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
Friday, April 26, 2019
White Identity Politics
Friday, April 26, 2019
An interview by Vox reporter Sean Illig with political scientist Ashley Gardina discusses evidence that social unease, tinged with some racism, has fueled the rise of white identity politics among about 35% of white Americans. Vox writes:
Jardina argues that her research is showing that demographic change is fueling white social unease: “At this point today, it’s projected that whites will cease to be a majority by the middle of the century. This fact, which was brought into sharp relief by the election of Barack Obama, ignited a wave racial awareness among white Americans, and I think we’re still reckoning with the political consequences of this. . . . . In many ways, it’s about feeling that the privileges and status that whites have by way of their race are somehow being threatened or challenged.”
Is it social unease, economic complaints or both?: Shortly after President Trump won the electoral college in 2016, most commentators pointed to economic complaints grounded in decades of slow wage growth. After that, some research suggested that the most important factor was social unease in view of the impending white majority to minority majority demographic change. Currently, some evidence is accumulating that suggests the social unease may be easing, maybe significantly due to Trump's efforts at immigration control, and economic concerns are now coming to dominate.
At the moment, it is hard to tell whether social unease or economic complaints dominate with white identity voters. That uncertainty aside, demographic change-fueled white identity politics does seem to be a real phenomenon. If so, it is a lesson in how sensitive societies can be to demographic change.
B&B orig: 4/26/19
An interview by Vox reporter Sean Illig with political scientist Ashley Gardina discusses evidence that social unease, tinged with some racism, has fueled the rise of white identity politics among about 35% of white Americans. Vox writes:
When people talk about “identity politics,” it’s often assumed they’re referring to the politics of marginalized groups like African Americans, LGBTQ people, or any group that is organizing on the basis of a shared experience of injustice — and that’s a perfectly reasonable assumption.
Traditionally, identity has only really been a question for non-dominant groups in society. If you’re a member of the dominant group, your identity is taken for granted precisely because it’s not threatened. But the combination of demographic shifts and demagogic politicians has transformed the landscape of American politics. Now, white identity has been fully activated.
This is the argument Duke political scientist Ashley Jardina makes in her book White Identity Politics. Drawing on a decade of data from American National Election Studies surveys, Jardina claims that white Americans — roughly 30 to 40 percent of them — now identify with their whiteness in a politically meaningful way. Importantly, this racial solidarity doesn’t always overlap with racism, but it does mean that racial identity is becoming a more salient force in American politics.
Sean Illing: You open the book with a great quote from James Baldwin about how identity is “questioned only when it is menaced.” What’s the significance of this quote?
Ashley Jardina: It was so fitting when I was thinking about what gives rise to an identity like white identity, or really any dominant group identity. The important thing to note about dominant group identities is that we often think of them as invisible — and part of the reason is because dominant groups like whites in this society typically haven’t been forced to think about their identity.
Prior to a couple years ago, whites felt secure in the belief that they held a disproportionate share of economic and political and social resources, so their lives weren’t over-determined by their race. But now white identity has become salient as white Americans feel more and more threatened, and that fear has activated identity in a way we haven’t seen for some time.
Jardina argues that her research is showing that demographic change is fueling white social unease: “At this point today, it’s projected that whites will cease to be a majority by the middle of the century. This fact, which was brought into sharp relief by the election of Barack Obama, ignited a wave racial awareness among white Americans, and I think we’re still reckoning with the political consequences of this. . . . . In many ways, it’s about feeling that the privileges and status that whites have by way of their race are somehow being threatened or challenged.”
Is it social unease, economic complaints or both?: Shortly after President Trump won the electoral college in 2016, most commentators pointed to economic complaints grounded in decades of slow wage growth. After that, some research suggested that the most important factor was social unease in view of the impending white majority to minority majority demographic change. Currently, some evidence is accumulating that suggests the social unease may be easing, maybe significantly due to Trump's efforts at immigration control, and economic concerns are now coming to dominate.
At the moment, it is hard to tell whether social unease or economic complaints dominate with white identity voters. That uncertainty aside, demographic change-fueled white identity politics does seem to be a real phenomenon. If so, it is a lesson in how sensitive societies can be to demographic change.
B&B orig: 4/26/19
Thursday, April 25, 2019
Capitalism Being Questioned
Thursday, April 25, 2019
An undercurrent of questioning of the benefits of capitalism is beginning to be noticed. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell recently commented: “I never thought in my lifetime we’d be having a debate about the virtues of capitalism. For goodness sake, we are.” He indicated that the strategy for republicans to run in 2020 will be as a “firewall against socialism.”
The Washington Post writes: “For the first time in decades, capitalism’s future is a subject of debate among presidential hopefuls and a source of growing angst for America’s business elite. In places such as Silicon Valley, the slopes of Davos, Switzerland, and the halls of Harvard Business School, there is a sense that the kind of capitalism that once made America an economic envy is responsible for the growing inequality and anger that is tearing the country apart.
Americans still loved technology, [California democratic representative] Ro Khanna said, but too many of them felt locked out of the country’s economic future and were looking for someone to blame. ‘What happened to us?’ he imagined people in these left-behind places asking.
Part of Khanna’s solution was to sign on as co-chairman of the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the democratic socialist who rose to the national stage by railing against ‘the handful of billionaires’ who ‘control the economic and political life of this nation’, and who disproportionately live in Khanna’s district.
The other part of Khanna’s solution was to do what he was doing now, talking to billionaire tech executives like Larsen who worried that the current path for both capitalism and Silicon Valley was unsustainable.”
It may be the case that wealth inequality and limited growth in real wages for average workers (a point that is disputed) is beginning to lead some to question the merits of capitalism. The rise of democratic socialists in the democratic party is probably also helping to raise the issue in many people's minds.
The 2020 elections could hinge mostly on concerns related to capitalism vs socialism. If so, that would suggest that racial and social concerns over illegal immigration and demographic changes that dominated the 2016 election have been replaced by economic concerns as the top voter issue. If wealth distribution strongly skewed to the top is a factor, maybe the virtues of capitalism are being seriously questioned.
An undercurrent of questioning of the benefits of capitalism is beginning to be noticed. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell recently commented: “I never thought in my lifetime we’d be having a debate about the virtues of capitalism. For goodness sake, we are.” He indicated that the strategy for republicans to run in 2020 will be as a “firewall against socialism.”
The Washington Post writes: “For the first time in decades, capitalism’s future is a subject of debate among presidential hopefuls and a source of growing angst for America’s business elite. In places such as Silicon Valley, the slopes of Davos, Switzerland, and the halls of Harvard Business School, there is a sense that the kind of capitalism that once made America an economic envy is responsible for the growing inequality and anger that is tearing the country apart.
Americans still loved technology, [California democratic representative] Ro Khanna said, but too many of them felt locked out of the country’s economic future and were looking for someone to blame. ‘What happened to us?’ he imagined people in these left-behind places asking.
Part of Khanna’s solution was to sign on as co-chairman of the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the democratic socialist who rose to the national stage by railing against ‘the handful of billionaires’ who ‘control the economic and political life of this nation’, and who disproportionately live in Khanna’s district.
The other part of Khanna’s solution was to do what he was doing now, talking to billionaire tech executives like Larsen who worried that the current path for both capitalism and Silicon Valley was unsustainable.”
It may be the case that wealth inequality and limited growth in real wages for average workers (a point that is disputed) is beginning to lead some to question the merits of capitalism. The rise of democratic socialists in the democratic party is probably also helping to raise the issue in many people's minds.
The 2020 elections could hinge mostly on concerns related to capitalism vs socialism. If so, that would suggest that racial and social concerns over illegal immigration and demographic changes that dominated the 2016 election have been replaced by economic concerns as the top voter issue. If wealth distribution strongly skewed to the top is a factor, maybe the virtues of capitalism are being seriously questioned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)