Linkey

I am a fan of ethology, and I know that the ethology (a combination of the game theory with the theory of evolution) gives the answers to the questions about the nature of Good and Evil. Here are these answers in brief: 1) The altruism and the selfishness appear in situations with the games with non-zero sums; 2) The Good is altruism, the Evil is selfishness. More exactly, the Evil is a behavior that is beneficial for the one who commits it, and disadvantageous for others; 3) For each person it is beneficial to behave selfishly, but when everybody in the population behaves selfishly, this population suffers from that; 4) The altruism is unstable; this means, that if some people in the population behave selfishly, they live better than others and correspondingly they spread their genes or memes more efficiently, and their number increases; 5) The altruism can be supported by group selection together with the Simpson's paradox, but this requires certain conditions; 6) A more common way of suppressing the selfishness is the social contract ("Leviathan"); however this way has its own faults, in particular a new type of Evil can occur with it - authoritarian state. This is explained by the fact that the people who are chosen be in power for supressing the egoists, are egoists themselves. How these principles should be reconsidered for the world where quantum effects play a big role?

I suppose, these effects are currently considered as pseudo-scientific now. Maybe the "usual" telepathy is that very quantum pseudo-telepathy?

The evolution is a "blind constructor", this means that the evolution is unable to "invent" many simple things because these inventions require series of subsequent steps, and these steps decrese the chances of survival of a specie. For example, the evolution was unable to invent a wheel because of this reason (not all but some animals could benefit of having something like a propeller). But at the same time, this constructor "knows" absolutely all laws of nature, including the laws the humanity haven't yet discovered, and I see quite probable that these unknown laws permit making a stable quantum entanglement.

All physical effects are quantum, but some are more quantum (c). I think I can say more precisely: it is very probable that the evolution has "invented" some methonds to supress the decoherence for keeping the quantum entanglement constant.

I have some knowledge of quantum mechanics, game theory and ethology, and I think that these sciences can be united into one. The ethology and game theory are nice new sciences which answer many philosophycal questions now: what is the Good and Evil, how did they appear in the evolution, and how do they interact. I can write this later. Roger Penrose has suggested that quantum effects are working in the nervous system of living organisms. Currently there is some experimental evidence in favour of this hypothesis: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2399-6528/ac94be https://www.mdpi.com/2624-960X/3/1/6 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2018.0640 https://opg.optica.org/opn/abstract.cfm?uri=opn-30-4-42 If this is true, then we can assume that there is quantum entanglement between the brains of related individuals in nature; and then it is easy to assume that the evolution has "invented" quantum pseudo-telepathy which helps animals to survive and reproduce. Then a new science is needed to study this - quantum ethology. Has anyone proposed it?

As far as I can see, US is moving towards a collapse of the presidential power: smart and rational people are not allowed to become candidates for presidency, because a smart president can become a competitor for the financial aristocracy; moreover, a man must be corrupted to become a politician, because you can find dirt (kompromat) on a corrupt person, and dirt is the best way to ensure a politician's loyalty to his group. If I was an American, I would better vote NOTC (spoil the ballot). And if the collapse becomes, the power can transfer from the central power to governors. However I am afraid that the US governors are controlled by the financial aristocracy too, and mayors would be better. If I lived in America, I would try to become a mayor of my city; I would declare that my aim is to become a politician of whole America. And because the role of a mayor requires knowledge of things like housing service, I would find another man with this knowledge, maybe a former mayor, and ask him the questions on all subjects relating the mayor's main work. And I would give this experienced man my mayor's salary, but my status of the mayor would give me, possibly, the opportunity to initiate a referendum in my state. What do you think?

You use economic terms that I know little about, and it is difficult for me to argue with you at your level. But this does not mean that I know little in general: I believe that my horizons are very broad, and I have arguments in favor of my point of view from other areas, that are not within the scope of your professional interests. It would take me a very long time to use these arguments. It is written here, that during the past 100 years, prices in dollars have increased 30 times: https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ If you want to argue using economic terms, I suggest discussing this article: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/working-papers/unique-implementation-of-permanent-primary-deficits I have not read it carefully yet, but as I was told, the author complains here that bitcoins prevent the Fed from expropriating money from people like you, and to solve the problem, the author suggests taxing bitcoins.

Sorry, my English is not perfect, maybe not a meme but a widely-used statement. Do you deny that the quantitative easing is a form of a hidden taxation?

I suppose, this meme was created by the people who control the Federal Reserve now (US financial aristocracy). And I don't agree with this meme. The technology always grows, and smartphones become cheaper and cheaper, but this do not mean that people indeed become richer. If a person can afford a new iPhone, but can't purchase a house to live in, then this person is poor. By the way, some authors write that the middle class disappears in the western world now, in particular it is extreme hard for a usual worker now to buy a flat. An apparent reason is that the inflation does not allow a person to simply accumulate money for buying a house.

If I understand correctly, the quantitative easing is an analogue of money printing, while the quantitative tightening is an analogue of burning the money? Can you tell more what do these terms mean?

As far as I understand, Trump blames the Dems for causing high inflation in the US, but does not explain why this is happening; according to Trump, dollar inflation is some kind of evil spirit that he will exorcise. My question is, do any US media outlets (maybe CNN or Fox News) say that inflation is caused by printing money, and the only way to overcome inflation is to raise the taxes?

I don't fully understand you. What is the caucus? At that forum they responded "this caucus demonstrated that the people of Nevada were for Trump", how can I refute this statement? Maybe still there were some polls performed in Nevada which found the rating of Trump and Haley?

I am talking at different forums, in particular a US political forum where the Trumpists are dominating (thepoliticsforums.com). It is funny that when I told them that Trump and Harris are two sides of the same coin – they reacted almost like you, maybe even in similar words. So I asked them the same question as here: had been any polls performed in Nevada prior to the Republican primary elections? When I said that the NOTA option won there, they replied that the NOTA in Nevada was a vote for Trump, since Trump didn’t participate in that elections. I suppose that this is wrong, and if Trump participated there, the NOTA option would still win. Can you give me some information that I will show them it as an argument?

I suppose, if the NOTA option wins, the ruling elites will understand that they have to do something; and Biden will support Michelle Obama and make her his candidate, while the Reps will alter some laws and let Arnold Schwarzenegger be their candidates. So the Americans will choose between M. Obama and A. Schwarzenegger; for you they are fascists?

I visit this forum quite seldom; so I see this is a forum of Dem supporters (anti-Trumpists)?

In Feb 2024 Republican primary elections in Nevada, the NOTA option won. I was unable to google, how many votes did this option gather exactly? And also I have a question: had there in Nevada been performed any polls prior to these elections? In some states (Washington), Haley got more than Trump, maybe Nevada was one of them? Some people say that the NOTA votes were for Trump since he didn’t participate in these Nevada elections, but I think this is not true. For me, Trump and Harris are two sides of the same coin, and for the Americans it would be better to vote NOTE in nearest elections (more exactly, spoil the ballot).

Probably I think the same, and I want to formulate this again. If the voters have e.g. three candidates and the voting with the scale, it is possible that they will tend to vote "10 for one, 0 for two others". This vote seems selfish, and the state must try to fight the egoism of voters. If the ranking system is used. each voter will have to vote "10 for one, 5 for second, 0 for third"; and this distribution seems more fair for most cases, it represents a more common distribution of opinions. If there are not 3 candidates but e.g. 100, but most of them are spoilers, the ranking vote wil not help. At the same time, for referendums, the ranking vote can't be used. I think that the voting with scale will be not bad for the referendums anyway, but the state must try to solve the problem of unfair voting (vote 10 instead of 6).

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

I think that a good decision would be to fine people for not taking participation in a voting. But these fines can be used only together with an option "I don't know" in the voting: this option means that the voter considers himself not sufficiently informed for a decision, but he has honestly logined to the app for voting and read the basic information about the voted suggestion.

A believe that the best political system would be a “referendum democracy”: if an online referendum is performed at least each week, and these referendums should cover not only laws, but also decisions within the competence of the judiciary power (fines and punishments). If the population votes to ban a mass media, so be it; and vice versa, if the population votes to fine people who slander this mass media, so be it. I hope my logic is clear. However, with this system new problems will arise due to the Condorcet and Arrow's theorems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_paradox https://youtu.be/qf7ws2DF-zk These theorems can be illustrated by the following example. The voters have three candidates - A, B and C. A third of voters think that A is better than B and B is better than C; a third of voters think that B is better than C and C is better than A, and a third thinks that C is better than A and A is better than B. It is easy to show that it is a "rock, paper, scissors" situation, i.e., depending on who goes to the second round, anyone of A, B, C can confidently win. Theoretically, this problem can be solved as follows: the voter does not just vote for one of the candidates, but gives each candidate a score on a ten-point scale. If these scores were honest, everything would work well. But voters can lie with these scores, i.e., for example, if there are many candidates, a voter can give one a 10 and all the others a 1. It is quite unclear how to solve this problem; but this will be a formulated scientific problem for future generations. For example, I can suggest the following solution: select three hundred voters by lot after voting and ask them to take a lie detector test. Such a system would be necessary in case of implementation of the "dictatorship of the majority" that I propose: so that, roughly speaking, it does not happen that 90% vote to make the remaining 10% slaves. I want to find a word to name this hypothetical correct political system, please help me with this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_pseudo-telepathy I want to understand this phrase, and here is a simple explanation. Let's consider Alice and Bob are playing a card game like bridge. This game has a random element - each of the player deals the cards. Consider this game is played on a computer, and for random dealing of the cards, a pseudo random numbers generator is used. And Alice and Bob can make a deal that they use the same PRNG, so when Alice sees what random numbers she gets - she will know what numbers will Bob get. They can use this information for cooperating against other players. Another example: in many tasks the PRNGs are used, and to avoid their disadvantages, a RNG can be created which uses some astronomical data, maybe some random numbers from quasars (sorry if this is an improper example). And then several people can use the same quasar RNG so they will know that some other people will get the same numbers as they. Is this explanation correct?

The US does not allow Ukraine to attack Russian bases with long-range missiles (ATACMS). This war looks like if you play Starcraft with somebody, and say that you allow him to use only hydralisks against your tanks; if he uses mutalisks, you will break the computer. I suppose some people here have played Starcraft and understand my metaphor. I am afraid that Ukraine is losing the war because of such asymmetry. This is absolutely terrible, a victory of Putin will be a total catastrophe for the humanity like the victory of Hitler. I hope that the USA will nevertheless allow Ukraine to use ATACMS, despite the Putin’s nuclear threats. And this leads to a risk of a nuclear war. For minimizing this risk, the following approach can be used: the USA should declare that they will retaliate Russian nuclear strikes symmetrically. If Putin nukes one NATO city, the USA will nuke one Russian city, if Putin nukes 10 cities – the USA will nuke 10 Russian cities, etc. And then, the US should initiate a UN General Assembly with a suggestion to vote for accepting the strategy for a big nuclear war: if more than 20 millions of NATO citizens will die because of Putin’s nuclear strike, US will retaliate not only Russia but also China, because China is feeding the Putin’s regime. In case of a very big nuclear war even nuking an Indian city will be possible, specifically to kill the dictator Modi. Such declarations can make China and India stop buying the oil from Russia. Putin uses “rational insanity” strategy described in the game theory; he tries to persuade Russians that everything is ok and there is no risk for them. If the NATO should initiate a General Assembly as I described above, this can lead to a decrease the approval rating of Putin inside of Russia.

Hello, I create music using AI, and I want to show my music video "The world of post-truth": youtube link deleted I hope my post does not violate the forum's rules.

So you deny paranormal phenomena? Ok, but I don't deny them. I have one more argument for the op. 8 billions of people live in big countries, while maybe 2 thousands live as ancient hunters-gatherers. So it was more probable for us to be born in a big country. Is this logic clear?

Ok, indeed I don't really believe in my hypothesis of "Great erasion", and I rather prefer the following hypothesis: we are unable to recognize extraterrestial civilizations (to distinguish then among the nature's phenomena). We haven't seriosly made a big progress in comparison to ants; if an ant sees us, he can't understand that we are not the ants. When somebody takes an ant from a leaf, this is the same for the ant, as paranormal phenomena for us.