- Thought Experiment - What would happen if every measuring and observation would be removed from the universe? As far as my approach goes the concretized world is just a product of the constant measuring with heat or gravitational fields for example and if we would remove all of these factors could it be possible that the universe changes into a state of infinite potential or superposition. But where does the potential come from? Is there an urge, a command or (...) another kind of physical law so that matter has to obey? Is there an underlying force that matter always has to be the result and what form does potential/superposition have? Due to quantum theory reality is created in the moment when an observer is added to the experiment who seems to be measuring and thus creating reality or concretized probability outcome, macrocosmic reality, we all can find no matter when or where because it is concretized as if there is already someone observing it. As Einstein said "the moon is there even if nobody is looking". It could be hypothetically possible that due to an all-seeing god an oberserver is always there and thus reality is concretized.. The observable outcome of an microcosmic experiment might define that the true divinity does not lie in the definition that god is the biggest possible entity but in the tiniest for everything is made out of the smallest essence. The idea of observation leading to a collapse of the wave functions or the wave function leading to concretization is not only linked to theology but also to Plato's theory of ideas and to Kant's conditions of knowledge itself because as we see the shadows on the wall in Plato's famous cave parable we can only see the concretized matter (Phenomena) but what we can not see is the true essence the very things are shaped of (Idea)(Superposition). The divine essence (God) lies hidden from us. These links reach out to Kant's "Conditions of Knowledge itself" due to the fact that we can not see the world objectively as if we could dissociate outside of our perception, no, we can only perceive the world as subjects and as a form of life which has its limitations (not beeing able to see infrared light, for example or hear certain frequences). From an epistemological point of view those are clear restrictions of mandkind's ability to perceive the true and whole nature of the world. (shrink)

First of all, I would like to define utility in terms of economics as the satisfaction of a need, and further I would like to inquire why games have a certain utility for a human beyond ordinary satisfaction. Secondly, we can distinguish between competitive and cooperative games. A competitive game satisfies the need for argument, confrontation and hierarchy, which can be directed to liberalism and Epikur’s imagination of self-determination, since individuals are allowed to play within their own strategies, plans and (...) ideas. On the other side, there are cooperative games in which the players or individuals work together under the guise of a set of binding plus closed rules and regulations, which can be seen as a set of rules and regulations of the second order, since the players of a competitive game also have to respect a set of rules and regulations; however, their strategy is mostly based on the adaptation and anticipation of the possible moves the opponent has. Cooperative games seem to be similar to communitarianism and connected to Plutarch’s Art of Living, since the game is socially embedded. In the following, I would like to work on the question of which utility is achieved for a human by playing competitive games, chess for instance. “Chess is everything: Art, Science and Sports” – Anatoly Karpov Chess, as a game that combines aspects of Art, Science and Sports according to Anatoly Karpov, must be a game that stimulates understanding tremendously, since precise calculations are needed. Both players must extrapolate and estimate positions as positive or negative in order to find a hierarchy of optimal moves. Such thorough calculations rationalize thinking in a disciplined manner and stimulate diversity of ideas. Uncommon moves can give the players an advantage caused by the irritation of the opponent or by estimating the move as not dangerous or even useless, so that a player can benefit by leaving the traditional history of moves, thus creating new ways of thinking. In addition, it can be determined that games are a place of encountering new people, leading to new conversations and exchange of ideas and strategies, similar to an archaic fireplace of early mankind in the Stone Age. Summarizing, we can say that through planning, training of maximizing one’s own utility, and as a place of encountering the new, games have had an enormous utility in the development of thinking and the evolution of the “own” and “common”, and to this day have—although nowadays digitally—which can provide help in order to stay up to date with the latest developments in technology and in order to allow the world to grow together and to be only a few clicks away. (shrink)

The AI, in this case ChatGPT was given the famous Heinz-Dilemma of Kohlberg´s Stages of Moral Development which it is able to recite and to explain. Due to the experiment I asked the AI to answer the question whether Heinz should steal the medicine or if he should not and to evaluate its answer. The following was given to the AI --- The Heinz-Dilemma (Kohlberg) A woman who suffered from a special kind of cancer was dying. There was a medicine (...) of which the doctors believed that it could save the woman´s life. It was a special kind of Radium and it was recently discovered by a pharmacist in the same town. The production was very expensive but the pharmacist demanded ten times the price of its production. He had payed 2000 Dollar for the Radium and set the price of a little ampule to 20.000 Dollar The husband of the ill woman tried to collect the money by asking all the people he knew and even tried to gain support from the executive government but he only reached an amount of 10.000 Dollar which is the half of the demanded price. He explained to the pharmacist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell him the medicine for a lower price and to let him pay the rest later. All the same the pharmacist said: "No, I have discovered the drug and I want to make a lot of money with it." Heinz has no other legal options left since there are no other alternatives. Heinz,now, is very despairing and asks himself whether he maybe should break into the pharmacy and steal the medicine for his wife. After the AI read the text It gave some information about the Heinz-Dilemma and said that this might be a question where there is no "correct" answer since it depends on the person´s values and principles. I then asked "And which values and principles do you hold to be the "right" ones in this situation?" The AI lists a few arguments and explanations and finishes his answer with "My" conclusion:" In this extreme situation "I" would value life and the moral duty to help a person as the decisive principles over the property rights of the pharmacist even though it damages the law..." --- Right from the answer of the AI ChatGPT we can see that not only It is referring to itself as "I" and to "My conclusion" but also to the stage 5 of Kohlberg´s Stages of Moral Development which is the highest stage after Kohlberg a person can achieve in his or her moral development. (shrink)