Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
I’ve opened a new “Sandbox” thread as a post as the new “ignore commenter” plug-in only works on threads started as posts.
I wanted to mention that one podcast I’d be def be interested in being on is Sean Carroll’s, which you turned me on to. Strangely, he’s had a couple of episodes on books on democracy. On one, devoted to Astra Taylor’s recent “Democracy May Not Exist, but We’ll Miss It When It’s Gone,” Carroll asks a ton of very good questions but gets very few intelligent answers.
I feel like I couldn’t do much worse than she did–though he’s smarter than I am too.
Sean has emphasized on AMAs that he wants to have a variety of guests — his latest is the musician Grimes — and not just talk physics.
I agree that Sean has to work hard with some guests to get them to express their views fully. From what I have read so far of the transcripts, the two previous guests (on knowledge and on end of the universe) fall into that category.
On the other hand, his previous guest Goff is very articulate in explaining his version of monism, and gets the better of Sean several times when Sean tries to make a philosophical counter (eg on knowledge argument or in discussing ontology of Sean’s Everettian views).
You might also like Tyler Cowen’s podcasts. He is an excellent interviewer, although I don’t always like his economics views. Also fun is anything thing with Jeremy Black on NBN, especially the “Arguing History” series with him (which is actually mostly Black pontificating on history).
https://newbooksnetwork.com/category/politics-society/arguing-history/
History of pragmatism from two of its adherents
https://aeon.co/essays/pragmatism-is-one-of-the-most-successful-idioms-in-philosophy
I watched. I’m inclined to disagree on quantum theory. Or, to say it differently, my quantum theory says that there will never be a satisfactory quantum theory.
I agree with Maudlin on Schrödinger’s cat. But I also disagree about quite a bit.
All well and good, but did you notice the naked man at the start?
I think Maudlin should have at least mentioned the Many-Worlds Interpretation, if only to dismiss it (I know he has little regard for it). But other than that, what he said is the consensus viewpoint of people working in quantum foundations, at least among the realists.
So I am not surprised you disagree with a lot he said.
ETA: Given your view of Bayesian epistemology, I will guess that you are also not a fan of the main anti-realist position, Quantum Bayesianism.
Didn’t you already post this a while back? Not complaining at all, it’s just that I seem to remember us briefly discussing this clip
BruceS,
Just finished watching that again, and a question sprung to mind.
It doesn’t sound right to me when people claim that a scientific theory is an upgrade from a scientific hypothesis after being supported by (enough) evidence.
Maudlin refers to QM interpretations as different theories that map QM concepts to the real world, and tell us how it’s like, so even though they’re not supported by evidence, the fact that they’re not just a mathematical predictive model, means that QM interpretations are actual scientific theories, which seems right to me (assuming that I’m not misrepresenting Maudlin’s views, that is)
OTOH, I remember you told me you think QM interpretations are philosophy, not science, when I asked what you thought about it, so I’m a bit confused.
Would you mind shedding some light on this, please?
That doesn’t sound right to me, either.
Thanks Neil. A theory is a much broader concept than a hypothesis in my (probably uninformed) view, isn’t it?
Yes, quite right.
A theory sets a direction to research.
I think it is important to understand what Maudlin expects from a scientific theory: that explains why he thinks the QM formalism is not there yet (see extended quote at end of this post for Maudlin’s view).
Not everyone agrees with Maudlin on this point; for example, there are some MWI supporters who think the mathematical wave function itself represents reality and everything else is emergent in some sense (Sean C is in this camp ). They see no need for a theory to include local beables.
Here is an extended quote from his latest book to explain what Maudlin thinks is a requirement of a theory (Maudlin is a realist, of course):
[start of quote]
What principle guided these choices? The central problem facing attempts to understand a quantum theory is how it manages to model empirical phenomena in a principled way. This is often referred to as “the measurement problem,” because the sorts of laboratory operations used to provide data are called “measurements.” But the problem has a much wider scope. Any macroscopic phenomenon can in principle test a fundamental physical theory, because the theory should be able to provide a physical account of it. Erwin Schrödinger famously asked how quantum theory could model how a cat in a particular experimental setting ends up either alive or dead. It is irrelevant for his point whether the experiment counts as a “measurement.”
John Stewart Bell made a proposal about how this can be done, which he called the theory of local beables. “Beables” refers to the ontology of a theory: what it postulates to exist. “Local” indicates a beable that exists in a small region of space or space-time. Fixing the distribution of local beables at a microscopic scale fixes the location, shape, and motion of their macroscopic aggregates and thereby can solve the measurement problem and Schrödinger’s cat problem. What one needs from such a theory is an inventory of local beables and an account of their dynamics: how they get distributed in space-time.
[end of quote]
BruceS,
Thanks, Bruce. That was very helpful.
Well, at least Maudlin and Carroll agree on the importance of fundamental physics and QM interpretations. Let’s hope someone listens and more physicists are able to work on that
Look at this, science has discovered a new species of animal!
It looks sort of like a German Shepherd, but it is smaller, much smaller. So far there is only one known to exist in the entire world. Its unknown whether it can possibly breed to create some kind of hybrid animal.
But it just goes to show you the incredible power of natural selection. It doesn’t need to create something whole cloth, instead it can take what already exists, and in just a short amount of time, create something entirely new an unique. Imagine in 1 million years what an animal like this could do. It could become so small, but with such intense guarding abilities, that you could keep it in a locket around your neck. Then in emergencies it would burst out and ward off any possible threats of harm.
Or better yet, it could become so small, like the size of just a few molecules, and then you could put it in a pill you could swallow. It would then go sniffing around looking for cancers. And by then it will probably so smart, doing taxes will be a thing of the past. Just get them to do it. They won’t need much in the way of food for a reward, probably a crumb could last them months, maybe years.
Amazing! But not a problem for evolution.
phoodoo,
No link provided. I guess we should treat it as fiction.
Neil Rickert,
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/adorable-german-shepherd-dwarfism-stay-193331052.html
phoodoo,
I doubt that biologists will consider this to be a new species.
How could they not!
test…..
That’s encouraging! 🙂
My previous test was in sandbox. So I’ll test again here. This is using my (rarely used) test account.
I guess it now works.
So Britain (remember Britain?) heads for the polls today. Thoughts and prayers, guys …
Hoping for a miracle! 😉
Alan Fox,
Looking even worse than expected. Cleanup for SNP in Scotland and Cons in England, leaving little for Labour. The Union’s shot. Either Indyref2 or tanks in Edinburgh – or both. I think people underestimate how disruptive this will be – all over that stupid obsession, Brexit. At least they will be holding the parcel when it blows up.
😢 So sorry, guys. Politics are pretty bad in a lot of places these days.
BTW, on a more pleasant note, I’ve been fiddling around with stuff like this for my cover.
Busy as hell, no?
Allan Miller,
Well, that shocked me into reading the news, which I hadn’t yet done today. I was going to ask you whether “hard Brexit” was still in the offing. But I read in the New York Times:
Not a single fucking aspect. What scares me is that democratic institutions are in decline all around the world. (This observation seems to be uncontroversial among political scientists.) We desperately need a coordinated and aggressive response to global warming. But, collectively, we’re instead traipsing into disaster. What’s happening in the United-for-Now Kingdom is case in point that democracies generally (not always) are horrible at avoiding easily foreseen debacles.
Posted while I was composing.
walto,
Everyone must have an equal opportunity to decide who will decide what should be done. (And everyone must learn, as a child, that elected representatives often must enter into compromises to get things done.)
I thought, when I first heard the word deplorables, that uttering it was a once in a century mistake. It’s the butterfly. The specter haunting the 21st century.
Tom English,
Nope. A naive question was asked – ‘remain or leave?’ – and the answer came back 51.9% in favour of ‘leave’. No plan, no accountability for promises made in campaigning. Most Leavers are pretty naive too, and could not understand why we didn’t then ‘just leave’. They consider their democratic rights affronted by the mere notion of opposition or delay. So they blame Remainers for being bad losers and getting in the way of ‘just leaving’.
But it’s a complex task with a host of considerations, and many variations of ‘just leaving’ were rejected by Leave politicians themselves. May’s negotiated deal was dubbed ‘worse than Remain’. So out she went and in came Johnson. He renegotiated her deal – in many eyes made it worse, because it drew a customs border down the middle of the UK. But the hardliners were suddenly all for it. The reason was obvious – unlike May, Johnson lacks integrity, and will simply tear it up when we are into the ‘transition period’ and non-members. Given a year to negotiate a trade deal – an impossible task – we will ‘just leave’ at the end of 2020, so the ‘hard Brexit’ hardliners wanted all along will happen 4 years after a 1.9% vote in favour of some Brexit (but not necessarily that one). It’s a massive con trick sold as asserting democracy. Civil servants tasked with preparing for this still-vague future are massively demoralised, and selection criteria for the incoming Government significantly attenuated the talent pool – candidates had to pledge to be pro Johnson’s Brexit, which is not a mark of intelligence!
Effectively, Conservative ranks have been swelled by a massive move away from Labour – in the process approving the farthest right Government in modern times to service their obsession. Simpletons think this will be an end of things and we can ‘move on’. Others fear the loss of the NHS to rapacious US interests and a strong boost to Scottish independence – they voted strongly to Remain, now their democratic rights are being trampled on by a simplistic equal-vote pool. 4 fucking years ago.
We are in no position to negotiate with anyone. We can’t even negotiate with ourselves.
Johnson is supposedly a big admirer of Winston Churchill. He denies that he considers himself the new Churchill, but I bet he really does. Churchill had to cope with a crisis caused by Adolf Hitler. Boris Johnson is the man of the hour, the new Churchill, ready to rally the nation with determination to cope with the crisis caused by … Boris Johnson.
We have one.
It involves:
a collapse of public health systems;
a spread of preventible disease;
a collapse of agriculture;
massive famine;
a large die-off of the human population.
I hope I am mistaken. But that seems to be the direction that we are taking.
Damn, what a fucking tragedy.
Neil Rickert,
Sadly so. The Tragedy of the Commons. Voters have proven themselves, time and again, to be short termist.
Well, it could be worse. Couldn’t it? Go Scotland and watch your back Channel 4!
What is bugging me most of all in this is the redefinition of the term ‘democracy’. A friend signed off his post about voting with the sententious “whatever happens I will respect the result. That’s democracy”. A clear swipe at those of us battling Brexit. I wanted to tell him to fuck off.
It’s all over the place. “We had a democratic vote”. “People are telling me on the doorstep, Leaver and Remainer, that we must respect the democratic vote”. They are referring of course to the 2016 referendum, a single national pool delivering a net 51.9% – but with Scotland notably 63% Remain and Northern Ireland 55% Remain. Well over a million people have died since, more have entered the voting pool, and we have had two general elections. But still people regard that 2016 vote as set in stone. A party offering a referendum on the present Knowns got kicked for it – a vote has become undemocratic!
One of the Tory victors was gibbering thus on the news just now, regarding the Tory endorsement as a victory for ‘democracy’, one in which presumably representatives are eternally subservient to plebiscites – by implication, if the Tories had not been returned, it would have been ‘undemocratic’! 🤔
Worth noting that Remain parties polled 53% last night. But first-past-the-post saw the Remain vote split at constituency level, hence more Tory seats. So what is ‘democracy’, plebiscite or election? Whatever suits your argument at the time.
My prayers were answered!
https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Boris-Johnson-wins-by-landslide-exit-polls-610800
I guess he Trumped the labor party.
Allan Miller,
With Tories having done so well with FPTP (first past the post, Bruce) don’t expect any move to a fairer voting system any time soon.
Short-term. With traditional parties moving left and right there’s room for a sensible, pragmatic centrist party. Oh wait…
Posted on my facebook:
On the bright side, if Labour had got in, narrowly (the best they could hope for), they would have to deal with a faltering economy, tabloid hostility, Parliamentary blockage and substantial Brexit backlash from Leavers in the event of a Remain 2nd referendum win. Whereas now the Tories who sold us this Brexit will have to deliver it – *and* do something for the disadvantaged of Redcar, Blyth and Workington who have pinned their hopes on this mix by lending their votes. The odds aren’t good, the talent pool restricted, and the Civil Service already demoralised trying to polish this turd.
This is your great idea, folks. No more excuses. Make it work.
I’ll pull up a chair.
I did see some speculation Johnson might turn out more One-Nation than Thatcherite. Who knows?
His claim to be ‘One Nation’ drew snorts of derision from the likes of Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine. He tries these stances on like hats. He has united the party (for now) by insisting only Brexiters could stand. That rather fucks off the rest of us.
Me too. I’m disqualified from voting in the UK (they’ll have to think of a new name when Scotland leaves) but seems to me “Us” managed to mess up a rare opportunity pretty spectacularly. What happened to intelligent voting?
Alan Fox,
God, I had endless fruitless discussion with Corbynites about tactical voting. Blinkered, the lot of ’em. Genuinely believing that an ideologically pure old style socialism would be catnip to voters, and attacking the lib dems with silly slogans – Tory lite, yellow Tory – while insisting they would go into Tory coalition again, like 2010. A hugely unlikely prospect given diametric opposition on their flagship policy, and the kicking they got (undeservedly IMO) in 2015. Here’s the irony: the approximate electorate that punished the lib dems for Tory coalition in 2015 have just massively voted Tory.
Johnson now claiming that the British people overwhelmingly want Brexit. That’s the kind of slipperiness with concepts I detest. It wasn’t a referendum, so he cannot draw that conclusion. 47% for Leave parties.
In terms of pure mathematical considerations, reducing the population to less than a billion would be the long term solution. Short of wars, famine, and pestilence, that’s unlikely given the biological imperatives and the institutional incentives to keep growing the populations.
What will happen when China and India get more and more cars for example, and for that matter the 3rd world?
Besides, nuclear and perhaps other weapons are spreading and could get in the hands of terrorists.
Human nature combined with high technology will find a way to destroy itself. It’s hard for me to be optimistic, personally. I have to find solace outside of expecting that the human race will fix itself and create its own immortality and utopia.
One of my favorite and wise philosophers said:
But at least Trudeau got re-elected in Canada right?
I mentioned just global warming, but I can, I assure you, elaborate on all of those points. Furthermore, I insist on adding “a global economic collapse.” Economic entities at all levels, not just national governments, are up to their eyeballs in debt. Perhaps it is not the case that everything will come crashing down. But I am sure that there are limits on what a government can do in a time of crisis, when it already is deeply in debt. In the current fiscal year, the U.S. government is running up $3 thousand dollars of additional debt per person in the country. This is sheer madness. We’re in a period of economic expansion, with very low unemployment. Just when is it that we pay off debts?
Allan Miller,
I’ve read a bit about the consequences of a hard Brexit. A detail that’s stuck with me is that most of the UK’s insulin is imported. Hopefully some emergency measure will be adopted by someone, somehow, before diabetics start dying. But it is so obviously wrong to approach Brexit with a cavalier attitude.
Thank you. I had wondered what accounted for the huge discrepancy.
There is a lot of fear about that – particularly mentioned because Theresa May is Type l. Another is short lived isotopes – delays and supply issues will affect cancer treatments. People are genuinely in fear of their lives. But the Brexiters are immune to concern. They have been given a handy card ‘Project Fear’ that they play robotically at every turn. Ironically given that they relied on fear of Corbyn, rioting and conscription into the mythical ‘EU Army’ to help win the election.
Farming is another problem area, of many. Marginal hill farms near me rely on exporting sheep meat to Europe which would attract a 46% tariff on hard Brexit. Meantime, if we reduce import tariffs to combat food price inflation brought on by WTO rules, our farmers are again screwed. I could go on, indefinitely!
They really are a blinkered bunch. They think upending 40 years of integration can be done with no consequence at all.