Is no bias at odds with relativity and difference both being true?

Let me get back to your previous statement,
Reality is subjective to the individual, and it is not limited to Y and G. To begin with, you need to define what "X" is, and describe Y and G.

The whole problem is represented just by the equation:
Y = (G = Y)

Based on the assumption that Y and G are conflation, is the aforementioned equation necessary?
If it is, error is at play, but if it isn't then there is no error.


The reason I'd present Y = (G = Y) is because G = Y means the problem of whether G or Y ends.
But, adding another G or Y to demonstrate conflation means tipping the scale.

This prompts me to think if the resolution of reality is impossible without a force external to the universe committing bias. However, were this the case then is the difference not being real meant to suggest that the external force needs to be created?

Forces will always result in motion, unless there is another force exactly opposed to it.

Isn't it an error though, for a force to create motion? It's a duplication.

As in nature, man can develop pretty strong forces, but nature will always win.

What do you mean? I'm aware of the idea of man playing God, but I'm trying to address the logic of difference and uniformity.

If Y is the history of Britain, and G is a review embargo for a summer blockbuster, or a house party, and Y is G, but Y being known as G means the inability of either is there then a discrepancy?

Here's one aspect of nature vs man.
http://www.washington.edu/news/2011/05/17/real-nature-beats-technological-stand-ins-for-human-well-being/

Thanks. I agree that life needs non-man made reality.

However, to redress the Y and G problem: if war is wrong, yet is the reason why person F and T are able to have a conversation (say at a restaurant), is it then wrong that person F and T are anti-war, despite their conversation meaning personal convenience?

Saying "war is wrong" is an oxymoron, because it's in man's DNA.

But what about the situation I presented?

Most Americans are against war today, but it's up to the president and congress to approve war and its funding. Two people can discuss pro and/or anti war, but it has very little influence on what the president and congress will do. That's been the history of this country.

Do you think it's fair that either congress or the US senate (I don't live in the US) directly address the issue of causality?
I suppose this would mean having to link something such as a social circle in California to the existence of Islamic terrorism, or a lifestyle routine in Paris to the existence of news media in the US.

The big problem is that the US continues to be the world police. We have no such authority from the world community. Any war in the Middle East should be handled by their neighbors, not the US. The one exception is to destroy ISIS.

True, there should be no nation that acts as a world police; because of causality though nations shouldn't exist period, as nations inherently mean the reality of hierarchy (amongst nations).

If we understand how hierarchy was established within cultures, it's easy to see that wealth always played a part.

Wealth does play a part, but I think territory is the root cause. Territory will always bring an identity.

What troubles me is this scenario: nations, hierarchy, greed, territory and wealth are all wrong, yet they're the cause of this forum.
This redirects to the issue about person T and F, using war as a way to avoid an uncomfortable silence around a dinner table.

News media is no different; it serves as a ability to watch the tv, yet at the expense of the millions of people each year who are refugees, or who are mistreated customers or employees, or exposed in some negative way.
The news is meant to be right, but how is that state right if news could never be possible without violence and inequality?

The practical result of this perspective is perpetual self-reflectivity - or is it?
If cause has no rightful identity, but difference is true, can the identity of difference be rightfully known?
(Right now, I'm looking at reality from the perspective that the ongoings in each year's Big Brother house is the cause and effect of NATO, or that a shop in San Francisco is the cause and effect of the UK voting to leave the EU)

I have a different perspective for those of us who live in the United States. It's based on my observation and experience.
My mother raised four children by herself, and we lived in very poor housing. After WWII, and after we left the concentration camps, the government gave our family $25, and transportation back to our home city. We lived at a Buddhist Church classrooms divided by army blankets into family homes.
To make a long story short, my older brother became an Attorney, my younger brother a Physician/Ophthalmolgist, and our sister a RN. I was the last in our family to earn a college degree, but majored in Accounting. I think we did pretty well.
I think in earlier times, owning property was the only way to gain government power. But that has changed in this country.
My younger brother served two terms in the California State Legislature, and was Mayor of his town twice of Lodi. He's now a City Councilman.