Oct 12, 2021Liked by Giulio Prisco

Absolutely. Even physicists who see things via an ideological prism, love to exclude conflicting data. After dealing directly with a couple of these, my conclusion is that they, like all their ideological cohorts, as an addict or alcoholic simply haven't hit bottom yet. For this, cast your eyes to American news items. This will be true of both economics especially in the next 120 days. It is also how people who are ideologically-minded, behave toward others. Allow me, Doctor!


The Moral of the story is being "practical," is far better than "ideological," because ideology is often a suicide pact Now, Is the TuringChurch ideological? No. Neither is modern day Cosmism.

Lastly, Professor, I have noticed that some women instinctively, pray to the "universe," seemingly, which reminds me of Cosmism. I suspect their instincts are magically correct.


Conclusion? Ok, Windows 10 was a pain, but 11 is here and seems a bit better. If the Universe can learn perhaps, Microsoft, and maybe, perhaps even the rest of us!

Expand full comment
Oct 12, 2021Liked by Giulio Prisco

Understood. Still, things do have a cause and effect in the Newtonian sense and I do believe that on the quantum level this also occurs as well. The things I choose, are not politics, which seem forced upon me, but technology. Why deal with the playgrounds of the super rich and their lawyers that are employed by these, as politicians, if we can have a material fix?

Hence, a new study that came out last week from universities such as Columbia in the US, and Imperial in the UK indicate that just putting the right photovoltaics on our roofs, plus batteries, would yield 27 petawatts per year. This is more than 4.5 times the current yearly consumption of electricity.


Innovations such as this, plus, 3D printing, might yield a world society that by changing the "means of production ~Engels & Marx" would change the politics. Just a thought, Dr.

Expand full comment
Oct 9, 2021Liked by Giulio Prisco

The Nobel Committee has always been doubtful in whom and how it chooses its nominees. Witness the Peace Prize for Obama in 2009 over more eligible candidates as an example. That these the committee would decide that the pioneers in demonstrating quantum physics are not what they are looking for, seems like we can afford to look elsewhere to reward those who truly deserve an award this year. I will be downloading Virk's multiverse, in a minute. Do I believe it? (Shrug) will I consider it, sure, why not?

Expand full comment