I guess I see his use of atomic swerve as a generalization being made to justify his desired outcome, which is a universe, where humans have free will. So, I wouldn't see it as an insight based on intuition about the nature of the universe that ultimately proves to be precient. It looks to me like he starts from the assumption that humans have free will, and if he wants that to be true, it's gonna be a problem for humans to be made up of a bunch of billiard balls knocking around in a completely determined way. So his solution is just to say, but what if they don't do that. If the insight is pointing out, a discontinuity between deterministic cause and effect and free will, fair enough. Anything beyond that feels a stretch because if you don't want a deterministic universe without free will, and you don't want to ditch atoms entirely, you are only gonna be left with atoms that are not deterministic. So, the paradox kinda creates a problem for determinism that is partially explained by quantum mechanics (similar to plank lengths with xemos paradox). If that's the interesting part, fair enough.

No, he did not. Reading quantum theories into the unusable non-scientific ideas of Greeks gets it backward. It looks familiar because the Europeans who spearheaded the scientific revolution came from a tradition whose education was so steeped in Greek philosophy that they borrowed the language for their original and unrelated ideas. looking around and saying big things tend to be made up of smaller component parts that have some sort of behavior is the extent of their insight.

Not familiar with Danish politics. What are the policies?

The danger does not lie in having a general idea that some traits may be more desirable than others and that a population with more people with certain traits may be better off. The danger comes in thinking that governments would be capable of turning this very general idea into something that doesn't turn into a dystopia nightmare.

I'm starting yo think you just want to have the last word.

If I'm right I avoid a negative interaction where I find out on the end that I was the jerk. If I'm wrong, my comment wouldn't have changed anything anyway. It's not naivete, it's cost benefit analysis 😉.

We are several comments down on a comment that wasn't popular on a thread that wasn't that popular in the first place. There is no one to impress. We both know what the truth is. While I am quite certain you won't admit you are wrong, I hope in the future you will at least consider giving people the benefit of the doubt and try to make the internet a slightly friendlier place.

The technology to make relatively advanced chips basically comes from a few western companies.

This statement refers not to tsmc but to ASML and their partner the zeiss group. ASML is a dutch company and is the only company that can supply lithography machines that employ EUV which is required for the current leading edge being created by Samsung and TSMC. Zeiss group is a a German company and a partner of ASML that supplies their optical system. These two companies are especially important because they are (I believe) the only companies with the ability to produce the technology (EUV and related optical systems) needed to produce 5nm and below chips. TSMC and Samsung use these devices and develop the methodology to manufacture the chips but regardless of any USA foreign policy they would never give there trade secrets related to leading edge processes to China (or any country/external org for that matter). So yea it is western European companies that make the technology to produce the chips.

All the self righteous sanctimonious idiots who project their prejudices onto strangers on the internet to feel superior gets old real quick.

The optics and EUV are truly crazy. I saw a video where they were saying the flatness of mirrors they use in the lithography machines are something like if the surface of the earth only varied like a millimeters in its topology (number might be wrong but it was crazy flat)

The technology to make relatively advanced chips basically comes from a few western companies. Even the generations that China can make themselves thry can't make the machines required for the lithography. Western companies that want to be in the American market (or who's gov would side with America if their was a dispute) have to choose for tsmc a Taiwanese company its pretty easy and it's not that hard for the Dutch company that makes the leading edge lithography stuff either. So if the us pushes it can cut China off from the equipment and expertise they need for modern chips.

The problem with a statement like . . .you legitimize systemic inequalities, is how can you measure that result. Even if you could, If you want change you need to justify it within a framework that is congruent with reality, in order to create a theory that will resonate with people and change their mind. This means you must deal with the reality that some billionaires seem to legitimately do things for purely philanthropic reasons. However, that truth should be understood against the role of billionaires inside a system that results in deep and unfair inequalities. After all there are perhaps reasons why concentration of wealth in hands of a coordinated group be it a person Corp or government could potentially be beneficial, but the likelihood that they will use it for good is the critical factor. So that some do good proves nothing, unless we think random billionaires are going to use a given sum for a more beneficial purpose than the government (spoilers they won't).