he does not multilocate;
he multilocates but does not see himself killed;
he multilocates, sees himself killed but nevertheless has reason to continue the multilocation.
In the confusion of the battle described in "The Nest," one of the time travelers might either not notice his future self being shot or notice but continue fighting in support of his comrades and other selves.
Shortly, we will watch the news to see whether any British politicians are meeting themselves coming back into Parliament.
22 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Trying to make sense of time traveling hurts my noggin! (Smiles)
I wouldn't be surprised, if, in his frustration, Boris Johnson envied how Oliver Cromwell could just say "Go!" as he dispersed the Long Parliament!
And I thought only the Queen could legally end a prorogation of Parliament?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The highest Scottish court has declared the prorogation illegal on the ground that Bojo misled the Queen about the reason for it. Bojo is now appealing to the UK Supreme Court.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Oh, boy! What a mess! I know her Majesty is supposed to be neutral in public about politics, but of course any PM and his Sovereign would discuss politics, as well as many other matters, at the regular weekly audience. So I have my doubts the PM deceived the Queen.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The argument is: he said Parliament needed to be closed in preparation for a new Queen's Speech. However, this closure is an exceptionally long one and everyone believes that its purpose is to prevent discussion of Brexit. The Queen acted in good faith in response to what looked like a constitutional and legal request from the Prime Minister so she is not implicated in any alleged wrong-doing.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Good. I do have a high regard for the Queen. Therefore, if he wants a legal prorogation of Parliament, Johnson should say he will ask the Queen to do so because of Brexit.
Ad astra! Sean
Technically, there's no set term for the prorogation. We're seeing an escalation of "technically legal" dirty tricks, each side believing it's just responding in kind to illegitimate provocation.
The problem is that anyone can start a process of escalation... but nobody can unilaterally -stop- it. You don't get to halt it at the moment when the advantage is yours.
In any fight, the general sentiment is likely to become that it's better to set the world on fire and dance around the bonfire than to let the other bastard win. I usually operate on that basis myself.
!
I expect the Supreme Court to back Bojo.
It must be impossible to separate legal from political at that level.
I want the government to address the Climate, not Brexit.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: I agree, political fights can become very passionate, as we are seeing in the struggle over Brexit in the UK. Yes, I can see inflamed partisans preferring to set the world afire and dance around the bonfire rather than letting their hated opponents get any kind of advantage.
While I believe the UK is better off not being in the EU, I would prefer both sides in this quarrel to calm down a bit and think hard about just how FAR they want to go.
Paul: if the prorogation of Parliament was at least technically legal, then I would expect the UK Supreme Court to rule according, by the strict letter of the law. Both written and customary.
You know my view, if we want to replace oil and coal, then the only realistic alternatives is nuclear power and a space based solar power system.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean
Sean,
And urgent action has to be taken within the next decade to reverse current global warming.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And that urgent has to be INSISTING on nuclear power and a REAL space program for building that space based solar power system. Nothing else will work. Certainly NOT more taxes and futile bureaucratic rules regulations.
Sean
But what can be done on the necessary time scale?
Kaor, Paul!
I've seen you comment approvingly of marches and demonstrations, plus supporting or opposing various kinds of candidates for political offices. Why not do the same in support of nuclear energy and a real UK space program? Preferably with the idea of encouraging or opening the way for men like Elon Musk.
Mind you, this will not be easy or popular, given how nuclear energy has been maligned and demonized by the cynical or ignorant. To say nothing of the tragic indifference too many have for space and its potentialities.
What will NOT work is more of the same old stupidity and foolishness we have been seeing in the States, boiling down to merely more taxes, more rules, more bureaucracy, more nonsense about wind mills and "renewables." And no thought given to the hard, practical LIMITS of such things. If all the Greenies can offer is the poverty and mass unemployment INEVITABLY resulting from an actual, drastic abandonment of coal and oil, they WILL face fierce and determined opposition.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Two points:
I was at a climate campaign meeting the other night and did not ask about nuclear energy because the meeting was focused on practical organization for a strike and demonstration next week but I will find out what people think about this;
I am all for space exploration, industry, tourism and colonization but I understand that right now something drastic has to be done on Earth very quickly so the question is what?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I keep trying to point out that the ONLY PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVES to oil or coal is nuclear energy and a space based solar power system. What good are strikes and demonstrations if nothing REALISTIC is offered in their place?
And the UK and the US are not even the worse carbon dioxide sinners. Why not put pressure on China and India, both of which are vastly worse?
What needs to be quickly done is to build more nuclear power plants and support people like Elon Musk and his company SpaceX.
And I strongly suspect that if you "came out" in favor of nuclear power (never mind a real space program) you would be FIERCELY attacked.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But, if enough nuclear power stations and space based power systems cannot be built in the next ten or eleven years, then what is to be done? Emergency measures become necessary and governments are not discussing this. We can each pressurize our own government. The fact that they are not the worst offenders does not change the fact that they need to do something and to pressurize other governments. An irreversible catastrophe starting in 12 years from the end of 2018 unless something is done to stop it before then - as stated by the relevant inter-governmental scientific committee. I feel that this discussion lacks the necessary sense of urgency.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But how can there be any "urgency" if people are stubbornly unwilling to accept the only REAL alternatives to fossil fuels that would allow us to retain a high tech society? And what do you even mean by "emergency measures"? If that means only more futile, counterproductive taxes, regulations, bureaucracy, etc., then I would oppose them. I oppose measures that only amounts to futile feel good gestures.
And even an inadequate number of nuclear power plants built in the next decade would still be better than nothing. And I also Mr. Musk succeeds in founding his Mars colony. Again, better than nothing!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But there is urgency because, according to the scientific report, only 12 years remain to prevent an irreversible catastrophe. I do not know what emergency measures should be implemented. Governments advised by scientists should decide. During war, greater governmental control of industry was accepted as necessary. An irreversible ecological catastrophe is a greater threat than a war. Would you oppose measures that are found to be necessary for survival?
If Northern Africa becomes increasingly uninhabitable, then entire national populations will move north and drown in the Mediterranean as the EU keeps them out.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I would not oppose measures found to be legitimately necessary AND scientifically practical and workable. I simply have my strong doubts that all affected gov'ts will actually do so.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I agree with your 2nd point. The question is whether ANY government will do anything. But, if they don't, we are heading for an irreversible catastrophe soon.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Because it's my view some gov'ts don't care, such as India's and the regime in Peking.
If Elon Musk founds that colony on Mars, then at least not all our eggs will any longer be ONLY on the single basket we have, Earth.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No government cares. We must criticize our own governments, not just others.
No Martian colony will be founded in the next decade (unless, optimistically, I am proved wrong!). There is an urgency about addressing the issue here and now on Earth.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, but gov'ts which arose in societies which at least partially and incompletely believed in placing limits and restraints on what the state can legitimately do and demand will be more susceptible to pressure than autocracies like the Maoist regime in Peking.
While I agree we cannot absolutely be sure Elon Musk will be able to found his Martian colony, I hope he can! And he does seem serious about that.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment