I agree. The headline pontificates way too much. The mark of good writing is to convey something complex in a relatively simple way, not to make grand verbose statements that mislead people.

What a fucking ridiculously unintelligible heading to this post.

How do you know, are you a cynic?

I think what you are expressing is minimizing suffering as opposed to unhappiness.

Unhappiness like happiness can be very subjective, as the other commenter rightly suggested.

The most elemental types of suffering you listed are much more universal. If we were able to free people from physical and temporal suffering, hopefully more people would be well and functional, and have a shot at something like actual happiness or fulfillment.

I wonder if societies can be relied upon to pursue intellectual development if they aren't fighting against need and suffering, or if more people would accept some degree of comfort or contentment and remain apathetic?

Won’t happen until art gets a revival with AI and people finally understanding postmodernism through the postcontemporary.

So tackle things in which unhappiness exists. To reach the more abstract happiness.

I like that.

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”

~ Douglas Adams

Happy people buy plenty of things

Because people wouldn’t want to be forced to be happy. That’s reasonable.

Hey I solved Humanity Philosophy is Obsolete and I also solved Theoretical physics because that also was a problem by definition. Ok thank you, go fuck my-selves. Lol. Go team go lol. Also I parted the Heaven’s for Taylor one the 1st day of seven without a green screen. (Pussys) go fuck my selves.

Unhappiness, or at least dissatisfaction, can be very important for growth and development. Maximizing happiness would be going to the gym and living a long healthy life, minimizing unhappiness would be avoiding the discomfort of the gym and enjoying daily gluttony.

Unhappiness is a product in our modern consumer culture. How can they sell you something to make you happy unless you are unhappy? They manufacture unhappiness through advertisement and other manipulative practices like limited time offers to create FOMO.

I do not like reducing human experience and well being down to variables - they’re too varied, nuanced, layered, and ever evolving to quantify

This seems like a lot of complex words to say something you could say in a sentence that everyone already agrees with. Young people are agents of change because they do not adopt the privileges of the system. Working into a system inherently asks you to question it. This is a recurring basic element of any system.

Reminds me of the Chris Rock joke. "I been looking for Gold all my life and he's on the back of the dollar bill. In God We Trust

Just about to the end, it was really more than I could suffer. It’s very unserious, but the author is intelligent and has a good mind. He should try reading sociology.

Did you read it though?

It is non-falsifiable and intentionally ambiguous as to mean anything you want it to mean at any rhetorically advantageous juncture.

Technically I would say that we already have a new religion that popped up in the last few hundred years and is steadily growing stronger, especially in the last 50 years: Capitalism.

A political example would be the MAGA movement in America.

Does this basically mean "messing with the Collective Unconscious?"

“Theories have always put paced experimental advancements.”

No. Take the CMB for example. It was discovered when not looking for it. Total accidental Nobel prize.

String theory is an interesting discussion, because it is more closely woven to what is serendipitous(especially in the extraction of dynamics), the nature of a substrate, and the nature of operational distinguishability, with a very simple rule set. Like Newton, it is a special use of general relativity, that requires a displacement. Newtons theory is not really a new paradigm, it is just a subset of Einstein, Kuhn is wrong in this regard. He is right in the expanse of a conceptual understanding.

Displacement is the core of the Calabi-Yau manifold, how to approximate distances. Nonlocality is the core assumptions, that degenerate into separable fermionic and bosonic interactions. DM comes into play because of how the Lagrangian drives the modern theory, the jig is not up that the anomalous magnetic dipole moment(or amplitude a electron absorbs and emits a photon) is slightly off from the Dirac delta function. There is a means of correction with coupling constants to a vast array of conformal field theories. This is what it means for a field to be renormalized, which some interpret as a means of rescaling, others a means of quantization. The constant of constants. Either way the electron mass must be measured and plugged into the theory, past the standard model. The standard model represents the core of the fracturing of symmetry and shows the use of symmetry to conserve features independent of dimensionality.

You talk about safely ignoring the ratio of between an electrical force and a gravitational one, but AdS is a all about the translational invariance in holography. The unification of fundamental forces implies a conservation.

Did nature cause decoherence for the fracturing of unitarity groups within the early universe? Was such a fracturing timeless, or “all at once” across all of time and space. Or is gravity a thermal emergence that occurs, and is conserved in DM and DE, hence what the fracturing of symmetry must have happened “all at once”? There are models for both of these, and very real philosophical interpretations to the Nature of truth we ought expect. And yet why would unitarity choose one over the other? The self referential problem, is these principles seem to imply multiple decompositions we must take on the road to reality, conditional on how we define an action, and what features we find ‘anomalous’ to reality. Parity, charge, and time all seem like very real things, but classical theory does not allow us to use all of them without including a degree of freedom, and yet we will never have all three. This is where Popperian thought collapses, what is the null hypothesis of handedness? Dimensionless features, not a problem to project some density functions. Yet there is no architecture, no experiment, to such a thing. We require the mapping of to a degree of freedom(or the implications of 1/2 for that matter).

Lakatos is wrong because the philosophy of science begins on the degenerative. Should we use classical or conditional probability? We should use both. The program is not degenerative because some aspect of subjectivity maybe intractable for causal conditional probabilities, we simply switch to classical probability. Because classical special relativity is timeless we ought be neurotic? Well good thing we are. But the classics can continue if we but assume one hidden layer(of course anymore, forget it) and work with what covariance affords, a context.

Aberration addiction is a problem of philosophy. It is a shortcut of the mind useful to an extent, a distortion we can recognize, perhaps something we can ever deload to some topological defect, or always make excuses for in Platonicism where formalism fails. Heck even intuitionism, where such lazy eliminativism is disallowed, fails.

What is so interesting, is that within poetic naturalism, we can recognize the “mob psychology” and its need for a change, but also human limitations to pierce reality. A healthy psychology has the slightly new. Maybe we just need more conditional probability, as Bayesian can commensurate the scientific method, yet Feyerbend will always be a great insurance policy. Some part of the pathos will keep the ensemble eloquent. Some part of the reduction will assume the collectively exhaustive. Some part of orthonormality will continue to be observable in the bell test. The use of capital T truth and lowercase t truth, does not make model based realism or the surrealism any less interesting. David Deutsch has good take, where we should work toward what things are “possible”.

That being said, I welcome what any imagination can bring to the absurdity of unitarity and yet the seeming rigidity of isometrics. There is a mystery that will continue in the debatable ambiguity as coverage, or the rationale hiding within the indistinguishable operationally equivalent. Our evolution finitistic as eon is defined, an extension of ourselves so familiar, yet alien. As auxiliary as is multiple realized, metastable claims are not sane, they are ahead in their thinking and behind for our kinesthetic senses. We can assume past the intractable, but we cannot state a reality wholly deterministic or ceramic. We are blessed with opportunity and knowledge, broken as a walk in three dimensions that seeks coverage.

Look at what co-op is doing in sweeden for instance, rewe in germany and amazon in the uk.

You only need a a couple of people to run multiple stores in a fairly large area

Even basic conversational AIs like GPT are very far from being ubiquitous and neither will they be anytime soon. These are toys, stepping stones to broader implementations and initself is 20 years away from being able to even tutore primary school students in science, let alone be a scientist. Even using a GAN for reinforced learning (which is by no means effective) it would take years of processing for a marginal capability in doing math or science. These toys haven't been developed for precise output opperations.

In the specific case of GPT, it's just a semantic interpretation layer, an interface for a different AI who's role is to derive intended meaning out of a statement. The back and forth it does with people is just treating humans as an adversarial network. GPT will be the friendly face for the AI that will fire people for having predicted sub-optimal outputs in the next quarter.

Giving free reign to do result check online is what made the first generation of racist conversational bots. The internet isn't a fact book either and given how model scoring happens in a cnn, any AI would only validate with agreeable sources for the sake of fast evolutionary integrations.

AI assistants are already a thing. And i don't mean amazon or apple whose feature sets aren't spectacular. I mean the virtual assistants that are already available for office workers in certain sectors that can fix my PC, remind me to do things and reschedule meetings (according to it's own method of determining priority) on it's own to ensure i have enough time to do it given previous experience.

What if there is a God who punishes people who accept ancient books and without reason (on faith) rather than using their rational faculties to make the best judgment they can?

The God I posit above is already giving the atheists infinite reward. The theists would be wise to seek It perhaps.

I don't think such a God exists. But such a God seems more likely to be a moral and just being than that of Abrahamic theism. We're wise to go with the most moral and just God theory because if God is a liar or unjust, there is no basis to think following the God will do any good at all.