Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Sylvain Poirier
185 followers
185 followers
About
Sylvain Poirier's posts

Post has attachment
Who wants to change the world ? As strange as this claim may sound, "normal people" don't.
And no, it's not that they think that the ways I propose aren't interesting or wouldn't work, or that it would be too hard to make. It's just that the whole question is unthinkable to them as soon as it would require a thinking effort. Only some stupid people can be motivated to dedicate their life trying to change the world, but only in the stupidest, most ineffective manners, with the strong conviction that the stupidest ways must of course be the best. But we cannot expect people to both be motivated AND ready to seriously think about the question. No matter the perspective to become rich and famous for who would make it, most people just can't afford the effort to understand any new ideas which they do not need for passing any exam.
I have mainly 2 ways to change the world.
One I could almost make alone (it remains quite incomplete, but why am I the only one working on it in the world ? I am still amazed at the observation): bringing a new math and physics undergraduate curriculum, much better than existing ones (regardless the prestige of the institutions where the usual shit is repeated). I did it with my site : settheory.net
Another, with even much more revolutionary, is a matter of web development. I sketched the main ideas here : trust-forum.net
So the question is not whether changing the world is possible or not. It is possible, it just requires a high intelligence to grasp and contribute; especially IT skills to implement. Don't worry, even a very small group of gifted people can win against a world of idiots. Any volunteers ?

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
A Kiev le dimanche 9 février, discours grandiose de BHL. Etrangement, pas un mot dans les grands medias français. Un peu trop politiquement incorrect pour la classe politique européenne, ou bien bien risquant de perturber la conscience du public ? На Майдані виступив французький письменник Бернар Анрі Леві

Post has attachment
I got this link on the situation in Ukraine, from a contact there : http://www.slideshare.net/NazarBartosik/what-is-really-happening-in-ukraine (and other slides from Nazar Bartosik : http://www.slideshare.net/NazarBartosik )

I need someone to do simple but lengthy tasks for developing and referencing my scientific site : developing and updating links pages, inviting authors of other sites to make links. For another project (of revolutionary decentralized social network: trust-forum.net) I need web programmers. I'm not a businessman so my budget is limited.

Post has attachment
Sylvain Poirier commented on a post on Blogger.
While evil may sometimes have origins in the character of people taking decisions, the biggest evil I see in the world, in the sense of what is effectively the main cause of harm, is not a matter of intentionality. It is things going wrong along the complexity of causalities relating all events. Of course events in the world often result from actions, and actions are made by people, so we can say that in many cases "if people do things right then things will go better". But if we take this claim as the definition of "doing things right" (that is the viewpoint of utilitarianism, which is mine), and really observe what it means, then this concept of "right" and "wrong" turns out to be very different from what many people (and especially religious people) imagine, because what determines this quality (that is, the external causalities) has little to do with any idea of "being good" that may qualify a person. And then even once arbitrarily chosen to focus on the factors inside the authors of actions that contribute to this quality, ignoring all other (external or accidental) factors, I find that the resulting concept of "goodness" also has little to do with its usual interpretation. Namely, the true goodness as I see it (and as I experienced in how things went in my life and as I observed elsewhere), consists not in having any good feelings for others, but in the scientific competence of correctly analyzing and interpreting complex problems, so as to find out which are effectively the actions that can serve well-intended purposes (as we almost all have good intentions, don't we ?), despite the complexity of the connections between actions and their consequences.
I see a usual misinterpretation of the notions of good and evil : the assumption that these words must either qualify what something is in itself, or be dismissed as fabricated concepts. For me, good and evil are not qualities of how things are in themselves. Still they are highly, absolutely meaningful (and not fabricated) concepts, in the sense that they are of high concern (how to make the world a better place : we ought to be concerned in the problem, no matter if we like it or not). But they only qualify how things relate to their context, and this can be very indirect or even sometimes speculative, out of reach of our current discernment abilities, not because they are too deep inside, but on the contrary because they are too remotely external. Another, related misunderstanding, is that if something is good then it is worth praising for itself; if someone is good he deserves praise and heaven ; if someone does evil he should be personally blamed for it. I reject such views, which I see as possible sources of terrible misjudgements. Someone can "be" good or evil, not because of anything good or bad in his person, but just by accident, because of how his actions happen to fit or not with how things work and what is needed outside him. Thus, praising or blaming a person for these circumstances may sometimes be plain nonsense. However, the moral impossibility to personally blame a well-intended person for his actions, still should not mean that these actions are acceptable. This can lead to awful conundrums, looking for compromise between the need to well manage things and the need to respect people, but still this problem heavily exists and needs to be faced : the "goodness" of a person may not be a good reason to let him do. Sensitive people beware ! I just see it wrong to be sensitive to criticism. Also when someone does things wrong, it may be possible to find a "cure" not in the person but in how to make external things happen otherwise, for example by providing a better information on the consequences of actions.
Some think that greed may be the root of evil. I reject that view : in the page http://singlesunion.org/money-love I draw a comparison between money and love, and which is the most evil force. I find that in many ways, love is the worst evil (and I'm not just taking about the fake love, but about the true one too). I also develop a longer analysis of the concepts of good and evil in the page http://antispirituality.net/moral-philosophy

I find this group rather disappointing, as it mainly contains "thoughts" simple enough to be expressible in just one paragraph. For me (and for modern science, where true thinkers with no time to waste advertising themselves as "thinkers" usually go), true worthy thoughts take longer, while not complicating things (which of course would be wrong), but to not be too caricatural ways of describing aspects of the (very big and very complex) world in understandable terms. Even with wonderful simplification works, reasonably correct thoughts need some lengths. I found ways to more simply explain relativity theory and quantum physics - but it still takes a couple of hours (instead of a dozen) ; I described one specific and relatively simple aspect of the world's problems and a possible solution to it at http://singlesunion.org - that is already not trivial. A more general solution to a wider range of problems takes more effort to describe even if it would be remarkably simple and efficient once compared to the large complexity of problems it would resolve : http://infoliberalism.info

Aside my work in mathematics and physics I developed a plan of how to make a global revolution by new free software for web servers: a combination of decentralized functions of identities, discussion spaces, computation of trust between users, and more : see description at trust-forum.net. (Usually after discussing about one hour people are convinced, but I could not find programmers as I'm not good at recruitment and they are usually too busy to pay attention). I have some money to pay but not big, so once understood you can figure out that future donations from users can largely complete the payment.

Post has attachment
After wasting years of my life with Christianity where God let me down in loneliness, I finally discovered the truth on life and the creation of the world, so I invite all other unhappy singles to join me in this new faith that I see no way to logically contradict, and to form a new community that will be amazingly unique by how the highest dream of members will be to lose membership.
Wait while more posts are being loaded