Unrelated:
Should I chain replies? Or should I reply, as I did, all to the first message?

[5/5]

There are many reasonable interpretations of QM. I see QM as resulting from science hitting the universal limits of measurement.

We exist in a causal, deterministic universe, but there is a veil beyond which we cannot see. But of course, this is unknowable.

[4/?] As with the death of God, we don't sacrifice the excitement and beauty of living when we let go of free will. Indeed, We live more fully. Free will requires something existing outside of causality. To deny the causal effects nature has on us is to separate ourselves from nature.

[3/?] It is not that the forces that determine our behavior are changing and we are the same. We are in fact different people from moment to moment.

[2/?] The complexity of human is that we have space for beliefs, values, hopes, desires, emotions, etc. The individual instances of these are not essential qualities of our existence; We change! We change as outside forces act on us, and we change as these internal forces act on each other.

[1/?] The death of free will echoes the death of God in that:
1. There are profound implications in how we relate to ourselves, ethics, justice, and more.
2. The truly interesting conversations happen on the other side of the event.

Second -- Domination is a crude tool for education. It often backfires.

I'll point again this week to curiosity as a virtue in the exchange of ideas. We build trust through curiosity, and we are more able to address an idea we understand.

We ought to demand and afford respect in all our interactions.

Being right does not give us the right to attack or dominate the wrong -- A world where that is true leads to systemic oppression.

Let's always place the human before the idea.

Chattel slavery is alive in Mauritania. It is officially illegal, but laws against it are unenforced.

I'm not interested in conversations where I need to fight uphill to be understood. An attitude of curiosity and exploration builds a more enjoyable and more inclusive conversation.

This article really speaks to a frustration I have with a category of conversation, where the misuse of a word is addressed, but not the underlying point. It's playing conversation with the rule, "only the literal, precise definition of words will be considered."