Yes. Even to the extreme, imagine you deeply love someone who is a killer, if they are harming others you love, that doesn't negate your love for them, and you can still step in to stop them to the degree necessary with the appropriate action. Love != obedience.

I see what you mean. I can’t give you one. I would have to think on it more.

Choice breaks symmetry. It’s a philosophical position, not proof. I’m arguing its not incompatible. Physics was always metaphors(“field”). Action would be finding the path where the tension between competing commitments resolves, where variation in either direction costs equally.

Something that encodes transformation history (spinors). Something that weights all possible paths causally (path integrals). Something where journey shapes the entity (path dependence). Something responsive to absent/non-local fields (Aharonov-Bohm / intentionality)

Path dependence implies the journey shapes the journeyer (personality). Aharonov bohm and potentials act like intentionality. If you wanted to model agency, intentionality, deliberation, personality, and selfhood through transformation you force the same modeling choices.

Taking the outside / inside view farther. Spinors encode self reference through transformation and memory (in electrons). Path integrals requires that all possible paths are considered and have causal effects in chosen outcome (deliberation).

The physical stack bottoms out in math. The mechanism is a modeling layer on top of an unknown foundation. You’re assuming there is a fact of the matter about which is the stack and which is the model. The physics could be the outside view, caring the inside.

Black-Scholes and pressure both emerge from diffusion mathematics, Brownian motion. All you need is a fractal universe of caring and commitment from agents and you can replicate what we see mathematically. The commitments and carings far simpler at the smallest level.

Could not interactions arise from carings and constraints from commitments? You would have the same outcomes. In the market, you have emergent constraints and interactions arising from people caring about something and commiting.

There is a way of living where action grows out of listening Where the next step appears naturally when the noise quiets. Where motion is not an escape from stillness but an expression of it.

It’s funny, whenever we find peace after living in perturbation and internalizing it, we often want to run. Because it doesn’t feel natural to us at first. We fear we will lose something, and that is true, but what we are losing is what was never truly ours to begin with.

Tonglen

Maybe humility is a posture, not a belief.

Would free will lead to probability being necessary

Well if the universe is alive, then it’s more like evolution.

Oh no… my Hilbert space… it’s shrinking…

My foot

Yes, absolutely. By setting the intention to be collectivist as your attractor and do so by individualistic means is indeed ideal. It’s individualism + realization of our interconnection. Helping others helps you. But to help others you must help yourself. The synthesis is key.

There are no individuals. You are the sum of everyone and everything you have interacted with combined with genes which are the sum of everything they interacted with. Helping others is helping the extension of yourself. The ultimate individualism turns back to collectivism.