Again, I'm not sure why we are calling them "decision points" particularly when you note that there is "true randomness" in everything including non-sentient objects that are presumably incapable of decision making? Unless you think cells and grains of sand and drops of water are making decisions, the branching can't be a result of sentience. Right?
I don't believe in free will because I've never heard a compelling argument for it and decisions are demonstrably influenced by environment, but I don't steadfastly disbelieve in decision making either.
I don't necessarily believe in a multi-verse with infinite variations of myself. I'm not sure I even really believe in multiple versions of myself. I think maybe people like to think of their decisions creating universes and themselves being infinite because of ego. Given the butterfly effect, any slight variation at the time of the big bang would cause massive variation billions of years later. Whenever I see the multi-verse represented in science fiction, there are potential realities that don't make sense. There doesn't need to be infinite versions of me in order for there to be infinite multiverses.
Zero point nine recurring repeats the number 9 infinitely. There doesn't need to be the number 8 for infinity to exist.
0.9 recurring is in some ways infinite, but it also equals one.
I don't think that's true. What about Amish people? If you really wanted to shed technology, you could start to detach. I don't think people want to detach completely from modern technology, like the Amish. I certainly don't want to. Do you?
They're two different things, though. The power of our minds isn't enough to reverse climate change, particularly when none of us (you included) are willing to let go of the things that are damaging the environment in the first place... Like I said, electric cars are technological. This is a scientific solution to a scientific problem.
I don't have any fear. I didn't say what Kilmer said was dangerous. I don't care if more people chose not to treat themselves medically and die from cancer because the world is over-populated and I don't believe in sustaining an over-populated planet because we can't bear to let anyone die. It would be quite easy to prove that prayer doesn't cure cancer. All you'd have to do is compare the death rates between a fundamental religious group with a group whose faith lies in medical science. I'm certain the latter would be more successful in beating cancer, because (while I agree that spirituality and empowerment is important) I don't believe that it can magically cure everything. If you have HIV and you pray instead of taking anti-virals, you're probably not going to last very long.
That's the second time now you've said that you can't help but do as the Romans do. It seems like a bit of a weak excuse to me? If you truly believe that medical science is not the solution to cancer, go down another route... I don't believe that you truly believe prayer cures cancer and I don't believe that Val Kilmer truly believes this either... I also don't believe that you truly desire a life without science and technology.
With all due respect, you don't appear to be operating under logic? I don't mean any offense but what you're saying essentially is if you play Russian roulette and don't blow your brains out, your fear of bullets before pulling the trigger was irrational?
My friend was taking a risk birthing her child without medical experts on hand. The fact that she gambled and won doesn't imply anything about the odds. If you sit down at a roulette table and put a million dollars down on 27 red, you might win but winning doesn't change the odds.
I'm not sure you can sensibly divide the world into western/other when it comes to technology. Asia is pretty technological. Almost the entire world is. Very few people, when given the opportunity, chose to live in a non-technological world. For example, there is nothing stopping Aboriginal Australians living the way they used to live before the British arrived.
As for "the ancients", you're talking about very particular periods of history. Right?
Things are getting worse and better. Movements like BLM falsely push the narrative that things are getting worse. I agree with you that the more we fight, the more we divide ourselves. But "the side that's getting discriminated against" in the US (minorities) surely have more rights and are treated better by the general public than they were a couple of centuries ago. I don't know how you could possibly argue otherwise.
You seem to have a bit of a depressive, self-hating perspective of modern man. It is not a perspective I share with you. If I was African American I'd rather live in this decade than any other decade. Everything is getting better all the time.
Wars don't last as long as they used to and they kill a much smaller percentage of the population these days. You said you were mainly talking about the Western world before. We haven't had a major war in the western world for decades. Compare that with history when everyone was slaughtering each other constantly.
If we were killing ourselves in record numbers, we wouldn't be massively over-populated.
Politics and technology have been instrumental in our enlightenment. We are too engrossed in both, definitely, and we neglect our spiritual side. But you keep saying that everything is fixed by empowerment and spirituality. You said you agree we need a balance but (at the same time) you seem to oscillate between balance and putting everything on 27 red.
There either needs to be a balance or there doesn't.
You either want to live without technology or you don't.
I'm still not sure where you stand.
Can't we do both?
Do we need to choose?