The H-Bomb shortened the War

People really do talk absolute nonsense, and on certain subjects no one ever stops them.

To everyone who thinks the H-Bomb shortened the war perhaps they would have liked to have been a victim of the bomb and do their part in shortening the war.

But obviously we didn't need an H-Bomb to shorten the war. If all the soldiers had just committed suicide one night the war would have been over instantly. And if they wanted to save lives then just lay your weapons down and it would have been over instantly without any loss of life. In fact never even go to war and nothing would have happened.

No people chose to go to war and chose to die, and they did so to win. The H-Bomb helped the Allies win. And it was dropped not to shorten a war to save lives, but to hasten a victory for the Allies. Which is obvious if anyone thinks about it.

If Japan or Germany had got the H-Bomb first and used it on defenceless civilians they would have shortened the war too, but would have been viewed as Evil. And that is the correct view. It was Evil, and the people who both used it and supported the use of it are Evil. 

===

On the subject of shortening the war the absolutely best way to have done that would have been for Germany to have massacred the 338,000 Allied troops at Dunkirk in 1940. That would have been the end of the war and it would have saved the lives of 80 million people and the Holocaust would not have even been triggered. The Germans would have been seen as complete Heroes for quickly and decisively defeating the British Empire and liberating the world. With control of the Middle East, Germany would have easily found lands for the Jews and would have (probably with mutual agreement) relocated them all from Europe. But the Germans made a critical mistake of expecting rational behaviour from Churchill and unfortunately he did not surrender and so while British troops were spared it was only for them to prolong a war that destroyed Europe and let the US take over and rob everyone of their freedom.

And all her paths are Peace

So goes the poem by Cecil Spring-Rice, 1918

I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above,
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love;
The love that asks no questions, the love that stands the test,
That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;
The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,
The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.

And there's another country, I've heard of long ago,
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;
Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;
And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,^[9]
And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace.

And it captures the irony, contradiction and hypocrisy at the heart of those who choose violence. There can only be peace amongst those for whom all paths are Peace. If any path leads to violence then you can have war.

If a flow diagram was written for the Peaceful Heart then there would be no way to get to violence.

Yet for a large part of Humanity they do not have this skill to find Peace and many paths lead to violence.

War obviously is the greatest failure of the heart that seeks peace. But what an absurdity that those who have partaken in war and have chosen violence are considered to have anything to do with Peace when they have had everything to do with unrest, violence, hurt and harm.

Now it is true the Path of Peace is made difficult. In times of War the violent will persecute the peaceful. Those who refuse to bear arms against their fellow man will be ousted from communities, will be disgraced by their countries and will probably be charged with criminal offences and find themselves in gaol. But Jesus taught us most graphically that to defeat the Devil we will often be treated as criminals and we must be prepared to die a criminal to really choose the path of Peace. It is ironically the weak ones who give in to peer pressure and collective expectations and pick up weapons when it is quite obvious that by doing so they are taking the path of violence and only contributing to the bloodshed and unrest.

It has been argued in the blog many times that violence does achieve a type of peace that I have called The Pax after the Pax Romana. There is now a Pax Americana. This is the peace that arises when you have a tyrant that is so strong that no one can rebel.

In nature animals competing for resources never fight unless they think they have a chance of winning. A very powerful Tyrant keeps the peace easily as no competitor will risk a fight. And in animals the equation is simple as battles are one-on-one. In humans calculating your chance is more complex as battles are co-operative affairs and as has been seen many times in history a smaller well organised force and defeat what looks like overwhelming odds. Also humans are prepared die for ideas which muddies the water in a way animals never have to confront. 

But any silence achieved through this is not true Peace. When the Pax Tyranni fails then violence breaks out again. We saw that in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was "toppled" (literally as well as figuratively). This is not to say that violence was bubbling under the surface of Hussein's Iraq but it was to say that peace was not understood and when the conditions arose for violence people turned to violence automatically and unavoidably.

The truly peaceful NEVER chose violence under ANY circumstances. There is no excuse. Christians know this as Jesus never turned to violence even on The Cross. Yet even in the name of Christ many people have turned to violence demonstrating how little they really grasped the Path of Jesus. Some might argue that Jesus did display anger and violence for instance when he got angry with the money lenders in the temple shouting and over turning tables. Perhaps we can make a distinction here between getting angry and wishing to harm. We often do things when we are angry that we regret afterwards. The state of anger is a mystery. But violence and war is a way of life, it is far more than just a momentary loss of balance. 

Its a huge irony for the religious that every single person who died in WW1 and WW2 with a gun in their hands and hatred for the Germans in their hearts will find themselves in Hell. Maybe they will be surprised at this, but if they look at what they really desired it will be clear to them. A truly peaceful person would never have hated for their foe in the first place, they would have turned the other cheek when wronged, and would have profound pity and compassion for all those on all sides so blinded by the devil that they seek to harm each other.

In WW2 not the Japanese nor the Italian but just the Germans have a particularly grave mark against their name which seems to justify violence against them. But we know that no-one fighting in WW2 actually knew or cared about the Death Camps. That all came to provenance after the war. But this detail is actually irrelevant for the person of peace. Even in the full knowledge of the Holocaust there is still no reason for violence. Peace is always unconditional. If you see someone committing violence you don't then start yourself. Chances are they are only committing violence themselves cos they saw someone else committing violence. Violence is an infection it must stop somewhere. And that somewhere is with the Army of Peace.

So how do you handle Genocides like the Holocaust? First to note that many genocides have gone unhandled: Armenian, Rwanda, American Indians to name just 3. But we can agree that all genocides should not take place, and yet must also agree that each peoples is capable of Geocide. It is not something that only Germans or Turkish or Americans do.

We know when genocide happens there are people who have not accepted the path of peace. There are many peaceful routes open to us. First might be to politically reject them and economically reject them. The Treaty of Versailles after WW1 was not in response to Genocide it was actually ultimately the cause of Genocide. Rather than punish the German people then, when they hadn't actually done anything wrong other than lose a war, they should have been punished after the creation of concentration camps to fuel their economy. But the West actually just escalated trade with Germany and fuelled the creation of Concentration Camps. I can write on and on about this. The roots of the Holocaust do not lie in Germany at all but in the actions of all the countries who set up the conditions. If people really wanted to stop Holocaust the opportunities were present endlessly and always Peacefully.

Ultimately there will always be people prepared to harm other people for whatever reason. And we can always set up Pax Tyranni to avoid the conditions where they might be violent. The Holocaust could have been easily averted with wise government from the Allies. Germans where not especially racist before the loss of WW1 and the Versailles agreement. But if we really wish to have a world of Peace we need start setting down the roots of true peace which means refusing anything to do with violence or people who are or espouse violence in any form.

This would mean in the West for example not paying taxes if they will be used on violent means, or at the very least applying political pressure on all those who believe that some paths should lead to violence.

We are a far from, perhaps even further from, true peace now than ever before. And the Pax Americana leads the violent into a belief that they are somehow miraculously peaceful these days while clearly haven't learnt nothing but a respect and love for war that we see during Remembrance Day. We should be ashamed of this scar on humanity and all those involved should bow their heads in shame and if anything try to distance themselves from involvement in this Darkest Hour of mankind's existence where 80 million lost their lives for nothing. There is nothing to show for their sacrifice and people still don't say never again even after all this suffering. It seems Mankind enjoys suffering and the more the better. But the Peaceful reject all this. May all her paths really be peace. 

What is the meaning of meaning? And Nature.

 Nice SRH question to start the day. A question which must have an immediate answer. Obviously you must know what meaning is to understand the question to answer it so we must all know. There are 2 types of meaning however and we can write blogs without being able necessarily to tell someone how it all works.

Anyway not point of post. I picked up some terse notes just now from months ago and I can't understand what they refer to.

I need some memory of what was "topical" at the time in order to decode them. Its this working memory or context (or stack frame in computing) which we must load alongside the "notes" for them to make sense.

A point made famous by Structuralist philosophy but interesting to see it actually happening in daily life. Once we "forget" the context then things have no meaning.

So this blog post actually has no meaning to a vast number of people because it depends upon quite a specific context.

Its an interesting thing then to ponder the phenomenon of "viral content" or "fame." Like a fire, a spark is needed but it must occur in the right environment, or under the right conditions. In the rain no chance. Next to some dry tinder you may well get a fire. Equally the existence of memes and viral content depends more upon the context than the spark. When Darwin published "Origin of Species" that was the spark but the conditions were also right. He was living in a world awaking to the idea of geological history and processes, of the immense periods of time and gradual change that rocks went through and so it was much easier to imagine organisms doing the same. It was also the end of Religious Certainty and Church Power. A century of Capitalism and Technological progress was shifting power towards a competitive and free market. I studied Zoology and all the models of biological models are taken from finance and accounting. Darwin's idea is really the idea of free-markets applied to animals. The idea of Competitive Exclusion ripped directly from Capitalist ideology, and the idea that companies are forced to adapt and improve through competition started in Capitalism and went to Biology. This mirrors the origins of maths itself in the market place. Algebra and the "=" sign just a symbolic drawing of the traders scales.

I find this understanding very important because as the world shifted from Monarchy to Capitalism ideas of Nature shifted from God to Evolution. We find meaning and relevance for Nature within the context and terms of our current society. But Nature of course is far greater, it is the origin of everything and its good to understand that our attitudes to it will forever change as we reflect ourselves and our society into it.

Is the charge of "Anti-Semitism" really as simple as everyone makes out?

Here is a "thieving gypsy bastard" aka Tracy Ullman (sorry Mrs Ullman for using your image and identity but its meant in general for anyone who experiences racial prejudice who isn't a Jew).

Did you see what I did there? Well actually no you didn't cos there is no word for it? How weird.

If she was Jewish everyone would call it "Anti-Semitism" without thinking. But for poor old Ullman she's not so fortunate and protected and this is simply because of her race! Alarm bells.

For every 2 Jews in the UK their is a Gypsy but you'd never know. Ullman and her people experienced Holocaust just like Jews losing 25% of their racial population but no one says the Germans did a Roma Genocide, and they get no German Compensation Payments. Roma were given no country to "protect" them after the war either.

There is clear and provable prejudice in favour of Jews and so therefore clear and provable prejudice against Roma (swords are always 2 sided). And that prejudice is Racism.

Use of the word "Anti-Semitism" is actually a very serious form of racism but because people don't understand what they are doing they don't understand the error in using it. Calling anything "anti-semitic" is actually being deeply negatively Racist. It is discriminating race crimes based on race and attributing more meaning to certain races while prejudicing against other races.

The only way this issue is going to be solved is with people learning to respect one another and live together. The term "anti-semitism" is actually counter to this desire. Having differential courts of opinion based upon race is actually just amplifying the problem and making it worse. Any race crime should be treated as exactly that. If people need countries to protect their race then every race needs a country, if people need Holocaust compensation then every victim of genocide needs compensation. And so on. Once communities are divided by differential treatment based on race you have Racism. It means all the current pressure to change the law to protect Jewish interests is actually only making racism worse. And I imagine the last thing the Jews want (from what they say at least) is for racism to get worse.

Owning Existence and why Existentialism is nonsense

 So the great problem since Descartes and beyond is Mind and Body. Our experience of the world and the world itself are different. And when we try and locate our experience in the world we have a problem. SRH is here already. Somewhere in the world must be our experiences, but our experiences are of that world. Either their is a secret space we cannot experience where they reside e.g. soul or we have an overlap. Anyway that's the introduction.

The problem for a Capitalist is that we try and own this Mind and these experiences and if we believe in secret spaces those also.

And then perhaps we get struck by their existence which is Real. Often experiences get demoted as just subjective personal perspectives. [running out of power will finish later] but that they exist cannot be denied.

For Descartes the existence of thoughts proved that he himself existed. He was more than owner of those thoughts, he was those thoughts.

But quickly we can see that existence is just existence and its nothing special to us. That one day we won't exist is not a revelation and is nothing personal its just a fact about existence.

Indeed their is nothing personal about existence. So why the dread about non-existence? By existing and non-exiting we join the universe of things. It is a binding experience not a separating experience that Sartre saw.

And why did Sartre see this? Because deep down he was a Capitalist and viewed self and existence in terms of ownership.

Often we demote reality. For Plato's Idealism in his cave physical reality was demoted as an imperfect copy of Ideals in a realm apart from the world. The modern material view inverts this so that computers and brains make imperfect models of a Real existing external world. Phenomenology would demote both these views as both Plato's Ideals and the Materialist Ideal of Physical Reality are just ideas. Reality lies in experience or Phenomena. This is very much more aligned with Eastern Philosophy that sees thoughts and ideas as just sense processes alongside sight and sound. In the West much is placed upon the value of Narrative (ideas) while in the East, Narrative is itself an observable process. In Buddhism everything is demoted to the same level, which is also no level.

A general pattern for contradictions by self-reference

TODO

So Tarski, Turing, Godel and Russel all use the same pattern.

Regarding Halting:

A function H(h,x) determines if program h halts given input x.

Now we can construct I(h,x) which goes into a loop if H(h,x) says 'h' doesn't and vice-versa.

So what about H(I,I)?

If H says it halts we know that 'I' will loop and vice versa.

As usual I need tidy up the logic.

Regarding Tarski:

A function T(t,x) determines if theorem 't' is true given x.

Now we can construct U(t,x) which states the opposite. So that U(t,x) is false if t(x) is true.

So what about T(U,U).

And again with Provability for Godel and Selfincludes for Russel.

Tidy the logic up here.

Now is this the basis for Contradiction by Self-Reference.

If a statement can be transformed into this format it's game over?

Can all self-contradictory statements get into this format.

Are all other formats safe from self-contradiction?

Strong SRH is Dead Digest

 So if last blog didn't quite get there here it is:

Let us begin with the idea of "Contradiction by Self-Reference" CBSR. This is a contradiction that is derived by use of any type of self-reference. There is debate (that I am currently reading) on whether all paradoxes involve self-reference. It seems self-reference paradoxes can be rewritten as infinite paradoxes and vice-versa. But certainly not all contradictions involve self-reference. But that type of contradiction that comes from self-reference is what interests us.

Quick note on method. Theorems taking theorems as input is usually achieved through a mapping from the ordered list of theorems to whatever domain variables have. If the logic is about numbers this is very evident. Theorem(5) can mean both the result of operating on "5" and also the theorem that is listed at position 5 in the ordered list. This is called Godel Numbering.    

So Strong SRH hypothesises "all systems with self-reference can derive contradiction from that self-reference" SSRH (strong self-reference hypothesis).

Note to myself: I need give the logic here a little bit of thought to get it really accurate. Consider the a function like SR(x) that decides if the theorem x has self-reference. SR(x) is true if x involves self-self-reference and false otherwise. However I can't just do SR(SR) since SR is bound to a variable. It would be a whole family of theorems like SR(SRx) the theorem that comes from binding itself to itself with an input x. If "SRn" is the theorem at position n in the list of SR theorems then SR(n) is only self-referential if and when n = SRn. I'm unsure where we can argue self-reference is guaranteed in this construction!

So at the moment I don't know how to create a function like C(SR(x)) which would says that if x has self-reference then you have a contradiction. Which is not quite SSRH which states that the theorem itself is true i.e. SSRH(C(SR(x))) is true. Warning this could all be nonsense I'm just thinking it through.

Anyway concerns out of the way:

Suppose we construct a sequence of logic, a theorem called SSRH to illustrate this. It takes one theorem as input and outputs 1 if the theorem has CBSR and contradiction and 0 otherwise.

So SSRH(SSRH) = 0 is an obvious contradiction. SSRH says that all theorems with self-reference can derive a contradiction yet SSRH(SSRH) say that it doesn't. But that is itself a contradiction as this self-reference has provided a contradiction so the result should be 1. 

But SSRH(SSRH) = 1 is highly problematic too.

It says that SSRH is a theorem with self-reference that generates a contradiction from that self-reference.

Clearly it has self-reference since it has taken itself as input. But it says that doing so derives a contradiction. If we believe it, it has said that its output is a contradiction, and if we don't believe it it means that SSRH is inconsistent. Essentially Godel's result.

If SSRH is consistent then it says its own logic is faulty, which if it was true invalidates the outcome. Not "I am lying" but "I tell contradictions." In standard logic we reject contradictions so it means "If the logic is consistent then reject an assumption that you made in deriving this contradiction." But if we do that then we are actually taking a contradiction to be true! If we accept that the logic was good it would be a contradiction to reject an assumption! This road breaks the very process of logical truth! So we reject SSRH.

So what if SSRH(SSRH) is not the self-reference that is problematic and there is another one. If SSRH contains a self-reference that is problematic within the logic not bound to the variable then the result is even worse and applies to all input. So the problem above stands.

So we must reject the consistency of SSRH all together. There is no such thing.

Now what about Weak Self-Reference Hypothesis (WSRH). This is much more interesting. It says that where there is self-reference and definable conditions then there is CBSR.

Firstly let me introduce the theorem C(x) which sees if x contains a contradiction. (Note: this is proving a useful session as forcing it into logic is really breaking up what I've been trying to say here).

Suppose we illustrate WSRH like this: 

WSRH(x) := C( Conditions(x) && SR(x) )

Which says that if theorem x contains self-refence and it meets the conditions defined by Conditions then it will give a contradiction.

I'm going to leave this here for now cos I need to go back and sort out self-reference and the function SR(x). That might be very fruitful in itself.

Lots of meta-logic functions here (functions deriving results from the logic itself: Godel only had one Beq(x) which decided if a theorem was provable): probably too many.

Not getting stuck into the logic. To recap WSRH suggested that where a domain contained its range (like with fractals) you were guaranteed a "Fixed Point" and the existence of that indicated that SRH was true and problems with self-reference were guaranteed. Let me just define the meta-logic function FP(x) which for a logic decides this. FP(ZFC) is a valid statement since Zermelo-Fraenkel Choice logic enables Godel numbering and so there is guaranteed a statement with one variable in ZFC (e.g. F(x)) which calculates a number which is its own position in the list of theorems.

Note:

F(x) = x is a fixed point

F(n) where n is the position of F(x) in the list of theorems is Self-Reference i.e. n=G(x) is position in the list of theorems or a unique mapping to the domain somehow.

They are different.

OK racing through this. Need to go over the very faulty logic!!!