Friday Funny: Study claiming psychotic traits linked to conservatism gets reversed–finds liberalism more likely to have those traits
This is beyond funny it is hilarious. Unfortunately it is hilarious with our money, and it is a magnificent waste of our money.
Quantum theory is virtually unexplainable unless you reduce the wave theory to the subjective knowledge of . . .
Quantum theory is virtually unexplainable unless you reduce the wave theory to the subjective knowledge of . . .
A Private View of Quantum Reality | Quanta Magazine
. . . single observer, you know . . . God.
"Christopher Fuchs describes physics as “a dynamic interplay between storytelling and equation writing. Neither one stands alone, not even at the end of the day.” And indeed Fuchs, a physicist at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, has a radical story to tell. The story is called QBism, and it goes something like this.
Once upon a time there was a wave function, which was said to completely describe the state of a physical system out in the world. The shape of the wave function encodes the probabilities for the outcomes of any measurements an observer might perform on it, but the wave function belonged to nature itself, an objective description of an objective reality.
Then Fuchs came along. Along with the researchers Carlton Caves and Rüdiger Schack, he interpreted the wave function’s probabilities as Bayesian probabilities — that is, as subjective degrees of belief about the system. Bayesian probabilities could be thought of as gambling attitudes for placing bets on measurement outcomes, attitudes that are updated as new data come to light. In other words, Fuchs argued, the wave function does not describe the world — it describes the observer. “Quantum mechanics,” he says, “is a law of thought.”
Quantum Bayesianism, or QBism as Fuchs now calls it, solves many of quantum theory’s deepest mysteries. Take, for instance, the infamous “collapse of the wave function,” wherein the quantum system inexplicably transitions from multiple simultaneous states to a single actuality. According to QBism, the wave function’s “collapse” is simply the observer updating his or her beliefs after making a measurement. Spooky action at a distance, wherein one observer’s measurement of a particle right here collapses the wave function of a particle way over there, turns out not to be so spooky — the measurement here simply provides information that the observer can use to bet on the state of the distant particle, should she come into contact with it. But how, we might ask, does her measurement here affect the outcome of a measurement a second observer will make over there? In fact, it doesn’t. Since the wavefunction doesn’t belong to the system itself, each observer has her own. My wavefunction doesn’t have to align with yours.
In a sea of interpretations of quantum weirdness, QBism swims alone. The traditional “Copenhagen interpretation” treats the observer as somehow standing outside of nature, imbued with mysterious wave-function-collapsing powers, governed by laws of physics that are different from those that govern what’s being observed. That’s all well and good until a second observer comes along to observe the first observer. The “many worlds” interpretation claims that the universe and all of its observers are described by a single, giant wave function that never collapses. Of course, to make that work, one must insist that at every fork in the road — every coin toss, every decision, every moment — the wave function branches and so do we, splitting into countless versions of ourselves who have collectively done and not done everything we’ll ever do or not do. For those to whom a set of infinite parallel realities is too high a price to pay to avoid wave-function collapse, there’s always the Bohmian interpretation, which seeks to restore a more concrete reality to the world by postulating the existence of a guiding force that permeates the universe and deterministically governs everything in it. Unfortunately, this new reality lies forever out of reach of scientific probing.
Those interpretations all have something in common: They treat the wave function as a description of an objective reality shared by multiple observers. QBism, on the other hand, treats the wave function as a description of a single observer’s subjective knowledge. It resolves all of the quantum paradoxes, but at the not insignificant cost of anything we might call “reality.” Then again, maybe that’s what quantum mechanics has been trying to tell us all along — that a single objective reality is an illusion.
QBism also raises a host of new and equally mysterious questions. If the wave function describes an observer, does the observer have to be human? Does that observer have to have consciousness? Could it be a dog? (“Dogs don’t use wave functions,” Fuchs said. “Heck, I didn’t collapse a wave function until I was 34.”) If my wave function doesn’t have to align with yours, do we live in the same universe? And if quantum mechanics doesn’t describe an external reality, what does?"
We will never understand this until we reintegrate the studies of religion, physics, and philosophy. The disintegration did nothing but delay our understanding of the real world.
World's Largest Atom Smasher Reportedly Shut Down by Rodent
. . . go weasel, go!
"A weasel-like rodent shut down the world's most powerful atom smasher after it apparently gnawed through a power cable, facility officials said today.
The Large Hadron Collider, a 17-mile long machine sitting deep underground on the border of France and Switzerland, went offline Thursday night, according to documents posted online by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (better known by its French acronym CERN).
Engineers investigating the shutdown reportedly found the charred remains of a furry animal near the chewed-up power cable."
No man can keep a good weasel down!
. . . you really should subscribe, use the subscribe link below to do so.
Here is the blog feed: Barking Up The Wrong Tree
Here is the entry: This Is How To Boost Emotional Resilience: 10 Research-Backed Secrets
Here is the sign up to subscribe to Eric's blog by email.
The article appears below the fold!
Can science prove the Multiverse is real? No, but philosophy, and religion, well, faith actually, might be able to . . .
Can Physicists Ever Prove the Multiverse Is Real?
. . . this is a philosophy question not a science question, and it will be so until the scientific process comes back into play.
"A universe contains, by definition, all of the stuff anyone inside can see, detect or probe. And because the multiverse is unreachable, physically and philosophically, astronomers may not be able to find out—for sure—if it exists at all.
Determining whether or not we live on one of many islands, though, isn’t just a quest for pure knowledge about the nature of the cosmos. If the multiverse exists, the life-hosting capability of our particular universe isn’t such a mystery: An infinite number of less hospitable universes also exist. The composition of ours, then, would just be a happy coincidence. But we won’t know that until scientists can validate the multiverse. And how they will do that, and if it even possible to do that, remains an open question.
This uncertainty presents a problem. In science, researchers try to explain how nature works using predictions that they formally call hypotheses. Colloquially, both they and the public sometimes call these ideas “theories.” Scientists especially gravitate toward this usage when their idea deals with a wide-ranging set of circumstances or explains something fundamental to how physics operates. And what could be more wide-ranging and fundamental than the multiverse?
For an idea to technically move from hypothesis to theory, though, scientists have to test their predictions and then analyze the results to see whether their initial guess is supported or disproved by the data. If the idea gains enough consistent support and describes nature accurately and reliably, it gets promoted to an official theory.
As physicists spelunk deeper into the heart of reality, their hypotheses—like the multiverse—become harder and harder, and maybe even impossible, to test. Without the ability to prove or disprove their ideas, there’s no way for scientists to know how well a theory actually represents reality."
Everything after this is philosophy, not science. That could change if the scientific method allowed further testing, observation, hypothesis, etc., but not until then.
There is much more below the fold.
These People Know No History - Cafe Hayek
And no, the Global Alarmist have no grasp of history.
Here's the letter:
"Mr. Fred Lunt
American College of Physicians
In your recent mass e-mail you announce that “[t]he American College of Physicians issues urgent call to action on Climate Change and its possible catastrophic health effects.”
I wonder if the American College of Physicians is also issuing an urgent call to action on government-imposed restrictions on markets and their possible catastrophic health effects. Because history knows no force that rivals free markets at improving humans’ health, surely you and your organization’s caring physicians are also concerned that the health of ordinary men, women, and children will be put in grave jeopardy by efforts to halt climate change through government interventions that hamstring markets.
Surely your members appreciate, for example, the enormous health benefits of inexpensive machine-washable underwear and the fact that these are the products of free markets. Surely your members appreciate also other health-promoting features of free markets – features such inexpensive indoor plumbing, inexpensive potable water, inexpensive household detergents and disinfectants, inexpensive dental-hygiene products, and, most importantly, salvation from the malnutrition and starvation that were routine before the industrial age.
And I trust that your concerned members also take due account of the enormous benefits that inexpensive fossil fuels directly bestow on ordinary people – benefits such as affordable transportation that enables local pharmacies to be always fully stocked with life-saving drugs; affordable energy that keeps people’s homes and workplaces safely cool during summer and safely warm during winter; and affordable electricity that gives nearly everyone access not only to clean-burning electric light bulbs and kitchen ranges, but also ready on-line access to the latest legitimate medical advice and even to the latest paroxysms of mindless hysteria about the consequences of fossil-fuel use.
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030"
These physicians apparently didn't go to college. Don is correct about the facts that using carbon based fuels has improved the lives of humans. In addition to the economic argument there is a scientific argument as well.
Remember the fear is that we have released so much carbon that the earths temperature is now higher than ever and will become too hot.
Younger Dryas to Present Time Line Updated2
The longterm record of global climate does not confirm and alarmists fears.
The graph of importance in this timeline is the "Air temperature (˚C) from Alley, R. B., 2004." Notice that the graph's horizontal axis is the time with the bottom right 0 being the present and the bottom left 18 being 18,000 years BP (before present). The vertical axis is negative temperature.
Notice the last 800 years shows the average temperature was a fairly constant 32˚C, although it does kick up a small fraction of a degree at the end. During the current interglacial warm period this is the longest time the average temperature has been as low as 32˚C. Before that average temperature touched -32˚C in 1,200 BP, 4,800 BP, and between 8,200 and 8,400 when it even dropped a fraction below -32˚C. Essentially, -32˚C is the absolute minimum temperature for the current interglacial warm period. To repeat the temperature we are approximately at today is the coolest temper during the current interglacial warm period.
On the other hand, average temperature has been at or above -30˚C 15 separate times, and above -29˚C on three separate occasions. The average temperature during the present interglacial warm period appears to be about -31˚C.
We are now at or very near the low temperature for the current interglacial warm period.
Another look at the graph shows us that after the end of the last ice age, the Earth warmed and had quite a consistent temperature band averaging at or near -30˚C. This seems to have ended just prior to 2,000 BP, when the temperature began a consistent decline to an average temperature now of approximately -32˚C. At no time in the last 10,000 years has the Earth's average temperature been below -30˚C for more than a few hundred years, until 2,000 BP when the temperature dropped below -30˚C and has stayed significantly below , and in fact is now hugging the -32˚C line.
It appears that we are in an early cooling phase, perhaps the beginning cool down before the Earth enters its next glaciation period. The facts simply do not support the conclusion that we are now in some sort of untethered warming period driven by human activity, the Sun, or anything else. The evidence shows without doubt we are in one of the longest cool spell of the current interglacial warm period.
So, what has caused the global alarmist fracas?
To understand that you need to look to the 3 graphs in the bottom right hand section of the page, they are titled HadCRUT4 Temperature Anomaly (˚C). These graphs all show that the temperature from 1850 through 1900 was wavy but relatively stable, then in 1900-1910 something happens, and the temperature begins to rise dramatically, and continues to rise to the present. It appears the current crop of scientists have devoted their entire attention to a short period of time at the end of the current interglacial warm period, and have blown this temperature rise out of proportion.
The reality is however even worse, these scientists do not believe the warming which began back in 1910 through about 1942 could have been caused by carbon. This is because they do not believe the amounts of carbon produced before the 1940-1950 period was sufficient to cause global warming. Understanding this requires we parse the graphs a bit more closely. From 1850 - 1900 the temperature was relatively stable, then there was a rapid temperature rise to about 1942, then the global average temperature declines slightly until 1978, and after there is a period of global average temperature warming through about 1996-1998, then the temperature again flattens, and looks to be again starting a decline.
According to the global warming alarmist scientists, the only period of rising temperatures which could have been caused by human caused global warming was the period 1978 - 1998.
Sea level rise is another place of serious concern for the global warming alarmist. The problem here like with temperature is the facts simply do not comport with the beliefs of the alarmist.
There are two sea level graphs both are bottom left center of the page, one shows the longterm history of global sea levels, and the other shows mean seal level 1874-2014. The scales are different so the charts look different, but they both show the same thing. The global sea level graph show sea level 18,000 years BP to be very low, this is to be expected because of the huge amounts of ice trapped on land. After this melted from 18,000 years BP through 8,000 years BP the sea level rose dramatically. Since that time the sea levels have risen a small amount but comparatively little. While the graph showing mean sea level 1874-2014 appears to be a significant increase it is very small compared to the longer time period graph. Further, it is clear that any sea level rise before 1950 was not related to human caused global warming, but other natural causes.
So, why would the mean sea level graph show such a consistent rise in sea level from 1874 through the present, and not an increase in sea level rise only after 1950 when human released carbon became sufficient for the alarmist to believe it would create catastrophic global warming?
Don is correct, the economic arguments weigh heavily towards using carbon based fuels to improve human standards of living. That is reinforced because the science does not support the catastrophic human caused global warming theory proposed by the alarmist.
BrothersJudd Blog: A RUN OF THE MILL MALTHUSIAN:
Well, these wankers do!
"Prominent MIT economist and dean Lester Thurow dies at 77 : Scholar and public intellectual examined globalization and its consequences. (Peter Dizikes, 3/30/16, MIT News Office )
The influential MIT economist and public intellectual Lester Thurow, whose work addressed the many consequences of an increasingly global economy, died on Friday at his home in Westport, Massachusetts. Thurow, who also served as dean of the MIT Sloan School of Management, was 77 years old. [...]
In many years of engagement with the public and government officials -- and in a series of bestselling books -- Thurow advocated a distinctive set of policy ideas that defied simple political labeling.
He was just lucky that there are no consequences for intellectuals when everything they say turns out to be wrong, Zero-Sum Fallacies (Rich Karlgaard)
At the dawn of the U.S. economic boom in 1980 MIT economist Lester C. Thurow looked backward into the dark night. He called his sad new book The Zero-Sum Society: Distribution and the Possibilities for Economic Change. Here is a description on Amazon:
"Interpreting macroeconomics as a zero-sum game, Thurow proposes that the American economy will not solve its most trenchant problems-inflation, slow economic growth, the environment-until the political economy can support, in theory and in practice, the idea that certain members of society will have to bear the brunt of taxation and other government-sponsored economic actions."
That yawner of a 58-word sentence gives you the flavor of the book. Nevertheless, the famed Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith called Zero-Sum Society "an extraordinarily good and lucid examination of current economic difficulties." Galbraith was wrong about prose and prophecy. It was a horrible book and a crimped way of looking at economics and the human spirit. President Ronald Reagan neglected to read it. One assumes the founders and backers of Apple, Sun Microsystems, Microsoft, Dell, Oracle, Cisco, Palm, Yahoo and Google passed on it, too.
Zero-sum implies no net progress in human affairs. The facts scream otherwise. Global production in 2006 amounted to $66 tril-lion, or $10,200 per person. Two hundred years ago per capita income was about $300. Five thousand years ago it was equivalent to $200. For the mass of mankind there was no detectable economic progress for 4,800 years. Then came the Industrial Revolution with its hockey-stick curve in income and life span.
Yet the zero-sum myth lives on. Like a retrovirus it burrows and hides and waits. In 1968 it popped up in the form of a bestselling book by Paul R. Ehrlich entitled The Population Bomb. As investor Gary Alexander recounted in a recent speech: "[Ehrlich] opened famously by saying, 'The battle to feed [all of] humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.' Writing in Ramparts magazine, Ehrlich went even further, 'Millions of people will soon perish in smog disasters in New York and Los Angeles the oceans will die of DDT poisoning by 1979 the U.S. life expectancy will drop to 42 years by 1980, due to cancer epidemics.' Hepatitis and dysentery would sweep America by 1980 and nearly all of us would wear gas masks. Over 65 million Americans would starve in the 1980s, leaving only 22.6 million starved Americans alive in 1990."
Then, to Ehrlich's apparent dismay, the inventive human spirit intervened.
While Ehrlich was gnashing his teeth, Alexander writes, "Dr. Norman Borlaug was launching the Green Revolution, which has managed to feed billions more people on moderately more arable soil than in the 1960s. Instead of starving against our will, millions of us are trying to starve voluntarily-by dieting. Food is far cheaper, relative to the overall growth of the cost of living, than in the 1960s. From 1977 to 1994 food costs fell 77% in real terms.'"
Today seems to be progressive, and neoMalthusian claptrap day. All of the environmental, neoMalthusian, zero sum fads like population bomb, global cooling, DDT, fluoridated drinking water, peak oil, Club of Rome over-population, acid rain, high tension electromagnetic fields, ozone hole, radon, dioxin, mad cow disease, mercury, global warming, climate change are nothing more than fadish beliefs which make us feel important and special. The reality is we are not. We no more need to band together to save the world than we can band together to climb to the moon.
These beliefs are destructive. This should be pointed out at every turn.
What cures the ills behind by these scares is wealth. The wealthier the people, the cleaner the environment, and the more limited the family size. Human ingenuity will conquer the problems facing us in the future, as it has in the past. fearfully fretting like a spinster aunt is a worthless endeavor, don't engage in it. When you see others engaging in it, mock them, point out their folly. Be merciless about it!
Science Is a Good Substitute for God
Like pregnancy, science is an either/or proposition, not a belief. Yes, there are times we might not know something, but it is best then to keep ones powder dry, and wait till we do. Otherwise, you will look as stupid as the US federal government hopping from belief in the food pyramid, to belief that eating eggs increase blood cholesterol levels, etc.
Science worth its salt is testable, provable, and falsifiable. It is not belief.
The real problem with a belief in science is that unreformed religions are extremely dangerous. The unreformed science of Marxism caused the deaths of over 100 million. This seems like a bad outcome especially once you realize that science failed in every incarnation. Any scientific position which morphs into a belief will soon be controlled by the belief, while the actual sciency stuff falls by the wayside. This is what has happened in climate science. While it was once a science it is now a belief.
Let's just hope that climate science does not need to murder 100 million before winking out of existence like the Marxist science did.
I have always found the idea of atheism to be inane. To mean anything, atheism must stand for the proposition that "there is no God/god." Fine, but by making that statement one must bear the burden to prove there is no God. I will wait right here, let me know when you are done.
The problem is the believer of this position cannot prove there is no God. In fact, the believer cannot even prove that he, himself exists. Nor can he prove any other thing exists. In this environment, what is science, and what does that concept even mean? Ultimately, without this fundamental proof everything becomes belief, or faith. So, exactly what is the difference between faith in a God, and anything else? This fundamental misunderstanding leads intelligent men to argue for the position of atheism when it is a position which cannot be supported.
However, the obverse position, that there is a God, if relying on faith, is fully supportable.
The argument that science, and faith are antagonists is incorrect. At their most fundamental level there is only faith. Science only exists, if you accept on faith that it exists.
Ultimately, our author is correct that science is a substitute for God, if you need to replace a tried and true reformed faith with an untried, unreformed belief. The again the last time this was tried in a large scale experiment 100 million people lost their lives. Choose wisely.
Agnosticism is another matter entirely.
The Breakdown of Cartesian Metaphysics (Hackett Publishing) by Richard A. Watson
Watson's book is brilliant, and is a must-read book to understand the interplay between religion, and faith.