One True God, Logic and Cosmologies

 If one God exists, and only one can exist whom is omnipotent, then necessarily every other proposition for an existent God besides the one true God will be false… and there could be millions of such propositions. Compare it to cosmology theories; if the holographic model is true, then every other cosmology theory besides the holographic model is false. Necessarily if there is one true theory of the Universe every other must be false (except for transcendent theories of existence perhaps entertained by the one true God as contingent cosmologies).

It is an interesting thing to consider the possibility that cosmologies could be generated in reality as readily as new Universes in a Multiverse- even so in the mind of one true omniscient God that too is possible, or even necessary.

Gervais paradigm about one less god isn't well founded- compare it to a one less cosmology argument. I don't really agree with his ideas about corporations, either, yet they do have merit these days where owning capital and shares in an environment of concentrated wealth is the upper 10% and the declining relevance of the working class majority coincides with having just 3% of the national wealth. I still like Sartre's Critique of Dialectical Reason as an account for social organization as a phenomenon, and believe it is still malleable via an informed democracy if that were possible. ref Venkatesh Rao’s The Gervais Principle

Fear; Logic, Emotion and Purpose

If one is in a difficult situation that persists and can’t be exited from immediately except through death, fear becomes somewhat superfluous. One need cope with working the reality of staying alive. I had a much worse situation in crossing Taku Inlet to Stephen’s Passage in 2018. When Vikings crossed to Greenland they had 60% loss of boats in the first massive immigration voyage. One copes and if the challenge is too much, one dies… That happens eventually anyway.

Consider the circumstance of soldiers in the Ukraine war line of combat contact. They can’t exit. Fear won’t help and will reduce their prospects for staying alive. So they may as well perform the best they can and not think so much about fear. If they die, they died.
Most are killed from sky drones, land drones and tensored in explosives now.
Just 10% die from direct fire weapons like rifles. Don’t forget the cliche; “Soldiers don’t kill soldiers, politicians kill soldiers”.

It is an interest topic. At times one must suspend fear in order to function. Those always without fear would be like those that feel no pain. Natural selection probably deletes such people from existence.

    In order to function without capability of fear, one would need to be a great logician analyzing existential phenomena to deduct and induct points of risk and danger. That would be especially challenging meeting the unknown. It would also tend to overland conscious reasoning.

   Fear though is a subconscious logician warning of risk an

d danger. It keeps people alive. With experience one can turn fear off after its purpose of recognizing danger is fulfilled.

Bigger than a Bread-box, the Universe Isn't a Neural Network

 The Universe of four dimensions may be an emergent concatenation of quantum entanglements of a primary two-dimensional Universe. It would probably be an error to assume that a Universe could from nothing configure itself in four dimensions as a neural network. It is also perhaps logically incorrect to guess that the Universe appeared from more than four dimensions to start with-as in 11 dimensions or something complex rather than irreducibly simple. God could have issued one dimension and let it double to two and that filled with massless waveicles. When those entangled one and two dimensions have four, inflation and the Big Drum follow with the expanded Universe. Inside black holes four dimensions may reduce to two then one and probably not quite zero dimensions. Expecting a neural network to appear in one organic Universe arising from nothing except the will of God is like expecting evolution to generate a very complex human-type organism from microbes immediately, and that does seem improbable.

'Individuals' and 'Word and Object'

Strawson and Quine’s books in the analytic philosophy tradition did not, as I recall, venture into logicism. Each were about propositions and the subject-object distinction, intentional and extensional thought, about the relationship of propositions to perceptions. They struck me as very intense psychological-analytical applications of Kant’s categories of thought; not as just categories within mind, and not the same categories, instead as very subtle descriptions of what propositional thought is and how it relates to the ’empirical’.

It's just reason and work. Subtle yet plain. . I.M.O. the works I mentioned are simply rationalism continuing the investigation of thought started by Descartes. It was a natural development and a period in the history of philosophy they moved through. Quine held the Edgar Pierce Chair of Philosophy at Harvard a quarter century. What Strawson and Quine developed was a major contribution to western thought.