Saturday, April 26, 2019
What "time" is, is a very basic and fundamental question. And contrary to the "science is complete, or near complete" advocates, I think we are FAR from understanding our universe if we don't have a clue on such a basic feature of it.
If folks here aren't familiar with the issue -- there are to my knowledge 3 primary models of time.
The most common model for most of history was to treat time as just a convenient metric to refer to sequential state changes. This is often called the "A" model of time, or Presentism in philosophy. In this model, "time" doesn't really exist -- it is an invented concept by us to refer to the history of state sequences, and to project future state sequences. The only things that actually exist are the things of the universe, and they only exist in their "present" state -- hence"presentism".
The more common model among physicists today is Block time, or the "B" model of time. This model treats time as a dimension of a 4-D Space-time continuum. This is Einstein's model behind General Relativity. In Block Time -- the past, present, and future all have the same status -- there is no special feature to the present. And the future is already set.
A third model is Growing Time -- which treats the PAST as in Block time, but the future does not yet exist. The present has a special status as the edge of Growing Time. Growing time was developed as a "fusion" model -- an effort to find away to incorporate the best features of Block time and presentism in a better model.
Several recent books advocating for one or another of these time models:
https://www.amazon.com/Now-Physics-Time-Richard-Muller/dp/0393354814/ref=sr_1_21?qid=1554052463&s=books&sr=1-21
https://www.amazon.com/Singular-Universe-Reality-Time-Philosophy/dp/1107074061/ref=pd_sim_14_3/142-1644542-8390269?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1107074061&pd_rd_r=e0f49f8f-53d8-11e9-b6b9-cd59af5e4b95&pd_rd_w=C6bGd&pd_rd_wg=435Rj&pf_rd_p=90485860-83e9-4fd9-b838-b28a9b7fda30&pf_rd_r=A4MCG724N1CV7NYNAZE6&psc=1&refRID=A4MCG724N1CV7NYNAZE6
https://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Black-Holes/dp/0816147736/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=a+brief+history+of+time&qid=1554052738&s=books&sr=1-2
These books provided fairly effective criticisms of the competing models of time:
* Block time provides no explanation of our sense of the present -- a theory of time which fails to predict or usefully understand the primary feature of time -- is a remarkably weak "theory".
* Block time is in conflict with all indeterministic models of Quantum Mechanics (which is most, or arguably all of them).
* Presentism appears to be in conflict with actual physics, in which all events and interactions have duration -- an infinitesimal approach to time's extent -- cannot usefully address how our universe seems to be coupled into longer periods than an instant.
* Block time is very useful in both relativity, and in modeling the outcomes of QM interactions, while presentism cannot support either. Using the "indirect inference to reality" model of science -- this is strong evidence for block time over presentism.
* Growing time gives the present a special status, addressing one flaw of Block time, but in growing time the present is absolutely SECONDARY to the past. But we don't seem to be able to interact with the past -- and the present seems to be far far more important than the past -- so a model that declared the inaccessible past to be "real", and the present is special in only a minor derivative way -- is still not a particularly useful model. Growing time also does not address the thick time problem for an instantaneous present.
My takeaway from my reading is -- we don't have ANY good time models.
B&B orig: 4/1/19
Saturday, April 27, 2019
Is Deceit Almost as Bad as Violence?
Saturday, April 27, 2019
One observer makes these comments about lies and deceit:
Maybe violence itself should be more broadly seen to include non-violent acts (soft violence?) such as theft, Ponzi schemes, and tax evasion (illegal tax cheating).
Deceit tactics such as lying and hiding truth are probably much more immoral and socially harmful than most people think.
Footnotes:
1. Also, these, for example: white collar crimes, political lies, political misinformation, tax cheating (currently running at about $400-$600 billion/year in the US, domestic violence, all gun violence (about $229 billion/year), rape ('It was consensual'), racism (I didn't discriminate against that job applicant'), etc.
2. Referring to Bill Clinton’s thundering silence when he learned that “a semen-stained dress was en route to the lab.” Before he was aware of that imminent proof of his lies, Clinton was indignantly denying any sexual improprieties. The prospect of a DNA test shut him up real quick: “The mere threat of a DNA analysis produced what no grand jury ever could -- instantaneous communication with the great man’s conscience which appeared to be located in another galaxy.”
One observer makes these comments about lies and deceit:
When evaluating the social costs of deception, we need to consider all of the misdeeds -- premeditated murders, terrorist atrocities, genocides, Ponzi schemes[1] -- that must be nurtured and shored up, at every turn, by lies. Viewed in this wider context, deception lends itself, perhaps even above violence, as the principal enemy of human cooperation. Imagine how the world would change if, when the truth really mattered, it became impossible to lie. What would international relations be like if every time a person shaded the truth on the floor of the United Nations an alarm went off throughout the building? . . . . We can be sure that a dependable method of lie detection would produce similar transformations, on far more consequential subjects.[2] . . . . Methodological problems notwithstanding, it is difficult to exaggerate how fully our world would change if lie detectors ever became reliable, affordable and unobtrusive.When viewed this way, the act of deceit broadly seen, e.g., lying, misinforming, hiding truth, emotionally manipulating people to impair their conscious reasoning capacity, etc., does look to be almost as bad as overt violence. Deceit seems to accompany violence almost every time it happens. Exceptions, e.g., self-defense, are rare.
Maybe violence itself should be more broadly seen to include non-violent acts (soft violence?) such as theft, Ponzi schemes, and tax evasion (illegal tax cheating).
Deceit tactics such as lying and hiding truth are probably much more immoral and socially harmful than most people think.
Footnotes:
1. Also, these, for example: white collar crimes, political lies, political misinformation, tax cheating (currently running at about $400-$600 billion/year in the US, domestic violence, all gun violence (about $229 billion/year), rape ('It was consensual'), racism (I didn't discriminate against that job applicant'), etc.
2. Referring to Bill Clinton’s thundering silence when he learned that “a semen-stained dress was en route to the lab.” Before he was aware of that imminent proof of his lies, Clinton was indignantly denying any sexual improprieties. The prospect of a DNA test shut him up real quick: “The mere threat of a DNA analysis produced what no grand jury ever could -- instantaneous communication with the great man’s conscience which appeared to be located in another galaxy.”
Lobbyists: Writing Laws for a Good Return On Investment
Saturday, April 27, 2019
The Sunlight Foundation published a study on the return on investment (ROI) that lobbying can generate. The study, Fixed Fortunes: Biggest corporate political interests spend billions, get trillions, suggests ROI can be pretty good: “After examining 14 million records, including data on campaign contributions, lobbying expenditures, federal budget allocations and spending, we found that, on average, for every dollar spent on influencing politics, the nation’s most politically active corporations received $760 from the government.”
That ROI is so good that it beats making and selling essentially all other goods and services. That assumes lobbying is a service and their work product is a good. Lobbying can be more profitable than doing just about anything else, maybe with the exception of some white collar crimes.
The average US Senator needs to raise about $14,000/day to stay in office. That is why lobbyists are far more important than individual voters.
Another source writes: “In many cases, lobbyists write our laws — literally.
For an example, look at the 2014 omnibus budget deal. Congress used the deal to secretly put taxpayers back on the hook for bank bailouts. That’s right – in 2014, our representatives repealed a law that prevented the American people from bailing out big banks that engage in risky derivatives trading. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
The New York Times reports that 70 of the 85 lines in the language that killed the derivatives bill came from a piece of model legislation drafted by Citigroup lobbyists. Yes, that Citigroup – the bank that played a major role in the 2008 crisis and also received billions of federal stimulus dollars.”
The Sunlight Foundation published a study on the return on investment (ROI) that lobbying can generate. The study, Fixed Fortunes: Biggest corporate political interests spend billions, get trillions, suggests ROI can be pretty good: “After examining 14 million records, including data on campaign contributions, lobbying expenditures, federal budget allocations and spending, we found that, on average, for every dollar spent on influencing politics, the nation’s most politically active corporations received $760 from the government.”
That ROI is so good that it beats making and selling essentially all other goods and services. That assumes lobbying is a service and their work product is a good. Lobbying can be more profitable than doing just about anything else, maybe with the exception of some white collar crimes.
The average US Senator needs to raise about $14,000/day to stay in office. That is why lobbyists are far more important than individual voters.
Another source writes: “In many cases, lobbyists write our laws — literally.
For an example, look at the 2014 omnibus budget deal. Congress used the deal to secretly put taxpayers back on the hook for bank bailouts. That’s right – in 2014, our representatives repealed a law that prevented the American people from bailing out big banks that engage in risky derivatives trading. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
The New York Times reports that 70 of the 85 lines in the language that killed the derivatives bill came from a piece of model legislation drafted by Citigroup lobbyists. Yes, that Citigroup – the bank that played a major role in the 2008 crisis and also received billions of federal stimulus dollars.”
What Happens to Power and Freedom When Deregulating Businesses?
Saturday, April 27, 2019
A common argument for capitalism and de-regulation is that it frees average people from soul-killing bureaucracy, oppression, tyranny and other evils. That raises the question: What happens to power when capitalism is freed and regulations are removed?
When government regulations are removed, most of the resulting new power flows from government to elsewhere. New power arises from freedom from regulations and burdens, including taxes. Power or freedom can flow to individuals or citizens generally, and/or various special interests including businesses and social and religious organizations such as political parties and specific religious denominations.
The business of business is business: Obviously, special interests will take as much of the new power as they can. For example, if environmental regulations are removed, businesses will pollute more and whatever costs are associated will be externalized to the local region, the entire nation or even the whole planet, depending on what pollutant(s) is involved. That will lower costs. Individuals and consumers may or may not see most of the cost savings. That will depend on market conditions.
In another example, deregulation of product safety standards for products will shift the burden of loss or injury from businesses to consumers. That will tend to favor businesses because going to court is expensive and often or usually not worth the time and expense. In that regard, most of the newly created power will flow from government to businesses. The lost regulations favored consumers. That protection is largely gone.
Similarly, deregulation of the payday loan industry, which the Trump administration recently accomplished, will make it easier for more consumers to go bankrupt. Apparently, most of the new power will flow to those businesses.
The business of government is protecting the public interest: On balance, deregulation will tend to free businesses and organizations to a significantly greater extent than individuals and consumers. In essence, power and freedom will flow to the private sector, whose focus is profit, not the public interest.
In theory, government is more accountable to individuals and consumers than private sector interests. At least politicians face elections. CEOs and investors in businesses do not face elections, and when business sectors are significantly deregulated, they do not face regulatory sanction when individuals and consumers are cheated or harmed.
THE QUESTIONS: 1. Is the net effect of deregulation usually more freedom enhancing for special interests or individuals-consumers?
2. Is the net effect of deregulation usually more freedom enhancing or freedom sapping for individuals-consumers?
B&B orig: 4/10/19
A common argument for capitalism and de-regulation is that it frees average people from soul-killing bureaucracy, oppression, tyranny and other evils. That raises the question: What happens to power when capitalism is freed and regulations are removed?
When government regulations are removed, most of the resulting new power flows from government to elsewhere. New power arises from freedom from regulations and burdens, including taxes. Power or freedom can flow to individuals or citizens generally, and/or various special interests including businesses and social and religious organizations such as political parties and specific religious denominations.
The business of business is business: Obviously, special interests will take as much of the new power as they can. For example, if environmental regulations are removed, businesses will pollute more and whatever costs are associated will be externalized to the local region, the entire nation or even the whole planet, depending on what pollutant(s) is involved. That will lower costs. Individuals and consumers may or may not see most of the cost savings. That will depend on market conditions.
In another example, deregulation of product safety standards for products will shift the burden of loss or injury from businesses to consumers. That will tend to favor businesses because going to court is expensive and often or usually not worth the time and expense. In that regard, most of the newly created power will flow from government to businesses. The lost regulations favored consumers. That protection is largely gone.
Similarly, deregulation of the payday loan industry, which the Trump administration recently accomplished, will make it easier for more consumers to go bankrupt. Apparently, most of the new power will flow to those businesses.
The business of government is protecting the public interest: On balance, deregulation will tend to free businesses and organizations to a significantly greater extent than individuals and consumers. In essence, power and freedom will flow to the private sector, whose focus is profit, not the public interest.
In theory, government is more accountable to individuals and consumers than private sector interests. At least politicians face elections. CEOs and investors in businesses do not face elections, and when business sectors are significantly deregulated, they do not face regulatory sanction when individuals and consumers are cheated or harmed.
THE QUESTIONS: 1. Is the net effect of deregulation usually more freedom enhancing for special interests or individuals-consumers?
2. Is the net effect of deregulation usually more freedom enhancing or freedom sapping for individuals-consumers?
B&B orig: 4/10/19
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)