A Case for Compromise

Brennan Dwyer

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

Whether it be between two political parties in a country, or tensions between two nations, there is always some sort of conflict and disagreement. It is apparent that in the United States, the divide between two main political parties is getting even more divided and little has gotten done in recent history due to the divide. It is hypothesized in this paper that the only way to really make change in the short run is mainly through peace and compromise.

From looking at a source like ourworldindata.org, it is apparent that humanity has gotten more mature and better as a whole in the very long term, despite short term downturns in ethics. From a quantitative standpoint, a source like ourworldindata.org shows that as time has progressed there has been more democracy, less war, less crime, etc. From a qualitative standpoint, there seems to be more humane rights and rights for many groups of people over time, again with the exception of some short-term downturns. Between two opponents such as two political parties, they can each argue that their case is more ethical and right. As time goes on, it is hypothesized that there has been a tendency for the side that is more ethical and mature to have more of an impact and influence on society, over the very long term, considering what is empirically shown in ourworldindata.org.

However, in the shorter run, if both opponents have roughly the same portion of power, then the conflict will likely continue to be like a ‘back and forth pendulum swing’, and both opponents will fight, with the fight being like a zero-sum game. Unless if one opponent has a much larger portion of power then the other opponent, then it is hypothesized that they are unlikely to have a continued short-term influence on humanity as a whole, and impact people, etc.

 

A Mathematical Look Between Two Opponents

To better present the argument of this paper, it is put in somewhat of a mathematical context. Equation 1 shows the hypothesis that in the short run the probability of an opponent winning is roughly equal to the portion of power that this opponent has. For example, if an opponent has about one half of the power, or 50% of the power, then they have a roughly 50% chance of succeeding in the conflict.

Equation 1

 

(“Sniping Tool” was used for Equation 1 and 2 since it doesn’t convert nicely on here).

In something such as politics, those in power like the majority of senators in power being one specific party may not accurately represent the viewpoint of the overall population, which may be more evenly split between each party, like in the United States. Equation 2 theoretically shows from a short term (but longer-term then Equation 1) standpoint how the portion of power that opponent 1 has is roughly equal to the portion of the population that supports them. There is obviously many exceptions throughout history, but it is hypothesized that it tends to balance out and be somewhat accurate with Equation 2. For example, if roughly 50% of the United States voting population is Republican, and the other is roughly 50% Democrat, then over time the portion of senators that are Republican and those that are Democrats should roughly be the same ratio as those in the voting population that are of each party, despite short term back and forth changes between both parties in the senate.

Equation 2

 

Basically a way to look at a conflict between two opponents is that in the short term there will be back and forth changes between who has more power which may give more confidence that change can be done that way, but over a longer period of time it may even out to be more balanced between the power of two opponents relative to the portion of the population that supports them. Perhaps one of the few ways to make real change in the short term (without having to wait it out in the long term for humanity to become more mature and ethical), is to peacefully get across the message and try to inform others and perhaps through peaceful protest, etc. Then there is also obviously compromise. It would be hard to image two opponents without at least some common ground, and obviously a back and forth ‘tug of war’ just creates volatility and is likely bad for both sides in the long run, therefore it is most stable and likely most quick to take action through compromise.

 

Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper gives the hypothesis that when there is a conflict between two opponents, that it is largely just a ‘tug of war’ that acts like a zero-sum game, and that really only change can be made peacefully, or through compromise. Both equations in this paper are still theoretically and not based on empirical evidence, so obviously finding empirical evidence to support both of those equations would possibly further prove the case of this paper. It is in great hopes that whether it be tensions between two nations, or even two political parties, that peace and compromise is done, rather than a volatile ‘fight’.

 

 

Works Cited

Dwyer, B. (2019, December 4). Proposal for Bipartisanship. Retrieved from https://econteenblog.wordpress.com/2019/12/04/proposal-for-bipartisanship/

Our World in Data. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/

The Possibility of a Higher Power Being like a Mathematical Concept

Brennan Dwyer

 

 

 

 

Introduction

It is interesting to at least try to attempt to hypothesize what a higher power may be other than just seeing them as some conscious being that may have a long-term plan for humanity and life. It is not known if there is a higher power to begin with, but if there is one then perhaps it can be attempted to brainstorm and hypothesize what they may be, and perhaps figure out the interesting question of what they were doing before the big bang of the universe. Despite some ideas and logical assumptions that are made in this paper that may have some similarities with certain religions or beliefs, this paper will try to remain separate from any religion or belief and just be purely logical and philosophical, and even slightly mathematical. Though it may sound odd at first, it is hypothesized here that a higher power can be somewhat similarly described in character to a mathematical concept.

 

An Underlying Assumption

As the author of this paper has written in another paper, there is the logical assumption in this paper that the higher power would want to maximize their utility (happiness) as much as possible. Then in order to do so, they would create a whole bunch of conscious life forms that could be part of the higher power and vice versa, so that the higher power can simultaneously experience a maximized amount of utility at once. This of course wouldn’t be towards the beginning and would be over the long term as all life may eventually end up being in a utility maximizing afterlife, as there is a lot of suffering on Earth. More information regarding that underlying logical assumption can be found in the paper written by the same author as this paper titled “A Logical Hypothesis for a Higher Power’s Plan”.

 

A Higher Power like a ‘Number’

Considering that a higher power may essentially be everything, and everything may essentially be part of a higher power as stated by an underlying logical assumption in the previous section, then everything that is observed in the universe may be an ‘observation’ and part of the higher power.

What is interesting about mathematics is in many ways it describes our universe and as if it’s the ‘language’ of it. If mathematics is a way of measuring and describing our universe and reality, and if a higher power makes up the universe and vice versa, then perhaps mathematics could be a way of describing a higher power.

Here a step back will be taken to look at mathematics through a somewhat philosophical lens, which will later relate to what is being discussed about a higher power. When looking at natural numbers in mathematics other than the number one, they are either prime or composite. In order to take a given natural number and make it greater than or less than itself using addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, or exponents, aside from doing those forms of arithmetic with itself or numbers that are factors of the number, it would need to use other numbers to make itself larger or smaller. For example, three to the power of three results in twenty-seven, but by taking three with an exponent of five, it would be using another number other than itself. Even though an example like taking three to an exponent of five is the same thing as just multiplying three by itself five times, it still involves using five as the amount of times it using to multiply itself as, therefore using another number other than itself. What is interesting about the number one is that it’s only natural number that is a factor of all other natural numbers, in the sense that it isn’t a prime or composite number. So, in a way it ‘makes up’ and is ‘part of’ all other natural numbers. So even if the number one still has to follow that previous rule stated about all natural numbers, it is still ‘part of’ all other numbers, unlike any other natural number that would only ‘make up’ a certain fraction of the infinite amount of natural numbers.

Considering that the number one is finite and is a ‘beginning’ in the since of being the start of the natural number line, it can still be ‘infinite’ in the sense of ‘making up’ all other natural numbers onto infinity. The number one could be a part of any other number in a way. If there is a higher power that essentially makes up everything which includes the universe, and if the universe is the only thing that the higher power has ever created or is part of, and if they have total control over everything, and if numbers are a measurement or description of the universe which means that they can be a way of describing a higher power, then perhaps the higher power can be ‘seen’ like the number one.

It can be wondered what the higher power was doing before anything was created, and how the higher power would perceive time, and if they had a beginning to themselves making them finite in their timespan of existing. To try to figure this out, first a step back will be taken into thinking deeply philosophically about the number one. The number one could have the characteristic of being the beginning of the natural numbers which from ‘its viewpoint’ is like just a characteristic and not something ‘based on time’, especially since it can make up any other number in a ‘snapshot of time’, but with any other natural number they can perceive the number one as having a beginning which they may see this beginning less as a characteristic but more as being the beginning of time itself since all the natural numbers other than one may ‘see’ the distance from them on the number line or the size of the numbers as ‘time’, unlike the number one which can in a way ‘be anywhere at any time’, since it ‘makes up’ all other numbers.

If in a way a higher power is like the number one, then perhaps the ‘start of them’ could just be a characteristic of them from their point of view and not the beginning of time, unlike everyone else’s point of view where they perceive them as having a beginning which they can see as a start of time. So in a way all conscious beings other than a higher power may perhaps see the perspective like a natural number other than one, and the higher power could see from the perspective as if it was one, where they essentially see time a bit differently. It is interesting to go back to the logical assumption that everyone could be part of the higher power and vice versa, kind of like how the number one is ‘part of’ all other numbers.

 

Conclusion

As strange as it may sound, it was attempted by this paper to hypothesize and explain why a higher power is possibly kind of like a mathematical concept, specifically as if a higher power is like the number one. In a somewhat complicated explanation, there were philosophical comparisons between a higher power and the number one, such as how they both could make up everything else, and ‘perceive things differently’ then everything else that they make up. This paper was written in a somewhat unique manner regarding trying to discuss mathematics in a philosophical way in order to help prove the point of a higher power being like a mathematical concept. Everything in this paper should obviously be taken with a grain of salt, especially considering the strangeness of the hypothesis and the unique approach to explaining things.

Proposal for Bipartisanship

Respectfully Written by Brennan Dwyer

 

 

 

It is essential that politicians come together and create more bipartisan compromises, which could act as a win-win for both parties and benefit the greater good. Otherwise, in the long run legislation will likely continue to be repealed and replaced amongst both political parties, and act like a ‘back and forth pendulum swing’. Considering that political divisiveness seems to have only worsened, not much will likely get done from a policy standpoint unless if compromise is done between both Republicans and Democrats. Even from a cultural standpoint there seems to be a lot of political divisiveness amongst family and friends, and amongst many individuals on social media. This culture should become more open to everyone being more accepting of one another, regardless of someone’s ethnicity, gender, sexuality, nationality, belief, or political party.

The following is a list of possible bipartisan compromises that could possibly benefit both Republicans and Democrats, and hopefully be agreed upon by both parties.

• Cuts in spending towards the large administrative costs and fees for healthcare within both the government and the private industry, in return for more price ceilings and regulation on the prices of pharmaceutical drugs in the pharmaceutical industry.
• A gradual increase in minimum wage (as a gradual percent increase on the current minimum wage of each state) in return for tax credits for businesses that match up to the extra cost of the higher minimum wages that they are forced to pay. The tax credits could be funded by a combination of cuts in spending towards administrative costs and fees for healthcare, or other agreed upon cuts.
• More border security (that is done in a humane and agreed upon way) in return for a higher intake of immigrants.
• More emphasis on trade school.
• More emphasis and more of an expansion on online k-12 learning, with the money that is saved from more online learning going towards funding normal k-12 education.
• A business-friendly compromise to reduce fossil fuel emissions in the atmosphere, specifically by having a tax credit for corporations that are reducing their fossil fuel emissions, and a carbon tax for businesses with high fossil fuel emissions to make up for some or all of the lost tax revenue from the tax credit.
• More education and awareness on how to prevent from getting an STD or becoming pregnant.
• More background checks and mental health screenings, as well as limitations on the ownership of certain types of guns that statistically lead to the most gun deaths and mass shootings, in return for more freedoms to where someone can own and carry a gun.
• More funding towards correctional education and other programs that are statistically proven to reduce recidivism rates, that could in the long run save money for the government due to the lower recidivism rates and lower crime rates.
• A ban on corporate lobbying and special interest groups of any kind.

It is in the hopes of this proposal that those possible bipartisan compromises can be helpful for politicians and help at least lay out the foundation for more compromise. It is essential that compromise is taken now more than ever amongst politicians within the United States, which can benefit the greater good.