Linkey

Such replies usually have the meaning "if someone threatens me with nukes, it is rational for me to surrender". No, it is not rational: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_(game) If Putin and Kim win through their nuclear threats, their appetites will increase and at the next step Putin will say that he will start a nuclear war if the West don't purchase the Russian oil at a high price.

They are both together. I have an idea, that Russia usually overcame Europe, because Russia is placed geographically at the East related to Europe. And all countries which are placed at the East always win the wars with those which are placed to the West. The Mongols overcame Russia in 13th century, and so on. USA won the war with Japan in 1945, because USA is placed at the East for Japan.

China is supporting Putin. If China stops supporting him, the war would end.

Russian economy is now totally dependent on China: if China stops buying Russian oil, Russia would experience economic collapse and famine. Xi does not want to go this way yet, since he as a dictator supports dictator Putin. But Xi is probably unsatisfied with Putin's nuclear threats. I have already said that the West should declare that, in case of a very massive nuclear strike from Russia, the United States should retaliate not only against Russia, but also against of China. At the same time, there is a possibility to interest Xi with the following proposal. China will firstly join the sanctions; then Russia will experience an economic collapse and Putin's rating will fall to zero. And then Xi will give Putin an offer to become the governor of the province of Siberia in PRC. The Sibiria will go to China, the European part of Russia will go to the West. Putin, trying to save his life from a coup, will agree to these conditions and ensure the control over Russian nuclear arsenals. What do you think about this plan?

These two rulers are very similar: 1) Both came to power rather by accident; 2) Both showed themselves as relatively secular, not fanatical, maybe even pro-Western; 3) Both started their rule quite liberally; 4) In 2021, according to official data, Assad "got" 95% of votes in the first tour of the presidential election. Putin "got" 87% in the first tour in 2024. The next point is that any dictator benefits from the situation when the population have a little choice - either this dictator or a civil war. Please tell me if anyone knows how Assad did it in Syria. Currently I understand how Putin does this in Russia: 1) Now Chechnya is in fact an independent state, with a monarchical form of government, currently as an ally for the Russian Federation. But this "union" has to be paid for. Kadyrov has always shown himself to be anti-liberal; and if the next president starts democratic reforms )a thaw_, then Kadyrov will say that he and the Russian Federation are not on the same path, and this president will have to start a third Chechen war; 2) Until recently, another such figure was Evgeniy Prigozhin. He has always positioned himself as an extreme anti-liberal, and while he demanded to ban YouTube and turn Russia into the DPRK, Putin favored him and allowed him to grow; 3) One more such figure now is Viktor Zolotov, a chief of RosGuardia. As far as I understand it, he has his own army with armored vehicles and artillery.

Slightly more than a common person with high education. I know how to diagonalize a matrix with Jacobi algorithm, I know what how does a multiplication of two complex number look like (the "angles" are summed up).

I have found an information about the interpretation based on the two-state vector formalism (TSVF). I will try to retell in my own words what I saw, but I apologize in advance for not understanding many of the said. It is usually considered that the wave function "collapses after measurement", i.e. the collapse goes from the past to the future. However, in fact, we can just as well consider that the measurement collapses the WF from the future to the past (i.e. firstly a unitary evolution goes from the future to the past, then a jump due to measurement, etc.). The idea of weak measurements is based on the fact that you can simultaneously use two wave functions - the one from the past to the future and the one from the future to the past. This is called TSVF. If you take TSVF and throw out the collapse, i.e. threat it as the MWI, but with two WFs, then you get an interesting thing. From these two WFs, we can make a matrix similar to the density matrix, and this matrix will have closed dynamics and obey the von Neumann equation. So, if the usual density matrix simply becomes diagonal as a result of decoherence, then the density matrix of two WFs becomes not only diagonal, but also with only one 1 value on the diagonal. Thus, in this interpretation, it turns out that neither the collapse of the WF nor the existence of many universes is needed. We can interpret this as follows: if we take two MWI trees, one branching into the future, the other into the past (this depends on the initial and final conditions), superimposed them on each other, as a result, one branch is coincided and this is the actual universe. This looks a bit like the transactional interpretation, but I believe the TSVF interpretation is better, since it has determinism, while the transactional interpretation does not. The idea of TSVF interpretation can be formulated as follows: after preparation and before measurement of the system, there is an intermediate state, and it is determined not only by the initial controlled actions of the experimenter, but also by the final result of the measurement. What I have written above is a retelling of posts on the Internet forums, and I must say that I myself understand little here. As far as I understand, the TSVF interpretation combines the advantages of the Copenhahen and MW interpretations: it supports the determinism, and at the same time there are no multiple universes like in the MWI. Please help me understand more on this subject, and in particular I have a question - what is the density matrix?

Of course. When I argue with pro-Putin Russians, I try to tell them that the problems of the Western world (which are emphasized by the Russian propaganda) are caused not by an abundance of democracy (as the Russian propaganda shows), but rather by by a lack of democracy. I believe that the [] which is happening in Russia now, is also happening in the Western world, though in a more soft and hidden form. For Russians, this information is important since the Putin's propaganda tells them that the problems in the West are caused by the democracy, while in reality it is vice versa. For you, studding how the authoritarism works in Russia can be helpful for understanding the causes of your problems.

https://kimgriest.medium.com/real-reason-the-american-middle-class-is-disappearing-901cb78ababf The authors say that the inequality has been growing in the West in recent decades - the middle class is disappearing. This can be measured as the growth of the share of the world's money owned by the richest 1%. The authors attribute this to the fact that Reagan lowered taxes for the rich in the 80s. The authors also write that the mainstream Western mass media are silent about this problem or lie. This is evident with both CNN and Fox News (especially CNN). And this can be explained simply - these 1% of the richest are interested in this state of affairs, and control these media. I will add that other problems in the West have the same cause. Americans have chosen an old freak, and it is clear that in the US there would be millions of people who are younger, smarter ,etc. than Trump. But they are not given the opportunity to become candidates for presidency, because a smart president could become a threat to these 1% of the richest, so this is not in their interests.

You don't deny the Freudianism? It would be correct to say that the Russians know this at some hidden levels of unconsciousness, but not on the conscious level. I have read the book "Diagnosis and Treatment of Multiple Personality Disorder" by F. Putnam, and the author claimes that there is a great difference between the intellectual insight and the emotional one.

In a situation of constant nuclear threats, people still don't know how they work. The people in Russia are brainwashed, but it will be not true to say that they support the Putin's war and his nuclear threats. Most Russians are completely apolitical, they consider talks about politics as something slightly indecent, and they even don't understand that they risk of being annihilated in a nuclear war. The Putin's nuclear threats have a manipulative nature; if the Russians know about them, this would lead to a decrease of Putin's rating in Russia, and soon after that, a new Prigozhin in army will arize who will end the Putin's ruling. It would be a good decision, if Biden creates a public message to Russian on youtube with the information about the possilibities of nuclear war, the amount of nuclear weapon's in the US arsenals and the possibility to destroy the entire Russia. Another good decision will be the declaration that if Putin performs a nuclear armaggedon (massive nuclear strike), the USA will retalite and destroy not only Russia but also China , maybe even nuke one Indian city to kill the Modi's government, because China and India are maintaining Russia. A better way will be to initiate a UN Assembly voting relating this issue. Such a threat will probably make Xi afraid of a big nuclear war, so China and India will stop buying the oil from Russia.

There have been performed some studies which reveal that the Dem supporters rate the freedom of speech as very important less than the Rep supporters: https://www.thefire.org/news/poll-free-speech-top-concern-americans-2024-more-important-crime-immigration-and-health-care The Dem supporters now can even say "we have so many problems because of the Fox News channel, is spreads lies and propaganda, let's close it". And this forum illustrates this trend too:

I feel very frustrated with the victory of Trump. The European politics did all they could to get rid of the armies in their countries (only in Switzerland the population was able to influence something). I hope the Europe will still be able to resist Russia. I could get very depressed if I didn't believe in the mystical factor in history (Time Patrol). Anyway, good news are that the bitcoin will probably grow, and I hope you will start getting interested in it. The bitcoin can help the people overthrow the rule of the financial aristocracy.

There is a well-known prophecy made by medieval monk Ragno Nero: Trump is formally the 45th president, but in fact rather 44th, because Cleveland was counted twice. https://voodoobooks.ru/en/prorochestva-i-proklyatiya-nastignut-baraka-obamu-chto-znachit/ I can show the links to two posts at Russian forums, made at 2009 and 2004, where this prophecy was announced: https://otvet.mail.ru/question/22135018 https://forum.lirik.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=19664

I think that you are wrong, though I can't explain this using your terms like government bonds (I don't understand exactly what they mean). But I have knowledge in other fields which confirm my point of view. I showed your post at a bitcoiners forum, where people know more about economics than me. They replied that of course your statement is wrong, but I can't forward their answer since it contains economic terms which I don't know yet. They said that there is no big difference between the money printing and quantitative easing. As far as I understand, the quantitative easing is a term like "negative growth" - the people who do the easing can't say directly "we emit money". Can you look at these two music videos, please?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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