Posts by Mark Torres14

Dennis Rogers6 said:Precisely. It’s just the infinite monkey theorem in digital clothing, I suppose.
/
I have to admit, Mark Torres14, I didn't quite follow your train of thought there. Why on earth do you think true randomness is just an illusion..?

Because the kind of randomness in that link of yours only works if you assume the world runs on deterministic rules. It’s like saying we're playing a "game" with set parameters and infinite ways it could play out. Most people mistake that freedom of choice for pure chance just because it doesn't fit into old-school determinism.
Determinism is a hard pill to swallow for most people because it implies there's some sort of grand design behind everything. Anyone who isn't religious runs from that idea like the plague. But can you actually have determinism without a purpose?
To me, true randomness is a singularity. You have to admit—it's a pretty impossible concept.

Olivia Evans8 said:I totally disagree. Seriously! Just grab any random string of ones and zeros you want, and eventually, some infinite random number generator is gonna spit out that exact sequence...😉

Olivia Evans8, I define randomness as a total lack of causality.
Pure randomness or pure causality are just paradoxical, absolute concepts that flip into their opposites when taken to the extreme.
We already covered this when we talked about infinity.
The reality is, our world exists somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.
To support this "relative" determinism, look at motion and time. Time wouldn't even exist if every single particle was moving in every direction without cause. It works both ways, too. Motion happens within time, so without time, there's no motion.
The simple fact that eggs break instead of unbreaking is proof enough that some level of determinism exists in this world. Sure, you could theoretically reverse the process tomorrow, but even that's just another form of determinism.
True randomness would be if eggs were constantly breaking and unbreaking at random, leaving you totally unable to find an algorithm to predict the outcome. That would be absolute chaos.

Raymond Miller38 said:Thanks.
I searched for the thread but couldn't find it. Send me a link here or via PM.

Well, as I mentioned, the problem of laws can be viewed through the lens of a created universe versus an eternal one.
Let me rephrase the issue.
For example:
- Are the laws—the rules governing particle behavior—simply an inherent consequence of particle properties and the only possible way they can interact?
- Or are particles configured such that they react to one another in specific ways, even though it might have been possible for identical particles to interact entirely differently?

The first scenario aligns with an eternal universe. The second suggests a created one, where a designer sets the mechanisms and establishes the rules, much like setting the parameters for a game, and then lets the process unfold.
In the first case, interaction is a direct result of properties; in the second, the rules of interaction are pre-programmed.

A brief physical overview regarding the second scenario:
Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks. There are 24 types of quarks (6 "flavors," each with three "colors").
Theoretically, higher-energy experiments might reveal that these particles are made of even smaller components. However, other theoretical frameworks suggest this could be the fundamental level of division.

Why mention this? All known particles in the universe fall into two categories: spin-1/2 particles, which constitute matter, and spin-0, 1, and 2 particles, which mediate the forces between them (spin isn't our focus right now).
There are four fundamental forces in the universe, each based on its own force-carrying particles (spin 0, 1, or 2).

Beyond this, my knowledge is limited. I don't have precise answers to the questions that intrigue me.
Specifically: would a universe consisting entirely of identical spin-1/2 elementary particles be possible if the force-carrying particles were different?🤷

Since I am not a believer in any creator, I lean toward the eternal universe and its consequent rules—though that is difficult to conceptualize and somewhat paradoxical, as it requires a moment where particles are nonetheless "thrown" together.
The subject fascinates me so much that I sometimes overlook what is strictly accurate.

My assumption is that laws do not change. Regardless of their nature—whether imposed or consequential—I believe their properties remain constant over time.
Unless the fundamental nature of these relationships shifts due to the quantitative properties of spin 1/2 particles—or perhaps some Creator steps in and decides things should work slightly differently in this manufactured universe. I highly doubt either will happen.

As for permeability? Look... I'm too tired to deal with this right now. I'll tackle the nature of that tomorrow. 😁

Here you go. [Link]

Look, like I said before, you can look at the issue of laws through two different lenses: either within the context of a created universe or as part of an eternal one.
Let me rephrase the problem.
For example:
Are particle laws—basically the rules governing how particles behave—actually just the end result of their properties? And if so, is that the only possible way they can interact?
Either particles have properties that force them to react in specific ways, or we’re looking at something else entirely. It’s wild—you could have two identical particles interacting in completely different ways just because of how they're tuned. It makes no sense.

One case brings us closer to an eternal universe, while the other points toward a designed one—where a creator sets the gears in motion, lays down the rules like a referee in a ballgame, and just lets the play unfold.
Look, it’s simple: in the first case, the interaction is just a natural byproduct of its properties. In the second, the rules of engagement are hardcoded from the start.

That whole dualism thing goes all the way back to ancient times. At the end of the day, it just brings you right back to the classic "chicken or the egg" dilemma.
But we still haven't touched on why these specific patterns exist—the ones we call the laws of nature. Whether they're just baked-in properties or the result of certain interactions, they all point to one thing: there's no such thing as coincidence. The whole world is deterministic. Period.
Even Kant figured that out. It ate at him—the fact that you can't squeeze metaphysics out of a simple cause-and-effect loop. That’s exactly why he decided it was impossible.

Time to talk more about the second part—let’s look at the physics for a second.
Protons and neutrons aren't just simple particles—they’re built from quarks. We're talking 24 different types in total: 6 distinct "flavors," with three "colors" for each.
In theory, if we could crank up the energy levels in our experiments even higher, we might find out that these particles are actually made of something even smaller. But then again, there’s another side to the theory suggesting this might just be the fundamental breakdown point.

What’s the point of this? All the known particles in the universe fall into two camps: spin-1/2 particles that make up all the actual matter, and spin-0, 1, or 2 particles that just trigger the forces between them. (And honestly, we don't even need to get bogged down in what spin actually is right now.)
There are four fundamental forces in the universe, and they all rely on their own specific force-carrying particles—spin 0, 1, or 2.

Once we move past this point, my knowledge hits a wall. I'm stuck, and honestly, I don't have the answers to the very questions that are driving me crazy.
So, would a universe made up entirely of spin 1/2 elementary particles even work if the strong force was different?🤷

Since I don't believe in any kind of creator, I’d rather just align myself with the eternal universe and its laws. It’s a tough concept to wrap your head around, though—it almost feels contradictory. You still need that split second where particles are basically "thrown" at one another to get things moving.
I get so sucked into the nature of stuff like this that I sometimes don't even care about what's actually accurate.

You’re definitely not alone in being obsessed with how nature works.
Great explanation.

My guess is that the laws themselves stay fixed. Regardless of what they actually are—whether they were imposed on the universe or just emerged from it—their properties aren't going to shift over time.
Unless, for instance, the fundamental nature of relationships changes because of the quantitative properties of spin 1/2 particles, or if some Creator steps into this created universe and decides things should behave slightly differently from now on. Personally, I doubt that'll happen.

Do you think any of the laws could have been different back at the beginning when the universe was still young?

Transience? Ugh... I'm already exhausted, so I'll wrap my head around the nature of that tomorrow.😁

Everything passes, even transience itself.
We'll pick this up once you've had time to think.

Raymond Miller38 said:What makes you think that's true?
Relativity tore apart the classical understanding of space and time. It’s a reality, but most people (aside from those who just use the phrase "everything is relative" as a cliché) find it completely incomprehensible.

Quantum physics broke absolute determinism, and chaos theory challenged practical predictability even on a macroscopic scale.

(Since I don't know your background in math or physics, I'm attempting to be as simple as possible.)

The laws of quantum physics were discovered by accident through studying phenomena that defied classical physics—blackbody radiation, the photoelectric effect, and the atomic model.
Consequently, about 100 years later, we understand that subatomic behavior isn't an isolated anomaly; randomness is the foundation. Macroscopic classical mechanics is merely a special case of quantum mechanics, not the other way around.

An electron doesn't conform to our classical observations of waves or particles because an electron is neither a wave nor a particle.
Furthermore, it isn't subject to the laws of classical mechanics or electromagnetism that we observe in our daily lives. Under those classical laws, atoms couldn't exist, meaning the world wouldn't exist either.

Electron behavior is described by a probability function. An electron isn't precisely "somewhere," so we cannot know its location.
It exists in multiple places simultaneously. You shouldn't view an electron as a particle, nor should you view its presence in multiple locations as several occurrences of one particle. The same applies to waves. An electron is a wave-particle. This is proven through experimentation; it works in practice.
Electron behavior follows its own set of laws, which are more or less understood. In some theories, uncertainty isn't caused by the limits of our observation, but is actually built into the laws themselves.
This is the physical law with the greatest philosophical implications. 🙂

Interpretations of this problem split into two main schools of thought: one that accepts uncertainty as an inherent property of the particle, and another that believes there are unknown variables, laws, or patterns we simply haven't found yet due to the uncertainty principle (meaning they would be experimental rather than fundamental).
However, uncertainty is far more serious than if we simply assumed it was a way to excuse our own ignorance. It is both theoretical and experimental.

You're interesting and you explain things well. Personally, my math skills are non-existent and my grasp on physics is pretty weak. I mostly approach these topics from a philosophical angle.
I've had a few debates with a skeptic lately, and right now I'm going back and forth with Dag Dugp over on the science subforum. The topic is "speed of light constant or not?". Check it out—if it interests you, jump in. With what you know, it shouldn't be too hard.
For the most part, we agree on our stances, though we definitely clash when it comes to how we view determinism. My take isn't quite as Hegelian, though; I actually see quantum mechanics as solid proof that determinism exists.
But hey, we're getting off track.
What do you consider to be the laws of nature?

Raymond Miller38 said:Why would the world fall apart?
Probability isn't the same thing as a direct, mechanical cause-and-effect relationship. Every event yields an outcome, but when multiple outcomes carry equal weight, prediction becomes limited to probability alone.

There are two perspectives here. One is that a specific outcome is simply one possibility among many—some of which are clearly impossible. Precisely defined. But that's not for us to decide.
If I understand you correctly, you’re siding with that logic. It’s like rolling dice. You can't predict which of the six outcomes will land, even though the result is just a direct consequence of physics—the mass of the die hitting the table. Clear cause and effect. Still unpredictable.

It’s deterministic. But since we lack all the variables, it remains nothing more than a prediction.

Second point: we aren't just calculating probabilities for a specific outcome—like rolling dice. There are no hidden variables at play here. The result isn't random because we lack data; it is inherently random by its very nature.

It's an indeterminate system.

I agree this is problematic. However, I have no leads on how to speculate or what framework to use for analysis.

I agree. I tend to approach these metaphysical questions from a scientific perspective. I try to weigh every thesis against hard data or pure logic. Eventually, in this field, that becomes an impossible task.

Chance is an affront to the laws that govern everything else. Determinism isn't just some theory; it's baked into every single layer of reality, even down at the quantum level. The only place where randomness actually gets a seat at the table is at the very beginning—the singularity.

Probability isn't the same thing as a "pure" mechanical cause-and-effect relationship. Sure, every event is going to lead to an outcome, but if you’re staring down multiple equally likely possibilities, all you can do is make a probabilistic guess. That's just how it works.

Exactly.

There are two ways to look at this. One view is that a specific outcome is just one possibility out of a whole set of potential results—some of which clearly aren't even on the table. Precisely defined. But we can't exactly know that for sure.
So, if I’m following you, you’re actually buying into that idea. It’s like rolling dice. You can't predict which of those six outcomes you'll get, even though the result is just a direct consequence of how a die of a specific mass and size rolls across a surface. Clear cause and effect, yet totally unpredictable.

This thing is deterministic, but since we don't know all the variables, we're basically just making educated guesses.

Second point: we aren't just calculating odds like you're rolling dice. There are zero hidden variables at play here. The outcome isn't random because we're missing data—it’s random by its very nature. Period.

That's an indeterminate system.

Can you break down that last paragraph a bit more? I want to know exactly when this kind of non-deterministic system actually kicks in.

I’m with you on that. But honestly, I always try to tackle these metaphysical questions from a scientific angle. I want to weigh every thesis against hard data or pure logic, though I have to admit—in this field, that starts getting harder and harder to do the longer you look into it.

We’re just overthinking things here, and honestly, who cares? I’m definitely not going to hold it against you if you trip up, just like you won't with me. As long as it's interesting, that's all that matters.

hollowpuma762 said:*cough*

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/....18/light.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...011801683.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in517850.shtml

http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=39733

I'm not going to budge. I still say the speed of light is constant. Not a fraction more, not a fraction less.
Slowing down light is a completely different concept and has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.
Prove me wrong.
P.S. Use your own words. I'm sick of the links. This is a forum.

Raymond Miller38 said:Current scientific consensus is clear. You cannot simultaneously define both the velocity and the position of an electron. That is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
The consequence isn't just that predicting the future becomes impossible—that's practically an established fact now. According to Heisenberg's interpretation, the electron's movement is fundamentally random.
Einstein disagreed with the idea that "God does not play dice." His stance was that while we might be unable to determine both position and velocity simultaneously right now, those variables remain deterministic.
Since we can't theoretically or practically define both velocity and position simultaneously, we're left with nothing but faith. I have to be careful how I frame this when discussing physics. 😛 We follow the evidence, plain and simple. Both sides. As far as I know, mainstream science leans toward the first theory—the accidental one.

That’s exactly it. When I say "driver," that is precisely what I mean. Someone, something, some force, some entity, some persona, some other reality, SOMETHING.
I don't view the Creator as Western. I don't see Him as something that can be subjected to our logic at all.
To be clear: I view your two options as one single, alien, and unknowable thing.

Like I said earlier, that's completely outside the scope of our logic. I realize it isn't the most entertaining stance for a debate, but I’ve always believed it is vital to draw a line between what can be reasonably assumed and what is simply unknown.
I don't know if there even is. to Space. Time. Does space itself emerge from something that isn't spatial? 🤷

I don't hold a definitive stance on whether the universe had a beginning or not. 🙂

I’m telling you, cause and effect still apply here. If they didn't, the whole world would have fallen apart by now. You can predict the future, sure—but don't be naive. It's not some straight line; it's all about probability.
Uncertainty just means nothing in this world can ever hit an absolute zero. If it did, we'd be staring at actual "nothingness."
Quincy:

That’s exactly it. When I talk about a catalyst, that’s precisely what I mean. Someone, something, some force, some being, some personality, some other reality, SOMETHING. I don't see this creator as Western. Honestly, I don't even see him as something we can wrap our heads around using logic. Look, I see both of your options as one single thing—something totally foreign and impossible to wrap my head around.

If we’re building logic around the idea of an unmoved mover, then our whole goal should be figuring out what that mover actually is. I'm not buying into that defeatist attitude where people claim they experience something as a single entity, but then just shrug their shoulders because they can't reconcile its internal contradictions. I refuse to accept that some things are just "unknowable" because they're too complex. Not happening.
I don't know what to tell you. You're just talking in circles now.
Like I said before, I’m completely cutting that out of our logic. Look, I get it—it’s probably not the most fun way to argue, but I’ve always believed you have to draw a line somewhere. There's a massive difference between making an educated guess and talking about something you know absolutely nothing about.
I don't know if there is. I'm ready. Send over the first post. Space and time—do they actually exist, or are they just emerging from something else entirely? 🤷

I don't have a strong opinion either way on the version with the intro versus the one without. 🙂I don't know what you're talking about. You're missing the point entirely.
It’s not about the specific premise. It’s about throwing a thesis out there just so we can tear it apart, stress-test it, and smash it to pieces to see if it actually holds water against reality. If we can't find a flaw, then fine—it becomes a theory. But even then, we keep pushing it, stretching it, and trying to break it again as new ideas come along. That's how this works.
It's absolutely not happening here.

Raymond Miller38 said:Agreed. It doesn't have to be Big Pork.
We are discussing the general theory that reality had a beginning. I used that specific example because it’s the most studied scientific model.

Let's assume that's the case, even if...
That logic holds in the macroscopic world, but not at the atomic level. The issue is that certain subatomic inconsistencies could influence the macroscopic world—essentially providing the data point from which all subsequent cause-and-effect events unfold.

Personally, the mover isn't a paradox to me. I can't explain it, certainly. But that's the point. Finding a concise way to describe my perception is difficult.
I don't even categorize a potential mover within spatial-temporal concepts like motion or stasis. To me, the existence of a mover implies something incomprehensible. Not because its nature might be impossible to uncover, much like subatomic behavior.
It's simply beyond human comprehension.

Besides, triggering the universe is just one theory; one that relies entirely on the existence of this unknown factor.

😕 Why on earth do you think the chain of cause and effect doesn't belong to the atomic realm?
Can you actually explain what you're claiming in more detail?

Personally, the Prime Mover isn't paradoxical. Look, I can't explain it. But that's the whole point. I don't know how to put into words what I'm experiencing here.
I don't even categorize a potential mover within space-time concepts, or motion versus stillness. To me, the existence of a mover implies something fundamentally incomprehensible. Not just because its nature might be impossible to uncover, like some weird subatomic behavior (maybe).
It’s simply beyond our capacity to grasp.

But it *is* paradoxical.
That leaves us with two options. Either this "unmoved mover" doesn't exist at all and the world is driven by other logics we haven't figured out yet, or it does exist, but since we are part of it, we're stuck inside looking out and can't observe it from the outside.

Besides, setting the universe in motion is just one theory; one that relies on the existence of this unknown factor.

Time is just a measure of motion. No motion, no time.
Can there even be a space where nothing exists—no matter, no beings, no movement, and no time?
I get the feeling we already know everything; we just haven't figured out how to piece it together correctly.

Raymond Miller38 said:Here is my take, sitting somewhere between scientific fact and my own judgment. Perhaps "scientific assumptions" is a better term, since science is constantly evolving; there will always be gaps or things taken as absolute truth that aren't.

> If the universe had a beginning, then there must be a mover.
The argument that this represents the beginning of time holds up at a macroscopic level—it’s what is observable. It applies to the material world, and our current knowledge aligns with the idea that there was indeed a starting point.
However, it isn't "justified" or even logical to claim that, say, Big Pork happened entirely on its own. Science doesn't make that claim, even though critics often accuse it of lacking a prime mover.
The reality is that we simply cannot access "moment zero." Even if a mover for Big Pork exists, everything we know about the world remains valid (unless it's proven that this entity intervenes in the world after the fact).

Speculating on the nature of the mover is impossible. But I'll simplify it: if "it" (whatever that implies) set things in motion, my intuition tells me it embedded the laws within the system.
That doesn't mean those laws are above or below the material world. Nor does it mean they are more or less real. Think of it like a sport: the game has rules. It makes no sense to compare the reality of the rules to the reality of the sport itself (assuming the mover doesn't interfere—meaning once the "game of the world" starts, the rules can't be changed or broken). 🤷

If we assume there is no interference, it becomes possible to predict the end of the human era. The total destruction of all reality is unlikely, but a complete collapse of our current state is possible. That said, everything we know suggests that won't happen.

> If the universe has no beginning, then there is no mover.
This theory raises far more questions regarding natural laws. The core issue is grasping what preceded what, given that both would have existed eternally. 🤷

I'll leave this part unfinished for now. Something just occurred to me, but I need to dig through some texts to organize my thoughts. It involves physics, so I won't wing it. 😁

I'll wait.
But you don't even need to look at Big Pork as an example.
Just look at basic motion. It's obvious that motion happens through a chain of cause and effect. The real question is: who kicked off that reaction? Simply existing and being conceived leads to the initiator. This entity has to pull double duty—being both moving and stationary at once. Stationary because it's the first mover and nobody "pushed" it, yet moving because it's the one pushing "the second."
Implicitly, the start and end of any movement fall into a paradox. They are simultaneously motion and stillness (the unmoving mover).

Raymond Miller38 said:This is an interesting thread and easy to follow, though I’m struggling to pin down the actual core issue here.

Are we looking for a definition of permeability, debating reality versus abstraction, or something else entirely? I want to contribute, but there are so many overlapping terms that I'm not sure where to start.🙂

Welcome. 🙂
In short, the topic is about the origin of natural laws and the fleeting nature of the physical—and perhaps ideal—world.
Get involved. Flip the script or bring something new to the table. Based on what you've written before, you've got plenty of potential to do just that.

Emily Anderson4 said:You write so well. I really love your perspective—cheers to you!

I was just wondering... If an ideal world exists solely to serve a purpose (or act as a reflection) within the real one, why shouldn't it belong to that same reality? ---> That isn't even an argument, per se—I'm just genuinely curious to hear your thoughts on it.

It does belong. Once we use the term "real world," we've already defined the concept and opened the door to the existence of another one. Using the adjective "real" implies there's a boundary and a limit.
That's exactly why the concept of "the world" is much broader; it can encompass both the real and the ideal. Simply put, "world" has no opposite. There is no "non-world."

Jonathan Brooks8 said:What you're saying is completely off base... Johnny has zero influence, which is exactly why he's an outsider. If he actually mattered, you'd have real material for your analysis about how he compares to this guy or that guy. As it stands, Johnny hasn't given anyone—not even you or me—any actual substance to work with.

Being an opponent back then was simple and consequence-free... while the people singing songs and mocking the system, the real power players pulling the strings, crossed that bridge a long time ago by looking ahead toward the politics of division and dismantling, leaving these anarchists to end up looking like nothing more than hopeless romantics....

I'm with you. Johnny showed up right when I was in college, and his arrival lined up perfectly with groups like Charlie, Idol, and The Rolling Stones (Laura was still in high school back then, near the downtown campus, while I was living in a nearby student dorm)....... Honestly, I think I caught Johnny's first or second concert in Chicago, where we were all blown away by how much he rejected the status quo, not to mention that incredibly tight, flawless live sound. That was right after the death of the old leader.
Back then, the biggest hit in Chicago (and the whole USA, really) was "Ann" by Silver Wings.
I think Johnny only became a legend for the generations that never saw him live. It's probably because he vanished from the music scene at his peak without explaining himself, which gave his exit this mystical—and if you ask me, totally unnecessary—vibe.

Shouldn't we look at anarchism as a product of its own era? It’s like trying to apply Thomas More's "utopia" to the world we live in today.
To me, anarchism aligns the core interests of the individual with those of society. It frees the individual from that split identity, merging them into one. You lose that whole Ford dilemma of "to have or to be."
In a philosophical sense, you could basically equate anarchism with communism—the only real difference is how fast they want to force social change.

William Gonzalez3 said:Honestly, you all are such little fighters.
If the US military were made up of people like you, toppling the global order and establishing a new one would probably be nothing more than a joke.

That being said, I suspect this discussion on anarchism shouldn't get too... well, anarchic—we really ought to steer back toward the actual subject at hand.
In my view, everyone seems to be approaching this from the wrong angle.
Essentially, you are searching for viable, practical economic models—and every other kind of framework, for that matter.
However, you seem to be overlooking the fact that anarchy is, by its very nature, a utopian concept. Therefore, any economic model intended to govern within it shouldn't be anything less than utopian—which is to say, impossible.
The possible simply cannot function within the impossible.
So, perhaps we should pivot toward looking at more idealistic solutions.
For instance, let's consider how an anarchist society might actually operate, and what specific preconditions would need to be met for it to even work.
In an anarchist system, society would have to act in direct opposition to how things work today regarding those who cause harm to the community.
Instead of rewarding or celebrating them—instead of feeling that envy or thinking, "Look at him, he really made it, if only I could do the same"—everyone should simply turn their backs on them.
Workers would need to refuse to work for unscrupulous employers; families would need to distance themselves from members who choose paths of vice, malice, or general debauchery.
To take a local example, an organized anarchy on a forum like this would be entirely feasible if the members of every sub-forum just ignored those who stir up trouble, commit wrongs, or spread toxic thoughts and bad vibes.
In that scenario, moderators wouldn't even be necessary.
Broadly speaking, if we functioned that way, neither institutions nor authorities would be needed, and the world certainly wouldn't descend into chaos.

But what happens when the trolls, the bad guys, and the toxic people band together to ignore all the decent folks? How do you stop them without a moderator?
It’d be pretty interesting to take just one single section of this site and try applying anarchist principles to see how it holds up.
Take me, for example—I’m "sick" enough that anyone who likes flowers is an enemy in my book.😁

Zachary Turner6 said:The first three points aren't just theoretical—they’re actually happening right now. Any serious business model looking to stay competitive—which basically means staying one step ahead of the pack—is already implementing these kinds of operational strategies.

As for items 4 and 5? Those are pure fantasy. You will always find someone willing to manipulate the system for their own gain, and frankly, that’s not even a difficult feat—if you actually read them, I can certainly provide some real-world examples if anyone is interested.

dustyskipper3 said:1) Connecting the workforce through a massive information network that isn't owned by any single entity—basically built on voluntary contributions and service ads from individual producers. Think virtual companies, decentralized operations without those old-school hierarchies, ad-hoc teams, networking, and digital marketing, things like that;

2) Using open-source software that gets constant updates;

3) Trading goods using virtual currency and its derivatives—you know, stocks, options, and other securities traded on virtual exchanges. I guess the stability would be maintained by constantly tracking supply and demand across various points in a unified global market for goods and services;

4) Continuous, self-regulating consumer satisfaction checks via electronic voting or deliberative decision-making through networks. If someone provides poor service or just fails to deliver, they’d automatically lose their customer base and might just have to throw in the towel;

5) Social assistance based on voluntary donations and advertising—kind of like how charities today run ads for sick or underprivileged children through big corporations, but this would be decentralized and handled through various free services maintained by the network users themselves on a pro-bono basis.

etc.🙄

I just highlighted the parts that belong in a sci-fi novel given where humanity is currently at. Otherwise, this is just a slightly more liberal version of capitalism stripped of any actual governance. It all boils down to "voluntary" participation.
What if I'm a killer? How does this society defend itself against me?

dustyskipper3 said:1) Connecting the workforce through a massive information network that isn't owned by any single entity—basically built on voluntary contributions and service ads from individual producers. Think virtual companies, decentralized operations without those old-school hierarchies, ad-hoc teams, networking, and digital marketing, things like that;

2) Using open-source software that gets constant updates;

3) Trading goods using virtual currency and its derivatives—you know, stocks, options, and other securities traded on virtual exchanges. I guess the stability would be maintained by constantly tracking supply and demand across various points in a unified global market for goods and services;

4) Continuous, self-regulating consumer satisfaction checks via electronic voting or deliberative decision-making through networks. If someone provides poor service or just fails to deliver, they’d automatically lose their customer base and might just have to throw in the towel;

5) Social assistance based on voluntary donations and advertising—kind of like how charities today run ads for sick or underprivileged children through big corporations, but this would be decentralized and handled through various free services maintained by the network users themselves on a pro-bono basis.

etc.🙄

Pure utopia.
It won't work.😕

It’s pretty interesting how most Socialists were totally on board with Bakunin’s ideas. At one point leading up to the Paris Commune, Socialism and anarchism were basically two sides of the same coin. The only real sticking point was how fast to scrap the state. Bakunin wanted it gone instantly, while the Socialists argued for a transitional phase—Socialism. Looking back, the Paris Commune proved the Socialists right: you can't tear down the old system and build a new one without some kind of transition period, no matter what you call it.

I can weigh in on Bakunin if that helps you out.

Here’s how he envisioned the future organization of life:

- Peace, freedom, and happiness for the oppressed
- War against all oppressors and looters
- Returning capital, factories, tools, and raw materials back to the workers
- Land belonging to those who actually work it
- Total equality for everyone
- Equal opportunities for development, upbringing, and education for all, without exception
- The ability for everyone to live off their own labor
- Organizing society through a free federation
- A bottom-up structure via worker associations—industrial, agricultural, scientific, and artistic—starting with communes
- A federation of communes forming regions, regions forming nations, and nations joining the Bakunin International

Bakunin famously said that "the people will find no relief if the club used to beat them is called a 'people's club'." He was dead set against any form of statehood and opposed fighting for mere political freedoms. To him, political liberties were just a trap that fed the people's illusions about the state.

It's pretty clear that Bakunin's anarchism didn't provide a concrete economic model, just rough outlines of his vision.

Cheers

Michael Jones66 said:Intriguing topic... Obelix put it quite elegantly. 🙂
Obelix, would you mind walking me through how truth is defined within pragmatism? I’d appreciate a bit more depth if you're up for it—it’s clear you have a handle on the philosophical lexicon. Of course, anyone else who feels they have a better grasp on the pragmatic definition of truth is more than welcome to weigh in. I’d be grateful.

Too bad Obelix isn't on this forum anymore. Maybe he's lurking under a different handle?
I'd love to have a real debate with him, but looking back at his old posts, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't even be able to hold a candle to him.

hollowpuma762 said:I agree that the lack of reading is an issue, and yeah, the fact that people actually do read is part of it too, but honestly? They’re being served the exact same garbage we’ve been fed our entire lives.

Around here, the real problem is figuring out WHO is doing the serving these days.
It's all uneducated, low-brow, illiterate types... just total nonsense.

Let's just set aside the beauty of literature and everything a good book offers for a second.

What do you guys think is the reason kids aren't interested in books? Why is it all just "too slow" for them?

It's because this modern lifestyle—where everyone has the so-called "freedom" to own and enjoy everything that used to be reserved strictly for royalty—creates one unavoidable side effect: superficiality.

Who’s going to bother reading when you can get the same thing served up in instant pictures and soundbites? Who’s going to use their imagination when you can just buy a fantasy at any convenience store? Honestly, if we keep going down this road, who’s even going to have kids when you could just rent a surrogate to do the work for you?🙂😉😁