ..if we are ever truly done with it.

Thanks for the links! — ssu

Your welcome. :D

Below are some links to information about the Coronavirus ...as well as some of the craziness that are doing while it is going on:


Coronavirus Quarantine Survivor Keeps Coughing on TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5PXh4U8CJs

Tennessee parents take extreme measures over novel coronavirus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOPvuGZO_Fs

Guy suggests giving everyone coronavirus to spare the economy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEU-Bk0gMi4

Operations Dashboard for Coronavirus COVID-19 Cases WorldWide
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6

Journalist goes undercover at wet markets where the Coronavirus started | 60 Minutes Australia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7nZ4mw4mXw

Doctor Fact-Checks Media On Coronavirus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CRxyHU9Oxo&t

Full Fauci: For Coronavirus And Crowds, 'If You're A Vulnerable Person, Take It Seriously'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvhvZS1rUCQ

Infectious disease epidemiologist answers questions about coronavirus COVID-19
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwuNglv8PLA

An interesting anecdote: Italy has received a shipment of masks and respirators from China, of all places, to help combat the virus. — Echarmion

In times of crisis people need to do whatever needs to be done, even if doing it can be a little unsettling. Wasn't it some American leader or politician that said they would be willing to tip their hat top the devil to find out the conditions in hell?

Your point may have been well-taken if I had been speaking about the origin of corporations and their dependence on humans for that. My point was concerned with the current co-dependence between corporations and the common good (or at least what is generally seen by our society and its individuals to be the common good; i.e modern medicine, comprehensive health care, social welfare, the benefits of technology, comfort, convenience etc, etc, the financing of all of which are dependent on our present growth economy, and will continue to be so unless the population begins to diminish instead of growing). — Janus

Even a parasitic worm can at times help it's host in one way or another, but that doesn't mean it isn't a parasite because it does so. Corporations are created to increase the wealth of their owners regardless of whether or not they are doing it for the "common good". Both capitalism and socialist propaganda talk about the virtues of their ideologies and the "evils" of other ideology (if you ever been in debates about Ayn Rand's philosophies and other topics you might be aware of such arguments), but all ideologies at the end of the day are merely a ideology and none of them are really so great that they solve ALL problems better than all other ideology just as if your only tool is a hammer everything will look like a nail to you.

Also the idea that EVERYTHING we take for granted in our modern world is dependent on corporations since there are many organizations that provide for the public good that are not corporations themselves. Also the problem people have with corporations is that not necessarily that they exist, but that the US and other governments don't actively regulate them as well as they should, and this is partly because because lobbyist money/bribes to politician often influence them to look the other when they are causing problems and/or write laws that favor them at the expense of other people.

I more or less agree.

Well, that is well and good but it is a very generic statement, that you could make about any US government and in fact against any government. Hindsight is always 20-20, isnt it. — Nobeernolife

Riight ....because everyone out there is talking about mobilizing the military, enforced quarantines, and enforcing martial laws in hot zones which my argument very (yawn) generic. I imagined if instead suggested we should hire hundreds of clowns and make endless balloon animals the same could be said of such an argument as well.

And it isn't 20/20 hindsight that is telling me anything, it is just a basic knowledge of how of viruses (& pathogens) work and knowing how the corona virus is different from thing like the "normal" seasonal flu. All I have to know is that corona virus is either as contagious or even more contagious then the common cold AND that it is believed to be at least ten times more lethal then the flu and I'm able to discern that it is a natural virus that nearly bio-weapon grade lethal capability. I will admit it took about a week of trying to read up on it before I could be fairly certain of it (which was about a week after Chinese New Year before various organizations started talking about it being "air borne" virus). This was a little before March and just a before the news started talking about the first few cases appearing in the US.

Also nobody is talking about the high possibility that over a quarter to half of the human population getting it (ie. anywhere from about 10 to 100 million dead), after catching it people being reinfected with it, and the probability that before a vaccine can be created that it evolves/mutates into another virus (just as SARS like virus is responsible for creating the corona virus) and we have to go through this all over again since immunity systems and drugs developed to deal with the corona virus today are not going to be that helpful a mutated version of it.

Unfortunately because of the nature of share markets a large part of the common human good, in simply economic and lifestyle (including healthcare) terms at least, has become dependent upon corporate profits. — Janus

You have it backwards: corporate profits are dependent on human beings and human good. This a given since human beings/human good have existed for hundreds of years before anyone invented the notion of corporations and corporations are dependent on the work of human beings (or at least the work of sentient beings) in order for them to exist.