My documentaries, the documentaries that I recommend

You said certain phrases caught your breath suggested you were surprised.

The minute Meryl Streep appeared on screen it was obvious how the rest of the film would turn out.

It was formulaic and predictable right up to the point where Meryl Streep got eaten.

I thought 'Idiocracy' was a far better commentary on the times although I did enjoy ‘Don’t Look Up'. But the heavenly body being ignored isn’t the one in the movie we should be looking up for. But the almost universal blindness was spot on.

To think this movie hits only at Trumpers and spoils the left crowd is completely myopic. If anything the film mocks hard not at the results of Science which would be absurd but in its elitism its continuos inability to reach an audience no matter how hard they try...moreover, the comment in which they portray the science protagonists has not being media savvy keeps nailing it. Finally the affair of Leonardo de Caprio with middle class popularity in a degraded media like is the TV these days nails it again as the fantasy of the high school cool girlfriend trumping some right wing values like family and companionship also nails it once more.

In sum Don't look up doesn't presents us with a strong positivist image of Scientists which was never actual but rather with a very common very human very incompetent version of the real thing, and in that sense it hits jackpot!
If one would think that in the end the film attempts to redeem the scientists for not being wise and easily gullible it does not, because it is far to late and ironically all there is left for them to do is a last supper meal...
There is no binary Blue vs Red win in the film...no foreseeable redemption out of Purgatory nor a Paradise elsewhere...
The direction of the movie makes no concessions in any front and kicks left and right all over the place in a desperate attempt to wake up its audience in what might be called a loud movie but not a blind one.

Someone is learning modern economics 101...

What Cantor wrote with its "diagonaliation" is not a number but a function which creates "lag comparison" for the act of counting...
Write down the same function backwards for any X number supposedly not on the list and you can find ANY real number!
The only thing Cantor showed with his demonstration is that Real numbers must have a qualitative finite set in what they can represent, and they cannot represent themselves if they don't add any new information with them.
Infinite quantity is IRRELEVANT when you MUST HAVE a finite number of Qualia!
Why? because Infinite Qualia would render uncountable any geometry of relation between phenomena. Eg. My photons wouldn't be like your photons and I wouldn't see you. In fact nothing else would be relatable with anything!
And this is why Atomists since the Greeks believed in Monism or the ONE substance which is the base for all the Chemistry!

I have said this countless times here on A2K but looping infinities have finite sets of information. Soo looping infinities are fake numbers!

One ought to STOP confusing functions with numbers.
Numbers must be a well defined quantity in order to represent anything!

Let me be concrete in order to make tangible what I am alluding to.

Say we chose an infinite set of apples.

One ought to be able to explain how the infinite set of apples occurs in an ecosystem in order to understand if we are looping around in the counting of all possible apples, even if the counting is boundless.

The ecosystem which recycles apples into soil, nutrients, water and so on has a finite set of parameters, IT IS A CLOSED SYSTEM.

The domain of geometry on the shape of the apples also has boundaries.
You cannot have an infinitely small component of an apple nor an infintely big boundary of an apple...

One thus concludes that although the ecosystem can make infinite apples, the shape size and qualia of the apple set is finite!

Moving on to more mundane stuff this guy is worth subbing!

Meanwhile sell your house if you live at sea level on the coast:

A long long time ago in a far way Galaxy...

English subs are okeish.

An educational video from yours truly to stir some water around.

A voice from the past!

Meanwhile back to the present and up above:

This is good news for Philosophers that don't buy into bad philosophy of maths.
I expect further developments in Philosophy of Maths in the future in regards to the distinction between complexity and epistemic boundaries that generate the illusion we call pseudo randomness and true randomness which is an abomination based on XIX century linear conceptions of cause and effect and classical perception of Time.

To the point and back to the present the video on Biology and Evolution that defies randomness.

A final comment:
I bet the delusional bunch will see the magical wand of God flying around, but that was not the reason I posted this video and I simply don't care much on what they think or happen to believe. My beef against randomness has nothing to do with gods and is a far more abstract and serious business...

Fed up with the massive constant work around's on attempting to make sense of Compatiblism.
No "mate" no freedom there as it is used in language for 99%9 of the people. That is politics on concepts not referring to language which is use and alive.
You cannot have causation and freedom in the same logical sentence period!
Appealing to the fact that my misperception of taking an action freely (because I want to) grants me freedom phenomenologically is complete bulshizz and you guys know it.
It is anti mathematical, anti logical, and counter to the very concept of ORDER!
In any moment I am the sum of my conditions which were determined way before I was born!

Moreover I am also fed up with this talk of possible vs actual worlds because it thrives on epistemic ignorance. There are no possible worlds, there is ONE REALITY which encompasses, distinct, different, diverse domains of operations, say for instance I dream I was LIKE a bird, therefore in the domain of dreams I was like a bird period! Distinct domains in Reality include what we call "conceivable worlds" which are the result of our epistemic incompleteness and live in our not free "imagination".

Back to the origins on the geo political crisis in Ukraine:

Huston Smith (the bigger fox of the bunch) should pay more attention to Parmenides to not confuse Phenomenology with Ontology...although it is true that there is an Ontology of Phenomenology in the sense that phenomena can stand on its own in a correlated non causal view of Reality.

Ontology is preferable or primary only in the sense that it is the "bigger box" which doesn't make "smaller boxes" or pockets/domains of reality any less real...

On this frame of reference everything is Ontological including "illusions" when we see them as domains of what is Real.

...this in modern terms evolved to the usual debate between what is more fundamental software or hardware...and honestly I know very little on what is hardware to be able to oppose it with a concept of software...it just confounds and inflates the big mess we already have in defining "materialism on itself.