geneva-academy .ch/joomlatools-files/docman-files/Publications/Academy%20Briefings/Briefing%206%20What%20is%20a%20serious%20violation%20of%20human%20rights%20law_Academy%20Briefing%20No%206.pdf : "Violation of the right to life/killing/murder/manslaughter."; seoul.ohchr .org/sites/default/files/2022-10/09_What%20is%20Universal%20Jurisdiction_formatting_FIN_ENG.pdf : "Universal jurisdiction is a specific form of extraterritorial jurisdiction. It is based on the idea that some crimes are so serious that all states have the obligation to prosecute offenders, even if the offender is not a national of that state and even if the crime was committed elsewhere."..."universal jurisdiction to prosecute serious human rights violations, including crimes against humanity"; 2025.03.04/icrc .org/sites/default/files/external/doc/en/assets/files/other/irrc-844-coupland.pdf : p.2: "laws of humanity and crimes against humanity are referred to in international treaties, and humanity is cited as a source of international law.1 Humanity implies a moral force; whether or how this constrains inhu- manity — which invariably involves acts of armed violence — is unclear. Users of the words “humanity” and “humanitarian” are often perceived as placing themselves on a moral high ground. It is unclear whether humanity has been usurped by or become integrated into contemporary concepts such as human rights, development, humani- tarian intervention and human security.", "Keegan’s argument that nation-States have arisen from armed conflict is convincing.3 Within a society or nation, enforcement of law and order in a just manner may ultimately involve the use of armed force by designated bearers of weapons." (Humanitarian against social contract theory.), p.20: "present, the meaning of humanity is ambiguous. It is currently perceived as little more than a source of international law with tenuous links to natural law."; 2025.03.04/thelaw .institute/understanding-ihl/individual-criminal-responsibility-international-law/ : "individual criminal responsibility within international law,

a principle that ensures anyone, regardless of their position,

can be held accountable for international crimes. This concept

is a cornerstone of international criminal law and is crucial

for maintaining global justice and human rights.", "four core international crimes:

genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of

aggression. But what makes the Rome Statute truly revolutionary

is its assertion that individuals, not just states, can be held

criminally responsible for these heinous acts.", "based on the notion that natural persons—who have the capacity to make decisions and take actions—must answer for violations of international law if they commit, order, facilitate, or even indirectly contribute to international crimes. The ICC’s jurisdiction over individuals extends to those who, at first glance, may seem untouchable, such as heads of state and government officials. This universality and non-discriminatory application are what give teeth to international criminal law and help deter future atrocities.", "upholding human rights and the rule of law."; 2025.03.04/legal.un .org/avl/pdf/ls/Greenwood_outline.pdf : p.1: "The Statute of the ICJ, Art. 38 identifies five sources:-

(a) Treaties between States;

(b) Customary international law derived from the practice of States;

(c) General principles of law recognized by civilised nations; and, as subsidiary

means for the determination of rules of international law:

(d) Judicial decisions and the writings of “the most highly qualified publicists”.

This list is no longer thought to be complete but it provides a useful starting point.", "convenient to start with customary law as this is both the oldest source and the one which generates rules binding on all States.", "grant immunity to a visiting Head of State, is said to have two elements. First, there must be widespread and consistent State practice – ie States must, in general, have a practice of according immunity to a visiting Head of State. Secondly, there has to be what is called “opinio juris”, usually translated as “a belief in legal obligation; ie States must accord immunity because they believe they have a legal duty to do so." 1969, p.2: "So far as practice is concerned, this includes not just the practice of the government of a State but also of its courts and parliament.", "Strictly speaking a treaty is not a source of law so much as a source of obligation under law. Treaties are binding only on States which become parties to them and the choice of whether or not to become party to a treaty is entirely one for the State – there is no requirement to sign up to a treaty. Why is a treaty binding on those States which have become parties to it ? The answer is that there is a rule of customary international law – pacta sunt servanda – which requires all States to honour their treaties. That is why treaties are more accurately described as sources of obligation under law.", "But many treaties are also important as authoritative statements of customary law. A treaty which is freely negotiated between a large number of States is often regarded as writing down what were previously unwritten rules of customary law.", p.3: "While treaties and custom are the most important sources of international law, the others mentioned in Article 38 of the ICJ Statute of the ICJ should not be ignored. General principles of law recognized by civilised nations – the third source – are seldom mentioned in judgments. They are most often employed where the ICJ or another international tribunal wants to adopt a concept such as the legal personality of corporations (eg in the Barcelona Traction Co. case (1970)) which is widely accepted in national legal systems.", p.5: "now generally acknowledged that a few rules of international law are of such fundamental importance that they have the status of jus cogens, that is peremptory norms from which no derogation is permitted. Whereas States can always agree to depart (as between themselves) from ordinary rules of customary international law, they are not free to depart from or vary a rule of jus cogens. Thus, a treaty which conflicts with a jus cogens rule is void (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Article 53) and such a rule will prevail over inconsistent rules of customary international law.

However, it is important to bear in mind that (a) there are very few rules which possess the status of jus cogens (e.g. the prohibitions of aggression, genocide, torture and slavery) and the criteria for achieving such status are strict – near universal acceptance not merely as a rule but as a rule from which no derogation is permitted; (b) cases of conflict are very rare and the suggestion that such a conflict exists should be carefully scrutinised (see, e.g. the rejection both by the ICJ – Arrest Warrant case (2002) – and the English courts – Jones v. Saudi Arabia (2006) – of the suggestion that the law on sovereign immunity conflicted with the prohibition of torture).

A treaty prevails over customary law as between the parties to the treaty but a treaty will not affect the rights of States not party to that treaty. There is, therefore, no strict sense of hierarchy between treaty and customary law, contrary to what is sometimes alleged."; 2025.03.04/cambridge .org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/abs/state-immunity-human-rights-and-jus-cogens-a-critique-of-the-normative-hierarchy-theory/D0E0EBAB8095ADF3FA28A13D1B4D1D19 : "Indeed, in the nineteenth century national courts applied the rule of immunity rather broadly", "It must be emphasized that this conclusion is possible to reach because the field of foreign state immunity has not been occupied completely by international law. See “The Status of State Immunity in Relation to International Law” infra. In other areas of immunity law, however, this may not be the case. For example, the field of diplomatic and consular immunities is clearly occupied primarily by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, confirming its international law character. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Apr. 18, 1961, 23 UST 3227, 500 UNTS 95; Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963, 21 UST 77, 596 UNTS 261. In the recent decision in Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held, after assessing various international agreements, that incumbent heads of state also enjoy immunity as a matter of customary international law.", "SHAW, supra note 40, at 494 (noting that the “relatively uncomplicated role of the sovereign and of government in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries logically gave rise to the concept of absolute immunity”)."; 2025.03.04/law.stackexchange .com/questions/66527/does-international-law-only-apply-to-countries-that-ratify-treaties-and-accept-t : "So whether some countries have to follow "laws" set out for them by other countries (or non-government entities) is largely a result of those countries or entities being in positions of power to dictate their will.

This is not the same as international laws being strictly de facto. Agreed-upon restrictions and restrictions which have been dictated from the top-down, by those with more power, are de jure because they create predictable boundaries on behavior. De facto restrictions are the ones which have come to be the case without any prior agreement or fiat." < "I like this answer except for the last paragraph. The bulk of international law is customs and traditions, not treaties. And they are arguably more important." < "not strictly de facto. So that left some room for certain understandings being common place and not spelled out. Anything that is subject to adjudication though is also subject to the charter of the adjudicating forum. Which makes it de jure. ICC is actually an interesting edge case", ""International law", to a great extent, isn't law in the sense that we talk about the law of a particular country. Much of it isn't litigated in courts.

Instead, an important subset of international law sometimes called "customary international law" is a set of maxims or principles that countries feel free to treat as binding obligations on other countries, sometimes even if they aren't signatories to any particular treaties establishing the obligation, to use as a basis for taking diplomatic or military action against another country, because they are widely accepted norms in diplomatic circles.", "isn't entirely true that a country has to agree that international law binds it expressly by a treaty or something similar, but that doesn't mean that there are legal processes by which to enforce a violation of customary international law either. Typically, customary international law violations are punished by diplomatic or economic sanctions, or by military action, or just by condemning the violator.

Treaties agreed to be a country are another source of international law, but as other answers note, enforcing treaty obligations against a country is often challenging and often a country's own domestic courts will not agree to enforce a treaty obligation when a dispute arises, especially when the treaty obligation applies to actions of the nation as a whole (e.g. recognition of the legitimacy of a boundary), rather than to how individual cases (e.g. treatment of foreigners for tax purposes) is involved."; 2025.03.04/cris.maastrichtuniversity .nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/62592892/Waltermann_2020_Exceptions_in_International_Law.pdf : "Secondly, the importance of the formal sources of international law has decreased: the list of formal sources has little power to control what counts as law and what does not. In fact, many academics suggest that having a clear view of international law requires us to bypass the doctrine of sources and identify as law those rules that have real world effectiveness and/ or political legitimacy.2"; 2025.03.04/quora .com/Is-it-necessary-that-we-have-to-follow-the-international-laws-What-would-happen-if-ever-some-countries-will-not-recognize-it : "“custom”. This just means that all of the countries of the world (or at least, the relevant ones) act in a certain way repeatedly until all countries expect that behaviour. For instance, before the Geneva Conventions (which are treaties) existed, it had become an understood practice that no country was going to execute or mistreat their prisoners of war. But it isn’t always clear what behaviour count as customary international law, so the United Nations has spent many decades trying to draft treaties and declarations that try to spell them out in detail."; 2025.03.04/law.stackexchange .com/questions/80811/if-a-stateless-person-commits-a-crime-in-bir-tawil-land-that-belongs-to-no-coun : "He needs to be in a country that has put the Rome Statute into law, so he can be arrested. These countries won't send someone to arrest him in Bir Tawil. And he must have committed a crime of the Universal Jurisdiction, namely Genocide, attacks on shipping or air traffic, dangerous acts involving radioactive substances, trafficking with humans or drugs, and a bunch of others. Murder alone is not normally an universal crime, as it is normally directed at a certain person for a certain reason, and not an act of violence against random people."

Universal Jurisdiction-note:a

Human rights-note:v

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2013/12/04/human-rights-for-homo-sapiens-closest-relatives/ ;

Human rights-note:a

Declaration of rights of man-note:v

2025.08.11/youtube .com/watch?v=BoRjFu7GlcU :

9:27 Active/Passive distinction doesn't explicitly but effectively excluded everyone below upper middle class about political participation. That participation depend on wealth. The liberals imagine an enclosed system where the upper and middle classes controlled politics and lower class has soft influence on government's direction. Active/Passive distinction matured in liberal minds & made it official in October 1789.

10:20 To make declaration into print, they had to be less controversial.

10:32 Edits made by Mirabeau and Bailly, it was hoped, would make the whole meal more palatable to them. (Monarchists) Social privilege would remain unaffected, for instance, justified by the 'general will'. Freedom of speech and conscience was fine, insofar as it did not lead to civil disobedience counter-act the 'general will'. Citing the 'general will' was an easy get-out-of-jail-free-card.

10:55 It worked. Gradually, monarchines and conservatives were brought around, coming to support the Rights of Man. Deliberate vagueness allowed them to see in the Rights whatever they wanted.

11:09 Liberals saw the promise of a constitutional order predicated on inalienable rights, and

11:18 Monarchists sees that nothing would undermine their own status & privilege.

11:29 This law passed because it was watered-down. It wasn't as uncompromising as Lafayette & idealistic original framers had hoped.

Declaration of rights of man-note:a

Natural rights-note:v

2025.07.15/news.stanford .edu/stories/2019/01/roots-human-rights : "lot of historians of human rights have focused a little too nominally on the specific term “human rights,” which was coined in the English language around the time of the French Revolution, at the end of the 18th century. These historical accounts are mostly limited to the examination of the Enlightenment", "idea that there is a universal, natural justice can be found in some of the earliest written texts and even in nonwritten traditions.", "often written in Latin, really long, and the earlier texts can be very fragmented", "starts to surface during the 14th century. There are revolutionaries who are advocating this concept in the 16th and 17th centuries. But it’s not at all the primary view. In fact, the dominant view during most of the early modern period is that we have to either give up most our rights in a political society or we have to hand them over to the government.", "This changes during the Enlightenment in the 18th century, which was not the birthplace of modern human rights, but rather represents the culmination of the debate over how to apply them in a political society.", "second tradition revolves around a belief that there is a sort of natural order of things. If a state and its economy are run according to natural law, then by extension, everyone living in that society would maintain their natural rights. Today, we would call that neoliberalism. This way of thinking can be traced back to the 4th-century Christian theologian Saint Augustine of Hippo, who was influential among 20th-century liberal economic thinkers.", "United States Bill of Rights and France’s Declarations of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen were both created in 1789. The American and French revolutionaries see what they’re doing as fairly similar.

But I argue that although it looks like they are talking about the same things, they have a very different understanding of these rights. And I suspect these differences have been carried to the present as well.", "very Western, Christian natural law tradition that incorporates aspects of English common law and the Enlightenment-era declarations.

On what basis do we all have human rights? The U.N. declaration claims it’s because we have this inherent human dignity. And that’s a lot of weight to put on the word “dignity.” Why does our human dignity endow us with these rights? The answer lies in these natural law traditions and declarations, including those of the United States, France and other primarily Western European countries.

But every 18th-century declaration of rights refers to the laws of nature and says that nature is created by God." He uses mainly western data to state that Un humans rights are very Christian and western. Maybe true. Deistic God = Universe.; 2025.08.15/worldhistory .org/article/2375/natural-rights--the-enlightenment/ : "natural rights are those rights a person may consider fundamental to their well-being and which fulfil to the maximum their role as a citizen within a particular society.", "even the most basic natural right, the right to life", "many thinkers of this period, the idea of natural rights was synonymous with God-given rights, the idea that God had bestowed upon humans a sense of what is required to live together harmoniously. Others, like the pre-Enlightenment thinker Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), felt that "natural law is so immutable that it cannot be changed by God himself"", "MANY THINKERS DID NOT AGREE THAT THERE ARE ANY NATURAL RIGHTS OUTSIDE OF A POLITICAL SOCIETY.", "primary purpose of Locke's government is to protect property, by which he meant not only possessions which a person has invested labour in but also life and liberty, so integral is property to a citizen's existence. Locke believed that since equality is a natural right, all persons are created equal before the law. In short, individuals are more important than institutions, and the influence of the latter should be minimised by a formal separation of power between monarch, parliament, a body responsible for foreign policy, and the judiciary." Hobbes rejected property as n. r. "Rousseau believed that property was not a natural right but was an unfortunate creation of society.", "Some thinkers held other specific rights important. Denis Diderot (1713-1784), Montesquieu, Voltaire (1694-1778), and also Rousseau, all saw slavery as contrary to the natural right of freedom. Unfortunately, too many politically powerful men were making too much money from the slave trade to allow any significant reforms in that area until later centuries.", "Many thinkers did not agree that there has ever been a state of nature or that there are any natural rights outside of a political society. David Hume (1711-1776) thought the state of nature and social contract total fictions. Neither did Edmund Burke", "Some thinkers believed that focussing on rights led humans and governments down the wrong path to a poor society. Kant thought the concept of dignity was more important than vague rights.", "Bentham and many others, rights are only brought into existence when laws create them" "legal positivism.", "Some critics like William Godwin (1756-1836) maintain that we have no rights at all, only duties, principally the duty to contribute to the common good of all.

Other critics point out that natural rights, when listed, are all rather vague when human relations are often complex, and they require more precise definition", "some natural rights might conflict with each other or with the common good.", "Laws then need to consider a grading of rights, and it is that grading which is very difficult for all citizens to agree on.", "if we keep adding to the list generation after generation (for example, the right to work is a relatively recent one), then this only goes to show that natural rights are not 'natural', they are not something we are born with before societies existed, but, rather, something humans acquire and require as societies evolve and develop.", "Certainly, the idea of natural rights was used by radicals as a legitimisation of their overthrow of governments.", US-Declaration: ""We hold these truths to be self-evident", "All men are created equal", and "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".", "Civil rights came to be seen as synonymous with natural rights while other rights, non-universal ones, were considered political rights. The latter category, such as the right to vote or participate in government, received limitations.", "Enlightenment, then, made progress towards bringing clarity in regards to defining rights and what they entail and, to a limited extent, guaranteeing an equality of rights to all"

Natural rights-note:a

Animal rights-note:v

2025.07.15/duck .ai : Haiku AI : Enlightened philosophers had near-universal consensus on neglecting animal rights when asking which values enlightened philosophers accepted which would be today unacceptable (in 2025). ; 2025.07.16/en.wikipedia .org/wiki/History_of_animal_rights : Treatment of animals as man's duty towards himself : "During the Enlightenment, European philosophers began to systematically examine animal sentience and moral status. While René Descartes maintained that animals were unfeeling machines, others, such as John Locke, Immanuel Kant, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Jeremy Bentham, acknowledged their capacity to suffer. Bentham's utilitarian principle that "the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" became a foundational idea for later animal rights thought.", "Against Descartes, the British philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) commented, in Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1693), that animals did have feelings, and that unnecessary cruelty toward them was morally wrong, but that the right not to be harmed adhered either to the animal's owner, or to the human being who was being damaged by being cruel.", "German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), following Aquinas, opposed the idea that humans have direct duties toward nonhumans. For Kant, cruelty to animals was wrong only because it was bad for humankind."; 2025.07.17/academic.oup .com/book/55860/chapter-abstract/438497434?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false : "fact be traced to French Enlightenment debates in the eighteenth century, where they emerged in tension with human rights arguments. Giving rise to that tension were two partly conflicting streams of thinking that emerged at the time: naturalism (Section 2) and egalitarianism", "Section 4 unpacks the tension between animal and human rights by explaining how naturalists’ empirical focus challenged egalitarians’ positions on the equality of humans and their separateness from other species. Sections 5 and 6 then illustrate this tension by drawing on the naturalist writings of Jean-Claude Delamétherie, who made a pioneering proposal for animal rights, and the egalitarian Jean-Baptiste Salaville, who rejected this proposal on the ground that it would undermine human equality and rights."; 2025.07.17/fondation-droit-animal .org/proceedings-aw/animal-welfare-a-brief-history : "Up until the 17th century, philosophers regarded animals as being quite distinct from human beings; human beings had rationality whereas animals had none. This meant that animals had only instrumental value and could be used in any way that human beings desired. During the Enlightenment, philosophers started to realize that the distinction was not clear-cut; animals had some rationality. Bentham (1823) pointed out that rationality was not the important factor; animals could suffer and that was what mattered; animals had intrinsic value.", "Aquinas rediscovered Aristotle’s writings and he agreed that it was the ability to reason (or rationality) that made human beings distinct from all other animals. However, he gave Aristotle’s ideas a Christian twist. He postulated that animals do not have immortal souls. He also claimed that human beings had no direct obligations to animals. However, they might have indirect moral obligations, in that people who mistreat animals may (1) pick up cruel habits and then treat other human beings badly, and (2) perpetrate a property wrong against the owner of the animal.", "people who are maliciously cruel to animals early in life are at greater risk of being cruel to people later in life (Boat, 1995; Tallichet and Hensley, 2004; Hensley and Tallichet, 2005).", "even though Descartes states that animals have no thought or language he does not actually say that they have no feelings or sensations. Indeed Kenny (1970) translates Descartes as saying “Similarly of all the things which dogs, horses and monkeys are made to do, are merely expressions of their fear, their hope, or their joy; and consequently, they can do these things without any thought.” Present-day scholars continue to argue about what Descartes really meant by this. However, he certainly did not treat animals as if they were sentient. He was a vivisectionist, and dissected living, conscious animals (usually dogs) which suggests that he thought that ‘fear’, ‘hope’ and ‘joy’ were in some way unconscious emotions. The concept of ‘unconscious emotion’ is controversial" and now debated., "Like Aristotle and Aquinas, Descartes also believed that rationality distinguished human beings from other animals and he added that language, which is a unique human attribute (sic), is the only real test of rationality. However, as suggested by the translated passage above, his translators and interpreters may have gone too far in blaming him for ‘animals are machines’. He does seem to allow that animals might have emotions and might be driven by these emotions." (Reddit-post also pointed Descartes's writing's public misinterpretation out.), "Descartes thought that language was important as a sign of rationality, Hobbes thought that it was necessary for the drawing up of social contracts. However, the end result was the same; animals do not have language, therefore they do not merit moral consideration.", "He was one of the earliest and most influential thinkers of the Enlightenment contributing to political philosophy and liberal theory. His ideas had a big influence on later Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire, Jean Jacques Rousseau and David Hume.

It is in Locke’s writings that we get a first glimpse of a change of view with regard to animals. Locke says that there is evidence that animals (or what he calls “brutes”) have the capacity to remember. He also allows that animals seem to have some very simple ideas and they can compare one thing to another – but only very imperfectly. To some extent they can compound (put ideas together) but Locke draws the line at abstraction. He clearly states that animals cannot form abstractions. So Locke concludes that there are huge differences between human beings and other animals, but that animals do have some simple mental capacities, and this is a big departure from calling them ‘automata’.", "German, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) lived well after Locke but he maintained the traditional view that animals have only instrumental value. Kant is an important philosopher in the development of moral philosophy. He wrote a very influential book called Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Kant believed that morality is a case of following absolute rules.", "reason they have intrinsic value (once again) is that they have rationality and in particular they can reason about ethics. Animals, on the other hand, cannot reason (particularly about ethics!), and therefore have only instrumental value.

So these five philosophers, Aristotle, Aquinas, Descartes, Hobbes and Kant, developed a position that has dominated the traditional Western view of how animals should be treated. The position was based on two claims: (1) Human beings have a special attribute that makes them distinct from all other animals (a factual claim) and (2) having this special attribute makes human beings objects of direct moral concern (a moral claim). The special attribute was rationality, and in particular having language and being able to engage in ethical thought. The traditional Christian view incorporated an additional distinction, namely that animals did not have immortal souls. John Locke has been left out of this list because he was the first to realize that the distinction between animals and human beings was not as clear cut as the others suggested.

With the emergence of the period we call ‘The Enlightenment’ in Europe, things started to change. The Scottish philosopher, David Hume (1711-1776), wrote on learning in animals, “It seems evident, that animals learn many things from experience, and infer that the same events will always follow from the same causes”. He went on to say: “Is it not experience, which renders a dog apprehensive of pain, when you menace him, or lift up the whip to beat him?” (Hume, 1739 pp. 397-398). He thus began to dispute the previous views that animals have no moral standing. Hume was a hard-line atheist and so the question of anyone having an immortal soul did not arise."

Animal rights-note:a

Government-note:v

2025.08.10/ Government functionality, effectiveness, government system, law, justice, order unites separation of 3 branches (legislative, executive, judicature) like 3 separately placed cubes in 1 angle being a matter of perspective.

Claude Haiku 3.5: "From One Perspective (Unified View): All three branches serve the same ultimate goal: maintaining the state's functionality They are part of one unified governmental system They share the common purpose of serving the people Essentially "one place" - the government From Another Perspective (Separated View): Each branch has distinct, independent roles Legislative creates laws Executive implements laws Judiciary interprets laws Each operates with specific, separate powers Checks and balances prevent power concentration Essentially "separate places" - distinct governmental domains", "Concentrated (in the state's overall structure)

Separated (through distinct branch responsibilities)", o4-mini : "Rotate the viewpoint to the “checks-and-balances axis” and you see the Legislature working with the Executive (bill approval) and the Judiciary (constitutional review), stacking their functions into one unified system.", Mistral Small 3: "Interconnected View (Single Place):

Imagine the three branches as a single, interconnected system where each branch influences and is influenced by the others. This is like seeing the stacked cubes from one angle, where they appear as a single unit.", "Distinct View (Separate Places):

Imagine the three branches as separate entities, each with its own responsibilities and boundaries. This is like seeing the cubes from another angle, where they appear as separate units spaced 10 cm apart.", "Example

Interconnected View: Think of a legislative bill that becomes a law. The Legislative Branch creates it, the Executive Branch signs it into law, and the Judicative Branch interprets it. All three branches are involved, and their actions are interconnected. Distinct View: Think of a court case where the Judicative Branch rules on the constitutionality of a law. The Legislative Branch might then amend the law, and the Executive Branch enforces the amended law. Each branch operates independently but within a framework that respects the others' roles.", "ensuring that no single branch has too much power while also allowing for effective governance."

Government-note:a

Algernon Sidney-note:v

From World History Encyclopedia 2024: Algernon Sidney & John Locke most influential on defining "liberty" in natural rights (satisfaction)-list from enlightened philosophers meanwhile discussing government forms (Enlightened absolutism, limited, full democracy) achieving the most natural rights the best.

2025.06.15/en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Discourses_Concerning_Government : "Discourses Concerning Government is a political work published in 1698, and based on a manuscript written in the early 1680s by the English Whig activist Algernon Sidney who was executed on a treason charge in 1683.", "He argues in the Discourses that "the variety of forms of government between mere democracy and absolute monarchy is almost infinite", that good government is always a blend (of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy), and that Filmer was narrow and short-sighted.", "condemn[ing] absolute monarchy for corrupting the subject and equat[ing] virtue with a framework of mixed government so austerely defined as to be virtually an aristocratic government", "Adams in particular was "a lifelong Sidney enthusiast". But in the later 18th century, French republican radicals found that "his arguments were no longer relevant.""

Algernon Sidney-note:a

No tax-note:v

2025.03.04/colombianvisaservices .com/blog/colombia-digital-nomad-visa-tax : 183 days; 2025.03.04/quora .com/Is-someone-with-no-nationality-stateless-obliged-to-pay-taxes : " Residence: Most countries require individuals who reside within their borders to pay taxes, regardless of their nationality or citizenship status. If a stateless person lives in a country that imposes taxes on residents, they may be obliged to pay taxes there.

Source of Income: If a stateless individual earns income in a specific country, that country may tax that income based on its tax laws.

International Treaties and Agreements: Some countries have agreements to prevent double taxation or to determine tax obligations for stateless individuals.

Legal Status: The legal status of the individual (e.g., refugee, asylum seeker) may also influence tax obligations, as some countries have specific provisions for these groups.

Tax Treaties: Stateless individuals may be subject to different tax rules if their country of residence has treaties with other nations.", Citizenship, Residency, Tax residency, "Residency usually means one regularly lives in a place and/or has a legal right to live in a place."..."One could spend time in different countries such that they were not tax residency in any country."

No tax-note:a

Stateless-note:v

2025.03.01 : youtu .be/watch?v=1Y5YYr7Dq3I : Canadian woman born 1930 has healthcare access as stateless; youtu. be/RzffChmXKyA : education with no papers; 2025.05.24/scholarlycommons.law.case .edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2604

Stateless-note:a

Multiple citizenship-note:v

2025.11.16/old.reddit .com/r/PassportPorn/comments/p4whre/how_many_citizenships_can_you_truly_acquire/ : "Most nations have as a condition of naturalisation that you intend to live your life in that nation or at very least maintain strong links to that nation."; 2025.11.16/quora .com/In-2020-what-is-currently-the-maximum-limit-for-the-number-of-countries-that-a-person-can-be-a-citizen-of : "A country can be a jealous Mistress. They want your love and loyalty alone and are not eager to share. This also means that those countries must play well together on the school yard.", "So it is feasible to end up with 20 passports by the time you retire.";

2025.11.16/en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Naturalization : "Naturalization is politicized[2] due to the reshaping of the electorate of the country.[3]";

2025.11.16/riftrust .com/top-8-countries-allowing-multiple-citizenship/ : "definition came as late as the second half of the 20th century goes to show that the concept is a relatively modern one. Traditionally, people came from one nation.", "growing immigration for a variety of reasons led to people moving away from their country of origin. Whether it is because of employment, marriage, or geopolitical developments, citizenship has become less one-dimensional and more multifaceted.

There is increasing global recognition that multiple citizenship is an acceptable aspect of internationalism. Yet there is still disparity with Africa lagging behind Oceania, North, Central, and South America, Asia, and Europe in its permitting of multiple citizenship.", "Smaller countries such as Eastern Caribbean islands encourage multiple citizenship as a way of avoiding an over-reliance on tourism.";

2025.11.16/en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Dual_loyalty : "scholars refer to a growing trend of transnationalism and suggest that as societies become more heterogeneous and multicultural, the term "dual loyalty" had increasingly become a meaningless bromide.";

2025.11.16/finance.yahoo .com/news/16-countries-allow-multiple-citizenship-070539459.html : "2020, 76% of countries had adopted an accepting attitude toward dual/multiple citizenship-- a remarkable change from the 62% restrictive behavior observed in 1960. Oceania countries led with the highest acceptance rate (93%), followed by the Americas (91%), Asia (85%), Europe (80%), and then Africa (70%)";

2025.11.16/academic.oup .com/migration/article/7/3/362/5488849?login=false : "2018, 75 per cent of states in the world accept dual citizenship and allow expatriates to acquire destination country citizenship while simultaneously maintaining the citizenship of the origin country.", "gradual development of the right to expatriation in the 19th century was a first significant step towards tackling the undesirable phenomenon of potentially conflicting allegiances."

Multiple citizenship-note:a

Alien law-note:v

2025.04.18/quora .com/If-an-extraterrestrial-alien-landed-on-Earth-would-they-be-considered-a-natural-person-for-the-purpose-of-law : New Zealand granted flood representation.;

Alien law-note:a

Judeo-Christian-note:v

2025.10.02/brusselsjournal .com/node/4210 : "Even Christian conservative writer Lawrence Auster admits that modern liberalism “would not have come into existence without Christianity, and liberalism can fairly be described as a secularized offshoot of Christianity,” but he thinks that this does not necessarily mean that all forms of Christianity in every context have been or need to be suicidal, which may be true.", "some Western countries – the United States in particular – the term “Judeo-Christian” is frequently evoked. This makes sense in some contexts but not in all. The European artistic legacy from the medieval era on could be more accurately described as “Helleno-Christian” since figurative art never held a prominent place in traditional Jewish culture. While it is possible that elements of Jewish chant were incorporated into early Christian religious music, the tradition of polyphony which led up to Bach, Mozart and Beethoven was a unique Christian European development of the Middle Ages with no direct counterpart in Judaism. Although Christianity was deeply affected by its Greco-Roman and Germanic environment, there is no doubt that it adopted a number of important philosophical ideas and ethical concepts that were uniquely Judaic and had no real precedent in pagan European religions, for instance the idea of history as a linear process of progress toward a specific end goal. Author Henry Bamford Parkes writes in Gods and Men - The Origins of Western Culture: “The most significant feature of the Jewish heritage, however, was its view of history. Other ancient peoples had believed in a golden age, but had always located it in the past at the beginning of time. Israel alone looked forward to a golden age in the future and interpreted history as a meaningful and progressive movement toward this Messianic consummation. Originating in tribalistic loyalty, and reflecting the determination of a weak people to retain its identity in spite of conquest and enslavement, the Messianic hope was given universal scope by the prophets and became the end toward which all earthly events were moving. In various manifestations, religious and secular, spiritual and materialistic, it became one of those dynamic social myths which give meaning and direction to human life and which have more influence on human action than any rational philosophy. Unless its importance is understood, the development not merely of the Jewish people but also of the whole Western world becomes unintelligible.” Lynn White, a prominent American professor of medieval history, states that “The victory of Christianity over paganism was the greatest psychic revolution in the history of our culture,” and its effects are clearly apparent even in our supposedly post-Christian culture: “Our daily habits of action, for example, are dominated by an implicit faith in perpetual progress which was unknown either to Greco-Roman antiquity or to the Orient. It is rooted in, and is indefensible apart from, Judeo-Christian theology.” The fact that Marxists share this concept of a nonrepetitive and linear progression where history moves inexorable towards a specific end demonstrates to Lynn White that Marxism “is a Judeo-Christian heresy.”"

Judeo-Christian-note:a

Chat-avenue-note:v

2025.11.16/ : https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4997416/, 2016, approximately 20 million Bibles were sold in the United States, with the country accounting for a quarter of newly printed Bible sales each year. Approximately 6% of the total population consumed oatmeal, with an average intake of 238 g/day of cooked oatmeal among consumers. 19.38 million ppl in 2016, Rounded down, it's 19 million ppl consuming oatmeal and rounding up 20 million Americans in 2016 same that brought the Bible., https://wordsrated.com/bible-sales-statistics/ : 20 million bibles sold each year is average, not just 2016;

2025.11.25/ : Me as Surthin: "Maine Mike You deserve that no one talks to you when you don't take up your own initiative. People won't hand over things to you, you have to approach and convince people why you're interesting enough to chat. Otherwise, you're stuck in this constant NPC-loop of asking people to chat, even though you're in one.";

2025.12.01/ : "Mogges 1/12 14:36 Surthin no..Im 63. First was America on line Chat..., Chatropilos was my favorite...also Chat ID was good too"

Chat-avenue-note:a

Debate-note:v

2025.03.04: National Ocean Service:"Earth is an irregularly shaped ellipsoid.", "Earth appears to be round when viewed from the vantage point of space, it is actually closer to an ellipsoid. However, even an ellipsoid does not adequately describe the Earth’s unique and ever-changing shape." Sense-perception from mountain climbers too see that it's not 100% a sphere. gravitational force is stronger on parts of the Earth that's closer to the moon making 0.66% difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_ellipsoid : "In 1669, Jean Picard found the first accurate and reliable value for the radius of Earth as 6,365.6 kilometres.[10][11] Picard's geodetic observations had been confined to the determination of the magnitude of the Earth considered as a sphere, but the discovery made by Jean Richer turned the attention of mathematicians to the Earth's deviation from a spherical form.[12][13]" > https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1967LAstr..81..234G :"Mais laissons les apparences. En réalité, et en nombres arrondis, le Soleil est" Earth being a sphere was a poorer indicator for predicting sun and moon observation. With differences between presumed diameters and from him observed ones.; https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/60196/Reprint93BarmoreA.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y : "very nearly an ellipsoid of revolution with equatorial radii, a and b, of 6378.2 km, and polar radius, c, of 6356.6 km. — a difference of 21.6 km." It isn't intrinsic to planets according to Frank E. Barmore (1992).; 2025.03.04: https://www.quora.com/How-can-one-make-2-+-2-3-mathematically-and-logically-correct :"1.Non-standard Number Systems: In certain mathematical systems or bases, you might define operations differently. For example, if you define a new operation such ⊕

such that

a ⊕ b = a + b − 1

, then: 2 ⊕ 2 = 2 + 2 − 1 = 3

So, in this context,

2 + 2

can equal 3

So, in this context, can equal under the defined operation.

2.Rounding: If we consider rounding, 2+2=4 can be rounded down to 3 in a specific context, such as when discussing approximate values or when rounding to the nearest integer in a scenario where the exactness of the sum isn't crucial. 3.Contextual Interpretation: In a more abstract or philosophical sense, you could argue that in a specific context (like a certain game or logical framework), the meanings of numbers and operations can be redefined. For instance, in a hypothetical scenario where the rules of addition are changed, you could establish a system where the sum of two entities behaves differently. 4.Error in Calculation: You could also present a situation where a mistake or misinterpretation leads to the conclusion that , such as in a scenario where someone misreads or misunderstands the numbers involved. 5.Set Theory and Cardinality: In set theory, if you consider the cardinality of certain sets, you can create a situation where the combination of two sets leads to an unexpected result due to overlapping elements.", https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6FmqiAgS8h4EJm86s/how-to-convince-me-that-2-2-3 : "rationalists put such a heavy premium on the paradoxical-seeming claim that a belief is only really worthwhile if you could, in principle, be persuaded to believe otherwise. If your retina ended up in the same state regardless of what light entered it, you would be blind . . . Hence the phrase, “blind faith.” If what you believe doesn’t depend on what you see, you’ve been blinded as effectively as by poking out your eyeballs.", "Suppose I got up one morning, and took out two earplugs, and set them down next to two other earplugs on my nighttable, and noticed that there were now three earplugs, without any earplugs having appeared or disappeared—in contrast to my stored memory that 2 + 2 was supposed to equal 4. Moreover, when I visualized the process in my own mind, it seemed that making xx and xx come out to xxxx required an extra x to appear from nowhere, and was, moreover, inconsistent with other arithmetic I visualized, since subtracting xx from xxx left xx, but subtracting xx from xxxx left xxx. This would conflict with my stored memory that 3 - 2 = 1, but memory would be absurd in the face of physical and mental confirmation that xxx - xx = xx.", "How could I possibly have ever been so deluded as to believe that 2 + 2 = 4? Two explanations would come to mind: First, a neurological fault (possibly caused by a sneeze) had made all the additive sums in my stored memory go up by one. Second, someone was messing with me, by hypnosis or by my being a computer simulation. In the second case, I would think it more likely that they had messed with my arithmetic recall than that 2 + 2 actually equalled 4. Neither of these plausible-sounding explanations would prevent me from noticing that I was very, very, very confused.3", "What would convince me that 2 + 2 = 3, in other words, is exactly the same kind of evidence that currently convinces me that 2 + 2 = 4: The evidential crossfire of physical observation, mental visualization, and social agreement.", "There’s really only two possibilities, for a belief of fact—either the belief got there via a mind-reality entangling process, or not. If not, the belief can’t be correct except by coincidence. For beliefs with the slightest shred of internal complexity (requiring a computer program of more than 10 bits to simulate), the space of possibilities is large enough that coincidence vanishes.4

Unconditional facts are not the same as unconditional beliefs. If entangled evidence convinces me that a fact is unconditional, this doesn’t mean I always believed in the fact without need of entangled evidence.

I believe that 2 + 2 = 4, and I find it quite easy to conceive of a situation which would convince me that 2 + 2 = 3. Namely, the same sort of situation that currently convinces me that 2 + 2 = 4. Thus I do not fear that I am a victim of blind faith.5";

2025.03.06: The officially named position I took is too extreme. Now there are theories why God-disbelievers are smarter than believers: https://human-intelligence.org/iq-and-religion/ : "this conclusion raises the question of why there is a negative correlation between I.Q and belief in god. Many rationalists will no doubt accept the argument advanced by Frazer (1922, p.712) in The Golden Bough that in developed civilizations “the quick-witted states the theory of religious nature insufficient … religion, considered an explanation of nature, is replaced by science “" shows God-disbelievers being smarter., "Others have implicitly or explicitly assumed that more intelligent people are more likely to question religious dogmas. For example, Kuhlen and Arnold (1944) suggest that “greater intellectual maturity may increase religious skepticism.”" shows that (more IQ > higher questioning religious dogma) but not (becoming atheist > more IQ) nor even (more IQ > less religiousity). Einstein and Newton were religious and more likely Einstein was smart. This 2. theory only suggests that smart people opposes religious extremism/dogma, not religiousity itself., 3. theory: "Inglehart and Welzel (2005, p.27) suggest that in the preindustrial world, humans have little control over nature, so they seek to compensate for their lack of physical control by appealing to the powers of metaphysics that seem to control the world: worship is seen as a means of influencing its fate, and it is easier to to accept his helplessness if one knows that the result is in the hands of an all-powerful being, whose benevolence can not be won by following rigid and predictable rules of contact … a reason for the decline of beliefs Traditional nuns in industrial societies is that the growing sense of technology allows control over nature and diminishes the need to rely on supernatural powers.”" That's a cultural phenomena build on different environmental conditions like more electrical technology in 2010s-2020s, so it is independent of intelligence. Exceptions: "are some exceptions to the general rule of linear relationship between I.Q and unbelief in God across nations. Two of the most abnormal are Cuba and Vietnam, which have higher percentages of unbelievers in God (40% and 81%, respectively) than their IQ.Is of 85 and 96 (respectively) would predict. This is probably due to communism and strong atheist propaganda against religious belief. In addition, it has sometimes been suggested that communism is itself a form of religion in which Das Capital " Its called "Das Kapital". "is the sacred text, Lenin was the Messiah who came to bring paradise to earth, while Stalin, Mao, Castro, and others were his disciples, who came to spread the message in different countries.

Fourth, the United States has a very low percentage of unbelievers in God (10.5%) for a high average I.Q. The percentage of disbelievers in God in the United States is much lower than in northwestern and central Europe (for example, Belgium, 43%, Netherlands, 42%, Denmark, 48% France, 44%, United Kingdom, 41.5%). One factor that might provide a possible explanation for this is that many Americans are Catholic, and the percentage of believers in Catholic countries in Europe is generally much higher than in Protestant countries (eg Italy, 6% of atheists, Ireland, 5%, Poland, 3%, Portugal 4%, Spain 15%). Another possible contribution is the immigration of those with strong religious beliefs. Another possible factor might be that a number of emigrants from Europe went to the United States because of their strong religious beliefs, so these beliefs were passed on as a cultural entity and even as genetic inheritance to succeeding generations. The Parent-Child correlation of religious beliefs is quite high: 0.64 (father-son) and 0.69 (mother-daughters) (Newcomb and Svehla, 1937). It has been found that religious belief has a heritability of about 0.40 – 0.50 (Koenig, McGrue, Krueger and Bouchard, 2005), it is possible that a number of religious emigrants from Europe had the genetics of religious belief, which has been transmitted to most of the current population" One can be religious just by genes independent of intelligence. Atheist dogma has same effects on intelligence as religious dogma., "The table below shows the various American religious movements and their classification (atheist, agnostic, liberal and dogmatic).

Jews (Ashkenazim in America) have the highest proportion of individuals with high IQ, 33% of American Jews have an average IQ greater than 120. They are followed by Anglicans, atheists and agnostics with 29, 25 and 19% respectively of individuals with an IQ greater than 120." So if this answer would be "Inside USA, atheist people are dumber compare to Angilicans", then yes. Worldwide, atheists are on average smarter. "Among White (European) Americans, atheists have an average I.Q slightly higher than agnostics, followed by liberal religious and then by dogmatic religious who have the lowest intelligence (Table 5)." Yet the difference seems low between dogmatic Europeans and atheist Europeans with roughly 6 IQ. Summary: "Religion obviously has no direct impact on intelligence, which is a physiological parameter of the brain essentially determined by genes." I disagree with pure genetic determinism and that it's obvious to the general public or who? "It is a previously lower average IQ that will attract some to a more dogmatic religion (pre-rational, with magical thoughts, fixed rules of behavior, emphasis on sins, need for atonement …), while the more high IQs will prefer rational explanations and atheism (even more liberal religions for reflection and interpretation, whose followers have an intermediate IQ).", The national extremes: Singapore has the highest IQ & 13% are atheists meanwhile Vietnam with 81% atheists has 94 IQ.; https://helmuthnyborg.dk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Publ_2009_The-Intellligence-Religiosity-Nexus.pdf : 1 Personal Philosophy (?), 1 Disciples of Christ (dogmatic), 1 Protestant (Other) (liberal), 1 Jewish (liberal) & 3 agnostics were the only ones with >140 IQ in a 10.953.912 humans-sample. Although there were 1 agnostic in >70 IQ and 0 atheists. Also this kind of classification structure ignores atheism, agnosticism & arguably liberal regions as their dogma-version: anti-theism, "post-modern agnosticism" (There's no way of knowing god) vs responding to God as "I don't know." as agnosticism, & liberal jingoism. It's also implied in p.8: "Agnostics were left out of this analysis, as they could neither be clas- sified as atheists nor religious." that the highest IQ individuals are centrists being neutral to religion and irreligion. "Syllogism 2 said that a: cognitively highly complex people choose Atheism/science" I wonder if the average atheist's mindset gets too complex and therefore too abstract for physical reality. medium complex people choose liberal denominations (i.e. fairly open, critical, less committed, metaphorical, cultural heritage type),"" seems closest to religious skepticism as questioning God. I think that the smartest version also agreeing with less to non-dogmatic versions of atheism and agnosticism would be religious skepticism as presented in 2 of 3 theories, yet let's be careful about making conclusions and cohesion to other individuals there.;

2025.03.12: In the beginning as I made my comment above, I thought that religious skeptical non-theists had on average slightly higher IQ, but after reading this: [ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence : "In non-western countries like Korea, where religion is seen differently than in the West, non-religious people had lower mean IQs than religious persons.[36]A 2022 metanalysis of 89 studies found a small and weak negative correlation of -.14 and noted that the findings were not generalizable beyond a Western contexts.[11]" ] I realized how complicated it is. It's also almost non-sensical to treat those labels as soccer teams gathering IQs because intelligence is multi-dimensional & there are many factors, yet I like to oversimplify things. The insult about atheists being very dumb came from someone else & I somehow copied it.;

2025.04.16: I respect and am surprised that someone picked up on my 1 month-old claim. And I wrongly choosed "No, 2+2 is only 4." instead "3" somehow. My point that "2" isn't defined from vacuum still stands. If I read text, I assume meaning of some texts, but what is meaning? In my view of the {DuckDuckGo-snippet:[1st definition: "dictionary entry."],[2nd definition: "statement or description of the fundamental character or scope of something."],[3rd definition:"significance"]}. [1st definition: There's many dictionaries which some of them try to describe how other minds are using words. Even then, all words I know has at least over 1 definition to pick.], [2nd definition is the closest to being objective. Yet that begs the question of how the fundamental character is determined. https://plato.stanford.edu/archIves/fall2016/entries/word-meaning/ : "notions of word and word meaning are problematic to pin down, and this is reflected in the difficulties one encounters in defining the basic terminology of lexical semantics. In part, this depends on the fact that the words ‘word’ and ‘meaning’ themselves have multiple meanings, depending on the context and the purpose they are used for (Matthews 1991). For example, in ordinary parlance ‘word’ is ambiguous between lexeme (as in “Color and colour are spellings of the same word”) and lexical unit (as in “there are thirteen words in the tongue-twister How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?”).", https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356597366_Factors_that_Determine_the_Meaning_of_a_Word : "‭(Frances, 2018) “One of the hardest problems in philosophy, one ‬

‭that has been around for over two thousand years without generating any significant consensus ‬

‭on its solution, involves the concept of vagueness: a word or concept that doesn’t have a ‬

‭perfectly precise meaning. There is an argument that seems to show that the word or concept ‬

‭simply must have a perfectly precise meaning, as violently counterintuitive as that is.” A word ‬

‭actually does not have any meaning but it does have when it is contextualized .Meaning is ‬

‭defined by (Bloomfield, 1935) as "the situation in which the speaker utters it and the response ‬

‭which it elicits in the hearer." Similarly, according to (Firth, 1957), meaning is a collection of ‬

‭situational relations in the framework of a situation and in language that disturbs the air and other ‬

‭people's ears, as well as styles of action in relation to other factors in the context of a scenario. ‬

‭With the passage of time the meaning of particular words is changing, for example, the words ‬

‭‘journey’ and ‘journal’ both are derived from the French word ‘jour’ meaning a day.‬"], [3rd definition: Significance is relative to opinion/goals being set by the statement-maker.] If I as the claim-maker define "2" as "1.5", then 2+2 can be 3 in my view. All I can see is just my view. If I am very ignorant, I can ignore all the logic and empiric evidences around me & strongly belief that reality is subjective, because I decide (or the universe) how I paint my worldview.

My argument is ill-defined. Ink- & pixel-patterns in devices that resemble math-symbols can physically exist. Yet to your "because something is invented by humans doesn't mean it's inherently up for reinterpretation whenever we feel like it". As Copernicus and Galileo Galilei put the sun at the center of the solar system inside astronomers's heads instead letting the earth be, there were resistance based on feelings. Scientific progress exist because of questioning established beliefs & since I asked questions I never asked before, I can see how post-modernism (anti-realism?) comes from modernism (realism). Romanticized version of scientists says that:"Scientific consensus is always up for scrutiny." & "Question everything against dogma." That's what I do. I question what I fundamentally believe, mainly my capacity to conclude logically and my sense-experience itself by they themselves against each other. If I can only see my gift from the outside, then I can't see my gift from the inside. If I was wrong about complex math-calculations before, why not later without me noticing it. I have to blindly trust my calculator or my paper, pen & current thoughts for complex calculations, since my brain can't catch everything. My paper might deceive me when I blink & am inside the matrix. All those examples represent the popular conception of Chaos Theory. And that's just my view from you reading it. The sky at midday is in my eyes light-blue with the sun in the middle shining yellow. If the physical universe would be a person (like the "Philosopher's God" or Matrix-programmers, etc.), then what would they say? Is the sky "coded" as blue? My honest answer would be:"Maybe. I don't know." As long as I know that my brain fails at times, everything is up to reinterpretation. Not "whenever we feel like it". It's just that our feelings motivates to do things. People eat to remove the empty mess of their stomachs & to survive. The very same drive can deceive us. It's easier to be objective for a Christian to question from personal life and identity detached things such as "Does gravity exists?" VS "Does God exist?" My point is that I can only really reinterpret things when I feel like it because why would I do things which I don't feel like it. Even when my environment forces me to reconsider claims, it's me choosing, wanting, gaining those experience and at time being integrated into my personality & rationalizing at the end. The enlightened absolutist Franz Joseph II freed the serfs as much as possible with relative success. After that, most of the serfs lacked purpose in life and found a substitute for serfdom, yet everything I wrote, is inherently my view of the current knowledge. Maybe the serfs liked to be not forced & that they ever liked it is propaganda. Physical reality itself is outside my view. So the process in-between, the transition between reality and myself is in an unexperienced view half-inherently up to re-interpretation by seeing both sides equal. When we accept the premise that humans don't know when they are right/wrong, when we accept the epistemological complication of determining states of claims, that someone has to unite the subject and reality to gain knowledge from reality to begin with, then yes, scientific consensus's theories & deductive common sense perception from detectives, empirically analytical philosophers (or whoever is focused at more sense-perception & less logic) inherently up to reinterpretation, since the burden lays on the claim-maker to prove why a statement is true. If no-one does, then it's neither true or false. Mental building blocks from minds are malleable since there's more statements being not true rather than true proves by my senses about the limitation of senses, logic about the many kinds of logics existing, the conceptual existence of paraconsistent logic for example being independent of their logic, "Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that are concerned with the limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories.", Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory being in conflict with Continuum Theorem among other unsolved math problems. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_unsolved_problems]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_mathematics], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics] Unsolved problems at least as long as they exist shows errors in worldviews. If communism was so successful, then why did the main representative of communism, the Soviet Union ceased to exist? Even if they were state capitalist & or corrupted, this implies that communism just wasn't strong enough to even protect their brand from misuse. Most economies in this world are mixed. At best, their ideologies are equally good at existing and the US got more luck based on physical, external circumstances & took the correct combination of actions at the right time. I am comparing those two, although realism seems more successful than communism, because the more holes (unsolved problems) a cheese (mental, neuronal painting/worldview) possesses, the less cheese they are till they are a relic in the past. All written records before Homer & therefore experience to hypothetically learn vanishes. We might never know how the slaves/workers build the pyramids without 21st-century technologies. I heard that they were well-treated and did it voluntarily though. I don't know. What I know is that I can forget & so I apply my deficiencies kinda to humanity forgetting things too. Good luck reading till the end of this much text with far-stretched examples because I like it. I think that you can question my opinion based on whenever you feel like it. If you don't feel like it, you wouldn't. Even the concept of diagonally and directions themselves are perspective-dependent. What's horizontal to the viewpoint of nowhere, especially if the universe might be a sphere or infinite or any direction-problematic shape? I don't know if the sky is actually blue. I just see them as predominantly light-blue at daytime right now. If I turn color-blind, it's presumably grey for me. If I turn color-blind, it's presumably grey for me. Wave lengths depends on measurements, researcher's scale and in describing among subjects the norm how long the smallest wave length is to add up larger wave lengths, with the wave itself being an interpreted construct from measurement devices since humans (or I at least) don't see the wave from a light itself, which there's a debate about light being a particle VS wave VS both VS none. "Both" seems to dominate as commonly more reasonable. https://www.space.com/double-slit-experiment-light-wave-or-particle

I referred the "sun-centric astronomers VS earth-centric superstitious believers"-battle as the case of being against their intuition when it comes to having a seemingly more realistic worldview. Existence of wordplay practically, lack of context & multiple definitions undermines meaning. I point the flaws of meaning especially in debates such as "X is Y", where the variables aren't defined here. You talk about my private system, which I agree, yet how can we determine the publicity of a system when all I know & access is just my view of things? I am sole authority for my brain & which beliefs come in & out. Meanings comes from interpreting things. Meanings are a mental construct, I think. If realists want to become more realistic about their worldviews & they consider their past failures of recognizing what's real & the struggle of adding any true & false-tags to any claim about this world, then the honest approach is to say:"I don't know. It might be wrong. We need to revisit this claim." That's why experimental studies for confirmation are here. And maybe to gain more credit, but the conformity of the academic mainstream is a different topic. I want to put objective realism under experimental studies to know if this philosophy is valid. Coherence is also a human tool to comprehend reality, yet reality according to history & my experience is different from what it seems, so why not even the fundamentals. My private system is to add up 1.5 first, writing their result right to "=", then round up from "1.5" to "2", which thinking out loud is a meaningless step to confuse people. Yet reality can be confusing & quantum mechanics also shows our limits to discover things. I say that "we" assume progress by assuming things, because we have to start somewhere to run. Many errors in communication can happen to the point that we aren't really communicating but merely believing we are. Experimental scientists & logical detectives are assuming an objective reality, yet is there evidence and logic for that? How can they established without being in infinite regress, circular & fundamentalist? Extreme post-modernist in popular conception are contrarian to objective realist's stability & questions their foundations. Objective reality can also contradict themselves. I heard of "meta-logic" to determine which logic should be applied by which scenarios to reach a goal most efficiently, yet isn't a logic to determine logic in itself an infinite regress and therefore contradict objective realism, which I believe classical physics is the closest unity between modern mathematical objectivity and common sense realism with the Naive Impetus Theory something students mostly, yet not coherently agree on. Michael Pendlebury divided Common Sense Realism as in perception is knowledge that comes from external reality & objectivity, which is the closest aligned with math. 2025.04.17/umaine .edu/per/wp-content/uploads/sites/436/2009/12/WittmannPhD.pdf : p.26: "Halloun and Hestenes state that “each student entering a first course in physics possesses a system of beliefs and intuitions about physical phenomena derived from extensive personal experience. This system functions as a common sense theory of the physical world which the student uses to interpret his experience.” The authors use three descriptions for the most common student responses: Newtonian physics, Aristotelian physics, and impetus physics.

A single physical situation, such as Clement’s coin toss (used in modified form by Halloun and Hestenes), can be described using all three theories. A Newtonian response would describe a constant force being exerted downward on the coin, causing an acceleration which causes a change in velocity such that the coin slows and reverses direction. As an example of an Aristotelian response, Halloun and Hestenes describe the idea that a force must act in the direction of motion to keep an object moving, and that the “force does not move an object unless it overcomes (exceeds) the object’s inertia, an intrinsic resistance (mass) which is not distinguished from weight.” An example of an impetus response would be “when an object is thrown, the active agent imparts to the object a certain immaterial motive power which sustains the body’s motion until it has been dissipated due to resistance by the medium.” Thus, the motive power eventually dies away, so that the object no longer moves. The impetus theory has been described in detail by McCloskey. He states, “the act of setting an object in motion imparts to the object an internal force or ‘impetus’ that serves to maintain the motion ... [A] moving object’s impetus gradually dissipates.”7

Most students entering the course are not consistent in their use of theories. Halloun and Hestenes use their observations of student responses to describe students as predominantly Aristotelian (18%), predominantly impetus type (65%) or predominantly Newtonian (18%). Most of the students using theories inconsistently have predominantly non-Newtonian ideas. As the authors state, “no doubt much of the incoherence in the student CS systems is the result of vague and undifferentiated",

p.27:"concepts.” Common incorrect responses given during interviews were: “every motion has a cause,” elaborating with statements such as “a force of inertia,” “the force of velocity,” or “it’s still got some force inside” (this force is seemingly in the process of getting used up as time passes, showing evidence of the impetus theory)."..."weakness of the classification scheme used by Halloun and Hestenes is that they import “a ready-made classification scheme” taken from Newtonian mechanics.", p.94: " naïve (pre-instructional),

• novice (post-instructional), and

• appropriate formal (or community consensus)

facets of knowledge. The novice facet of knowledge in each cas",

p.52 & p.164: "McCloskey, M, “Naïve theories of motion,” in Mental Models, edited by D. Gentner and A. Stevens (Lawrence Erlbaum, NJ 1983) 299-324.";

2025.04.17/journals.indexcopernicus .com/api/file/viewByFileId/894367 : Effect of Naïve Impetus Application Theory on Misconceptions of Newtonian Motion among Nigerian Secondary School Students : "Researches had shown that every learner especially at introductory physics class begins the learning of physics with a well-established system of common senses belief about how the physical world works. This system of belief is known as naïve impetus theory is gathered from the environment of the learner over the years. It is also entrenched into the system of thought process to the extent that it is very difficult to unseat. Simple common sense belief about motion is incompatible with Newtonian concept of motion."; 2025.04.17/researchgate .net/profile/Sara-Green-3/publication/310814065_Science_and_common_sense_perspectives_from_philosophy_and_science_education/links/5a9e9816aca2726eed577691/Science-and-common-sense-perspectives-from-philosophy-and-science-education.pdf?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19 : "Hoyningen- Huene embraces continuity between these in his characterization of scientific knowledge as an extension of everyday knowledge, distinguished by an increase in systematicity. On the other, he argues that scientific knowledge often comes to deviate from common sense as science develops. Specifically, he argues that a departure from common sense is a price we may have to pay for increased systematicity.", "He stresses that many scientific insights are inaccessible to direct perception or even conflict with what we experience. For instance, whereas the Aristotelian tradition of physics can be seen as a successful specification of common sense, he argues that the same cannot be said for examples from modern physical theories involving claims about anti-matter, string-theory, relativity, universes in multiple dimensions, space being bent etc.", 2025.04.17/strangebeautiful .com/other-texts/butterfield-earman-philphys-hndbk-a-b.pdf : p.394: 5.5.2 ‘Uncommon Sense’ Interpretations

5.5.2.1 Quantum Logic Interpretations : "lattice of subspaces of a Hilbert space, i.e., the lattice of ‘propositions’ about a physical system, can, prima facie, be interpreted logically. Quantum logic interpretations take this idea seriously, and understand quantum theory to necessitate a revolutionary change from classical to quantum logic.73

One way to characterize the difference between classical and quantum logic is in terms of the failure of distributivity (§7.4.3) — the classical and quantum lattices of propositions are otherwise structurally (logically) the same."; 2025.04.17/https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.01560 : p.3: common sense = BFO, "This is a top-level ontology used especially in the life sciences which has been documented as an

international standard in ISO/IEC 21838-2. See [2]. The authors of BFO did not see the need to include mathematical entities in the coverage domain of the ontology. In particular the authors of BFO did not include any room in the ontology for the treatment of sets.", p.30: "ISO/IEC 21838-2. Information technology — Top-level ontologies (TLO) — Part 2: Basic Formal Ontology (BFO). New York: International Standardization Orga- nization, 2020." You can type links.

- [ ] You made in my opinion good arguments here & I made this long tangent to explain how objective realism came to be historically. The hyperlinks are there in case you or sone might to retype this. As you said, the links doesn't make it better or worse to you, but I like transparency & those links are just there, so why not? You never asked me to intentionally refuse to put links in my reply. Just "There's no need to add in links it's not like I can copy and paste them to check.", which I responded as my last statement in my reply from 2024-04-18 with "You can type links." (2025-10-25: I should said "You can type links in your web-address-bar.) Are you neutral or do you dislike hyperlinks then. I presume the second since you expressed opposition with it in your most recent reply, yet again, what if someone ask me:"How do you come up with this conclusion?" about complex topics which i need to re-read many informations? That's where references to experts "everyone" (accessible public) comes in. It is technically appeal to authority. An authority that I presume knows better than I do & has more access to primary artifacts. Ironically, I need journalist competence to determine which experts I trust, so that's an infinite regress. I use links to feel more safe, to kinda post my research-journey here, confirmation (which is better than no confirmation) & to save space in my replies, since some of those claimed experts already did the "calculation" in those links. It is long, but "unnecessarily". About the "hard to read"-part, I try to do footnotes now. "unreasonable for me" as long as people have the ability to be wrong, everyone who gets my information somehow needs the ability to access where I am coming from. It's your choice. I don't have discord. Copernicus worked against an established dogma (kinda, he still cling on to Aristotelian belief that the earth goes as a perfect circle around the sun compared to Johannes Kepler. And arguably, Copernicus alone didn't shift the astronomers consensus, but a series of new informations coming from other scholars during renaissance. [1]). He used to a certain degree a method to get knowledge, yes. Those structured models are build upon by ignoring philosophical vagueness. I am pointing those out such as trusting strangers (scientists & other workers from objective realist institutions) we never met before or the academia nowadays being more restrictive towards other views. Theoretical computer researcher: "competition for positions and grants has lead academia to focus on papers and citations as the primary indicators of success. This is influencing how research is conducted and presented, and makes it hard to complement traditional publishing with new ways to share knowledge." Papers are not all publicly available, PDF is not a great format, Supplementary research outputs are often lost, The scientific corpus is not machine-readable, Citations are not used properly, [3] and so on. (Your reply: "math deliberately eliminate ambiguity") Math doesn't has to have fixed definitions. Those symbols such as "2" & their rules has to be defined yet. Even then, there are paraconsistent mathematical systems & other systems on math which can have no fixed definitions. "Covariation seems to be a concept, in the history of mathematics, that does not have a definition. [Here we are not talking about covariation as is may be used in statistics today, rather we are talking about something similar to Oreseme's view of co-varying quantities.] It seems to be a concept that led to the concept of function historically by successive refinement. Here, then, is a concept, covariation, which has no (mathematical) definition. It seems to be acquired the way many other concepts in life are acquired, through experience and use, like the concepts of love, responsibility, etc. Thus, there seem to be the following ways of developing (mathematical?) concepts: 1. Ed Dubinsky's action-process-object way: function. 2. Successive refinement: covariation leading to function. 3. Concepts with several exemplars. 4. Concepts with a prototypical example. 5. Concepts developed by analogy or metaphor. [Names in mathematics are sometimes given metaphorically, e.g., sheaf theory.]" [16] Maths doesn't say about reality. "experience and use" does more of a favor. "The definition of 'definition' cannot be taken for granted. The problem has been treated from various angles in different journals."..."far cry between the situation of the student striving to grasp a new mathematical concept and the neat definition produced by a ma- ture professional mathematician. To understand how concept formation works implies exploring the wide field of mathematical definitions con- sidered as concept holders. How can we reconcile rigour and clarity with the universe of trial and error, misdirected moves jostling with sudden insights in which the teacher and students labour? It is pre- cisely in those arduous moments though, that our students need our help most. So as to map the terrain provisionally with definitions serving as tem- porary markers for concept formation, we have, therefore to work out a theoretical framework through empirical research. Although definition construction has admittedly a place in mathematical research, precious little has been written on the subject in specialised journals. However, sev- eral features of definition are commonly accepted as crucial (Zaslavsky- Shir, 2005). 1 A frequently used approach to definitions leads us to con- sider that a clear definition is a part of a theory (Mariotti-Fischbein, 1997)." [17] Large understanding gap between the public and sophisticated mathematicians raises more question than clear answers. "However" as in an unexplained intuition that several features of definition are accepted as crucial. Michael Pendlebury critiqued unexplained intuitions as being not realist. "a realist is not, for example, entitled to treat intuitions (understood as unexplained inclinations to believe things) as signs of truth in the absence of an account of how these intuitions are connected with the satisfaction of the realistic truth conditions of assertions that express them" [6] p.17 He also means with "assertions" = "claims". "types of "affirmations," which is my term for a broad but not very well-defined class of sentences (or sentential speech acts) that includes assertions, directives, and exclamations." [6] p.6, "certain terms are left undefined is that they represent intuitive concepts that are difficult to precisely define, or they are considered more fundamental and cannot be easily broken down into simpler concepts. These terms are often taken for granted and accepted without needing a formal definition within the mathematical system." [18] Examples of undefined terms in mathematics include: Point, Line, Plane. "These undefined terms form the foundation of many mathematical theories and provide a starting point for building more complex mathematical structures. They serve as the starting point from which various axioms, definitions, and theorems are derived in order to develop a formal mathematical framework." [18] So something that is not formally defined represents the foundation of math. "two senses in which a statement in a language could be 'unambiguous.' The first is that empirically, any two members of the community of speakers would agree statement B is a result of statement A. That is, any two people will interpret it the same way. Let's call this 'effective unambiguity' The other is that there is a deterministic algorithm that we can give before the fact that can establish whether statement B is a result of statement A. Let's call this 'formal unambiguity' Natural languages are essentially formally ambiguous ambiguous and formal languages with deductive systems are by definition formally unambiguous."..."It's in principle possible to do all of mathematics in the formal language of first order logic. This includes defining all relevant notation without resort to natural language (though obviously, you need to describe the language itself in some metalanguage). Now, in practical day-to-day mathematics, mathematicians only care about effective unambiguity. They care that other mathematicians read their proofs and agree on the conclusions. And so, outside of special applications in the foundations of mathematics, no one goes after formal unambiguity. This is why most proofs you find are written in a mixture of semi-formal notation and plain language. So, formal notation is necessary for formal unambiguity, but how does it affect effective unambiguity? The mathematical community certainly has found over the years that it's extremely useful. Mathematicians aren't using this notation to be deliberately obtuse. They've learned that many concepts can be expressed more clearly in a formal notation. 1 + 1 = 2 is easier to read than If you sum one and another one the result is equal to two. "..."pre-modern mathematical text. Everything is written out in full sentences like that. It's definitely not clearer. So the question then becomes - what is the level of symbolification that minimizes effective ambiguity. The answer is going to be context dependent, and will vary from reader to reader." [4] So even "eliminating ambiguity" is relative & mind-dependent instead of absolute & realistic mind-independence. That's the difference between Objectivity (non-arbitrary standard of correctness) & realism (Mind-independent true/false-determinancy.) [6] p.12 Realism p.17 Objectivism "it can just take more words to communicate the same thing. So you can think of notation as convenient abbreviations. But, oftentimes to make natural language unambiguous you need to either include many qualifiers, commas, etc. or come up with a set of keywords and rules for how your words operate on each other. (For instance, trading card games use the English language to encode very specific rulesets, so how commas, colons, and so on affect the ability of a card are clearly laid out in the rules.)"..."Personally, I can also tell whether an equation or set of mathematical notation “looks” correct, in the same way that someone fluent in English can tell if someone’s grammar is wrong." [4] This begs the question of how fluency is measured. "Semantics and context Demonstrations of sentences where the semantic interpretation is bound to context or knowledge of the world. * The large ball crashed right through the table because it was made of Styrofoam: ambiguous use of a pronoun: The word "it" refers to the table being made of Styrofoam; but "it" would immediately refer to the large ball if we replaced "Styrofoam" with "steel" without any other change in its syntactic parse. * The bee landed on the flower because it had nectar: The pronoun "it" refers to the "flower" but changes to the "bee" if we replace "had" with "wanted". * We bought the boys apples because they were so hungry: "they" refers to the boys, but if "hungry" is replaced with "cheap", with no grammatical change, it refers to the apples. Relevance conditionals Conditionals where the prejacent ("if" clause) is not strictly required for the consequent to be true. * There are biscuits on the table if you want some ("biscuit conditional"). If I may be honest, you're not looking good." [6] Potential context indeterminacy makes mathematical notations potentially ambiguous. Although you said math itself, not mathematical notations, I see notations as representative enough to represent math's ability to clarify statements., "I see math as simply something that validates a “Why”. When I would help students in physics, I always taught them the natural phenomenon first. Then I would have them draw what they were explaining. Then I would have them take the numbers and write them into the components of they drawing they represented. Then I would ask them “What’s missing based on what’s being asked?”. Then I would ask “Based on what you SEE, how would you solve for what’s missing?” Before you know it, they are verbally explaining the numbers and notation they’re writing on the paper. Purely logical. The notation is what brings together the parts of a whole and makes it become “big picture logical”. It’s a good habit to ask yourself “What is the purpose of X in the big picture of Y?”" [4] Math only confirms the cause (Why?/How?) of some number-dependent concept., Physical teacher: "Chemistry it similar where if you learn how to run the units in equations before the numbers, you’ll logically understand the math. At that point, the numbers are simply another way to represent the same logical solution." [4], "agaminon22 physics undergrad 2 points 1 year ago If by "ambiguous" you're referring to the actual content, then no, notation has no barring on that. If you are reffering to clarity, then yeah, obviously good notation makes things more clear and apparently less ambiguous (though of couse, bad notation, if used correctly, should contain the exact same message)." [4], "Mathematicians across all cultures learn this at higher level math so that people understand each other." [4] That person has to learn advanced math, which fewer people can master. Understanding is still subject to context-indeterminacy and indeterminacy of the threshold of high level to understand each other., "Both natural language and mathematical notation can be ambiguous. "Lead" can be a metal or the act of directing someone [EDIT: removed bad example]. "(5)" can be just a number, or it can be an ideal generated in a ring. You are right that when defining a new notation (or mathematical vocabulary) we have to be careful to use unambiguous language in the definition. In many areas, especially logic and calculations, mathematical notation is ambiguous less often than language. Another advantage is that notation is almost always shorter, so if we already have some unambiguously-defined notations, we can make new unambiguous statements from them much faster than it would take to make new unambiguous statements in the original natural language." [4] "less often" to language, but there's no absolute reference or universal standard to how less ambiguous math really does. It's undefined & there may be a better alternative. Logic is inclusive to non-numbered concepts. But yeah, Michael Pendlebury said that math is closest to objectivity [6] & I used it aswell, so you talked thanks to my mention of math about math instead of logic itself., (Your reply:"Not everything needs to reflect natural language." If someone doesn't care about the nature of everything/knowing physical objective reality, then yes, that person doesn't "need" it. With "natural language" I presume that you mean "languages naturally arising in human society."..."In neuropsychology, linguistics, and philosophy of language, a natural language or ordinary language is any language that occurs naturally in a human community by a process of use, repetition, and change. It can take different forms, typically either a spoken language or a sign language. Natural languages are distinguished from constructed and formal languages such as those used to program computers or to study logic."..."Natural language can be broadly defined as different from * artificial and constructed languages, e.g. computer programming languages * constructed international auxiliary languages non-human communication systems in nature such as whale and other marine mammal vocalizations or honey bees' waggle dance". [7] Now a person could be grown up all life with "logical language", with syntaxes, yet that begs the question of how that person describes reality around them. "Chair." is just a thing like 2 is just there. How does someone who only knows logic but no non-logical concepts discover non-logical concepts of reality? For their sake of survival, they need to exert a tool to get information from reality. A language representing objective reality doesn't have to be "naturally in a human community", correct. "Controlled natural languages are subsets of natural languages whose grammars and dictionaries have been restricted in order to reduce ambiguity and complexity. This may be accomplished by decreasing usage of superlative or adverbial forms, or irregular verbs. Typical purposes for developing and implementing a controlled natural language are to aid understanding by non-native speakers or to ease computer processing. An example of a widely-used controlled natural language is Simplified Technical English, which was originally developed for aerospace and avionics industry manuals." [7] A natural language may can also reduce ambiguity, yet the degree can be 0 to insignificant or large since absolute degree isn't established but depends on reader. A constructed language can become natural with involvement & existence of native speakers. "possible exception of true native speakers of such languages.[3]" [7] If one is a human who only can understand natural languages & or as long as the possibility of arising native human speakers exist & if someone cares of describing everything from objective reality to a way the speakers understand, then it is for teaching this purpose for understanding the empirical & logical realm to fit "everything" into one language unless humanity transitions to non-human species. (Your reply:"You then assert that meaning is purely mental") It is. "1 a : the thing one intends to convey especially by language : PURPORT Do not mistake my meaning. b : the thing that is conveyed especially by language : IMPORT Many words have more than one meaning. 2 : something meant or intended : AIM a mischievous meaning was apparent 3 : significant quality especially : implication of a hidden or special significance" [8] The "one" in "one intends" makes meaning mind-dependent. "language" is "used and understood by a community" [9] "meaningful" [9] Circular description. "means of communicating ideas or feelings" [9] which ideas & feelings are subjective as-well. "suggestion" [9] too. "animals communicate" [9] This universe might be an animal. "formal system"..."including rules for the formation and transformation of admissible expressions" [9] Does the universe write a formal system with formation-rules & admissible expression-transformation? I don't heard of it. "form or manner of verbal expression" [9] Every time I asked the air/universe something, they don't respond in my view. "vocabulary and phraseology belonging to an art or a department of knowledge" [9] Again, the universe doesn't speak to me. I don't trust records of someone or -thing else I can't verify myself at least. Art is subjective & vague. Everything that looks beautiful can be art from nature. I never heard of a department of knowledge created of nature. "PROFANITY" [9] Nope., "study of language" The universe doesn't create a study of anything. Einstein said like of "trial & error" to know more of inner workings of universe, yet introducing Chaos theory makes that process too messy. "specific words especially in a law or regulation" [9] No words from universe in my view. We humans invented physical laws & merely think based on our framework that those laws apply. We can debate of what a word is or if the universe is a sentiment being, yet my point stands, you need a mind to make mental processes of meaning. Without minds, there's no meaning. Maybe an unknown third option that make meanings without mental processes exist. Yet "relating to spirit or idea as opposed to matter" [10] makes it hard for me to think of meaning independent of "a formulated thought or opinion "...": whatever is known or supposed about something" [12] or "special attitude" [11] or "inclination, impulse, or tendency of a specified kind" [11] We can frame it in a way you're correct though. "something meant or intended" [8] requires an observer with an attitude. "significant quality" [8] "having or likely to have influence or effect" [15] One has yet to frame an area or thing mentally to say which influences which in what effect. "noticeably or measurably large amount" [15] is vaguely defined. "probably caused by something other than mere chance" [15] The concept of chance is a mere idea in the classical physical view at least. Chaos theory says that there's too many unknown factors affecting the experiment, yet even then, it's determined and fixed. If someone throws a ball downwards in a simplified universe, they will with 100% accuracy & precision go downwards. Chances are guesses from observers. They guess because they have a mind and an aim. They have a specific attitude towards something. That makes meaning mental. "logical connotation of a word or phrase b : the logical denotation or extension of a word or phrase" "essential property" [13] No reference point to what is objectively makes essential. "suggest" [13] suggestion depends on mental processes., "signification" [13] "act or process of signifying by signs or other symbolic means b : a formal notification" [14] To make something a sign & formal, they need ideas from mental processes., (Your reply: "meaning is purely mental so nothing is objective...I get the solipsism angle") Thanks. We see things, yet those things don't have meaning itself. We have to interpret them in context. (Your reply: "...but that undermines your ability to make any claim, wouldn't it?") I can make correct (2+2=4 inside my presumed basic arithmetic rules commonly applied from my school according to my memory right now.), indeterminate (2+2=a) & wrong claims. (2+2= inside my presumed basic arithmetic rules applied commonly is not 4.) It's already undermined by me knowing more things not than I know. When everything is uncertain, then how to uplift claims? (Your reply: "If truth and meaning are unknowable, then so is your own argument") I can establish few things which seem but don't have to be true by being honest to myself, what I perceive & what I think. I don't know how good I am or how many percentage I discovered objective reality, yet I know that I can do that at all. I can learn information about what I believe, deform & forget. I have to start somewhere to make choices. There's more unknown things than known things based on the things I know. Yet which epistemological framework to use the best for knowing objective reality is questionable to me. History of epistemology and my life shows that change is inevitable. Indirectly implied my Michael Pendlebury as "platonists" [6] p.10, the first objective realist was Plato. "The Invention of the Secular Observation of Nature. Greece and China, circa —600. Human beings have always had a practical side that enabled them to put aside worries about the gods and their whims long enough to deal with the reality of the world around them. The distances that technology could advance with this amount of practicality were great. But as far as the record enables histo¬ rians to judge such things, humans in prehistory and down through the Egyptian civilization saw nature and its forces as beyond inquiry, inherently unknowable. The gods disposed. Sometime around —6C, a new idea began to emerge: Nature and its forces could be observed and understood. The secular observation of nature is no more exotic than that—and no less revolutionary. Human beings could look at sunrises, storms, the flowering of plants, and the death of parents inde¬ pendently of whatever they might believe about gods. They could record their observations and think about why these phenomena came about. In the West, the invention of secular observation is attributed to Thales of Miletus, whose early mathematical proofs I have already mentioned. The specific accomplishments attributed to Thales, keeping in mind that none of his actual writings survive, include the first geological observation (the effects of streams on erosion of land), the first systematic description of magnetism, and the discovery of triboelectrification. But the overarching accomplish¬ ment of Thales, or the group of innovators whose work came to be associ¬ ated with his name, was to realize that such phenomena were susceptible to human observation. Thales was soon followed by Leucippus, in the middle of —5C, who argued that all events have natural causes, and by Hippocrates at the beginning of —4C, who undertook the first systematic empirical observation of medical phenomena. The Chinese independently adopted an empirical approach to nature early. Bone records indicate that systematic meteorological records of precip¬ itation and winds were being kept as early as —13C, but apparently for purposes of divination rather than weather forecasting. 25 Accurate astro¬ nomical observations of planetary movements, sunspots, and eclipses also date deep into Chinese history, but again primarily for purposes of divination. Without trying to assign precedence, it may at least be said that by the time THE EVENTS THAT MATTER II: META-INVENTIONS 235 Thales was at work in Greece, the Chinese had also developed a secular, observational approach that was used to understand the nature of the world around them. By —4C, for example, the Chinese had already deduced the water cycle of rain and evaporation. The difference between Greece and China was that the development of secular observation of nature in Europe slowed after a few centuries, was more or less stagnant (with a few exceptions) during the Roman Empire, and then retrogressed for centuries, while in China progress continued without a break. It was not until well into the Renaissance that Europe caught up and passed China, and the mechanism for doing that was not simple observation, but the last of the meta-inventions I will nominate, the invention of the scientific method. The Invention of the Scientific Method. Europe, 1589—1687." [23] Secular observation by mathematical philosophers such as n is attributed to Thales of Miletus at 600 BCE can be seen as first recorded objective realist arguably. Those forces's data can be collected, yet their true nature is unknowable, since we never know when we know enough. It increases slightly, stagnated in Roman Empire, then it fall in the Middle Ages. Perhaps the "dullness" in the medieval era made medieval naïve impetus theory closer to common sense physics than Aristotle's physics. (How China almost got scientific method first:"A near miss: Chinese experimentalism in the first millennium. The boundary between the scientific method and any other sort of empirical investigation blurs as the thoroughness of ordinary empirical investigation increases. In the case of the Chinese, empirical investigation had become so sophisticated by the Song Dynasty that it lacked only a few refinements to qualify as science. For example, a Chinese text written in 340 describes a practice among orange growers in the southern provinces. At a certain time of year they would go to the market where they could purchase bags contain¬ ing a variety of ant that ate the mites that damaged the orange trees. 26 This practice cannot be ascribed to the kind of trial and error that might lead a primitive tribe to discover useful herbal remedies. It required an understand¬ ing of the damage that certain mites did to oranges, an understanding of the feeding habits of different kinds of ants, and a clear sense of causation."..."capacity to develop causal explanations from observational data extended as well to scholarly fields. In the year 1070, Chinese scholar Shen"..."Chinese also came close to the scientific stance in their atti¬ tude toward the acquisition of knowledge as a cumulative, disinterested enterprise. Even as the Confucian and Daoist traditions appealed to a lost Golden Age, Chinese scholars just as consistently argued that old ideas must give way to new ones when new observations point the way. When Liu Jo sought authorization for a new geodetic survey of a meridian arc, he wrote to his emperor" [23] "Chinese never completed the scientific project. They brought a consistently pragmatic curiosity to their inquiries and achieved extraordinary insight in individual cases, but they never developed the framework that would enable the accumulation of scientific knowledge.! 30 ]" [23] Perhaps that's the more logical form of common sense realism. There's three definitions of "common sense" I read somewhere. Widespread belief, pragmatic & empirical one.) "Plato and Aristotle in the Hellenic world in the 4th century BCE which provided the metaphysical and intellectual basis for the development of all of Hellenic philosophy for some thousand years. To Plato, forms (eidôs), or ideas (ιδέες), were the fundamental building blocks of reality. With Aristotle, this solution was inadequate or incomplete. To Aristotle, reality primarily consisted of substance, but also rested on the notion of form, albeit in the context of Aristotle’s ontology, form played a much less significant role than it did in Plato’s. In Aristotle’s philosophy, the known universe consisted of things, or more accurately beings, that were primarily defined by the notion of substantial form, a hylomorphic construct where being, or substance (ousia) is a compound of matter as well as its underlying form. This he combined with a fairly comprehensive view of causality, which included all of the physical as well as mental aspects of a “thing” which underlie its “existence”, purpose being included as one of the components of causality. Aristotle’s theory of existence, his being qua being, eventually evolved to provide the intellectual basis of causal determinism which underlies modern Science (Physics) as we understand it today.[1] " [19] This article described Aristotle as first objective realist. Perhaps, Michael Pendlebury means neo-Platonists since Plato was Aristotle's mentor? " To Plato the forms, shapes or ideas, which manifested, were required even, to produce and define what we think of as “physical reality” so to speak were ontologically superior to the physical things themselves. These physical “things” could not exist, would have no definition or existence at all, without the underlying forms which made them what they are. This is essentially Plato’s theory of forms as we have come to understand it today, as perhaps best illustrated in his Allegory of the Cave story in the Republic where individuals are chained to the floor in a cave with a roaring fire in back of them that they cannot see, mistaking the shadows that are displayed on the wall in front of them which are merely reflections of objects passing behind them but in front of the fire as “real” things, having no knowledge of true objective reality until and unless they are “released” from their bondage and led up onto land where the sun reigns supreme and true physical reality is shown to them in all its glory.[2] Aristotle’s view eventually won out of course in the West from an intellectual perspective but Plato’s idealism persists in religious, really theological, and (some) philosophical intellectual circles, as juxtaposed with the fundamental tenets of say science, physics, and biology – the modern pillars of science. We now however live in a world permeated by East/West synthesis and interaction and we can find many of the hallmarks of that ancient debate present within the scientific, philosophical and religious communities throughout the world today – for example the Creationists versus the Evolutionists where strict interpretative lenses are applied to ancient myths which clearly were crafted before any notion of modern science even existed." [19] "Scientific development, from its first method of philosophical inquiry by the ancient Greeks straight through the more modern “Scientific Revolution” and even into the modern “Quantum” era has looked at the world primarily through a mechanistic and systematic lens, an analysis and modeling of these ‘closed’ systems and how the various components of these well-defined, ‘bound’ systems interact with each other and are described from a phenomenological, i.e. objective realist, perspective. Western intellectual developments in this context can be looked at this quest for understanding the fundamental and most elemental characteristics of matter and the objective world, and in turn the relationships between these objects of perception. Quantum Theory represents the ultimate end of this line of inquiry though, the final boundary upon which the limits of this type of worldview, this idea of ‘closed’ systems of objective reality, can be defined without the aspect of cognition, the role of the observer, included in the model per se. This worldview, while not wrong or incorrect in any way, is primarily physical and objective, and leans heavily on the mathematical laws and theories which have been “discovered”, which govern the behavior of these “things”. All of these things being capable of objective description and whose states are ultimately defined by one or more physical, and measurable, properties. Things that can be said to exist within the system in question – be it a set of atomic data within the context of a quantum experiment or a set of interplanetary or galactic objects that are viewed within the context of the “known” or “visible” universe as a whole – are ultimately defined and “bound” by the underlying mathematical laws" [19] Objectivity/modern early 21st century science "as well as the measurable qualities or characteristics" [19] Empirical common sense realism. "that these laws are designed to yield. In fact the boundaries of the entire system itself as defined from a “Western” worldview, is what we call the “Universe” or “Cosmos”. This notion is defined as every “thing” that has existed or will exist within this physical and objective conception of reality since the beginning of “time”. Time itself, what the Greeks referred to as Chronos, is created as part of the cosmological universal order as part of the creation of the universe itself. Time and the Cosmos (kosmos) are in fact co-eternal and co-existent. While we defer to all of the advancements of modern science which point to a single, massive “singularity” which occurred some 13.8 billion years ago[3]. This is the universal creation event that we refer to as the Big Bang Theory which marks the primordial event after which all cosmological and theoretical physical study is concerned with and represents the beginning of not just “time” itself, but also the creation of the physical laws that govern “our” universe." [19] Those physical laws are perceivable & logical-deducted through reality (Conclusion by observations., Common Sense Realism as Pendlebury says it meanwhile I modified "logical" in it.) & needs non-arbitrary systematization of confirmed statements (Objectivity, modern experimental science.) "The very roots of these boundaries of space and time and the cosmos itself can be found in the ancient mythological narratives of our predecessors in the West, whether we give credit to our intellectual ancestors or not." [19] Sounds like with the ancient mythological narrative-part more like a belief than something that is evidently the case. "In fact, to think beyond these boundaries, before the great singularity event from which our universe emerged, or even to look beyond the known (really “visible”) universe is not considered even a conceivable act of study from a physics or scientific perspective." [19] The root of omission bias. "Once someone leaves these boundaries, they in effect have left the boundaries of (Western) Science itself, and have entered into the realm of philosophical speculation or inquiry, i.e. non-empirically testable or verifiable theories or ideas which provide the “boundaries” of Science itself." [19] I kinda try to think beyond the universe. "Eastern view": "East however – as seen through the eyes of Vedānta, Buddhism and Chinese philosophy for example – can be characterized as “cyclical”, “process-oriented” or “open”. Open in the sense that the universe itself is not considered to have a beginning per se, but is believed to be eternally existent and always and forever manifesting as an “experiential” event that is not simply defined by the definition of physical objects which exist in time and space, but is a constant unfolding of “experience” which cognitive beings partake in and ultimately provide the basis for any understanding of “it” – it being “reality”. This distinctive characteristic of the East is evident in the Hindu belief in the cycles or “Ages”, or Yugas, of time that defines the cosmological worldview of the Hindus (and was embedded in early Greco-Roman mythos as well in fact), and is reflected – from an anthropomorphic and mythical perspective – by the inbreathing and outbreathing of Brahman. In the “East”, speculation about the universal order of things and our place in it is viewed within this cyclical, or “unbound” context, not within a set physical boundary in time or space per se. This is why attempts to classify the ancient mythos of the Chinese almost defy definition from a Western intellectual perspective. The idea of “Cosmos” in fact, as defined by the boundaries of space and time within which the physical universe that we live in was “created” and will ultimately be “destroyed”, does not exist. Their view, most predominantly reflected in the Yìjīng, is one of a continuing process of becoming and change within which any sort of meaning, meaning which fundamentally includes and synthesizes not just the “person” who is looking for this meaning, but also the underlying socio-political context within which this individual “co-exists”. The physical aspect of the universe is not, and effectively cannot, be distinguished from the “being” who is participating in the continual process of change and becoming which is constantly unfolding. This is what we mean by an “open”, or essentially “unbound” worldview." [19] "source of this “closed” view of the West, this almost obsession to break things apart and drill further and further into the constituent components of a thing until once can literally go no further, one needs to reach back to the beginning of development of thought, and language, in the West. To the ancient Greeks who laid down the intellectual foundations – linguistic, metaphysical and otherwise – that we have inherited in the West through language and culture down through the ages. One can look at the beginning of this “bound” and “closed” systemic view of the world as having its roots in Pythagorean philosophy, a philosophy that as we understand it rested on the harmony and eternal co-existence of numbers and their relationship to each other, forming the underlying ground of all existence. It is from the Pythagorean tradition as we understand it, that Plato’s fascination with geometry – as reflected most readily in perhaps his most lasting and influential dialogues the Timaeus – was founded." [19] Although it's true in my view that the West's tendency is to look at smaller things such as quantum, I think this article confuses objective realism with mathematical realism. I think classical physics resembles the unity of logical common sense realism and early 21st century's and therefore more mathematical, experimental physics closer. "Einstein’s starting point for general relativity was his theory of special relativity, published in 1905. This explained how to formulate the laws of physics in the absence of gravity. At the centre of both theories is a description of space and time that is different from the one that common sense would suggest." [20] "Albert Einstein’s astonishing theory of relativity is highly counter-intuitive. For example, the theory indicates that time can pass at different rates in different reference frames. This certainly challenges common sense. The following germane statement is attributed to Einstein: Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."..."At first meeting these facts are difficult to digest but that is simply because classical physics assumed, unjustifiably, that an object preserves the same dimensions whether it is in motion or at rest and that a clock keeps the same rhythm in motion and at rest. Common sense dictates that this must be so. But as Einstein has pointed out, common sense is actually nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind prior to the age of eighteen. Every new idea one encounters in later years must combat this accretion of “self-evident” concepts. And it is because of Einstein’s unwillingness ever to accept any unproven principle as self-evident that he was able to penetrate closer to the underlying realities of nature than any scientist before him."..."In conclusion, a version of this expression was attributed to Albert Einstein by a journalist named Lincoln Barnett in1948, but Barnett did not use quotation marks. Hence, he may have been paraphrasing a viewpoint he thought was held by Einstein. In addition, Einstein wrote the forward to a book by Barnett containing the expression; hence, there is some evidence that the words accorded with Einstein’s beliefs. Over time the expression has been shortened and placed between quotation marks to produce the common modern instances." [21], Prof. Matt Strassler: "Newtonian-era physics, they gain new intuitions for the natural world, a sort of classical-physics common sense. Much of this newfound common sense also turns out to be wrong: it badly misrepresents how the cosmos really works. This is a difficulty not only for students but also for many adults. If you’ve read about or even taken a class in basic astronomy or physics, it can then be challenging to make sense of twentieth-century physics, where Newtonian intuition can fail badly." [22] Being attributed to Prof. Matt Strassler by an admirer: "Hi Doc, about common sense text:
I greatly admire your honorable theoretical physical position and your incredible knowledge about and your extreme mathematics, and to give it us this subject, about pure mathematics" "Necessity is indeed the mother of invention and writing is certainly no exception to this universal rule." [19] Concluding with Charles Murray's pdf, it means that secular observation just wasn't necessary before 600 BCE. "These writing systems had to adapt and evolve to support not just barter and trade (basic mathematics), but also contracts and agreements between individuals and states, as well as – and this is perhaps a later development (3rd and 2nd millennium BCE) to codify and capture various rituals and ceremonies which had been established to appease the gods, a shared cultural and theological phenomenon that we find all through Eurasia in antiquity in fact." [19] They had basic mathematics through. "West, which includes in this context the Indian subcontinent which we have shown reflects the “Indo-European” theo-philosophical mindset more or less, we can actual follow the progression in written history of this transition from more archaic and pre-historical forms of divine worship, i.e. mythos, to the practice and discipline of philosophy as a practical art upon which the rational foundations of ethics, morality, and the common good rest, i.e. Logos. In the Hellenic world, which is what modern historians and academics look to as the basic building blocks of “Western” thought, this transition takes place in the first half of the first millennium BCE from the time of Homer and Hesiod, through the developments of the so-called “Pre-Socratics” (as we understand their views primarily through fragments from later authors and interpreters of their beliefs) and ultimately to the works of Plato and Aristotle which form the basis of Hellenic philosophy in all its forms. It is then with this historical and evolutionary context in mind, we can see how it is that the Hellenic philosophical tradition has come to be so representative of “Western” thought, one which is characterized by the study and analysis of reality as a series of bound or closed systems in time and space and one which even God himself is seen as bound within said intellectual framework. He is the Creator. Prior to creation, God himself does not exist in fact. It is this intellectual framework which not only ultimately leads to the establishment of Science in the modern era, but also one which provides the rational underpinnings for theology, i.e. Religion, as well – as the both the early Christian Church Fathers as well as the early Islamic/Arabic philosophers (falṣafa), all appealed to the Hellenic philosophy in one form or another to provide a rational foundation for their theological views.[8] It was not until the Scientific Revolution some 1500 years later that intellectual thought breaks free of religious dogma, and while the basic principles laid down by the ancient Greeks which established the Truth of the Biblical narrative were for the most part altogether abandoned, at least from a physics perspective, later philosophers and the first scientists in fact remained nonetheless convinced of the underlying geometric foundation of the universe as the ultimate expression of God." [19] They were so close to breaking the dogma and invent something beyond anti-/objective anti-/realism-dichotomy, if I understood this passage correctly. "None of these great thinkers were atheists in any sense of the word" [19] Heretics, freethinkers, belonging to a secret sect, even believing in God being empty space as debatably Newton did "scholarly consensus about Newton's exact position. In fact, three distinct lines of interpretation have emerged: (1) Independence: space and time are not essentially related to God. (2) Causation: space and time are caused by God. (3) Assimilation: space and time are attributes of God. This paper defends the third interpretation against the first two by drawing out the under-appreciated influence of Descartes' metaphysics on Newton's 'physico-theology'." [25], which sounds like Atheism with extra steps to me, etc. (Pascal declared that the God of the philosophers is not the same God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. [27]) "This is because the dominance of logical, scientific, and mathematical modes of thought is, according to Heidegger, the result of the prevailing metaphysical understanding of being, an “alleged knowledge of the essence of things” – one in which beings are best represented in logical and mathematical terms – which fails to ask about the foundation of this understanding of being. Indeed, Heidegger believed that a central trait of metaphysical thought is a preoccupation with beings and a failure to ask properly about their being: “As metaphysics, it is by its very essence excluded from the experience of Being; for it always rep- resents beings (ov) only with an eye to that aspect of them that has already manifested itself as being (nov). But metaphysics never pays attebtion to what has concealed itself in this very "ov" insofar as it became unconcealed." [27] "This means that metaphysics tried to understand the being of ev- erything that is through a simultaneous determination of its essence or most universal trait (the “onto” in “onto-theology”), and a determination of the ground or source of the totality of beings in some highest or divine entity (the “theo” in “onto-theology”). This amounts, according to Heidegger, to a profound confusion, for it tries to understand the transcendental ground of all beings as a transcendent being." [27] Reminds me of how Hamiltonian mechanics started the concept of the Theory Of Everything. Micheal Pendlebury means that evidence-transcendence realism satisfies the 2 realist conditions:True/False-determinacy, Reference, yet it puts the 5 objectivist requirements to 0: Classical logic, mental-attribute-Independence, epistemical reach-requirement, primary standard outputting to secondary standard/s, which fundamental realism can do all of its own, and lastly, Grounding requirement: "standards can be explained on the basis of the main functions of affirmations in the relevant discourse and its relation to the conduct; that the standards validate most affirmations that are widely accepted as platitudes and most patterns of inference are taken as obvious; and that rational and reasonable participants in the discourse would, on reflection, accept them." [6] p.23 Topic-specific, thoughtful, attentive, reflective engagers's consensus in certain discourse at correct context tagging a claim as "neutrally expected"., Michael Pendlebury empathizes being largely instead 100% mind-independence to count the existence of the agent's mental states as realistic. Yet I don't know if he means that this counts to all agents. I think that I his explanation about "Objective Realism" makes more sense when I consider that the minds has to exist to declare independence from the minds. "Einstein was a master of both theoretical physics and clear communication, but his poetic language when referring to "God" has led to frequent misunderstandings."..."fully understand Einstein's perspective, one must consider his references to Baruch Spinoza, a 17th-century philosopher. Einstein famously said: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings" (Einstein, 1929). Spinoza's God is not the traditional theistic God who intervenes in the world but rather an embodiment of nature itself. In Spinoza's philosophy, God and nature are essentially one and the same (Nadler, 2001). Spinoza rejected the notion of a transcendent, personal God and instead identified God with the laws of nature and the universe. This view resonated deeply with Einstein, who saw the universe as governed by rational laws that could be uncovered through scientific inquiry. Einstein's admiration for the "orderly harmony" of the universe aligns with Spinoza's pantheistic view—the idea that God is synonymous with the natural laws that govern existence." [26] "and although they may have rejected most, if not all of the basic tenets of the Church, especially with respect to Creation mythology as laid out in Genesis (at least from a literal standpoint), the still held onto the firm belief that mathematics, and in turn geometry, represented the ultimate and best expression of the divine in the material world." [19] Would you agree that mathematics represent the best expression of the divine world? "Even to the Enlightenment Era philosophers, mathematics and geometry were the core basic building blocks of universe from which our natural world can be understood. Newton rested his grand three laws of motion, which underpin Classical Mechanics even today, upon Euclidean geometry which described physical space in terms of spatial coordinates on a three dimensional plane as well as their movement through time via a new method of mathematics called calculus which facilitates the calculation of the rates of change of objects and the slope of their respective curves in Euclidean three dimensional space (differential calculus) as well as the calculation of the areas under and between these curvatures (integral calculus). Using these tools, along with his universal law of gravitation, Newton was able to more accurately predict the orbits of the planets around the sun – as first put forth by Copernicus – as well as establish the firm mathematical, and of course fundamental geometrical, ground for Physics which is still taught in schools today. This system that he created, which rested on his three laws of motion that described the interaction between objects within Euclidean geometrical space, were the cornerstones of Physics until the twentieth century when Einstein upended Physics with his Theory of Relativity." [19] Center between naïve Impetus theory & begin of 20th-century non-classical, more rational, theoretical physics. "Relativity, as Einstein “discovered” it, expands upon the three dimensional notion of space put forth first by Euclid and leveraged by Newton, and established a new geometrical fabric of reality based upon the notion of curved spacetime, fully integrating gravity into the geometrical framework (as the bending, or curvature of spacetime) rather than it being described as an external “force” acting on objects across space and time as Newton did. Einstein was required to create – or perhaps better stated “borrow” – a new and more complex geometrical framework within which the fabric of spacetime, its underlying curvature, as well as the objects moving within it could be described. It is within the framework of General Relativity that his famed equivalence of mass and energy is yielded (E = mc2), where the overall system is bound by, and fundamentally constrained by, the constant limit of the speed of light no matter what an observer’s frame of reference is.[9] Quantum Mechanics is no exception either. Despite the theory calling into question our basic understanding of what an “object” truly is and how it can be defined independent of its “environment”, calling into question our basic conception of objective reality in and of itself, a new geometrical framework needed to be established in order to describe the movement of these so-called objects, or “particles”, at the sub-atomic scale, i.e. Hilbert space, a generalization of Euclidean space which extends vector algebra and calculus to support any number (an infinite number in fact) of “spatial” dimensions. But of course, the underlying geometry of Quantum Mechanics, despite its predictive power, comes with its some very intriguing and “mysterious” mathematical certainties which call into question some of the foundational principles of Classical Mechanics, mainly the notion of locality as it relates to objective phenomena. Leaving aside the fundamental inconsistencies and philosophical questions that Quantum Mechanics poses to the underlying assumptions and beliefs that underpin Classical Mechanics (in particular with respect to the notions of causal objective determinism and objective realism and its sister principle locality), regardless both “physical” models are understood and described within the context of bound, closed intellectual frameworks and systems. In other words, each model of reality – both Newtonian Mechanics as well its more abstract cousin which includes the notion of gravity, i.e. General Relativity, as well as Quantum Theory – describes reality as a physical system which includes objects, things, which interact with each other and exist and are describable within specific quantifiable and measurable physical states at specific moments in the spacetime continuum. Furthermore, these models have the power to predict the behavior, or future states, of these various things or objects using various sophisticated geometrical models and equations that in toto, with known starting variables such as positon, momentum/velocity, mass, etc., can predict the movement of the these objects through the Euclidean geometrical space within which these objects are said to exist via the use of sophisticated mathematical calculations and equations that operate on, and yield results within, these complex geometrical structures which are presumed to “represent” reality. This is essentially the power of modern science, the ability to predict future states of phenomena given a set of starting variables, all measured and quantified within the context of an observer. What’s lost in all of this power and complex mathematics however is that it all rests upon a very specific set of assumptions and principles regarding reality itself, i.e. the mathematics and related theories bound the definition of reality – what in philosophical circles they call ontology. Such is the reason now doubt that many of the greatest minds of the twentieth century who understood Quantum Theory better than any of us refused to enter into any metaphysical interpolation of the theory itself, not just on philosophical grounds but on basic mathematical grounds – in short calling into question the ability for mathematics, and of course geometry to which it is intrinsically related, to provide and sort of meaning to reality from a philosophical and metaphysical perspective. Such is the nature of Physics as it stands today, both when studied at the grand scale as governed by the laws of General Relativity “discovered” by Einstein as well as Quantum Mechanics, as put forth and articulated by the likes of Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, de Broglie and others in the twentieth century. Nonetheless this undying and unfailing belief that the natural world is best understood through the lens of mathematical laws and formulas which govern the various states and relationships of the “physical” world as it moves through a specifically described and formulated geometric continuum, reality in fact as we have defined it, is a belief shared by and first promulgated by the ancient philosophers from the Mediterranean starting with Democritus, Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle among others and has carried forward into the 21st century. The problem comes when, to borrow a phrase from Robert Pirsig, we confuse the map with the territory." [19] Ok so as I mean that classical physics represents the center of classical physics between naïve Impetus theory in medical ages & early 21st century relative quantum science, between the more empiricist/common sensical early 18th century & more rationalized/systematized later 18th century, perhaps I was too simplistic. [24] says that Newton was a rational philosopher, which combining with the fact that he strongly contributed to early 18th-century classical physics, kinda confuses my own narrative of early 18th-century being more empirical and later being more mathematical/rational/logical. "significant advances in knowledge. The impact of an invention such as the internal combustion engine was so far-reaching that it is hard to imagine a metric that could express it. But as an increment in human understanding of how the world works, it was similar to many other contemporaneous developments. The question at issue here is whether the inventories fairly represent such increments across time."..."market for science and technology becomes saturated after a certain point, and the West passed that point in mid 19C. Market saturation is a complicated issue for the arts, and is discussed at length in the following section of this chapter. The same arguments do not apply to the sciences. If the question is the marketplace for publication of scientific findings, the same hundred years that saw a decline in the accomplishment rate for science saw a proliferation of technical journals and informal systems for exchanging" [26] Classical physics proliferates engineering since they use classical physics on surface to apply knowledge to practical means with technology defined by Charles Murray as application of physical truth like medicine to biology. Informal systems could be increased systemization. Streamlining education, removal of aristocratic mentor-mentee-teaching model since Ancient Greece at least, equalization of opinions thanks to liberal democratic values, human's biological limit to grow, feedback-loop by famous geniuses, limited mental & physical shelfs, and increased socialization and politization roughly beginning at 1736 political sponsoring of one American newspaper to pamphlets and the reign of terror ending the Age of Enlightenment ends the growth of the importance-score of geniuses and at 19th century also the total number of geniuses according to Charles Murray. Although 18th century-France has the most physical geniuses, England had the most important physical events and higher scores geniuses with Sir Isaac Newton, William Shakespeare & Charles Darwin taking the most number 1 spot at inventories. Yet Charles Murray is "American political scientist. He is the W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C.[1] Murray's work is highly controversial."..."Of Scotch-Irish ancestry,[11][12] Murray was born on January 8, 1943, in Newton, Iowa,[13] and raised in a Republican, "Norman Rockwell kind of family" that stressed moral responsibility." [35], Scientocrat [28], [29] : "Charles Murray supports a basic income because he thinks it will give him the moral authority to tell the poor that it is their own fault." [30] : The Bell Curve - Charles Murray [192][Libcon.png] [193][Altl.png]" [31] : Racial_Nationalism [32] : "Charles Murray is a political scientist, author and libertarian. Murray is the W. H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute." [33] : "Charles Murray, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has become one of the most influential social scientists in America, using racist pseudoscience and misleading statistics to argue that social inequality is caused by the genetic inferiority of the black and Latino communities, women and the poor. According to Murray, disadvantaged groups are disadvantaged because, on average, they cannot compete with white men, who are intellectually, psychologically and morally superior. Murray advocates the total elimination of the welfare state," This contradicts the previous claim that he supports basic income. "affirmative action and the Department of Education, arguing that public policy cannot overcome the innate deficiencies that cause unequal social and educational outcomes." [34] : "He is one of the most successful authors of policy-relevant nonfiction working in America today. He’s ensconced at the center of the conservative policy establishment as an emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. In 2016, he won the Bradley Prize, a prestigious conservative award that carries a $250,000 stipend. He regularly publishes op-eds in the Wall Street Journal. The New York Times reviewed Coming Apart twice. Tom Edsall featured it in a column (he says it raises “issues that are rarely examined with the rigor necessary to affirm or deny their legitimacy”), and David Brooks recommended it twice, lauding the “incredible data,” along with the analysis." "436 HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT work across the world. If the question is the economic marketplace for science, corporate investment in science and technology—basic science as well as applied science—is a product of the century from 1850—1950. I know of no evidence for the notion that it became harder to get scientific discov¬ eries noticed during 20C, that journals were more likely to turn down arti¬ cles about significant advances, or that corporations were less willing to look at the possibilities for making a profit out of a scientific discovery. On all of these dimensions, it would appear that that support for good basic science and useful technology was open-ended. The more the scientists could produce, the more the system was ready to absorb." [23] The increase of the growth of scientific geniuses ended 1750, the turning point between early and late modernity to Oxford Academy. "From the mid 1800s onward, the larger-than-life scientist or inventor, working in his laboratory with a few assistants, exemplified by people like Lavoisier and Faraday, gave way to the scientist as member of a large team. The number of significant figures who show up in the inventories from mid 19C onward is radically reduced by including just the team leaders." [23] "About two dozen such events qualified for the astronomy inventory. Except for a few of them, such as the discovery that some planets have moons, these events have little substantive importance for understanding the solar system or universe. Many of them occurred in the early 1600s, shortly after the invention of the tele¬ scope, when population was still relatively low, thereby inflating the rate of accomplishment for those decades."..."The Case That the Rate of Accomplishment in the Sciences Really Did Decline It is time to consider the possibility that the rate of accomplishment in the sciences really did fall after the mid 1800s."..."In the visual arts, the decline begins in the last half of the 1600s. West¬ ern literature shows a steep drop beginning in the second half of 19C. In music the number of significant figures drops from the mid 1700s into the early 1800s, and remains near the bottom thereafter." [23], "In the hard sciences and mathematics, excellence involves the discovery of truth. In technology and medicine, excellence involves the application of" [36] p.77, "truth to produce desired results. Philosophy, related to science (remember that scientists used to be called natural philosophers), is a poor cousin in this regard—falsifiability, replicability, and prediction in matters of metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology have yet to give us ways of comparing the truth content of the work of Plato and Kant in the same way we can compare the truth content of the work of Ptolemy and Copernicus. But philosophy at its best is engaged in the same enterprise, the search for truth, even if the mark- ers of success are less clear. When I say that my use of the word truth is uncomplicated, I do not mean that it is unambiguous. Truth in scientific endeavors is a moving target, constantly subject to amendment or outright refutation.The edifice of scien- tific accomplishment can be seen as a process of convergence, sometimes with major deviations and backslidings, on that final Truth with a capital T that we may reasonably think will forever be incompletely known to us. But to say that the current state of knowledge represents only our best approximation of truth is not to say that truth doesn’t exist." [36] p.78, But it's also not to say that truth does exist either when everything we know is approximations. "Physics, by its nature, must be more centrally theory.While the lack of valid theory did not prevent the other hard sciences from accumulating substantial bodies of information early on, physics didn’t really get started until the advent of experimentation and the mathematization of physical phenomena during the Renaissance. When physics finally took off, it did so rapidly and with transforming impact. Newton’s discovery of the laws of gravity and motion had a profound effect on Europe’s view of the universe and man’s place in it, rivaled only by Coper- nicus’s overthrow of the geocentric solar system." [36] p.178, "Realizing that he couldn’t get sufficiently accurate measurements when he dropped objects from a height, Galileo switched to inclined planes down which the balls rolled slowly enough to measure their progress. In his discovery, in 1604, that a systematic relationship exists between the distance traveled and the square of the time lay the first mathematization of a complex physical phenomenon. The rest of 17C saw a continuing dispute among scientists about the extent to which mathematics should be relied upon, for an underlying tension beset the new enthusiasm for observation and the search for math- ematical laws. To say that a physical phenomenon would always, unde- viatingly conform to a precise mathematical expression smacked of the overweening dicta that had brought Aristotelian physics to a dead end. Even Boyle, the discoverer of another early mathematization of physical phenom- ena, adamantly refused to claim that Boyle’s Law was a law, preferring to stick to the language of probability. It took Isaac Newton, working at the end of 17C and the beginning of 18C, to silence the doubters. Newton not only discovered a variety of laws that could be expressed mathematically and not only demonstrated that these could be used to predict the outcomes of" [36] p.258, "new experiments with great precision, but he confidently proclaimed that he had in fact discovered laws. From Newton onward, the scientific enterprise was to be not just a search for accurate observation and correct understand- ing of proximate causes, but a search for the underlying mathematical order of things, and a trust in mathematical reasoning as a way of proceeding to new knowledge about the physical world." [36] p.259, "HARD SCIENCES, 1400 TO 1950 (Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Earth Sciences, Physics)": "first times that the production of significant figures in the hard sciences crept above the baseline are the two bumps around 1610 and 1680, and even then only for the summed index scores. Those small bumps represent periods that saw the publication of William Gilbert’s De Magnete, the prime of Galileo’s career, the invention of the telescope and microscope, and the introduction of Newtonian physics, among other accomplishments. 2 The last half of 18C and the first few decades of 19C were phenomenally productive, despite the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. Each of the hard sciences experienced fundamental breakthroughs. In raw terms, the number of significant figures soared from 57 in the preceding hundred years to 220 in 1750–1850. 3 From the early 1800s onward, the summed index scores declined while the number of significant figures remained high. This could be seen as simply a reflection of a changing way of doing science, with teams replacing the lone hero, except that the number of significant events also declined during this period." [36] p.329, "story of technology is quiescence until the mid-1600s (that bump in the summed index scores in 1500 is Leonardo da Vinci), then a general increase to a high level in the late 1700s that for practical purposes contin- ued into the second half of the 1800s." [36] p.332, "last half of the 1600s provided the philosophical underpinnings of the Enlightenment. Descartes and Bacon had been precursors in the first half of the century. Then, clustered into a few decades, came Hobbes, Pascal, Leib- niz, Spinoza, and Locke. 2 The last two-thirds of the 1700s saw the culmination of the Enlightenment in Montesquieu, Helvetius, Hume, Rousseau, Diderot, andVoltaire and—so close in time that they form one spike in the graph—the philosophers who would set the stage for 19C, Moses Mendelssohn, Condorcet, Herder, Fichte, Bentham, and, towering over all, Kant." [36] p.333, "Physics offers a fascinating case of a rich set of principles, bequeathed by Newton, that had to wait upon the invention of tools. Between the Principia and the beginning of the burst in physics around 1800 came the invention of an accurate thermometer, devices for producing an electrical charge, devices for storing an electrical charge, the aneroid barom- eter, an accurate chronometer, the achromatic lens, methods of measuring electrical conduction, a method of measuring gravitational force at a given latitude, the electroscope, artificial magnets, the electrometer, the torsion bal- ance, the accelerometer, the pressure gauge, and methods to measure the rate of flow of a fluid—not glamorous advances, but indispensable for giving physicists of 19C the tools without which the scientific method itself was limited.", "Technology, 1770 (see page 315). The stuff of technology is tools, to a large degree, and it is appropriate that the burst in technology began in the decade after James Watt’s improvements made the steam engine into the great tool of the industrial revolution. But the steam engine was more than a tool." [36] p.431, "The equation thus describes entropy in a way that is inherently probabilistic—a common way for physicists to think today, but an epochal departure when Boltzmann did his work." [36] p.637. How am I wrong at applying scientific standards and common sense to the ontologies & worldviews to themselves & each other in a critical way? I lump formal systems with empiricism because I thought that's like combining common sense realism + theoretical physics, which is more based on logic, yet I missed the nuances about the difference/s between common sense, common sense realism, logical common sense realism, theoretical physics, experimental mathematical physics, empiricism, logic, math, Naïve Impetus Theory, Aristotelian physics, Newtonian physics, etc. That move is kinda valid because objectivity is related to logical systems & realism is related to empiricism. Combining that under Michael Pendlebury's watch would be objective realism. Physical law-ism, I guess. Basic math historically from humans comes from empiricism & repetitive application in my view. Basic arithmetic rules says that if one adds 2 apples to a place, which already has 2 apples, then it's 4. (Your reply:"from logical systems (which are true within their framework)."), "A logical system is essentially a way of mechanically listing all the logical truths of some part of logic by means of the application of recursive rules—i.e., rules that can be repeatedly applied to their own output." [39] "all the logical truths" means 100% of the existing logical truths of some sub-set of that broad category called logic by application of recursive rules. As far as I read those definitions, I can make a logical system in the amount of 0 logical truths & repetition-rules concerning with different states independent of true and false. Let's say 0 & 1. "to pass back to an earlier possessor" [41], "to come or go back (as to a former condition, period, or subject)" [42] If the former set of conditions are the same as the set after that, then I can create a logical system with 100% 0 logical truths and it returns to the earlier possessor, which is a clone or more closely resembling an empty logical system, to reset to the former condition, which is the same set as now, just with the input-output-transition of the same values., Routines causing certain state/s doesn't have to wear a true-value. The logical system being true by definition & the nature of definition requires context too. I can create a truth-independent & even a wrong, fake logical system depending on the person's logical thinking-ability. "the determination of a succession of elements (such as numbers or functions) by operation on one or more preceding elements according to a rule or formula involving a finite number of steps 3 : a computer programming technique involving the use of a procedure, subroutine, function, or algorithm that calls itself one or more times until a specified condition is met at which time the rest of each repetition is processed from the last one called the first" [40], "to go back or come back again return home b : to go back in thought, practice, or condition : REVERT 2 : to pass back to an earlier possessor" [41], "to come or go back (as to a former condition, period, or subject) 2 : to return to the proprietor or his or her heirs at the end of a reversion 3 : to return to an ancestral type" [42], There's paraconsistently logical system denying any fixed statement on truth, yet holds in some cases the law of non-contradiction. And logical systems can use more values than true and false like Kripke's logic kinda demonstrates it., "Since formal systems don’t have any semantic content, I guess you could define a totally arbitrary and unintuitive formal system, call it “logic”, and then you’d have an unintuitive logical system. But without an interpretation that appeals to our intuitions, that “logic” would be as useless and meaningless as a formal system defined by the arbitrary positions of sand on a beach.", "paraconsistent logics that they allow contradictions, many uphold a law of non-contradiction. It's just the type of logic you need to use if you want to allow contradictions, but it's not a general feature of paraconsistent logics, to which you linked. Again, the exact article you linked literally says this: As we will see below, many paraconsistent logics do validate the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) ... even though they invalidate ECQ. "..." Further this isn't really a rejonder to my objection, because 1. a lot of work on paraconistent logic is precisely motivated by the opposite of what OP is asking about, i.e. adhering to our pre-theoretical about correct reasoning. Even dialetheists (who are a subset of people working on paraconistent logics) don't necessarily think of their work as doing something that goes against our intutions on purpose. Some argue that we already accept contradictions on multiple levels, in language, psychologically and so on, and that situations where we can reasonably accept A and not-A occur in very ordinary situations anyway."..."There is (a lot of!) disagreement about how transcendental idealism should be understood, but I think it's usually agreed that the transcendental structure of the mind is something that really is fundamental to the universe—the empirical universe as we experience it. Of course, it's not fundamental to things in themselves, but we can't really know anything about them anyway (and thus they're not part of the world as discovered by science)." [37], Yes, I admit that I mean with my claim that I privately wrote that it's 2+2=3 since I define "2"-symbol for me. A claim needs context and in this claim of this RumbleDebate-App, there's no defined one. I made this claim, so I say that "2" means 1.5 rounded up. And it also makes classical logical sense just with an additional rule for the symbols. Concedes my argument? What was my argument, you think? My argument is that the context is not defined and therefore words become meaningless, so we humans & maybe natural persons make up meanings. Did I challenged basic arithmetic framework through "2+2=3" alone or did I even included "2+2=3" for the destruction of basic arithmetic frameworks? I didn't mean to came up this way. (Your reply:"It just shows you can change rules and get different answers which is just semantics.") Some people do that with their worldviews & I don't exclude realists for doing the same too. Communication can be faked like one chatter talks to a randomly typing monkey on the other side. The debate is not entirely pointless since I still communicate & formulate my thoughts for and to myself. If I talk to you, I don't really talk to you. I just have a very vague idea of who you are with the assumptions that you're one human who's reading 25%-75% of what I wrote & responding back with your nervous system being connected. On the second thought, those ideas aren't necessary to even communicate. Just do & execute actions. You could be an AI. I don't care since the experience itself makes me feel more fulfilling. One can say that the experience themselves are real & interpreting them in a systematic way more objective. I say that we can't really determine how useful logic is to begin with. The limits are within the capabilities, yet in a seemingly infinitely universe, it's uncertain to pinpoint the relation between the observer and the observation outside. I hold that long tangent to show with what we're dealing with. I even think that those contradictions mostly hold up in comparison to the 3 categories: Aristotelian, Naïve Impetus, Newtonian physics if we treat common sense physics as it's own category. Yet there's many disagreements & uncertainties to what traits common sense physics entails & if it is closer to Aristotelian or Naïve Impetus theory. Common sense isn't so common & varies through cultural, biological structure of perception etc. I realize that we're talking beyond the prescribed topic of "2+2 can be 3". The progress from classical physical clarity such as duality to special relativity to quantum mechanics being in mainstream academia to postmodernism as a movement critical to realism shows a trend that at best, science becomes when that trend continues to be pure math and zero empiricism in future. I still use empiricism and common sense realism interchangeably and synonymously. Those old assumptions of objective reality itself, I predict, will break down because it progressively already does. (Your reply:"We don't toss out logic") We can just toss our classical logic. Yet tossing out all kinds of logics to build a more precise explanation-system is an exercising thought-experiment. This universe doesn't have to follow any logic. It's just how I make sense & choose to act in everyday life. Math itself is grounded in standard systems, which those standard systems are grounded by human-made intuitions being barely or never formalized. The trend of decreasing belief from people who came from objective realist institutions such as the hard sciences & everyday people, applying the scientific method & empirical observation to themselves with more data & calculating capacity than before (or we might even lost some but still ore than in 18th century, I believe) & the curiosity of a model being independent from realism & anti-realism is a case for thinking a structure which goes along or can even replace objective realism if objective realism gets weaker. Structured reasoning from scientists and super-computers adopts to so much complexity, that common sensical people struggles to keep up with. Also those scientists & AIs have to focus more on math & objectivity rather than in realism. Scientists nowadays focus more on becoming complex, creating increased complexity & at best, invest increasingly more energy into making complex theoretical situations easier instead of discovering reality or at least making the complex parts of reality easier to everyday people. "The modern trend in physics seems to be string theory. Though it is a huge gamble for many physicists, the theory attracts its devotees because of the elegance of the mathematics involved. Simply put, string theory is the idea that the universe is composed of variations of the modes of “tiny, vibrating strings of energy.” Nothing in the universe can be described without the use of these modes. Through interactions between objects, they become connected by these tiny strings. Such an idea runs counter to many of our perceptions of reality, and unfortunately, there is no evidence for the existence of these strings yet (Kaku 31-2)."..."The importance of these strings cannot be understated. According to the theory, all forces and particles are related to each other; they are just at different frequencies. The alteration of these frequencies leads to changes in the particles. Such changes are usually brought on by motion, and the motion of the strings causes gravity. If this is true, then it would be the key to the theory of everything or the way to unite all the forces in the universe. This has been the juicy steak that has been hovering in front of physicists for decades now but thus far has remained elusive. All the math behind string theory checks out, but the biggest problem is the number of solutions to string theory; each one requires a different universe to exist. The only way to test each result is to have a baby universe to observe. Since this is unlikely, we need different ways to test for string theory (32).", "The part that will be interesting to string theorists is that LISA will be like WMAP, peering into the early universe. If it works correctly, LISA will be able to see gravity waves from within one trillionth of a second post-Big Bang." [38] And if not, then this failed experiment confirmed that that trial has failed as usual. It isn't even certain if a Theory of Everything exists and how it affects the world. Scientific innovations can be very good & or very destructive & else., "WMAP can only see 300,000 years post-Big Bang. With this view of the universe, scientists will be able to see if string theory is right (33)." [38] Can they also see if string theory is wrong?, "The LHC will shed some light on this. And if string theory is right, the LHC will be able to create miniature black holes, though this has yet to happen. The LHC may also reveal hidden dimensions that string theory predicts by pushing the heavy particles through, but this also has yet to happen (34)." [38] So they just will even though no real evidence, [38] "Despite such sensitivity, no deviations in the theory of gravity were detected (35)." [38], "Still, the search goes on, and if such a collision is found, it will be compared to the expected particle, which is known as a neutralino." [38] The actuality of the spread of formal structures and definitions to the natural persons's means like neuronal patterns to generate ideas is as indeterminate as the shadows in Plato's cave. "no idea can ever land" A mind-independent, personal attitude-independent universe has no ideas. Ideas can land through the interaction between the person's mental states, sensory experiences, systematic combination, motivation & luck. We can share two different definitions that lead us act the same at certain timeframe. For example, A announce that he likes to eat "dogs". B said that they like it too. They discuss ideas on how to marinate & which combination of sauces they should use & then walk away with B thinking that A means a shortcut for Hot Dogs meanwhile A thinks that B eats dogs. That conversation would work & be productive in terms of generating ideas if B don't question certain details. Now imagine an approximation of that confusion-trait of this Hot-/Dog-scenario but with every single word having meanings to each person, which when certain details are ignored during this entire idea-producing conversation, then this conversation continues like it's normal. [1] https://www.loc.gov/collections/finding-our-place-in-the-cosmos-with-carl-sagan/articles-and-essays/modeling-the-cosmos/whose-revolution-copernicus-brahe-and-kepler [2] https://www.loc.gov/collections/finding-our-place-in-the-cosmos-with-carl-sagan/articles-and-essays/modeling-the-cosmos/whose-revolution-copernicus-brahe-and-kepler [3] https://a3nm.net/work/research/wrong/ [4] https://old.reddit.com/r/learnmath/comments/14fearw/does_a_notation_really_make_mathematics_less/?rdt=58673 [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguistic_example_sentences [6] https://philpapers.org/archive/PENOVR.pdf [7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language [8] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meaning [9] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/language [10] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mental [11] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spirit [12] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idea [13] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/connotation [14] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/signification [15] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/significant [16] https://www.academia.edu/28835995/An_Example_of_a_Concept_in_Mathematics_Without_a_Definition_unpublished_paper_written_June_22_1995 [17] https://www.academia.edu/108916837/Exploring_Mathematical_Definition_Construction_Processes : 2006, Educational Studies in Mathematics [18] https://senioritis.io/mathematics/geometry/understanding-undefined-terms-in-mathematics-building-blocks-for-mathematical-concepts/ [19] https://notesfromthedigitalunderground.net/the-view-from-the-west-the-history-of-objective-realism/ [20] https://theconversation.com/how-einsteins-general-theory-of-relativity-killed-off-common-sense-physics-50042 [21] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/04/29/common-sense/ [22] https://profmattstrassler.com/2023/06/20/dismantling-common-sense-twice/ [23] https://archive.org/stream/humanaccomplishmentthepursuitofexcellenceintheartsandsciences800b.c.to1950charlesmurray/Human%20AccomplishmentThe%20Pursuit%20of%20Excellence%20in%20the%20Arts%20and%20Sciences%2C%20800%20B.C.%20to%201950%20CHARLES%20MURRAY_djvu.txt [24] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00016-014-0142-8 [25] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270398554_Newton_on_God's_Relation_to_Space_and_Time_The_Cartesian_Framework [26] https://hypermodern.org/Article/einsteins-thoughts-on-god-a-response-to-the-misconception [27] https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/24989/sample/9780521824989ws.pdf [28] https://polcompball.wikitide.org/wiki/Scientocracy [29] https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/ay2pep/cmv_communismsocialism_as_theories_sound_like/ [30] https://www.w3.org/services/html2txt?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpolcompballanarchy.miraheze.org%2Fwiki%2FNational_Capitalism_with_Thai_Characteristics [31] https://polcompball.wikitide.org/wiki/Racial_Nationalism [32] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/author/charles-murray [33] https://www.splcenter.org/resources/extremist-files/charles-murray/ [34] https://www.vox.com/2018/4/10/17182692/bell-curve-charles-murray-policy-wrong [35] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Murray_(political_scientist) [36] https://dn790009.ca.archive.org/0/items/humanaccomplishmentthepursuitofexcellenceintheartsandsciences800b.c.to1950charlesmurray/Human%20AccomplishmentThe%20Pursuit%20of%20Excellence%20in%20the%20Arts%20and%20Sciences%2C%20800%20B.C.%20to%201950%20CHARLES%20MURRAY.pdf [37] https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/n0jp96/are_there_any_alternative_logic_systems_which_are/ [38] https://discover.hubpages.com/education/How-Can-We-Test-for-String-Theory [39] https://www.britannica.com/topic/logic/Logical-systems#ref1049434 [40] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recursion [41] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/return [42] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revert (ignored by RumbleArena: "Reference-List goes with Hyperlink first and then footnotes.

Debate-note:a

Feedback-note:v

2026.02.10/academia .edu/143936160/Metaphysics_the_Old_and_the_New_Physics_and_the_Emergence_of_Modern_Philosophy : Knowing what the center between old and new metaphysics are. I searched it on eTools.ch with all search engines on and you were my first result. I am curious about what the consensus between Newtonian mechanical materialism and Kantian modern weak agnosticism is, the center of the early modern 18th century (more common sensical and empirical) and late 18th century late modern worldview (more scientific and rational), because that's what my interpretation of Michael Pendlebury let me too, that's where I meet objective (non-arbitrary standard of correctness) realism (true/false-determined mind-independent world except the minds). I question whether moderate skepticism is part of objective realism on objectivism (2024/philarchive.org/archive/DUNRAO : p.11: Part of objectivism-chapter: "This line of reasoning suggests that even paradigmatic non-objective domains will satisfy Cognitive Command, and the No Triviality feature is violated. But it is only suggestive, since one crucial assumption is that facts in non-objective domains can be known. We could of course reject this, and endorse Moderate Skepticism for non-objective domains:

Moderate Skepticism Not all of the facts in D are such that someone could know them."..."Whether it is a structural feature of objectivity that Moderate Skepticism is not true of non-objective domains is not a question I will try to answer here. But it is a substantial and non-trivial consequence of Cognitive Command that, if it can satisfy the No Triviality condition, non-objectivity must be accompanied by a degree of skepticism.") or not (2025.08.03/philpapers.org/archive/PENOVR.pdf : Michael Pendlebury: p.11: Humeian at bodies is anti-realist. Humeian at physical laws is anti-objectivist and can be concluded as Humeian skepticism being partly anti-objectivist anti-realism. Objectivism is opposed to skepticism, subjectivism, and relativism.) and I tend to mix correlating concepts.

Feedback-note:a