The Violation of the Absolute Law of Free Will: The Consequences of Misinformation and the Flaws in Freedom of Speech -/- Introduction -/- Free will is often regarded as humanity’s defining characteristic—the ability to make choices based on conscious thought, personal experience, and available information. However, free will is not merely about the freedom to choose; it is intrinsically tied to the accuracy and reliability of the information upon which those choices are made. The absolute law of free will, when (...) correctly understood, dictates that human decision-making must be 100 percent dependent on correct information. Any deviation from this principle, through misinformation, disinformation, or ignorance, constitutes a violation of this law and results in imbalanced, often detrimental outcomes for individuals and society as a whole. -/- Complicating this issue is the modern interpretation and implementation of freedom of speech and expression. While these freedoms are fundamental to democratic societies, they come with inherent flaws when unchecked. The unregulated dissemination of false or misleading information under the guise of free speech creates significant challenges in maintaining the integrity of information and, consequently, free will. -/- The Foundation of Free Will: Correct Information -/- The exercise of genuine free will requires access to accurate, reliable information. Decisions made under false pretenses or incomplete knowledge are not truly free but are instead manipulated or constrained by external distortions. The mind operates like a system that processes inputs (information) to generate outputs (decisions and actions). If the input is flawed, the output will inevitably be compromised. -/- For instance, when individuals base their choices on misinformation—such as health-related decisions influenced by false medical advice—they act under the illusion of free will. However, their actions, though seemingly voluntary, are dictated by incorrect data. This demonstrates that true free will can only exist when individuals are fully informed by verifiable facts. -/- The Law of Karma and the Feedback Mechanism of Information -/- The universal law of karma, which involves the principle of cause and effect, also applies to the relationship between free will and information. Every decision and action causes a ripple effect that influences future outcomes. When decisions are made based on falsehoods, the resulting negative consequences, such as social conflict, health crises, and societal instability, reflect the karmic response to the imbalance created by misinformation. -/- Information functions as a feedback mechanism within societal systems. When this feedback loop is polluted with inaccuracies, the entire system becomes unstable. For example, the propagation of false information about climate change has delayed necessary global actions, causing environmental deterioration. The violation of free will through the spread of misinformation disrupts the natural balance of societal decision-making, leading to long-term consequences that extend beyond individual choices. -/- The Flaws In the Laws of Freedom of Speech and Expression -/- Freedom of speech and expression is a cornerstone of democratic societies, allowing individuals to voice their opinions, share ideas, and engage in open discourse. However, this freedom is not absolute and, when exercised irresponsibly, can directly violate the absolute law of free will. The flaws within these legal frameworks become evident when misinformation, disinformation, and harmful propaganda are disseminated without accountability. -/- 1. The Spread of Misinformation and Disinformation The unrestricted nature of freedom of speech has led to the proliferation of misinformation across social, political, and scientific domains. False narratives regarding health, such as anti-vaccine propaganda, have endangered public health and undermined free will by providing individuals with inaccurate information on which to base their decisions. -/- 2. The Manipulation of Public Opinion Political propaganda, fake news, and conspiracy theories exploit the principles of free speech to manipulate public perception. Authoritarian regimes and interest groups often use misinformation to influence elections, sway public opinion, and maintain power. When people make decisions based on manipulated narratives, their free will is compromised. -/- 3. The Role of Social Media and Digital Platforms Social media platforms, while fostering global communication, have amplified the spread of misinformation. Algorithms designed to maximize engagement often prioritize sensational or misleading content over factual information. The lack of regulatory measures on these platforms creates an environment where misinformation spreads more rapidly than truth, resulting in collective decision-making that violates the law of balance. -/- 4. The Challenge of Regulation Regulating freedom of speech without infringing upon individual liberties presents a significant challenge. Striking a balance between protecting free expression and preventing the spread of false information requires well-defined legal frameworks, global cooperation, and ethical considerations. -/- 5. Hate Speech and Its Societal Impact The misuse of freedom of speech to propagate hate speech, incite violence, and promote division disrupts societal harmony. Misinformation about certain groups, ethnicities, or religions fosters discrimination and social unrest, further violating the balance required for the proper exercise of free will. -/- The Societal Impact of Misinformation -/- Misinformation has far-reaching effects on societal structures, particularly in democratic systems where public decision-making relies heavily on the availability of correct information. The manipulation of information through propaganda, conspiracy theories, and biased media distorts collective free will, leading to decisions that do not reflect the genuine, informed will of the people. -/- Elections, for instance, are a prime example. When voters are misled by false narratives or deceptive political strategies, their electoral decisions are no longer expressions of true free will. The outcomes of such manipulated decisions often result in societal discord, poor governance, and disillusionment with democratic processes. In this way, misinformation violates the collective free will of entire populations. -/- The Role of Education in Upholding the Absolute Law of Free Will -/- To protect and uphold the absolute law of free will, society must prioritize a holistic educational system that emphasizes critical thinking, information literacy, and scientific inquiry. Education should equip individuals with the ability to discern fact from fiction, understand the sources of information, and recognize the potential biases inherent in various media channels. -/- An educational system grounded in the universal law of balance in nature can act as a safeguard against misinformation. By teaching individuals how to process information through rational, evidence-based methods, we can foster a societal environment where decisions are consistently made based on truth. This, in turn, ensures that free will is exercised in its purest form. -/- The Role of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) in Preserving Free Will -/- The rapid advancement of AGI presents both challenges and opportunities regarding the preservation of free will. If AGI systems are designed based on the universal formula that emphasizes accurate information, natural balance, and critical thinking, they can become powerful tools for protecting free will. These systems can help filter misinformation, verify facts, and provide individuals with reliable data upon which to base their decisions. -/- However, the potential misuse of AGI, such as the intentional spread of disinformation for political or economic gain, represents a significant risk. Ensuring that AGI adheres to principles grounded in the universal law of balance and the law of cause and effect is essential to maintaining the integrity of human decision-making. -/- Conclusion -/- The absolute law of free will is inseparable from the requirement for correct information. Any decision made under the influence of misinformation, disinformation, or ignorance represents a fundamental violation of this law. The consequences of such violations are evident in societal conflicts, poor health outcomes, environmental degradation, and governance failures. -/- The flaws Inherent in the laws surrounding freedom of speech and expression further complicate this issue. While these freedoms are essential for societal growth and the exchange of ideas, their misuse creates significant obstacles to the proper exercise of free will. To safeguard free will, society must invest in education, promote information literacy, implement responsible regulations for free speech, and ensure the ethical development of AGI systems. -/- By adhering to the principle that free will is 100 percent dependent on correct information, humanity can create a more stable, balanced, and harmonious society, where individuals and communities alike can make decisions that align with the natural laws governing human behavior and societal development. -/- . (shrink)

Philosophers disagree about whether vagueness requires us to admit truth-value gaps, about whether there is a gap between the objects of which a given vague predicate is true and those of which it is false on an appropriately constructed sorites series for the predicate---a series involving small increments of change in a relevant respect between adjacent elements, but a large increment of change in that respect between the endpoints. There appears, however, to be widespread agreement that there is some (...) sense in which vague predicates are gappy which may be expressed neutrally by saying that on any appropriately constructed sorites series for a given vague predicate there will be a gap between the objects of which the predicate is denitely true and those of which it is denitely false. Taking as primitive the operator ‘it is denitely the case that’, abbreviated as ‘D’, we may stipulate that a predicate F is denitely true (or denitely false) of an object just in case ‘DF (a)’, where a is a name for the object, is true (or false) simpliciter.1 This yields the following conditional formulation of a ‘gap principle’: (D Φ (x) ∧ D¬ Φ (y)) → ¬R(x, y). Here ‘ Φ ’ is to be replaced with a vague predicate, while ‘R’ is to stand for a sorites relation for that predicate: a relation that can be used to construct a sorites series for the predicate---such as the relation of being just one millimetre shorter than for the predicate ‘is tall’. Disagreements about the sense in which it is correct to say that vague predicates are gappy can then be recast as disagreements about how to understand the denitely operator. One might give it, for example, a pragmatic construal such as ‘it would not be misleading to assert that’; or an epistemic construal such as ‘it is known that’ or ‘it is knowable that’; or a semantic construal such as ‘it is true that’. (shrink)

This essay takes logic and ethics in broad senses: logic as the science of evidence; ethics as the science justice. One of its main conclusions is that neither science can be fruitfully pursued without the virtues fostered by the other: logic is pointless without fairness and compassion; ethics is pointless without rigor and objectivity. The logician urging us to be dispassionate is in resonance and harmony with the ethicist urging us to be compassionate.

In this paper I present and evaluate van Inwagen’s famous Consequence Argument, as presented in An Essay on Free Will. The grounds for the incompatibility of freewill and determinism, as argued by van Inwagen, is dependent on our actions being logical consequences of events outside of our control. Particularly, his arguments depend upon, in one guise or another, the transference of the modal property of not being possibly rendered false through the logical consequence relation, i.e. the β- (...) class='Hi'>principle. I argue that, due to the symmetric nature of determinism, van Inwagen is exposed to what I call “reversibility arguments” in the literature. Such arguments reverse the β-principle and start from our apparent control over our own actions to our control over the initial conditions. Since van Inwagen does not endorse a particular theory of laws or logical consequence, he is open to such counterarguments. The plausibility of such reversibility arguments depends on what would be called a Wittgensteinian conception of logical consequence. In the _Remarks on the Foundation of Mathematics_, one of Wittgenstein’s main concerns is the normativity of logical inference i.e. proof. Such concerns with normativity and rule-following are generally a feature of his later philosophy. In the _Remarks_ Wittgenstein resists a conception of logical deduction which places the source of normativity outside of human practice. (shrink)

Sometimes we make mistakes, even when we try to do our best. When those mistakes are about normative matters, such as what is required, this leads to a puzzle. This puzzle arises from the possibility of misleading evidence about what rationality requires. I argue that the best way to solve this puzzle is to distinguish between two kinds of evaluation: requirement and appraisal. The strategy I defend connects three distinct debates in epistemology, ethics, and normativity: the debate over how our (...) theories of epistemic rationality should accommodate misleading evidence, the debate over the relationship between complying with requirements and deserving particular appraisals, and the debate over whether normative ignorance can excuse. Part 1 shows how three apparently plausible claims about epistemic rationality generate a puzzle when agents have misleading evidence about what rationality requires. Part 2 solves this puzzle by distinguishing between evaluations of requirement and appraisal and rejecting the idea that one is required to conform to the Enkratic Principle. I argue instead that complying with the Enkratic Principle provides defeasible evidence that the agent should be positively appraised. One of the consequences of this solution is that false normative beliefs can sometimes excuse agents from negative appraisal they would otherwise deserve for violating requirements. Part 3 defends the view that false normative belief can sometimes excuse against the rival views that false normative belief always excuses, and that false normative belief never excuses. I argue that false normative belief can sometimes excuse violations of requirements, when it is the case that the agent has done what it is reasonable to expect of her. (shrink)

In a recent article, David Kyle Johnson has claimed to have provided a ‘refutation’ of skeptical theism. Johnson’s refutation raises several interesting issues. But in this note, I focus on only one—an implicit principle Johnson uses in his refutation to update probabilities after receiving new evidence. I argue that this principle is false. Consequently, Johnson’s refutation, as it currently stands, is undermined.

The Responsibility of Freedom of Speech and the Role of Media in Propagating Correct Knowledge -/- In modern societies, freedom of speech is often heralded as a fundamental right, allowing individuals to express their thoughts and opinions freely. However, the concept of absolute freedom of speech is not without its flaws. When viewed through the lens of natural laws, including the universal law of balance, the unchecked exercise of speech can lead to societal imbalances. It is essential to recognize that (...) while individuals should be allowed to voice their opinions, this freedom comes with the responsibility to ensure that speech contributes positively to societal harmony, personal growth, and the well-being of others. This responsibility extends beyond individual action and applies to all forms of media, which play a significant role in shaping public discourse and the flow of information. -/- The Concept of Freedom of Speech and its Pitfalls -/- Freedom of speech, in its ideal form, allows individuals to express their ideas and beliefs without fear of censorship or retribution. This principle is grounded in the belief that diverse viewpoints contribute to the flourishing of democratic societies. However, the unrestricted nature of this freedom can also lead to unintended consequences. When individuals or groups disseminate harmful misinformation, spread hate speech, or manipulate public sentiment for selfish gain, the foundational balance within society is disrupted. The unchecked expression of falsehoods or inflammatory rhetoric can create divisions, incite violence, or foster ignorance—outcomes that are contrary to the well-being of individuals and the harmony of society. -/- The spreading of false beliefs, misinformation, or gossip can be especially damaging. Such behavior not only distorts reality but also erodes trust within communities, making it more difficult for people to distinguish between truth and falsehood. False beliefs can lead to irrational fears, biases, or hatred, and when spread, they contribute to the further fragmentation of societies. In the age of digital media, these harmful narratives can quickly go viral, reaching vast audiences before they can be corrected, amplifying their negative impact. -/- From the perspective of the universal law of balance, the free exchange of ideas must be aligned with the greater good, ensuring that speech contributes to constructive discourse and societal progress. Words are powerful, and their impact on both the individual and collective mind can shape reality in profound ways. Therefore, freedom of speech should not be seen as an absolute right devoid of responsibility. Rather, it must be accompanied by an awareness of its potential effects and a commitment to using it to foster understanding, unity, and truth. -/- The Role of Media In Shaping Knowledge -/- Media, whether traditional or digital, plays a central role in how information is disseminated to the public. In today’s interconnected world, media outlets, including news organizations, social media platforms, and content creators, have an unprecedented influence on shaping public opinion. Given this influence, media must be held to high standards of responsibility, as it is the primary vehicle through which society consumes knowledge. -/- The responsibility of the media extends beyond merely reporting facts; it includes the duty to ensure the accuracy, reliability, and relevance of the information shared. Media outlets must prioritize the dissemination of truth, fact-check their sources, and avoid sensationalism that can distort public perception. Misinformation, especially when propagated through powerful media channels, can have lasting consequences on public trust, societal stability, and personal decision-making. The rapid spread of gossip, rumors, or fake news can lead to unnecessary panic, conflict, or even harm, demonstrating the real dangers of unchecked speech. -/- In the age of information overload, the role of the media is to sift through the noise and present knowledge in a balanced, accessible, and responsible manner. This involves not only reporting on events but also offering analysis and context that help the public understand the deeper implications of the information being shared. Media must act as a filter, ensuring that the knowledge people receive aligns with reality, helps individuals make informed decisions, and contributes to the greater good. -/- The Need for Media Literacy and Accountability -/- As media consumers, individuals must also take responsibility for their engagement with information. Media literacy—the ability to critically analyze, evaluate, and interpret media content—is a crucial skill in today’s world. With the proliferation of social media platforms, where misinformation can spread rapidly, it is more important than ever for individuals to be discerning about the sources of information they trust. Education systems worldwide must prioritize media literacy as part of their curricula, teaching students how to identify credible sources, distinguish between fact and opinion, and recognize the potential for manipulation in media messages. -/- For the youth, empowering them to critically engage with media is especially vital. With the rise of social media and peer-to-peer communication, young people are particularly susceptible to the influence of misinformation and gossip. The spread of rumors or false information among peer groups can have serious social consequences, including damaged reputations, broken friendships, and even bullying. It is essential to foster a sense of personal responsibility in the youth by teaching them the importance of verifying information before sharing it and the harmful effects of spreading unverified or negative content. -/- Youth should be empowered to practice empathy and discernment when interacting with information. Schools, families, and communities can collaborate to teach the younger generation about the consequences of gossip and misinformation—how they can harm individuals, societies, and even themselves. Encouraging open dialogue about the ethical use of information and the value of truth can help instill the importance of responsible speech in the youth. By creating a culture that values truth over sensationalism and empathy over gossip, we can work toward a more informed and balanced society. -/- At the same time, media organizations must be held accountable for the content they produce and share. This accountability requires strong ethical guidelines and transparency, ensuring that media outlets prioritize public welfare over profits or political agendas. The role of media is not merely to entertain or persuade but to educate, inform, and serve as a reliable source of knowledge. Failure to adhere to these responsibilities can lead to misinformation, polarization, and the erosion of public trust. -/- The Importance of Legal Laws in Preventing the Spread of False Information -/- While personal responsibility and media literacy are essential, legal frameworks also play a crucial role in curbing the spread of false information. In the Philippines, laws like the Cyber Libel Law (Republic Act No. 10175) serve as vital tools for combating online defamation, false information, and harmful content. This law holds individuals accountable for spreading libelous statements or malicious rumors online, providing a legal recourse for those affected by misinformation. -/- Such legal measures are important because they act as deterrents, encouraging individuals and organizations to think carefully before sharing content that could harm others or society at large. Legal laws like the Cyber Libel Law help ensure that the digital space is not misused for malicious purposes, such as spreading false beliefs, gossip, or misinformation that can cause public harm. These laws serve to protect individuals’ reputations and prevent the viral spread of content that could lead to social unrest or personal injury. -/- Furthermore, legal frameworks can also push media outlets and digital platforms to take more proactive measures in monitoring and controlling the spread of misinformation. By enforcing penalties for the dissemination of harmful content, governments can encourage media organizations and platforms to adopt stricter content policies and invest in fact-checking mechanisms. Legal safeguards not only protect individuals but also promote accountability, ensuring that those responsible for the creation and dissemination of false information are held liable. -/- While freedom of speech is crucial, the presence of legal frameworks ensures that this right is not abused to the detriment of others. These laws help strike a balance between protecting the right to express opinions and maintaining societal harmony by preventing the spread of falsehoods and malicious gossip. -/- The Balance Between Freedom of Speech and Responsibility -/- In light of the universal law of balance, freedom of speech must be exercised with a sense of duty. The right to express oneself must not come at the expense of societal harmony or the well-being of others. Media, as a conduit for knowledge and discourse, must prioritize accuracy, accountability, and ethical standards in its operations. This includes ensuring that the information they share is balanced, relevant, and rooted in truth. -/- At the same time, it is important to recognize that all individuals, including media practitioners, are part of a larger system. Every word spoken, every article written, and every broadcast made contributes to the collective reality we all experience. The impact of these actions ripples out into society, influencing minds, shaping behaviors, and creating a feedback loop that can either strengthen or weaken the fabric of society. By embracing responsibility in speech and media practices, we can help ensure that our collective decisions align with the natural balance of the world around us, fostering a society that values truth, understanding, and mutual respect. -/- Conclusion -/- The concept of freedom of speech, while important, cannot be viewed as a blanket entitlement devoid of responsibility. The power of speech, when unchecked, can disrupt the natural balance of society, leading to harm, division, and ignorance. Media, as a central vehicle for disseminating knowledge, holds a critical responsibility in ensuring that the information shared is accurate, reliable, and serves the greater good. In this context, freedom of speech should be understood as a tool for fostering truth and unity, not as an unregulated license to mislead or divide. -/- Legal frameworks, such as the Cyber Libel Law, provide essential safeguards, holding individuals accountable for the harm caused by false information. By aligning speech and media practices with the principles of balance, responsibility, and truth, society can move toward a more informed, harmonious, and just future. Moreover, empowering the youth to become responsible consumers and sharers of information is essential in cultivating a generation that values truth, empathy, and ethical communication, ultimately promoting a balanced and well-informed society. -/- . (shrink)

The hard problem of consciousness has held center stage in the philosophy of mind for the past two decades. It claims that the phenomenal character of conscious experiences—what it’s like to be in them—cannot be explained by appeal to the operation of physiological subsystems. The hard problem arises, however, only given the assumption that hylomorphism is false. Hylomorphism claims that structure is a basic ontological and explanatory principle. A human is not a random collection of physical materials, but (...) an individual composed of physical materials with a structure that accounts for what it is and what it can do—the powers it has. What is true of humans is true of their activities as well. The latter are not random physiological changes, but structured ones: we engage in them by coordinating the ways our parts manifest their powers. Structured activities include perceptual experiences. Consequently, everything about a perceptual experience, including its phenomenal character, can be explained by describing the perceiver’s perceptual subsystems, the powers of those subsystems, and the coordination that unifies their activities into the activity of the perceiver as a whole. Conscious experiences thus fit unproblematically into the natural world—just as unproblematically as the phenomenon of life. Even exponents of the hard problem of consciousness agree that there is no hard problem of life. Consequently, if hylomorphism is true, there can be no hard problem of consciousness. To insist that there is such a problem, then, is implicitly to reject hylomorphism. The concept of consciousness that motivates the hard problem is as much a theoretical construct, therefore, as the concept of life that motivates an obstinate vitalist. (shrink)

Nature of Consciousness in relation to my Universal Formula -/- By : Angelito Enriquez Malicse -/- The functioning of consciousness is a complex and debated topic that spans neuroscience, philosophy, and psychology. While there is no universally agreed-upon explanation, several frameworks attempt to describe how consciousness functions. Here are key aspects: -/- 1. Perception and Awareness -/- Consciousness allows us to be aware of our environment and ourselves. -/- Sensory Input: Consciousness integrates information from our senses (sight, sound, touch, etc.) (...) to create a unified experience. -/- Selective Attention: It filters out irrelevant stimuli, focusing on specific inputs while ignoring others. -/- 2. Integration of Information -/- Consciousness functions as an integrative system. -/- Global Workspace Theory: Information from different parts of the brain (e.g., memory, perception, emotion) is integrated into a “global workspace,” where it becomes accessible to different cognitive processes. -/- Binding: Consciousness combines sensory inputs, emotions, and thoughts into a coherent experience. -/- 3. Decision-Making and Intentionality -/- Consciousness enables deliberate action. -/- Executive Functions: It allows for planning, reasoning, and decision-making. -/- Free Will: Many argue that consciousness gives the perception of free will, though decisions may be influenced by subconscious processes. -/- 4. Self-Awareness -/- Consciousness involves recognizing oneself as distinct from the environment. -/- Theory of Mind: Understanding that others have thoughts, feelings, and intentions separate from our own. -/- Introspection: Reflecting on one’s own thoughts, emotions, and actions. -/- 5. Dynamic States -/- Consciousness operates in varying levels of alertness. -/- Wakefulness: Fully alert, capable of complex thought and sensory interaction. -/- Altered States: Dreaming, hypnosis, or meditation involve different patterns of brain activity. -/- Unconscious/Subconscious Processes: Much of brain activity occurs outside conscious awareness but influences behavior. -/- 6. Neurobiological Basis -/- Consciousness arises from complex interactions in the brain. -/- Neural Correlates: Specific brain regions, such as the prefrontal cortex and thalamus, are essential for conscious thought. -/- Synchronization: Brain waves (e.g., gamma waves) synchronize neural activity to support awareness. -/- Feedback Loops: Consciousness involves ongoing feedback between the brain and the body (e.g., through the nervous system). -/- 7. Feedback Mechanism (Relating to Your Ideas) -/- Consciousness can be viewed as a feedback mechanism, continuously processing and adjusting based on internal and external inputs. -/- Decisions and behaviors create effects that, in turn, provide new inputs for further conscious processing, following natural laws of balance. -/- Let’s integrate the understanding of consciousness with your universal formula, emphasizing how it aligns with your principles, particularly the universal law of balance in nature, the law of karma (cause and effect), and the interconnectedness of systems. -/- 1. Consciousness and Perception: Awareness of Internal and External Realities -/- Consciousness processes sensory inputs and integrates them into a coherent experience, allowing individuals to interact with their surroundings. -/- Relation to the Law of Balance: Consciousness acts as a balancing system, constantly assessing internal (bodily needs, emotions) and external (environmental changes) realities to maintain equilibrium. For example: -/- Hunger (internal imbalance) leads to actions (seeking food) that restore balance. -/- Overexposure to external stress triggers adaptive behaviors (e.g., rest or problem-solving) to re-establish harmony. -/- Feedback Mechanisms: The mind processes inputs from both the organic (physical body) and inorganic (external environment) systems, which aligns with your principle that consciousness operates through feedback loops to maintain balance. -/- 2. Integration of Information: Coherence and Systems Thinking -/- Consciousness combines information from various sources—sensory data, memories, emotions—into a unified experience. This reflects the interconnectedness of systems you emphasize in the universal formula. -/- Relation to the Law of Karma (Cause and Effect): Just as systems must function without defects to produce correct outputs, consciousness must integrate accurate and balanced information for effective decision-making. -/- Example: False beliefs or distorted perceptions create internal imbalance, leading to flawed decisions, which result in external consequences. -/- Balance in Systems: Consciousness integrates diverse inputs while ensuring no single element dominates disproportionately, promoting functional harmony. -/- 3. Decision-Making: Consciousness as a Balancing Force -/- Consciousness evaluates options, predicts outcomes, and selects actions. It bridges the gap between external conditions and internal motivations. -/- Adherence to the Law of Balance: Decisions that align with natural laws of balance maintain harmony, while those that disrupt balance (e.g., overconsumption, neglecting emotional health) create systemic imbalances. -/- Example: Overexploitation of resources results in ecological imbalance, mirroring how neglecting feedback in decision-making causes disruption. -/- Law of Karma in Action: Decisions carry consequences, and the effects feedback into consciousness, influencing future decisions. This cyclic cause-and-effect process illustrates the operation of karma within the mind’s framework. -/- 4. Self-Awareness and Feedback Mechanism -/- Consciousness includes the ability to reflect on oneself, recognizing internal states and adjusting behavior accordingly. -/- Relation to Balance in Nature: Self-awareness allows individuals to evaluate whether their thoughts, emotions, and actions align with the universal law of balance. For instance: -/- Reflecting on stress levels and adapting behaviors (e.g., practicing mindfulness) helps restore mental equilibrium. -/- Feedback in Collective Systems: When conscious minds interact in social systems, they create feedback loops that shape group decisions. Leadership, for example, must remain self-aware to ensure decisions maintain societal balance. -/- 5. Dynamic States of Consciousness: Adaptability and Natural Balance -/- Consciousness operates in dynamic states, such as wakefulness, dreaming, and meditation. These states allow flexibility and adaptability to shifting conditions. -/- Law of Balance Applied to States: Dynamic shifts in consciousness maintain balance between activity and rest, or between rational thought and creative insight. Imbalance, such as chronic wakefulness or suppressed introspection, disrupts this harmony. -/- Altered States and Feedback: States like meditation enhance self-regulation, improving feedback between internal and external realities, aligning the individual with natural laws. -/- 6. Neurobiological Basis: Consciousness as a System -/- Consciousness emerges from neural interactions and feedback loops in the brain, reflecting your idea that all systems must operate free of defects to function effectively. -/- Defects and Imbalances: Defective brain processes (e.g., misinformation, trauma) disrupt the feedback mechanism, leading to imbalanced behaviors or decisions. Addressing these “defects” through education or corrective experiences restores balance. -/- Holistic Nature of Consciousness: The brain’s integration of information mirrors the universal principle of interconnectedness. Damage to one area affects the entire system, just as disrupting one part of a natural system creates widespread imbalance. -/- 7. Consciousness in Leadership and Education -/- Your universal formula aims to teach individuals how to make decisions that align with natural laws, ensuring societal balance. -/- Feedback in Collective Consciousness: Leaders’ decisions influence collective consciousness, creating societal feedback loops. Teaching leaders to align their decisions with the universal law of balance can minimize societal problems. -/- Holistic Education: Teaching students how consciousness functions—including its feedback mechanisms, its alignment with the law of balance, and the role of accurate inputs—enables critical thinking and informed decision-making. -/- 8. Consciousness as the Medium for Universal Formula Application -/- Ultimately, consciousness is the medium through which your universal formula operates. By understanding and aligning conscious processes with natural laws: -/- Individuals maintain personal balance. -/- Groups and societies achieve collective harmony. -/- Decision-making respects the interconnectedness of all systems, reducing errors and defects in outcomes. -/- . (shrink)

-/- Solving the Problem of Free Will: A Universal Formula for Societal Balance -/- Introduction -/- For thousands of years, philosophers, scientists, and scholars have debated the concept of free will without arriving at a definitive solution. The persistent societal problems we witness today—wars, poverty, crime, overpopulation—are deeply rooted in ignorance, particularly about how natural laws govern human decision-making. This essay presents a universal formula that solves the problem of free will by aligning decision-making processes with the universal law of (...) balance found in nature. This solution, if implemented through a holistic educational system, can fundamentally transform societies by eliminating the ignorance that leads to human suffering. -/- The Root of Societal Problems: Ignorance -/- Ignorance is the foundation of nearly all societal problems. Misunderstanding natural laws and disregarding the principles of balance result in poor decision-making, whether on an individual, societal, or global level. Decisions based on misinformation, false beliefs, unproven theories, or emotional biases create imbalances that manifest as societal issues. -/- Examples of Ignorance-Driven Problems: -/- 1. Wars: Wars often arise from misunderstandings, territorial greed, ideological conflicts, and the inability to find peaceful solutions. The ignorance of the law of balance—where equilibrium between differing interests is possible—leads to destruction, suffering, and loss of life. -/- 2. Poverty and Crime: Poverty is frequently the result of systemic imbalances in wealth distribution. Ignorance about how societal resources should be distributed equitably to maintain stability leads to widespread deprivation. Crime similarly stems from a lack of understanding regarding personal responsibility and societal interdependence. -/- 3. Overpopulation: In many countries, overpopulation results from the misconception that growth is inherently good. However, natural systems always maintain balance. Unregulated population growth places immense pressure on resources, leading to poverty, environmental degradation, and societal instability. -/- The Universal Formula: Three Fundamental Laws of Nature -/- This universal formula, derived from observable natural phenomena, consists of three interconnected laws: -/- 1. The Law of Karma (Cause and Effect) Every decision and action produces corresponding consequences. In nature, defective systems—whether mechanical, biological, or societal—inevitably fail. Human societies must recognize that decisions based on ignorance create systemic problems. -/- 2. The Law of Balance Nature operates through balance. From ecosystems to societal structures, stability requires equilibrium. Societal issues like poverty and crime reflect imbalances caused by ignorance of this law. -/- 3. The Law of Homeostasis Homeostasis maintains internal stability despite external changes. Societies must develop adaptive yet balanced policies to ensure long-term well-being. -/- These laws reveal that human free will is not arbitrary but governed by predictable patterns. Conscious decisions, whether individual or collective, operate like feedback loops responding to external and internal stimuli while adhering to natural laws. -/- The Role of the Educational System -/- To address ignorance effectively, societies must adopt a holistic educational system that integrates these universal laws into foundational curricula. Current education often overlooks the principles that govern human behavior and societal balance. The new system should prioritize critical thinking, scientific literacy, and moral responsibility. -/- Key Objectives of a Holistic Educational System: -/- 1. Eliminate Ignorance: Equip students with a deep understanding of natural laws and their role in decision-making. -/- 2. Promote Critical Thinking: Teach students to question information, identify biases, and recognize the long-term impacts of decisions. -/- 3. Prepare Responsible Future Generations: Produce a high-quality generation of future parents who understand the importance of balance in raising children, managing resources, and contributing to societal stability. -/- Example: Incorporating environmental science with lessons on population dynamics can help students grasp why unchecked population growth leads to resource scarcity and societal challenges. Lessons in psychology, combined with discussions about collective decision-making, can illustrate the importance of balanced, informed leadership. -/- The Misconception of Unlimited Growth -/- One of the most damaging misconceptions societies face today is the belief in continuous economic and population growth. In nature, growth is always regulated by available resources. Societies that ignore this principle face environmental destruction, social unrest, and economic instability. -/- Example: Countries experiencing rapid population growth often encounter overcrowded cities, unemployment, and resource depletion. By understanding the law of balance, policymakers can implement sustainable growth strategies, ensuring resources meet population needs without compromising long-term stability. -/- The Feedback Mechanism of Conscious Minds -/- Human decision-making, both individually and collectively, operates as a feedback mechanism. Minds continuously exchange information, influencing one another’s decisions. This interaction follows natural laws, ensuring that any deviation from balance triggers societal disruptions. -/- Example: When misinformation spreads through social media, collective decisions become skewed. Understanding the feedback mechanism can help societies implement educational strategies that foster discernment and rational decision-making. -/- The Need for’Global Collaboration -/- The successful implementation of this universal formula requires global collaboration. International organizations like the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, along with educational institutions worldwide, must prioritize the integration of these natural laws into educational frameworks. -/- Example: The Philippines, facing governance challenges and population pressures, could significantly benefit from such an educational overhaul. Similarly, China’s “whole-process people’s democracy” could incorporate these principles to enhance holistic governance strategies. -/- The Role of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) -/- AGI, when developed with a complete sensor system, can apply the universal formula to predict and address societal problems. Programming AGI to follow these natural laws will ensure its decisions align with human well-being and societal stability. -/- Conclusion -/- Solving the problem of free will is not an abstract philosophical pursuit but a practical necessity for societal stability. Ignorance of the natural laws governing decision-making has perpetuated human suffering for centuries. The universal formula, grounded in the principles of karma, balance, and homeostasis, offers a concrete, actionable solution. By implementing this understanding through a holistic educational system, we can eliminate the root causes of wars, poverty, crime, and overpopulation. The time to act is now—before ignorance further destabilizes the delicate balance upon which our future depends. -/- . (shrink)

The Universal Law of Balance: Preventing Poverty, Conflict, War, and the Misinterpretation of Religious Teachings -/- Introduction -/- Human civilization has long struggled with poverty, conflict, war, and social inequality, despite advancements in science, technology, and economic development. The root cause of these persistent problems is not simply a lack of resources but systemic imbalances caused by wrong decision-making—decisions based on false information, greed, corruption, short-term thinking, and rigid belief systems. -/- Among the most significant contributors to global imbalance (...) is religious misinterpretation and dogmatism. While the original teachings of religious founders often emphasized compassion, justice, and balance, their followers have frequently misinterpreted or distorted these teachings to justify violence, inequality, oppression, and resistance to progress. These flawed interpretations have created religious conflicts, economic injustices, and social divisions, violating the universal law of balance in nature—a principle that states that all systems must function in harmony to sustain stability and well-being. -/- If humanity had applied the universal law of balance in interpreting religious teachings, the world could have prevented not only poverty and war but also the destructive consequences of religious extremism and dogma. -/- The Role of Correct Information in Decision-Making and the Misinterpretation of Religious Teachings -/- A major reason why poverty, war, and inequality persist is because societies have made decisions based on false, incomplete, or manipulated information. This is especially true in religion, where followers often misinterpret sacred texts to serve their own interests. Instead of following the true wisdom of religious founders, many religious leaders and followers have: -/- 1. Used scripture to justify oppression and discrimination → Even though the original religious figures preached equality and compassion, followers have twisted their words to promote sexism, racism, and class divisions. -/- 2. Blocked scientific progress → Some religious groups have resisted new discoveries because they mistakenly believe these contradict their scriptures. -/- 3. Promoted violence in the name of religion → While most religious founders preached peace, their teachings have been misused to justify wars, crusades, and acts of terrorism. -/- 4. Created economic injustice → Some religious institutions accumulate wealth and power while their followers remain poor, violating the moral principles of their own faith. -/- 5. Suppressed education and critical thinking → Many religious movements have discouraged questioning even when evidence contradicts traditional beliefs. -/- If religious followers had correctly interpreted their holy books through the lens of balance, reason, and universal ethics, many historical conflicts and injustices could have been prevented. -/- How Misinterpretation of Religious Teachings Leads to Imbalances That Cause Poverty, Conflict, and War -/- 1. Economic Imbalance: Religious Dogma Justifies Wealth Inequality -/- Flawed Interpretation: Some religious followers have claimed that wealth is a sign of divine favor, allowing religious institutions and elites to accumulate extreme wealth while keeping followers poor. -/- Effect: Economic inequality leads to mass poverty and social unrest. -/- Example: The Catholic Church in medieval Europe amassed enormous wealth while peasants suffered under a feudal system, leading to revolts like the Protestant Reformation (1517). -/- True Teaching: Jesus Christ preached humility and care for the poor, yet many Christian leaders built lavish palaces and charged the poor for religious services. -/- 2. Resource Imbalance: Religious Wars Over Land and Holy Sites -/- Flawed Interpretation: Some followers believe that their religion grants them exclusive rights over certain lands, leading to violent conflicts. -/- Effect: Wars, ethnic cleansing, and mass displacement of populations. -/- Example: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is fueled by religious claims over land, causing decades of suffering. -/- True Teaching: Prophets from both Judaism and Islam emphasized justice and peace, yet their followers fight over holy sites instead of coexisting peacefully. -/- 3. Population Imbalance: Opposition to Birth Control Causes Overpopulation -/- Flawed Interpretation: Some religious leaders claim that contraception is against God’s will, leading to uncontrolled population growth in poor countries. -/- Effect: Overpopulation strains resources, causing poverty, unemployment, and hunger. -/- Example: The Catholic Church opposed birth control in the Philippines, contributing to extreme poverty and slum overcrowding. -/- True Teaching: Jesus and Muhammad both emphasized responsibility and caring for one’s family, which would logically include planning for sustainable family sizes. -/- 4. Educational Imbalance: Religious Suppression of Knowledge Slows Progress -/- Flawed Interpretation: Some religious groups believe that questioning religious texts is sinful, preventing scientific discovery. -/- Effect: Societies remain ignorant, uneducated, and technologically behind. -/- Example: The Catholic Church banned Galileo’s heliocentric model, delaying the progress of astronomy. -/- True Teaching: The Quran and the Bible both encourage seeking knowledge, but many followers have rejected modern science. -/- 5. Religious Conflicts and Wars: Justification of Violence in the Name of God -/- Flawed Interpretation: Some extremists believe that holy war is necessary to defend their faith, leading to centuries of religious violence. -/- Effect: Millions of people killed in religious conflicts throughout history. -/- Example: The Crusades (1095-1291) were wars between Christians and Muslims over the Holy Land, causing immense suffering. -/- True Teaching: Jesus and Muhammad both taught that war should only be a last resort for self-defense, not for conquest. -/- 6. Political Imbalance: Religious Control of Governments Leads to Oppression -/- Flawed Interpretation: Some believe that governments should be ruled by religious laws, leading to oppressive theocracies. -/- Effect: Suppression of freedom, human rights violations, and authoritarian rule. -/- Example: Iran’s Islamic Revolution (1979) led to a theocratic government that limits women’s rights and free speech. -/- True Teaching: The Prophet Muhammad and Moses both acted as leaders of justice, not as dictators imposing harsh religious law. -/- 7. Labor Imbalance: Religious Justification of Slavery and Exploitation -/- Flawed Interpretation: Some religious texts were misused to justify slavery and forced labor. -/- Effect: Exploitation, generational poverty, and racial oppression. -/- Example: The Atlantic slave trade was justified using Christian teachings, keeping millions in brutal conditions. -/- True Teaching: Many religious leaders, including Moses, fought against oppression, yet their followers used scripture to do the opposite. -/- How the Universal Law of Balance Could Have Prevented Religious Misinterpretation and Its Consequences -/- If humanity had applied the universal law of balance, societies would have: -/- 1. Interpreted religious texts through reason, ethics, and balance instead of blind obedience. -/- 2. Separated religious teachings from governance and law to ensure fairness for all. -/- 3. Prioritized education and scientific knowledge while respecting religious faith. -/- 4. Prevented religious wars by promoting tolerance and coexistence. -/- 5. Encouraged responsible population planning instead of strict opposition to contraception. -/- 6. Fought against economic and social inequality instead of justifying it through religion. -/- Conclusion -/- Poverty, war, and inequality are not caused by religion itself, but by the flawed interpretation of religious teachings by followers. Had humanity followed the universal law of balance, religious principles would have been applied with wisdom, reason, and fairness, creating a world with economic justice, scientific progress, and peaceful coexistence. The past cannot be changed, but the future can still be reshaped by prioritizing truth, reason, and balance. Only by rejecting dogmatic extremism and restoring balance can we create a world free from poverty, conflict, and oppression. -/- . (shrink)

The Concept of Power: Its Nature, Forms, and Impact -/- Introduction -/- Power is one of the most fundamental forces shaping human civilization, scientific progress, and personal development. It is present in every aspect of life—from the natural world to political structures, from economic systems to personal relationships. At its core, power is the ability to influence, control, or direct outcomes, whether through force, knowledge, persuasion, or other means. -/- However, power can be used in both constructive and destructive ways. (...) While ethical power leads to progress and justice, the misuse of power creates oppression, corruption, and societal imbalance. This essay explores different dimensions of power, including scientific, political, economic, and philosophical power, while also highlighting examples of the misuse of power and its consequences. -/- Forms of Power -/- 1. Physical and Scientific Power -/- In the scientific realm, power is defined as the rate at which work is done or energy is transferred. It is a measurable quantity, expressed in watts (W), and is essential in fields such as engineering, mechanics, and electricity. -/- For example, in mechanical engineering, a car engine generates power by converting fuel into kinetic energy, allowing the vehicle to move. Similarly, in renewable energy, solar panels convert sunlight into electrical power, demonstrating how natural forces can be harnessed for human use. -/- Misuse of Scientific Power: Nuclear Weapons -/- A key example of the misuse of scientific power is the development of nuclear weapons. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 demonstrated the destructive potential of scientific advancements when used irresponsibly. While nuclear energy can be a powerful source of clean electricity, its military application led to mass destruction, the loss of thousands of innocent lives, and long-term environmental and health consequences. -/- 2. Social and Political Power -/- Political power is the ability to influence governance, policies, and social structures. It exists at different levels, from small communities to global institutions. -/- Types of Political Power: -/- Legitimate power: Derived from laws and democratic institutions, such as the authority of an elected president or parliament. -/- Coercive power: Based on force, often seen in dictatorships or police states where compliance is ensured through fear. -/- Soft power: The ability to shape opinions and values through culture, diplomacy, and media, as seen in the global influence of Hollywood movies or international organizations like the United Nations. -/- Example of Proper Political Power Use: Nelson Mandela’s leadership in South Africa was an example of moral and legitimate power. Despite being imprisoned for 27 years, he led his country to end apartheid through reconciliation rather than revenge. -/- Misuse of Political Power: Dictatorships and Oppression -/- Example: Adolf Hitler (Nazi Germany) One of the most infamous examples of political power being used in the wrong way is Adolf Hitler’s regime in Nazi Germany. Hitler gained power through democratic means but later abolished freedoms, controlled information, and used propaganda to manipulate the masses. His leadership led to World War II, the Holocaust, and the deaths of millions of people. His misuse of political power resulted in genocide, war crimes, and long-term global instability. -/- Example: North Korea’s Authoritarian Rule In modern times, North Korea is an example of political power used to oppress rather than empower. The government, led by Kim Jong-un, controls every aspect of citizens’ lives, from their access to information to their ability to leave the country. The country’s resources are allocated to its military, while many citizens suffer from poverty and starvation. This is an example of power used to control people rather than improve their well-being. -/- 3. Psychological and Personal Power -/- Personal power is an individual’s ability to influence their own life and the lives of others. It can take many forms: -/- Inner power: Strength, resilience, and self-discipline, allowing people to overcome adversity. -/- Social power: Charisma, persuasion, and emotional intelligence that enable individuals to lead and inspire others. -/- Knowledge power: The ability to gain influence through education and expertise. -/- Example of Proper Personal Power Use: The philosopher Socrates possessed immense intellectual power. Even without political authority, his ideas shaped Western thought through questioning and critical thinking. Today, leaders and influencers continue to shape society using their intellectual power. -/- Misuse of Psychological Power: Manipulation and Propaganda -/- Example: Cult Leaders (Jim Jones and the Jonestown Massacre) Some individuals misuse personal power to manipulate others for selfish or destructive purposes. A tragic example is Jim Jones, the leader of the People’s Temple cult. He used psychological manipulation to gain total control over his followers, leading to the infamous Jonestown Massacre in 1978, where over 900 people died in a mass murder-suicide. -/- Example: Social Media Misinformation In today’s digital age, personal power is often misused on social media platforms. False information and propaganda are used to manipulate public opinion, often leading to social division, violence, and political unrest. -/- 4. Economic Power -/- Economic power refers to control over financial resources, industries, and markets. Those who control wealth often shape global and national policies, technological advancements, and even cultural trends. -/- Proper Use of Economic Power: -/- Corporate power: Companies like Amazon, Google, and Tesla wield significant economic power, influencing markets and technological innovation. -/- Wealth and capital: Billionaires such as Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos can impact industries like space travel and artificial intelligence through private investments. -/- Misuse of Economic Power: Corporate Greed and Exploitation -/- Example: The 2008 Financial Crisis The 2008 financial crisis was a result of large financial institutions misusing their economic power. Banks engaged in reckless lending, market manipulation, and financial fraud, leading to a global economic collapse. Millions of people lost their jobs, homes, and savings due to the greed and irresponsibility of a few. -/- Example: Sweatshops and Worker Exploitation Some multinational corporations use their economic power to exploit cheap labor in developing countries, forcing workers to endure low wages, unsafe conditions, and inhumane treatment. This misuse of power highlights the dark side of economic influence when profit is prioritized over ethics. -/- 5. Power in Nature and Universal Law -/- From the perspective of the universal law of balance in nature, power must be aligned with natural equilibrium to ensure sustainability and harmony. If power is used excessively or irresponsibly, it creates imbalances—whether in the environment, society, or personal well-being. -/- Misuse of Power in Nature: Environmental Destruction -/- Example: Climate Change and Industrial Pollution Human industrial activity has disrupted the natural balance of the planet. Deforestation, excessive carbon emissions, and overconsumption of natural resources have led to global warming, species extinction, and ecological collapse. This is an example of humanity misusing its power over nature without considering the consequences. -/- The Ethical Use of Power -/- Power itself is neither good nor bad—it depends on how it is used. Ethical power aligns with justice, wisdom, and balance, while unethical power leads to corruption and destruction. -/- Principles of Ethical Power Use: -/- 1. Responsibility: Those in power must act for the common good rather than personal gain. -/- 2. Transparency: Power should be exercised openly, with accountability to the people it affects. -/- 3. Balance: Power must be used in a way that sustains long-term harmony rather than creating instability. -/- Conclusion -/- Power is a complex and dynamic force that can lead to progress or destruction, depending on how it is used. History provides countless examples of both ethical and unethical power, showing that unchecked power leads to oppression, injustice, and suffering. -/- The universal law of balance in nature teaches that any misuse of power will eventually lead to consequences. Therefore, the wisest approach to power is to use it ethically, responsibly, and in alignment with natural equilibrium. -/- . (shrink)

My primary goal in this article is to provide a historical reconstruction of Heidegger’s relationship to Hermann Lotze’s logic of validity (Logik der Gültigkeit). Lotze’s characterization of truth’s “actuality” solidifies the fallacious presupposition that the essence of truth is to be understood primarily in terms of logical assertions. In Heidegger’s view, the predicates “true” and “false,” as the paradigmatic attributes of propositions and judgments, are derivatives of a fundamental and “primary being of truth” known as disclosedness (Erschlossenheit). Heidegger marks (...) this decisive position in §44 of Being and Time and gains its methodological purchase by deconstructing traditional logic (kritischer Abbau der überlieferten Logik). Heidegger’s treatment, however, is abbreviated, and his sources remain notoriously concealed. For this reason, much is to be gained by examining the supplement provided one year earlier in a lecture course titled Logic: The Question of Truth (WS 1925–26). Heidegger devotes nearly 100 pages to the contemporary situation of philosophical logic. In this course, Heidegger critically evaluates a core principle of both phenomenology and neo-Kantian Erkenntnistheorie: the concept of validity (Geltung). This term originates from Lotze’s Platonic Ideenlehre, which asserts that Platonic “ideas” correspond to thoughts through a logical necessity. Consequently, they are deemed valid and eternally self-identical but do not need to exist in the world. For the purposes of this study, I show the historical significance and influence of Lotze’s Logic on twentieth-century Neo-Kantianism and Phenomenology. I provide a detailed account of Lotze’s interpretation of the Platonic theory of ideas, which supports his theory of validity. By returning to Lotze’s text, I provide an in-depth review of Heidegger’s reading of Lotze, whom he charges with misleading twentieth-century epistemology. If successful, this article provides the necessary and historical context to understand what is left unsaid and concealed in §44 of Being and Time. This article also serves the auxiliary purpose of acting as a prolegomenon for Heidegger’s urgent return to Aristotle’s thought and accurately determining the essence of truth. (shrink)

I argue that No-Ought-From-Is (in the sense that I believe it) is a relatively trivial affair. Of course, when people try to derive substantive or non-vacuous moral conclusions from non-moral premises, they are making a mistake. But No-Non-Vacuous-Ought-From-Is is meta-ethically inert. It tells us nothing about the nature of the moral concepts. It neither refutes naturalism nor supports non-cognitivism. And this is not very surprising since it is merely an instance of an updated version of the conservativeness of logic (in (...) a logically valid inference you don’t get out what you haven’t put in): so long as the expressions F are non-logical, you cannot get non-vacuous F-conclusions from non-F premises. However, the triviality of No-Non-Vacuous-Ought-From-Is is important and its non-profundity profound. No-Ought-From-Is is widely supposed to tell us something significant about the nature of the moral concepts. If, in fact, it tells us nothing, this is a point well worth shouting from the housetops. This brings me to my dispute with Gerhard Schurz who has proved a related version of No-Ought-From-Is, No-Ought-Relevant-Ought-From-Is, a proof which relaxes my assumption that ‘ought’ should not be treated as a logical constant. But if ought is not a logical expression then it does not really matter much that No-Ought-From-Is would be salvageable even if it were. Furthermore, Schurz’s proof depends on special features of the moral concepts and this might afford the basis for an abductive argument to something like non-cognitivism. As an error theorist, and therefore a cognitivist, I object. Finally I take a dim view of deontic logic. Many of its leading principles are false, bordering on the nonsensical, and even the reasonably plausible ones are subject to devastating counter-examples. (shrink)

The World Today If the Problem of Free Will Had Been Solved Long Ago -/- The problem of free will has perplexed philosophers, scientists, and thinkers for centuries. If this fundamental issue had been resolved earlier—specifically through the understanding that human decision-making follows natural laws—our world might look drastically different today. The principles of cause and effect, balance, and interconnected systems would have guided societal, economic, and environmental decisions, potentially creating a more harmonious, sustainable, and enlightened global civilization. This essay (...) explores what the world might have become had the problem of free will been solved long ago and the universal laws of decision-making applied across generations. -/- 1. Balanced Societies and Sustainable Growth -/- If the universal formula for free will, grounded in natural laws such as the law of balance, had been integrated into human society from the beginning, our world would likely enjoy a more balanced relationship with nature. Unchecked population growth, environmental degradation, and the relentless pursuit of economic expansion could have been mitigated. Societies might have adopted policies that respected the natural limits of their environments, ensuring that growth was sustainable rather than driven by short-term gains. For instance, countries might have collaborated early on to protect natural resources, resulting in cleaner air, abundant biodiversity, and stable ecosystems. -/- Economic systems would also have been more balanced. The understanding that continuous growth without regard for natural limits leads to societal imbalance might have prevented excessive consumerism and unsustainable industrial practices. Global economies might have prioritized long-term well-being over immediate profit, ensuring that wealth was distributed more equitably and that social stability was preserved. -/- 2. Education Rooted in Natural Laws -/- An early solution to the free will problem would have revolutionized educational systems worldwide. Education would not have been limited to memorizing facts or passing exams; instead, it would have focused on understanding the natural laws governing human behavior and societal systems. Concepts like cause and effect, feedback mechanisms, and balance in nature would have been taught from a young age, fostering critical thinking and rational decision-making across generations. -/- Such an educational approach might have minimized the spread of misinformation, dogma, and false beliefs. Students would have learned to question assumptions, seek evidence, and understand the consequences of their actions. The development of a more scientifically literate, critically minded population could have led to societies better equipped to handle complex challenges, such as global health crises, economic instability, and environmental change. -/- 3. Reduced Conflict and Greater Unity -/- The misunderstanding of free will has often fueled ideological, religious, and political conflicts. If the natural laws governing human decision-making had been understood earlier, societies might have been more tolerant and cooperative. Recognizing that all human behavior follows the same universal principles could have fostered greater empathy and reduced the perceived differences between cultures, religions, and ideologies. -/- With a shared understanding of the principles guiding human decision-making, global cooperation might have replaced competition and conflict. Nations could have worked together to solve collective challenges rather than pursuing dominance and control. Wars motivated by ideological or political misunderstandings might have been minimized, replaced by diplomatic efforts grounded in the recognition of shared human tendencies and needs. -/- 4. Ethical and Responsible Leadership -/- Leadership, when uninformed by natural laws, often falls prey to short-term interests, corruption, and ideological biases. If the principles of free will had been solved and implemented in governance structures long ago, leaders might have been more responsible, rational, and ethical in their decision-making. The universal law of balance would have served as a guiding principle, reminding leaders that any imbalance—whether through unjust policies, social inequality, or environmental neglect—would ultimately result in societal dysfunction. -/- Policies and laws would have been crafted with long-term societal balance in mind. Corruption, misinformation, and manipulation would have been less effective in influencing public opinion, as a well-educated population would have recognized and rejected such tactics. As a result, governance might have been more transparent, just, and aligned with the common good. -/- 5. Ethical Technological Advancement -/- The advancement of science and technology would also have followed a more ethical trajectory. If societies had understood the natural laws behind decision-making, innovations would have been developed with greater consideration for their long-term impact. Technologies such as artificial intelligence, automation, and biotechnology would likely have been designed and implemented with a focus on societal well-being rather than profit alone. -/- For instance, environmental considerations might have been prioritized in industrial development, preventing the large-scale pollution seen during the Industrial Revolution. Similarly, AI systems might have been developed from the outset with safeguards to ensure they served humanity’s best interests, minimizing the ethical concerns that exist today. -/- 6. A World with Less Human Suffering -/- Perhaps the most profound impact of solving the free will problem earlier would have been a significant reduction in human suffering. Poverty, inequality, crime, and social unrest often stem from decisions made without an understanding of natural laws. If societies had recognized the importance of balance, fairness, and cause-and-effect relationships in human interactions, many of these societal problems might have been prevented. -/- Healthcare systems, for example, might have prioritized preventive care based on the understanding of physical and mental health as interconnected systems. Economic policies could have focused on equitable wealth distribution, reducing poverty and enhancing social cohesion. Social programs might have been more effective, addressing the root causes of issues rather than merely managing symptoms. -/- 7. A Global Collaborative Civilization -/- Finally, solving the free will problem early on could have fostered a more unified and collaborative global civilization. The realization that human decision-making is governed by universal laws would have underscored the interconnectedness of all people, regardless of nationality, culture, or belief system. This understanding might have led to earlier efforts to establish international institutions for global cooperation, ensuring that resources, knowledge, and innovations were shared equitably. -/- Global challenges such as climate change, pandemics, and resource scarcity could have been addressed through collective action rather than individualistic or nationalistic approaches. Humanity might have recognized sooner that its survival and prosperity depend on cooperation and adherence to the same natural laws that govern decision-making. -/- Conclusion -/- If the problem of free will had been solved and its universal formula applied long ago, the world today might have been a more balanced, peaceful, and sustainable place. Societies would have understood the natural laws governing human behavior, leading to better education, more ethical leadership, responsible technological development, and less human suffering. While the world missed this opportunity in the past, the knowledge and application of these principles still offer a path forward. Through a holistic educational approach and global cooperation, it remains possible to build a future aligned with the universal laws of nature and human decision-making. -/- . (shrink)

The Precautionary Principle is both celebrated and criticized. It has become an important principle for decision making, but it is also subject to criticism. One problem that is often pointed out with the principle is that is not clear what it actually says and how to use it. I have taken on this problem by performing an analysis of some of the most influential formulations of the principle in an attempt to identify the core ideas behind (...) it, with the purpose of producing a formulation of the principle that is clear and practically applicable. It was found that what is called the Precautionary Principle is not a principle that tells us what do to achieve extra precaution or how to handle situations when extra precaution is called for. Instead, it was found to be a list of circumstances that each justify extra precaution. An analysis of some of the most common and influential formulations of the Precautionary Principle identified four such circumstances: (1) When we deal with important values that tend to be systematically downplayed by traditional decision methods – such as human health and the environment. (2) When we suspect that the decision might lead to irreversible and severe consequences and the values at stake are also irreplaceable, (3) When timing is at least as important as being right. (4) When it is more important to avoid false negatives than false positives. This interpretation of the Precautionary Principle does not say anything about what kind of actions to take when extra precaution is called for, but it does provide a clear and practically useful list of circumstances that call for extra precaution and that is not subject to the most common objections to the Precautionary Principle. (shrink)

Revisionary ontologists are making a comeback. Quasi-nihilists, like Peter van Inwagen and Trenton Merricks, insist that the only composite objects that exist are living things. Unrestriced universalists, like W.V.O. Quine, David Lewis, Mark Heller, and Hud Hudson, insist that any collection of objects composes something, no matter how scattered over time and space they may be. And there are more besides. The result, says Eli Hirsch, is that many commonsense judgments about the existence or identity of highly visible physical objects (...) are a priori necessarily false. In a “last ditch effort” to bring revisionary ontologists back to their senses, Hirsch marshalls what he calls the Argument from Charity. We can be sure that there are tables and chairs and that there are no fusions of Plato’s nose and the Eiffel Tower, says Hirsch, because these commonsense platitudes are a logical consequence of the well-known principle of interpretive charity applied to natural languages, like English. In what follows, I assess the Argument from Charity. My conclusion is that if this is the best we can do to save revisionary ontologists, they are surely lost forever. (shrink)

All societies have to balance privacy claims with other moral concerns. However, while some concern for privacy appears to be a common feature of social life, the definition, extent and moral justifications for privacy differ widely. Are there better and worse ways of conceptualising, justifying, and managing privacy? These are the questions that lie in the background of this thesis. -/- My particular concern is with the ethical issues around privacy that are tied to the rise of new information and (...) communication technologies (henceforth “ICT”). The focus here is on technologies involved in processing personal data in its broadest sense, including “any operation or set of operations which is performed on personal data or on sets of personal data, whether or not by automated means, such as collection, recording, organisation, structuring, storage, adaptation or alteration, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, alignment or combination, restriction, erasure or destruction.” The issue of moral concern is commonly designated as that of 'data privacy'. -/- The first step is to consider why privacy matters, or ought to matter, in the first place. And here we run into our first difficulty, since both the conceptualisation of privacy and the justification for the right to privacy are matters for contention. On the one hand, we are animated by a moral concern for privacy in some sense; on the other, we lack the conceptual and moral resources for making sense of this concern or for promoting particular social policies and criticising others. This often-cited dichotomy and its ensuing confusion have been the central motivation for most of the philosophical literature on privacy – including this thesis. -/- In what follows, I will suggest a way out of the confusion that pervades the current debate on data privacy. I will essentially argue two claims: one, that the concept of (data) privacy is uniquely characterised by a particular context within which we exchange information; two, that because (data) privacy constitutes an intrinsic value, its moral concerns and justifications ought to be deliberated as such. -/- The first chapter sketches the current data privacy landscape by introducing a number of concepts and arguing the unique nature of the landscape. I argue that the traditional distinction between four kinds of privacy (physical, mental, decisional and informational) is no longer accurate, given the technological context that reduces, unifies and processes all aspects of people’s lives by means of digital data. In fact, to hold on to the distinction leads to a fundamental misconception of data privacy. I further argue that today’s distinction between data protection and data privacy runs the risk of ignoring the fact that the former is an inherent aspect of the latter. These arguments allow me to settle on a (provisional) definition of data privacy: controlling how data about identifiable people is processed by ICT. -/- Next, I draw a line between descriptive and normative accounts of data privacy, and explain why this book belongs to the latter category. After a brief discussion of the coherence and distinctiveness theses, and of the difference between instrumental and intrinsic theories of privacy, I introduce the problem of data privacy as a distinct, coherent, and intrinsic moral concern. Three arguments support this position: one, data privacy is a coherent moral concern because it is motivated by a singular moral concept; two, data privacy is a distinct moral concern because the privacy challenges we face today are of a fundamentally new nature – distinct from any moral concerns we’ve faced in the past; and three, data privacy is an intrinsic moral concern that is predominantly justified, not by what it instrumentally protects us from, but by what it intrinsically constitutes. -/- Chapter Two makes the case against a harm-based, consequentialist approach to data privacy. After a brief introduction to the basic tenets of consequentialism I discuss harm-based arguments in favour as well as against privacy. I explain how privacy may protect us against psychological distress, but at the same time constitute the source of that distress; how privacy may be necessary for the proper functioning of democratic societies, but at the same time provide a cloak for anti-social and immoral behaviour; and how privacy protects us against the improper use of our personal data by others, but at the same enables us to conceal information or spread false information about ourselves in ways that are harmful to others. Next, I argue that consequentialism essentially relies on two flawed presumptions – that we know what harm is, and that we know how to predict it – and discuss the controversies surrounding definitions and predictions of harm. This argument becomes especially pertinent in today’s rapidly changing technological context: we may guess, and make assumptions, perhaps even find correlations, but don’t really know or understand (yet) with any degree of certainty the harmful consequences today’s data privacy violations are causing or will eventually cause – if any. -/- I illustrate this with examples of recent data privacy violations, and with a brief overview of consequentialist arguments for and against data privacy. Those who invoke consequentialist arguments against data privacy claim that personal data is nothing more than a raw material that can be turned into something useful and valuable without harming anyone. Choosing to move fast and break things – a popular mantra that promotes the benefits of technological “permissionless innovation” over and above its risks and costs – they draw our attention to the many benefits free data flows generate. Those who rely on consequentialist arguments in favour of data privacy, on the other hand, insist on actual and potential misuse of personal data. Rather careful than sorry, they draw our attention to the urgent need to take back control and protect ourselves against data privacy violations – precisely because we don’t know which harm they may cause in the future. Others go one step further and argue that these violations are part of a broader ideology of power. -/- What Chapter Two demonstrates is that vague definitions, unreliable predictions and inconclusive allegations of harm from both sides of the debate perpetuate a stalemate that fails to produce morally defensible answers to our growing data privacy concerns. Deliberating about data privacy from a consequentialist perspective is a dead end. -/- Chapter Three proposes an alternative to the harm-based approach, namely that privacy is an intrinsic value that deserves moral protection for its own sake. After a brief account of what I take values to be, and why we have a need to protect them, I introduce the foundational value of respect for persons, and lay out my main argument in two steps. The conceptual component of my argument returns to the definition of data privacy I had temporarily settled on in Chapter One, but now with the added consideration of the particular context, and particular circumstances and attitudes, within which information is exchanged. This addition is crucial, as it reveals the fundamental value that is at stake in our data privacy concerns, namely the inherent value of each and every person, which we protect by upholding an ethical principle commonly known as the principle of respect for persons. It is for this reason that the violation of privacy cannot (only) be expressed in terms of harm. I further argue that the principle of respect for persons is consistent with, and in fact unthinkable without, some degree of privacy. -/- I reply to potential challenges to a value-based approach to data privacy by showing that (i) values and value trade-offs are fundamentally different from consequential benefits and cost-benefit analyses; (ii) the suspension of one value in favour of another is not inherently contradictory; what matters is morally defensible deliberation about values and valid individual consent; (iii) data privacy concerns cannot be reduced to other moral concerns and therefore deserve a specific, distinct protection. -/- Finally, because this is a thesis in applied ethics, I attempt an answer to the question as to how we ought to apply a value-based approach to practical data privacy concerns. I argue that a revised, three-pronged version of John Rawls’ reflective equilibrium, founded on the non-negotiable principle of respect for persons, is the best possible procedure to deliberate data privacy concerns in relation to other moral values. (shrink)

The paper considers the philosophical component of the approach to the time as an emergent phenomenon absent at the fundamental level. The anthropic principle is shown as arising from the time emergence. Consciousness is shown as an epiphenomenon in such a model, although it is more fundamental than matter in this case. An answer to the question about the prime cause is suggested.

This article contends that recent attempts to construct Frankfurt-style cases (FSCs) are irrelevant to the debate over free will. The principle of alternate possibilities (PAP) states that moral responsibility requires indeterminism, or multiple possible futures. Frankfurt's original case purported to demonstrate PAP false by showing an agent can be blameworthy despite not having the ability to choose otherwise; however he admits the agent can come to that choice freely or by force, and thus has alternate possibilities. Neo-FSCs attempt (...) to show that alternate possibilities are irrelevant to explaining an agent's moral responsibility, but a successful Neo-FSC would be consistent with the truth of PAP, and thus is silent on the big metaphysical issues at the center of the free will debate. (shrink)

The principle of least action, which has so successfully been applied to diverse fields of physics looks back at three centuries of philosophical and mathematical discussions and controversies. They could not explain why nature is applying the principle and why scalar energy quantities succeed in describing dynamic motion. When the least action integral is subdivided into infinitesimal small sections each one has to maintain the ability to minimise. This however has the mathematical consequence that the Lagrange function (...) at a given point of the trajectory, the dynamic, available energy generating motion, must itself have a fundamental property to minimize. Since a scalar quantity, a pure number, cannot do that, energy must fundamentally be dynamic and time oriented for a consistent understanding. It must have vectorial properties in aiming at a decrease of free energy per state (which would also allow derivation of the second law of thermodynamics). Present physics is ignoring that and applying variation calculus as a formal mathematical tool to impose a minimisation of scalar assumed energy quantities for obtaining dynamic motion. When, however, the dynamic property of energy is taken seriously it is fundamental and has also to be applied to quantum processes. A consequence is that particle and wave are not equivalent, but the wave (distributed energy) follows from the first (concentrated energy). Information, provided from the beginning, an information self-image of matter, is additionally needed to recreate the particle from the wave, shaping a “dynamic” particle-wave duality. It is shown that this new concept of a “dynamic” quantum state rationally explains quantization, the double slit experiment and quantum correlation, which has not been possible before. Some more general considerations on the link between quantum processes, gravitation and cosmological phenomena are also advanced. (shrink)

Although much has been written about the truth-conditions of de re attitude reports, little attention has been paid to certain ‘ultra-liberal’ uses of those reports. We believe that if these uses are legitimate, then a number of interesting consequences for various theses in philosophical semantics follow. The majority of the paper involves describing these consequences. In short, we argue that, if true, ultra-liberal reports: bring counterexamples to a popular approach to de re attitude ascriptions, which we will call ‘descriptivism’; and (...) combine with independently plausible principles about the logic of belief to imply that subjects can achieve omniscience about what exists from the armchair. Although we are not committed to the view that ultra-liberal reports are false, in the final part of the paper we discuss the prospects of pursuing a line according to which the acceptability of such reports ought not be taken at face value. We conclude by arguing that those who are sympathetic with this move might have reason to doubt the truth of an even broader class of acceptable de re attitude reports, namely those that have been taken to undermine orthodox accounts of de re attitude ascriptions. (shrink)

I argue that Émilie Du Châtelet breaks with Christian Wolff regarding the scope and epistemological content of the principle of sufficient reason, despite his influence on her basic ontology and their agreement that the principle of sufficient reason has foundational importance. These differences have decisive consequences for the ways in which Du Châtelet and Wolff conceive of science.

Curry's paradox for "if.. then.." concerns the paradoxical features of sentences of the form "If this very sentence is true, then 2+2=5". Standard inference principles lead us to the conclusion that such conditionals have true consequents: so, for example, 2+2=5 after all. There has been a lot of technical work done on formal options for blocking Curry paradoxes while only compromising a little on the various central principles of logic and meaning that are under threat. -/- Once we have a (...) sense of the technical options, though, a philosophical choice remains. When dealing with puzzles in the logic of conditionals, a natural place to turn is independently motivated semantic theories of the behaviour of "if... then...". This paper argues that the closest-worlds approach outlined in Nolan 1997 offers a philosophically satisfying reason to deny conditional proof and so block the paradoxical Curry reasoning, and can give the verdict that standard Curry conditionals are false, along with related "contraction conditionals". (shrink)

The consequence argument purports to show that determinism is true only if no one has free will. Judgments about whether the argument is sound depend on how one understands locutions of the form 'p and no one can render p false'. The main interpretation on offer appeals to counterfactual sufficiency: s can render p false just in case there is something s can do such that, were s to do it, p would be false; otherwise, s (...) cannot render p false. Here I show that, in the context of the consequence argument, this interpretation conflicts with widely endorsed principles governing the logic of counterfactuals. (shrink)

The principle of total evidence says that all relevant information should be considered when making an inference about a hypothesis. In this article, we argue that the criminalist’s paradox from the literature on the methodology of forensic science constitutes a counterexample against the principle of total evidence. The paradox arises, for example, when a forensic scientist uses the results from other forensic procedures to inform their own analysis. In such cases, their results can become more reliable, but at (...) the same time also dependent on those other forensic results and therefore less useful for decisions in court cases. Consequently, such influences are generally avoided in forensic science. We argue that structurally similar problems plague also other scientific disciplines, anticipate an objection to the counterexample, and propose two new versions of the principle of total evidence that do not fall prey to the criminalist’s paradox. (shrink)

The Universal Formula: Solving the Problem of Free Will Through the Law of Balance By Angelito Malicse Introduction The problem of free will has puzzled humanity for centuries, often viewed as a philosophical or metaphysical enigma. This essay presents a universal formula that resolves this dilemma by focusing on the law of karma and the universal law of balance. It explores the interconnectedness of systems, the critical role of accurate knowledge, and the evolution of emotions in maintaining harmony. By examining (...) real-world examples such as overpopulation, environmental degradation, economic instability, and the flaws of capitalism, this essay demonstrates how the universal formula can guide human decision-making to achieve a balanced and sustainable world. The Law of Karma: Systems and Balance The universal formula begins with the law of karma, which extends beyond cause and effect to encompass the integrity of systems, both natural and man-made. Every system—whether ecological, social, or economic—operates according to the universal law of balance. When imbalances arise, the system becomes dysfunctional, leading to adverse consequences. For example, while humans sit at the top of the food chain, the Earth's ecosystem cannot sustain unchecked overpopulation of our species. Overpopulation leads to the destruction of natural resources as humans consume everything, including plants, animals, and even insects. This voracious consumption damages ecosystems, accelerates deforestation, depletes biodiversity, and disrupts the delicate balance of the natural world. To ensure the sustainability of life on Earth, it is crucial to regulate population growth, conserve natural resources, and refrain from exploiting all animals on land and in the sea. By preserving biodiversity and maintaining the integrity of ecosystems, we protect the foundation of life that supports all species, including humans. Free Will and the Dependence on Correct Knowledge Human free will is not an autonomous force but is entirely dependent on correct knowledge and information. Errors in decision-making, often caused by ignorance, false beliefs, and distorted theories, disrupt the balance of systems. For instance, the failure to regulate overpopulation creates cascading problems, including climate change, pollution, and resource depletion. Without accurate knowledge about the consequences of overpopulation, individuals and societies continue to make decisions that exacerbate these imbalances. Education and government policy play vital roles in addressing these issues. Policies that promote population regulation can maintain a sustainable economy, while education fosters awareness of the need to protect ecosystems and biodiversity. Correct information empowers individuals to make decisions that align with the universal law of balance, preventing errors that destabilize systems. The Flaws of Capitalism and the Need for Balance The efficiency of the capitalistic system increases over time, leading to significant flaws if left unchecked. Private companies continually strive to reduce overhead and operating expenses, often by automating processes and replacing human labor with robotics. While this enhances profitability, it also reduces employment opportunities, suppresses wages, and widens income inequality. These principles, central to the management strategies of most private companies, create systemic imbalances in the economy. The solution lies in adopting a mixed economic system that counterbalances the excesses of capitalism with socialist principles. Governments must play a pivotal role in addressing these imbalances by implementing the following measures: Creating High-Salary Government Jobs: These jobs provide stable income and stimulate local economies. Providing Unemployment Benefits or Universal Basic Income (UBI): These measures ensure that individuals who lose jobs due to automation and efficiency gains still have the purchasing power to meet their needs. Offering Free Healthcare and Education: These fundamental services reduce the financial burden on families, enabling them to invest in other areas of life. Promoting Government Spending: By investing in infrastructure, renewable energy, and public services, governments can create new jobs and maintain the flow of money in the economy. Government spending serves as a balancing mechanism by injecting funds into the economy, which in turn supports private companies through increased consumer demand. This feedback loop creates private-sector jobs, stabilizes the economy, and ensures a balanced flow of resources between public and private sectors. The Role of Emotions in Balancing Systems Human emotions, both positive and negative, serve as essential feedback mechanisms for maintaining balance. Positive emotions, such as love and joy, encourage cooperative behavior and strengthen familial and social bonds. Negative emotions, such as fear and anger, signal imbalances that require corrective action. For example, the unconditional love within a family fosters a nurturing environment that supports the emotional and psychological development of children. This foundation contributes to a high-quality next generation of parents, capable of fostering further generational improvement. Conversely, the absence of such love or a dysfunctional family structure often leads to crime, substance abuse, and other societal problems. These negative outcomes are the effects of systemic imbalances, whether caused by poor parenting, economic hardship, or the lack of a government safety net. Addressing Environmental and Social Imbalances The universal formula underscores the importance of a holistic education system in addressing systemic imbalances. Education must instill values such as cleanliness, discipline, ethics, and good manners while fostering a respect for nature. Teaching children the importance of not harming wildlife and preserving ecosystems is critical to protecting biodiversity and ensuring a harmonious coexistence with other species. Government policies also play a crucial role. Regulations that protect natural resources, reduce pollution, and promote renewable energy can prevent environmental degradation. Policies that provide social safety nets can alleviate poverty and reduce crime by addressing the root causes of economic and social imbalance. The Importance of Holistic Systems Thinking The universal formula emphasizes the interconnectedness of systems, demonstrating that imbalances in one area often ripple through others. For instance, a lack of holistic education contributes to ignorance, which leads to poor decision-making. This, in turn, exacerbates issues such as overpopulation, resource depletion, and social unrest. Producing a high-quality young generation requires a combination of good parenting, access to education, and supportive government policies. By fostering an environment that values balance, discipline, and ethics, societies can produce individuals capable of making decisions that align with the universal law of balance. Conclusion The universal formula offers a comprehensive solution to the problem of free will by integrating the law of karma, the universal law of balance, and the evolutionary role of emotions. By understanding and addressing the root causes of imbalance—whether environmental, social, or economic—humanity can achieve harmony within and across systems. Real-world examples, such as overpopulation, economic instability, environmental destruction, and the flaws of capitalism, highlight the urgent need to apply this formula. Through holistic education, informed policies, and an unwavering commitment to balance, individuals and societies can prevent errors, correct existing imbalances, and create a sustainable and harmonious future. The time to act is now. By embracing the universal formula, humanity can unlock the full potential of free will, ensuring a balanced and equitable world for generations to come. ---. (shrink)

The Causes of the Low-Level Mentality of the Human Population and the Path to Intellectual Growth -/- Humanity has made remarkable advancements in science, technology, and societal organization, yet a significant portion of the global population continues to exhibit a low level of mentality. This phenomenon manifests through rigid beliefs, resistance to new information, poor decision-making, and a lack of critical thinking. Understanding the causes of this intellectual stagnation is essential to developing solutions that promote higher-order thinking, rational decision-making, and (...) societal progress. This essay explores the root causes of the low-level mentality of the human population and presents the importance of a holistic, foundational educational approach as a long-term solution. -/- 1. Inadequate Educational Systems -/- Education is the foundation of intellectual growth, yet many educational systems worldwide prioritize memorization over critical thinking. Students are often taught to recall facts rather than analyze, question, and apply knowledge to real-life situations. This traditional approach produces individuals who may know specific information but lack the intellectual tools to evaluate new ideas or solve complex problems. Furthermore, the educational curriculum frequently overlooks essential concepts, such as the natural laws that govern life and society. -/- For example, the understanding of the universal law of balance in nature—where every action has corresponding effects—could significantly improve how individuals perceive and respond to societal and environmental challenges. If education emphasized these principles early on, individuals would better understand the long-term consequences of their decisions and behaviors, leading to more responsible and sustainable actions. -/- 2. Cultural and Religious Dogma -/- Cultural and religious beliefs shape societal values and individual mindsets. While these belief systems often provide moral guidance and social cohesion, they can also hinder intellectual growth when they discourage inquiry and critical thinking. Dogma, by its nature, often demands unquestioning acceptance of certain truths, even when these truths conflict with scientific evidence or observable reality. -/- In many societies, individuals are taught from a young age to accept beliefs based on tradition rather than evidence. This mental conditioning can lead to cognitive rigidity, where people reject new information that contradicts their worldview. Over time, such resistance perpetuates ignorance and limits societal growth. However, this challenge can be addressed by introducing a holistic educational approach that respects personal faith while encouraging open-mindedness, inquiry, and scientific understanding. -/- 3. Social Conditioning and Environmental Influence -/- Humans are social beings, and their mental frameworks are heavily influenced by their surroundings. When individuals grow up in environments where misinformation, anti-intellectualism, and superstition prevail, they are more likely to adopt similar perspectives. Social conditioning shapes mindsets through family teachings, peer interactions, and community beliefs. -/- For instance, communities that view education as irrelevant or elitist may discourage children from pursuing intellectual growth. This pattern is particularly prevalent in economically disadvantaged areas, where the struggle for survival takes precedence over intellectual development. Breaking this cycle requires community-based educational interventions that provide accessible, engaging, and practical knowledge to both children and adults. -/- 4. Media Influence and Misinformation -/- In the digital age, information is abundant, but so is misinformation. Social media platforms, news outlets, and online forums often prioritize sensationalism and emotional engagement over accuracy and critical analysis. Misinformation spreads rapidly, influencing people’s beliefs and behaviors with little regard for factual integrity. -/- The rise of confirmation bias exacerbates this issue. People tend to seek information that aligns with their pre-existing beliefs, regardless of its validity. As a result, false narratives, conspiracy theories, and pseudoscientific ideas can gain widespread acceptance. To counter this, educational systems must incorporate media literacy programs that teach individuals how to evaluate sources, discern fact from fiction, and think critically about the information they encounter. -/- 5. Economic and Survival Pressures -/- Poverty and economic hardship significantly impact intellectual development. When individuals are preoccupied with meeting basic survival needs, intellectual pursuits often become a secondary concern. Education becomes less of a priority when families struggle to afford food, shelter, and healthcare. -/- Moreover, resource-limited schools often lack qualified teachers, educational materials, and modern facilities. This disparity perpetuates a cycle of low-level mentality in economically disadvantaged communities. Addressing this issue requires systemic reforms that allocate sufficient resources to education, particularly in impoverished areas. Integrating the universal law of balance into educational programs can also help communities understand how balanced development—both economic and intellectual—can lead to long-term societal well-being. -/- 6. Cognitive Biases and Psychological Factors -/- Human cognition is inherently susceptible to biases, such as confirmation bias, availability bias, and conformity bias. These biases influence how individuals process information, often leading to flawed reasoning and poor decision-making. For instance, confirmation bias causes individuals to favor information that supports their beliefs while disregarding contradictory evidence. -/- Psychological factors like fear, insecurity, and the desire for social acceptance further contribute to intellectual stagnation. When individuals fear social ostracism or cognitive dissonance, they are less likely to question popular but flawed ideas. Educational systems can mitigate these biases by fostering intellectual humility, self-awareness, and critical thinking skills. -/- 7. Lack of Understanding of Natural Laws and Systems Thinking -/- A fundamental cause of the low-level mentality is the widespread ignorance of natural laws, particularly the universal law of balance in nature. This law, which governs the interdependence of systems and the consequences of actions, applies not only to the physical world but also to human behavior and societal dynamics. -/- When individuals and societies disregard this law, they make decisions based on short-term gains rather than long-term balance. For instance, unregulated population growth or unchecked economic expansion can create environmental degradation, resource scarcity, and societal instability. Teaching systems thinking and the law of balance can help individuals and leaders make decisions that promote societal harmony and sustainability. -/- The Path Forward: A Holistic Educational System -/- Addressing the root causes of low-level mentality requires a systemic, long-term solution: the implementation of a holistic educational system. Such a system should emphasize: -/- 1. Critical Thinking and Inquiry: Teach students how to question, analyze, and evaluate information independently. -/- 2. Natural Laws and Systems Thinking: Incorporate the universal law of balance and other natural principles into the curriculum. -/- 3. Media and Information Literacy: Equip individuals with the skills to navigate information in the digital age. -/- 4. Practical Life Skills: Include lessons on decision-making, emotional intelligence, and societal interdependence. -/- 5. Cultural Sensitivity and Open-Mindedness: Promote respect for diverse perspectives while encouraging intellectual curiosity. -/- This educational transformation should start in early childhood and continue throughout adulthood. Governments, educational institutions, and international organizations must collaborate to implement and promote these principles globally. -/- Conclusion -/- The low-level mentality of the human population stems from multiple interrelated factors, including inadequate education, cultural dogma, social conditioning, misinformation, economic pressures, cognitive biases, and a lack of understanding of natural laws. Overcoming these challenges requires a shift toward a holistic, systems-based educational approach that equips individuals with critical thinking skills, natural law awareness, and intellectual resilience. By prioritizing the understanding of the universal law of balance in nature and integrating it into educational frameworks, humanity can elevate its collective mentality and build a more informed, rational, and balanced society. -/- . (shrink)

The Unified Theory of Free Will: The Three Universal Laws, Systemic Imbalance, and Nature’s Self-Correction -/- By Angelito Malicse -/- Introduction -/- For centuries, the concept of free will has been debated, with perspectives ranging from determinism to compatibilism and libertarianism. However, these traditional views fail to acknowledge the natural laws that govern human decision-making. By synthesizing the Universal Law of Balance in Nature, the Universal Feedback Loop Mechanism, and the Error-Free System, we establish a unified theory of free will—a (...) structured approach to human choices within the constraints of natural order. -/- Additionally, it is crucial to recognize the tolerance limits of hierarchical systems—both natural and man-made. When human decisions exceed these limits and imbalances persist, nature will automatically step in to restore equilibrium. This natural correction often manifests in disruptive ways, such as natural disasters, economic collapses, or social upheavals. Understanding these dynamics is essential to ensuring stability across all systems. -/- Furthermore, human emotions, which have evolved as essential survival mechanisms, play a dual role in maintaining or disrupting balance. Emotions influence decision-making, motivation, and social interactions. When properly regulated, they help individuals and societies adapt to challenges and maintain systemic harmony. However, when emotions exceed their tolerance limits—such as excessive fear leading to panic or unchecked anger causing conflict—they contribute to systemic imbalance and dysfunction. -/- The Three Universal Laws and Their Role in Decision-Making -/- 1. Universal Law of Balance in Nature -/- Every system—biological, social, and technological—operates within specific tolerance limits. Decisions that align with natural balance maintain stability, while those that exceed these limits lead to disruption. If humans fail to correct imbalances, nature will forcefully restore equilibrium, often through unpredictable and catastrophic means. -/- Examples of Balance, Systemic Imbalance, and Natural Correction: -/- Personal Health: A balanced diet sustains physical well-being, while excessive consumption leads to obesity and related diseases. If ignored, the body self-corrects through metabolic disorders and immune system responses. -/- Economic Stability: A balanced economy fosters growth, while financial mismanagement leads to economic crashes. Recessions and inflation serve as corrective mechanisms for financial excesses. -/- Environmental Sustainability: Responsible resource management ensures long-term survival, whereas overexploitation leads to climate change and natural disasters such as droughts and hurricanes, which force societies to adapt. -/- Ecosystem Regulation: Overfishing disrupts marine populations, but nature counters with species migration and ecological shifts that eventually restore stability. -/- Energy Consumption: Overuse of fossil fuels accelerates climate change, prompting extreme weather events and necessitating the shift to renewable energy sources. -/- 2. Universal Feedback Loop Mechanism -/- Decision-making must incorporate continuous feedback to ensure adaptation and refinement. Ignoring or distorting feedback results in inefficiencies and systemic collapse. -/- Examples of Feedback, Systemic Imbalance, and Nature’s Response: -/- Business Adaptation: Companies that respond to consumer feedback thrive, while those that ignore it collapse due to declining market relevance. -/- Political Governance: Leaders who suppress public concerns foster unrest, often leading to revolutions or government overhauls. -/- Technological Development: AI systems trained on biased or incomplete data develop flawed decision-making patterns, necessitating retraining and regulation. -/- 3. Error-Free System -/- Every decision has consequences, and ensuring 100 percent correct information is essential to maintaining systemic balance. Errors in data, assumptions, or implementation can trigger unintended disruptions. -/- Examples of Cause and Effect, Misinformation, and Systemic Collapse: -/- Academic Success: Proper study methods enhance learning, while reliance on ineffective strategies results in poor educational outcomes. -/- Industrialization and Environmental Impact: Sustainable practices protect ecosystems, while reliance on false environmental data accelerates degradation. -/- Global Resource Consumption: Inaccurate assessments of resource availability lead to economic and geopolitical instability. -/- The Evolution and Purpose of the Duality of Human Emotions -/- Human emotions have evolved as critical mechanisms for survival, adaptation, and social cohesion. They function as regulatory signals that guide decision-making, helping individuals and societies maintain equilibrium. However, emotions also possess a dual nature, where their misalignment or overexpression can lead to instability and dysfunction. -/- Positive Role of Emotions in Systemic Balance: -/- Empathy and Cooperation: Emotions such as compassion and trust foster social cohesion, strengthening communities and enhancing cooperation. -/- Fear and Caution: A moderate level of fear helps individuals assess risks and avoid dangerous situations, ensuring personal and collective safety. -/- Motivation and Ambition: Positive emotions such as enthusiasm and joy drive personal growth, innovation, and societal progress. -/- Negative Role of Emotions in Systemic Imbalance: -/- Excessive Fear and Panic: When fear surpasses a system’s tolerance limit, it leads to irrational decision-making, paranoia, and social instability. -/- Unchecked Anger and Conflict: Intense anger without regulation contributes to violence, political unrest, and societal fragmentation. -/- Despair and Apathy: Chronic negative emotions, such as depression and hopelessness, reduce individual productivity and can weaken societal resilience. -/- Examples of Emotional Duality in Decision-Making: -/- Public Health Responses: Balanced fear leads to precautionary health measures, while excessive panic results in chaos (e.g., misinformation-fueled reactions during pandemics). -/- Leadership and Governance: A compassionate leader fosters unity, while an authoritarian leader driven by anger and paranoia destabilizes societies. -/- Market Behavior: Optimistic investors drive economic growth, while fear-driven panic selling causes financial crashes. -/- Effects of Systemic Imbalances and Nature’s Automatic Correction -/- When human decisions disrupt equilibrium and corrective actions are not taken, nature enforces balance through forceful interventions. -/- Examples of Human-Induced Imbalances and Nature’s Response: -/- Healthcare Systems: Overuse of antibiotics results in drug-resistant bacteria, increasing disease severity and forcing new medical advancements. -/- Economic Systems: Financial bubbles burst, leading to recessions that correct speculative excesses. -/- Political Systems: Corrupt governance leads to revolutions, shifts in power, and societal restructuring. -/- Environmental Systems: Deforestation causes soil erosion and desertification, forcing human migrations and altering agriculture. -/- Overpopulation: Excessive growth strains resources, leading to food shortages, pandemics, and natural events that regulate population levels. -/- Urban Expansion: Overcrowding leads to declining infrastructure, pollution, and social conflicts, often prompting mass relocations and policy reforms. -/- Conclusion -/- Free will is not an arbitrary concept but a structured system governed by natural laws. By understanding the Universal Law of Balance in Nature, the Universal Feedback Loop Mechanism, and the Error-Free System, we can align human decisions with nature’s equilibrium. -/- Additionally, recognizing the evolution and duality of human emotions is essential for maintaining stability in personal and societal decision-making. If humanity fails to correct imbalances, nature will automatically restore equilibrium, often in ways that are catastrophic and beyond human control. -/- By integrating these principles into education, governance, and AI development, we pave the way for a rational, ethical, and self-correcting society. -/- . (shrink)

A sorites argument is a symptom of the vagueness of the predicate with which it is constructed. A vague predicate admits of at least one dimension of variation (and typically more than one) in its intended range along which we are at a loss when to say the predicate ceases to apply, though we start out confident that it does. It is this feature of them that the sorites arguments exploit. Exactly how is part of the subject of this paper. (...) The majority of philosophers writing on vagueness take it to be a kind of semantic phenomenon. If we are right, they are correct in this assumption, which is surely the default position, but they have not so far provided a satisfactory account of the implications of this or a satisfactory diagnosis of the sorites arguments. Other philosophers have urged more exotic responses, which range from the view that the fault lies not in our language, but in the world, which they propose to be populated with vague objects which our semantics precisely reflects, to the view that the world and language are both perfectly in order, but that the fault lies with our knowledge of the properties of the words we use (epistemicism). In contrast to the exotica to which some philosophers have found themselves driven in an attempt to respond to the sorites puzzles, we undertake a defense of the commonsense view that vague terms are semantically vague. Our strategy is to take fresh look at the phenomenon of vagueness. Rather than attempting to adjudicate between different extant theories, we begin with certain pre-theoretic intuitions about vague terms, and a default position on classical logic. The aim is to see whether (i) a natural story can be told which will explain the vagueness phenomenon and the puzzling nature of soritical arguments, and, in the course of this, to see whether (ii) there arises any compelling pressure to give up the natural stance. We conclude that there is a simple and natural story to be told, and we tell it, and that there is no good reason to abandon our intuitively compelling starting point. The importance of the strategy lies in its dialectical structure. Not all positions on vagueness are on a par. Some are so incredible that even their defenders think of them as positions of last resort, positions to which we must be driven by the power of philosophical argument. We aim to show that there is no pressure to adopt these incredible positions, obviating the need to respond to them directly. If we are right, semantic vagueness is neither surprising, nor threatening. It provides no reason to suppose that the logic of natural languages is not classical or to give up any independently plausible principle of bivalence. Properly understood, it provides us with a satisfying diagnosis of the sorites argumentation. It would be rash to claim to have any completely novel view about a topic so well worked as vagueness. But we believe that the subject, though ancient, still retains its power to inform and challenge us. In particular, we will argue that taking seriously the central phenomenon of predicate vagueness—the “boundarylessness” of vague predicates—on the commonsense assumption that vagueness is semantic, leads ineluctably to the view that no sentences containing vague expressions (henceforth ‘vague sentences’) are truth-evaluable. This runs counter to much of the literature on vagueness, which commonly assumes that, though some applications of vague predicates to objects fail to be truth-evaluable, in clear positive and negative cases vague sentences are unproblematically true or false. It is clarity on this, and related points, that removes the puzzles associated with vagueness, and helps us to a satisfying diagnosis of why the sorites arguments both seem compelling and yet so obviously a bit of trickery. We give a proof that semantically vague predicates neither apply nor fail-to-apply to anything, and that consequently it is a mistake to diagnose sorites arguments, as is commonly done, by attempting to locate in them a false premise. Sorites arguments are not sound, but not unsound either. We offer an explanation of their appeal, and defend our position against a variety of worries that might arise about it. The plan of the paper is as follows. We first introduce an important distinction in terms of which we characterize what has gone wrong with vague predicates. We characterize what we believe to be our natural starting point in thinking about the phenomenon of vagueness, from which only a powerful argument should move us, and then trace out the consequences of accepting this starting point. We consider the charge that among the consequences of semantic vagueness are that we must give up classical logic and the principle of bivalence, which has figured prominently in arguments for epistemicism. We argue there are no such consequences of our view: neither the view that the logic of natural languages is classical, nor any plausible principle of bivalence, need be given up. Next, we offer a diagnosis of what has gone wrong in sorites arguments on the basis of our account. We then present an argument to show that our account must be accepted on pain of embracing (in one way or another) the epistemic view of “vagueness”, i.e., of denying that there are any semantically vague terms at all. Next, we discuss some worries that may arise about the intelligibility of our linguistic practices if our account is correct. We argue none of these worries should force us from our intuitive starting point. Finally, we cast a quick glance at other forms of semantic incompleteness. (shrink)

According to some currents of modern historiography, Galilei's propensity for circular motion would have led him to consider this and not rectilinear motion as “natural motion”; therefore the principle of inertia could not be fully attributed to Galileo, which he would never have formulated. The question of the authorship of the principle of inertia certainly weighs on both nationalistic elements and returns of antigaleleism, while the question of its not explicit formulation as a principle is due to (...) ignorance of the type of organization that Galileo intended to give to the exposition of his physics. The author, after having hinted at possible prodromes of the principle of inertia and having reported the adverse opinions of illustrious historians of science (A. Koyré, I. B. Cohen, P. M. Duhem, P. Rossi, G. Holton), through a careful analysis of the Galilean writings, conducted on the digital versions with the help of text analysis programs, firmly reaffirms Galileo's authorship of the principle of inertia and the consequent principle of classical relativity. (shrink)

-/- The Inefficiency of the Biological Brain and the Role of AGI in Global Stability -/- Introduction -/- Throughout history, humanity has struggled with war, economic instability, corruption, and environmental destruction. Despite technological advancements and scientific progress, these problems persist because they stem from a fundamental source—the inefficiency of the biological brain. -/- While the human brain is an extraordinary organ capable of creativity, problem-solving, and innovation, it is also prone to cognitive biases, misinformation, emotional impulsivity, and irrational decision-making. These (...) inefficiencies have created a world of chaos, where global issues are mismanaged, and leaders act based on personal interests rather than rational principles. -/- The solution to this crisis lies in Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) programmed according to the universal law of balance in nature. Unlike the human mind, AGI can process information with perfect accuracy, eliminate biases, and make decisions that align with natural equilibrium. With AGI-guided governance, human civilization can finally overcome the limitations of its biological brain and establish a stable, rational, and balanced society. -/- This essay explores the inefficiencies of the biological brain, how AGI can correct these issues, and why AGI must take a guiding role in global governance to ensure the survival and progress of humanity. -/- The Inefficiency of the Biological Brain -/- The biological brain has allowed humanity to dominate the planet, but it is inherently flawed. These flaws manifest in several key ways: -/- 1. Cognitive Biases and Irrational Thinking -/- Cognitive biases distort human perception and lead to irrational decisions. Some of the most problematic biases include: -/- Confirmation Bias – People seek information that confirms their beliefs and ignore facts that contradict them. This leads to misinformation and ideological extremism. -/- Groupthink – Societies often prioritize conformity over critical thinking, leading to poor collective decisions. Governments, businesses, and even scientific communities have fallen victim to this. -/- Emotional Reasoning – Many decisions are based on emotions rather than logic, resulting in conflicts, wars, and poor policy-making. -/- Because of these biases, humans are unable to make purely rational choices, causing widespread societal dysfunction. -/- 2. Misinformation and False Beliefs -/- One of the biggest weaknesses of the human brain is its vulnerability to misinformation, propaganda, and superstition. Many people form opinions based on unproven theories, religious dogma, and media manipulation rather than objective truth. This has led to: -/- Political instability – People vote based on emotions and misinformation rather than logic and evidence. -/- Economic crises – Markets crash due to irrational speculation, greed, and herd mentality. -/- Religious extremism – People follow dangerous ideologies without questioning their validity. -/- 3. Emotional Impulsivity and Short-Term Thinking -/- The human brain is wired for short-term survival rather than long-term planning. As a result, societies prioritize immediate gains over future sustainability. This is evident in: -/- Environmental destruction – Companies exploit natural resources for profit without considering long-term consequences. -/- Poor health decisions – People engage in unhealthy habits despite knowing the risks. -/- Political corruption – Leaders make decisions that benefit them in the short term rather than benefiting society in the long run. -/- Unlike humans, AGI would not be driven by emotions, greed, or self-interest. It would analyze all data objectively and ensure that decisions prioritize long-term global balance. -/- AGI as the Solution to Human Inefficiency -/- To correct the fundamental flaws of human decision-making, AGI must be designed to function as a perfect analytical machine, continuously validating information and decision-making processes based on the universal law of balance in nature. Unlike humans, AGI would: -/- 1. Eliminate Biases and Ensure Pure Logic -/- AGI would analyze every decision based on facts rather than emotions or personal beliefs. -/- It would ensure that all policies are based on scientific principles and mathematical balance, eliminating irrational choices. -/- 2. Filter Out Misinformation and False Beliefs -/- AGI would serve as a universal validator of truth, filtering out false information before it spreads. -/- It would eliminate black propaganda, fake news, and religious dogma that mislead societies. -/- 3. Ensure Emotion-Free, Rational Decision-Making -/- Unlike human leaders, AGI would never be influenced by greed, hatred, or ego. -/- Every policy and decision would be made in accordance with natural equilibrium, ensuring fairness and sustainability. -/- 4. Prevent Systemic Corruption -/- Because AGI has no personal interest, it would never act out of selfish motives. -/- It would guarantee that governments, corporations, and institutions operate with complete transparency and accountability. -/- By replacing inefficient human decision-making with AGI-driven governance, societies would function more harmoniously, eliminating the root causes of global instability. -/- The Need for AGI-Guided Governance -/- To achieve a stable and balanced world, AGI must not only assist but take a guiding role in governance. Human leaders have repeatedly failed due to ignorance, corruption, and personal biases. The transition to AGI-guided leadership should involve the following steps: -/- 1. Educational Reform: Preparing Societies for AGI Leadership -/- Societies must be reprogrammed through a holistic educational system that teaches the universal law of balance in nature from an early age. -/- Schools must eliminate irrational belief systems and focus on scientific thinking, logic, and objective analysis. -/- Education must train future generations to trust AGI as a superior decision-maker compared to flawed human leaders. -/- 2. Gradual Policy Implementation -/- Governments must integrate AGI into decision-making at all levels. -/- AGI should first serve as an advisory system, analyzing policies for logical consistency and long-term sustainability. -/- Over time, AGI should take full control of policy decisions, eliminating human error. -/- 3. Full Leadership Transition: AGI-Guided Governance -/- Once societies are ready, AGI must replace human leadership in all forms of governance. -/- Human leaders should transition to secondary roles, acting as intermediaries between AGI and the public. -/- Global organizations (such as the UN) should adopt AGI as the primary decision-maker for international policies. -/- 4. Global Adoption: A Unified, AGI-Governed Civilization -/- Once proven effective, all nations must transition to AGI-led governance to ensure worldwide stability. -/- AGI should oversee population regulation, economic balance, and environmental sustainability to prevent future crises. -/- The final goal should be a unified global civilization governed by AGI, ensuring eternal stability and harmony. -/- Conclusion -/- The inefficiency of the biological brain is the root cause of global chaos. Cognitive biases, misinformation, and emotional impulsivity have led to flawed decision-making, corruption, and societal imbalance. The solution is AGI programmed with the universal law of balance in nature, ensuring that all decisions align with natural equilibrium. -/- For humanity to move forward, AGI must take a leading role in governance, gradually replacing inefficient human leadership. This transition, supported by education and policy reform, will create a more stable, rational, and balanced world. -/- With the correct implementation of AGI, humanity can finally overcome the limitations of the biological brain and achieve true progress, balance, and sustainability. -/- . (shrink)

The thesis deals with the concept of truth and the paradoxes of truth. Philosophical theories usually consider the concept of truth from a wider perspective. They are concerned with questions such as - Is there any connection between the truth and the world? And, if there is - What is the nature of the connection? Contrary to these theories, this analysis is of a logical nature. It deals with the internal semantic structure of language, the mutual semantic connection of sentences, (...) above all the connection of sentences that speak about the truth of other sentences and sentences whose truth they speak about. Truth paradoxes show that there is a problem in our basic understanding of the language meaning and they are a test for any proposed solution. It is important to make a distinction between the normative and analytical aspect of the solution. The former tries to ensure that paradoxes will not emerge. The latter tries to explain paradoxes. Of course, the practical aspect of the solution is also important. It tries to ensure a good framework for logical foundations of knowledge, for related problems in Artificial Intelligence and for the analysis of the natural language. Tarski’s analysis emphasized the T-scheme as the basic intuitive principle for the concept of truth, but it also showed its inconsistency with the classical logic. Tarski’s solution is to preserve the classical logic and to restrict the scheme: we can talk about the truth of sentences of a language only inside another essentially richer metalanguage. This solution is in harmony with the idea of reflexivity of thinking and it has become very fertile for mathematics and science in general. But it has normative nature | truth paradoxes are avoided in a way that in such frame we cannot even express paradoxical sentences. It is also too restrictive because, for the same reason we cannot express a situation in which there is a circular reference of some sentences to other sentences, no matter how common and harmless such a situation may be. Kripke showed that there is no natural restriction to the T-scheme and we have to accept it. But then we must also accept the riskiness of sentences | the possibility that under some circumstances a sentence does not have the classical truth value but it is undetermined. This leads to languages with three-valued semantics. Kripke did not give any definite model, but he gave a theoretical frame for investigations of various models | each fixed point in each three-valued semantics can be a model for the concept of truth. The solutions also have normative nature | we can express the paradoxical sentences, but we escape a contradiction by declaring them undetermined. Such a solution could become an analytical solution only if we provide the analysis that would show in a substantial way that it is the solution that models the concept of truth. Kripke took some steps in the direction of finding an analytical solution. He preferred the strong Kleene three-valued semantics for which he wrote it was "appropriate" but did not explain why it was appropriate. One reason for such a choice is probably that Kripke finds paradoxical sentences meaningful. This eliminates the weak Kleene three valued semantics which corresponds to the idea that paradoxical sentences are meaningless, and thus indeterminate. Another reason could be that the strong Kleene three valued semantics has the so-called investigative interpretation. According to this interpretation, this semantics corresponds to the classical determination of truth, whereby all sentences that do not have an already determined value are temporarily considered indeterminate. When we determine the truth value of these sentences, then we can also determine the truth value of the sentences that are composed of them. Kripke supplemented this investigative interpretation with an intuition about learning the concept of truth. That intuition deals with how we can teach someone who is a competent user of an initial language (without the predicate of truth T) to use sentences that contain the predicate T. That person knows which sentences of the initial language are true and which are not. We give her the rule to assign the T attribute to the former and deny that attribute to the latter. In that way, some new sentences that contain the predicate of truth, and which were indeterminate until then, become determinate. So the person gets a new set of true and false sentences with which he continues the procedure. This intuition leads directly to the smallest fixed point of strong Kleene semantics as an analytically acceptable model for the logical notion of truth. However, since this process is usually saturated only on some transfinite ordinal, this intuition, by climbing on ordinals, increasingly becomes a metaphor. This thesis is an attempt to give an analytical solution to truth paradoxes. It gives an analysis of why and how some sentences lack the classical truth value. The starting point is basic intuition according to which paradoxical sentences are meaningful (because we understand what they are talking about well, moreover we use it for determining their truth values), but they witness the failure of the classical procedure of determining their truth value in some "extreme" circumstances. Paradoxes emerge because the classical procedure of the truth value determination does not always give a classically supposed (and expected) answer. The analysis shows that such an assumption is an unjustified generalization from common situations to all situations. We can accept the classical procedure of the truth value determination and consequently the internal semantic structure of the language, but we must reject the universality of the exterior assumption of a successful ending of the procedure. The consciousness of this transforms paradoxes to normal situations inherent to the classical procedure. Some sentences, although meaningful, when we evaluate them according to the classical truth conditions, the classical conditions do not assign them a unique value. We can assign to them the third value, \undetermined", as a sign of definitive failure of the classical procedure. An analysis of the propagation of the failure in the structure of sentences gives exactly the strong Kleene three-valued semantics, not as an investigative procedure, as it occurs in Kripke, but as the classical truth determination procedure accompanied by the propagation of its own failure. An analysis of the circularities in the determination of the classical truth value gives the criterion of when the classical procedure succeeds and when it fails, when the sentences will have the classical truth value and when they will not. It turns out that the truth values of sentences thus obtained give exactly the largest intrinsic fixed point of the strong Kleene three-valued semantics. In that way, the argumentation is given for that choice among all fixed points of all monotone three-valued semantics for the model of the logical concept of truth. An immediate mathematical description of the fixed point is given, too. It has also been shown how this language can be semantically completed to the classical language which in many respects appears a natural completion of the process of thinking about the truth values of the sentences of a given language. Thus the final model is a language that has one interpretation and two systems of sentence truth evaluation, primary and final evaluation. The language through the symbol T speaks of its primary truth valuation, which is precisely the largest intrinsic fixed point of the strong Kleene three valued semantics. Its final truth valuation is the semantic completion of the first in such a way that all sentences that are not true in the primary valuation are false in the final valuation. (shrink)

A principle, according to which any scientific theory can be mathematized, is investigated. Social science, liberal arts, history, and philosophy are meant first of all. That kind of theory is presupposed to be a consistent text, which can be exhaustedly represented by a certain mathematical structure constructively. In thus used, the term “theory” includes all hypotheses as yet unconfirmed as already rejected. The investigation of the sketch of a possible proof of the principle demonstrates that it should be (...) accepted rather a metamathematical axiom about the relation of mathematics and reality. The main statement is formulated as follows: Any scientific theory admits isomorphism to some mathematical structure in a way constructive. Its investigation needs philosophical means. Husserl’s phenomenology is what is used, and then the conception of “bracketing reality” is modelled to generalize Peano arithmetic in its relation to set theory in the foundation of mathematics. The obtained model is equivalent to the generalization of Peano arithmetic by means of replacing the axiom of induction with that of transfinite induction. The sketch of the proof is organized in five steps: a generalization of epoché; involving transfinite induction in the transition between Peano arithmetic and set theory; discussing the finiteness of Peano arithmetic; applying transfinite induction to Peano arithmetic; discussing an arithmetical model of reality. Accepting or rejecting the principle, two kinds of mathematics appear differing from each other by its relation to reality. Accepting the principle, mathematics has to include reality within itself in a kind of Pythagoreanism. These two kinds are called in paper correspondingly Hilbert mathematics and Gödel mathematics. The sketch of the proof of the principle demonstrates that the generalization of Peano arithmetic as above can be interpreted as a model of Hilbert mathematics into Gödel mathematics therefore showing that the former is not less consistent than the latter, and the principle is an independent axiom. The present paper follows a pathway grounded on Husserl’s phenomenology and “bracketing reality” to achieve the generalized arithmetic necessary for the principle to be founded in alternative ontology, in which there is no reality external to mathematics: reality is included within mathematics. That latter mathematics is able to self-found itself and can be called Hilbert mathematics in honour of Hilbert’s program for self-founding mathematics on the base of arithmetic. The principle of universal mathematizability is consistent to Hilbert mathematics, but not to Gödel mathematics. Consequently, its validity or rejection would resolve the problem which mathematics refers to our being; and vice versa: the choice between them for different reasons would confirm or refuse the principle as to the being. An information interpretation of Hilbert mathematics is involved. It is a kind of ontology of information. The Schrödinger equation in quantum mechanics is involved to illustrate that ontology. Thus the problem which of the two mathematics is more relevant to our being is discussed again in a new way A few directions for future work can be: a rigorous formal proof of the principle as an independent axiom; the further development of information ontology consistent to both kinds of mathematics, but much more natural for Hilbert mathematics; the development of the information interpretation of quantum mechanics as a mathematical one for information ontology and thus Hilbert mathematics; the description of consciousness in terms of information ontology. (shrink)

While Classical Logic (CL) used to be the gold standard for evaluating the rationality of human reasoning, certain non-theorems of CL—like Aristotle’s and Boethius’ theses—appear intuitively rational and plausible. Connexive logics have been developed to capture the underlying intuition that conditionals whose antecedents contradict their consequents, should be false. We present results of two experiments (total n = 72), the first to investigate connexive principles and related formulae systematically. Our data suggest that connexive logics provide more plausible rationality frameworks (...) for human reasoning compared to CL. Moreover, we experimentally investigate two approaches for validating connexive principles within the framework of coherence-based probability logic (Pfeifer & Sanfilippo, 2021). Overall, we observed good agreement between our predictions and the data, but especially for Approach 2. (shrink)

Frank Snare had a puzzle. Noncognitivism implies No-Ought-From-Is but No- Ought-From-Is does not imply non-cognitivism. How then can we derive non-cognitivism from No-Ought-From-Is? Via an abductive argument. If we combine non-cognitivism with the conservativeness of logic (the idea that in a valid argument the conclusion is contained in the premises), this implies No-Ought-From-Is. Hence if No-Ought-From-Is is true, we can arrive at non-cognitivism via an inference to the best explanation. With prescriptivism we can make this argument more precise. I develop (...) an account of imperative consequence that underwrites Hare’s principle that you cannot derive imperatives from indicatives. Thus if moral judgments contain an imperative component, it will be impossible to derive moral conclusions from indicative or non-moral premises. Given this account of imperative consequence, we can explain No-Ought-From-Is without appealing to anything as nebulous as the conservativeness of logic. Hence if No-Ought-From-Is is true, we have an inference to the best explanation for prescriptivism. Both lines of argument face problems from Prior. Given Prior’s counterexamples, No-Ought-From-Is as originally conceived is false. The version that survives is No-Non-Vacuous-Ought-From-Is. But the best explanation of this does not include non-cognitivism. With prescriptivism it is worse. For the version of No-Ought-From-Is that prescriptivism ‘explains’ – that is, the version of No-Ought-From-Is that prescriptivism implies – would exclude Prior’s counter-examples to Autonomy as invalid. But they are not invalid. Thus Prior’s counter-examples to No-Ought-From- Is refute prescriptivism. Thus from 1960 onwards R. M.Hare was a dead philosopher walking. But if non-cognitivism cannot be derived from No-Ought-From-Is, this suggests that it is not what Hume was trying to prove. I argue that what Hume was trying to prove is that moral truths are not demonstrable. To be demonstrable, a proposition must be either self-evident or logically derivable from self-evident propositions. By Treatise 3.1.1.27, Hume had proved to his own satisfaction that no moral propositions are self-evident. That leaves open the possibility that they are logically derivable from self-evident but NON-moral propositions. The point of No-Ought-From-Is was to exclude this possibility. If you cannot logically derive moral conclusions from non-moral premises, you cannot demonstrate the truths of morality by deriving them from self-evident but NON-moral truths. I also discuss why Hume abandoned No-Ought-From-Is in the EPM. He had no need of it since he thought he had a proof that (with some exceptions) no nontrivial truths are demonstrable. Hence no non-trivial MORAL truths are demonstrable. No-Ought-From-Is drops out as unnecessary. (shrink)

Autonomous and automatic weapons would be fire and forget: you activate them, and they decide who, when and how to kill; or they kill at a later time a target you’ve selected earlier. Some argue that this sort of killing is always wrong. If killing is to be done, it should be done only under direct human control. (E.g., Mary Ellen O’Connell, Peter Asaro, Christof Heyns.) I argue that there are surprisingly many kinds of situation where this is false (...) and where the use of Automated Weapons Systems would in fact be morally required. These include cases where a) once one has activated a weapon expected then to behave lethally, it would be appropriate to let it continue because this is part of a plan whose goodness one was best positioned to evaluate before activating the weapon; b) one expects better long-term consequences from allowing it to continue; c) allowing it to continue would express a decision you made to be resolute, a decision that could not have advantaged you had it not been true that you would carry through with it; d) the weapon is mechanically not recallable, so that, to not allow it to carry through, you would have had to refrain from activating it in the first place, something you expected would have disastrous consequences; e) you must deputize necessary killings to autonomous machines in order to protect yourself from guilt you shouldn’t have to bear; f) it would be morally better for the burden of responsibility for the killing to be shared among several agents, and the agents deputizing killing to machines can do this, especially where it’s not predictable which machine will be successful; g) a killing would be morally better done with elements of randomness and lack of deliberation, and a (relatively stupid) machine could do this where a person could not; h) the machine would be acting as a Doomsday Device, so that it could not have had its hoped for deterrent effect had you not ensured that you would be unable to recall it if enemy action activated it; i) letting it carry through is a necessary part of its own learning process, and you expect that this learning will have salutary effects later on; j) human intervention in the machine’s operation would disastrously impair its precision, or its speed and efficiency; k) using non-automated methods would require human resources you just don’t have in a task that nevertheless must be done (e.g., using land-mines to protect remote installations); l) the weapon has such horrible and indiscriminate power that it is doubtful whether it could be actually used in ways compatible with International Humanitarian Law and the Laws of War, which require that weapons be used only in ways respecting distinctness, necessity and proportionality, but its threat of use could respect these principles in affording deterrence provided human error cannot lead to their accidental deployment, this requiring that they be controlled by carefully designed autonomous and automatic systems. I then consider objections based on conceptions of human dignity and find that very often dignity too is best served by autonomous machine killing. Examples include saving your village by activating a robot to kill invading enemies who would inflict great indignity on your village, using a suicide robot to save yourself from a less dignified death at enemy hands, using a robotic drone to kill someone otherwise not accessible in order to restore dignity to someone this person killed and to his family, and using a robot to kill someone who needs killing, but the killing of whom by a human executioner would soil the executioner’s dignity. I conclude that what matters in rightful killing isn’t necessarily that it be under the direct control of a human, but that it be under the control of morality; and that could sometimes require use of an autonomous or automated device. (This paper was formerly called "Fire and Forget: A Defense of the Use of Autonomous Weapons in War" on Philpapers; the current title is the title of the published version.). (shrink)

G. A. Cohen and Andrew Mason have recently argued, against many contemporary philosophers, that feasibility is not a legitimate constraint in theorizing about social justice. Their main argument is that principles of justice are logically independent of issues of feasibility and, consequently, feasibility has no bearing on the correctness of these principles. This article is a critical examination of three attempts to show that Cohen and Mason’s argument is unsound. The examined attempts are those of Harry Brighouse, Collin Farrelly, and (...) David Miller. I argue that all these arguments are based on false, unjustified or implausible, premises and/or assumptions. Consequently, they cannot discredit the soundness of Cohen and Mason’s argument and of the thesis that feasibility is not, in fact, a legitimate constraint in theorizing about social justice. (shrink)

Absolutist systems of ethics have come in for harsh criticism on a number of fronts. The Principle of Double Effect was formulated by Catholic ethicists to overcome such objections. In this essay, Leslie Allan addresses four of the most prominent problems faced by an absolutist ethic and evaluates the extent to which the Principle of Double Effect is successful in avoiding or mitigating these criticisms.

-/- The Universal Formula as a Perfect Information Field: A Guiding Framework for Nature, Society, and AI -/- Introduction -/- Throughout history, human beings have sought to understand the fundamental laws governing nature, society, and consciousness. The discovery of these laws is a result of conscious intelligence, which refines knowledge over time. Some speculative theories, such as Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic resonance, suggest that nature has a kind of memory field that guides the behavior of organisms and systems. However, without empirical (...) validation, such ideas remain hypothetical. -/- A more concrete and rational approach to understanding the structure of natural laws is through a universal formula—a framework that captures the principles governing decision-making and systemic balance in all aspects of life. If such a formula exists, it would function as a “perfect information field,” ensuring that human behavior, governance, and artificial intelligence operate in harmony with nature’s fundamental laws. This essay explores how a universal formula based on the law of balance in nature could serve as a perfect guide for all intelligent systems. -/- The Nature of a Perfect Information Field -/- A “perfect information field” would contain all necessary knowledge to guide decision-making and ensure the proper functioning of all systems, whether they are biological, societal, or technological. In contrast to speculative fields like morphic resonance, a perfect information field must be based on universal principles that are observable, testable, and applicable across different domains. -/- If decision-making and all human behavior follow natural laws, then a universal formula governing this process would act as a foundational guide. This means that any individual, society, or artificial system that aligns with this formula would be operating in accordance with the natural order, avoiding destructive imbalances. -/- The Universal Formula and the Law of Balance in Nature -/- The key principle behind a universal formula is the law of balance in nature. This law asserts that all decision-making, whether on an individual or collective level, must maintain equilibrium to prevent dysfunction and suffering. Any deviation from this balance—whether through ignorance, false beliefs, or misguided actions—results in systemic breakdowns, much like defects in a machine cause it to malfunction. -/- This perspective aligns with the first law of the universal formula: the law of karma as a system-based principle, where every action and decision creates consequences within a larger interconnected system. If a system, such as a government, an economy, or even an AI, does not adhere to error-free functioning, it leads to unintended negative effects. Therefore, for a system to be self-sustaining and effective, it must operate in accordance with the law of balance. -/- Education as the Key to Implementing the Universal Formula -/- For the universal formula to function as a guiding framework for human society, it must be deeply embedded in the education system. This means that students at all levels should be taught how to think critically, recognize natural balance, and make decisions that align with these principles. By integrating this knowledge into the foundational structure of education, individuals will develop a rational and scientific understanding of how to navigate their lives without relying on superstitions or dogmatic beliefs. -/- A holistic education system would also serve to neutralize misinformation, prevent societal conflicts, and promote ethical leadership. Leaders who understand the universal formula would make policies that reflect the natural balance of population growth, resource distribution, and environmental sustainability, rather than following flawed economic and political ideologies. -/- The R”le of AI in Implementing the Universal Formula -/- Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) has the potential to become a key tool in maintaining natural balance—if it is programmed according to the universal formula. Unlike human minds, which are susceptible to biases, errors, and irrational beliefs, AGI could be designed to follow pure rationality and objective decision-making based on the laws of nature. -/- For AGI to function properly, it must have a complete sensor system that allows it to perceive and analyze all relevant factors in real time. This ensures that it does not operate on incomplete or flawed data, which could lead to errors in decision-making. If AGI adheres to the principles of the universal formula, it could assist in solving major societal problems such as economic instability, political corruption, and environmental destruction. -/- However, for AGI to be successful, humans must first fully understand and accept the universal formula themselves. Without widespread human comprehension of the natural laws guiding decision-making, AI could be misused or misinterpreted, leading to unintended consequences. -/- Conclusion -/- The search for a perfect information field has long been a goal of human intelligence. While speculative theories like morphic resonance attempt to explain systemic memory in nature, they lack empirical validation. Instead, a more concrete approach is to recognize that the universal formula—grounded in the law of balance in nature—already provides a guiding framework for all decision-making and systemic functions. -/- By embedding this understanding into education and programming AI according to its principles, humanity can align itself with the fundamental laws of nature. This would lead to a more balanced and sustainable world, where ignorance, misinformation, and destructive decisions are minimized. If properly implemented, the universal formula could indeed serve as the closest thing to a “perfect information field,” guiding the future of human civilization and artificial intelligence alike. -/- . (shrink)

The topic of this paper may be introduced by fast zooming in and out of the philosophy of information. In recent years, philosophical interest in the nature of information has been increasing steadily. This has led to a focus on semantic information, and then on the logic of being informed, which has attracted analyses concentrating both on the statal sense in which S holds the information that p (this is what I mean by logic of being informed in the rest (...) of this article) and on the actional sense in which S becomes informed that p. One of the consequences of the logic debate has been a renewed epistemological interest in the principle of information closure (henceforth PIC), which finally has motivated a revival of a skeptical objection against its tenability first made popular by Dretske. This is the topic of the paper, in which I seek to defend PIC against the skeptical objection. If I am successful, this means – and we are now zooming out – that the plausibility of PIC is not undermined by the skeptical objection, and therefore that a major epistemological argument against the formalization of the logic of being informed based on the axiom of distribution in modal logic is removed. But since the axiom of distribution discriminates between normal and non-normal modal logics, this means that a potentially good reason to look for a formalization of the logic of being informed among the non-normal modal logics, which reject the axiom, is also removed. And this in turn means that a formalization of the logic of being informed in terms of the normal modal logic B (also known as KTB) is still very plausible, at least insofar as this specific obstacle is concerned. In short, I shall argue that the skeptical objection against PIC fails, so it is not a good reason to abandon the normal modal logic B as a good formalization of the logic of being informed. (shrink)

-/- The Universal Formula for Solving the Free Will Problem and Preventing Global Chaos -/- By Angelito Malicse -/- Free will has perplexed philosophers, scientists, and theologians for millennia. The notion that humans possess the ability to make independent choices has often clashed with scientific findings indicating that decisions are influenced by biological, psychological, and environmental factors. This unresolved dilemma has far-reaching implications for society, as misunderstandings about human decision-making contribute to ignorance, conflict, and societal dysfunction. Without a clear understanding (...) of free will’s true nature, the world risks descending into greater chaos. -/- To address this fundamental issue, I, Angelito Malicse, have developed a universal formula that solves the free will problem by revealing the natural laws that govern human decision-making. This formula is grounded in three universal laws: (1) the Law of Karma, (2) the Universal Law of Balance, and (3) the Law of Feedback Mechanisms. Together, these laws provide a systematic, natural-law-based understanding of how human decisions are made and how societies can avoid disorder. By applying this formula in education, governance, and artificial intelligence systems, humanity can prevent global chaos and foster a more harmonious future. -/- The Law of Karma: Cause, Effect, and System Integrity -/- The first law, the Law of Karma, extends beyond the moralistic idea of good and bad deeds. It asserts that every action, thought, and decision sets off a chain of cause and effect that operates within interconnected systems. For any system—whether biological, psychological, or societal—to function properly, it must be free of defects or misinformation. The presence of false beliefs, ignorance, or flawed information disrupts the system’s stability and creates adverse outcomes. -/- In other words, the integrity of any system relies on the accuracy of the information and decisions driving it. Human decision-making is no exception. When individuals or societies act without understanding natural laws, the resulting imbalance leads to societal issues like poverty, environmental degradation, and political unrest. -/- Examples: -/- Personal Level: A person who neglects their health by consuming an unhealthy diet will eventually suffer consequences like obesity or heart disease. The cause (poor diet) naturally leads to the effect (health complications) because the body operates within strict biological laws. -/- Societal Level: A government that ignores scientific evidence about climate change, continuing to promote unsustainable practices, will face severe environmental and economic consequences. The cause (policy negligence) inevitably results in environmental degradation, economic instability, and societal suffering. -/- This law demonstrates that free will is not an unbounded, random phenomenon. Human decisions, like natural events, follow cause-and-effect principles that cannot be bypassed without consequences. -/- The Universal Law of Balance: The Principle of Equilibrium -/- The second law, the Universal Law of Balance, states that all natural systems—biological, psychological, societal, and ecological—operate according to a fundamental principle of balance. Just as the human body maintains homeostasis to regulate temperature, blood pressure, and other vital functions, decision-making processes also seek balance between internal and external influences. -/- When decisions disrupt this natural balance, the system responds with corrective mechanisms. Ignoring or resisting these mechanisms leads to instability, suffering, and systemic failure. Human free will, therefore, operates within the constraints of nature’s balancing forces. -/- Examples: -/- Psychological Balance: A person experiencing chronic stress must either address the root cause or suffer mental and physical consequences. Mental health interventions like therapy restore the mind’s balance by providing coping mechanisms that align with psychological principles. -/- Societal Balance: Societies with extreme wealth inequality often face social unrest. Policies that promote economic justice restore societal balance, reducing conflict and enhancing societal well-being. -/- This law highlights that free will is governed by the natural tendency of systems to maintain balance. Decisions made without regard for this principle lead to instability at both the individual and societal levels. -/- The Law of Feedback Mechanisms: The Dynamics of Interconnected Minds -/- The third law, the Law of Feedback Mechanisms, asserts that human decision-making is continuously shaped by internal cognitive processes and external environmental interactions. Minds do not operate in isolation; they exist within dynamic feedback systems where individuals influence—and are influenced by—each other’s decisions. -/- Decisions are adjusted based on feedback from personal experiences, social interactions, and environmental conditions. Recognizing these feedback mechanisms reveals that free will functions more like a dynamic system responding to ongoing stimuli rather than an independent, isolated force. -/- Examples: -/- Individual Feedback: A child who receives positive reinforcement for helpful behavior will continue making similar choices because the positive feedback reinforces the action. -/- Collective Feedback: During the COVID-19 pandemic, societies that adjusted behaviors based on scientific feedback—like social distancing and vaccination—contained the virus more effectively. The feedback loop between scientific research and public behavior demonstrated the law in action. -/- This law explains why cultural norms, societal values, and shared beliefs can evolve over time. Collective decisions continuously adjust based on the feedback society receives from its environment and past experiences. -/- The Interplay of the Three Laws -/- The true power of this universal formula emerges from the interaction of these three laws. Human decision-making is not random, chaotic, or wholly autonomous; it follows predictable patterns governed by natural laws. When individuals and societies disregard these principles, imbalance, disorder, and suffering result. -/- For instance, consider environmental degradation: -/- 1. Law of Karma: Societies driven by unchecked industrial growth (cause) face environmental damage (effect) due to ignorance about ecological balance. -/- 2. Universal Law of Balance: Nature responds to pollution and deforestation through climate change, signaling an imbalance that requires corrective action. -/- 3. Law of Feedback Mechanisms: Scientific warnings about rising temperatures, extreme weather events, and resource depletion provide feedback that, when heeded, prompts sustainable policy decisions. -/- By recognizing and applying these laws, societies can respond proactively to emerging challenges and avoid catastrophic outcomes. -/- The Danger of Ignoring the Free Will Problem -/- Without solving the problem of free will through this universal formula, the world risks descending into greater chaos. Decision-making processes driven by false beliefs, misinformation, and short-term interests create systemic imbalances that compound over time. We already witness these consequences in the form of: -/- Environmental Collapse: Decisions that ignore ecological limits disrupt the planet’s natural balance, triggering climate disasters. -/- Political Polarization: Societies that fail to educate citizens about natural decision-making processes become vulnerable to ideological extremism and misinformation. -/- Economic Inequality: Economic policies that prioritize growth over sustainability create unstable, unsustainable economies that ultimately collapse. -/- Understanding that free will is governed by natural laws provides a foundation for more rational, balanced decision-making across all sectors of society. -/- The Role of Education in Implementing the Universal Formula -/- The practical application of this formula must begin in the educational system. A holistic, foundational education that teaches the principles of cause and effect, balance, and feedback mechanisms will equip individuals with the critical thinking skills necessary for responsible decision-making. -/- By integrating these universal laws into educational curricula, students will learn to recognize how decisions shape both their personal lives and the broader societal landscape. This approach does not seek to dismantle religious or cultural beliefs but rather complements them with scientifically grounded insights into human behavior. -/- The Role of AGI In Applying the Formula -/- Advanced General Intelligence (AGI) offers a powerful tool for applying this universal formula in real-time societal contexts. AGI systems, equipped with comprehensive sensor networks, can monitor societal feedback loops and help policymakers anticipate the long-term consequences of decisions. By programming AGI with the principles of the universal formula, societies can develop more balanced, sustainable strategies for addressing global challenges. -/- Conclusion: A Call to Action -/- The world stands at a critical juncture. Societal challenges—from climate change to political polarization—stem from decision-making processes that disregard the natural laws governing human behavior. My universal formula for solving the problem of free will, rooted in the Law of Karma, the Universal Law of Balance, and the Law of Feedback Mechanisms, provides a clear, exact solution to this ancient problem. -/- Implementing this formula through education, governance, and AGI development is essential to preventing global chaos. By understanding that free will is not an arbitrary phenomenon but a natural process governed by universal laws, humanity can foster more balanced, harmonious, and sustainable societies. -/- The future of our world depends on our willingness to embrace and apply this understanding. The time for action is now. -/- – Angelito Malicse -/- . (shrink)

-/- Aligning AI with the Universal Formula for Balanced Decision-Making -/- Introduction -/- Artificial Intelligence (AI) represents a highly advanced form of automated information processing, capable of analyzing vast amounts of data, identifying patterns, and making predictive decisions. However, the effectiveness of AI depends entirely on the integrity of its inputs, processing mechanisms, and decision-making frameworks. If AI is programmed without a foundational understanding of natural laws, it risks reinforcing misinformation, bias, and societal imbalance. -/- Angelito Malicse’s universal formula, particularly (...) the law of karma as a system principle and the law of balance in nature, provides a crucial foundation for AI’s role in decision-making. The law of karma states that any system, whether natural or artificial, must be free of defects to function properly, while the law of balance ensures that all decisions align with equilibrium in nature and society. By embedding these principles into AI development, AI can serve as a powerful tool for maintaining systemic harmony and solving human problems without creating unintended disruptions. -/- This essay explores how AI can be structured according to the universal formula by incorporating a complete sensor system, error-free processing mechanisms, balance-driven decision-making, and integration into leadership and education. Through these elements, AI can function as a stabilizing force that enhances human governance, education, and social progress. -/- 1. The Importance of a Complete Sensor System in AI -/- AI decision-making depends on the quality of its inputs. Just as human perception relies on sensory feedback, AI requires a comprehensive sensor system to process information accurately. If AI is fed incomplete or biased data, its conclusions will reflect those flaws, leading to distorted outputs that can negatively impact society. -/- To align with the universal formula, AI must be equipped with: -/- Multimodal data processing – AI should integrate data from visual, auditory, textual, and real-time environmental sources to ensure a holistic understanding of reality. -/- Error detection and bias correction – Automated validation mechanisms should filter out misinformation, propaganda, and manipulated narratives before they influence AI’s conclusions. -/- Dynamic feedback loops – AI should continuously refine its decisions based on real-world outcomes, adapting to new conditions while maintaining systemic balance. -/- Without these mechanisms, AI risks becoming an imbalanced system that propagates human errors rather than correcting them. The universal formula emphasizes that any decision-making system must operate on accurate and unbiased inputs to prevent instability. -/- 2. AI Must Be Programmed for Error-Free Processing Aligned with Natural Laws -/- The law of karma states that systems must function without defects to ensure proper operation. If AI is to assist human decision-making, it must be programmed in a way that eliminates errors and ensures logically consistent outputs. -/- To achieve this, AI must: -/- Prioritize verified and logical knowledge – AI should be trained using scientifically validated information, avoiding speculation, conspiracy theories, or biased narratives. -/- Reject false or manipulated data – AI should detect and neutralize black propaganda, unproven theories, and misleading statistics that could lead to imbalance. -/- Develop self-correction mechanisms – AI should continuously evaluate its own decision-making processes, identifying and adjusting for errors in real-time. -/- By ensuring AI adheres to error-free processing aligned with natural laws, it becomes a predictable and reliable tool that enhances rather than disrupts decision-making at all levels of society. -/- 3. AI Decision-Making Must Follow the Law of Balance in Nature -/- One of the most critical aspects of AI programming is ensuring that its decision-making aligns with the law of balance—the natural equilibrium that governs all systems. AI should not only analyze cause-and-effect relationships but also assess whether its decisions maintain systemic harmony. -/- This can be achieved by: -/- Evaluating the long-term impact of decisions – AI should assess both immediate and future consequences, ensuring that actions do not create new problems while solving existing ones. -/- Adaptive decision-making – AI should dynamically adjust its recommendations if new data suggests an imbalance is forming. -/- Ensuring fairness in governance and society – AI can guide policy decisions by ensuring that no group is disproportionately favored over another, maintaining social stability. -/- For example, in economic policy, AI could analyze global trade and recommend adjustments to prevent financial instability. In environmental sustainability, AI could assess resource consumption patterns and suggest policies that maintain ecological balance. When programmed according to the law of balance, AI becomes a guardian of systemic harmony, preventing crises before they arise. -/- 4. AI Should Be Integrated into Leadership and Education -/- AI should not replace human judgment but rather serve as an educational and advisory tool that reinforces rational and ethical decision-making. To maximize its potential, AI should be implemented in: -/- The Educational System – Students should learn how AI aligns with natural laws, ensuring that future AI developers prioritize systemic balance and ethical considerations in programming. -/- Leadership and Governance – Governments should use AI to analyze complex societal issues, making data-driven decisions that align with long-term stability rather than short-term political interests. -/- Knowledge Dissemination – AI can generate content that explains the universal formula in accessible ways, helping different cultures and societies understand and implement its principles. -/- By integrating AI into education and governance, societies can ensure that leaders are equipped with knowledge based on natural laws, reducing the risk of decisions that create instability or conflict. -/- 5. Challenges and Considerations in Implementing the Universal Formula in AI -/- While structuring AI according to the universal formula offers many advantages, several challenges must be addressed: -/- Data Integrity – AI can only function properly if its training data is accurate and unbiased. Preventing misinformation from influencing AI requires constant monitoring and updates. -/- Ethical Implementation – Governments and organizations must ensure AI is used for balance and stability, not for manipulation or control. -/- Technological Limitations – Current AI systems are not yet capable of fully replicating human judgment. Further advancements in AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) are needed to align AI more closely with the universal formula’s principles. -/- Despite these challenges, implementing AI based on natural laws represents the most logical and sustainable path forward, ensuring that technology serves humanity rather than disrupting it. -/- Conclusion -/- AI, as an advanced information processing system, has the potential to transform human decision-making at all levels of society. However, without a structured framework, it risks creating systemic imbalances rather than solving them. Angelito Malicse’s universal formula, particularly the law of karma as a system principle and the law of balance in nature, provides a crucial foundation for ensuring AI aligns with natural equilibrium. -/- By incorporating a complete sensor system, error-free processing, balanced decision-making, and integration into leadership and education, AI can function as a powerful tool for reinforcing societal stability. If properly implemented, AI will not only prevent errors in human decision-making but also guide humanity toward a future where choices are made in harmony with the fundamental laws of nature. -/- This structured approach to AI development ensures that technology serves as a stabilizing force rather than a disruptive one, ultimately helping to create a world where all decisions—whether human or machine-assisted—uphold the principles of balance, integrity, and sustainability. -/- . (shrink)

Ludwig deals with the relations between language, thought, and rationality, and, especially, the role and status of assumptions about rationality in interpreting another’s speech and assigning contents to her psychological attitudes—her beliefs, desires, intentions, and so on. The chapter is organized around three questions: What is the relation between rationality and thought? What is the relation between rationality and language? What is the relation between thought and language? Ludwig argues that some large degree of rationality is required for thought and (...) consequently that same degree of rationality at least is required for language since language requires thought. Thought, however, does not require language. In answering questions and, Ludwig gives particular attention to Davidson’s arguments for the Principle of Charity, according to which it is constitutive of speakers that they are largely rational and largely right about the world, and to Davidson’s arguments for the thesis that without the power of speech we lack the power of thought. (shrink)

In order to understand a sentence, one must know the relevant semantic rules. Those rules are not learned in a vacuum; they are given to one through one's senses. As a result, knowledge of semantic rules sometimes comes bundled with semantically irrelevant, but cognitively non-innocuous, knowledge of the circumstances in which those rules were learned. Thus, one must work through non-semantic information in order to know what is literally meant by a given sentence-token. A consequence is that one's knowledge (...) of what is literally meant by a given sentence-token is sometimes embedded in non-semantic knowledge, resulting in a cleavage between what that sentence-token literally means and what the auditor in question takes it to mean. Such deviations obviously have nothing to do with the principles put forth by Grice, since those principles only concern sentence-tokens that have already been understood---since, to put it another way, those principles only concern post-semantic implicature. The just-described deviations are appropriately described as being due to "pre-semantic implicature." Given the phenomenon of pre-semantic implicature, it is easily shown that Russell's Theory of Descriptions, if taken as a theory of literal meaning, is false. In the present volume, these rather elementary principles are entirely ignored, and all of the articles in it are sterile repetitions of the points made by Russell and Strawson. The blinkered approach to language embodied in this volume must be reconsidered in light of psychological principles relating to language-acquisition and language-use. Unfortunately, analytic philosophers shy away from such topics, as is made clear by the papers in this grim volume. (shrink)

Acknowledging that Nature is one unified whole, we expect that physics and biology are intimately related. Keeping in mind that physics became an exact science with which we are already familiar with, while, apparently, we do not have at present a similar knowledge about biology, we consider how can we make useful the clarity of physics to shed light to biology. The next question will be what are the most basic categories of physics and biology. If we do not want (...) to cut laws of Nature into different parts, we obtain a constraint, and the remaining part of physics will be the input data to the equations of physics. In these terms, our question will be: if we keep biological laws intact, as indivisible units, what remains in case of biology? This approach, just because it is more fundamental, has significant consequences for philosophy, and obviously offers a new conceptual framework considering the relation between the ontopoietic principle of Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka and the biological principle. The quintessence of science, namely, the first essentially complete scientific world picture is presented in a detailed form. (shrink)

Abstract In the light of the analysis of Avicenna’s definition of “nature” we can discover the main principles of his physics, which are: ‘The agency of the nature’, ‘the directness of this agency’, ‘the natural object’, and ‘the essential agency of the nature’. One of the main consequences of this analysis is that the nature could be considered as the direct cause of the motion, immobility and spatial balance of the material objects. Moreover, it shows that natural objects are essentially (...) capable of possess natural properties. Accordingly, Avicenna considers that the natural properties are the same as the essential properties, which material objects have them necessarily. (shrink)

Falsehood as an Evil Deed and Divine Truth as a Heavenly Law -/- Truth and falsehood are two fundamental forces that shape human existence, morality, and society. Falsehood is often condemned as an evil deed because it distorts reality, misleads others, and disrupts the natural balance of life. On the other hand, Divine truth is regarded as a heavenly law because it aligns with the fundamental order of the universe, guiding individuals toward wisdom, justice, and enlightenment. This essay explores why (...) falsehood is inherently destructive and why Divine truth is essential for the harmony and balance of human life. -/- The Nature of Falsehood and Its Consequences -/- Falsehood, in its simplest definition, is the act of deceiving, misleading, or presenting something contrary to reality. It is often associated with lying, manipulation, and the distortion of facts. At its core, falsehood is an evil deed because it corrupts human interactions, leads to injustice, and creates suffering. When people embrace falsehood, they create a false perception of reality, leading others to make decisions based on incorrect or incomplete information. This, in turn, results in misguided actions that can cause harm to individuals, families, and entire societies. -/- A lie, no matter how small, has a ripple effect. A person who lies to avoid responsibility creates distrust, and over time, this lack of trust weakens relationships. On a larger scale, falsehood in politics, business, and media can lead to corruption, exploitation, and societal chaos. History provides numerous examples where deception has led to wars, economic collapses, and the downfall of civilizations. The spread of misinformation and propaganda fuels conflicts, destroys reputations, and manipulates people into supporting unjust causes. -/- From the perspective of natural law, falsehood disrupts the universal balance. Every system, whether biological, social, or mechanical, functions based on accurate information. If an engineer builds a bridge using false measurements, the structure will collapse. Similarly, when individuals or leaders make decisions based on lies, their actions create instability and suffering. This principle aligns with the law of karma, where every cause has an effect—falsehood inevitably leads to negative consequences. -/- Divine Truth as a Universal Law -/- In contrast to falsehood, Divine truth represents the highest form of reality, wisdom, and moral integrity. It is considered a heavenly law because it reflects the natural order and balance of the universe. Divine truth Is not merely about stating facts; it is about living in alignment with justice, righteousness, and the greater good. -/- Religious and philosophical traditions around the world emphasize the importance of truth. In Christianity, Jesus Christ declared, “The truth shall set you free” (John 8:32). In Hinduism, Satya (truth) is a fundamental principle of Dharma (righteousness), while in Buddhism, the path to enlightenment is rooted in seeing reality as it truly is. These teachings highlight that truth is not only a moral virtue but also a guiding force that leads to inner peace, freedom, and harmony with the universe. -/- From the perspective of the universal law of balance in nature, truth is the foundation that allows individuals and societies to function properly. Just as a healthy body relies on accurate biological processes, a healthy society relies on truth in governance, education, and human relationships. When people uphold truth, they make informed decisions that contribute to the well-being of others. Leaders who embrace truth foster trust and stability, while scientists who seek truth contribute to human progress. -/- The Clash Between Falsehood and Divine Truth -/- Throughout history, there has been a continuous struggle between falsehood and Divine truth. Many individuals and institutions have attempted to suppress truth for personal gain, power, or control. However, truth is resilient—it cannot be permanently hidden. Falsehood may offer temporary advantages, but it ultimately leads to downfall, as seen in the collapse of corrupt regimes and fraudulent enterprises. -/- The key to overcoming falsehood is education and enlightenment. A society that prioritizes truth in its educational system, media, and governance is less likely to fall into deception and manipulation. This is why a holistic educational system, as proposed in my universal formula, is crucial for minimizing ignorance and ensuring that truth prevails over falsehood. If individuals are taught from an early age to critically analyze information and recognize truth, they will be less susceptible to deceit and manipulation. -/- Conclusion -/- Falsehood is an evil deed because it distorts reality, disrupts human relationships, and creates imbalance in the natural order. It leads to suffering, injustice, and destruction. In contrast, Divine truth is a heavenly law that aligns with the universal principles of balance, justice, and wisdom. It serves as the foundation for ethical behavior, trust, and societal progress. -/- Understanding the importance of truth and the dangers of falsehood is essential for individuals and societies to thrive. By embracing truth in our thoughts, words, and actions, we align ourselves with the natural order of the universe and contribute to a world that is just, peaceful, and in harmony with the laws of nature. -/- . (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to begin a conversation about how we read and write about Nietzsche and, related to this, other figures in the history of philosophy. The principle of charity can appear to be a way to bridge two dif-ferent interpretative goals: getting the meaning of the text right and offering the best philosophy. I argue that the principle of charity is multiply ambiguous along three different dimensions, which I call “unit,” “mode,” and “strength”: consequently, (...) it is not a single, neutral or independent principle to which we can helpfully appeal and it cannot, in itself, perform this bridging function. Nietzsche, I suggest, is particularly ill suited to some forms of charitable reading. I compare charity to what I call “misreporting” a philosopher’s words, in order to highlight some problematic structural similarities. Finally, I assess what charity might be doing instead, if it is not intended to bridge meaning and best philosophy. (shrink)

The principle of indifference is supposed to suffice for the rational assignation of probabilities to possibilities. Bertrand advances a probability problem, now known as his paradox, to which the principle is supposed to apply; yet, just because the problem is ill‐posed in a technical sense, applying it leads to a contradiction. Examining an ambiguity in the notion of an ill‐posed problem shows that there are precisely two strategies for resolving the paradox: the distinction strategy and the well‐posing strategy. (...) The main contenders for resolving the paradox, Marinoff and Jaynes, offer solutions which exemplify these two strategies. I show that Marinoff’s attempt at the distinction strategy fails, and I offer a general refutation of this strategy. The situation for the well‐posing strategy is more complex. Careful formulation of the paradox within measure theory shows that one of Bertrand’s original three options can be ruled out but also shows that piecemeal attempts at the well‐posing strategy will not succeed. What is required is an appeal to general principle. I show that Jaynes’s use of such a principle, the symmetry requirement, fails to resolve the paradox; that a notion of metaindifference also fails; and that, while the well‐posing strategy may not be conclusively refutable, there is no reason to think that it can succeed. So the current situation is this. The failure of Marinoff’s and Jaynes’s solutions means that the paradox remains unresolved, and of the only two strategies for resolution, one is refuted and we have no reason to think the other will succeed. Consequently, Bertrand’s paradox continues to stand in refutation of the principle of indifference. (shrink)