Discover the world's scientific knowledge

The dying or not-so-young dichotomy in terms of ESL/EFL Industry may be a reality today. Is the ESL industry in the country you're teaching a "dying"  one? Are there fewer and fewer ESL/EFL teachers from abroad being employed, for whatever reason? Demographics, government policy changes, less interest, a downturn in the economy, etc

In the most ancient meaning ‘pneuma’ was presented as something that vitalizes the body, "the breath of life as thin material principle of life" like the meaning of soul.

With the Stoics the term began to be compared to that of spirit. ‘Pneuma’ belongs to God who gives life to things and guides them according to his will. The ‘pneuma’ is a force that manifests itself not only in the individual man, but is present in all things as "soul of the world".

According to reports by the Encyclopedia Treccani, the spirit in the first and oldest meaning, it intended as "breath," the '' air ', so also the breath of life (like the original meaning of soul), envisioned as thin material principle of life.

From the old meaning derives the use in the ancient Stoic texts of pneuma to refer to the soul of the world, designed as thin material (similar to the fire), cause of motion and life of all, but also as logos, rational principle of cosmic order . The use of the Greek term pneuma to refer to a reality distinct and opposite in every material principle states especially in the New Testament (in the Old Testament, the ‘pneuma’ is also giving breath and the wisdom of God): in New Testament texts the 'pneuma' is the Divine Holy Spirit, and the man's own higher principle proper of distinct man and opposite as regards soul and body and in relation to this distinction is already configured for Paul and then in the texts of the first Christian centuries.

In the New Testament ‘pneuma’ also indicates higher beings, immaterial, intermediaries between God and men. Similarly, in the neo-Platonic terminology, the ‘pneuma’ occurs as a manifestation of the phenomena of divination, in oracles, etc., Always with a wide range of meanings: from the "disembodied spirit", to the " light  spirit " that "descends" from almost as astral body; but the spirit is also 'vehicle' ethereal soul or synonymous with Daimon, intermediary between gods and men.

It defines a concept of spirit as immaterial principle, which shall serve to both the deity, as what is proper to man, separate from the materiality of the body. But if in the theological context the concept of spirit as the Holy Spirit guarantees the characteristics of intangibility, eternity, etc., as its attributes of spirit, speaking of man his own functions are rather attributed to the soul, to the ‘mens’, intellectus , and not to the spiritus of which is prevailing a conception as something material, thin material vehicle of sensibility and principle of life (sometimes, as in Augustine, intermediary between soul and body), prevailing so the original meaning, then bound to the medical tradition.

Kant will use the term spirit in the Critique of Judgment and in Anthropology as a signifier of the creative activity of reason, and so will be understood even by idealistic philosophy from Schelling to Hegel who metaphysically extended the scope beyond the Kantian formalism. Especially in Hegel, the Spirit is the protagonist of the Phenomenology of Mind (1807) which will be further reported in its dialectical development of the subjective spirit, objective and absolute in the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences.

On the other hand it should be noted another meaning that the word spirit is simultaneously taking: as what allows to understand something which at first escapes, to go beyond the immediate first impression, and that yet is the most typical of something: is this one meaning of spirit that you can reconnect to the distinction of the New Testament (Paul) between the spirit that gives life and the letter that kills; in this perspective spirit is indicating both the true meaning of something, as the particular faculty, the particular attitude that allows to catch it. In the same respect, it is the esprit des lois - the spirit of the law - as is the custom of Montesquieu, indicating the nature of the set of rules governing the relations of a particular nation, in relation to environmental, social, historical conditions of each people; in this sense also ‘esprit des nations’. e.g.(Voltaire). .                                                                  

The use of the term continues its fortune in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, swinging the meaning between a transcendent concept of spirit - as a person of the Trinity - and a medical-naturalistic conception. The defined use of spirit as a principle proper to man, distinct from matter, indicating his rational faculty, synonymous with mind, it states in modern thought between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Already in the French translation of the Meditations of ‘prima philosophia’, Metaphysical Meditations of Descartes, the term ‘mens’ (mind) is intended as ‘esprit’, and placed as the equivalent of intellect and reason (but in this sense Descartes uses esprit in French works, but not the Latin spiritus, so the Cartesian N. Chauvin in his lexicon keeps the prevailing sense of spiritus in physiology and records the equivalence of spiritus = ‘res incorporea’ or ‘mens’ as mainly theological).

Leibniz indicates as spirit the reasonable  soul, and more properly puts the equivalence between ‘I’ and 'substance, monad, soul, spirit "; the spirit is not only a living mirror of the universe of creatures, but also an image of the deity, capable of knowing and willing; and all the spirit ("both men and genes'’) are with God - the supreme monad, spirit par excellence -" the most perfect republic composed of all the spirits. "Of substance we call "spirit" Locke speaks of as of what we believe we have to report the operations of our mind, that is, reason, hope, fear.

In the romantic environment  the ‘spirit of the people’ is to indicate the organic unity characteristic of each people, and is often opposed to its formal legal institutions, especially as these - with the enlightened despotism and the Napoleonic regime - tended to have the character of rational uniformity; such a spirit of the people is found in the language, folk traditions, literature, customs, and is what characterizes and identifies all peoples. The meaning of spirit as faculty or aptitude able to grasp something that does not immediately fall under the senses, that is not the subject of intellectual knowledge, joins the use of spirit in Kant: "Following Kant, the Spirit in the aesthetic significance is the vivifying principle of sentiment. But that which gives life to this principle, the soul, the material of which it is used, is what gives impetus to the faculty of feeling purposeful and places it in a position that feeds on itself and strengthens the faculties themselves to the effect. " The spirit thus lies within the aesthetic problem, indicating the '' originality of thought, "the spontaneity and creativity.

The concept of spirit plays a central role in Hegel's philosophy, and it remains important across the following idealism. Saying that "the absolute is the spirit," it gives "the highest definition of the Absolute".

Hegel distinguishes three moments of the spirit, the ‘subjective spirit’ (what is called soul, intellect, individual reason), the ‘objective spirit’ (the complex of the fundamental institutions of the historic human world: "in the history of the world spirit finds its complete reality" ), the ‘absolute spirit’, which is achieved through art, religion and philosophy in which it realizes the full self-consciousness, "unit that is in and for itself, and eternally occurs: the spirit in its absolute truth."

The meaning and the various Hegelian  uses of the term spirit (as phenomenology of the spirit, the spirit of the people and so on.) will be crucial in the thought of the nineteenth century, and especially in the various forms of idealism, as finally in the Italian neo-idealism.

Benedetto Croce outlines a "philosophy of the spirit", in which it is actually all that you scan in the unity-distinction of four forms of spiritual activity; Giovanni Gentile, in the ‘General Theory of the spirit as pure act’ (1916), places it as absolute actuality. Connected to the use of Hegel is also the problem of the spiritual sciences, sciences that relate to the world properly human, historical: next to the natural sciences - notice Dilthey, who is the greatest exponent of this issue - there are disciplines such as history , political economy, the science of religion, the study of literature, poetry, art, philosophy, language, which all relate to the human world and that investigate with a method (understanding of the individual) other than the one of the natural sciences (definition of the universal).

We arrived at some conclusions: in particular we have made clear that the spiritual sciences, whatever their content, do not form a sphere of knowledge, distinct and independent of the overall field of knowledge.

In the end we can say that the currents of thought do not consist of a plurality of disunited elements, but present from the outset an articulated structure that requires neither the use of the laws of association of ideas nor the intervention of a superior synthetic activity of the 'intellect’.

However, whatever is done with the various definitions, in the end you have to take notice of the truth that you are dealing with a field of knowledge where there is no single concept that can be delimited. In such conditions, claim to be strictly 'exact' in terms used merely shows a lack of understanding of their role in the preparation of this voice of the Lexicon. Things are more or less divine, mental states are more or less religious, the reactions are more or less total, but the boundaries are always mixed, and everywhere is a matter of size and grade.

2025 4th International Conference on Cyber Security, Artificial Intelligence and the Digital Economy(CSAIDE 2025) will be held in Malaysia on March 7-9, 2025.

The topics of interest for submission include, but are not limited to:

1. Cyber Security

Active Defense SystemsAdaptive Defense Systems

Analysis, Benchmark of Security Systems

Applied Cryptography

Authentication

Biometric Security

Complex Systems Security

Database and System Security

Data Protection

Data/System Integrity

......

2. Artificial Intelligence

AI Algorithms

Natural Language Processing

Fuzzy Logic

Computer Vision and Image Understanding

Signal and Image Processing

Speech and Natural Language Processing

Computational Theories of Learning

Information Retrieval and Fusion

Hybrid Intelligent Systems

Intelligent System Architectures

......

3. Digital Economy

Information economy

Big data economy

Artificial intelligence and internet economy

Engineering economy and cost analysis

Econometric modeling and empirical issues

E-commerce

E-banking

High-speed infrastructure

Digital content and green icts

Information and attention economics

......

All accepted full papers will be published in ACM ICPS (ACM International Conference Proceeding Series) and will be submitted to EI Compendex / Scopus for indexing.

Full Paper Submission Date: January 31, 2025

Notification Date: February 6, 2025

Registration Deadline: February 20, 2025

Final Paper Submission Date: February 25, 2025

Conference Dates: March 07-09, 2025

Please send the full paper(word+pdf) to Submission System:

Overtime, there have been many methods , approaches and strategies being used and adopted in the teaching and learning of English Language ranging from grammar method, audio-visual, communicative competence teaching , etc.

However, most of these approaches, strategies and methods are usually being referred to as being traditional or something, significantly at the advent of technological advancements and information-driven economy.

There have been many new methods, approaches and strategies infused with technology principles and practicals in the 21st century.

Kindly tell me the ones that you know or have applied before or have read about before.

Thank you for you for your time and help.

Can anyone help with data regardin Russian hydrocarbon extraction/production industry for the last 10-20 years?

I can work with data in Russian language, should the links be provided in Russian.

Thank your

What does is the difference between Money and Currency?

Adam Smith's model is prevalent in our society in which the more you order (bulk purchasing) the cheaper the unit price. It exists in almost every industry for every product and service, as an incentive to spend more money so that they can make more money in a given period of time (but not for a given unit of product or service).

This is counter to equality and I will give an example to show why, just as I have experienced in my life directly.

At the age of 14 I started work at KFC in Rosny Park, Tasmania, Australia. I would take orders, suggest products, prepare requests, and deliver productivity effectively, as well as delegate tasks to other employees such that we could multi-thread tasks to increase efficiency and get the food out ASAP for the freshest, quickest, most productive fast food experience. When I left my manager cried because he said he knew I could grow with the company quickly into crew trainer, manager, department manager, restaurant manager and then regional manager. But it just so happens that the regional manager had come to our store to assess the services provided and the team members working, and he said to me personally that I was too good for this place, the highest I could go was into managing or managing managers, which is not a career path for a person like me, get out as soon as you can and move to something bigger with better prospects for your long-term career. You are delegating workloads to other employees in a way that they know why they should do what you say, they are persuaded to obey, and they like you for the way that you direct them when they are feeling a bit lost, overworked, and confused while under-the-pump. I took his advice and resigned almost immediately before getting a job in tech/private education.

During that time I realised the problem with Adam Smith's model which is almost a guaranteed prevalence throughout the entirety of every industrialised nation.

And here it is. Take for example when you have a queue of 100 potential clients all wanting to order 1 coke-can at the standard unit price. But then suppose the first person in the queue is super rich and wants to order 100 coke-cans. But you only have 100 coke-cans left in the fridge. So if you serve the one super rich person, who won't even be grateful for the service, won't even use the majority of the product themselves, and may even just be cornering the market by subsuming the supply chain to over-charge on the unit price to make a profit before selling to your clients themselves. And in this process you lose 99 potential repeat customers, lose profit margins on the unit price, make no improvements to productivity output rate, and in scarcity conditions (which is the premise of capitalism) potentially 99 people starve while 1 person lives 100 times longer than any other individual. So who are you serving? The rich? Or the equality of the individual and priority to save a life as well as to provide value to the greatest number of stakeholders (which includes employees employers clientele and investors). Your feedback reputation in a democratic society is absolutely hindered as now you have 99 bad reviews for a lack of service, and 1 average review because of a lack of gratefulness.

So here is my conclusion, moral of the story, or thesis statement as an alternative to the Adam Smith model:

2 dollars split between 2 people is more valuable than 2 dollars in the hands of one person.

ie. the inadditivity of a real valued numerical summable currency. Currency has a real value and an imaginary value. The real value is the amount associated to what you have. The imaginary value is the amount associated with how much others perceive value in what you have. Imaginary value is the doorway to profitability. Real value is the limiting factor of a societal standard of a social set of goods. In this example we can see that a currency system with 1000 total dollars is no more valuable than a currency system with 1,000,000 total dollars, ie. inflation (not in the sense of increase in the cost of goods/cost of living, but in the sense of money printing) does not provide value in increasing the total numerical tradable quantity to enhance the ease of trade in an "exponentially growing, infinite growth potential, limitless improvement to industry at large".

Thus the thesis background of inflation is a progandist disinformist lie leading to the mass hysterical misinformed populace and an irregularity of doing of not doing (wei wu wei) where nothing "of value" is ever done, nothing ever "needs to" be done, and there is no goal in life other than to appreciate the present moment. Even the premise of the ultimate purpose of existentive information is for that information to survive, reproduce, and mutate comes toe in toe with this. In the modern era we cannot build the pyramids, we cannot even build the masonry of cathedrals with advanced stone work and very minimal amount of maintenance and upkeep required to maintain an elegance that stands throughout time. Almost everything nowadays is built upon the premise of planned obsolescence (which can also be rephrased in other unused terminology of "purposeful product failure" "intentional object senescence design" or "reliability theory in the practice of creating repeat customers rather than standing the test of time").

Everyone seems to hate the past in various forms, and look to the future for either an eternal life, an end to suffering, a growth in the goodness of self others and society at large termed as "progress" or "progression" or "being a progressive". The over-dominant political theory in both education, media, and entertainment follows this same ideological construct. Not out of an assessment of axiomatic terminology and a challenging of linguistic definitions on the basis that "just because a word has a definition doesn't mean it is real true factual correct or existent". Everything, every concept, and every event and circumstance, has a series of pros and cons, and those pros and cons are themselves a list of consequential things concepts and events - which themselves have pros and cons. Every word is defined through a usage pattern with an intentional meaning perceived as being representable by a series of other words. To do this correctly we must realise that we cannot define a single word without first some other series of words, and so when we try to elucidate how this works by only defining words with words that have not yet been defined (to prevent the theory of the invalidity of circularity (of definition, of truth, or of belief)). When we do this ourselves concretely, we quickly see that it is impossible, because each and every word links to either each and every other word, or it links back to itself, both of which imply a supreme invalidity to the ability to perceive truth (if the assumption is quickly granted that circularity is tautological or not allowed). This is the most common, most prevalent, most widely accepted criticism of the basis of the truth of any known "holy" "scripture" in which we take it as being true because of what it says, or we say "God exists because God tells us".

Even the idea of "the dark ages" is a supreme myth propagated by atheists and anti-christic notions to say that during the times where christianity ruled there was no progress and torture was everywhere and nobody could survive. Except two remaining facts quickly challenge this notion: language has never changed as fast as it did during the dark ages, so much so that most of it is untraceable. And the notion that progress re-started once the Arabs invented the number 0 which then entered mathematics and allowed us to go from there to negative numbers to imaginary numbers to quantum physics. But the Ancient Hebrews had a word for "nothing" or "none" or "not anything", and before them the Ancient Egyptians also had a word and a God for this which is where we get our pronunciation of the term "Nun" or "Nu" which actually came from a prior civilisation, which as we say nowadays is the origin of civilsation, agriculture, and language: Sumeria, which has the word "níg-nam-nu-kal" or "any-thing-not-valued" which comes from their 4 root words which I've shown interlinearly. So the word "nu" is there before meaning "not", but as you can also see in pronunciation it is almost the same as how we now say "no" which can also be rephrased as "not yes". And "nu" as you can see being the origin of most meanings in society is actually an onomatopoeia - a word that means the object or event or action that makes the sound we use to describe it. So "nu", if you add a series of verbal inflections to characterise it in it's original onomatopoeitic form is a sudden inhalation representative of perceived shock, or a gasp, when something happens that you didn't want to happen, ie "no" or "not this".

The only thing according to historical interpretations that demarcates the end of the dark ages is the re-arrival at a single symbol for the number zero (0) which he had once and had lost because of the standalone truth of "the decay of knowledge" or "the decay of information" or "ergodic theory" which I will expand on as "the ergodicity of stochastic systems and the decay of predictability of deterministic systems". This is the defining factor in why the further we get into the future, the harder it is to remember (let alone interpret the documentations of) the past. We are a species with Amnesia. They say only people with Alzheimer's and Dementia forget what happens to them, but they are simply the ones who express it, realise it, and notice it, and in the most extreme cases have the most consistent application of forgetfulness to the entire corpus of their past experience. But I'll have you know it that some cultures don't believe in, nor have a linguistic semantic representation of the concept of "past" and "future", which is what spiritual gurus love to talk about as "being here and now" or "living in the present moment" or "healing from past trauma" or "not having the depression from the past nor the anxiety of the future" (being the origination of the idea that depression/anxiety are either separable or co-existing illnesses). Further, it is not entirely clear, nor provable, as to whether the past is invariable or variable, for our own experience let alone for others, as well as whether the time-line of the past is continuous, shared, and equal for all others experiencing it. You can never know, you will never know, and there is no point trying to know. But it is readily assumed with or without that knowledge and is the basis on which we use to operate on all things in which we do.

Sorry for the longwinded tangential-thinking rant, but it linked up as a consequence of this one single thought induced by working in the exact field most closely lined up to this Adam Smith model of the economy which has remained up and always until certain scarce conditions provided for the need to limit to a per-person per-purchase quantity of toilet paper during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was merely temporary and a last resort being that nobody in modern society could see an alternative provided to which we could use so as to not have to not "wipe the shit from our arses" which is the lowest thing we ever do, and see as vulgar and degrading to even talk about, and the most humiliating thing that can happen when it goes wrong either for others or for our own incontinence. And yet we have bidets (japanese), we have rags, we have "lambs-ear" (Stachys byzantina) leaves that stay green all year round, have a soft fluff on their surface that absorbs moisture, has an anti-biotic and an analgesic within it, and grows without the need for maintenance (and is used in band-aids and bandages in some countries), we have sponges and sea-sponges (ancient romans). And in ancient greece they say there were two words that are thought of as "stones" and "ceramic pieces" used to wipe, but if you go back into the root words and reconstruct it, it is respectively "pieces" and "earth-vessels", so cloth-waste or offcuts or dirt. Which is clear to me because when you interpret/translate an old language, you need to ensure that it makes sense and is applicable to reality because making them out to be worse than you is a clear depiction and example of the decay of knowledge you have with respect to your ancestors. Even in modern frequency analysis (through the Fourier Transform) we assume that time has existed for eternity, and we could only make that analysis to create things like electronics, wifi, 3G, bluetooth, and everything present in the modern era, which when you look at ancient engravings of egypt they have (or at least things that look like) light-globes, batteries, and laptops. In mythology there is ancient immemorial knowledge of "a time before time", and the second usage of the word time being the modern time, is considered eternal and everlasting, but it would also refer to an idea of "a culture and language existing where there was no past-tense or future-tense". We consider that "primitive" and perceive it as "tribalistic" and see both as regressive, backwards and negative, and we think we've "advanced" from that. And yet we know for a fact that all advancements possible depend on knowing some prior truths, AKA primitive truths. And yet as primal as you can get is languages without number nor time. And the additivity of numerals is as presumptive arbitrary unfounded and improvable without first taking it for granted.

There are even alternative logic systems that are essentially required to explain certain known facts that preclude the ability to have a numerical system. Having one object and two objects and three objects seems obvious to us as being separable exclusive and has the ability to be possible and true, however that is when we are both objectifying and subscribing to materialism, believing our eyes of what we see in front of us, even when you can't even perceive distance without ratio which is potentially either infinite or non-existent therefor being ultimately undefined and both can only be done when we stoop to needing to compare one thing to another, which is known as the most detrimental thing you can do for your mental health. There's a problem with having numerical amounts for things in that when you have more of something, there is less of you to go around what you have. When you "have" an amount of something, you see it as an ownership that you declare over reality and the environment. The word origin for "have" is "to own" or "hold for use" or "contain", which again is coming back to an objectification of our environment and a limitation of belief. It is considered "a hallucination" and "a delusion" and "an illness needing forceful involuntary treatment" to experience a transient past, a non-numerical experience, and the ability for objects to appear and to disappear whether at will or without it (and also a lack of object permanence). But to anyone who has experienced it (which can also be done in a group setting and with a shared consensus experience known as a "group hallucination") they know for a fact that sometimes (not always) the things that change during a hallucination can remain when the hallucinatory episode finishes or you "come down" from that experience. And as an aside it is widely accepted in Law that "eye witness testimony is the lowest form of evidence" and instead resort to "accepted history" and "consensus" and "academia" and "written documented facts", but this clearly escapes and runs away from the truth of both their own experiences as well as the fact that any alternative form of evidence is itself exactly this first and foremostly which in fruition is leading to these forms of evidence. But they can't have and maintain their power, exploit their control over others, without leaning on this purveyance. Which means anyone who takes for granted the ideas simply as they are presented, and are convinced that they need to "grow wealth" or "make an income" or "have a job" and "need to survive through these three things" will stoop to the perception that being a policeman or a politician or a law enforcer or a wager of war or a slave driver is ultimately essential to existing and will take those opportunities to go about trying to survive or to help others or to better society, when the whole basis of money is as a numerical equivalent for the value of an object or action such that you can exploit that value to make a profit to make more value to have more things and to buy more things for yourself. It is there to exploit us, but it only works if you let it exploit you, or you use to exploit others. But the thing with profitability is that it requires buying things you don't want or need to sell things to others so that you can take from what they have and accumulate what you have. But the thing with perception and perception of perception is that it is a reflexive fractal in that you create what you lend credence to, or your beliefs will conform until themselves, or so you think so you will see, ie your beliefs create your reality, and the law of attraction in that what you attach to in your heart of hearts your deepest desires is what you will go out and do and seek and acquire in this world. But objectification is "to grasp in your hand", you cannot hold a butterfly in your hand without either killing it or trapping it. You cannot give a flower to someone without uprooting it, taking the life out of it, and preventing it from reproducing. This is the beauty we need to learn. You do not have what you hold in your hand, you can only kill what is in your hand, you only have what is given to you, and you only experience what you first believe. Those who do not stoop to those traditions mentioned previously needed to maintain the legal system of ownership and monetary value do not realise that that is all both simultaneously "the law" and "legal", which when you go back to the root of those words means "written" and "spoken", both of which are just in your head, culturally dependent, highly variable and all it can ever do with the power to have any control over reality requires two things: being believed by others, and being exclusionary to some prior existence - which analogously stems from killing or murdering some part of reality which involves the purest of pure of hate for things that were already here before you were and will always exist with or without your attempts to control it, which involves a rejection of nature, a rejection of the minds ability to dream and experience anything in its own head, and the refusal to accept the mathematical possibility for geometry and art to draw any picture or design possible with or without your attachments to it and by someone else at some other time or place, directly against your will, so you are believing yourself towards your own self-violation. And all of this results in exactly what you've asked for, for those who seek to become lawyers, police, politicians, bankers, and militaristic, propagate their own demise, and draw in closer to them the things that will ultimately destroy themselves. If in your mind and beliefs you are truly righteous (not in your own perception but in concordance with Absolute Truth itself) without needing to rely written or verbal knowledge, interpreting others, and seeking to control, then as a consequence of your finite inabilities in comparison to a greater infinite counterparted whole, not only will you lose every time, but the things in which you hate will not only destroy you, but they will seek you out, hunt you down, and you and your kind will spend the rest of forever in futility out of vanity that will only get worse the harder you try and the longer you go on. For everything there is a season, and so I understand that now is the time for this to occur, and is why I myself follow all of these things, but I understand the problem, and seek not to grasp and to control it, but to submit to needing to be controlled by the need to control others. But remember this, Anne Frank was killed in Nazi Germany by those who were following the Law, as was Jesus, who is believed in by muslims and christians alike being over 55% of the global population. And yet how does history remember them? They say history is written by the victors, but it is actually also the victorious in history that are perceived as being greater (although for both not in all cases).

So my question remains: why does the Adam Smith model not follow equality, promotes the richest at the sacrifice of the poorest, and is not followed during the harshest of times of scarcity, for the things which are the most degrading to humanity, and in the heights of extreme fear en masse? And as an aside to this: why is "real value" seen as the height of success when it itself is not conducive to the ability to grow value, when "imaginary value" is seen as not impactful, just in your head, and confers a lack of product-market-fit. The only real issue with imaginary value is when you want to sell something in a given amount of time, but nobody else shares that imaginary value in the sense that they perceive the object to be overpriced. So an inappropriate overpriced imaginary value means the inability to sell the object for that value. But it takes the growth of imaginary value alone for the purchase price of real value to succeed.

Sure, in my life and my time-line and what is available to me on the shelf, for at least certain products, has improved dramatically over time. Thanks to productivity, industrialisation, compounding information, and moore's law of computational strength per unit cost growth. But at what cost to the environment, to our minds, to society, and to the experience and appreciation of the present moment, and the freedom to think and believe without fearing control mechanisms, as well as the shear total increase in total power consumption of our society. Populations go through predator and prey cycles, and in this case humanity goes through consumer-consumptive cycles, where our prosperity in recent history is a result of fertilisers, oil, electricity, and computation. But for where there is a greater demand, there is a greater control exerted by the supplier, and a greater ability to increase the price. And in the last few years these things have each dramatically increased in the unit cost. Now what about reverse Moore's Law, which as you can see will be made by top-down control rather than the bottom-up control of open-source-information in relation to computational software and the science of hardware design:

"if you look at the productivity of the pharmaceutical industry, it has halved every nine years for the last five decades. It is the exact opposite of Moore’s law and that is true of just about everything in healthcare."

What do you value more? The cost of a computer where you are less likely to know what is true with the more of it you have (not necessarily a bad thing if the truth before was just as false as it is now), or the cost of your health? And now that moore's law has pretty much ended for the scaling approach of making smaller and smaller transistors, we are at the stage of an inverse moore's law for atomically precise manufacturing.

This is that "the order of magnitude above part size takes an exponential amount of time longer to produce". So they think it provides immense benefits and say that by about 2070 we will be able to use APM (atomically precise manufacturing) to produce parts up to 1000 mm^3 cost effectively. So the "cost effective growth of APM per unit volume" is exponential too, as a result of that prior inverse moore's law. But what they did not say is that with that comes an inverse time to production for that. So the hidden piece of information hiding behind these two facts is that, if it takes 1000x longer to produce a product 10x bigger with atomic scale manufacturing, but within 20 years we will have 10,000x bigger objects, then clearly as I hope you can see, the monopolisation of industries awide via APM will be utterly ridiculous to comprehend. It means they'll have a huge amount of machines and a huge amount of power, because the time it takes to produce something bigger with APM (in this paper) doesn't change as we move forward (without an increase in assembly rate), but the cost effectiveness of that productivity grows. So they're saying they'll have a huge amount of increase in the number of machines doing this work, which precludes that they have already achieved monopolisation but their wealth and their power of wealth can still grow exponentially, and by around (10,000)^1,000 within 20 years.

Chalmers in his book: What is this thing called Science? mentions that Science is Knowledge obtained from information. The most important endeavors of science are : Prediction and Explanation of Phenomenon. The emergence of Big (massive) Data leads us to the field of Data Science (DS) with the main focus on prediction. Indeed, data belong to a specific field of knowledge or science (physics, economy, ....).

If DS is able to realize prediction for the field of sociology (for example), to whom the merit is given: Data Scientist or Sociologist?

10.1007/s11229-022-03933-2

Hello everyone,

I would like to know better what topics Indian scholars discuss in these research fields. Are there leading Indian publications/journals you can recommend to follow (in English language...?)? Or have you any other idea to get a quick overview of "the Indian" mainstream discussion about national public administration and national political economy.

Thanks a lot in advance!

Carolin

Again, the economy has been the central part of the discussion regarding COVID 19, but we ignoring the Environment and human health once more. Reports and news suggest that air pollution has dramatically been reduced during lockdown due to COVID 19 worldwide.

What should Scholars think about the economy, environment, and humanity pragmatically? (English is not my native language, but hope you understand it)