M
MikaelYosef
Guest
Laura said:A: Nothing, however, will stop the balancing. The only question is where the disasters fall and that is partly determined by the observers.
Q: (Perceval) So those populations that are least perspicacious or the least accurately, objectively observing reality will be more likely to have disasters befall them?
A: Orthogonal or aligned?
Q: (L) So it depends on whether their observations are orthogonal or aligned with objective reality. Okay. Can I switch gears?
(Pierre) Yes.
(L) Okay, my, uh...
A: 4 months will reveal dramatic change.
I wonder if the Chelyabinsk incident was an example of the above? It's interesting that such a dramatic event was captured on multiple dashcams and shown to the world. While there was damage and a few injuries, in the greater scheme of things the world dodged a bullet as a 'warning shot was fired across her bow'.
The fact that it was captured on dashcams might be brushed aside as just being in the right place at the right time. Complete fluke. However if one realizes the reason why so many Russians have dashcams is because they know what the authorities can get away with - it's their attempt to stop or limit these abuses - then perhaps this could be seen as an example of a mass of people who are aligned with objective reality?
And thank you for this session.
[edit: grammar]