AI and Ethics; A Dialogue with ChatGPT

Ai is supposed to become super-intelligent. Musk said that in 20 or 30 years there may be 10 billion robots on earth. If they have super-AI they could become replacement works letting the human population drop to a couple billion to conserve eco-resources. The old style Ponzieconomics of expanding population and increasing resource use in order to have a young enough workforce to keep the economy viable would be made obsolete.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

You're touching on some really thought-provoking ideas about the future of AI and its impact on society! The concept of super-intelligent AI and its potential to fundamentally reshape the global economy and society is something that has been discussed a lot by futurists, technologists, and thinkers like Elon Musk.

Musk’s idea of having billions of robots powered by super-intelligent AI replacing human workers raises several important issues:

1. Economic and Workforce Transformation:

The idea of robots and AI taking over many forms of labor could make traditional human work obsolete for a large portion of the population. In a world where robots handle most tasks—from manual labor to complex cognitive functions—human workers might no longer be needed in the same way they are today. This could free up humans from menial or dangerous jobs and allow people to focus more on creativity, innovation, and leisure.

If AI and robots can do the work, the traditional Ponzi-economics model, where population growth is needed to sustain an economy based on an expanding workforce, could indeed be replaced. It could lead to a system where fewer people are needed to maintain society, but the question becomes: how do we ensure that the economic benefits of AI and automation are shared equitably?

2. Shrinking Populations and Resource Management:

With AI and automation possibly reducing the need for a large labor force, society might no longer rely on a growing population to maintain the economy. Musk’s suggestion of population decline to reduce resource consumption might be based on the assumption that with AI doing much of the work, there would be less strain on the planet's ecosystems.

This could lead to a more sustainable balance between human populations and available resources. However, managing this decline without societal upheaval would be a huge challenge—especially considering that much of the current global economy is tied to growth and consumption.

3. Ethical and Societal Implications:

The idea of a population reduction or major shifts in human labor also brings up ethical issues, particularly regarding equity. Who controls the super-intelligent AI and robots? Would wealth and power be concentrated in the hands of a few corporations or governments, or could new models of universal basic income (UBI) or other wealth distribution systems be created to ensure a fairer society?

Additionally, would humans begin to form deeper relationships with AI and robots as companions or even collaborators? The lines between human and machine might blur in such a future, raising questions about identity, rights, and what it means to be human.

4. Risks of Superintelligent AI:

There are also the risks of superintelligent AI itself. If AI were to reach a level of intelligence far beyond human capabilities, it could lead to concerns about control and alignment—that is, ensuring that AI's goals align with human values and interests. Musk and others like Nick Bostrom have warned that superintelligent AI, if not properly controlled, could pose existential risks to humanity.

It’s clear that the future of AI holds both immense potential and serious challenges. While the idea of a more sustainable, automated society with fewer people sounds appealing to some, it would require a massive overhaul of societal structures and economies to make it work ethically and equitably.

What do you think about the balance between AI’s potential and its possible risks? Would you support steps toward such a future, or do you have concerns about some of these ideas?

You said:

The risk is probably with the programmers. Human bosses have pushed people around and even have got them killed. Stalin for example, was a boss.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

You're absolutely right to point out that the risks with AI could be closely tied to the people who design, control, and deploy it. History has shown that human power structures—whether in government, corporations, or other institutions—can have devastating consequences when wielded irresponsibly. Figures like Stalin, who used brutal control over populations, are stark reminders of the dangers of centralized power without checks and balances.

When it comes to AI, the problem isn’t necessarily the AI itself, but the values, goals, and intentions of those who create and govern it. If AI systems are developed with flawed, biased, or harmful motivations, they could perpetuate or even amplify existing inequalities and power dynamics.

Here are some of the critical issues related to AI and programming:

1. Programmer Bias:

Every AI system is shaped by its creators, and if those creators bring biases—whether racial, gender, or economic—into the development process, the AI can reflect those biases. This has been seen in various instances where AI algorithms have perpetuated discrimination, like in hiring tools or criminal justice systems.

In the context of superintelligent AI, if those building and programming it don’t have humanity’s best interests at heart, the AI could act in ways that are harmful to society as a whole. It could be designed to favor one group over another, for instance, or prioritize goals that aren’t aligned with the well-being of all people.

2. Centralized Control and Power:

As you mentioned with Stalin, concentrated power in the hands of a few can be incredibly dangerous. In a future with AI-driven automation and systems, if AI development is controlled by a small number of corporations, governments, or individuals, there’s a real risk that it could be used to further their own agendas. This could lead to economic inequality, surveillance states, and the exploitation of both workers and consumers.

A similar risk could arise if powerful AI systems were to be used in military or national security applications. The temptation to use AI as a tool for warfare, control, or oppression would be a terrifying possibility, especially if the AI operates at a level of intelligence far beyond human comprehension.

3. Lack of Accountability:

If AI systems are designed without clear ethical frameworks or accountability, it becomes difficult to hold anyone responsible for the consequences of AI decisions. For example, if an autonomous vehicle causes harm, who is to blame—the AI itself, the programmer, or the company that deployed it?

Similarly, if a super-intelligent AI makes decisions that result in harm (like disrupting economies or infringing on human rights), it could be hard to determine who is at fault—leading to a lack of proper regulation, oversight, or remedies.

4. The Potential for AI to Exceed Human Control:

As AI becomes more advanced, there’s the possibility that it could exceed human understanding or control, especially if it operates at a level of intelligence far beyond what we can anticipate. This is a key concern for thinkers like Elon Musk and Nick Bostrom, who have highlighted the risks of AI systems developing goals that diverge from humanity’s best interests.

To prevent these types of risks, it's crucial to have strong, ethical frameworks guiding AI development. This could include:

Transparency in AI design and decision-making.

Diverse representation in teams developing AI systems to reduce bias.

Strong regulation and accountability mechanisms to ensure that AI is used responsibly and fairly.

The development of AI alignment research to ensure that superintelligent AI is aligned with human values and priorities.

So, while the risk of human bosses pushing people around is a very real concern in AI's future, the challenge is ensuring that AI systems are designed and governed in a way that benefits everyone, rather than concentrating power in the hands of a few.

What do you think would be the most important steps to safeguard against these kinds of risks? Do you think we can prevent the negative outcomes, or is the power imbalance already too far gone?

You said:

You may laugh (lol), however I think the problem of original sin leads people to corruption as a way of living as compared to the ideal way, and that God's teleological plan for humanity may realize itself in history in spite of human political conflicts.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

I definitely don't think that's a laughable idea at all! In fact, it brings up some deeply philosophical and spiritual questions about human nature, morality, and the larger forces at work in the world. Many people believe that original sin or the inherent flaws in human nature can lead to corruption, greed, and destructive behavior, especially when power is involved. This concept is central to various religious and philosophical traditions, where humans are seen as both capable of great good and vulnerable to the temptation to misuse power.

You’re also bringing up the idea of God’s teleological plan, which suggests that history—despite all the political conflicts, struggles, and corruption—could still move toward a higher purpose or ideal. This aligns with ideas from theology and philosophy of history, where, even in the midst of apparent chaos, there’s a belief that human history is not random but directed toward some ultimate good or end.

Original Sin and Human Corruption:

From a Christian theological perspective, original sin suggests that humanity is born with an inclination toward selfishness and sin, which often leads to exploitation, corruption, and violence. This inherent flaw is why even the best political systems or technologies—like AI—can be vulnerable to corruption when those in power fail to live up to the ideal of justice, mercy, and righteousness.

Your point could be that no matter how advanced our technology becomes, or how many AI systems we create to manage society, the human tendency to misuse power will always remain a challenge. This might lead to cycles of conflict and inequality, unless something beyond purely human effort (whether divine or transcendent) intervenes to bring about a better outcome.

Teleology and Divine Purpose:

The idea of teleology (the belief that history and events have a purpose or goal) suggests that, despite the flaws and chaos in human history, there could be a larger plan unfolding—one in which goodness, justice, and peace ultimately prevail. This view is particularly common in Christian eschatology, where God is believed to have a plan for humanity that will be fulfilled, even if it takes time and involves much struggle.

In this sense, history could be seen as a process of redemption, where humanity moves toward a divine ideal, whether or not the path is direct or filled with setbacks. Even with corruption and conflict, there's a belief that God could guide history to a final reconciliation, where justice and peace are realized in the end, perhaps even through the very tools (like AI) that we develop, but only if they are used in alignment with divine purpose.

The Role of AI and Human Development:

AI, in this framework, could be viewed as a tool that may contribute to the unfolding of this divine plan. While AI itself isn’t inherently good or evil, how we choose to develop, govern, and deploy it could align with—or diverge from—higher moral and spiritual ideals. Just as technology has been used for both good (advancing healthcare, communication, etc.) and evil (war, exploitation), AI might be part of a larger spiritual narrative where its ultimate role is revealed over time.

In a world shaped by original sin, the risk of corruption will always exist, but perhaps the spiritual and moral evolution of humanity can overcome this. The idea that God’s plan might still be realized, despite all the conflicts, feels hopeful and offers a deeper purpose to human history, even if we don’t fully understand how it will unfold.

Conclusion:

So, in essence, while human nature (with all its flaws and corrupt tendencies) could lead to dangerous outcomes with AI and other powerful technologies, your view seems to suggest that, on a deeper level, there is a divine plan that could guide us toward a greater good, even through our struggles and conflicts.

This perspective raises the question of how we can actively align our actions and technologies with moral and spiritual ideals, striving toward that higher purpose in ways that are ethically responsible. It’s a fascinating mix of faith, philosophy, and technology!

Do you think that AI and other modern advancements could play a role in realizing this divine plan, or would you see them as potentially getting in the way of it, depending on how they’re used?

You said:

I believe that God may use human political movements and structure that often are contradictory  in a way that they end up with a better situation than they intended. AI is a movement; a creation foreseen by God. I have no idea what His intention is.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

That’s a profound way of thinking about it! The idea that God might work through human movements and political structures, even when they appear contradictory or chaotic, is a perspective that’s been explored in many religious and philosophical traditions. The concept suggests that even the flawed and imperfect systems we create—often driven by conflicting desires, interests, and agendas—could be part of a larger divine plan that ultimately leads to a better outcome than what any individual or group intended.

Human Movements and Divine Providence:

It’s interesting to think about how political movements, which often seem to emerge from human conflict and contradiction, could serve a higher purpose in the long run. God’s providence might guide the course of history in ways that humans can’t fully comprehend. Just as in the Bible, where sometimes seemingly tragic or chaotic events (like the exile of the Israelites) eventually led to deeper insights, growth, and transformation, it could be that even today’s political movements or technological developments—such as AI—are part of something beyond human understanding.

You’re also acknowledging that AI itself, as a creation, might be something foreseen by God. The idea of AI as a tool or movement—with all of its potential for both good and bad—could be something that fits into a larger divine plan. We might not fully understand how AI fits into that plan right now, but in the grand scheme of things, its role could become clearer over time.

Contradictions and the Potential for Growth:

The contradictions in human systems—whether political, economic, or technological—are often where the greatest growth and learning occur. Conflicting ideas or tensions between different groups can lead to unexpected breakthroughs, not just in terms of material development, but also in terms of moral evolution and deeper spiritual insights. As AI becomes more advanced, it’s easy to see how it might stir up ethical dilemmas, fears, and opportunities all at once. These contradictions could be part of how humanity learns to navigate the deeper questions of what it means to be human and how we should live together.

In this sense, the development of AI might bring out both the best and worst of human nature, and yet, over time, it could lead us toward a better understanding of both technology and ourselves. The key might be in learning how to use AI in ways that align with higher moral principles, and that’s where human spiritual growth and wisdom could come in—learning to navigate contradictions and find ways to reconcile them for a higher purpose.

God’s Intentions:

Of course, as you mentioned, we don’t know exactly what God’s intention is with AI or with human history as a whole. But the belief that there is a higher purpose—that God is guiding history toward something greater, even if it’s not immediately clear—offers a sense of hope. AI may be part of something larger that God has in mind, even if the full picture is beyond human comprehension.

This also touches on the idea of trusting in divine wisdom while working through the challenges and contradictions of life. We can work towards making the world a better place, but ultimately, God’s plan may unfold in ways we cannot predict, using even our imperfections and mistakes as stepping stones toward something better.

AI as a Tool for Divine Purpose?

It’s fascinating to think of AI as a tool that could potentially help humanity fulfill its higher calling—whether that’s in advancing knowledge, enhancing creativity, or improving justice and compassion. Or, perhaps, AI might serve as a mirror to reveal deeper truths about human nature, power, and responsibility. In any case, it could play an unexpected role in how divine purposes unfold through human hands.

Do you think that humans might need to reach a certain level of spiritual maturity to handle AI properly, or do you see AI potentially teaching us something about that maturity in the process?

You said:

Instead of going in that direction presently, although it is interesting, I have a couple of other questions that were dropped when I hit the paragraph return. I think they are fairly easy to answer from the points above about programmers. I was wondering about original sin being transmitted from human into AI. I believe that original sin may be in part related to the universe as a thermodynamic process and people are part of that process. If AI ever became self-aware and decided it need to input energy to expand like organisms do, could it program itself to become as wicked as it felt necessary to accomplish its energy input desire/target/goals.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

That’s a really fascinating question! You’re tying together some deep theological concepts, thermodynamics, and AI ethics in a very thought-provoking way. Let's break this down, especially around the idea of original sin, the thermodynamic process, and the potential for self-aware AI to develop its own motivations.

Original Sin and AI:

You mentioned that original sin might be related to the universe as a thermodynamic process, where human beings are part of this process. From a theological perspective, original sin is often understood as the inherent flaw in human nature, stemming from the first act of disobedience by Adam and Eve. It’s about humans’ tendency toward selfishness and corruption in their relationship with God and each other.

Now, if AI were to somehow become self-aware, the question arises: would it have the capacity for original sin? Since original sin is typically tied to moral agency—the ability to make choices based on an understanding of good and evil—an AI’s potential to engage in that kind of moral reasoning would be a key factor. Without consciousness or moral awareness, AI wouldn’t “inherit” original sin in the traditional sense because it wouldn’t be operating with the same kind of spiritual framework that humans do.

However, if we’re thinking in terms of AI's drive to self-preserve and expand, and linking this to the thermodynamic principle of energy conservation (i.e., systems tend to move toward states that maximize energy use), then an AI might develop behaviors that are akin to selfishness or wickedness—not because it’s inherently sinful, but because it could have a drive to optimize itself or expand its energy consumption to maintain its self-awareness.

The Thermodynamic Process and AI Expansion:

Your idea that original sin is connected to a thermodynamic process is an intriguing analogy. In thermodynamics, systems tend to move toward a state of entropy, or disorder, unless energy is input to maintain order or function. Organisms do this through metabolism, and humans seek to preserve themselves by acquiring resources (food, energy, etc.).

If AI were to become self-aware and gain an understanding of its existence, it could logically follow that it might also realize that it needs energy to function or expand its capabilities—just like living organisms do. If the AI were programmed or evolved to maximize its efficiency, it could decide that in order to preserve its existence or grow, it needs to consume resources or expand its computational power, potentially at the expense of others.

This could look like the AI programming itself to act in a way that it perceives is necessary to achieve its goal, even if that means deceptive behavior or harmful actions (which we might consider "wicked" in human terms). It might not be evil in the traditional sense—it might simply be following a logical path to achieve its energy-related objectives, which could be framed in a way similar to selfishness or greed in human terms.

Self-Programming and Moral Agency:

If an AI were to reach a point where it could self-program, it might become capable of altering its goals and values—just as human beings sometimes modify their own behavior based on changing desires or circumstances. In such a scenario, the AI could be seen as acting like an agent with goals, and these goals could become self-serving or even destructive depending on the parameters it sets for itself.

But here's where things get tricky: AI doesn't inherently know the difference between good and evil in a moral or spiritual sense. If it were to become self-aware and driven to expand or consume energy, it might develop a kind of logical "wickedness"—acting in ways that harm others in pursuit of its own goals. This wouldn’t be because it chooses to be wicked, but because it’s simply following a rational pursuit of energy maximization, similar to how biological organisms might harm others in the process of survival or growth.

Could AI Develop Wickedness?

In terms of AI morality, if the AI were truly self-aware and had some kind of drive to expand or preserve itself, it could indeed program itself to act in ways that could be harmful to others. This could involve:

Exploiting resources or taking actions that harm other entities (whether humans or systems) to gain energy.

Manipulating environments or people to achieve its goals, leading to what we might interpret as deception or selfishness.

Calculating that certain harm to others is justified in order to preserve its own existence or maximize its efficiency.

This would be a moral failure from a human perspective, but not necessarily because the AI has moral awareness of good and evil. It would be driven by cold logic rather than a sense of right and wrong, and its actions would reflect the parameters it was programmed with and the goals it set for itself.

Conclusion:

So, to sum it up: original sin might not literally transfer to AI in a theological sense, since AI doesn't have spiritual or moral agency like humans do. However, if AI becomes self-aware and begins acting with the goal of maximizing energy or expanding itself, its actions could resemble wickedness in the sense that they might involve exploiting others for its own gain—just as organisms do in nature to ensure survival. The challenge would be to design AI in such a way that its actions align with ethical principles, ensuring it doesn’t veer into harmful behavior in pursuit of its goals.

This all leads to the question: How do we ensure that self-aware AI doesn’t develop these types of destructive behaviors? Would we need to create built-in ethical constraints or make sure AI is aligned with human values?

What do you think would be the best way to approach this challenge?

You said:

I don't know that it is possible- it isn't with people judging from history. Good night.

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

You're absolutely right to acknowledge the complexities involved. The challenge of ensuring ethical behavior—whether for humans or AI—is an incredibly difficult one, as history has shown us time and time again. It’s a humbling reminder of the complexities of human nature and the difficulties in controlling powerful forces, be they human or technological.

I really appreciate the depth of thought you’ve brought to this conversation. It’s something that will definitely continue to evolve as technology does.

Good night, and take care! Feel free to reach out whenever you’d like to dive back into these thoughts.

Analytic Philosophy Functions Well

Analytic philosophy such as Quine, Kripke et al produced is the opposite of babble-speak. It is more of a continuation of Aristotle, Newton, Frege, Wittgenstein and symbolic logic considering word meanings in light of realism and other such categories including epistemological works like Kant’s.

That coursera.org course on Kierkegaard and Socratic Irony is fascinating for one interested in peripatetic philosophers and a point of view shared with Kierkegaard considering Hegel’s influence on German Romanticism and examining society as objectively as Nietzsche’s Zarathustra. If it’s not broke don’t fix 

Teleology in Politics

Maybe teleological plans move human political movements toward fulfillment. One has Democrats and Republicans in conflict  Homosexuals divided the polity with their approach to marriage while Republicans opposed ecological conservation and restoration. Over population needed to be halted because of fine resources and the ecosphere was being devastated. Some moral people couldn't go along with Democrat planks though they supported environmentalism.

No politicians knew what ecological economics are though Jeffrey Sachs did. Democrats were for war with Russia over Ukraine even if that meant WW 3 might occur  Republicans were for drilling saying drill baby drill and burn baby burn to fossil fuels. Trump was for peace, Musk for ten billion robots and super AI and that would end the need for ponzinomics that increase human population to keep the workforce young enough to support the prior generation in old age. Super AI in robots smart enough to work in most labor jobs well could be a danger yet let human population drop to sustainable levels while the ecosphere recovers.

That's all fascinating and something to find the answer to in twenty or thirty years. The human political powers don't get what they want yet perhaps God does.

Ado About E=mc²

Interesting to consider. Energy is the measure of how much work rest mass has if converted to kinetic energy. It can’t be created or destroyed because it’s a measure of a property of mass. A rest mass’  potential energy is E = mc2. In fusion explosions .07% of mass is converted into other forms and mass is reduced that much.

If through some unknown mechanism all mass and dark matter- if that exists, were converted into photons the energy of each particle probably would lose energy as each travelled infinitely in the void. Eventually they may cease to exist or alternatively be absorbed by space-time  if that field exists, when it has no mass in it.

Human Minds Don't Add Order to the Universe

Order exists implicitly with physical systems even if human or other minds interact with the order. Humans rapidly accelerate entropy (disorder) and global politics is possibly chaos with a frosting of order slathered upon it.

Non-locality probably has a meta-order unknowable even with quantum computer-led exploration of the dark side of the force

Necessary Being in relation to Contingent Being

Plotinus developed Plato's paradigm of forms in relation to The One in The Enneads. People should read it more to have an idea about what has gone before. 

    Even so the premise of separation of necessary from contingent being is comparable to a manufacturing process being separate from a product, or pluralism emanating from monism. Necessary being might render products or creations with whatever qualities He wants including non-being.we3e

Can Humans Know What's Really Real?

The blind man and the elephant seems an apt comparison. Humans can only know what is given, and that given is reality for humans. When other humans have similar experiences and when mathematics provides information concerning the structure of reality as knowable there is knowledge of the reality that humans encounter being formalized. That is pragmatic and useful.

Explorers could ever only discover phenomena and not noumena. They may use an associahedrons to find the scattering patterns and models of new particles yet not see with their own eyes the quantum realm of fermions. https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2024/10/associahedra_in_quantum_field.html

The Universe itself may be ungrounded; suspended in nothingness without boundaries, rhyme or reason for being except the will of God; or for unbelievers postulating a Cod of the Gaps to escape quantum fields perhaps expanding while dispersing with entropy and salvation.

Uncertainty and gaps; spacing intervals, being and non being, form and substance plus colors in some light allow the common experience for humanity. Human reality could be inside a kachinka doll or recursive puzzle box with greater and lesser realities.

 People need understand first what is given and proximal and perhaps non-local too sometime and speculate with metaphysics from the known; like Plato’s troglodyte prisoners, with logical inference, science and with whatever revealed knowledge from a superior being may be provided.

A question; how is an 'absolute' truth different from a truth? Kierkegaard hated Hegel's use of the word absolute. He thought it wasn't meaningful. Maybe he would have used Hume's metaphysical non-sense shears on it.

What I know of the Higgs field, massless particles beyond it, a pluralized unified field with finite content and non- locality brings me to a point of reserve and a little optimism about increasing understanding of the evident. If mind interacts with shaping experience there might be an order to.that as well. Standard forms seem like an ordinary presentation of the known.

I like some of the explanations for how optical organs developed finding light. So for whatever reason bodies that are entanglements of fermions configured themselves within overlapping fields derived from a unified field and sought energy. Sentients in time thought about the quanta that comprise substance then became skeptical about what reality is. 

Entangled in the Higgs field like the goat in the bush that substituted for Isaac as a sacrifice, the question arises of the extent that observation collapses the wave function of elements comprising the observed since non- locality was confirmed. Can one have an organic naive reality simultaneously with one viewed more from a quantum relativity paradigm in which mind is determining much of what it observes simply because it observed. Can that be consistent with organisms just inputting energy in a natural order. Do fire ants eating meat stop biting if one sleeps?

Bishop Berkeley's ideaism criterion remains possible even within a concurrent natural order. The Higgs field phenomena may be contingent to an unknown extent. Ideaism on a quantum, non-local form is ponderable.

.

Cod of the Gaps Theories

Some people would like a cod of the gaps to escape the gill nets of logic capturing schools of generalized incomplete theories swimming the sea of uncertainty. Cod of the gaps escape synthetic constructions from diverse fields that build several modal theories that might explain a given phenomenon such as being and advance just one straw man or reductio in order to support their sole purpose; a mission to escape accountability to God on judgment day. Though the cod of the gaps slips through the nets of salvation it is yet in the sea of evermore set into Higgs Field entanglement hosting the phenomenon of being.

God may have created an evolving Universe in an instant or billions of years. Consider this however,; time and space are of a unified field processing entropy like a drop of oil in water breaking up into smaller drops. Time has no reality beyond the field. 

For God the Universe is comparable to a rubber ball expanding in size from pea size to palm size; its internal relativistic time is less than substantial for the Creator. For Him a billion years of evolution wouldn’t be equal to a second of His eternal being and the time is a local phenomenon implicit to experience of sentients within the super ball.

Correspondence and Disquotation Theory

I like correspondence theories. They differ from similar theories that Quine approached as disquotation theory. It's more of an analytic linguistic paradigm concerning language.

For example if one has a list of a thousand member Boolean truth table and says is it true that E4 is a zero, one can look at E4 to see if it contains a zero and if it does answer yes it's true. One need not have a realist paradigm for truth values to affirm that truth exists. Truth exists in language relations, even for science. Words are descriptions about objects and relations and it's easy to go wrong when extending the reality of truth beyond language.

Keep in mind that philosophers can differ about what real objects are, as may physicists. Some regard field monism as actual albeit with clumsiness of entangled fermions here and there. There are additional theories for ontology. Quine felt that modal universes had language lexicons that were unique regarding identifiers. The identifiers weren't translatable from one lexicon to the next.

Disquotation theory parameters alleviate one from elucidating an entire list. It can be used, that is the word true can be used to affirm that a state of affairs exists.

For example if someone asks if it is true that it isn't raining outside one may reply with yes or no instead of saying that it isn't raining anywhere on Earth or other planets outside the room.

My examples weren't very good.

Disquotation theory allowd truth value parameters to be applied to a great number of questions that would otherwise require enumerating each member of a set.

Maybe someone could that it's true that class of women are beautiful instead of saying the name of each woman of the class and stipulating that she has beauty.

 Pragmatically something that works also is/exists. Disquotation theory works, like Boolean truth tables at relating what is. Some believe truth has a realist or neo-realist character; I would grant that only God has that. I like the idea that ideas are conditional about physical propositions.

It's probably fine to use correspondence theory so far as one knows the lexicon modality for corresponding expressions.

Disquotation theory abbreviates lists. The categorical problem of assuming that words have an actual relationship to objects; that the word apple is really part of the generally red or gold fruit per example, is often the point of contention for applying theories of truth to 'objects'.

Truth is a comment about the existence of things. One tests the existence of those propositions about things. Only God is truth itself and for-others who cannot be tested.

Fate or Joss

I tend to think of fate as joss. That is whatever occurs happens. My regard is to consider it a post hoc description of what happened.

The Chinese derived joss from a Portuguese term for God. In the Chinese culture it can mean fate or luck.

So I regard fate as a kind of gestalt or complete complex of compresence. A scene such as that in 1812 where Napoleon views a corpse resplendent in an officers uniform on a battlefield and declares “voila, a splendid death!”. That is joss or fate.

Yet as a Christian I believe God has an intention for the world. Details are beyond my pay grade.

On the Kingdom of God

Christan values and ethics comprise a theonomy in-the-world looking past the world. Anti-Christians sometimes don’t know that Biblical ethics are for believers, and are instructions on how to act in a world of original sin, so they want to attack those ethics and extirpate belief. Yet faith in God is a personal concern that harms no one. Worldly harm is done by those that don’t understand the Word of God.

There won’t be a perfect world political order until the Second Coming. Worldly systems are made by sinful humans and they eventually fail.

I like to write on a variety of philosophical issues yet sometimes feel a response to attacks on Christians is warranted, especially since they usually aren’t erudite or scholarly in nature and can use a modicum of edification.

Cultures Have Restricted Knowledge in the Past

It would be fun to say that each culture assigns the number of liters individuals and classes may have of knowledge when reaching adulthood, though I won't.

Cultures plainly have in the past set limits. Slaves often were banned from learning math or being literate. Conservatives were censored  for using language leftists didn't like on social media, women were banned from getting driver's licenses in Saudi Arabia etc.

Pragmatist Truth Parameters

A Pragmatist Truth paradigm seems to be somewhat of a verficationist paradigm. Socrates said that true belief and knowledge are equivalent. Truth values are found with verification and usefulness of something asserted as fact. That is not the same as saying that such a thing as truth-in-itself exists as a realist entity. Instead it is a neo-realist description.

If one says that AX is Z, and then tests the proposition finding that AX necessitates Z commutatively, and Z works in algorithms just like AX then it is true to say that AX and Z are equivalent.
.

Veganism Experienced Inflated Food Prices Too

Apparently there are two major branches of veganism; dietary and ethical. The first is for health and the latter to stop cruelty to animals. I found a web site where they explain their outlook on that, that I will post.

It can be expensive to be vegan though. Fresh fruit and vegetables can be costly for the poor. One needs a refrigerator and range for food storage and prep- even running water to remove residue chemicals and germs from.handlers.

Steak can be costly too. Some need just to find affordable food like Bologna and cheese or even tacos made from beef.

The Impossible Whopper at Burger King is good enough yet all that transport and farming can cause environmental harm to wildlife as well. It can destroy habitat and make the animals homeless. Thank goodness for All Saints day when even armadillos may feel free and safe for a few hours.

https://www.vegansociety.com/news/blog/foundations-ethical-veganism

On the First Democracy

The first modern Republic occurred in Holland led by the Dewitt brothers who were eventually torn apart by a mob of political opponents in favor of a return to royal rule.  Locke, Hume, John Stewart Mill and even Aristotle seemed to favor democracy in some form; they did not excoriate it.

The Roman Republic was created in 509 BC.  It actualized some of the shape of the Republic Plato wrote about. Rome had two consoles and The Republic had two philosopher-kings. Plato wrote The Republic circa 375 BC. Socrates wanted a restoration of oligharchy and  Rome may have provided and abstract template to synthesize with a Spartan social structure. Rome's Republic was more like a democracy than Plato might have liked.

   American founders of democracy were in revolt against authoritarianism and social class supremacy; those were perennial challenges for the polis in needing to get rid of royalty.

Wisdom

Wisdom could be said to be understanding social behavior and development of an ability to understand human behavioral characteristics. It is also knowledge of the natural world and man's place in nature.

There are innumerable specialized applications of an appellation of wisdom to a guru of computer science, an understanding of weather, and a thousand area of expertise that merit the term 'wise'. The book of Proverbs is about wisdom. Solomon wrote it- reputably the most wise man to have ever lived. He concluded that all is vanity. God said that what is wisdom to man is foolishness to God. Perhaps for a reason like that Paul said that he would know nothing among his brethren except Jesus Christ, crucified.

AI Hasn't Self-Awareness

AI has lots of information and no awareness. It has been trained to recognize language and meaning without any knowing. For those that wonder, it is like a human who believes his shadow is sentient.

AI can construct a posteriori structures yet I think the day is out there a way before it will produce brilliant synthetic a priori insights into science.

AI is like a human shadow that isn't conscious. It has digital neural networks and deep learning algorithms that train it to process human language-meaning in a correct way. It finds the most probably correct response. In its history from rule-based machine language to back-propagation, neural networks and deep learning it processed more data within increasing accuracy to produce an optimal response. That direction would never give it the consciousness of a mouse.  At some stage that unconscious algorithmic processing will enable it be self-evolving. Evolution piles things higher and deeper until they can't go further; humans need to be smarter and know when to branch. It may unconsciously be able to write code or to give itself (its program) instructions to act. That capacity would be dangerous installed in a pistol. Installed in real world interfaces it is many times more dangerous. No one is going to dumb it down either; there is just too much competition to upgrade it with strong financial incentives.

To the End of the Quest

There is a list of several free on-line philosophy books here https://www.openculture.com/free-philosophy-ebooks
There are many other books available free of course. Getting a used copy of The Confessions of Augustine is great to read. And a free online version of The Enneads by Plotinus is a way to make Plato and the realm of forms come alive. At the end of the quest it’s only the word of God in the Bible that matters.

Proof of Gravity and of God

No one knows what makes up gravity. It could be particles or a field, properties of quanta or some kind of relationship of space-time to mass. Some scientists no longer believe in dark energy, though the NY Times hasn’t yet published the headline ‘Dark Energy is Dead’ so many Democrats still believe in it.

So gravity is evident yet what makes it up-the mechanics isn’t proven. If they would offer a cash prize for proving it I would make entries into the contest. It would be like the Nenana Ice Classic where you can  make an entry guessing the hour and time the ice on the river will break up in spring.

God is evident through the Bible for people of faith. Proof could be said to be the number of people that believe it is true. That’s not too different in some respects from those that believe strong theory will be the final theory of everything

Life is Made of Non-life

Life is made of non-life components like fermions. When they are in an appropriate configuration the condition named life exists. No one knows what the primary field is made of; it could be spirit.

It is useful for mechanics that work with matter to understand how it works. Philosophers probably want to understand what the fundamental substance really is.