Okay, let's gat back to spaaaace! So many reasons to be enthusiastic and to see our shared accomplishments out there as signs of real civilization, down here on Earth... a civilization worth saving. Plus a few causes for cynicism, alas.
== Dealing (or not) With Dangers! ==
Breakthrough methods pioneered by the B612 Foundation are finding hundreds of asteroids - some of them dangerous - by mining past data sets. A great way for a small foundation to amplify the more expensive projects funded by governments. Small enough and effective enough to perhaps merit your support. (I am on the B612 advisory board.)
A Very Long Baseline radio telescope array (I worked for one of the first VLBI systems one summer, in 1969) spanning the entire Earth - the Event Horizon Telescope - has imaged the supermassive black hole - Sagittarius A* - at the center of the Milky Way galaxy.
Taking the Sagittarius A* image (shown to the left) was like capturing a photo of a grain of salt in New York City using a camera in Los Angeles, according to California Institute of Technology researchers.
Somewhat smaller… Astronomers believe that 100 million free-floating black holes – largely left over from supernovas - roam our galaxy. Now, after dedicating six years to observations, astronomers apparently found one about 5,000 light years away, located in another spiral arm of the Milky Way. And with gravitational lensing, they made a precise mass measurement of the extreme cosmic object, which might possibly be ‘only’ a neutron star.
Meanwhile, Europe’s legendary GAIA space telescope has been an absolute treasure for science, concentrating first on measuring parallax and proper motions of millions of stars near us, then gathering color/spectral data on billions more - – about 1% of the total number in the galaxy – and are allowing astronomers to reconstruct our home galaxy’s structure and find out how it has evolved over billions of years.
You are a member of a civilization that does this kind of thing.
== Back in your SSR backyard – Your Solar System Region! ==
Meanwhile, we keep being inspired by the great Perseverance/Ingenuity mission. The little 'copter snapped these closeups of the now-standard and reliable sky-crane landing system, whose components seem to have crashed more durably than expected.
It makes one wonder: Would it really be that hard to enable these other bits to land softly enough to serve some purpose? Say as a weather station? The rocket+crane bit, especially. It must fly away from the main cargo/rover, sure. But how hard would it be to throttle the remaining fuel-seconds to set down with a simple weather sensors + transmitter? Use up the safety margin!
Anyway, Perseverance and Ingenuity keep surprising us! Like this ballyhooed “doorway” in the face of a cliff. Oh, I totally believe it is a natural fissure... but still, they really need to drive up and get a closer look. One Earth, clean vertical cleavages, like railroad cuts - were key to the sudden emergence of both geology and paleontology.
Phobos could possibly be among the most valuable pieces of real estate in the solar system, if there are volatiles under the surface that can be turned into water and fuel. See the gorgeous images of Phobos eclipsing the sun, taken by the Perseverance rover!
We know that the magnetic poles of our planet sometimes drift (as today the North Magnetic Pole is rapidly moving to Siberia) and occasionally quell or even flip. Now comes speculation that such flips can happen on a massive scale, even to the monster black hole at the center of a galaxy 250 million light years away.
Farther out: The Decadal Survey of NASA advisors has recommended priority be given to… Uranus!
And emerging from some of our old grants at NIAC… the Da Vinci+ probe will try to repeat what Cassini-Huygens did for Titan, only for Venus! I wish the descender-probe had a slow-down balloon, but this will still be… well, not cool. Hot! At the end of the decade.
And Truly far-out… if within reach… You’ve seen me tout NASA's Innovative & Advanced Concepts program - (NIAC) – on whose advisory council I serve. Look at their tiny seed grants to research concepts JUST this side of science fiction. These are fun, engaging, STEM books for grades 4-8 about the science and researchers behind the NIAC program. It includes information about their lives as young children and their inspiration. Produced in partnership with World Book, Inc., they recently won an award from the American Library Association (ALA). A third series is in early development. The two series help to support a big part of what we do as an early stage technology program- to inspire the next generation of scientists and innovators, children who may eventually be running NASA missions 20 years from now. You are welcome to view the sixteen Out of This World books online here:
Series 1 Out of This World includes titles such as Asteroid: Harpooning Hitcher, Land-Sailing Venus Rover and Laser-Sailing Starships. All available online!
and Series 2 Out of this World includes Fusion-Powered Spacecraft, Martian Cave Colonies, Solar-Surfing Space Probes and many more, also available online.
Read some of these then look around... and have some confidence.
117 comments:
One of my favorite time wastes is arguing with flatearthers and moon landing "skeptics" on Facebook and YouTube. I am happy to report progress. One of my challenges is, "Go to your local university library and read the January 30,1970 issue of Science with its 144 peer reviewed scientific papers on the Apollo 11 mission." A moon landing denier has promised to drive 100 miles one way to do so.
I suggest viewing the hard copy for the sheer emotional impact of the shelves full of a vast body of scientific literature. What is the value to the Illuminati, I ask, of faking thousands of papers in The Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, for example? Nearly all of the volumes haven't been touched since the last remodel.
Don Gisselbeck:
What is the value to the Illuminati, I ask, of faking thousands of papers in The Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, for example? Nearly all of the volumes haven't been touched since the last remodel.
Likewise, baby Barack Obama's birth announcement in a 1961 Honolulu newspaper.
For that to be part of a conspiracy would mean that a fake announcement was placed in a Hawaiian newspaper for the sole purpose of establishing that a particular black baby who was actually foreign-born would be eligible to run for president of the United States. In 1961.
Schrödinger's conspirators, simultaneously so smart they can outwit the world's best experts, but so stupid they leave clues that can be uncovered by random cranks on the internet.
I still want to know why the USSR wouldn't have exposed the Apollo 11 mission as a hoax. They had the equipment to track the entire mission, and it would have been a huge propaganda coup to have shown up the US on something so major - so if the lunar landing didn't happen, why didn't they speak up?
I don't call them conspiracy "theories", I call them conspiracy "fantasies". Theories need logic and evidence, but fantasies need fun and magic.
Anyone who doesn't out a conspiracy is in on it.
Given the naming controversy, I like the references to the 'Just Wonderful Space Telescope' that have been cropping up.
It has already caused a stir: big bright galaxies at a time and place where no big bright galaxies ought to be.*
* According to dark matter models, at least. MOND can reportedly account for the observations but... we don't talk about MOND.
Having read/heard dozens of conspiracy theories - each nuttier than the last - and having watched them take hold of so many minds over the past decade I have come to the conclusion that fully 1/3 of our fellow Americans (indeed our fellow humans) are simply not smart enough to be capable of rational thought.
We should simply stop wondering why these people think the way they do, or try to reach out to them and change their minds, and just accept the fact that they just aren't very bright and never will be.
You can't fix stupid and you can't make pigs fly.
Granted we need to keep a watchful eye on these people as they often turn violent, but it is high time we simply got on with our lives and stopped worrying about them.
Jon S
It was not "just" the USSR that could track the moon missions - as well as every other "advanced" country there were HIGH SCHOOLS that were tracking the locations the signals were coming from - several high schools in the UK had set up simple radio telescopes and were tracking all of the satellite launches and publishing their ideas about the purpose of each launch
Flat earthers - tell them to "call a friend" and simply ask where the sun is - everybody has a friend or a friend of a friend who is far enough away and with todays phones it simple
My brother is in Scotland so for me its "night and day" and "summer and winter"
Tell 'em to go out and 'watch the skies' for the ISS, at a set time.
Re: ...simply not smart enough to be capable of rational thought...
Like Francis Collins perhaps. Man follows only phantoms. This was a feature on the savanna, now it's a bug.
You know what is strange about those qonspiracy terrorists? That they never seem to uncover true conspiracies - which exist. Nothing about inept bureaucrats covering up stuff, corruption, organized crime, secret services, (techn)oligarch cabals, the tricks by which the wealthy press out the poor ever more.
That would require hard journalistic work, and at times, integrity and courage. So it all comes down to ... laziness and lack of principles.
DP:
I have come to the conclusion that fully 1/3 of our fellow Americans (indeed our fellow humans) are simply not smart enough to be capable of rational thought.
We should simply stop wondering why these people think the way they do, or try to reach out to them and change their minds, and just accept the fact that they just aren't very bright and never will be
Rational thought takes work. And it's not always pleasantly rewarding. It takes a certain type of person to willingly consider and act on possible outcomes that one would rather not believe. Trump supporters almost by definition would prefer to believe Trump's bull semen (because it's great bull semen) instead of thinking about what logically follows.
George Orwell warned that those who don't accept reality eventually run into it, usually on a battlefield. But what I'm seeing is people who think reality is so inhospitable that there's no downside to embracing fantasy instead. They're willing to see western democracy destroyed and the planet made unlivable for humans as long as the reality TV show of their lives is exciting and entertaining.
It's logical to assume that a real conspiracy would spread false and misleading conspiracy fantasies. For instance, the USAF covering up its avionics experiments in Area 52 by not correcting rumors of alien activity there.
@ Larry Hart:
They're willing to see western democracy destroyed and the planet made unlivable for humans as long as the reality TV show of their lives is exciting and entertaining.
I tend to be ambivalent about that. While I see serious issues, I believe, in the end we will prevail. The costs might be unsettling to ponder, though.
Sometimes, I think the future presented in the cyberpunk genre with it's defining components is no longer a futuristic setting, it's the present. Corporate feudalism, bankruptcy of the political system, environmental disasters, Orwellian surveillance tech, to name a few, countered by a myriad of glitzy, yet shallow entertainment possibilities.
On the other hand, I do see societal changes on small levels, maybe too small, but still existing. For many, the world is brighter now than it was twenty or forty years ago, and those who seek to oppress liberty and truth have it harder every day. Cultural thinking in many countries has shifted to inclusion, sustainability and awareness for the problems ahead.
Der Oger:
Orwellian surveillance tech, to name a few,
One thing I don't think was ever envisioned in dystopian fiction was the present level of technological surveillance with the willing participation of the surveilled.
those who seek to oppress liberty and truth have it harder every day. Cultural thinking in many countries has shifted to inclusion, sustainability and awareness for the problems ahead.
The deplorables are a shrinking minority, but they hold the levers of power--both political and paramilitary--and they're willing to do whatever it takes to assert (as some idiot on right-wing media once put it) their constitutional right not to have things change.
Der Oger:
Science fiction is rarely a literature of the future, except by accident; usually it's a literature of the present in disguise. The disguise allows honesty and imagination. Dreaming is more lifelike than reporting because life is more like a dream than a report.
Sometimes, I think the future presented in the cyberpunk genre with it's defining components is no longer a futuristic setting, it's the present. Corporate feudalism, bankruptcy of the political system, environmental disasters, Orwellian surveillance tech, to name a few, countered by a myriad of glitzy, yet shallow entertainment possibilities.
Leaving aside the imagery and the whole 'plug your brain into a computer' thing, a lot of the action in cyberpunk was already happening when cyberpunk started.
"The future is already here – it's just not very evenly distributed." as William Gibson famously said.
@Robert:
Leaving aside the imagery and the whole 'plug your brain into a computer' thing, a lot of the action in cyberpunk was already happening when cyberpunk started.
And even that could become a reality within the next two decades, if Musks and other's Neurolink project works. Also, great advances in AI and drone technologies.
@Paradoctor:
Science fiction is rarely a literature of the future, except by accident; usually it's a literature of the present in disguise. The disguise allows honesty and imagination. Dreaming is more lifelike than reporting because life is more like a dream than a report.
I agree. But sometimes, Sci Fi points the way to new inventions and technologies, and maybe increases acceptance of them. For example, when Star Trek TNG aired, I was awed at the touch screen and vocal interfaces used ... only to see them abundantly used during my lifetime.
One thing I don't think was ever envisioned in dystopian fiction was the present level of technological surveillance with the willing participation of the surveilled.
Dave Eggers "The Circle" did, though I remember our host has a dim view of the author. Also, NSA by Andreas Eschbach and the whole backstory of the Deus Ex line of games, especially the first. Enemy of the State by Tony Scott touches it, also Snowdons biography.
I think the massive surveillance possibilities used by states (and now culminating in the rogue use of the Pegasus software) was depicted as a positive thing in our Hollywood-dominated culture, or at least as a "necessary evil" in "The War on Terror". Though some have warned against this gradual loss of privacy (and thereby also freedom), it was ignored by the majority of the population (and not so much supported)
And now an activist SCOTUS has repudiated the right to privacy, because it was in the way of Roe v Wade. Expect further erosion of the right to privacy, when the war-on-abortion becomes Drug War 2.0 in endless pursuit of abortion drugs. Are you for 86? If not, then hello asset forfeiture upon accusation.
The Supremes failed to consider that if there is no right to privacy, then there is no right to private property either.
Der Oger:
"One thing I don't think was ever envisioned in dystopian fiction was the present level of technological surveillance with the willing participation of the surveilled."
Dave Eggers "The Circle" did, though I remember our host has a dim view of the author.
But social media and smartphone cameras were already pretty ubiquitous when that book was written. The book's premise was only a slight extrapolation forward. We've got criminals and insurrectionists live-streaming their own crimes to the world without the thought ever occurring to them not to record something.
I was thinking more of earlier works like 1984, in which the characters (and hence the reader) wished to avoid the surveillance. Kinda quaint now in a time when most humans voluntarily carry remote tracking devices everywhere they go.
Paradoctor:
The Supremes failed to consider that if there is no right to privacy, then there is no right to private property either.
I once would have agreed with you. But the fact is that the current right-wing, which very much includes the supreme court, doesn't care about logical consequence or consistency. They will gladly uphold anything they want to, even the parts that contradict the other parts.
It's up to We The People not to accept those rulings. When in the course of human events...
Der Oger, you miss the point re The Circle. Yes, we are all gonna be naked. But so will the powerful and the peeping toms and voyeurs and bullies. So, the crucial thing will be our VALUES.
If you are caught being a bully or voyeur, and your victim shouts "MYOB!" (Mind your own Business (and leave me alone), will the BULLIES be deemed worse than any quirk you were being bullied over?
If bullying and oppression of eccentricities are deemed EVIL, then when (not if) those are made transparent the BULLIES get punished... a possibility that Eggers refused to even remotely consider. Indeed, it is the ONLY way that we will preserve some human decency and even privacy.
I continue to be boggled by the fact that this simple logic is almost impossible to explain in a way that anyone ever 'gets.'
That scene in the Circle movie when her co-workers are oppressing her shy ex boyfriend... is there NO ONE outside the camera range aiming THEIR phones at the bullies and saying "You vile bastards. I'm sending this to your Moms!"
That scene in the Circle movie when her co-workers are oppressing her shy ex boyfriend... is there NO ONE outside the camera range aiming THEIR phones at the bullies and saying "You vile bastards. I'm sending this to your Moms!"
Apparently not, no. And I'm still not certain it will always operate the way you envision in the real world, either.
is almost impossible to explain
I don't care much if someone is still a bedwetter in their adult life.
I do care if someone is bullying them over that detail.
The question is whether I'll confront the bully. The older I get, the more likely I would.
@Dr Brin re: The Circle
I understand you wanting to make that point yet again, but Der Oger's comment to me had little if anything to do with the values aspect of The Circle. I had claimed that dystopian fiction like 1984 and others which predicted something like universal surveillance had never quite envisioned the willing complicity that the average person would have in their own tracking. Der Oger mentioned The Circle as a counterexample, but to me, that doesn't count as a prediction because the trend of one's every move being recorded on social media and internet-connected cameras was already underway when that book was published.
"Willing complicity"
OGH in his book "Earth" has a population that has learned to treat "privacy" as a "Sin"
IF we could ever get to that point then the "complicity" would be an obvious "win"
Even today for most of us "complicity" leads to far more benefits than costs
duncan cairncross:
Even today for most of us "complicity" leads to far more benefits than costs
Not necessarily arguing with that. Just noting that it wasn't the way universal surveillance and tracking were envisioned in the old days.
"Apparently not, no. And I'm still not certain it will always operate the way you envision in the real world, either."
Nor am I sure, Jon. I do know that it is the ONLY thing that can possibly work. Any effort to shut down info flows will benefit elites and - yes - benefit the bullies.
I we - as a whole - decide that outing bullies for being bullies and violating MYOB is more important than whatever eccentricity the bullies are trying to bully someone over, then eccentricity can be preserved and bullying quelled.
LOOK AT YOURSELF! You do not doubt that what I described just now is YOUR value system. What you are expressing is contempt for your neighbors that they won't be as virtuously protective of tolerance as you are. And sure, it's a fight. But millions are.
Here's another failed prediction of science fiction: the planet-mind AI. Science fiction has long predicted the rise of a planet-spanning cybernetic communications network containing all human knowledge. SF got that right; but it missed telling details. In SF it was always a unified AI. You turn on your screen and a giant head appears. It knows all and tells all. It'll help you, but it has a mind of its own and an agenda of its own. We hope that it is a benevolent Multivac, we fear that it is a malevolent Skynet.
But what we got was not an AI. It's the Internet, a network of networks, designed without center. It's not an It above us; it's Ours, it's Us. Its primary interests are porn, money, scams, jokes, cats, music, information, and disinformation. As such it is an embarrassingly accurate mirror image of us. Ecce Homo!
We are too bad for Multivac's heaven, and too good for Skynet's hell. So instead we got the planetary communications Web that we deserve.
Paradoctor: what we got was not an AI. It's the Internet
This is why I'm always on about computation. AI is a weird aspiration. Do we want artificial love, air, or peanut butter? We have intelligence. Adding the astonishing power of machine computation to that is the real Colossus. Building a planet-computer would be very useful, a planet-mind seems ill thought out. Mary Shelley explored this question over two centuries ago.
If you are caught being a bully or voyeur, and your victim shouts "MYOB!" (Mind your own Business (and leave me alone), will the BULLIES be deemed worse than any quirk you were being bullied over?
Likely not. The ability of people to forgive religious figures multiple sins while condemning outsiders for far lesser offences leads me to cynically believe that many people will continue to judge an offence more based on who did it than what was done, and continue to be just as unequal about it.
People like bullies, as long as they dislike the victim. You talked about the endorphin rush of sanctimony — I was reading a couple of weeks ago that there's a similar rush when witnessing someone you dislike being attacked.
Trump showed that being a bully wasn't a bad thing for electoral changes/popularity. A lot of the GOP seems to have learned that lesson, judging by their behaviour.
scidata:
Building a planet-computer would be very useful, a planet-mind seems ill thought out. Mary Shelley explored this question over two centuries ago.
We've come to think of Asimov's robots--especially R Daneel Olivaw--as sentient beings. I don't think it was always thus. In his earliest stories, robots really were labor-saving tools. They were humaniform because they were generalized tools, designed to perform a variety of tasks like lifting objects, moving on terrain not suited for wheels, and operating machinery that was itself designed for human manipulation. Thus the human form, albeit more durable and replaceable, was optimal.
And they had "brains" because they didn't have steering wheels or joysticks. You told the robot what to do, and it had to be intelligent enough to interpret commands and understand what motions were involved in fulfilling them.
From that perspective, the purpose of an artificial intelligence is analogous to the purpose of an artificial human body--a machine which can transcend the ability to simply follow direct orders such as "pick up that widget and put it inside that box" and figure out a method of following instructions like, "Buy my girlfriend a present that she'd really like and then deliver it to her as a gift from me."
To be dangerous like the Frankenstein monster, Skynet, or Colossus, the AI would have to be able to want things and have the ability to affect the meatverse in accordance with those desires. Despite the interesting story material they make for, I'm not entirely convinced that those are necessary consequences of a machine designed to understand and carry out complex instructions.
Paradoctor clearly you never read EARTH! I am saddened. ;-)
Robert thanks for perfectly illustrating what I said to Jon. Your contempt for your neighbors, saying "people' could never share values as tolerant or openminded as yours, saddens me. Again, you GOT those values somewhere. Um... Hollywood maybe? Along with a MAJORITY of your fellow citizens?
Larryhart. WANTING things is the one trait at which ALL humans are geniuses and no robot has the will of a fly. That MIGHT be a basis for synnergy, I have said so. But I would bet not
Maunakea impasse ends.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01926-2
I don't really understand the term "Different knowledge systems", but maybe it's ok.
Robert thanks for perfectly illustrating what I said to Jon. Your contempt for your neighbors, saying "people' could never share values as tolerant or openminded as yours, saddens me. Again, you GOT those values somewhere. Um... Hollywood maybe? Along with a MAJORITY of your fellow citizens?
David, maybe this is hubris, but I consider myself "people" too. And recognize that I too take a guilty delight in seeing 'the guilty' get their comeuppance. Being tolerant — truly tolerant — is hard work, just like being rational is hard work. I try to be tolerant, but I don't always succeed, and often need to have someone else point out my unexamined (and unnoticed) biases.
My experience has been that people often judge use the identity of the aggressor (and victim) in judging the seriousness, or even the existence, of an offence. Sometimes it's as obvious (and provocative) as MTG, but usually they don't even notice they're doing it.
Remember the use of blind tests in orchestra selection, which still showed a distinct bias towards selecting men until someone had the musicians take off their shoes so you couldn't hear their footfalls — and suddenly women's playing was judged better than it had been previously? Those selecting musicians were trying to pick the best musicians, but hearing a woman's heels made them unconsciously judge her playing lower.
Or consider height, which is predictive of earnings in sales and management (every inch being worth nearly $1000 a year on average). We appear to be hard-wired to consider tall people more worthy than short people.
You've talked before, many times, about the seductive rush of sanctimony and how easy it is to get hooked on it. (It was even a plot point in one or two of your novels, IIRC.) My point is that there's also a rush in bullying, or witnessing bullying, as long as the victim is part of an outgroup. That kind of behaviour seems to be increasingly normalized in politics as practiced by many republicans; it's like they are deliberately triggering the rush for their supporters.
And that's why I remain unconvinced that bullies will be judged harsher than victims. If bullies were judged harshly for bullying then Alex Jones wouldn't have listeners, Rob Ford wouldn't have been elected, etc etc.
The trick is to design/evolve a system that reins in our worst impulses: bullying, sanctimony, tribal loyalties, etc. I have no idea how to do that; if I did I'd be working in politics, not commenting here. Will knowing why bullying is rewarding make it easier to counteract? Maybe, just as knowing why sanctimony is rewarding might help.
I know you're big in transparency as a solution. Hey, I bought The Transparent Society as soon as it was published, in hardcover! I'm just not convinced that people simply knowing the facts is enough. People are really resistant to changing their minds and worldviews, and not just about politics, even if they want to. (I'm trying to learn quantum mechanics, and it's really slow going. I can do the math, but I have no 'feel' for it like I do with Newtonian mechanics. Trying to overturn decades of looking at the world one way is tough.) People will actively deny inconvenient facts to maintain their views. The earth is flat. Apollo 11 was faked. Crystals and essential oils heal. Trump won the election.
Transparency may be necessary, but I don't think it's sufficient.
Do we want artificial love, air, or peanut butter?
I want artificial peanut butter, so long as it tastes like the real thing. It'd be nice if the price point of the product were no longer affected by the harvest, which isn't looking great for the foreseeable future.
So far, though, I'm unconvinced that sapient AI is an achievable goal, particularly with the technology we're able to bring to bear on the question. I'm hoping for a strong AI that can do inductive reasoning on requests, but I'm beginning to doubt that it's possible to design an artificial intelligence that can think on its own, that can have desires of any sort. (If anyone does create such a thing, I certainly hope they keep it under wraps until they can teach it not to pay attention to what the worst of us will tell it! Remember Microsoft's chatbot a few years back?)
Historian Patricia Limerick postulates the fifteen percent jerk rule.(Fun brain function fact, in trying to remember the name, I thought it was Patricia Ireland.)
https://www.denverpost.com/2015/12/18/limerick-jerk-studies-101/
It's nice to see Larry & Robert borrow my talking points about how transparency relates to complicity.
What is Moral Complicity ?
It's when We_The_People embrace, tolerate and accept the moral failings, sins & corruptions of others, after recognizing the same shortcomings in ourselves, with the expectation that the others will return the favour when our places are reversed.
Some call it 'tit-for-tat', while others prefer finer sounding euphemisms like 'forgiveness', 'tolerance', 'acceptance' and 'mercy', but it always takes the form of reciprocal moral blindness.
It's also why (1) transparency doesn't eliminate corruption in & of itself, (2) tolerance almost always equals moral corruption, (3) moral enforcement is synonymous with intolerance and (4) blackmail approximates transparency without mercy, as only an intolerant jerk would punish others for his own failings.
Best
______
Sentience presupposes some degree of tropism, an attraction towards (or a repulsion away) from a stimulus, which may reflect an involuntary process & need not represent the conscious activity of 'wanting things'.
Learn linguistic precision.
Robert I appreciate yuour sincerity and intelligence. But alas, your missive just now shows how you ARE just like the 'people" you describe... because you are not even remotely listening to what I am saying.
" I'm just not convinced that people simply knowing the facts is enough. "
And will you show me where I said that?
EVERYTHING about my assertion is about VALUES. The primary American value system prom,ulgated by Hollywood. The value system that you consider central... as do I... though alas it also includes reflexive contempt for your neighbores, assuming that THEY DON'T share that value system.
Can you please, please try to wrap your head around that? Look in a mirror and ask "where did I get these values of Suspicion of Authority (SoA), tolerance, diversity, accountability, appreciation of individual eccentricity and all the rest? And is it possible - remotely - that some of my neighbors got the same values from the same sources?
Maybe not just some... but half of them? Even a majority?
Although as quick skim suggests he took vitamins this time... I am too tired to dive into locum's latest strawman, except to see that it has nothing to do with what anyone here said.
EVERYTHING about my assertion is about VALUES. The primary American value system prom,ulgated by Hollywood. The value system that you consider central... as do I... though alas it also includes reflexive contempt for your neighbores, assuming that THEY DON'T share that value system.
I thought you were talking about transparency?
Nor am I sure, Jon. I do know that it is the ONLY thing that can possibly work. Any effort to shut down info flows will benefit elites and - yes - benefit the bullies.
What I'm trying to point out is that humans apparently have a drive to see wrongdoers punished (as do other primates), which making wrongdoings public clearly aids in. But we also have a tendency to apply different standards to "us" and "them", which in the extreme leads to us taking delight in seeing them suffer just for being them, but in a less-extreme expression leads to us judging them more harshly than we judge ourselves (i.e. members of our group) for the same actions.
So leading back to bullying, if the victim is part of the outgroup then we will tend to treat the bullying as less of a problem — and possibly even support it, depending on how we see the outgroup. Knowing about the bullying is a first step (and essential, I agree with you there), but simply knowing isn't enough. We also need empathy, self-awareness, and honesty.
Remembering Niemöller would be a good first step. Sheer self-interest should lead us to oppose designating groups as being 'allowed victims of aggression', as our own group may be next.
A question: do you think Trump, Boebert, Cruz, DeSantis, MTG, Gaetz, Hawling, Alito, Thomas et al and their supporters share your primary American values? It seems Trump may be losing support, but not for bullying, lying, etc but because he isn't winning. His supporters were OK with his behaviour as long as he was a winner.
I have seen bullies at all points on the political spectrum, but it appears that currently the right side has normalized it a lot more than then left. Possibly this is a biased view — I'm considerably to the left of Sanders, as are many Canadians — so I'm open to hearing other viewpoints. CITOKATE, after all.
And a side note: my values didn't come from Hollywood, at least not directly. Didn't go to movies as a kid, or even have a TV. Read lots of science fiction, though.
Off topic, but there seems to be a lot of good news around Ukraine lately! I recently started following r/UkrainianConflict which has a ton of info.
The newly arrived HIMARs have blown up over 100 Russian command posts/ammo dumps/communication nodes/air defense placements, stopping the constant onslaught of artillery.
There are reports that thousands of Russians may be cut off in Kherson as the bridges in the area have been targeted by Ukraine and are heavily damaged and supply routes are under Ukrainian fire control. Trapping at least Russia's heavy equipment.
Germany is rapidly transitioning from their dependence on Russian LNG and should be prepared by winter.
Kazakhstan is rapidly distancing itself from Russia and taking steps to secure itself.
Weapons and armored equipment of all types continue to pour in from friendly countries and be integrated into the Ukrainian military. The tide seems to be turning!
Dr Brin:
I am too tired to dive into locum's latest strawman, except to see that it has nothing to do with what anyone here said.
There are two types of people in the world: those who can identify and sympathize with the pain and distress of others and feel compelled to lessen it when possible, and those who can't and don't. Loc is clearly of the latter type and finds it inconceivable that others might be of the former.
His conception of the social compact is that it is entirely based upon mutual threat, as if everyone has a gun pointed at everyone else, agreeing not to shoot until shot at. Furthermore, it requires a ridiculous level of false equivalence, considering this as an agreement which must be upheld by both participants lest society collapse: "I won't tell anyone that you pick your nose if you don't tell anyone I killed, dismembered, and buried my wife."
* * *
Larryhart. WANTING things is the one trait at which ALL humans are geniuses and no robot has the will of a fly. That MIGHT be a basis for synnergy, I have said so. But I would bet not
Your notion of raising AI as children and allowing it to participate as a co-equal in society only makes sense if the AI has wants of its own. Short of that, the AI is a tool, not a being. It might make a certain amount of sense to pretend as a means for developing a more useful tool, but there would be no moral problem with simply unplugging the thing if it's not working out as intended unless the AI has independent wants of its own.
Robert
I was "dragged up" in the UK - we didn't have a TV until I was about 12
And I still absorbed OGH's "Hollywood values" - the most prolific SciFi writers were American!
Being brought up in Canada you were much closer to the "source"
More accurately the "Hollywood values" - OGH is referring too "suspicion of authority", "supporting the underdog" are baked into our heritage - especially in Scotland!
Robert:
So leading back to bullying, if the victim is part of the outgroup then we will tend to treat the bullying as less of a problem — and possibly even support it, depending on how we see the outgroup. Knowing about the bullying is a first step (and essential, I agree with you there), but simply knowing isn't enough. We also need empathy, self-awareness, and honesty.
In my opinion, that's why fascism fails. Because it requires an out group to do the Two-Minutes Hate against. After they killed all the Jews and gypsies and homosexuals and Slavs, the Nazis would have had to start persecuting Austrians or Prussians or left-handed Germans--some remaining subset of the population. Eventually, they have to eat their own.
And a side note: my values didn't come from Hollywood, at least not directly. Didn't go to movies as a kid, or even have a TV. Read lots of science fiction, though.
Mine came from comic books.
More accurately the "Hollywood values" - OGH is referring too "suspicion of authority", "supporting the underdog" are baked into our heritage - especially in Scotland!
One of the "Hollywood values" not mentioned is rewriting history/source material to make Americans the heroes, or at least not the enemies :-)
Master and Commander: enemy on book was American, in movie is French.
U-571: boarding a U-boat to capture Enigma happened, but by British not American sailors.
Flashforward: protagonist changed from Canadian engineer to American FBI agent.
Argo: credited the CIA for virtually everything done by the Canadians.
So it's entirely a "Hollywood value" to claim credit for Scottish values :-)
This made me wonder if Niven & Pournelle's "Oath of Fealty" was an inspiration:
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/26/1113670047/saudi-arabia-new-city-the-mirror-line-desert
I also wonder what it might do to local weather.
Remember how indignantly Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy and our own GMT-5 once demanded prosecution of the leaker of the Alito draft of the Dobbs decision? It doesn't surprise me at all that we're hearing nothing but crickets now.
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2022/Senate/Maps/Jul27.html#item-1
Revelation #3 is that many conservative movers-and-shakers had... awareness of the contents of the draft decision, and were scared witless that Kavanaugh might defect. So, they pushed for Samuel Alito to issue the majority opinion as rapidly as possible. Though CNN does not draw the obvious implication, since they can't prove it, this suggests the leak did indeed come from someone on the right. Conceivably, one of the conservative justices even asked one of his clerks to leak it. If so, then the leaker achieved their goal, because once the draft was made public, there was no chance that Kavanaugh or Barrett were going to change their votes.
Robert this is pointless. You are absolutely determined, at locumranch levels, to ignore anything I say and strawman versions that make you feel good. There is no sign of any curiosity or comphrehension. I wish you well.
James Lovelock has died:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/27/james-lovelock-obituary
Creator of the Gaia hypothesis.
Tim H:
James Lovelock has died:
I'm wryly reminded of the dialogue in Neil Gaiman's Sandman between the girl Gwendolyn and her new boyfriend Hob Gadling, who unbeknownst to her has lived over 600 years. This was written when AIDs was still very much a thing:
"I used to think you were gay."
"Why, because I'm English?"
"No, because you know so many people who are dead."
And you, Doctor, are steadfastly determined to ignore the actual experience of the bullied. Our bullies were given approval for what they did, because we of the outgroup had "obviously" done something to deserve it. And if we fought back, we were punished for our "aggression". (And sometimes if we didn't - "it takes two to fight," you know.)
I see no reason to suppose that a larger scale would do anything besides increase the scale of retribution against those who dare to struggle against being bullied; thus far, my observation of humanity as a whole is that it's only a minority who ever outgrow high school.
Larry Hart, there's more every year.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2022/07/us-life-span-mortality-rates/670591/
That may be one of the reasons why. Also why we need a "Roosevelt mk3"* more than another neoliberal.
*And FDR's legislative majority.
Congrats, Robert! Congrats Jon_S!
By acknowledging the human condition wherein all humans are potentially imperfect, flawed & corrupt, you've both become honorary members of an excluded out-group which exists solely to maintain in-group distinctions & loyalties.
The dichotomous worldview will not tolerate shades of grey but only the paired opposites of good & bad, in & out, for & against, progress & regression, predator & prey, bully & victim and never the twain shall meet.
Like the casting couch & sexploitation, those 'Hollywood Values' that you consider central to all things western -- as do I -- are either uniformly good or uniformly evil.
I therefore welcome you to Team Evil.
Best
Jon S,
You might want to pause a moment and realize that all of us of an older generation were likely subjected to bullying. It's not that we don't have actual experience being the victim.
Our host's point is that the values you hold dear are more widespread than you likely believe. Yes... bullying still exists, but not as much as it did when I was a kid. More tolerant values are sinking in even if it's hard to believe they can.
"Hollywood" values aren't really from Hollywood folks. That town is simply the propaganda arm of the culture. They don't do anything over there that deviates too strongly from the culture so they wind up representing it.
Back up a few decades and their propaganda spoke of cowboy values. Men were men. Inclined toward action and few words. Women understood love, but men didn't express it. That ethic was displaced somewhere in the 60's and 70's with one that still spoke of heroes, but it was thick with SOA and men who crossed the line when they spoke too much. Dirty Harry is from the old ethic. Colombo was from the newer one.
Why this change happened can be discussed and debated. Vietnam War? Drug culture? Doesn't matter, though, because the propaganda that poured out of Hollywood starting in the 70's had far less slapping of women and more slapping of authority. They're still doing that today as formula heroes do what we expect of them and we pay to watch.
Think of it in terms of comic books for a moment. When did Captain America start saying negative things about America? Which writer started that? He's never down on the ideals we represent, but he DID get negative on some who were responsible for expressing them. (See also Winter Soldier from the MCU.)
------
One of the unfortunate things 'Hollywood' currently sells is a belief that the hero is the only one who understands...
1. just how bad it is,
2. what to do about it,
3. that they alone can fix things.
If you are at all tempted to think a particular social ill is unfixable, there is a decent chance you've bought into all three of these 'unfortunate' things. You (alone) understand how bad things are. You (alone) realize that a suggested/offered remedy won't work. You (alone) think the only fix is something we won't do because we (en masse) don't understand just how bad it is.
If you are in that camp, you drank too much of the koolaide. Reality is much less about lone heroes whether they are cowboys or cyber punks.
1. It's probably not as bad as you think, but that won't give you the rush of "Knowing The Truth",
2. You probably don't know what to do about it, but that's never proven necessary in the past for people who "just try something",
3. You probably can't fix social evils on your own either... because they are SOCIAL evils. You can try, though. You can innovate if you have the courage. Straighten that white hat of yours and 'cowboy up'. You'll need help, so seek it.
Jon S I am sure that calumny felt good to sneer at me. But it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said. And it is inaccurate, in that I know a lot about being bullied and what works against bullies.
I reiterate. Robert kept repeating the implicit assertion that ONLY he (and maybe a few others, like you) have the values of tolerance, diversity, bully-resistance and suspicion of authority, while most of his (and your) neighbors are either bleating sheep or else actively in the bully camp. Do not pretend that's not an accurate paraphrasing (if exaggerated.) All he could do is recite that, over and over and over again...
...never once actually looking at my question, which was WHERE DID YOU GET THOSE VALUES? And is it possible that OTHERS SHARE THEm, to a degree that makes a crucial difference in history?
Thos values are, in fact, preached by Hollywood in almost every film or show. You and Robert know this... name a popular flick that doesn't overflow with those themes! You two (and a MAJORITY of Americans and westerners) suckled those messages all your lives and they are the REASON that you (and a MAJORITY of Americans and westerners) feel so different about such things than citizens of any prior culture.
Locum calls us WEIRDS. And, putting aside his insane delusions, strawmannings and horrible values, he IS right that we are the WEIRD ones compared to the jibbering-terrified, 2-D, color-blind, zero sum values that dominated almost all of our fear-drenched ancestors (and himself.) Until some of those ancestors slogged forward enough to raise a couple of generations who are less fear-driven and more interested in horizons.
You and Robert AND I are - of course - on the SAME SIDE in all these things. But I think you do terrible harm to the cause with your utter contempt for your neighbors. Your assumption that ONLY you (and maybe a few others) share the values that could turn transparency into the only tool that ever can work against bullies./
Alfred I agree with what you say. But there was no sharp shift (e.g. because of Vietnam). It came in stages. Even this 1942 film that idolized CUSTER (!?!?!?) did so by portraying him as a DEFENDER of the poor, hapless natives victimized by evil white exploiters. The ethos took a long time being born and maturing... a long Painful and wretched time. ...
...and Harlan Ellison prayed that generations to come will look back on *us* as monsters.
The link
https://www.tcm.com/video/639441/they-died-with-their-boots-on-1942-movie-clip-calling-on-the-commandant
locumranch:
By acknowledging the human condition wherein all humans are potentially imperfect, flawed & corrupt, you've both become honorary members of an excluded out-group which exists solely to maintain in-group distinctions & loyalties.
Uhh, not so much. Whether or not our host has temporarily become weary of arguing with certain people, the rest of us don't shun them and refuse to converse. Try as we might, we can't even seem to quit you either (or vice versa).
This isn't "Truth Social".
* * *
Alfred Differ:
When did Captain America start saying negative things about America? Which writer started that? He's never down on the ideals we represent, but he DID get negative on some who were responsible for expressing them.
Around 1973, during the unfolding of the Watergate scandal. And the writer was a young hipster and conscientious objector named Steve Engelhart. He wanted to write a story about Cap being targeted by corrupt politicians who resented his independence of action, but the corporate management (and the comics code) weren't quite ready for American officials as bad guys, so the villains became advertising executives hired by an enemy of Cap's to tarnish his reputation.
By the time the story arc was really going, history was catching up to fantasy. By mid 1974, corrupt American politicians were no longer an unthinkable plot element, and were already becoming somewhat cliche. Steve jumped quickly to the end of the arc barely in time to finish it before real-life Nixon resigned. By the end of that story, the ad-men were in league with a clandestine group called the Secret Empire who wanted Cap out of the way so their own replacement hero could be defeated and tell the country that surrender to the Empire was the only option. Cap made short work of the invasion force and chased the masked leader of the Secret Empire into the White House, where he is shocked to see the leader's true face (never actually revealed to us readers). The bad guy confesses that political office was not enough for him--too many checks and balances--and having lost his bid for power, he commits suicide. It was left to the reader's imagination just who that villain was supposed to be.
The following storyline had Cap being disillusioned with America in much the way that real-life Americans of my parents' age were in 1974. The line I often quote about "It's not a question of letting, mister!" falls into this period. Eventually, he comes to realize that it's not the American dream/ideal he's lost faith in, but some of the men trusted to uphold that ideal. The arc ends appropriately in December 1974 with a multi-page soliloquy in which Cap acknowledges that the country didn't let him down, but rather he let it down by not recognizing the real threat from within. "Oh Lord, if I wasn't ready for any and all threats to the American dream, then what was I doing as Captain America?"
@Alfred Differ,
I know, it was a rhetorical question. I couldn't resist. :)
You are absolutely determined, at locumranch levels, to ignore anything I say and strawman versions that make you feel good. There is no sign of any curiosity or comphrehension.
Ouch, that's a low blow!
You're half right: I'm obviously not understanding you. I'm not as smart as you are — a plodder not a sprinter — so I may well be missing some logical connections that are obvious to you.
I have repeated your arguments back as best I can understand them. That's the best way I know of determining if a student truly understands something — have them explain it in their own words.
When I was a child racism, bullying etc was pretty normal. I've seen them gradually die down towards the end of the 20th century, then gradually increase — spiking up after Trump was elected. I suspect the attitudes didn't die away as much as we thought they did, instead it became socially unacceptable to express them, and Trump's victory made it socially acceptable again (at least in parts of society), although they were trending up before he won.
Most of my family isn't Caucasian. They've experienced increased racism since Trump won. I've seen an increase in racist bullying at school. I've watched our right-wing (which imitates your's) become less tolerant and more violent. I read Fox, I get missives from Pence News and Hillsdale College, and I don't see much tolerance, diversity, accountability, etc there. I crawled through the convoy protester's feeds and didn't see much there either.
So my lived experience is that things got better for a while and are still much better than they were when I was young, but they're getting worse again. Or at least more overt again. And most of the nastiness seems to be coming from one end of the political spectrum.
We know more psychology than we did when I was young. We know that a significant chunk of the population has an authoritarian mindset (Altemeyer et al). We know that almost everyone has unconscious biases. We know we aren't as rational as we like to believe. I don't think it intolerant to believe that we all have an "inner jerk" as Limerick described it in the article Don Gisselbeck referenced. As I said before, you've talked about the highs of sanctimony, and there's evidence there is also a high from punishing someone seen as a transgressor/outsider. Knowing all this isn't a value judgement about people; it's more a warning to ourselves to be careful (like the warning you gave about sanctimony).
Most people aren't out to overthrow democracy. Most people aren't Proud Boys or Westboro Baptists. But a significant number of people support Trump, DeSantis, MTG, Boebert, Gaetz, Hawling, Poilievre et al. How should I view people who support people who deny my nieces' humanity? Should I view them as tolerant despite them supporting someone who is intolerant? That's what I can't get my head around — when someone supports a leader, are they not also supporting that leader's actions and policies?
I keep coming back to what Peter Watts said: "Edmund Burke once said that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. I think that begs a question. If you do nothing, what makes you any fucking good?"
Or, more poetically, Lisa Kalvelage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phTi9NDSHe0
I confess to releasing my inner jerk and indulging in some snark about Hollywood. It's nothing compared to what I've heard from someone who worked in the business…
@Dr Brin,
Allow me to play translator droid.
You keep asserting that transparency is necessary for opposing bullying. Robert and Jon S don't disagree, but they assert that transparency is not sufficient--that other social changes and norms are also required. The conversation is ultimately pointless, but not because of intransigence. Only because you both keep saying the same true things which don't negate the other true things.
It's like watching ping pong. Or the SNL commercial about "It's a floor wax!" "It's a desert topping!"
Robert kept repeating the implicit assertion that ONLY he (and maybe a few others, like you) have the values of tolerance, diversity, bully-resistance and suspicion of authority, while most of his (and your) neighbors are either bleating sheep or else actively in the bully camp.
Where did I say that?
It's a serious question, because when I look at what I wrote I can't see that. Are you referring to this: "People like bullies, as long as they dislike the victim. You talked about the endorphin rush of sanctimony — I was reading a couple of weeks ago that there's a similar rush when witnessing someone you dislike being attacked."?
I was referring to a psychological effect. Did I not make that clear?
never once actually looking at my question, which was WHERE DID YOU GET THOSE VALUES?
The science fiction of Poul Anderson and Arthur C. Clarke. The poetry of Kipling. The pages of my high school history textbook. The works of John Ralston Saul. My father and grandfather. (Mostly my father and grandfather, I think.) Didn't have a television or go to the movies when I was a boy.
And is it possible that OTHERS SHARE THEm, to a degree that makes a crucial difference in history?
Of course it's not only possible but true. But it's also true that people have unconscious biases. It can be quite shocking when someone who thinks they are tolerant discovers that they harbour biases that they consciously disagree with, but it's better that they know so they can take conscious measures not to be governed by them. Like blind-judging musicians in a way that hides their gender, to eliminate a sexist bias.
I think most people think they are tolerant. I think people are more tolerant than they were when I was a boy. But I also see intolerance increasing again – or at least becoming more open again.
(I suppose it's possible that I'm just more aware of it now, and that increasing incidents are down to increased reporting. But that's not the way I'd bet.)
You and Robert know this... name a popular flick that doesn't overflow with those themes!
2001. Das Boot. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Red Cliff. Greyhound. A Bridge Too Far. Henry V. Macbeth. Master and Commander. The Battle of Britain. That Tom Hanks film where he was marooned alone after a crash.
Not popular enough? I tried watching Captain America and fell asleep. Ditto for Iron Man. I haven't watched a Hollywood film for years. Last film I saw in a theatre was Mongol (which wasn't Hollywood). Do you count Kung Fu Panda? That one did seem to exemplify those values. The Good, the Bad, and the Weird? Maybe Luck will too when it drops next week.
You and Robert AND I are - of course - on the SAME SIDE in all these things. But I think you do terrible harm to the cause with your utter contempt for your neighbors. Your assumption that ONLY you (and maybe a few others) share the values that could turn transparency into the only tool that ever can work against bullies.
Again, not what I said (or at least, not what I meant — I think we may be talking past each other a bit).
Time and again there have been revelations about Trump, he has said and done increasingly outrageous things — and his popularity hasn't really shifted. I remember reading with each new revelation that surely this would be the one that caused his supporters to realize what he really was — and their support didn't waver. Apparently the Google search that most correlated with Trump votes in 2016 was "good n****r joke" — that doesn't sound like tolerance to me.
Or MTG, the self-proclaimed Christian Nationalist and Q-Anon believer. She got 75% of the vote in her district. Do those voters share the values of tolerance and diversity we believe in?
Judging by votes, a majority of your countrymen don't support such intolerance, just as a majority of mine don't either. But in both our countries, a minority in the right place can get a majority of the political power. And in both our countries, that right-wing minority tends to be less tolerant of difference and diversity — exactly as Altemeyer's research predicted. In some cases, very intolerant. How tolerant should we be of intolerance and hatred?
I've got a friend whose wife looks Chinese. (Born here, so really Canadian, but looks Chinese.) She refuses to live in a small town ever again, because every small Ontario town they lived in she was bullied for looking different. If it's "utter contempt" to think less of people who do that, well, I plead guilty, m'lud.
You keep asserting that transparency is necessary for opposing bullying. Robert and Jon S don't disagree, but they assert that transparency is not sufficient--that other social changes and norms are also required.
That's what I said. "Transparency may be necessary, but I don't think it's sufficient."
Like Robert, I believe you're misunderstanding, Doctor. Exposing bullying will help - so long as society does not approve bullying. And my lived experience is that so long as you belong to the wrong outgroup (autistics, in my case), bullying is not merely approved, but frequently encouraged.
First we must bring society at large to an understanding that bullying is inappropriate even when society does not like you. Then greater transparency becomes more than a mere exercise in sanctimony. Transparency alone, however, is woefully insufficient.
The notes on loco have caused me to go look at his latest spew. Wow, did he ever miss the point! Unsurprisingly, as his tendency to miss the target so thoroughly as to be in a completely different field is what led me to stop slogging through his brain-drippings in the first place.
Regarding American film...
One of the alternative historical scenarios I envisioned a while back = what if Admiral Yamamoto, who had spend years in the US, had learned on the eve of his Midway operation that John Ford had just been sent to the island? Would the penny have dropped?
Regarding media sources of my values, I had no access to TV and little to US movies until I was just starting my teens. I read a lot of Enid Blyton and Captain W E Johns, and my parents had most of Twain's novels in hardback along with other Great Books. El Cid was kind of cool, but certainly not a source of Asimov-style humanist thought. Ghandi was THE hero of the country I lived in then, though. I guess that counts for something.
Pappenheimer
David,
no sharp shift
Yah. Agreed. When others suggest one my suspicion meter pegs. I suspect the sharpness of the shift is an illusion brought on by maturation of the observer. "Suddenly the scales fell from my eyes!"
Maybe full myelination of the brain lights those lamps bringing sharpness to our perceptions and conflict to our preconceptions.
Larry,
Not rhetorical at all. I figured you'd know off the top of your head and I'd have to spend hours researching it to find out. 8)
The Comic Code is a wonderful example of the distortions caused by self censorship. I get why it existed, but it smacks of willful surrender regarding the first amendment. The pressure had to be enormous for it to crack and allow them to turn an eye toward an insidious hypocrisy.
My disillusionment with the Boy Scouts came a few years later. Same problem. Willful surrender to demands one NOT look at certain behaviors and I couldn't take it anymore.
watching ping pong
It's worth mentioning that some of us believe transparency is necessary and insufficient… but is likely to bring about broader changes that make the other necessities more likely.
Actually SEEING your neighbors for what they are is discomforting at times. Are they really that stupid? Did he really just say that to his wife? Oh those poor kids! After awhile, though, you have to make a choice to accept them for what they actually are… or go insane with demands for those kids to stay off your grass.
Transparency pops a lot of bubbles and will make a lot of us angry for awhile. Sound familiar? It's already happening and can't be stopped for the simplest of reasons. Many of us benefit a great deal from transparency. We are already choosing it. This toothpaste won't go back in the tube.
(I've mangled enough metaphors for the evening. G'night!)
Jon S:
First we must bring society at large to an understanding that bullying is inappropriate even when society does not like you.
We also need a common definition of what exactly it is that is inappropriate--i.e., defining "bullying". To me, it has a lot to do with punching down. A bully is necessarily picking on someone who can't adequately defend himself. Barbs thrown at a stronger opponent, especially one who has harmed you with impunity (i.e., chalk drawings in front of Susan Collins's house) is not bullying. But that definition is hardly universally accepted. In fact, the right-wing snowflakes seem ready to criminalize what they consider "bullying" against themselves, but actively applaud it (with too much complicity by law enforcement) against their political opponents.
Is it bullying to laugh out loud at Josh Hawley prancing away to escape violence by the very rioters he encouraged? I don't think so, but I'm sure others disagree. locumranch would call my position blatant hypocrisy. Until we as a society agree on just what counts and doesn't count as bullying, there can be no universally acceptable response to it.
Alfred Differ:
Not rhetorical at all. I figured you'd know off the top of your head and I'd have to spend hours researching it to find out. 8)
Heh. Glad to help out. Even though I've finally outgrown modern day superhero comics, I still get a kick out of my old 1960s and 1970s stories. There are some real gems in there.
The Comic Code is a wonderful example of the distortions caused by self censorship. I get why it existed, but it smacks of willful surrender regarding the first amendment. The pressure had to be enormous for it to crack and allow them to turn an eye toward an insidious hypocrisy.
Marvel "cracked the code" in 1971 when they did a Spider-Man story about drug abuse. The topic was forbidden by the comics code, and Marvel published the three issues involved without the seal. Nothing bad happened. I actually remember reading about the controversy in one of those kids' magazines we'd read in class in 5th grade. It had panels of Spider-Man and everything. In school!
The code itself was revamped around that time and monsters like Dracula and the wolf man were allowed in kids' comics for the first time. I don't think portrayals of politicians and law enforcement as villains were allowed until Watergate, but I may be wrong about that. When the Spider-Man drug story appeared just a few years later in a reprint title, it did carry the comics code seal.
The mind's mistakes are features as much as bugs, and one reason why AI may remain always over the next hill. When Larry Hart said, "prancing away to escape violence", I read it as "to escape velocity" - a fun mental image that a flawless machine would completely miss out on.
scidata:
a fun mental image that a flawless machine would completely miss out on.
I've been harping on the fact that an AI needs to want before it can be considered a living being, but a sense of humor might also be something to look for.
I'm reminded of a National Lampoon bit from the 80s which noted that a t-shirt reading "Secretaries do it with fewer errors" was too ambiguous in its meaning, and would be better clarified if replaced by two different t-shirts, one reading "Secretaries type more accurately" and the other saying, "Secretaries make fewer embarrassing mistakes during sex."
Transparency may be necessary, but I don't think it's sufficient.
Robert makes the above statement, one with which I entirely agree, but Jon_S misunderstands completely when I extend this statement to make an additional point.
Robert's postulate paraphrased:
Transparency is a useful TOOL against corruption & moral turpitude, but it is not a panacea in & of itself.
My extension of Robert's postulate:
Tools are basically amoral, being neither BAD nor GOOD, insomuch as any attribution of tool-related morality springs from how the tool is used.
Transparency is a TOOL. Like a shovel. Like bullying & blackmail. Like a gun.
Tools are only moral when used for moral purposes. Like using a shovel to dig a ditch. Like using bullying & blackmail to enforce social order. Like using a gun to defend yourself against unprovoked aggression.
Tools are only immoral when used for immoral purposes. Like using a shovel to bury a crime. Like using bullying & blackmail for cruel or selfish purposes. Like using a gun to shoot up a school.
Transparency (aka 'knowing what someone did') is literally 'useless' if it is not put to use.
How is transparency to be used? When, where, why? For what purpose, under what circumstance and to what end?
Perhaps Dr. Brin could share these his non-transparent thoughts on the how, what, when, where & why of his Transparency argument.
Best
locumranch:
Transparency is a TOOL. Like a shovel. Like bullying & blackmail. Like a gun.
One of these things is not like the other.
Bullying & blackmail carry moral connotations. Like "murder". You might say that murder is a tool which could be used for self-defense or for removing someone you don't like, but the former isn't usually considered "murder" precisely because the word carries with it the sense of "something that is prohibited." Same with "bullying" and "blackmail". Anyone using those tools for purposes that they believe are justified and/or beneficent would almost certainly not call what they're doing "bullying" or "blackmail".
"Happy days are here again, the skies above are clear again"
Lots of of good news for the Dems today.
The CHIPs bill was passed, returning America's chip manufacturing industry back to our shores - with Dems getting the credit for doing so.
The Biden administration will be providing price stabilization via the strategic oil reserve to our gas markets. A $0.40 per gallon drop in prices at the pump, driving the price of gas below $4 a gallon, is anticipated by mid August - with gas dropping to less than $3.50 per gallon by election day.
Inflation? What inflation?
Joe Manchin in a major surprise agreed to effectively passing about 90% of the "Build Back Better Act" and half of the "Green New Deal", his agreement with Schumer completely outmaneuvering Mitch McConnel.
Democrat's know how to play politics, who knew?
Polls now show that the Dems should hold the Senate, even gain a couple of seats in November. Holding the House might be too much to expect in an off year election by the party in the White House.
Overturning Roe has been the biggest political mistake by a major party in modern history with polls showing a massive shift of women and independents shunning the GOP.
The 1/6 committee has had a devastating effect on Trump's popularity and will likely result in the DOJ presenting him with criminal charges.
Putin's armies have been broken and Russia's economy is collapsing, had Trump been re-elected Putin would now control Ukraine and be looking at future conquests
Meanwhile, the GOP is too busy being taken over by racist, fundy loons who hate women and every other minority (as well as dead school children, 10 year old rape victims, high educational standards, a clean environment, established science and basic decency).
"Let us sing a song of cheer again, happy days are here again!"
Locumranch,
It's cool that you are paraphrasing. I'll stand aside and see if others agree that you've parsed them correctly.
I also see transparency as a tool. Like a shovel.
... but not like bullying and blackmail.
Sorry. I think you've bought into "The ends justify the means" and I haven't. That concept makes tools of everything including the people around us. Quite evil as it values a person like a tool. You might draw a line separating things that can be tools from things that cannot, but mine is over there so I can avoid valuing people that way.
In a nutshell, blackmail is a tool for evil people. It doesn't get to avoid an 'immoral' label because of that. Same goes for bullying, but the evil stink isn't as strong for the youngest of us.
Robert all that you just posted was eloquent… in places deeply moving! We are on the same side and share values and goals. But you are right that I am right to say that you simply don’t understand my point.
LarryH tried hard to bridge our gap: “-You keep asserting that transparency is necessary for opposing bullying. Robert and Jon S don't disagree, but they assert that transparency is not sufficient--that other social changes and norms are also required.”
Yes! Excellent paraphrasing of Robert and Jon. Alas, it implies that I don’t agree.
In fact, I have repeatedly… over and over and over again… said that transparency cannot deliver on its promise without SOCIAL norms that frown at and punish bullies and that shrug off harmless eccentricities.
Those ARE the values that you and Jon and Robert keep expressing! Alas then you turn and claim that ONLY A FEW (like yourselves) hold those values while your neighbors… either racists or sheep… alas do not. That self-serving self-flattery is typical, it’s human… and we cannot afford it! And Robert, you do “say” that, repeatedly, in every single posting.
What I assert… and no one seems able to do… is that we should LOOK IN THE MIRROR and ask “Where did I get these values that I claim ONLY I (and maybe a few others) hold dear?”
(A weird aside: I, too, adored Poul Anderson, the greatest storyteller I ever knew. But his politics were right wing and Arthur Clarke was a transcendentalist who (for all his good qualities) expressed contempt for the common man. Moreover, your refusal to even look at how Hollywood films are densely packed with YOUR values is kinda sad.
(Your list of films was a cherrypicking of tales in which intense conflict between very narrowly defined forces simply did not have room to address issues of tolerance, diversity etc. All of them had SOME Suspicion of Authority memes. But I am intrigued by how your list nimbly evaded my point!)
“Judging by votes, a majority of your countrymen don't support such intolerance, just as a majority of mine don't either. But in both our countries, a minority in the right place can get a majority of the political power”
So? That’s the fight we are in! But I’m glad you AT LAST admit that a majority of your neighbors suckled the same memes and share roughly the same values. Now, go and show Them what those SHARED VALUES demand from them That’s far more effective than sneering they don’t share your values. A majority do.
Unknown one of the things that shortened WWII by a year or more was how crappy the Axis spy networks in Britain and the US were. We were similarly blind inside Japan, but cracked their naval codes.
Carumba! Did we just see a vitamin packed Locumrach posting that was actually non-delusional and… um… SANE enough to not skim, but read?
Alas then you turn and claim that ONLY A FEW (like yourselves) hold those values while your neighbors… either racists or sheep… alas do not. That self-serving self-flattery is typical, it’s human… and we cannot afford it! And Robert, you do “say” that, repeatedly, in every single posting.
I've never claimed "only a few". I do write almost exclusively about what I see as problems, which may be giving the impression that that's how I see most people. I think almost everyone had unconscious biases and a tendency to apply different standards to their ingroup (whatever that group is). That's part of being human. Not trying to overcome those but actually revelling in them: that is what I see in your MAGA-hats and our convoy protesters. And I see more of that behaviour now than I did a decade ago.
A playground analogy. My grandniece is a wonderful girl with lots of friends. But when another kid is mean to her on the playground, what she's concerned about at that moment is the mean kid, not the many wonderful friends she has. That's what she talks about. If I was talking to you to get some parental advice, I would be talking about the mean kid and what they are doing, not the many nice kids that are her friends.
(Given the latest missive from PenceNews, this playground analogy is oddly appropriate.)
Or a teaching analogy. When planning a parent-teacher interview, I needed about 2 minutes for a good student, 10-20 for one who was (or had) a problem. And when talking to other teachers, we spent most of our time discussing the not-good kids: little Mary is doing well but little Donald is disruptive and causing problems, so little Donald and his behaviour is what we talk about as we try to figure out what do do about him.
If you like I could start writing little paeans about the wonderful people I know, to balance out the not-wonderful people I'm worried about. :-)
(Your list of films was a cherrypicking of tales in which intense conflict between very narrowly defined forces simply did not have room to address issues of tolerance, diversity etc. All of them had SOME Suspicion of Authority memes. But I am intrigued by how your list nimbly evaded my point!)
That was actually the list of films I remember watching since 2007ish (the year Mongol came out, not that that's a Hollywood production), leaving out The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit (because I forgot about them, honestly). I've watched more films, but not American ones. (And Das Boot, Red Cliff, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, and Battle of Britain, at least, weren't American so shouldn't be on the list.) I saw Star Wars when it came out, but again that's a pretty elitist film (trust the anointed Jedi to run things!) — or at least the series became that way. And the original Star War, while nostalgic, has so many plot holes it's painful to watch now, so I'll just enjoy my memories of watching it with my father.
I just don't watch a lot of films. Didn't have the time when working. I bought movies to watch after I retire, and now that I'm retired I find that I fall asleep in front of the screen when I try to watch them. I have the complete box set of James Bond films, and even those put me to sleep! I can binge-watch Attenborough or Al-Khalili documentaries for hours, but Hollywood blockbusters put me to sleep. (I enjoy period Chinese films, but I watch for the cinematography and costumes and ignore the dialog and plot.)
Which is a long-winded way of saying that when you talk about "Hollywood values" that's a meaningless phrase to me. It means one thing to you, quite another to one of my friends who worked in the business, but to me Hollywood movies are like professional sports: something a lot of people like that doesn't do anything for me. The clock is ticking, and I'd rather spend my limited time curled up with a good book or listening to some music* than watching a film.
Or struggling with quantum mechanics. Are you up for answering questions about quantum? :-)
*Currently Daniil Trofonov playing Bach, or The Hu's heavy metal throat-singing, or some classic Joni Mitchell, or Tanya Taqaq if I want a challenge.
Quantum questions are always fun to fuss with and try to answer. 8)
The (so far fruitless) search for a scintilla of emission from the 'radio century' of any ETI is a blind infant who's never seen a cat before searching for a massively obfuscated, possibly cloaked, potentially not-there, black cat in a vast, dark warehouse. And that little one would far rather find its binky anyway.
I always listen intently to any discussion of Quantum SETI, or even neutrinos or gravitational waves. Actual evidence may already be lurking in the growing mountain of observational data from big telescopes, let alone the orders of magnitude tsunami that's planned for the next couple of decades. We need many new Turings; too bad we largely wasted the first one. Coding is important.
Quantum questions are always fun to fuss with and try to answer. 8)
OK, here goes.
At a recent course offered by Perimeter Institute the final session had a section on how Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle applies to the Fourier transform of a pulse — something about how the uncertainty is different in pulses of different lengths, which is why the spectrum is narrower for wider pulses.
At first the physicist giving the course talked about how a wider pulse only had a few harmonic frequencies, when I pointed out it had an infinite number (assuming it wasn't a single sine wave) and asked if he meant the energy of the different harmonics, and if he could explain how a pulse had uncertainty he said that wasn't it and sent me some math that I didn't understand sufficiently to remember. (I could follow the equations, I just had no idea how they related to what he was talking about.)
So can someone please explain how a long pulse has less uncertainty than a narrow pulse, and how that relates to the Fourier transform, and where Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle comes into that? (He used a square pulse in his example, I don't know how significant that is.)
He had previously been talking about wave-particle duality and how particles have wavelengths, so it might have something to do with that. Or with the experiment where you fire single electrons at a double slit and accumulate an interference pattern, but only if you don't measure which slit they go through.
I'm entirely self-taught in modern physics (electrical engineering background), so assume you're talking to a Bear of Very Little Brain. (I haven't actually needed to do a Fourier transform in nearly four decades, so don't assume a lot of math proficiency!)
Robert,
Start with the Fourier transform.
When you have a vector pointing somewhere, you can decompose it onto a basis and get coefficients relative to the basis vectors you choose. Different basis… different coefficients.
Fourier transforms let us switch basis on a function in a vector space with an infinite number of dimensions. Same idea, though. Chose a basis (polynomials, trig functions, whatever) and decompose. If you aren't living inside a finite box, the coefficients will themselves be functions that vary on a 'variable' that happens to delineate your basis.
(Vector spaces and the surrounding math is one of the most powerful tools we invented after the early steps of calculus.)
For a wave function described over space (position variable) your basis for decomposing will be a variable that looks like momentum. If time is important for the wave function, the corresponding variable is energy. You can describe a wave function either way and it holds precisely the same information.
Now… imagine a long pulse of light sent in one direction. Very long 'wave' with many wave crests… but clipped at the start and finish. If you look at the pulse in terms of spatial coordinates, you can't say much about where it is because it's long. You CAN say rather definitively what its momentum is because decomposing the function in that basis produces a function that is mostly zero except near a particular value. That's the uncertainty principle in a nutshell. What you can say depends on how you describe the pulse, but the pulse is what it is either way.
The 'harmonics' people talk about are the basis functions/vectors on which you decompose a thing.
For short pulses, you can hear the effects around uncertainty yourself. Pluck a guitar string real hard and you'll hear it sing at many frequencies. The short pulse (spatial pluck) decomposes into a broad function across frequencies (momenta). The guitar string has a finite length, though, so the transform is discrete. Only certain basis 'harmonics' are available on the string.
Heisenberg's equation is really about diffusion of a wave function. Choose your basis and you see particle or wave. Neither is really true, though. It's all a perspective illusion that depends on a basis you choose.
Oops. Schoedinger's equation is the diffusion one. Just another PDE. Order two in spatial coordinates. Order one in time. AKA diffusion.
(I'm showing my bias. I don't care much who invented what and get the names wrong at times. The magic isn't in the names. It's in the the way our models function.)
Um, why does the long pulse have such uncertainty in spacial coordinates? It occupies more space than a short pulse, but how does that translate to more uncertainty?
Suppose we have a short pulse from 1.0 m to 1.1 m (so 0.1 m long). And a long pulse from 2.0 to 3.0 m (so 1.0 m long). How is the location of the long pulse more uncertain than the short pulse? That's what I'm bashing my head against.
Alfred Differ:
I'm showing my bias. I don't care much who invented what and get the names wrong at times.
In high school physics, I was very upset when my teacher included a question about one of the specifics of phlogiston theory on an exam. When he had lectured about the subject in class, my brain registered that all I needed to know about phlogiston theory was that it had been debunked. I pretty much ignored everything else about it, saving brain cells for things that really mattered.
Sorry Robert. We're gonna have to disagree whether you have hurriedly shifted your stance from contempt for 'people' who are part of your elect community of tolerance/diversity and SoA believers... or you always meant that a majority share your values, many expressing them differently but all plagued by a troglodytic/cheating minority.
I remain boggled that anyone could be in this culture and not notice how most of the mythology preaches individual eccentricity, tolerance/diversity and SoA . But you have never once addressed my question of where YOU got those historically anomalous values.
Never mind then. We both had our say. Time to move on.
Robert,
Imagine that long pulse. Now... where is it? Point to it. You'll point in many directions and I'll say "There?". You'll say "All of there."
Uncertainty occurs when we ask questions like that. What time is it? Where is the Moon right now? That may sound like 'just' my uncertainty about things, but it isn't.
Classical physics has a built in assumption about the continuity of space and time to as many digits of precision as you care to consider. How long is this meter stick? One meter... or just close?
Quantum physics removes a certain feature of the model that lets us think we CAN represent a thing (like length of a meter stick) even if we have no way of actually measuring a thing. If you want arbitrary precision, you pay for it by adding something to make an interaction that does the actual measurement you have in mind.
That long pulse isn't really anywhere if you don't make an effort to interact with it. Where does that interaction occur... answers the question of where the pulse is. Modeling it as a long train of waves is NOT the interaction. It's the model. Map vs terrain. So we are in the land of make believe if we say we know where the pulse is.
Classical physics IS a land of make believe. What's amazing is that it works so well when it does.
Larry,
I'd side with your teacher. 8)
It's important to understand why a model fails, so we must study them to ground our hubris.
A wonderful example comes up during elections. Trickle Down. It's been shown it doesn't work a few times. It's been shown to be an intentional fraud too. Yet... people still believe it works. All it needs is for people to not be cheaters.
Lots of other examples too. Rent Control and other price freezes as ways to ensure the poorest among us have access to what they need. Doesn't work.
Science theories are easier to disprove only because we agree on what constitutes falsification, but our host has a decent way to address that in other fields with challenges.
1. Show me a single example of "X".
2. Bet me on that!
...and others.
Studying HOW a concept failed to survive falsification teaches us meta-theories. For example, Special Relativity is really a meta-theory. It speaks to how other theories of physics must make certain assumptions about the geometry of space and time. General Relativity makes use of that and assigns a physical role to geometry. None of that would have happened if Newton hadn't been debunked, but studying HOW that happened shows which part of Newton's model we changed. We actually kept most of it.
Re: failed scientific theories
I'm digging around for info on the new Heracleion wreck. Specifically, whether it's 'rich' enough to hope for another Antikythera mechanism (it certainly doesn't look like a simple grocery run). A second ancient computer (or a whole box of 'em) would be a stunning breakthrough. Ptolemy would have some 'splainin to do.
Alfred Differ:
I'd side with your teacher. 8)
It's important to understand why a model fails, so we must study them to ground our hubris.
I don't disagree with that, but...
None of that would have happened if Newton hadn't been debunked, but studying HOW that happened shows which part of Newton's model we changed. We actually kept most of it.
That last sentence is key. Newton wasn't "debunked" in the sense of being proven wrong. His theories were shown to only apply to a subset of conditions, and conditions that we take for granted in most of our experience. It's like the idea that the acceleration of gravity is 9.8 meters per second squared. Ok, that's not true everywhere--just in the range of altitudes that most humans spend most of their lives.
That's not quite "debunking" in the same way that there is no such element as phlogiston.
In any case, we're discussing this as older and wise men. When I was 17 or so in high school, hearing "This theory is obsolete," sounded an awful lot like "This won't be on the test."
scidata:
A second ancient computer (or a whole box of 'em) would be a stunning breakthrough.
You're hoping for some ancient scroll or tablet written in FORTH?
Larry Hart: You're hoping for some ancient scroll or tablet written in FORTH?
You jest, but I started a short story years ago about a paleolithic tribe that used pebbles laid out in stacks on the ground for calculation. Forth in 50,000 BC using a proto-abacus. Too much research req'd though, so I dropped it. I'm very impressed by hard SF writers like OGH.
Imagine that long pulse. Now... where is it? Point to it. You'll point in many directions and I'll say "There?". You'll say "All of there."
It exists between 2.0 m and 3.0 m, just as the short pulse exists between 1.0 and 1.1 m (for an instant, anyway). I deliberately gave both pulses start/stop positions to the same accuracy. Given that neither pulse is a point (i.e. both have a length/duration) why do we describe the larger pulse as more uncertain? Surely the uncertainty is the same: each pulse's start/stop is given to the closest 0.1 m? Indeed, in percentage terms doesn't the larger pulse have less uncertainty, because the 'fuzzy' edges are a smaller fraction of its total length?
I'm beginning to wonder if the term 'uncertainty' has a different meaning here to the one I learned in engineering. Is that the case?
We're gonna have to disagree whether you have hurriedly shifted your stance
You'll have to take my word that my stance hasn't shifted. I'm a stubborn bastard and it takes more than a few words on the internet to make me change my mind. I'm not a good writer, so I'll cop to explaining myself poorly, especially when trying to be brief.
you have never once addressed my question of where YOU got those historically anomalous values.
I gave you my sources, at least the ones that loom largest in my memory. I'm a little astounded to realize just how many I learned from my father and grandfather, actually. (Both English, as am I.) Can no longer ask them where they got them, sadly.
Newton wasn't "debunked" in the sense of being proven wrong. His theories were shown to only apply to a subset of conditions
Were they, though? Newton explains gravitational acceleration as being caused by a force. Better (ie. more predictive) explanations involve the curvature of space, or the exchange of gravitons. His theories give the same results for terrestrial conditions, but are they still correct because of that?
I would view it more as his model works for a wide range of conditions, so we can keep using it because it's simpler. It's like how we model a projectile as travelling a parabolic trajectory with gravity only acting down — it's not completely true, but it's close enough for most practical purposes and it's a lot easier to understand.
One of my friends once wrote one of his university exams using only the luminiferous ether to solve problems. He challenged his failing grade, on the grounds that nothing taken in that class (or its prerequisites) actually disproved that theory, and so in a proper science course it should be an acceptable explanation (or something like that, it's been years since I heard the story). He won his appeal.
Robert:
Newton explains gravitational acceleration as being caused by a force. Better (ie. more predictive) explanations involve the curvature of space, or the exchange of gravitons.
Ok, I was thinking more of the accuracy of f = ma or conservation of momentum than I was for the metaphysical explanations of why reality works the way it does.
His theories give the same results for terrestrial conditions, but are they still correct because of that?
I guess it depends what is meant by "correct". If I just want to predict results, I'm ok with a theory that gives the correct answers (under specific conditions). That doesn't make it "correct" in the sense of explaining what is really going on. But the difference between gravity being a force and being something that works so much like a force that (under specific conditions) you can't tell the difference seems to me like so much splitting of hairs.
scidata:
Too much research req'd though, so I dropped it. I'm very impressed by hard SF writers like OGH.
Likewise. I've indulged in amateur writing myself, but I write linearly. I start a story with a general idea of where it will end up, but I approach the intervening chapters as if I'm a reader. I don't reveal a lot of the surprises to myself until I have to. :)
My disappointment with Return of the Jedi had to do with the feeling that I could have written a better finale to the series than the movie. But, like you, I am grateful for writers who can produce something with complexity that I couldn't possibly do myself, like The Postman or Earth.
I even remember the first time I came to that realization. I was 16 when my parents took the family to see the play Deathtrap, a murder mystery play about a playwright whose fictitious play that he is writing is precisely the play that we, the audience, is watching on stage. The recursiveness is beautiful and flawless. And though "The Simpsons" would be more than a decade in the future, the thought I had was very much like, "I couldn't write something like that if I lived to be a million." But I'm willing to pay someone who can.
In Jack Williamson's TRIAL OF TERRA A pan galactic human civilization deems our Earth a primitive backwater condemned for a Vogon-style demolition, till they learn an early Saharan tribe escaped from Earth and started to expansion20,000 y.a.... without possessing even the wheel, but having discovered antigravity, instead.
Newton was quite thoroughly debunked. The fact that we kept some of what he created says more about how humans work than it does about how his concepts succeeded.
Physical theories come in two modules and a bunch of submodules. At the highest level we distinguish between the mathematical model that enables us to make predictions (predictive model) and the hows and whys that give meaning to the equations (explanatory model). What usually falls to the next generation is the explanatory model because some prediction failed.
Most of our theories re-use physical models with a few tweaks. Truth is we don't actually have all that many physical "models" in use. Most of the ones we can image lead to impossibilities when it comes time to compute things. Even the ones we use lead to chaos in many settings, so we don't have a lot of choices.
For a rough count, consider the partial differential equations (PDE's) we have named. Like Adam naming the beasts, we've named a few of these critters and studied them. The better understood ones show up in prediction models. Over and over and over. Just add a twist of lemon. For example, the heat diffusion PDE taught to engineers is re-used in the Black-Scholes model for options pricing. The citric bite comes from the stochastic variable tossed into the mix. It's used in your first quantum mechanics class. Add a dash of complex numbers.
Newton's work depended on a second order Dif Eq. That's what F=ma is. That's inherent in the predictive layer.
Newton's work also depended on an understanding of the geometry of the cosmos. Without that the position variables on which you take time derivatives don't mean anything. He reasonably assumed time wasn't geometric. It was just a scalar thing like a parameter one uses to mark motion in a Euclidian cosmos.
Together, these two modules made for a very powerful predictive theory. SO powerful it shocked. It connected the Heavens and Earth when it correctly showed how the Moon was actually falling. It 'explained' cometary paths. It PREDICTED Neptune's existence by showing two possible options when predictions failed regarding orbits of outer planets. We could accept that Newton wasn't right out there… or there was another planet. Ah ha! A Test! Turns out Neptune was there.
The explanatory module finally crashed, though, when electromagnetism was developed. They could possibly both be correct. E&M had different assumptions built in as to the geometry of the cosmos. Turns out E&M was more correct than Newton's version of the cosmos. (Students who don't get a chance to dig into this stuff don't realize just how astonishing that is. Studying currents and magnets and their relationship to light lead us to learn about the geometry of the universe.)
Newton's predictive module is still in use in the model that took over. It HAS to be the case that it should be used… because it works at slow speeds. They tweaked it by making time a direction in the geometric fabric and went right back to F=ma but with four instead of three dimensions. You have to be a little careful about what you mean by a time derivative, but it's not too hard to pick up if your teacher draws the geometry for you first time through.
Robert,
It exists between 2.0 m and 3.0 m, just as the short pulse exists between 1.0 and 1.1 m (for an instant, anyway).
No. It doesn't. Your model says it does, but you have no evidence that it does.
THAT's the fundamental distinction quantum theories have relative to classical theories.
"Thou musn't model what can't be observed."
"Where is the pulse?" must be answered with an experiment that can show it.
——
Uncertainty taught to engineers is about precision of measurement. How long is that beam? How many digits of precision are you allowed to use? It all depends on the measurement technique, right?
Well… same things applies to the beam of light. How long is it? Show me how you would measure it and we can talk about digits of precision. Don't try too hard, though, because "How long is it?" is a trick question. You don't have a way to measure it… without changing it. Do that and you'll face the next question. Was it that way before you measured? There is no way to answer that one with a measurement either.
Classical theories enable you to ponder a thing having a property (a stick has a length) independent of how it is measured. Quantum theories don't tolerate that. Show me, show me, show me.
The map is not the terrain unless you want to stick to classical theories of the universe.
They don't work (ALL of them) unless you want to give up something precious like 'locality'.
Do that and you open the door to time travel.
——
The Physics Community has two giant meta-theories that are still standing. One speaks about the geometry of the universe. The other speaks about the illusion we craft by modeling things we can't possibly measure. Both speak about what theoreticians MUST NOT DO.
Pragmatism, Alfred. Models never claim to be the truth, just a close enough approximation to it given the starting assumptions.
Classical physics is good enough for most instances, and much easier to calculate with. We know its limits, and we know that other theories tend to it within those limits.
It isn't wrong.
Alfred Differ:
Newton's predictive module is still in use in the model that took over. It HAS to be the case that it should be used… because it works at slow speeds. They tweaked it by making time a direction in the geometric fabric and went right back to F=ma but with four instead of three dimensions.
With all due respect to someone who knows this stuff better than I do, "tweaked" and "It HAS to be the case that it should be used" doesn't sound like "thoroughly debunked" to my ear.
Not in the same way that "Thunder is the sound of the gods bowling" has been thoroughly debunked anyway.
I find it interesting that David described Anderson, a writer with one of the best grasps of 'otherness' I have ever read, as having political views to the right. The two are not commonly found together. At least, not these days.
The word 'model' is tricky. There are deductive models built on evidence and reason (inference) (eg Laplacian nebular hypothesis). Then there are inductive models built on interacting, usually artificial, agents (eg computational psychohistory). Then there are fashion models built on illusion. The most important concept in all three is 'measurement'.
Show me how you would measure it and we can talk about digits of precision.
The original example wasn't light but a sound. We were shown a graph showing displacement of a particle over time and played a sound supposedly matching the graph. (Which was more confusing, because the sounds didn't match the graphs — the pure tone was actually the two-frequency dial tone!) Then asked about which sound had a more uncertain duration.
No mention was made about how the graph of a particle's displacement would be obtained. My initial answer was that the short 'chirp' had more uncertainty because it had shallower attack/decay and so it would be harder to decide exactly when it started/ended. So then the physicist throw out the Fourier transform and basically said that the wider spread of frequencies in the longer tone meant that it had more uncertainty, and that's where he lost me. Some back-and-forth later I drew two square pulses to eliminate any differences in attack/decay and he said that the math applied to all waves of any shape and he wished he had a whiteboard to write some equations and we were out of time.
I doubt the equations would have helped because I was (and still am) unclear on what he meant by uncertainty.
So back to the original situation. I have a tone generator on one side of the room. I play a 0.1 s tone. Then I play a 1.0 s tone. Then I play a 10.0 s tone. I detect them with my ear, or a microphone, on the other side of the room. I can hook the microphone up to an oscilloscope to see the waves, if I want to more precisely measure the duration. The sound waves have crossed the room. It's anechoic so what I detect is only from the tone generator.
Why does a physicist say the longer tones have more uncertainty than the shorter ones? I am measuring them with the same equipment, which has the same measurement error each time.
At the moment I have two tentative guesses. (1) He was using "uncertainty" differently to how I understand it from engineering. (2) He was attempting an analogy to a quantum problem and I missed that by taking the analogy literally and he missed that I was taking it literally and so we talked past each other. (Not the first time that's happened!)
Could this uncertainty be like de Broglie wavelength in that scale is important, and I'm obsessing about differentiating the wavelengths of an elephant and a rhino?
I really wish I had the slides he used, so I could show you. I can't shake a gut feeling that I missed a key point and have been haring off on a tangent.
I find it interesting that David described Anderson, a writer with one of the best grasps of 'otherness' I have ever read, as having political views to the right. The two are not commonly found together. At least, not these days.
I think this points out a problem with the idea of a single left-right spectrum, which tries to summarize someone's position on a bunch of different issues into a single value that apples to all issue.
The political compass adds a social axis (authoritarian/libertarian) to the classic economic one, which is more useful.
https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
(In the interest of disclosure, I currently sit at -7.5 on both scales. I've been taking the test for nearly two decades, and gradually creeping more left/libertarian every year — defying conventional wisdom that we move to the right as we age.)
Robert:
defying conventional wisdom that we move to the right as we age
I've been doing that myself. In my 20s, I was considered the conservative of my college social group. Both my brother and my then-girlfriend were flaming lefties, and I considered myself the voice of reason, often mentioning that the Reagan/Bush Republicans weren't always wrong about everything.
By the time I was in my 50s, a decade back, I was at the point in my sometimes-friendly, sometimes-not correspondence with Dave Sim, he considered me to be the secret leader of the feminist/homosexualist axis which he opposed.
But this phenomenon is not as unusual as it is portrayed. While my late father did become more right-wing (and crotchety) in his old age, my mother became much more tolerant of departures from the norm as she grew older.
It might be a truism that one becomes more economically conservative with age, as one acquires more investment in the system, but today's right wing is not about economics. It's about bullying. And on the spectrum of bullying vs sympathy, I think that age tends to simply make us more and more like ourselves.
Alfred Differ:
Classical theories enable you to ponder a thing having a property (a stick has a length) independent of how it is measured. Quantum theories don't tolerate that. Show me, show me, show me.
So if I drop a hammer on a planet with a positive gravity, I do in fact have to see it hit the ground to know that it has in fact fallen.
It might be a truism that one becomes more economically conservative with age, as one acquires more investment in the system
When I started university you could earn enough during the summer to pay for your education. That wasn't really true by the time I graduated. That's even less true now. I suspect a large part of my drift to the left is seeing that economically-right-wing policies seem to be increasing the wealth of the few at the cost of impoverishing the many.
Robert:
I suspect a large part of my drift to the left is seeing that economically-right-wing policies seem to be increasing the wealth of the few at the cost of impoverishing the many.
I'm thinking back on what I learned in high school history, almost (gulp!) 50 years ago. What you describe was apparently what happened during the gilded age in the very late nineteenth century. For awhile, the average man on the street was against labor unions and worker-friendly policies because he tended to believe in the Horatio Alger mythos--that some day, he'd be rich too. It was only when it became glaringly obvious that that transformation would never happen that labor qua labor picked up populist support.
Tony,
I have no issues with pragmatism, but the explanatory layer Newton described is wrong in the same way that Ptolemy's geocentric cosmos is wrong. We can re-use the predictive layers to a point without danger, but holding too close to the explanatory ones leads to self-inflicted conceptual errors.
For engineers and everyone else, though, pragmatism must be the rule of the day. I'm fine with that. I don't care if my car is relativistically foreshortened as I roll down the road... as long as it works.
Larry,
Imagine building a house from blueprints that you later learn were written by foolish people. You learn that when the house falls in on itself. From that experience you'll likely use different blueprints next time, but you'll still use hammers, saws, and all the other tools of carpentry on the next house.
It's like that.
A hammer will still pound a nail into a board no matter where.
Turns out our toolset isn't all that large. We can do amazing things with the tools we have, but truly astonishing things happen most often when someone invents a new tool. That's what I worked on as a grad student. We were trying to improve upon a tool few used because they were used to pushing nails into boards using only rocks.
Robert,
I'll be back on this today. Family demands have my attention this morning… but I'll be back. (Use a good Schwarzenegger accent there).
Newton is not ‘debunked’ but proved to be a Reduction Simplification of Einstein at small speeds. and modest gravity.
Poul Anderson has tremendous empathy! He simply assumed that history shows humans are inherently feudalistic/romantic/ hierarchical beings. He was right! We are!
And that is an evolutionary trap, like peacock tails and the antlers of the Irish Moose. I count it in the top ten Fermi explanations for why no one gets into space. We must try to find a way out of that trap and there is a way! It might not succeed. But it sure does work.
---
Now onward
onward
onward
Post a Comment