StrictlyLogical

The truth is the truth no matter what it is.  It is not casual, dramatic, or clean.. it just is the truth.   Share the truth IF you WANT to share your truth, and because you want to share that truth.
You are who and what you are and your parents want to know and be a part of that because they love YOU.
You don't want to feel like you are "coming clean"?... certainly you have done nothing wrong by being you... but you have not let people in... you may have consciously evaded or misled others by silence...  the world is a scary place and being vulnerable with the people you love is not easy... but if you to accept now that what you have done in the past is no longer acceptable, that you can and should be braver, more honest and more authentic.. then in a sense you are coming clean.. not only to your loved ones but with yourself.
Sitting your parents down to tell them the truth about you because you love them and they love you and because you want your relationship with them to grow in honesty and depth... well, there is nothing "casual" about it... it is deeply and fundamentally important if your relationship with them is important.. and coincidentally sitting your parents down to have a good heart to heart is completely natural for a loving nurturing relationship.
Don't let your "style" get in the way of being the honest earnest you.  Dramatic talk? Talk is talk.. if you don't want it dramatic don't be dramatic. Talk with them ... talk with everyone... tell them how much they mean to you, maybe even apologize for  giving in to fear for so long... but state that you are strong enough now to start living your authentic life and insofar as they are willing to be a part of your life you want them in it. 
Those who truly value and love you AS YOU ARE will not bat an eye at anything you say about yourself AS YOU ARE. 
 

Perhaps Jose meant to say "entanglement and information..."
 
Jose's reasoning is as follows 
1 Rand held that there are no contradictions in reality.
 2 modern science proves contradictions are possible
hence it is proved by contradiction, that Rand was wrong.
 
Observe that Jose depends on the premise "no contradictions exist in reality" in order to form a proof by contradiction.  any proof relying upon this technique presupposes no contradictions... that is how a contradiction proves one of the premises are false.
So Jose's proof is relying on a premise he is at once refuting.  As such he has to abandon "proof" Rand was wrong... and in fact abandon any kind of proof whatsoever. After all, if contradictions are possible Rand can also be right, in the same respect and at the same time... and no conclusion can be made with any certitude, and certainly not any relying upon a proof by contradiction.
 

To wit: "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" - Noam Chomsky (link)
"Colorless green" is contradictory. So try another. Short green ideas sleep furiously. 😊

I received Mr. Knapp's book,  Mathematics is About the World. It includes 'Hilbert's Game of Symbols' in the subtitle, but doesn't have much more in the body.
"At some point during my college freshman year, I realized that neither mathematicians nor philosophers of mathematics shared my perspective, offering only the alternatives of formalism (a game of symbol manipulation), Platonism (a separate world of mathematics), or, as a third, the Fregean view that mathematics is a branch of logic. I could accept none of these choices" (p. 10).
Hilbert was a Formalist.
"My specific concern will not be with counting objects, but with using numbers to measure magnitudes, such as length, weight, and speed. In this, we should not be surprised to find that our usage of numbers is indeed correct. But we will find that characterizing exactly what we are doing when we apply numbers is not as straightforward as one might have thought. Yet in laying this process bare, one creates the foundation for a similar understanding of mathematical concepts whose relationship to the world we live in may be far from obvious. It is the lack of such understanding that has led to the widespread false alternatives that mathematics is either a formal game played with symbols, a system of deduction from carefully chosen axioms such as the axioms of set theory, or an insight into a Platonic universe of mathematical concepts. On any of these views, the applicability of mathematics to reality must be viewed as a happy accident" (p. 101-2)

Merlin 
For a more in-depth treatment of Math being about the world (nothing to do with Tew) see Robert E. Knapp’s book.
https://mathematicsisabouttheworld.com/
I’m slowly making my way through it.  In the first chapter I find his style awkward and repetitive (this might change in later chapters) but the substance so far, once distilled, is illuminating.
I can’t wait to get to the chapter on group theory.

My second try: The suspicion, harbored by many physicists and mathematicians over the decades but rarely actively pursued, is that a description of the properties exhibited by the peculiar panoply of forces and particles of reality may be so accurately depicted by eight-dimensional numbers called “octonions.”

I’d go a little farther and modify it as 
The suspicion, harbored by many physicists and mathematicians over the decades but rarely actively pursued, is that an accurate description of the properties exhibited by the peculiar panoply of forces and particles of reality may be so easily derived springs logically    from the properties of eight-dimensional numbers called “octonions”, that one could characterize the description as springing logically from them.
... just to clarify properties of reality do not spring from numbers, although numbers can be used to refer to reality.

“forces and particles that comprise reality spring logically from the properties of eight-dimensional numbers”
Remind anyone of the Pythagoreans?
I do think discovering the abstractions which are math that we can use to help describe and predict reality, the referent of the abstraction math, are great and wonderful.  But we should always keep in mind what the relationship of math, thought, and abstractions to reality actually is.

I'm not so sure I've acted in my self interest raising this issue... 
Also, I have misunderstood and/or been negligent in honestly seeking the motivations of Merlin... justice demands an apology when treatment does not match desert... so Merlin I apologize for making this an issue,  I have no excuse or justification.

In the spirit of the immortal words of Yoda "The cave! Remember your failure in the cave"
Never forget: MONADS 

Oh, my. The last 48 hours on this thread have been an adventure. I delayed responding to the posts StrictlyLogical made on Friday because I was hesitant about how to respond. Due to Stephen Boydstun's posts supporting me and some of our history, and StrictlyLogical's apology, my hesitation vanished.  
I reply to StrictlyLogical's Friday posts as follows. My blog isn't a "general philosophy" blog. Part of the content is philosophy, but not about philosophy in general or a wide range of philosophers. Much of the content has been about economics, finance, and technology, e.g. Marconi.
My purpose of giving links here is solely an invitation to anyone who might be interested in the content. It is not to spread or promote any philosophy as better than or against Objectivism. I will try to say a little more about the content along with the link.
Thank you, Stephen and StrictlyLogical. Thank you, dream_weaver, for moving the thread to its new forum. When I made my first post about 10 months ago, it wasn't clear to me where it fit best and I gave my okay to the moderators to move it. It just took a while. 🙂 I likely didn't choose its new forum because my blog doesn't consist of "poems, short stories, art, music, web designs, business deals, or graduations." 🙂
P.S. I will be attending OCON 2019.

I'm not so sure I've acted in my self interest raising this issue... 
Also, I have misunderstood and/or been negligent in honestly seeking the motivations of Merlin... justice demands an apology when treatment does not match desert... so Merlin I apologize for making this an issue,  I have no excuse or justification.

I'm not so sure I've acted in my self interest raising this issue... 
Also, I have misunderstood and/or been negligent in honestly seeking the motivations of Merlin... justice demands an apology when treatment does not match desert... so Merlin I apologize for making this an issue,  I have no excuse or justification.

I'm not so sure I've acted in my self interest raising this issue... 
Also, I have misunderstood and/or been negligent in honestly seeking the motivations of Merlin... justice demands an apology when treatment does not match desert... so Merlin I apologize for making this an issue,  I have no excuse or justification.

Love it.
 
As for your gravitation toward cleaning up language, I believe the better approach is to clean up the conceptual referent of the language.  Words cannot work out the concepts for anyone, parrots do not think, ... so for the humans, once one has worked out the concepts the term used is not crucial.
Rand's use of the term the "moral" is a perfect example.  Rather than capitulate the term to the anti-concept(s) it included as much of its referent territory, she generalized and clarified what valid concepts the term had within its purview and cleaned up the conceptual scope to which it applied, generating a proper word-concept.
The same is likely the best approach to the terms space and time... there's unnecessary baggage but it easily can be left behind (by anyone who is not a parrot).  Any statement about positions or points in time or quantities of space or time, are relational, quantifiable, and existential, but simply do not constitute entities... no problem once you've worked it out.

Here I’ll reply to StrictlyLogical and MisterSwig (the paper that pittsburghjoe advances is a wee bit beyond my ken: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.06757.pdf).
 
I’ll address the disparity between my definitions of Space and Time and The Lexicon.
Then I’ll attempt to state what I take to be true of reality as integrated from percepts and through the application of noncontradictory identification.
 
 
The Ayn Rand Lexicon: entries for Time and Space
Time 
Space 
 
I agree with these explications.
However, my point is that they are explications that I would prefer to call ‘the temporal’ and ‘the spatial’ rather than ‘space’ and ‘time’. 
 
This might be best illustrated by imagining that I had been handed the job of re-editing The Lexicon (ho ho!). I would retain entries for Space and Time (as they are the more commonly used terms), but parse each of them out, something like this…
 
Space ⁓
⁓ Space
(noun — apt for entity)
An anti-concept*: used as approximate substitute for a specific volumetric entity. E.g.; space in my case, outer-space, space-filling object, a vacuum, etc.
 
⁓ The Spatial
(nominalized adjective — apt for existent relational attribute)
“The Spatial,” like “the temporal,” is a relational concept. It does not designate an entity, but a relationship, which exists only within the universe. The universe is not in the spatial any more than it is in the temporal… 
[Peikoff's definition continues in this way…]
 
Time ⁓
⁓ Time
(noun — apt for event)
An anti-concept*: used as approximate substitute for a specific chronological event. E.g.; now, 1984, five-to-seven, the Pleistocene, next week, etc.
 
⁓ The Temporal
(nominalized adjective — apt for existent relational attribute)
The temporal is a measurement of motion; as such, it is a type of relationship. The temporal applies only within the universe…
[continuation of Peikoff's definition…]
 
 
* I’ve termed space and time anti-concepts, which might be too harsh — I’m being a tad provocative here. I think they are still useful in common speech, indispensable even, as long as we treat them as the place-holders that they are. 
 
By adopting the spatial/temporal I’m trying to promote the relational meaning couched within space and time, the sense that Peikoff is getting at. I'm concerned that the terms  ‘space’ and ‘time’ tend to be illusive substitutes for actual specific things/events.
 
I don't know about you, but I'll let you into the secret machinations of my mind. When I hear ‘space’ I immediately picture a cubic volume of air; when I read ‘time’ I picture an egg-timer running out at four minutes ~ specific concretes rather than abstract relationships, I can't help it. That’s the issue that I wanted to help resolve by employing an adjective rather than an entity-implying noun.
 
To address MisterSwig’s specific query about time:
 
As indicated above, I don’t immediately view the term ‘time’ as representing measurement — that requires extra effort. The term ‘the temporal’ more suitably fulfills that role because the relatival is implicit: adjectives name relational attributes, nouns do not.
So, other than that grammatical quibble, I'm on board with Peikoff ~ the temporal is measurement. 
 
 
 
 
Is the spatial truer of reality than ‘space’? Is the temporal truer of reality than ‘time’?
This comes from StrictlyLogical’s very exacting question:
 
Perception affords us percepts which can be compared,  contrasted and isolated from other percepts, giving us entities, to be named/conceptualized.
The Spatial is a concept abstracted in reality from entities — it is not abstracted from ‘space’.
It isolates one of two essential relational aspects of an entity: (non-temporal) relationships; relative position, length, volume, etc.
 
Ditto The Temporal… 
 
I know I'm being controversial — effectively taking Rand's Razor to ‘space’ and ‘time’ for what I consider to be a more fitting definition. 
I don’t think that this proposal is reverting to nominalism or psychological obfuscation — is it?
I currently view it as an attempt to clarify concepts, to ensure that they better map reality, are more precise, are objective.
 
I hope this post has been a bit clearer than my last?
 
 
 
So then, where might I be going horribly wrong?
 

I think that one can prove a negative in certain circumstances, but it has to be something that pertains to reality. One cannot prove a negative statement about something that is arbitrary and I think that is what they were getting at. For example I can prove that Karl is not in the room by simply opening up the room and seeing that Karl is not there. But Karl is at least a possible person and not arbitrary. The idea of God (strictly the miracle working god) is incoherent (rationally speaking) and arbitrary in regards to reality. 

I don't know about "hopelessly," but I think your concept of time is flawed. Before getting into it, maybe you could address Peikoff's view in the Lexicon entry. I note that you say time is not a measurement, whereas Peikoff has it as the genus of the definition.

Cleansing concepts around ‘spacetime’
 
Thank you class; MisterSwig, StrictlyLogical, Eiuol and Grames — good input.
 
Here I’m pegging a concluding thought (any follow-up remarks most welcome).
 
❦
 
So a range of slightly different models related to spacetime have been floating around over the last couple of weeks. I won’t attempt to summarize these different frameworks, I’d rather focus on what seems to be a major fault-line. I think the fracture has been conceptual, particularly for ‘space’ and ‘time’, which then goes on to affect a whole range of related concepts; medium, gaps, vacuums, location, information, matter and spacetime itself.
 
Here I’ll attempt a little spring-cleaning of just three key concepts; space, time, entity (prior to any subsequent tackling of spacetime itself). 
Let me know if you think it harms/helps matters.
 
 
 
First stop The Oxford English Dictionary to survey standard meanings, thence to The Ayn Rand Lexicon for a little selective clarification, then my own jottings set out below. I think the resulting six concepts form an interesting integration…
 
 
Space ⁓
 
Dictionaries offer a wide assortment of definitions, ranging from typographic padding to being left undisturbed. However, for the core meaning they always give two distinct definitions relevant to the kind of space this topic addresses (OED)…
 
• A continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.
• The dimensions of height, depth, and width within which all things exist and move.
 
I think it is instructive to keep these two concepts in separate boxes when discussing ‘space’. To this end I propose a conceptual split into two different words:
⁓ Concept 1. Space
⁓ Concept 2. The Spatial
 
The first is a noun — apt for entity.
The second is a nominalized adjective — apt for attribute of an entity.
 
The Ayn Rand Lexicon hones in on space as the spatial —the relational concept —and does a good job, but I think it rather papers-over the first, more everyday usage of the term — e.g., I have space in my tummy for one more yummy digestive biscuit.
 
Expanding the difference between the two main definitions:
 
⁓  1. Space
‘Space–space’: a word for everyday usage ~ about volumetric things…
An absolute existent* entity (with spatial and temporal attributes). It has dimension (in which a three dimensional coordinate system, with arbitrary origin, could map it exhaustively). It is volumetric; whether dense like a blackhole or ‘empty’ like an absolute vacuum — whatever its mass, its volume is always greater than zero. It is never ‘nothing’. It is a concrete, not an abstract. It is measurable, not a measurement. It is a part of a greater (potentially boundless) whole — the universe.  
Example:
I have space at the end of this sentence to place a full-stop.
 
Antonym:
No-space (or boundless space as near antonym)
This can either be zero volume (effectively nothing), or by an already space-occupying volume.
 
⁓  2. The Spatial
A word for abstract usage ~ about the spatial relations of things…
A relative existent* attribute (of entities). It is dimension (along with the temporal dimension). It is the relations of scale, position, distance, area, volume (but not the actualization of these relational attributes themselves into ‘space-occupying entities’). It is never ‘something’ (nor ‘nothing’ as attributes exist). It is an abstract, not a concrete. It is measurement, not measurable. Bounds or scales don’t apply — the spatial is a relational attribute of the universe (and all its potential parts).  
Example:
The full-stop at the end of this sentence has spatial extension, but perhaps less so than a comma.
 
Antonym:
The temporal.
(Emphatically not fullness/emptiness)
The spatial can only be contrasted with the one other dimension (which mutually defines it).
 
 
* Existent = an existing entity or an attribute/action (of an existing entity).
In the case of the spatial and the temporal, they are existent attributes, not entities. Furthermore, no existent entity is without this duplet of attributes, everything has a spatial & temporal aspect..
This might tie-in to the gist of my original forum question — ‘could the universe be cashed out in terms of these two fundamental attributes?’
 
 
Time ⁓
OED…
• A point [or period] of time as measured (in hours and minutes past midnight or noon).
• [mass noun] the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.   
 
Thus, as with space, a similar bifurcation into two different concepts is in order:
⁓ Concept 3. Time
⁓ Concept 4. The Temporal
 
The difference between the two main definitions:
 
⁓  3. Time
‘Time–time’: a word for everyday usage ~ about occurrences…
An absolute existent event (with spatial and temporal attributes). It has dimension (in which a linear coordinate system, with arbitrary origin, could map it exhaustively). It is chronological; whether delineating past ages or future micro-seconds — whatever its span, its passing is always greater than zero. It is never ‘timeless’. It is a concrete, not an abstract. It is measurable, not a measurement. It is a part of a greater (potentially boundless) whole — universal time.  
Example:
Noticing the full-stop at the end of this sentence will occur within the next second of time.
 
Antonym:
No-time (or timeless as near antonym).
In contrast to space, time is not exclusionary, lots of occurrences can happen at the same time.
 
⁓  4. The Temporal
A word for abstract usage ~ about the temporal relations of occurrences…
A relative existent attribute (of events). It is dimension (along with the spatial dimension). It is the relational context for all things chronological (but not the actualization of these relations into its own ‘event’). It is never ‘an event’ (nor ‘non-event’ as attributes exist). It is an abstract, not a concrete. It is measurement, not measurable. Bounds or scales don’t apply — the temporal is a relational attribute of universal time (and all its potential sequences).  
Example:
The full-stop at the end of this sentence has limited temporal extension into the past and future.
 
Antonym:
The spatial
(Emphatically not instantaneous/timelessness)
The temporal can only be contrasted with the one other dimension.
 
 
NB, I maintain that there are only two ‘essential’ relational existents: the spatial and the temporal. Moreover, the spatial defines the temporal; the temporal defines the spatial.
(Do they ‘require’ entities to exist or just differences between one another?) 
 
 
Before tackling ‘spacetime’ it might be worthwhile defining the next pair; entity, along with its rather neglected twin, event…
 
 
Entity ⁓
The OED gives one definition…
• A thing with distinct and independent existence.
 
However, as all things are also processes (given enough time), it might be conceptually correct to tease out the two distinctive aspects contained within ‘entity’. 
Thus: 
 
⁓  Concept 5. Entity
A word primarily regarding something ‘in space’.
 
Entity = a spatial difference that makes a difference (spatially/temporally).
 
I believe this get to the very essence of ‘entity’ (more so than through invocations of solidity, ostensibility, absoluteness, boundedness, etc.).
 
Entity means specifically a spatial difference. It entails a boundary between itself and the space that it does not occupy — whether another unique entity or ‘the rest of the universe’.
Crucially, it entails uniqueness of identity — yet identity comprises a relative as well as absolute aspect — entities are its attributes, attributes are both relational and absolute.
 
 
⁓  Concept 6. Event
A word primarily regarding something ‘in time’.
 
Event = a temporal difference that makes a difference (spatially/temporally).
 
Again, this get to the very essence of ‘event’ I think (more so than invocations of time-span, change, motion, causal chain, etc.).
 
Entity entails event, events entail entities.
All entities are undergoing some sort of processes (protraction often renders these transmutations imperceptible).
 
 
NB, Objectivism makes a convincing case for the epistemological primacy of entity (thus metaphysically primacy) — our knowledge of reality works by firstly separating-out the relatively stable aspects of any process, the thing undergoing change rather than the overall process/event itself. That is unless the event is the more salient feature — e.g., we think of a gun-shot as an event, in contrast to, say, the Alps (an interminable tectonic event). Events not only entail entities, they are built from entities. 
 
 
❦
 
 
A definition of Spacetime (and its integral curvaceousness)?
Has this disentangling of the three words (space, time, entity) into six concepts (space/spacial, time/temporal, entity/event) been positive for this discussion, or do you think that it's been hopelessly flawed? Do give me hell if they are invalid — I'm here to learn!
 
Now, would anyone venture a definition of spacetime itself perchance? 
 
 
 
 
 

Thank you to the posting contributors. Thanks for giving me both your time and consideration.

But God is your starting point. You defined him as having a power "above nature." Then you claim that such power violates a law of nature. Yet it's not part of nature. It's above nature, by definition. It's an ability of God. So you're contradicting your own starting point.
Yes, that was the implication of my scare quotes around "prove."
Except that you have not defined those animals as having supernatural chess-playing powers.
You're presenting a hypothetical of water turning into wine. In such a supernatural scenario, the cause would be a supernatural force, i.e., God. It doesn't make sense to set up the supernatural event and then claim it can't happen because it's not natural. You're not dealing with a natural event to begin with.
Real water doesn't turn into ice on its own, just like the hypothetical water couldn't turn into wine on its own. Something else must force them to change. Real water turns to ice because of a natural reaction to temperature, which is caused by various environmental factors. The hypothetical water turns to wine because of a supernatural reaction to God's power of miracles. You can't grant God a nature-violating power and then complain that he's violating the nature of water. It's inconsistent.     

Thank you very much SL,
 I really appreciate the effort gone into the story-telling, it works well as a clear explication — very helpful indeed.
 
My last post seems to have ended on a bum note!
Of my three alternatives regarding the best conceptualization for the spacetime/entity relationship, SL went with 3, whereas I had plumped for 1.
 
Let’s see who is right and why…
 
 
After absorbing the analogy of ‘proto-matter’ + ‘nega-matter’ and the intentionally spurious introduction of ‘spacetime-filling’ ‘mono-fundamento-matter’ the habitual errors are exposed as clear as a clanging bell:
The reification of nothing with something (exhortatory spacetime-filling). We need actual observable evidence of the unification of stuffs, otherwise keep conceptually separate (as they are objectively observed to be).  
The story continues into the realms of ‘extenz’ with a further such unification of everything and nothing, underscoring the absurdity of a meta-melding into meaninglessness (meaning = contradistinction).
 
NB, an interesting way to look at it — the pull towards conceptual unification has the air of keen razoring — why have two concept when one will do. However, this intuition is perfidious: unobserved unification is an additional intruder/usurper which itself necessitates razoring away.
 
 
1. Utterly separable?
I had written:
I suspect the correct answer for now is conceptually ‘utterly separable’ because that’s the way we currently perceive things to be (via colliders and calculations)…
 
But I was wrong.
 
‘Utterly separable’ is not the way we currently perceive of spacetime & entities. We naturally perceive space and time as the indispensable dimensions of (and between) entities.
I was confusing this natural perception with that common naive conceptualization of entities being contained within pre-existing space and time. This childish conception is further cemented by talk of ‘empty space’, Kantian a priori, etc., and so it deftly takes on the mantle of a pure percept rather than the infectious proto-concept that it is.
 
More to the point, our concepts must match observable reality!
We ‘see’ space and time as abstracted out from observed entities, we experience these dimensions as utterly relational and therefore un-separable from entities/events.
 
I’ll risk letting you in to my germinating thought process on reading of SL’s reply:
…Oh but I was speaking conceptually, not actually — arghhh whoops! There's my mistake laid bare — there ought not be any difference: objective actuality is the only valid building-block for concepts.
 
 
Therefore SL is correct, spacetime (space–time) is actually relational and thus can not garner ‘separate concept status’ from entities (mass-energy).
 
NB, our maintenance of separate words for ‘spacetime’ and ‘entities’ doesn’t amount to ‘separate concept status’ because ‘spacetime’ is still a legitimate abstraction, similar to any mathematical abstraction derived from observable entities and their relationships.
 
 
2. Both parts working together as a mutually generating dichotomy?
 
 
Agreed, as I’ve just argued, a relational existent isn’t a ‘separable part’ or ‘conceptual concrete’ so it follows that spacetime shouldn’t be thought of as ‘one part’ of a ‘dichotomy’ with entities.   
 
 
3. Neither?
By process of elimination we find ourselves going with the third alternative (I suppose I could have offered a fourth ‘both 1&2 option’ ~ but two wrongs don’t make a right!).
 
To reiterate…
 
If the simpler model is valid, these ‘twin’ existents (mass-energy + spacetime curvature) are best conceived as:
Mass-energy (absolute entities) acting in a spacial–temporal (‘spacetime’) relationship.
 
Simple really, and I think this fits in with the spirit of SL’s…
 
It also chimes with MisterSwig’s insistence that “…space is not material”.
 
 
 
Good — I feel cleansed!
 
 
 
Now, shall we end the topic here ~ an initial foray into conceptualizing spacetime? 
(Or are there still flaws in my reasoning)?
 
 
 
P.S. As we are in the forum’s Physics and Mathematics department, I’ll remind inquisitive minds of the previous links to John A Macken’s physics-heavy work; The Universe is Only Spacetime: Particles, Fields and Forces Derived from the Simplest Starting Assumption + his recent draft summary — Single Component Model of the Universe.
If you think this represents a route towards a fuller understanding of the physical universe ~ or not ~ please post below.
 

The concerns about nationalism stem from a bunch of linked issues that have recently risen to the fore: migrants and borders, (purported) racial supremacy, egalitarianism, "inclusivism/exclusivism", trade tariff wars, military wars with neighbors, and so on. The entire problem superficially appears to be answered by nations being absorbed into one another. No borders ... etc. Take away national, ethnic, wealth inequalities/differences, say the anti-nationalist globalists, and there would be assured amicability and harmony for all. "Nothing to kill or die for...imagine all the people, living life in peace..." (nice song).
But I think this is a dangerously unrealistic, naive view of human nature. We can see from history and from our general experience of individuals and 'groups' of individuals that people have and still have, perversely, reveled in their "differences". Superficial ones, or not so. Sometimes this was a weak attempt at individualism, sometimes a collective/tribalist fear of 'the other' (tribe), sometimes the same tribalist assumption of superiority: we are right/good, they are wrong/bad. (If - rational - Objectivist organizations and individuals could 'split' - for ultimately inessential causes - it doesn't look hopeful for larger populations). People will *find* differences, rational and irrational, one example being civil wars.
In a nutshell, if such differences can't be rationally dealt with within a present 'Sovereign State', they will simply be exacerbated and multiplied within a much larger context. The answer naturally is individual rights. An individual is "different" so to say, in that he/she is autonomous.
"Such a nation has the right to its own sovereignty (derived from the rights of its civilians)". AR
I take this to mean that, causally, the individualism of the nation (nation-ism, nationalism) is conferred by the individualism of its people, an *extension* of their rights.. 
When and where citizens in a nation/country can, to begin with, respect the rights of others, their freedom of expression, of association, etc., the fact of and conviction in others' individual sovereignty will become solidified, and so increased benevolence and so more considerate, mannered behavior to others. It's not a 'perfect' system, since no large number of people, nor a (minimal) government, nor an individual at all times, can be 'perfect' - but better than perfect: the only one, ever, which is based on the nature of mankind.
For all the globalists' possibly "good intentions", any Utopianist project involving the dissolution of a nation's character into others, 'the one into the many', I think will necessarily be totalitarian to end with if not to begin, and where then, the individual's freedom of action?
Conversely, nations which respect each others' national sovereignty and deal with each other from common values and rational self-interest (or not, with those who are beyond the pale) gives the greatest probability for enduring international goodwill.

I'll respect your holding off going into a full blown exploration.
So I'll only remind you of this:  Whenever you get around to it, whatever your conception of mental things, which consist of themselves, and do not have physical "components", recall that they are causally and necessarily linked to the natural world - their very existence, and their nature,  i.e. their identity, is wholly dependent upon the natural world.  Whatever concept you come up for mental things, it must be consistent with what we know about mental things' dependence upon the existence of a brain and the brain's function and configuration, as when either of these is interfered with or destroyed so also are mental things interfered with or destroyed.  Moreover, mental things do not and cannot exist in any way independently of a functioning brain, and as such mental things exhibit a one way absolute metaphysical dependence upon the configuration and functioning of a natural material system. 
This undeniable one way absolute dependence has metaphysical philosophical consequences which should not be ignored during the full blown exploration.
Good luck!

The centrality of individual rights as an organizing principle in the conduct of government is itself an aspect of a culture only few nations have ever possessed.