But that is precisely what the model is saying, that the masses believe the plandemic because they also believe the payoffs - of health, security etc etc.
What appears to be missing is to factor in when the payoffs are wrong! This is not the same as the payoff not manifesting, but that what manifests is the opposite.
Coz the model as it stands always ends up with a zombie society - this itself is obviously not true as we would have been extinct a long time ago. This requires a more oscillatory model, where the truth then becomes the best payoff.
There are similar economic models that illustrate how bubbles form, and how they burst, and those divide the population into 3 groups: promoters, the masses and the truthers. The truth can stop such bubbles if there are enough truthers - from memory, about 10-15% - which also explains why such truthers are sh7ut up by the propagandists.
I don't think he takes into account the old 'spanner in the works' scenario. I like to emulate that, or try to. Not sure how we came to different conclusions as to what he was getting at.? Maybe it was coz I couldn't understand his terminology. I felt he was saying truthers would not survive? His model is crap maybe coz like I said computers don't think like we do. They are not conscious and never will be.
Just because some simulations are used as propaganda, doesn't mean they all are. Indeed, we could tell the plandemic used exaggerated numbers for alarmist purposes precisely because we can understand the model used. We can simulate the solar system without having little planets inside the computers.
Yes, is a very condensed talk, with a lot of terminology.
I even dislike using "evolutionary biology", coz one ends up with the same formulas by just assuming social interactions among the living.
A simulation is a simulation. It takes certain factors into account.
It cannot take into account all factors, for there is no consensus nor convention about "all factors".
Why would you wish for a solar system simulation, for example?
Having an "accurate" simulation about the solar system, would it not mean that this would require also an accurate simulation about the galaxy we live in? And would that not also require having an accurate simulation about the universe?
strange question. How do you think we calculate whether a planetary model is accurate or not?
Indeed, Neptune was discovered through verifying such a model in 1846.
The knowledge that our sun will cease to exist in some billion years, does that make a difference to you and your life of the present?
I am not asking rhetorically.
No, and we don't stop planting crops - setting extremes does nothing to diminish the validity of the approximate now.
What do you mean by that?
A theory has limits, beyond which it either doesn't work or is even meaningless - that doesn't mean it doesn't work within its domain. eg, ask the same question backwards: do we care when the solar system didn't exist at all?
Yes me too as he assumes evolution is fact and not theory.