Linkey

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.

Ok, you can choose as you seem better. I understand that my hypothesis may look strange, but it becomes normal in comparison to all other hypotheses which are very vulnerable for criticism too.

The main hypothesis explaining the Fermi paradox is that the life is too rare at our universe (other civilizations are too far from us). One of the versions of this hypothesis is that the abiogenesis is too low-probable. I have already criticized this hypothesis, separating rarity in space and rarity in time. And here is another reasoning - the anthropic principle. As far as I understand, the idea of a multiverse, or a multitude of universes with different laws of nature, is mainstream in modern science. So it turns out logically that there should be "universes with the Fermi paradox" and "universes without it", i.e. in the first universes life is rare in the metagalaxy, and in the second - often. And it should be so that since in the second universes there are more universes with inhabited planets - then for us the probability of being born in a universe of the second type is higher, i.e. we should see many extraterrestrial civilizations around us. And since we don’t see this, this turns out to be a refutation of the hypothesis about the rarity of life in the universe. We must look for other explanations for the Fermi paradox, for example, this one: extraterrestrial civilizations have erased their radio broadcasts and other evidence of their existence, because the knowledge of the very fact that extraterrestrial civilizations exist can harm us at current stage of our development.

Hello, I want to describe an idea of a science fiction. The main character from Russia considers himself a contactee, and through quantum pseudo-telepathy he interacts, as it seems to him, with extraterrestrial civilizations, but in fact these are employees of the Time Patrol from the year 2400. Fortunately for the universe and all intelligent life in it, alternative universes with a bad course of history develop more slowly than universes where reason and democracy win, and lose the competition to the latter. In the alternative universe in which the Putinism won, people could not learn how to manipulate time, but in the universe with a prosperous history - they could, and pushed the first universe into a zone with low amplitude, turning it into a funny semi-conscious dream. The Time Patrol is an intergalactic organization built by developed civilizations with high standards of humanism and democracy. The Earth Time Patrol alters the history of the Earth through quantum correlations, interacting mainly with the Russians, because the Russians, due to their history (in which there were many reversals), have a lump of doubt in their heads, and “law nihilism”, which gives the Patrol many opportunities. Thanks to this, in the history of Russia, those who were persecuted always eventually came to power.

Have you read my post? Of cource the unhealthy relationships are bad, and it is usually the egoism of the wife or husband that makes them so.

I suppose that modern sciences as the ethology and the game theory and can reduce the number of divorces in our society. The reason for this is that many divorces are caused by the everyday egoism of spouses, and modern sciences (their philosophycal aspect) promote a more critical attitude towards egoism. To illustrate my idea, I suggest reading about the Axelrod's experiment and the game "Evolution of Trust": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation https://www.clearerthinking.org/post/evolution-of-trust-game I will give one example to clarify my idea. Let's assume that a husband and wife decide how to spend their time together: either go to a football match together, or to the theater. If they go to a football match, the husband gets two units of pleasure, the wife one. If they go to the theater, the wife gets two units of pleasure, the husband one. If they prefer compromises, they can agree to go both ways alternately, accordingly, they will have an average of 1.5 units of pleasure. But if the wife is authoritarian and has more patience, she can give her husband a choice: either we only go to the theater, or we don't go anywhere. The husband, faced with the choice of receiving one unit of pleasure or receiving nothing, rationally chooses the first and they only go to the theater. But such a policy of the wife imperceptibly destroys their relationships. In fact, this example is not entirely correct, perhaps somebody here will guess what I mean.

My knowledge of Ancient Persia is not sufficient, but I know this state is considered as an example of Oriental despotism. You are justifiing the Germans? Maybe you want to say that Hitler had a right to start the war?

Many people around the world, especially in Russia, call themselves opponents of democracy. Their logic is simple — they believe they live well enough now without democracy. I will demonstrate the flaws in this reasoning. Currently, there are quite prosperous monarchical countries such as Jordan, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates. However, these modern monarchies are very different from ancient monarchies characterized as Eastern despotism. In today’s world, monarchies neighboring democracies must maintain relatively good governance, or they risk being overthrown. In civilizations unfamiliar with democracy, the oppression of the lower classes by the upper classes was really severe. When an authoritarian state, such as a monarchy, borders a democratic country, its authorities fear revolution and thus cannot exploit the population excessively. They understand that if their citizens live worse than those in neighboring democracy, a revolution may occur, leading to a shift towards democratic governance. In this way, democracies exert an “ennobling” effect on neighboring authoritarian regimes. Despite this influence, these authoritarian countries often pose a military threat to democracies. For instance, ancient Macedonia was more civilized than ancient Persia, even though both were monarchies. This difference can be attributed to Macedonia’s proximity to Greece and the democratic traditions of the latter. Another historical example is Germany in the first half of the 20th century. Although Germany was an authoritarian state neighboring democratic France and England, the latter countries exerted an “ennobling” influence on it. Due to the English and French revolutions, 20th-century Germany did not have serfdom or other remnants of the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, Germany still posed a military threat to England and France. Similarly, the medieval confrontation between Muscovy and the Novgorod Republic illustrates my point. While the Novgorod Republic existed, peasants in both Novgorod and Muscovy were relatively free. However, after Moscow conquered Novgorod, the gradual enslavement of peasants began, reaching its peak under Peter the Great. If democracy is discredited worldwide, the world risks regressing into a new Middle Ages, which is a deeply concerning prospect. This scenario becomes more likely if Russia defeats Ukraine in the current conflict.

The science now is able to combine the quantum mechanics with the game theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHSH_inequality#CHSH_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_pseudo-telepathy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_game_theory These refs are wonderful. And if the quantum mechanics can be united with the game theory, this means that our views in the field of philosophy must be reconsidered. I mean, that the game theory now together with ethology gives the answers to the questions about the nature of Good and Evil. Here are these answers in brief: 1) 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; 2) For each person it is beneficial to behave selfishly, but when everybody in the population behaves selfishly, this population suffers from that; 3) 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; 4) The altruism can be supported by group selection together with the Simpson's paradox, but this requires certain conditions; 5) 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. How these principles should be reconsidered for the world where quantum effects play a big role?

I have written on Medium an article describing my idea: https://medium.com/@grandrienko22/the-achilles-heel-of-modern-authoritarian-regimes-699c25d6d9a8 Can anybody help me with the information, how can I pay for boosting (promoting) this article in Medium? I was unable to google this information.

Some people say that my plan in the OP is too risky because Putin can start a nuclear war. If so, maybe there could ne a slightly better plan - using this approach against the CCP instead of Putin. The US should declare and spread this information in the Chinese web: the US will install a military base in Taiwan, but they can reverse this decision if CCP performs a referendum in China, with the suggestions to unblock youtube and wikipedia in the Chinese web. I am sure this can work.

I have found a nice article on Medium: https://kimgriest.medium.com/real-reason-the-american-middle-class-is-disappearing-901cb78ababf Many people say that currently the rich people become richer, the poor become poorer, and the middle class dissapears. The authors of this article state that this trend started when Reagan decreased the taxes for the rich. And currently the mainstream mass media in the West keeps silent or lie about this problem - in particular both Fox News and CNN (especially CNN). This is explained by the fact that the 1% of richest people control the mass media and are motivated to keep this situation as long as possible. And this is the reason that the americans now choose between two candidates they don't like: smart people are not allowed to participate in the elections, because a smart president can become a threat fot these 1% richest.

The key difference is that an owner of a firm can't make his employees his slaves, he can't rape their daughters and so on - the laws prohibit that. And an autocrat can do all that because he is over the laws.

I don't agree with this, and I have several arguments for my point of view. There are several examples where the people of a country had a referendum about some rubbish decision of their government, and they rejected this decision via voting. One example is prohibiting abortions at US or Poland. Maybe I had seen some articles, that there had been polls in Poland where 75% of the polish people responded that they want a referendum concerning the topic of abortions ban. Have anybody heard about this?

I have come to some conclusions concerning the politics in the West; however, I haven’t watched the western mass media very much, and I am asking the people here to comment. As far as I can see, this is a typical situation: voters are asked to choose between several candidates, and Candidate A proposes some kind of rubbish because of which people don’t want to vote for him, but they don’t have much choice, since candidate B, while voicing a normal position on this issue, proposes some other rubbish on another issue. In fact, this means that is some kind of hidden collusion between these candidates. In the United States there is a confrontation between the leftists who want those who work to give money to those who do not work, and religious rightists who ban abortions and so on. It is interesting to speculate why Americans had chosen Trump instead of DeSantis and Haley. My questions are: 1) Which one of them has a tougher position on banning abortions - Trump or DeSantis? 2) Which one of them is more religious, and more “anti-Satanist” (religious Republicans have the idea that Democrats with their LGBT agenda are Satanists)? 3) Which one of them was planning more strictly to cancel the support of Ukraine? I believe Haley voices popular foreign policy slogans, but promotes other crap like de-anonymization of social networks and “banning Russian trolls” in them. I think for this reason she also loosed the primary elections to, but maybe someone here know more.

You are not a native English speaker? I don't fully understand you. If I am not mistaken, the authorities in Russia perform a lot of closed opinion polls. I rely on the opinian on Russian political scientist Ekaterina Shulman. here is one of her videos: I don't know this.

In current situation, the keyword is broadcasting: not only Putin should know the threats declared by the US, but also the population of Russia. This is especially important now, since the political state in Russia is a kind of "plebiscitary totalitarism": the opinion of Russians if of great importance for Putin, he performs a lot of closed polls to know it, but the Russians are brainwashed. If the nuclear threats of the US are declared for the Russians - this will lead to a decrease of the Putin's rating in Russia when he declares his own threats.

Speaking of the nuclear threats, I'd like to add that a better strategy for the US, in my opinion, would be to declare, that US will only retaliate, and if Putin launches a lot of nukes to US - the US nukes will retaliate not only Russia but also China, and maybe even India. This threat can make Xi and Mody join the sanctions against Russia.

I have watched a video about the p-adic numbers: Then, there is the Ramanujan's summation which is used in quantum mechanics (Casimir effect): 1+2+3+4+5+6...=-1/12 https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics/Casimir_effect_in_one_dimension This forum does not support Latex maths? Then, we have one more such summation: 1+x+x*x+x*x*x+x*x*x*x+x*x*x*x*x...=-1/(1-x) This is simple for x<1 and for x>1 we get: 1+2+4+8+16+32+64...=-1 1+10+100+1000+10000...=-1/9 1+20+400+8000+160000...=-1/19 Can we obtain all these sums with the p-adic numbers?

I think, this is both true and fully not true. To understand this, a kind of psychoanalysis of Russian society must be made. In my opinion, a specifics of the 21th century is the fact that all wars, revolutions, coups are not the games with non-zero sum; this means that the enemies always try to deal with each other. An example was the missile attack of a Syrian station performed by Trump in 2018: https://www.vox.com/2018/4/13/17221420/trump-syria-attack-strike-assad-russia-response-chemical-weapon So I hope that if a nuclear war will start - the sides will try to deal hardly. This can look ridicullous, but why not - "we are nuking this city, not more, because you have nuked our city".