[yor_on]

But we haven't noticed that one either.

[yor_on]

You would be stranded there. The chances for you finding your way back should be incredibly small, if it now was possible, because moving towards a future that still doesn't exist when you leave? and forward time travel, I never seen that one in physics? Doesn't mean there can't be a 'hypothesis' existing there too of course.

[yor_on]

To get to that kind of behavior you will have to assume that 'times arrow' is a mirage. Like a frozen ocean, in where you as a consciousness light it up by your choices.

[yor_on]

It's still what I would call a 'mechanical universe' though. Bifurcating with every outcome realized here. I doubt it.

[yor_on]

The reason is simple, probabilities are not mechanics. A 'meta universe' realizing every possible outcome is.

[yor_on]

It's actually a Newtonian universe,the one mechanical, at least pretty close to it.

[yor_on]

Preconceptions. and staying inside the game.

[yor_on]

So what is 'c'?

Well, we have moved away from its origin. It's a mean of useful communication. It's the way this universe holds itself together.

[yor_on]

That, and if you do like me also a mean of defining the arrow of time using clocks. 'c' and those local clocks becomes a equivalence to me.

[yor_on]

What it tells you is that the original definition was just a stepping stone.

[yor_on]

Taken to a extreme a mechanical  meta universe could invalidate free will. Any argument using HUP would be wrong as HUP doesn't exist in it. all possibilities are realized from the 'eyes of  a God'. HUP would possibly hold as a argument for 'what universe gets what', defined from a split 'inside' of this meta universe, but using the whole map I wouldn't expect it.

Still, if it did work for this whole meta universe. What would that tell you?

[yor_on]

me it would tell that even though its construction may be 'mechanical' its foundations still will rest on probabilities.

[yor_on]

Which brings us back to the 'inside' we already can prove. If that is the point, then why make it more complicated than what it already is?

[yor_on]

We don't need more 'probabilities' and 'meta universe'. and defining it as probability creates its outcomes, probability still will be the origin, not the 'meta universe'. which then opens as some Russian doll, layer after layer of possible meta universes existing.
=

syntax

[yor_on]

So, which one do you prefer?

[yor_on]

It's like they say. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

I discussed what the military might be used for in a climate that heats up before. But there are two sides to it. USA:s military had made some long term and medium term study's coming to a similar conclusion as me. But where I define it as the military stepping in to protect whatever resources the western world may need in a future perspective, it from the other side can be seen as 'protecting democracy' or 'liberty', and also being 'invited' to go. Furthermore we need to add that it sometimes is about politics, wanting to prove the superiority of ones case more or less. Mostly that kind of behavior will be used on developing nations though, too dangerous to try it on a developed nation. And it hasn't worked that well on developing countries either.

But that's not generally what makes foreign military flock in another country.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/12/us-military-pentagon-climate-crisis-breakdown-

[yor_on]

I'm not too happy with the tone of that article. To me it shows a lack of self awareness. This "  “all hell breaking loose” scenario—a situation in which key US allies are begging for American troop support to avert collapse while the homeland is reeling from several major climate disasters and vital military installations are incapacitated by storms or wildfires. " doesn't strike me as plausible. It may be from a short term scenario though?

what will be plausible is what I state, that the military will be used to protect whatever nations interest it represent. And with global warming intensifying, and depending on how the resource situation looks for that nation, military forces will be deployed. What forces occupying then may refer to it as doesn't change a thing here.

It's 'realpolitik'.
=

spelling

[yor_on]

I know " the homeland is reeling from several major climate disasters and vital military installations are incapacitated by storms or wildfires." does not sound short term. But what about those 'key allies' that would invite foreign soldiers on their land? Doesn't make sense to send soldiers as relief workers. When we had wildfires in Sweden it was firemen that was invited? And USA is rather far away for being able to act immediately in a natural disaster situation here in Europe. So I guess it might be referring to a developing country lacking infra structure then, being closer to USA?

the only thing making sense sending soldiers would be if there was insurrections happening. And one in where USA would find itself losing something if not acting.

[yor_on]

We can also put it this way. Once USA find its climate reach that kind of proportion any idea of deploying soldiers overseas should be meet with scorn and refusal by the American public. They will feel that they have better use for them at home. And the logistics and costs should also be prohibitive. Because if that is the situation there it shouldn't be any better anywhere. Everyone will be occupied with their own problems, and it should be the start of an end.

[yor_on]

And considering insurrections I would expect USA to have its own at that time. After all, the American public still believe that global warming is a political issue. They've been systematically misinformed by their leaders and industry. The backlash from that won't be pretty.