Scientists are rethinking free will. I have a brief summary.

I believe it was Nietzsche who said we will never be rid of God until we stop believing in grammar. Since that did not fully work, the NYC educational apparatus is working hard to overthrow the oppressive authority of the quadratic formula.

‘I am utterly DISGUSTED by your rampant, pathetic cowardice.’ Former Metropolitan Police detective Peter Bleksley BLASTS @alexarmstrong after he suggested he wouldn’t fight for his country.

Bear with me here. These questions are crucial and regard the fundamental distinction between infinite and finite substance. The "infinite" must not be confused with the "finite". But these terms have been misunderstood for centuries. This misunderstanding has led to debates that waste time, deepen confusion, and prevent advances in philosophical, theological, scientific, even mathematical understanding. In the present day, words are losing their meaning. For millennia, nonexistence has been confused with nothingness to the point that creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) has been continually disregarded by many as a logical contradiction. Yet, more than two milennia ago Parmenides warned that one cannot even speak of nonexistence. He was correct. Aquinas did not distinguish “actuality” from “reality” as two separate domains—one infinite and the other finite. His principal distinction was between actuality and potentiality, together with the distinction between essence and existence. The Infinite Reservoir (TIR) sorts terminology according to the taxonomy St. Thomas provided. In TIR, perfect actuality (Actuality) is infinite; has no potentiality, only power; existence is its essence; its structure is necessarily triune; it is absolutely simple and unchanging; it is Truth per se. Reality, on the other hand, is finite; has potentiality, including finite potential energy; essence and existence are distinct; structure is triadic; knowledge of truth proceeds through sequential reasoning (logic); acts are temporally sequenced; it is always in motion, changing. Truth per se is inseparable from infinite perfect actuality. Finite reality is intelligible because it originates from and participates in that Actuality. Finite knowledge is true insofar as the intellect conforms to what is, whether its object is infinite Actuality or finite reality. This distinction seems to me quite crucial. Infinite Actuality is not simply another being within reality, nor is finite reality a portion of God. Created reality originates from and remains continuously dependent upon uncreated Being without diminishing or changing its infinite source. Aquinas already recognized this ontological relationship through his distinction between subsistent Being and participated existence. TIR honors that Thomistic logic while advancing its philosophical language, making the infinite–finite distinction explicit rather than relying upon readers to recover it through analogy or context. This explicit language is intended as more than a semantic improvement. Using terms such as being, existence, actuality, and reality interchangeably can obscure fundamental ontological distinctions, confusing philosophers, scientists, and laypeople alike. TIR also seeks to extend Thomistic realism by demonstrating the determinate causal structure through which infinite actuality gives rise to finite reality, including its motion, temporality, and physical laws. Thus, TIR does not replace Thomistic realism. It seeks to clarify its language, preserve its logic, and extend its explanatory reach from infinite actuality into the structure of finite creation. The governing principle remains unchanged: What is determines the truth of our judgments; our judgments do not determine what is. And infinite Actuality is the necessary source upon which finite reality depends.