The Laws of Realodynamics

    Can we make reality better by believing in God?  Can we make reality better by spreading the belief that God will punish the wicked and reward the Good?  Won't that deter the wicked from doing evil deeds and encourage people to do good?  What about telling people they will go to heaven if they are good?  Won't that have the double benefit of motivating them to do good and making them feel better about their future?  Won't people be happier if they believe that they will live in eternal bliss then if they believe that they will get sick, die and never see their loved ones again?   The answer is a resounding no because that violates the laws of Realodynamics.  What, you haven't studied Realodynamics in college?  Amazing what they don't teach in college these days.  The laws of Realodynamics are:

1) The closest the perception of good intentioned people is to reality the better reality will be.
    Corollary A) You can't make reality better by believing something that isn't true.
    Corollary B) If you have to lie to good people to convince them to do what you believe is necessary to bring
                       peace you will bring war.
    Corollary C) Denial of the truth makes things worse.
    Corollary D) Creation of Delusion makes things worse.

2) The probability that one will arrive at truth is higher if one uses logic as opposed to believing something because one wants to or because one believes that it is good to believe it or because it makes one feel better to believe it.

3) Appeasing evil always leads to more evil.

   What basis is there for these laws?  To be quite honest these are hypotheses not laws but there are logical reasons to think they are true.

Discussion of Law 1

    There is widespread creation of delusion and creation of paranoia in the world.  One example is how the American media hides the race of mobs who attack white victims.  Why do they try and hide the race of the mobs the same way they hide the religion of Muslims who attack non-Muslims?  Are they trying to prevent people from becoming racist?  This raises the question if creating delusion can be good.  Is it good to hide the truth about black on white violence to prevent people from hating all blacks?  Is it good to hide the truth about Muslim on infidel violence to prevent hatred of all Muslims and Islamophobia? 

    Clearly there is a lot wrong with hiding the truth.  People can't take defensive measures if they don't know the threat they are facing.  So the question becomes can the good out weigh the bad if one doesn't tell the truth.  Can denial be good.  Can creation of delusion be good?

    Who decides what delusion is good or not good? 

    Who are we to decide for someone else what truth they should or should not know or that the conclusions they draw are wrong and our conclusions are right?

    It seems to me that one could tell the truth and still discourage racism.  One could tell the truth that hundreds of blacks attacked a white man and also say that we must not conclude from that, that all blacks are violent and hate whites.  Now it's quite possible that some people will hate all blacks after reading about the violence so many black mobs perpetrate no matter how hard someone tries to convince them not to. 

    I think the good that will result from telling the truth will outweigh the bad.  If we look at historical examples of denial we generally find negative consequences resulting from such denial.  A good example is the "peace in our time" delusion of Neville Chamberlain and the silencing by the British press of Winston Churchill before he became prime minister.  The press wanted to keep England from fighting Germany but the result of press deception was more casualties not less.

Corollary D) Creation of Delusion makes things worse.

    The Obama administration creates delusion regarding the nature of Islam.  He said "Sunni states should fight Islamic State because “that’s not what Islam is about”.  Of course creating a Caliphate and persecuting and murdering the infidel and raping infidel women the way ISIS does is exactly what Islam is about. 

Obama and the State Department are afraid that if they fight ISIS they will antagonize the Muslim world. They are afraid that such a fight will be perceived as the U.S. making war against Islam. Their way of trying to prevent that is to try enlist Muslims to fight against ISIS and to argue that ISIS is not Islam. Obama’s approach is to flatter Muslims as much as possible and to make speeches how they founded this country and other nonsense.
    There is a price America pays for the way the Obama administration whitewashes Islam. It is Muslims who should fear America turning against them and not the other way around. America can’t deal with the threat of Islam when America refuses to face it.

Discussion of Law 2

    It is not possible to prove that God exists.    Aside from wanting to believe there is eternal justice and eternal blissful life the major reason to believe in a creator is the amazing complexity and beauty of the world around us.  The problem with explaining that complexity with God is that God would have to be even more complex and then we'd be left with a bigger question of how did God come to exist.  We can't prove God's existence with logic.  The only reason to believe in God is because we want to or because we think it will make the world a better place if people believe in him.  According to the second law of Realodynamics these reasons are not likely to lead to the truth. 

Believing in God and eternal justice leads to the following beliefs.

  1. God will punish the wicked and reward the Good.
  2. We will go to heaven if we're good.

1) God will punish the wicked and reward the Good.

I had a friend who fell into hard times.  She became convinced that God was punishing her.  Whatever hope she might have had was squashed by this belief, if you believe that God is against you what hope is there.  If God is against you, you must be wicked so that made her feel even worse.  If God will punish the wicked there is no reason for us to do so.  So this belief reduces are motivation to make this into a just world.  If someone does us a kindness because they thought they would score with the big guy upstairs then they are not really doing an unselfish act because they care about us.  How will we know why someone is kind to us or not.  What makes us good, if we believe in God?  In that case those who don't believe are bad and God will punish them.  If they are bad we certainly shouldn't be nice to them.  So believing that the non-believer is bad can make us not get along with our fellow man. Throughout history religions have attacked non-believing infidels, in fact Islamic terrorists may attack us with nuclear weapons for being infidels.

2) We will go to heaven if we're good.

We all know how this belief has spawned suicide bombers.  Another negative aspect of this is we are less likely to bring to justice those who kill since they simply sent our loved ones to heaven. 

What about depressing beliefs?  Should a doctor tell someone who only has a few weeks to live that they will get well and be fine?  Won't that make them feel better?  What if there are things they would want to do before they die.  If they think they'll be fine they won't do them.   Not only that but Doctors would lose their credibility.  If they told someone who was fine that they were fine that person would think the Doctor was just saying that to make them feel better. 

     Newspaper news is depressing.  Wouldn't we be better off not reading the newspapers and how everyone is being mugged in a park downtown.  Wouldn't we be happier not knowing that?  We would until we walked into that park and got mugged.

Discussion of Law 3:  Appeasing evil always leads to more evil.

     What is appeasement.  Is it giving into the demands of one's opponent?  That depends on the demands.  If one's opponent just wants to be left alone then giving in to that demand is not appeasement.  Appeasement is giving in to demands that increase the power of the aggressor or that give a reward to the aggressor at the expensive of oneself or someone else.  Demands that increase the wealth of the aggressor which can involve money or territory or something of that nature and demands for control shift control to the aggressor.

The demands of an expansionist aggressor are generally those which increase the power of that aggressor to expand and dominate and take from others.  If one appeases these demands than by increasing the power of the aggressor one increases the likelihood that he will expand and dominate and take from others. 

If Pa is the probability that an aggressor will take action to further his intentions and Pwa represents the power of the aggressor to do so and B represents the belief of the aggressor that he will succeed without much risk to himself and C represents the cost to the aggressor of doing so one can write the following equations:

     Pa = k1 * B

   where k is a proportionality constant.  The more an aggressor believes he will succeed the more probably he will be aggressive.  His belief depends on his actual power to carry out his goal.

    B = k2 * Pwa

    It also depends on the actual cost of achieving his goals C and the reward R he gets for aggression.  We can express this mathematically by writing that the constant k2 is

    k2 = k3 * R / C

    Combining these proportionalities we get

    B = k3 * Pwa R/ C

    The cost of achieving those goals depends on the power of his intended victim Pwv and the determination of his intended victim  to oppose him Dv.

    C = k4* Pwv * Dv

    The determination of the victim to oppose the aggressor depends on the power of the aggressor and the power of the victim

   Dv = k5* Pwv / Pwa

   The reward the aggressor expects is determined in part by how much the victim gives in to aggression.  One can write:

    R = k6 / Dv

  Combining all terms we get:

   Pa = k1 * B = k1 * k3 * Pwa R / C = k1 * k3 * Pwa R / (k4* Pwv * Dv) = k1 * k3 * (Pwa) 2 R / (k4* k5 * (Pwv) 2 )

    Pa =  k1 * k3 * (Pwa) 2 k6  / (k4* k5 * (Pwv) 2 Dv)  = k1 * k3 * (Pwa) 3 k6  / (k4* k5 * (Pwv) 3 k5)

  Combining constants we get

   Pa = k * (Pwa) 3 /(Pwv) 3

    This equation states that the likelihood that an aggressor will be aggressive and commit some kind of attack goes up with the square of the ratio of the power of the aggressor to the power of the victim.  Appeasement of an aggressor generally means increasing the power ratio in favor of the aggressor.  If we let variable Pt be the power transferred as a result of appeasement from the victim to the aggressor than

   Pa = k * ((Pwa +  Pt)/(Pwv  - P))3

     A graph of this equation is given below.  

     In order to graph the equation Pwa and Pwv were assigned the arbitrary value 10 and k was assigned 1.  Assigning different values will still show the same trend of rapidly increasing probability of attack by an aggressor with appeasement.  This graph is based on assumptions which are approximations of reality however they are reasonable and conservative approximations.  The increase in probability of attack by an aggressor with appeasement of aggressor is dramatic. 

    If one believes that appeasement will save oneself from the aggressor than the more one appeases the more aggressive the aggressor will become and the more one will feel it necessary to appease more.  So appeasement begets more appeasement in an ever accelerating descent toward disaster. 

President Obama's approach to foreign policy is to try and make friends with America's enemies by apologizing for America's supposed guilt and giving in to enemy demands which generally means withdrawing support for America's friends.   The idea is that then America won't have to go to war and will not have to pay so  much for the  military and there will be a lot more money for the poor people at home.   Perhaps the belief is that a weaker America will be less threatening to the world and so the world will then like America more.  President Obama may have other reasons as well however the above reasons are what are relevant here.

    President Obama is attempting to violate the 3rd law of realodynamics.  The consequence of his actions are increased not decreased likelihood of war and less money for the poor people at home.  Why? because the world is not composed of evil America and good everyone else.  Other countries are expansionist.  We live in a world where there is a great deal of incentive to expand and conquer.  China would feel more secure if it controlled Taiwan.  Russia would feel more secure if it controlled Eastern Europe and for that matter Western Europe as well.  The Muslim countries believe it is their religious obligation to make Islam rule the world.  What stops these countries from expanding is fear that the price is too high.  Unfortunately the price is dropping because there strength vis-a-vis America is increasing partly because of Obama's policy of not giving adequate support to our military and the militaries of Taiwan and Eastern Europe.  (I'm not just blaming Obama here, Europe has not built up its military sufficiently and is constantly appeasing the Arab world instead of standing up to it and so on.)  When you abandon your friends your friends if they don't get eaten up by their enemies, may abandon you.  Your enemies see you as weak and become encouraged to become more aggressive until at some point you are forced to defend yourself except in a much weaker position. 

     Europe should have learned this lesson after Munich.  Chamberlain tried to violate the 3rd law of Realodynamics and pressured Czechoslovakia to give up the Sudetenland to Hitler.  The consequence was that Czechoslovakia was overrun and the rest of Europe as well as America faced a much more costly war with Nazi Germany and many died who might have lived. 


                    images/house2.gif (1340 bytes)                                 images/philButton.gif (5147 bytes)               

c o p y r i g h t   ( c )   1 9 9 9 -2004 Karl Ericson Enterprises.  All rights reserved

Table of Contents