Scott Mayers

I am commenting on the judge's words. She mentioned stats that have no justification in fact. She also is clearly biased external to this case and her own opinions suggest she is not qualified to her powers as a judge. My concern is not merely about her though. I am asking how anyone in society justifies using the stat that 2/3 of women do not report their assaults. It first presumes that such assaults are certainly true by default and raises questions on how such a stat is determined. Another example of using stats like this is in the media when they report polls or other opinion stats with the added qualification of statistical errors when these are intentionally used to convey absurd accuracy for something that cannot HAVE any 'accuracy' let alone the precision it is meant to represent. Only one understanding the math is sufficiently qualified to even appropriately interpret the meaning of any precision measure.

I just saw that Judge sentencing Larry Nassar and she mentions statistics that I question regarding women. In particular, HOW does one interpret the statistic that "2/3 of women" are unreported incidents of rape and sexual assault? If they are 'unreported', how do these idiots interpret these as valid statistics. ...especially by a judge!? I automatically dismiss any credibility to those using these conveniently made up stats in their position of authority. If they can't appropriately keep out unproven claims as 'true' without evidence, how do they have a right to be authoritative?

@ ?Impact Yes I agree. To the "ALL" I meant the general population particularly of the Middle East with respect to the Judaeo-Christian Bible only. There is as much history (and records of it) missing and, like Natural Selection, most of it is screened out just as more species die off than get passed on.

The original scriptures of most religions did NOT write their works with any specific religion in mind. Only re-editing by many political interests have co-opted their secular history and turned it into religions, usually favoring specific people with absurd bias. Genesis, for instance, was NOT a specific set of stories about a specific group of people but a collection of secular knowledge written in a way that summarized their intellectual interpretations of ALL peoples then without bias against any specific beliefs. So to them, the bible summarized the secular knowledge (including science) of what they knew at the time, though much of it is now distorted to 'fit' with the evolving editing teams of people wanting to alter it to their political ends. So just because today's scientists hold a conventional explanation in common today, it does not mean it is correct. Truth is not 'democratic'. Unless you know the history of Steady State theory and what it is, you won't know that today's Big Bang theory has come full circle to 'agree' with the Steady State theory. What happens in institutes is that they CONSERVE credit to the collection of their intellects to a point that they cannot UNDO it without risking the credibility of the institute of science itself. It is POLITICAL. The quotes about the Big Bang theory you quoted above is FOR a naive audience like yourself to argue against the religious views you hold, NOT to discredit other scientific explanations. I believe they are mistaken to use that argument precisely because it DOESN'T remove doubt by those like yourself. Rather, you EVOLVE to adapt the views accepted by reinterpreting to support your view in defeat of their intent to dispel it. If I now tell you that I am God, would you now 'deny' me? What would you call yourself if you lack reason to believe in me?

There is a purposeful 'blurr' in the politics that keep the peace by what I referred to as "support" here. What most do not know is the history and cross reference between the science, philosophy and politics regarding scientific theory because most people cannot handle the reality. While many of us can handle a nihilistic reality without the fear of falling into the depression that reality means when understanding nature, there is still a real problem should we abandon the concerns of those supporting religious beliefs regardless of how I or you may dislike it. I used to think differently until I studied enough of history, science and politics and noticed that there IS a risk should society accept the truth without care and consideration. Maybe we may be able to find a means in the future to resolve the concerns about irrational thought. But we are not yet even able to handle the kind of changes today regarding the present witch hunts of various cult-like thinking that even the non-religious community is adapting today BY even many scientifically 'credible' people. So I tend to at least understand the reason why those like Betty here are struggling without holding prejudice against her personally for any apparent irrationality. She is NOT irrational in light of how many outside of her views still do not see where they too ARE 'religious' in their own arrogant hypocritical ways. Our political "Multicultural" system is one that I see as just a repeat of ancient history playing out. For example, our ancestors of Egypt were NOT polytheistic irrationals as most interpret them today. To me this is proof that to in another 4000 years (if we should still exist), others will look back at our time and interpret us inappropriately as 'polytheistic' idiots as they adopt a new religion based on our scientific heroes as religious profits and gods by then.

Canada's "public school" includes the Catholic religious school that is Constituted by law to function as a kind of 'voucher' for taxpayers of the religious to take money away from the non-religious public variety. Also, in Canada, unlike the U.S., teachers are here permitted to teach religious beliefs if it reflects who they are. Our country is a constituted 'religious' type of system that is only relatively diminished in that the privileged particular religions constituted are Catholic liberal ones. This makes them 'benevolent' dictators of religious laws. But it is STILL religious...just as we still have a benevolent monarchy (== benevolent dictatorship). So any resistance to the religious views are actually relatively disempowered here by accident of the fortune of the establishment only.

I'm atheist. The 'Big Bang' is NOT actually appropriately 'scientific' in my opinion precisely because it does support at minimal a Deistic interpretation with political intent, not sincere logical sincerity to intellectual integrity. But this is an argument that I'd have to defer to a scientific and logic thread on Big Bang versus Steady-State theories derived in the atmosphere of changes in the early part of last century. In this point, I agree that it supports a 'creation' type of theory because it proposes an origin that derives with a whole state of matter existing in a specific quantity that is indifferent to just saying "Abracadabra, and then there was X quantity of matter and energy uniquely fixed for all time from nothing." If 'nothing' is allowed to BANG into everything without requiring explanation, this is logically equivalent to "God works in Mysterious ways", ....it just replaces the word, "God" to an implied, "Nature". But without concerning science and institutional politics involved, you can equally replace your interpreted words, "Created" with "Cause", "Creator" with "that which causes". Religious origins are as much about early humans trying to interpret rationally what reality was. The words for gods derived from words that were identical with secular meanings of nature. "God" is actually a form of word derived equally from the word "good" because the view of one class of philosophical origins places the duality of nature to FAVOR "good" versus "bad" (or evil). Most ancient religions simply interpreted reality as "dualistic" and why the word "Deist" was a common word originally. the "Dei" was a reference to "two". "Dia" and "Diva" are related. (Diva- is where we get "divide" as in to break into two kinds) Some believe that if WE are special beings, why would nature allow us to supersede all other creatures in nature. If WE believe that we and our lives are "good", how can nature derive what we are without some origin that favored it by default? Most ancients actually more logically argued that IF we are derived of ANY value, it has more rational reasons to begin in "evil" given we are an IMPROVEMENT upon those origins. This became blasphemous to some to think because it makes them feel nihilistic. But even Judaism derived this way from the Egyptians as such. The reason "YHWY" was treated as taboo to name was an accidental evolution of the misinterpretation of the philosophical interpretation of nature to derive of NOTHING. The original meaning of the ineffability of god (or the gods) was because they treated nothingness as something that we cannot mentally interpret as a cause and so is "unspeakable". This turned into the now false interpretation by some that this meant that it is was a crime to speak of, not simply something that could not be understood using words. "In the beginning, some source (Je ovah == the egg or 'source') derived everything from nothing but it was a 'good' thing." This particular view was to contrast with most who interpreted reality as deriving either from evil OR to nothing evil nor good. The logic to the indifferent origin is: IF NOTHINGNESS is the origin, it does not even have LAWS that it requires obeying by nature because it IS 'nature'. As such, what is "good" CAN derive from an origin with NO morality; But you CANNOT have an origin of some source that began 'GOOD' because if it was also a compassionate being, it is the equivalent cause of 'BAD'. How or why some being should contain and cause all which includes the evil could only come about if 'evil' was separate from a being which was ONLY 'good'. As such, this being either had to be a part of a bigger totality which makes it subject to OR it had to originate as 'evil'. You can rationally argue from our perspective as humans with morals that we begin ABSENT of either 'good' or 'evil' (NOT MERE 'innocent') and then evolve to BECOME better by making that distinction between "good" or "bad". Science either way does NOT support ANY origin UNIQUELY. There will always be some religious interpretation that will FIT with the reality in some scientific or philosophic view. Your interpretation is a perversion of ancient views that more likely derived with non-religious (secular) rationale that only BECAME religious in time.

"Religion" etymology The 'secular' concept is merely the ONLY expedient between differing views about nature outside of our capacity to all agree to with clear evidence of the source. We cannot prove what we are not empowered to disprove by definition. So when one holds a religious view that asserts a power one cannot prove nor disprove in some capacity outside of first 'believing' it to be true, it is too expectant of a system to rule over ALL people without some strong force. If your God is already sufficiently powerful to dictate concerns on Earth, it would do so without the need for some particular humans to form a system of rules that we are not defaulted to 'know' beyond our genetic nature upon birth. You cannot presume ANY system of religious view through politics without corruption of those ruling to dictate what the present ruler asserts is true simply for asserting that they are a vessel of God's will (given they are in nature's power of fortune to rule for whatever reason.) In other words, all that is required for ANY religion to rule is for the present one with the biggest gun to dictate that their fortune of power is itself PROOF that nature by God sanctioned them as the one who SHOULD be empowered.

Cool. The biggest dreamers are the thinkers not afraid to take a risk thinking aloud.

I remember seeing a set up as this in a movie or tv series using a giant Ferris wheel arrangement. I went to the actual YouTube page to see the comments when I noticed he was pulling it back. Above some thought this guy was doing it without reason. He was trying to show that EVEN IF you begin the momentum in the opposite direction to the working of the machine (a 'relative negative energy'), it still cancels that (goes back to a stop) and then moves in its forward-biased direction. This does present a puzzle. But because the commenting is blocked, we cannot see if others determined the 'trick' this video was using. If this was sincere, it would allow commenting feedback. They likely fear being revealed by the magicians who know the trick. You cannot use this video because it IS just a trick here. We cannot check to see if there are no springs or other things set up to make this system actually reverse its direction like this. The original ones intentionally trying such systems would NOT actually think you could do this! So this video is a purposeful joke....likely done by skeptics (of my own community, sorry) mocking the gullible. I asked you if you had an impenetrable box as an extreme example at first. I was meaning that you should recognize that you could not put IN any 'change' (energy), nor take OUT anything from within because of this given. Unless you had some hidden dimension that could transfer information indirectly, you cannot make an exchange of information without imposing some kind of force on the box that could reveal its contents. But that would then be 'energy IN' no matter what you do. If the box had sufficient unending energy within, its pressure inside would continue to increase forever. Given the imaginary impenetrable nature of the box I presented, this example should at least make you realize that IF such a container created energy inside, one way you could 'test' it is to seal it off with some means to see if you can 'trap' this energy and wait to see if it explodes. If it ADDS information (energy or matter), anything we have made out of matter would NOT be impenetrable and explode if you tried to contain it. You can't count 'circular' energy that exchanges within this imaginary box because that energy would be conserved. So if you actually had a perfect ring that you initially spun in a vacuum out of the effects of gravity (deep space), that object would spin for an extremely long time. But even if you did something like shine light on it to see it (observe it), this, though tiny, would be enough 'IN' energy that would alter its state and slow down. That is, you CAN create a real system that does create movement that goes on forever, but you literally cannot even 'observe' it because the very observation of anything is a kind of 'input' and/or 'output'.

Then you have no 'solution'. You're just helping to conserve the present situation with a claim that no one can do anything about it. Just ignore this thread then. It's intended to discuss IF we 'can' do something given any hope to do anything. Otherwise we may as well be talking about whether Atlantas citizens should permit Plato to speak on its behalf.

Imagine a box that is made of some perfectly pure impenetrable solid to which we cannot open. Do you believe that you can use ANY technology to inform you of what is inside it without being able to find some way to penetrate the box?

Then there IS no solution by your view....or none that you believe could serve anything other than whatever should incidentally BE the case. [...like whether we could control whether an asteroid might hit us tomorrow, for instance.] Is that a fair assumption?

Because this thread is so long and old, I can't participate directly. But I wrote a summation of a theory on Temples and Sacrifices the other day here if anyone wants to look at. It is relevant to my take on this subject. Treat the summary as a 'conjecture' here because it is not an official proof here.

[Nice name. Are you THEE Robert Greene, of "48 Laws of Power" fame?] I agree. Today's Western (and more 'right-winged) approach is to merely allow population to grow without forced limits because personal 'power' of economic growth requires accelerated new populations to create demand and profit. There own type of 'population control' exists. But it is in the form of war because war is also highly profitable. I actually recommend that "48 Laws of Power" to read or review by your namesake because it actually has some indirect explanations of how power is actually functional regardless of its lack compassionate concern. Power differentiation exists more where population pressure exists. As an example, in my own city, because of mere 'temporary worker' laws set up by the federal and provincial laws a few years back, a great influx of population all of a sudden appeared here. This created a false demand upon the real estate market, including rents. The apartment buildings everywhere were filled up and created a demand favored to the owners to increase rents drastically. (Mine went up 250% since 2010!) This demand created an increase in home builders and increased the costs of all houses and properties everywhere. This lead to a temporary economic boom but is (or will) collapse if we cannot actually find a prime or secondary resource for industries here. If we were a hot-spot for vacationers, more housing might make sense as it then acts as a prime and secondary source. As such, while this experiment proves problematic, in essence, population growth DOES make many rich. ....at the expense of an increasing degree of poor too. We need a form of laws that pertain to birth controls similar to China's (but better). This belief that we'll survive as a whole by evolutionary standards comes at a cost of a lot of suffering, especially if you were one of those poor.

I don't know if it could be realized either unless you have ALL countries assign the same rule because of what you say. All it takes is one country that still maintains corporate secrecy rights to prevent any one country proposing revealing names. It would also do the country that is open to such information possibly less advantaged in future corporate interests there. ...which means even LESS potential taxes of those companies here that are registered elsewhere!

I respond. It's hard to debate with you because you ARE an Israeli supporter AND with a more personal interest because of your own emotional connection as being Jewish related. When some case is brought before a court about some crime involving one's personal relations, while one could be relatively fair in other issues, the family's links make them liable to act without logical reflection. You respond too defensively without realizing your biases. I understand it but cannot help if we cannot step back and look at it objectively. The maps I used shows the prior peoples in Jerusalem which shows that even the Jews were in less numbers than even the Christian presence there at a relatively recent time (people involved in those times still exist and affect the politics there!) This makes any argument about latter periods that alter the conditions moot if you argue for anything but WAR and POWER of force (might) as some right to maintain Israeli support. It is hypocritical to also support an even earlier ancient time as some just claim by Jews if they opt to selectively IGNORE what occurred in between. That is, you can't beg people have COMPASSION to defend the ancient Jewish claim of ownership when the same people ALSO argue for a NON-COMPASSIONATE right-to-might justification to ownership of that area for the Jews now. You must remain consistent: If you opt to ask for some 'right-by-justice' arguments through some compassionate expectation, you can't take its contradictory stance, 'right-by-might' arguments and expect you aren't being sincere. Because many take emotional issues on this subject for some connection to that area by some religious-cultural beliefs of their own (or some economic ones too), you will tend to ignore ANY remote arguments for your 'side' without concern for that consistency when arguing.

Sorry for the late response. I was taking a 'neutral' stance in the approach I was explaining. If you look objectively at the situation, the Israeli nor Palestinians could resolve the problem FROM WITHIN. IF we, as the rest of the world, were NOT affected by their turmoil, we could ignore them completely and let them kill each other on their own. But we ARE affected everywhere by what occurs there. If this were not the case, then no one here would have any justification to be discussing why one of 'us', as Trump represents, as an outsider, should care one way or the other to even have a concern to demonstrate favor nor disfavor of Israel nor Palestine's need to declare Jerusalem as the domain of either side. Because of the significance of the Palestinian/Israeli issues imposed upon us all, we require demanding a U.N. type resolution that removes Jerusalem from anyone's' UNIQUE power over that contentious historical place. I already doubt your actual sincerity as being the 'American' you claim if you don't recognize how Washington D.C. represented this KIND of resolution when it was created. We should also impose upon Israel to abandon all 'settlements' and divide the whole region (without inside influence) to 'states' that have boundaries of equal right to a 'contingent' land with part of it connecting to Mediterranean access. Walls should be torn down as well. To me, IF this cannot be done, we need to either abandon trade to or from those impeding an actual solution that is not of a genocidal nature. And if this is still not being done, we should completely destroy the whole area and 'reset' it for the rest of the world to have a peace and chance to resettle it with fair people.

Well 'fella'..., you DIDN'T. And if you actually think you did, than you don't qualify to answer scientific questions. Altai was proposing the question of whether you can get 'free energy' out of a system she was proposing. The "perpetual moving" machines are proposed by even many relatively intelligent people, including the original scientists who deemed them incapable of being rational. It doesn't require merely trusting some authority (even a noted scientist) to understand. That's "FAITH", not intellectual understanding, logical NOR scientific. If there is any more frustration that a good scientist hates is one who can't think for themselves. This includes those who blindly trust them because it is precisely what inhibits science and intellectual reasoning in the first place.

This is a Federal announcement by Morneau and why I placed this topic here and NOT in 'political philosophy'. But it is just as valid there. I just saw on CTV's news network (or CBC's, given I watch both back and forth) that Morneau is proposing to suggest a law that exposes the ownership of corporate shareholding. I thought about this long ago as what is NEEDED in our day because we cannot determine where conflicts of interest exist. Our society (worldwide) is losing ground on faith in the marketplace precisely because there are highly likely hidden cross-ownerships in shareholding of APPARENT distinct competing companies. This hidden capacity is protected in secrecy mostly for the sake of making shares "liquid" (easy to exchange as dollar bills). This originally was an accidental factor about the nature of that liquidity. Anyways, his announcement is likely a distracting appeal to give those like myself a willingness to overlook his own recent concerns of inappropriate financial behaviors. But this is as much good news to prevent any behaviors of his concern if only because it publicly spells out who actually CONTROLS which industries. Many industries now are 'virtual monoplies' to which we can assert as a conjecture but cannot definitively PROVE because of the secrecy protection provided by Corporate Laws prevent this one major factor from demonstrating it. What do you think, if you follow the economics? Did you ever consider this secrecy concern yourself? AND, do you actually think that this major gesture of change that could expose too many people in the corporate world would actually pass if proposed as a bill?

I apologize for the depth. If you want to understand what the problem is, I can't explain in a mere sentence. I am guessing you need the illustrations and short ask-and-response steps to understand. I CAN try if you actually want someone who knows the science and can explain HOW other scientists of the past DID originally try thinking as you are here and HOW they deemed it wrong. You ARE thinking the way the early scientists thought too prior to changing their mind when they investigated it with care. AND it took more work writing than I just wrote to get there. There are many scientific books that took thousands of more pages to understand than my attempt at simplifying it. If you want a simpler explanation, then accept OftenWrong's answer.

You didn't respond to my own question. I was trying to demonstrate to you that you may likely lack certain knowledge by HOW these laws are certified specifically. It isn't sufficient to "KNOW" the laws by mere memorizing it, as is being focused on today's early science education. The 'proofs' are what is "fundamental". I ask you again, so I can see and show you what I mean, HOW Galileo 'proved' that gravity is independent of its mass? What's with the "little fella" insult? Did you take offense to something I said? The 'topic' is about Altai's missing 'understanding' of the laws. You only asserted her ignorant of something that is NOT her fault due to the present education system that cannot focus on all the details necessary to UNDERSTAND because the laws of science today are stated PRIOR to being proven in later education, a 'backwards' change necessary to make university education remain practical.

Too much to respond to today. It appears my 'depth' may too deep for anyone here. I'll try to come back later and possibly try again later tonight.

This is still not appropriately taught regardless. Even a university education on physics will not assure this is understood by some. This is because a 'law' is often taught on the initial physics level as "law" without the actual LOGICAL proof. A mere claim of experimental conclusions isn't sufficient if you don't learn to internalize an understanding. Most people are taught 'facts' without proof until later, a reversal of the original "classic" education of a bottom up (foundational) approach. The end of "modernism" is the label of the times from Galileo to Einstein. When Quantum Mechanics and the Mathematical/philosophic introduction of 'limitations' in logic, math, and science (Godel, Turing, Einstein, Russell, and Heisenberg's efforts, among many others) ended [roughly the end of 1950s], this became a new era of approach with education, ['post'-modern] in which we reversed the WAY education was taught. Instead of bottom up foundationally by learning proofs from scratch including the way the historical philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists, DISCOVERED their findings, we teach a "top-down" way that begins with using ABSTRACTION. This is logically useful for practical sake only because there is now so much knowledge one would require to understand going bottom-up that people get turned off of that approach and stop going through higher education. The space age threatened the Western world because the lack of sufficient wisdom of new scientists and thinkers from the west as competing societies demanded. As such, they teach with a means that expects to get students who just 'trust' the laws by memory without actually knowing 'why'. While this gets taught later by some fields, the loss of the early exposure to foundational thinking makes those with even bachelors degrees in science less capable of adopting the bottom-up style of thinking. It advances MORE employment quicker by getting students through there degrees with less expectation but does an injustice to the understanding. I don't know where you stand on this Oftenwrong, but as an example, can you tell how Galileo demonstrated that gravity operates independently of its mass?

I can simply this argument in an extremely logical way. But it will require spelling things out very specifically. If you have patience, I think most, if not all, might agree to the concern in how I will explain it. Step 1: Assume that we are as gods that can look into any one of our own or each other's creative worlds that are simplified versions of our own. Insight one: IF any of us chooses to, we can opt out of looking at any worlds. If you are one who opts NOT to look (not to 'observe'), you have to remain indifferent to judgement about the worlds that others voluntarily participate in observing. This means that for you who do NOT want to look, you LACK the capacity to judge whether the world that others DO choose to participate in observing. This may seem all too obvious. But my first point in this set up is that if we cannot or choose not to observe some world, we can easily dismiss what we lack knowing. For the Israeli-Palestinian 'world' (or worlds we can imagine some of to create), this means the simplest absolute solution to ANY problem we 'judge' is to simply NOT OBSERVE it. Insight two: Given we are 'gods', we cannot be "forced" to look or observe any other world but our own. (We could technically create our own worlds too by initiating it and then ignore it after that, of course.) So, for this Israeli-Palestinian world, all we can contend with is to those who 'choose' to look at the situation. This at least makes you eligible to judge. If at any point you walk away while the rest are continuing to observe, you may miss information that may make you ineligible to further judgments. In other words, if you do NOT participate in the essential details about what those of us DO choose to observe in this 'experiment', you may be disqualified by those of us who have been there throughout the experiment. This point I am making can be compared to hearing "HALF" truths about some situation or scenario of hearsay by some friend who might be gossiping about themselves or another. The information COULD be true that you 'observe'. But if you only have part of the story, a half-story could be worse to draw conclusions than the whole one. So, I ask that you read each part in order here for the argument and if you opt to skip part of it, you may miss some significant detail that would make you understand fairly. Step 2: Let us 'gods' consider a simplified world that has the following components: (1) and Island or Islands will represent a limited environment within any world we create for this experiment, (2) Two people of equal initial conditions, such as being 'twins' in genetic kind. The islands will be our sub-worlds within worlds that we can imagine represent isolated conditions within a larger universe that 'may' have some possible affect on them if we so choose. For the people, let us imagine one to be P0 and P1, where Px will stand for any one of them arbitrarily. Step 3: First let us imagine observing a world where each Px live on their own islands in some given world: Fig.1 In this world, each have their own island and so there is no need to question whether they can affect each other. This kind of scenario is as two distinct people withing distinct environments. It is similar to the condition of the world we are observing as being isolated from those other 'gods' here who opt out of observing. The difference is that we can 'observe' these Ps worlds and so our observations CAN affect us for the act. If it 'harms' us for looking at, we can simply STOP looking and go on to do something else. However, it could pleasure us even for simply entertaining us and keep us participating. What I am leading to is that we should choose to 'judge' these worlds upon some set of goals that we observers have in common. The 'common' goal I desire here is to agree that we UNDERSTAND the scenario that relates to some common other 'sub-goals' that we set up for our worlds in an "objective" way. For instance, we have to agree that we SEE the same world we are observing at present and to the conditions we set as some example to test. For the above scenario, the 'goal' is to understand the above figure as two distinct islands with two distinct peoples. I will label them with the subs '0' or '1' in what follows. But the image above is to help us see that these are two 'copies' of people (P) with identical circumstances. My subgoal here is that we 'agree they are isolated peoples that do not affect one another in this given world'. If this is the case, we can move on to the next step. Step 4: I will change the world such that these two people are distinct with the same initial conditions that live on the same world (goal). The 'subgoal' here will be to 'agree to the subconclusions I present below as insights.' Fig.2 Insight: If the island is sufficient to enable both Ps to exist and their existences do NOT prevent either one of them from perishing, P0 and P1 will not require 'affecting' each other for the better or worse. In this condition, both Ps are a part of their environment and for this condition, that they not require affecting each other AND their existences do NOT prevent either one of them from perishing, they may live peacefully whether they pay attention to one another OR later opt to affect one another. This conditional world means that even if they CHOOSE to later on to do anything with each other, EVEN if it seems to be potentially 'hazardous', they cannot actually cause either of them to perish. This state is a kind of "don't care" situation because this world is not really LOGICALLY different than the prior world in Fig.1 regarding their survival one way or the other. Step 5: Let us use the same world set up of Step 4 with Figure 2 BUT alter the condition such that Px can affect each other. Because they are equal, it is arbitrary which one we pick to represent the first actor or the other in what follows. This means that I will arbitrarily pick P0 as one who behaves first with P1 responding. Furthermore, let us assume that IF they choose to affect each other, they can now potentially destroy the other AND they do not even KNOW of 'harm' nor 'pleasure' (any emotive values these represent of 'value') unless they are affected that risk their survival. Insight: If they behave without actions that harm the other, each survives and have no emotive value one way or the other. They don't 'need' each other for their survival and so are relatively 'indifferent' to each other. Insight: If we imagine P0 act in some 'accidental' way that affects P1 by threatening its life, P1 derives a novel emotion of discomfort as its survival is now threatened. Though confused of this novel experience, it knows that P0 is the causal agent in the environment and so derives a dislike against him/her for that behavior. At first, he/she may attempt to walk away, but if (s)he gets too close, P0 eventually behaves similarly. P1 decided to try to communicate this discomfort to P0 by indicating s(he) 'feels' threatened. [I'll use "he" from now on to make this easier. I hope none of you other gods find offense. Just let it mean any of us.] P0 is irreverent towards P1. How can it 'know' what even a 'feeling' is? P1 may as well be saying, "I am jucapultasic towards you", some made-up word that means nothing and perhaps confusing. Not being buffed by its 'free will' to behave, P0 doesn't take offense nor interest at first. So he repeats the act towards P1 . This may help P0 to make better sense of the meaning of jucapultasic. But P1 being assaulted again, has an infuriating anger, more negative feelings, towards him and strikes back hard with a copy of that behavior. That is, P1 now acts with reflective force against P0 in an amplified version of what he did to him. (Maybe this strong reaction seems justified to make up for the two assaults P1 received from P0, he thinks). P0 now has discovered its own novel emotion of discomfort. But it is even relatively worse towards him as he almost dies and it takes some time to regain his health and mind enough to do anything about. P1 in the meantime is now "relieved" and so experiences a pleasureful emotion. While relieved, he leaves P0 alone as he is no longer affecting him negatively. His experience of discomfort makes him realize that he has a sympathetic reflection upon the action and opts NOT to continue any more harm towards P0 as he heals. Insight: If comparing this to real circumstances, we might think of this as children who learn of what is or is not harmful and pleasant from initial experiences. I conditioned this without a 'positive' default towards each other in the way the Jewish nor Muslim community may feel initially indifferent to each other prior to any harm that might instigate emotive problems. While the 'relief' represents what might be a type of incidental 'pleasure' that arises distinctly from each other's relationship. They may feel pleasures external to each other. But this might be like Px possibly having some default 'comfort' about themselves without a need to seek it beyond their internal experiences. The set up here for WHO might be WHO here is irrelevant. P0 could be Muslim (or Palestinian) OR Jewish (or Israeli). All that matters is that they derive some initial experience that caused both to be 'affected' negatively towards each other. I've also used this neutral thought experiment to show how in this initial condition, no one is at 'fault' FROM OUR GOD'S EYE-VIEW. This way, we should now all agree that these comparisons are possible conditions for the real world, even if they may not be the literal case in fact. As 'gods' we act as nature's reality that knows of whatever truth is about these groups without bias. Like nature, we could be indifferent to the details of these people, just as P0 and P1 are indifferent to each other as Px. Step 6: Continuing on the last step, let us agree as gods to continue observing to see what happens. We may be able to alter the conditions as gods, but being our mere creations, any 'harm' or 'pleasure' these Ps have do not concern us because we could undo this for simply erasing our creations. What we want to determine for now is IF they can resolve the problem ON THEIR OWN. They may both be able to and not be able to if we randomly ran the world's again in what follows. But under those situations, we'd have to grant them a 'free will' beyond OUR relative knowledge of their choices. This is then just to see what 'possibilities' may occur if we blinded ourselves to incidental details. For instance, in some contingent world, the original 'harm' done by P0 may have been done without P1 initially knowing that the act came directly from P0. It could have been due to some apple falling out of a tree by P1's lack of knowledge. So let us guess some possible continued scenarios instead from what we've already determined instead. Let it be the case that from Step 5, P0 recovers and though some time is passed, he no longer trusts P1 in a bit stronger kind than P0 because that very strong single blow was sufficient to put a greater emotional discomfort and even some 'fear' with respect to P1. P1 on the other hand is only mildly concerned but more confident for its experience and belief that it successfully communicated to P0 what it means to be harmed. But later, when P1 confidently walks past P0 forgetting and perhaps 'forgiving' him already, gets a violent blow from him all of a sudden. P0 was fine until P1 walked too close and he figured that to avoid the kind of extreme threat he experienced before, he'd strike first without hesitating. He only strikes P1 as hard as he experienced before. P1 has now experienced the MORE harmful experience that he gave to P0. He asks him 'why' he opted to act that way. He also adds that it was he who started the initial attack before and so his own action before was a 'reaction' to the harm imposed upon him. P0 responds that he only gave back precisely what was given to him. He may have 'accidentally' harmed P1 before but does not believe that he is 'liable' because he lacked intention. P1 asserts that this very attack was also only an initial natural response for the experience of discomfort he experienced for the attack. BUT, P0 , he argues, was MORE harmful for both "knowing" how he was harmed. So why did he justify this new attack? P0 then reasserts that even his initial harmful attack was long ago and was nowhere as harmful (twice as less) as P1's second blow. P0 argues that he hit him twice only because he was still ignorant of the meaning of the words, (like jucapultasic), he used to communicate the harm. Insight: We now have what I believe is the comparative condition of the Middle East's Jewish and Muslim issue with each other. As gods, we see how the scenario of P0 and P1 begun by relatively 'innocent' behaviors and seems to escalate from there. What might possibly happen is that they BOTH recognize the logic and realize that they both simply have to agree to STOP. The emotions involved though may also possibly continue to affect them and they might begin to argue who should stay on the island for not being able to effectively trust one another any longer. Each has now gained such emotional discomfort that they reactively fear each other beyond even their own 'logical' means. They each decide that the best solution would be to have one of them leave the island. One of them could find some other island and they both could then live in peace, right? I could expand upon this here but this should be enough at least to see if we have any agreement thus far. I believe this is the 'kind' of condition we have for the Israeli and Palestinian dispute. They both want to claim a place they initially shared at some point. While one may have been 'first' in some even earlier time, this still doesn't satisfy their resolution because they both seem to share the view that they cannot live together, if even just for some genetic reflective discomfort. Is there a possible solution? One I suggest, as gods, we are akin to 'observers' outside of Israel. We may not BE 'gods' relative to them in fact. But we are AS 'gods' if we are like the scenario above because we may possibly CHOOSE to act in some way to alter their conditions from without. To me, we could find some island that is equally as attractive to each,....copies of identical places they could exist in comfortable isolation. But we are NOT actual gods and so cannot alter the 'natural given world' we live in. But as observers that can be considered culpable for 'observing' what is occurring, we MAY have some influence. The U.S.'s decision (Trump's announcement) acts as some outsider directly imposing some outside 'god'-like support. This is like one of us demanding that say, P0, should leave the island without being able to have created an island for them to go. This condition is like 'favoring' one party over the other when both are objectively not at fault. But the 'support' of one comes at the expense of cursing the other as though they WERE in some 'wrong'. And even if they were to accept some assumption of the outside deciders to be selecting favor/disfavor WITHOUT emotional judgement, being the one of the parties that is of such a coin toss doesn't reflect well either. Should the Muslims/Palestinians, for instance, accept some 'suicidal' demise by nature simply for some arbitrary "fairness" of nature to toss the dice against their favor? This emotionally laden circumstance to me COULD be solved better if WE were to find a way that they both can coexist on the same island WITHOUT bias of favor nor disfavor to the other. Giving the 'prized' land (Jerusalem) to one or the other exclusively is equally as divisive because it still disrespects one of the parties, namely the Muslims here. We also do not want to reverse this either. The best solution is to try to make the 'prized' lands, like Jersusalem, NON-P0 and NON-P1 owned but to a Px place that is both inclusive of sharing with them AND any other 'x' of P that may come along now or in the future. Does this make sense? Do you other 'gods' here agree? Can you ADD to this with additional models onto this to see if there are any other solutions?