tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.comments2023-06-19T04:35:06.263-07:00Skeptic's Playmillerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comBlogger3680125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-281748267918731772015-05-03T08:16:59.706-07:002015-05-03T08:16:59.706-07:00Pictures can be e-mailed to me at skepticsplay at ...Pictures can be e-mailed to me at skepticsplay at gmail dot com, although they won't appear publicly that way. To post publicly you'd have to use an image hosting service and link to it.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-62369081825378500592015-05-03T04:38:29.588-07:002015-05-03T04:38:29.588-07:00I have a solution, how can I post the pictureI have a solution, how can I post the picturemillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-28124323790343110302015-05-02T03:05:01.651-07:002015-05-02T03:05:01.651-07:00See SecretSquirrel's answer above. The tourist...See SecretSquirrel's answer above. The tourist adds the extra degree of freedom necessary to change the outcome.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-55728042994482725022015-05-02T02:59:14.282-07:002015-05-02T02:59:14.282-07:00I've waited 3 years, can you give me the answe...I've waited 3 years, can you give me the answer yet?millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-45382557210731841682015-05-01T12:22:37.147-07:002015-05-01T12:22:37.147-07:00Did they have vaccines for smallpox or polio up th...Did they have vaccines for smallpox or polio up there?millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-83867549865727132612015-04-27T21:10:05.951-07:002015-04-27T21:10:05.951-07:00Well if you find an empirical difference in some s...Well if you find an empirical difference in some sense it's a different interpretation. So the way to "prove" Bohmian mechanics is to really disprove all the major interpretations in favor of a new interpretation, one which is very much like Bohmian mechanics and very unlike MWI or Copenhagen. But yeah I'm all for that.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-72155286205108604162015-04-27T19:31:23.509-07:002015-04-27T19:31:23.509-07:00Point taken. Oh and here is the article I had in m...Point taken. Oh and here is the article I had in mind when I brought up pilot wave theory, in case you are interested: http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-69895732427338355582015-04-27T19:31:08.296-07:002015-04-27T19:31:08.296-07:00"there is no empirical difference between the..."there is no empirical difference between the interpretations."<br /><br /><br /><br />I don't know that we should accept this statement a priori. It would be nice to find a real empirical difference between the interpretations, so we could actually test them.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-24357776273133838982015-04-27T19:16:26.911-07:002015-04-27T19:16:26.911-07:00There's a problem with that: by not citing the...There's a problem with that: by not citing the source, nobody even knows that you're quoting an expert!<br /><br /><br /><br />In any case I strongly disagree with Steven Barr on substantive grounds. Generally his arguments aren't very good and seem to emphasize the opinions of "great scientists" in the 30s. The most important work on quantum interpretations was done in the 50s (e.g. Bell's theorem, decoherence, Bohmian mechanics). It's also unclear what the problem is with writing down a bigger wavefunction, and even if that is a problem, what minds could possibly do to solve it. But no it does not surprise me to hear experts disagree with me; I work with scientists after all.<br /><br /><br /><br />I know about pilot wave theory (specifically Bohmian mechanics), and well these interpretations aren't things you can prove, exactly. In any case, my argument does not depend on any specific interpretation. What I'm saying is that if you make a claim which is based on a specific interpretation, then your claim must not create empirical differences, because there is no empirical difference between the interpretations.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-66745803667901512262015-04-27T18:31:22.141-07:002015-04-27T18:31:22.141-07:00I am not an expert in this field and my intention ...I am not an expert in this field and my intention of posting that was not to argue for either side, hence the lack of citation. I just put that there to show that there are other experts who are of the opinion that the observer is required to have a "mind". Where people go from these two differing schools of thoughts is up to them, my intention was just to stimulate investigation into why there are experts on both sides. By the way, have either of you heard of the pilot-wave theory? If that one turns out to be correct (albeit in many many decades yet if at all), it would throw a huge spanner to both sides of the argument anyway.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-21745895063737508382015-04-26T08:15:13.925-07:002015-04-26T08:15:13.925-07:00Your entire comment is a quote without citation. ...Your entire comment is a quote without <a href="https://www.bigquestionsonline.com/content/does-quantum-physics-make-it-easier-believe-god" rel="nofollow">citation</a>. :-[ Why bother commenting at all?<br /><br /><br />I disagree with Steven Barr, because the wavefunction cannot be interpreted as an epistemic probability. Look up the PBR theorem. Also look up decoherence, which is the process by which probabilities can apparently "jump" regardless of whether there are observers or not.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-49320337286623581442015-04-25T21:44:41.875-07:002015-04-25T21:44:41.875-07:00With regards to the screen or the chair being an o...With regards to the screen or the chair being an observer:<br /><br />"An obvious question is why one needs to talk about knowledge and minds at all. Couldn’t an inanimate physical device (say, a Geiger counter) carry out a “measurement”? That would run into the very problem pointed out by von Neumann: If the “observer” were just a purely physical entity, such as a Geiger counter, one could in principle write down a bigger wavefunction that described not only the thing being measured but also the observer. And, when calculated with the Schrödinger equation, that bigger wave function would not jump! Again: as long as only purely physical entities are involved, they are governed by an equation that says that the probabilities don’t jump.<br /><br />That’s why, when Peierls was asked whether a machine could be an “observer,” he said no, explaining that “the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows.” Not a purely physical thing, but a mind."millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-74912488827672335712015-04-14T00:02:29.257-07:002015-04-14T00:02:29.257-07:00I am finding reason (3) quite plausible. It isn...I am finding reason (3) quite plausible. It isn't that there are so many fewer asexual men, it's that by and large if you're male and don't particularly care about sex you can pretty much ignore it: apart from the cliche that you're going to live with your mum - as if sexuality had anything to do with the desire for independence and self-reliance. And the assumption that you're gay, for some reason, because y'know, dudes got to be into something, male or female.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-62549835091838576002015-04-09T10:14:01.098-07:002015-04-09T10:14:01.098-07:00In any case, I'm still here so I can respond. ...In any case, I'm still here so I can respond. Keith was exactly correct. This argument corresponds to Theorem 1 above.<br /><br /><br />The critical thing you are missing is that entailment is defined using the "material conditional". (That's a search term, if you'd like to learn more.) For example, the statement "If A, then B" is true whenever A is false. And it doesn't really matter whether A and B have any physical connection, and it doesn't matter whether B is true or false.<br /><br /><br />For example, here is a true statement: "If the moon is made of cheese, then I'm having lunch right now."millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-53467665692745943392015-04-09T08:22:15.229-07:002015-04-09T08:22:15.229-07:00Check the timestamp.Check the timestamp.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-67537252267308920992015-04-09T05:13:35.418-07:002015-04-09T05:13:35.418-07:00Hi Keith, just saw your post and got interested. I...Hi Keith, just saw your post and got interested. I think the issue you raise is resolved by looking at Godel's definition of a positive property. I think his definition of it goes something like: a positive property is one whose negation would be non-positive. If we were to accept this definition as a working one, the issue you bring up is immediately resolves, because it then becomes impossible for B and not-B to both be positive. From that perspective, therefore, I think the proof holds. However, I do see significant merit to your argument about the degree of acceptability of the combination of premises (although I could be wrong here). For one thing, I for the life of me can't see how "the absence of A from all objects in all worlds automatically means that A entails B". Well, what if property A is absent from all objects in all worlds, while B does exist in one/some of them? Doesn't this simply mean that the preceding parenthetical statement is unverifiable? If anything, doesn't it only mean that the presence of property B doesn't necessitate that of A (as an entailing/entailed property)? <br /><br />I just learnt about Godel's ontological argument by doing a bit of self-reading a couple of days earlier, so I'm in all likelihood missing something important here. Will try to look for an answer to it somewhere else as well. Thanks.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-76140496466051505472015-04-05T14:24:54.853-07:002015-04-05T14:24:54.853-07:00It isn't clear what people mean when they crit...It isn't clear what people mean when they criticize consumerism. The essay I linked does not name a single example, and just refers vaguely to black friday and household debt. Other people complain about electronic devices. Or status goods. Or in your case physical resource-intensive goods. These are some very dissimilar complaints!<br /><br /><br />My view is that all of it counts as consumption. Anti-consumerists would do better to say what they mean--that they oppose a particular kind of consumption.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-31519454171259118812015-04-05T13:40:44.959-07:002015-04-05T13:40:44.959-07:00That seems to me to be a very odd framing. Harmin...That seems to me to be a very odd framing. Harming the environment decreases our ability to exist in the future. We should clarify how we're defining "consumption of goods." One could define it very generally to include most economic activity, in which case I agree with your point but think it tautological. However, I think most critiques of "consumerism" / consumption (I haven't read the article you linked) are singling out the kinds of consumption epitomized by the late-20th century US: non-edible, limited-durability, mass-manufactured, physical-resource-intensive consumer goods-- as opposed to, say, information goods. I'm not sure if "consumption" excludes services, but "consumption of goods" seems to exclude it, and generally consumption of labor-intensive services (ranging from education to visiting restaurants to enjoying art) are more environmentally and economically sustainable (not to mention generally making people happier) than resource-intensive goods.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-23859445694903745832015-04-05T13:32:52.206-07:002015-04-05T13:32:52.206-07:00I agree.
Status goods have the problem that they...I agree.<br /><br /><br />Status goods have the problem that they're a zero sum game. What I gain in status, someone else loses.<br /><br /><br />There's also the problem of people not knowing what they want or what they'd enjoy.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-29876914805602540992015-04-05T13:27:44.283-07:002015-04-05T13:27:44.283-07:00To address the second point, one way of framing th...To address the second point, one way of framing the externalities is to say that short-sighted use of resources will harm the environment and decrease our ability to consume in the future. So the reason we care about the environment is again because we are pro-consumption.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-23033421598094436032015-04-05T11:46:43.831-07:002015-04-05T11:46:43.831-07:00As far as capitalism goes, Marx's critique inc...As far as capitalism goes, Marx's critique includes the idea that capitalism reduces all value, all social relations, to the "cash nexus": under capitalism, all social values and virtues become subsumed into the desire for infinite cash. Aristotle wrote on this vice as well.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-50523720494735000382015-04-05T11:45:00.527-07:002015-04-05T11:45:00.527-07:00Although I think you're far less wrong than Ch...Although I think you're far less wrong than Christians, I don't think you're entirely correct about consumerism.<br /><br /><br />I've known a lot of people who are continually disappointed seeking happiness in more and more material possessions. "Consumerism" may be an Aristotelian virtue: a virtuous mean between real poverty and out-of-control consumerism. It really sucks hard to not have enough to eat, not have warm clothes, not have a convenient way of connecting to society, but there are people who are continually unhappy because they do not have the next new gadget. And the conspicuous consumption of some of the ultra-rich seems particularly loathsome.<br /><br /><br />Some Christians, I think, are just wrapping the Aristotelian virtue in Christian language, and that's ok, I think. Some, however, (Mother Teresa comes to mind) seem to find incredible "virtue" in the most abject poverty (well, others' abject poverty; MT herself lived quite the material good life); this kind of fetishization of poverty can serve just as an excuse not to concretely overcome the material conditions of poverty.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-47100405171989878462015-04-05T11:43:04.158-07:002015-04-05T11:43:04.158-07:00I agree with your points about equality, but I do ...I agree with your points about equality, but I do think that unbridled consumerism is a problem, because of the point made that advertisers do get people to consume goods that may be neutral or detrimental to their welfare (e.g. soda), and because consumption tends to deplete resources and have environmental externalities that the market alone does not address.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-72663929250922296192015-04-03T09:49:35.928-07:002015-04-03T09:49:35.928-07:00You can definitely comment on the Umulius here. F...You can definitely comment on the Umulius <a href="http://skepticsplay.blogspot.com/2015/04/umulius.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. For some reason the "0 comments" link doesn't show from the main page, but the comments are still there. It's a Disqus quirk.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9124539381685751273.post-6509918582937028432015-04-03T09:42:02.759-07:002015-04-03T09:42:02.759-07:00Why no comment possibility for Umulius? Umulius is...Why no comment possibility for Umulius? Umulius is nice.millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05990852054891771988noreply@blogger.com