I thought this had already been done as represented by 13% of the population in the US

Science Fiction is thisclose to fact.

Not before a lot of us feel real anguish.

Well…”monkey on your back” has always been a privatizing of profits (however broadly defined) & an externalizing of costs (however emphatically denied or minimized via psych defense mechs), hasn’t it? “Mistakes Were Made (but not by me).” That’s a book title. A possible chapter in that book, “The Sacklers Sacked Me.”

I like the intro:

Don’t like the song, but tells true. I do like that Amy never sang a song the same way twice in a row:

Or, mythstakes were planted, deep, & before I ever got here. Which is also to say right at that little big bang moment when each of us got here.

Joseph Campbell & that lot, previous & post, of apologizers. Ben Franklin & the billionaire boyz of the hoods-club would have to invent them, the mythamphetamine dealers & the substances that they sell, if they didn’t already have ‘em, those biological imperatives to breathe, eat, drink, merrily snort/inject myth & fook like Rabbit Run (Updike oversexed character/s reference) raccoons payrolled & corner-staked.

From Carey’s biography of William Golding (some worthwhile context truncated – typing’s atypical today – but that won’t stop contexters from reading the book themselves – from me to those ones, it’s worthwhile):

“Euripides, however, destroyed belief in the old gods with a sort of Shavian savagery, & subjected their myths to the withering, reductive power of the intellect. This was, Golding contends, mistaken, for he sees myth as the highest of forms, & its power lies in its ability to outrun the intellect. ‘Myth is a feeling toward something which we know to be significant & cannot tell why.’ If myth can be explained intellectually it becomes allegory, which is ‘a dead thing’, as evidenced by ‘the rather boring poems of Edmund Spenser’. Myth is vital for life, not just literature: ‘Where there is no mythology, the people perish’.

Well…that pitch is losing the competition – continuously losing…designated loser losing – to reign forest Gump encroachment, too (Forrest Gump was smarter than the present & recent retards, tho). As it must. And as the cuckoo’s nest must deny.

Not that Horace (“A clumsier child you’ll never see than Horace; I bet he broke 40 cup.” ~ Rooster Cogburn, talking about the fruit of his loins that fell far from his hanging tree…that Newton sat under.), but this other one: “You may drive nature out with a pitchfork, but she will keep coming back.”

From Smolin’s Time Reborn:

“Leibniz’s principle has some consequences that should constrain a cosmological theory. One is that there should be nothing in the universe that acts on other things without itself being acted upon. All influences or forces should be mutual. We can call this the principle of no unreciprocated actions. Einstein invoked this principle to justify his replacement of Newton’s theory of gravity by general relativity. His point was that Newton’s absolute space tells bodies how to move, but nothing is reciprocated; the bodies in the universe do not influence absolute space. Absolute space just is. In Einstein’s theory of general relativity, the relationship between matter & geometry is reciprocal: Geometry tells matter how to move and, in turn, matter influences the curvature of spacetime. Nor can anything affect the flow of Newton’s absolute time. Newton hypothesizes that it flows the same whether the universe is empty or full of matter. In general relativity, the presence of matter affects the behavior of clocks. (So do politicians contributors-weilders, & politicians codependent enablers-weilded.)

This principle, then, prevents any reference to fixed-background structures – entities whose properties are fixed for all time, regardless of the motion of matter.
These background structures are the unconscious of physics (& mythamphetaminephysicians), silently shaping our thinking to give meaning to the basic concepts we use to imagine the world. (“Dreams are real.” ~ Black Robe or, life, liberty & the pursuit of hopiumness?)

We think we know what “position” means because we are making unconscious assumptions about the existence of an absolute reference. Several of the fundamental steps in the evolution of physics have consisted of recognizing the existence of a fixed-background structure, removing it, & replacing it with a dynamical cause within the universe. This is what Ernst Mach did when he refuted Newton by suggesting that we feel dizzy when we spin because we move relative to the matter in the universe rather than to absolute space.

If we insist on reciprocal action & rule out fixed-background structures, what we are saying is that every entity in the universe evolves dynamically, in interaction with everything else. This is the essence of the philosophy of relationalism, which is usually attributed to Leibniz. We can extend this idea to assert that all properties in a cosmological theory should reflect evolving relationships among dynamical entities.

But if the properties of a body – the properties by which we identify it & distinguish it from other bodies – are relationships with other bodies, then there cannot be two bodies that have the same set of relationships to the rest of the universe. Two things that have the same relationships with everything else in the universe must actually be the same thing. This is another of Leibniz’s principles, called the identity of the indiscernibles. It too is a consequence of the principle of sufficient reason, for if there are two distinct entities with the same relationships to the rest of the world, there is no reason they should be as they are & not exchanged. This would amount to a fact about the world that had no rational explanation. (This also describes how the “competing” fight club mythociders comport: “exchange” ‘em all & let god, the one we caveat emptorless emperor robe ourselves in, sort ‘em out.)

So there can be no fundamental symmetries in nature. (No matter how much simian nature hopiums otherwise.) A symmetry is a transformation of a physical system that exchanges its parts while leaving all its physically observable quantities the same. An example of a symmetry of Newtonian physics is translation of a subsystem from one place in space to another. Since the laws of physics don’t depend on where a system is in space, the predictions are unchanged if the laboratory – & everything that may affect the experimental results – is moved six feet to the left. We state the independence of experimental results from location in space by saying that physics is invariant under translating systems in space.

Symmetries are common in all the physical theories we know. Several of the most useful tools in the physicist’s toolbox exploit the presence of symmetries. Yet if Leibniz’s principles are right, they must not be fundamental.

Symmetries arise from the act of treating a subsystem of the universe as if it were the only thing that existed. (Atop the pyramids is solipsism misused, narcissim abused, hubris enthused…but neath that alpha apex predatorial point is all the ones what love ‘em/hate themselves & shoulder ‘em aloft.) It is only because we ignore the interactions between the rest of the universe & the atoms in our laboratory that it doesn’t matter if we move the laboratory in space. This also explains why it doesn’t matter if we rotate the subsystems we’re studying. It doesn’t matter because we ignore the interactions between that subsystem & the rest of the universe. If we took those interactions into account, it certainly would matter if the subsystem were rotated. (Double-entry bookkeeping gets double-crossed, double-standardized, embezzled every minute of the day in this Big Short man FauciMadoff pyramid sausage factory.)

But what if the universe itself is translated or rotated? Isn’t that a symmetry? It is not, because no relative position within the universe is altered. In the relational perspective, there is no meaning to translating or rotating the universe. Symmetries, such as translations & rotations, are then not fundamental; they arise from the division of the world into two parts, as described in the previous chapter (personal deindividuating pronouns are us & them). These & other symmetries are features only of approximate laws applying to subsystems of the universe.

This has a stunning consequence: If these symmetries are approximate, then so are the laws of the conservation of energy, momentum, & angular momentum. These basic conservation laws depend on the assumption that space & time are symmetric under translations in time, translations in space, & rotations. The connection between symmetries & conservation laws is the content of the basic theorem proved early in the 20th century by the mathematician Emmy Noether. I won’t try explaining her reasoning here, but her theorem is one of the pillars of physics & deserves to be better known.

So the unknown cosmological theory will have neither symmetries nor conservation laws. Some particle physicists, impressed by the success of the standard model, like to say that the more fundamental a theory is, the more symmetries it should have. This is precisely the wrong lesson to draw.”

Masters of the universe portion (Including the Doc Frankenstein variants that young Mary Shelley called & took down the pot) – with a whole lotta’ help from their friends – is to prove, over & over again, their empty centers will not hold.

“…in six months we’ll be running this planet.”

As for liars, my stance is like HSF’s. I won’t spend time disproving serial liars so as to, what, add to a very small collection of times they told true? I got a life, & there’s only so much time.

Ever watched these behavioral panel guys? Details of allllll the tells is cool, but just a dab’ll do ya’ too…lotta’ people seem not to have the guts to trust their guts…enteric brain can be a smart IQ…but so was Cassandra: