You’re right about Einstein, his ideas will long outlive QM. You don’t need any help though, you seem to have it sorted out.

I visited your blog sometime back, will take another look. Some of the questions I have had to deal with over recent years have caused me to re-evaluate a lot of my primary ideas. For example, even a few years ago I would have regarded libertarian ideas as outrageously off the scale but now I have a very different perspective on the matter. Now I think of it, I remember encounters with Terje on Inside Politics where I was over the top so I owe him an apology or two.

I must admit I need to be careful here, I’m not sure I want to spend too much time trying to “dream up” a libertarian world but it is an enticing little intellectual game to pass the time. I’m just recovering from a long illness and have a great deal to catch up on. My economics is for shit and that would take a lot of work but sometimes I think that whole problem with modern economics is that it is such a patchwork structure and the best solution would be to start from scratch again but that aint possible. I even entertain the idea that under a libertarian style society the selection pressures would be such that those with initiative and a strong sense of self dependency will do the best which is at it should be. This is what I used to say about why immigration is good: those who choose to emigrate are more likely to possess such qualities hence can be good for the country. Naturally this applies to people choosing to emigrate, not being forced by circumstances.

Evolution never stops, a friend of mine and I even used to only half jokingly argue that the reason the Middle East is such a violent place is because historically to survive there being violent was a good thing. People think allele shifts (variations of genes) in populations take a long time but it can be rather rapid and the Middle East has been a “meeting place” for humans for at least 80,000 years (note: actually this is a site in Israel where 80 miles apart is a modern human site and a Neandertal site; the lowest southern site for any Neandertals). That’s plenty of time and even recently there was a publication stating that one can identifiy ethnicity by examining what geneticists call “clines” – indices of gene changes basically I think. The most obvious example is lactose intolerance, 20% caucasians, 60% Asians, 80% negroid. It has been estimated that milk has been in our diet for only 11,000 years.

They celebrated “Gun, Germs, and Steel”, it became a best seller and a documentary series, while “The Bell Curve” was ridiculed and attacked and sunk mostly from the public view. Yet The Bell Curve is closer to the truth than “Guns, Germs, and Steel”; which had some interesting things to say but is basically sentimental piffle. We’re not hearing this in the mass media but “The Bell Curve” has won the argument. For any human trait it is only natural that we should expect to find a genetic influence. The problem is that the way all this is reported is so hopelessly simplified and even more worryingly it’s not like the geneticists are in general agreement. It can sound a bit silly when there is a research report, just today, stating that 50% of Americans have the “diabetes gene”. Another example of fucking stupid statistics.

At the individual level none of it really matters, these are statistical arguments which can only be applied to groups. What is more important is that many of these differences will become irrelevant in a world where we can increasingly provide the sorts of environments that we have been so lucky to enjoy because despite all the genetics the world in which one is raised and lives in can be just as determinative of what one will become as the genetics.The genetic variations in humans is small enough that one can envisage a society where nearly everyone can have a place but only if the environment is right. (I consider it an impossibility to make everyone happy with their place in life.) Irrespective of one’s genetic constitution given the wrong environment becoming an criminal, a murderer, an undesirable whatever, is possible and often very possible.

We are the luckiest generation of humans to have ever lived, we enjoy comforts, securities, and lifestyles unbelievable even one hundred years ago. From what I’ve been able to gleen from developmental psychology and my understanding of brain maturation there are critical environmental elements that can determine a person’s fate; this is very true in the formative years. Our culture is very good at addressing those critical elements(relative to other cultures). Our culture changes more in 10 years then most other cultures would change in a century and often many centuries. The incredible thing is that we can even begin to think about making it better. Compared to First World culture most other cultures are stuck in stone. There is something different about the sort of person that emerges from our culture.

PS: I think we have to be thankful towards christianity because it played a major role in creating our societal and moral structures which generally work very well compared to other societal systems.

End of rant.

People have been too intimidated to question the priesthood on two or three grounds.

1. The awesome way in which pure physics dovetailed into techological progress int the twentieth century.

2. The high mathematics bar.

3. The truly heroic efforts of the late 19th early 20th century theorists.

4. The fact that to challenge them can leave one open to the charge that one is competing with and contradicting Albert. And…

5. Everybody loves Albert.

The story of Albert is that he was such a nice bloke and in the shit, not part of the academy in low paid jobs and the most brilliant of all of them. But his acheivements had an aspect of the creative artist about them.

I think he was right to throw a few unproven assumptions into the mix and take a few shortcuts. And we see how he had the right scientific attitude and even pre-empted Popper in terms of falsifiability by setting up a test to prove HIS OWN theory wrong.

A truly righteous guy. But nonetheless one must try and learn from the process of the brilliant blokes and not accept their stuff as holy writ and priesthood doctrine.

That would be like just mimicing Led Zeppelin without going back and studying the blues and classical gear that was part of their canon.

Anyhow. I run the risk of repeating the stuff from my own blog. Dead Soul. I need your help. You are the science-epistemology guy. I want you to put in some constructive and if necessary abusive criticism on my own blog. Because right now I’m going to get back on track with the topic of the thread.

Because physics is just airy fairy stuff.

But matters arising from the blogbbash….

thats the REAL DEAL.

Thats BUSINESS.

‘We’ve got a country to save.’
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think when next we get together for a chat we want to put together a plan to dominate Ozblogistan and also to try and force changes in the editorial policies of our newspapers.

I mean take the Financial Review. Working in a bank, a long time ago, I was required to read this every day. The best part of it is that cartoon Alex thats been kicking goals for twenty years. I don’t know how the cartoonist knows the banking industry so well but he sure knows it.

It would be too much to say that the financial reviews economics editorialship is dominated by communists and Keynesian-Utopian Macromancers.

But having said that I would like to say this:

The financial reviews economics editorialship is dominated by communists and Keynesian-Utopian Macromancers.

I’m sick of it SICKOFIT.

Its bloody consumer spending this. And consumer spending that and if the consumer don’t spend then we’ll all die in the arse… And then the dumb sons of bitches wonder why our trade deficit is always so adverse.

And then its Quiggin talking about this (WHERE IS GERRARD JACKSON?) and Gruen talking about that (WHERE IS GERRARD JACKSON!?!) and Sinclair talking about the other . And Sinclairs good and righteous but WHERE IS GERRARD JACKSON??????!!!!!!!????????

Not to mention the other guys at Brookesnews.

Our country would be a great deal healthier if Gerrard could be persuaded to take exexcutive control of the financial reviews economics commentary.

That would be a major blow FOR the survival, strength and prosperity of this Great Island Nation in what will undoubtedly be a very tough century.

I don’t think people realise just how good he is.

Prodos clearly gets it.

But how many others?

The thing is the Austrian school for historical reasons were quite dirty on the British Classical School… With the upshot that very few people have mastered both schools.

George Reisman has not only mastered them but he’s tied up all the loose ends and integrated them. He’s spent his life doing this and he’s produced this terrific treatise which I’ve lent to Mr Soon.

But Gerrards the only other guy who I’ve read who appears to have fully sorted through both schools and gotten the best of both. And he pulls stuff out of the hat from four centuries back.

He’s just magnificent.

So even if we cannot put pressure on the Financial Review to literally make Jackson an offer that he won’t refuse, at least we have a way of thinking about it and that would be to influence the financial reviews economic outlook to be more like BROOKESNEWS ON A MURDOCH BUDGET.
>>>>>>>>>>

Anyway thats just an example. If we want to see the good society before we all get seriously old we really want to win on all levels.

And lets have the goal of doing it quickly hey?

I mean I’ll fight the good fight, and lose in my lifetime, if I have to, and leave a bit of an edge to posterity.

But thats not THEE attitude.

The attitude ought to be THAT WE CAN WIN NOW OR VERY SOON.

And the attitude ought to be that the solution of how to WIN NOW is there but we just have to sleuth it out and find it.

That would be the attitude to take.

Truer words were never spoke. Hrrmph.

What annoys me about cosmology and the search for TOEs is that these are predicated on relativity and QM both of which we know to be deficient. So extrapolating from the same is a perilous activity. Cosmology is not something we should even be that concerned about, nor should we be concerned about the origin of life because these are questions that cannot be addressed scientificially. Wait 10 years Graeme, there is a lot of exciting research going at present and its been over 100 years since einstein (1905) so we’re up for another breakthrough. Eg. Yesterday some scientists claimed that they have devised a test for string theory. Yeah, particles, waves, fields, holographics, loop quantum gravity, …. What next?? At times I wonder just how separate the fields of religion and science really are.

Thats why I call it a useful predictive model.

But it gets a bit too much when people then circle around and get Buddhist on you on account of the Voodoo they need to make the thing Jibe.

There is a lot of models out there that have to be considered provisional-useful-models rather then revealed truth.

The other thing is when you get some model thats not tied down and confirmed and then you build on it I reckon there’s a law to it.

You can build on it one step and get useful results…. perhaps even two steps…. But you keep building and you’re liable to get pure gibber coming out of it eventually.

I would suggest the inflation side of the big bang theory is an example of this. They are getting results that would normally be considered a reduction to absurdity.

And I think its because they’ve built on stuff that hasn’t been proved beyond useful predictive model stage.

You notice that the grand unification projects are going nowhere. And this is a sign that I’m right.

If relativity and Quantam mechanics were revealed truth rather then excellent predictive models then they would have been able to integrate them by now.

Graeme said

I don’t think the evidence is overwhelming at all.

I think its a good predictive model patched together by probablility and voodoo.

Its easy to make good predictive models if you are allowed to patch up their deficiencies with probability and voodoo but I don’t know how you’d keep a straight face.

—

Yeah, I share your cynicism towards “statistical theism”. Especially in relation to medicine! deHooft and colleagues have recently put forward a paper arguing that Einstein was right about the “hidden variables”. Another group in the USA has forward what they called “The Free Will Theorem”, which advocates indeterminacy.

Go figure Graeme, what do we poor laypeople do when after 100 years the bods still can’t make up their mind?

QM has all sorts of problems. Have you heard about John Wheeler’s delayed choice dual slit experiment? Mind boggling. My point was this: great people can make great mistakes, they doesn’t mean they are not great people, they simply made a mistake. Einstein’s problem with QM was more philosophical than scientific. As a scientist he should have accepted QM because it was subject to more experimental verification than his theories!

I call us “Risen Apes”.

As to your refusal to recognise that someone of differing political persuasions may be intelligent, I’ll just dismiss that as a classic example of tribalism.

SO WATCH IT DEAD SOUL,I recognise the first signs. Actually with your attitude, basicly of despising politicians, I can see you as a natural libertarian one, so Go for it fellas.

—

Yeah, I’m getting closer all the time. Just now, while sending off some stuff on the cholesterol myth to a few friends, a mate popped up to advise me that the British are planning ot biometric everyone who is not a citizen with a long term view to all citizens. Yeah, I’m getting closer all the time … .

I did raise a ruckus and that was very intentional on my part. I was over the top on occasion and I did apologise for that but I was deliberately testing the political panache of the libertarians and that is why I came out so hard on the rhetoric issue. So thanks for backing me up on that, its nice to know that occasionally I get something right. I trust people here have now noted my different attitude.

But don’t you see.

Thats my point exactly. Godel may have been the best exponent of bivalent deductive logic ever.

But he was so befuddled by phantoms that he ended up killing himself from starving. He thought people were trying to poison him. He only trusted his wife.

He was a nutter. And if it turned out that he was a Marxist we wouldn’t credit marxism with anything because of it.

And this is where you prove that I was right.

That Haldane was a Marxist will not make idiotic ideas non-idiotic.

These things are there to remind us that we are in some ways only trumped-up chimpanzees. And so Haldane was being foolish being a marxist and there is just no justification to be a marxist but as the Christians say we are a horribly flawed species and not a lot more can be said about it.

So when you said “Gee, I wonder what JBS Haldane would have thought of that.”

….. you invoked the scientist in error. It doesn’t MATTER what Haldane said or would have said about it.

Makes no difference.