The Democrat Party Hates America

[Alexis Jacobi]

Am I to assume that P’nut the Squirrel through some godly — or ungodly— power, is determining our present?!?

For Heaven’s sake man! spell it out!

[BigMike]

Am I to assume that P’nut the Squirrel through some godly — or ungodly— power, is determining our present?!?

For Heaven’s sake man! spell it out!

Are you OK?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Super okay! Don’t you have any spiritual connection with tree-jumping rodents?!?

[Alexis Jacobi]

[BigMike]

Am I to assume that P’nut the Squirrel through some godly — or ungodly— power, is determining our present?!?

For Heaven’s sake man! spell it out!

Alexis, I’ve got to admit, I didn’t see this pivot coming! I’m genuinely surprised by the sudden turn to P’nut the Squirrel and godly powers—are you floating in a state of utter confusion with my previous answer? Or is this your way of playing along with what you think is a bit of nonsense? Either way, I want to make sure we’re not talking past each other here.

If you’re genuinely struggling to follow the path from conservation laws to how we understand things like law, ethics, and accountability, then it’d be helpful if you could pinpoint where exactly it lost you. Was it in the relationship between physical interactions and non-physical influences like free will? Or maybe in the broader jump to moral responsibility? Let’s get clear on the disconnect, so I know how best to pick up this thread without sending us both into the realm of cosmic squirrels!

I have to ask—if you do understand the point I’m making, is it just that you understand *what* I’m saying, or do you see that the world simply can’t operate in any other way? Because there’s a difference there, and it’s an important one.

Are we on the same page that these conservation laws and physical interactions form an unbreakable framework that underpins everything? Or are you interpreting this as more of a theory I’m floating rather than an inescapable structure of reality? Getting a sense of where you stand on this would be helpful before we dive further, or not.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I do not blame you for misinterpreting my feeble attempt at humor.

[BigMike]

I do not blame you for misinterpreting my feeble attempt at humor.

No worries. I get it. Humor in these kinds of discussions can be tough to read, especially when we’re diving into some pretty dense territory. I took your P’nut the Squirrel line as maybe a sign of confusion or skepticism, but if it was just a lighthearted moment, no harm done.

I’d love to pick up where we left off. So, back to that framework of conservation laws and physical interactions—do you feel like we’re on the same page about how these principles shape everything, from physical processes to concepts like accountability? Or is there a part of the logic there that feels unclear or hard to reconcile with how you see things? Let’s keep peeling this back layer by layer.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So here’s where I’m going—something that’s non-physical can’t enter this physical system because it has no conserved quantity to exchange. It simply can’t interact. Now think about it: if free will isn’t physical, how could it interact with the physical world? How could it start, stop, or change neural processes in the brain to produce thoughts or actions?

Isn’t that, in essence, psychokinesis—a force from nowhere, defying the very laws that keep this whole system intact? If we claim free will can influence the physical world, we’re suggesting a direct violation of conservation laws. And without free will, what does that mean for concepts like moral responsibility? And if moral responsibility is in question, what do ideas like free speech or religious freedom even mean?

These aren’t just abstract questions—they have practical implications that shape everything about how we view law, ethics, and personal accountability. I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

I am curious to hear you take your presuppositions to that actual point that is motivating you. Please proceed …

You are asking me to define my own views in relation to this issue or problem that, I gather, you are itching to divulge but have not. Why are you holding back?

I took your P’nut the Squirrel line as maybe a sign of confusion or skepticism, but if it was just a lighthearted moment, no harm done.

That’s the Squirrel Spirit for you …

How can I be either confused or skeptical about a position that you have not completely revealed?

especially when we’re diving into some pretty dense territory.

I do not think you have actually “dived”. You timorously circle allusions …

[BigMike]

Alright, Alexis, let’s get clear on this foundation before moving forward. I want to make sure we’re working from a place of agreement—or, if you disagree, that’s important for me to know too. The concepts I’m discussing here—conservation laws, the physical framework of interactions, and the idea that something non-physical can’t interact within this system—are rooted in a scientific perspective. I’m building on this framework in my argument moving forward, and I need to know if we’re on the same page with these scientific principles or if you see it differently.

So, before we dive deeper, do you agree with this scientific foundation as a basis for understanding things like free will, accountability, and ethics? Or is there a part of this take that you’re not quite aligned with? This will help me know how to best frame the next part of the argument.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I’m building on this framework in my argument moving forward, and I need to know if we’re on the same page with these scientific principles or if you see it differently.

Likely not. Simply because I do consider and I do “believe in” the realness of metaphysical power that is, in essence, what makes man Man.

I tend toward a mode of explanation of man’s psyche as containing something like a quintessence that really moves events in our world, but I do not know what sort of linguistic arrangement to employ that could explain it sufficiently, or prove it, except by recognizing the effect in our world. Ideas transform. But as “idea” does not have tangible existence or realness. Ideas — and certainly metaphysical ideals — seem to come from, or to exist on, another plane that science, and scientism, cannot conceive of.

P’nut the Squirrel lives, Big Mike! It’s incredible and un-believable, but I only ask that you acknowledge his effect. Like wind upon the water!

(I am just now composing a Hymn on this theme. And YES it will be in c-major! I will rob a great deal from Schubert of course …)

PS: G-major is also an option.

[BigMike]

I’m building on this framework in my argument moving forward, and I need to know if we’re on the same page with these scientific principles or if you see it differently.

Likely not. Simply because I do consider and I do “believe in” the realness of metaphysical power that is, in essence, what makes man Man.

I tend toward a mode of explanation of man’s psyche as containing something like a quintessence that really moves events in our world, but I do not know what sort of linguistic arrangement to employ that could explain it sufficiently, or prove it, except by recognizing the effect in our world. Ideas transform. But as “idea” does not have tangible existence or realness. Ideas — and certainly metaphysical ideals — seem to come from, or to exist on, another plane that science, and scientism, cannot conceive of.

P’nut the Squirrel lives, Big Mike! It’s incredible and un-believable, but I only ask that you acknowledge his effect. Like wind upon the water!

(I am just now composing a Hymn on this theme. And YES it will be in c-major! I will rob a great deal from Schubert of course …)

PS: G-major is also an option.

Alright, it’s becoming clear that we’re coming at this from fundamentally different perspectives. As a mathematician and scientist, I’m rooted in a framework that relies on evidence, testability, and logical consistency. When it comes to conservation laws, physical interactions, and the scientific basis for understanding reality, these principles aren’t just beliefs; they’re frameworks that consistently predict and explain the world around us.

But if you’re coming from a place where metaphysical forces, in defiance of the laws of nature, are central to your worldview, then it’s obvious we’re not going to find common ground through a purely scientific argument. So maybe this is where we call it a day. We’ve explored some interesting territory, but without that shared foundation, a rational discussion on the specifics I was aiming to delve into will be, well, impossible. And as for P’nut the Squirrel and Schubert in C-major—let’s just say I’m intrigued!

[Alexis Jacobi]

Intrigued you should be! P’nut dons many hats!

As I have so often repeated: It is our general world-view that, for the most part, justifies our judgments and determines our decisions in the great majority of the matters of life. It is this Weltauffassung or Weltanschauung that, usually unconsciously, rises as a kind of subliminal self to affect the formulations of our thoughts and the guidance of our conduct in any particular instance. Our world-view may grow and develop or even undergo a radical revolutionary change with age and education. But we never escape it entirely; in one aspect or another, it sets itself before our eyes as a kind of invisible colored screen through which we regard the world and life. Nowhere is this truer than in the field of religion. The world-view of the free-thinker makes his religious ideas and attitudes perfectly natural and comfortable to himself, which to his traditionally orthodox neighbor seem shockingly irreligious.

But if you’re coming from a place where metaphysical forces, in defiance of the laws of nature, are central to your worldview, then it’s obvious we’re not going to find common ground through a purely scientific argument.

The operative word here is “defiance”. But I think contradiction is also a possible word. However you define it, through our psyche, there enters into our world, and often against our world, sets of oppositional ideas.

Man contradicts …

[Alexis Jacobi]

A “purely scientific argument”?

Does such exist?

[BigMike]

But I think contradiction is also a possible word. However you define it, through our psyche, there enters into our world, and often against our world, sets of oppositional ideas.

Man contradicts …

Ex contradictione quodlibet

[Alexis Jacobi]

Hold on! Hold on! I am receiving a transmission from P’nut who’s now on The Other Side. (Let me tune my crystal ball. Ok. My Muse has delivered!)

P’nut says: “But the thing a man does practically believe (and this is often enough without asserting it even to himself, much less to others); the thing a man does practically lay to heart, and know for certain, concerning his vital relations to this mysterious Universe, and his duty and destiny there, that is in all cases the primary thing for him, and creatively determines all the rest. That is his religion; or, it may be, his mere skepticism and no-religion: the manner it is in which he feels himself to be spiritually related to the Unseen World or No-World; and I say, if you tell me what that is, you tell me to a very great extent what the man is, what the kind of things he will do is.”