President Trump (and Biden) shouldn't seek re-election in 2024

 With luck Donald Trump will decide not to enter the 2024 Presidential race and forego developing the nation into a banana republic. He could of course choose to wear a uniform coat with epaulets and ribbons while extolling the greatness he confers upon  the public with so little reward yet the attraction of letting a more representative candidate- a guy with degrees from Harvard, Yale and a grad of navy seal school get put down with his withering wit may be irresistible. The nation could you a gerontocratic battle; mano y mano, of two old guys with remarkable few  remaining skills in comparison to those they had a few decades ago.

  Governor DeSantis is one quality candidate and the nation needs one or more of those. Joe Biden and Donald Trump should enjoy the wealth and satiation of their elder years and allow the nation to find actual quality leadership. The Roman Republic and Empire suffered quite a bit when they had a string of bad leaders. The fate of their nation like the well being, security and solvency of a nation suffers with bad leadership.

I appreciate the fact that President Trump was the sole realistic alternative to Hillary Clinton and maybe half of the nation is grateful that he kept the Clintons from seizing the day, and of course the Demo Party has punished him so far as possible ever since. If he chooses to run again and loses, or brought his unusual attitude to office he can only do the public harm (unless the sole alternative was four more years of Joe Biden). Americans don’t like to elect family dynasties much and plutocrats are not very liked either. The nation did revolt against the upper class to start with and don’t need another one established to wrench progress with an over-concentration of wealth.

Intelligent, sober old people are a blessing to the nation; intemperate individuals less so in public office. One may have strong opinions yet egoism and assertiveness go a long way to give the appearance of a lack of intellect and knowledge. President Biden and Trump each seem terribly afflicted with personal egoism. Trump’s is over and Biden’s is covert. The federal government needs better leaders. Even an older Ralph Nadir would be a better choice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5o_uF1L5l6o

Nets Should Trade Irving to Lakers for Pennance

  Brooklyn should trade Kyrie Irving for Russel Westbrook strait across and move on to the satisfaction of both teams. Westbrook hasn't played well for the Lakers for some reason and Irving has trouble with false consciousness concerning Jews and history. THe trade would benefit the league.

Corporatocracy silences people saying things that they believe won't help sales including entertainment league people like basketball players. Yet people shouldn't be forced to say things they don't believe in order to work a job- even if what they do believe is wrong.

Irving should be happy to return to L.A. and his former teamate Lebron James. Playing basketball instead of making bad history analysis and commentary on films that were as inflamatory to Jews as the Satanic Verses were to Muslims would be a better investment of time. Russell Westbrook at least doesn't believe Sasquasch and Donald Trump are conspiring with Russians to start an intifadah until Elvis is released from captivity.

It's all up to Herschel Walker

 It looks like Republicans will win the House, and there are just three Senate races remaining undecided that will determine if Republicans can take the Senate too. Adam Laxalt will add Nevada to the Republican column i.m.o., and Mark Kelly will take Arizona for the Demos and that leaves the fate of the Senate up to Herschel Walker vs a Rev. Warnock in what should be a runoff election.

Republicans have 49 seats and they need 51 to take control. I believe Mr. Walker should bust through the remaining Democrat line in the runoff as he did against opposition on the field. Rev Warnock probably supports Ukraine military arms shipments, abortion and homosexual marriage- another neo-Christian who disregards Biblical paradigmata for election and personal career advance purposes.

Can one be a Democrat politician without being a hawk on N.A.T.O. expansion, war in Ukraine, sanctions on Russia, abortion and homosexual marriage? 

Bad Search Engine Listings Imperil Democracy!

 This is a day Democrats have warned about; evidence that Democracy is in peril by Republicans. Therefore my crummy search engine listings must be responsible for the danger to democracy too, and maybe other unknown factors are also imperiling democracy, like the green party that died after Ralph Nadir took votes from Al Gore. If the Green Party rose from the ashes democracy would be even more endangered than now, or at least the Democrat Party would be.

Ideas of Universes (recapitulation)

 Are you familiar with the concept of a Multiverse? A Universe may be just one region of it, and I would think that various kinds of fields may exist that are larger than a single Universe. If a Universe is initially just a singularity it is contained within some volume. Parmenides and Heraclitus might have liked that kind of inquiry. There are different and scalar kinds of singularities just as some infinities are greater than others (re; Greg Cantor and trans-finite numbers).

If a Universe expands from a singularity that had all of the energy that would eventually become mass it is probable that some universes expanded from different sizes of singularity. Some black holes are larger than others.

You may be aware that mass and 'objects' are nothing more than apparent phenomena occurring in the Higgs field. Two-dimensional particles slow down in the field and pick up an appearance of a third dimension in the direction of travel. Massless two-dimensional particles seem to be close to the basic state of everything.

I would not guess the true state of Universes is simply singularity or mustard seeds that expand for a while into universes before spending all of their energy in thermodynamic processes. There may be more than that, yet I believe a singularity is a real object that is one and comprises an entire universe-in-itself. Some people prefer to call a Multiverse a 'universe' and that is reasonable I suppose. That reinforces the idea that none know what a Universe is well enough to set comprehensive boundaries.

Quine defined the concept of linguistic ‘universes’ rather well in Ontological Relativity. Each language lexicon is like a defined set of numbers that can’t be converted directly into a different set without corrupting the elements. The meaning of Universe exists in different lexicon/word sets and is part of the challenge of postulating metaphysics for cosmology, universes, Multiverse etc.

Information is conserved- Shannon Entropy, and isn't destroyed. Apparently no information is lost; not even if the Universe 'ends'. Matter and energy are convertible and were thought to be neither created or destroyed as well. That raises the point that if information is created yet not destroyed permanently (not even in black holes); was information never created (except by God) as well? Did the information of the Universe pre-exist the existence of the Universe? If determinism with free will is the fact the author of a deterministic Metaverse might not be required by anything he writes into being to rewrite it or ever be subject to the laws of a contingent universe. I believe it useful when considering metaphysics of universes to consider what God could do with universes to infer characteristics of singularity and universes for-themselves.

Faith Inferred from Knowledge

Metaphysics and faith are useful in many fields. That is one might want to infer from what is known or use inductive reasoning to fill in gaps of the unknown. That's useful in sailing, inventing things etc. Sometimes what isn't known is necessary knowledge to have and one must outline a mind map creatively to discover that bite of land to put a boat in before dark. If one relied entirely on what is well-known and didn't sometimes draw some sketchy inferences from it so much creative thought that turns out to be right would be lost. Faith that one's judgment or dead reckoning is correct is necessary if one needs to act on one's belief. Sometimes life presents forced options (as William James described) so one must make a choice. Even the Bible (Romans 10:17) has faith based on knowledge. "17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

Metaphysics is the leading edge of physics and especially cosmology. I doubt if Hugh Everett’s many worlds conjecture developed as an alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation would have been created without his meta-physics thought about gambling (greater than physics) and game theory. Recombining diverse and theoretical concepts in thought experiments is a way that new and true ideas about physical cosmology can be found.

Modal logic universes can be theoretical universes or metaphysics used to test the logical validity of relations within a set. Those relations could be physical laws of a universe or even theological concerns such as determinism that in turn can be exchanged with select concepts from entropy and information theory. One populates a universe with a criterion of members or elements and then may verify the logic of their functions. Some universes may be non-functional yet others may be valid though not exclusively valid. In my opinion that field is metaphysics though technically it is modern logic and math, physics or whatever goes into it.

Multiverse vs Universe Desiderata

 Are you familiar with the concept of a Multiverse? A Universe may be just one region of it, and I would think that various kinds of fields may exist that are much larger than a single Universe. If a Universe is initially just a singularity it is contained within some volume. Parmenides and Heraclitus might have liked that kind of inquiry. There are different and scalar kinds of singularities just as some infinities  are greater than others (re; Greg Cantor and trans-finite numbers). If a Universe expands from a singularity that had all of the energy that would eventually become mass it is likely that some universes expand from different sizes of singularity scaled like some black holes are larger than others. You might be aware that mass and 'objects' are nothing more than apparent phenomena occurring in the Higgs field. Two-dimensional particles slow down in the field and pick up an apparence of a third dimension in the direction they travel. I would not stipulate that the true state of Universes are simply singularities or mustard seeds that expand for a while into universes before spending all their energy in thermodynamic processes. There may be more than that, yet I believe a singularity is a real object that is one and comprises an entire universe-in-itself. Some poeple prefer to call a multiverse a 'universe' and that is reasonable I suppose. That just goes to show that none know what a Universe is well enough to set comprehensive boundaries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kixAljyfdqU

Regarding Omnipotence

 Throwing the first stone...Could God create a rock bigger than a Universe and lift it in zero gravity or would the special theory make the problem superfluous? If God lifted a Universe that is made entirely of one rock would the motion of the rock not be relative to the omnipresence of God; that is, would God need to move or lift anything at all for the rock to be one and all, and all in one? If God entangled all of the two-dimensional particles not entangled in the Higgs Field and converted those and all of the particles in the Higgs field that seem to be three dimensional into some sort of schist or a crystal rock- maybe a diamond, would it exist meta-universally within the field that contains all possible universes and would it be possible for anyone besides God to move it anyplace, though movement of the largest possible rock that is a Universe for-itself might be possible and impossible simultaneously?

 Information is conserved- Shannon Entropy, and isn't destroyed. Apparently no information is lost; not even if the Universe 'ends'. Matter and energy are convertible and were thought to be neither created or destroyed as well. That raises the point that if information is created yet not destroyed permanently (not even in black holes); was information never created (except by God) as well? Did the information of the Universe pre-exist the existence of the Universe? If determinism with free will is the fact, is the author of a deterministic Metaverse required by anything he writes into being to rewrite it (such as lifting a gallstone that comprises everything that exists in the Universe because he doesn't find it very interesting?

The rock of infinite mass would compact to a black hole and be a singularity since it was everything of a Universe (super massive). Would expanding the singularity faster than light for a fraction of a second count as lifting it?  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXQUu5Dti4g

Conservation of Information

 Information is conserved- Shannon Entropy, and isn't destroyed. Apparently no information is lost; not even if the Universe 'ends'. Matter and energy are convertible and was thought to be neither created or destroyed as well. That raises the interesting point that information is created yet not destroyed permanently (not even in black holes); was information never created (except by God) as well? Did the information of the Universe pre-exist the existence of the Universe?

U.N. Sustainable Development Goals- a comment

 I.M.O. the SDGs are a nice effort that are somewhat unrealistic in that they fail to take account of human nature and the will for power. Original sin may be the thermodynamic criteria that humans are embedded in seeking to consume energy and process it. Politicians seek power, as do consumers mostly allegiant to consumption economic voting at the polls. Free societies tend not to be too interested in altruistic voting over those of personal interest selections. In the U.S.A. for example moral issues and surpassingly race issues prevail as poltical topics over common sense about eliminating poverty.

People that construct global political paradigms concerning the ecosphere's decline tend to work within existing market economies and are subject to it, and I do not believe that market economics and capitalism has ecological interests as a primary concern; that is it will be late at reacting to external environmental stimuli and human crisis via market forces and values. On the other hand, authorianism is the temptation to the wealthy and influential in some ad hoc sort of way. Making environmental economic settings by decree would be the ad hoc tendency and that undermines the strength of non-plutocratic free enterprise to innovate solutions to ecosphere challenges.

President Obama cut taxes on the rich. He made the Bush II tax cuts permanent when all he had to do was nothing and the tax breaks would have expired. Americans are against new taxes because they somewhat rightly don't trust politicans to spend revenues on more than pork. Public debt is more than 30 trillion dollars in the U.S. with a floating currency and technical tax managment to benefit the ecosphere substantially seems not in the cards.

I am not too optomistic about the prospects for environmental economic policies being implmented globally. Just making intelligent green zoning laws and changing bad technology for good tech is nearly impossible. I am glad that some people are trying, yet even the improvments SDG goals can help make seem inadequate and a bit off target insofar as serving as sustainable economic ways of living for billions.

Trying to force moral paradigms of the decadent first world moral systems on 2nd and third world people- especially atheism, is divisive rather than constructive and does great harm to the focus on transforming the world economy to ecological sustainable, realistic methods. Some suspect the U.N. led by Europe and the U.S. are just using globalization to force homosexual marriage and abortion on the rest of the planet while driving them into total control by plutocrats owning most of the world's wealth.

I would think the United States is strong at developing new technology and slack at innovating zoning laws to conserve the ecosphere and biodiversity. People everyplace tramp on the environment- even ordinary people with a surfeit of off-road vehicles, small boats, fish finders etc. Illegal migrants will scour the land for things to sell including plants and rocks. That is survival economics; and economics of necessity. Necessity driving people to interact negatively with the environment isn't likely to end anytime soon.