A sharp and on point comment to the (unusually correct) article at NYTimes about the rollback of Dodd Frank today led me to the website of the comment's author, Rima Rivas. It is Blog #42, which contains excellent critiques of neoliberalism and phony centrism.
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
Thursday, May 3, 2018
The Murder of Hypatia and the Library of Alexandria
This seems to be a generally good account of the murder of Hypatia, followed by a long interesting discussion.
Comments are no longer open, otherwise I would ask why the Enlightenment historian Gibbon, who was legendary for insisting on primary sources when available, could have gotten it so wrong. In his famous documentary Cosmos, Carl Sagan, who is generally reliable on science, seems to have followed Gibbon's account.
Regardless of the backstory Tim O'Neil (an amateur historian) presents, the truth remains that Hypatia was murdered by an angry Christian mob, and she was a famous "pagan" (i.e., non-Christian) of the day. The only question is whether the Christianity of the mob was in any way a motivating factor. Self-described atheist O'Neil explains Hypatia's murder as an unfortunate consequence of a violent feud between two leading Christians of Alexandria, Cyril--the bishop, and Orestes--the Prefect (a civil authority).
While O'Neil attempts to brush aside Christianity as a motivating factor, the fact remains that Cyril was a more hardline Christian, and that may have been a motivating difference especially among his fanatical followers.
So while one should not blame Christians in general, it does seem that specifically Christian Zealots were to blame.
While I was initially tempted to consider O'Neil authoritative, his erudite deconstruction might be considered primarily spin. It is not wise to trust the self declared orientations of those who raise concerns regarding the narratives of their own alleged tribe. Concern Trolls are to be found everywhere.
However AFAIK the murder of Hypatia had nothing to do with the destruction of the famous Library of Alexandria, which no longer existed in her day. The only partly destructive fire was an unintended consequence of the attack of Julius Caeser hundreds of years before, and by all accounts the Library fell into a slow decline thereafter.
However, Hypatia's temple that was also destroyed by the mob may indeed have contained a small subset of books that we will never see again.
Comments are no longer open, otherwise I would ask why the Enlightenment historian Gibbon, who was legendary for insisting on primary sources when available, could have gotten it so wrong. In his famous documentary Cosmos, Carl Sagan, who is generally reliable on science, seems to have followed Gibbon's account.
Regardless of the backstory Tim O'Neil (an amateur historian) presents, the truth remains that Hypatia was murdered by an angry Christian mob, and she was a famous "pagan" (i.e., non-Christian) of the day. The only question is whether the Christianity of the mob was in any way a motivating factor. Self-described atheist O'Neil explains Hypatia's murder as an unfortunate consequence of a violent feud between two leading Christians of Alexandria, Cyril--the bishop, and Orestes--the Prefect (a civil authority).
While O'Neil attempts to brush aside Christianity as a motivating factor, the fact remains that Cyril was a more hardline Christian, and that may have been a motivating difference especially among his fanatical followers.
So while one should not blame Christians in general, it does seem that specifically Christian Zealots were to blame.
While I was initially tempted to consider O'Neil authoritative, his erudite deconstruction might be considered primarily spin. It is not wise to trust the self declared orientations of those who raise concerns regarding the narratives of their own alleged tribe. Concern Trolls are to be found everywhere.
However AFAIK the murder of Hypatia had nothing to do with the destruction of the famous Library of Alexandria, which no longer existed in her day. The only partly destructive fire was an unintended consequence of the attack of Julius Caeser hundreds of years before, and by all accounts the Library fell into a slow decline thereafter.
However, Hypatia's temple that was also destroyed by the mob may indeed have contained a small subset of books that we will never see again.
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
Are Time and Space Continuous or Discrete ?
I think this question is best understood as a scientific question, to be addressed by scientific theory and ultimately experiment. Others think it is a metaphysical issue, to be addressed by philosophy or intuition. A friend of mine feels that the question is a non-question, the very idea of time and/or space being discrete being a nonsense idea, and he does not accept my characterization of his approach as being metaphysical but "real." He insists I must explain how time or space could be quantized before accepting this as a valid question.
I don't know the answer, and the highest rated answer in one of many physics stack exchange threads on this topic (there are many!) being that the answer is not known. Central physical theories including General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics essentially assume that time and space are continuous by standard interpretations. But we know because these central theories are incompatible that they must not be the complete story. A number of leading contenders for a new Theory of Everything such as Quantum Gravity do propose the quantization of time and/or space. For some time now, the often proposed granularity of spacetime is derived from Plank's constant. However, critics of this point out that just because this is very very small (as we know must be required) and has units of spacetime, does not mean that IT is the ultimate quantization limit. Some recent experimental evidence suggests that if there is a quatization limit, it must be much smaller than even Plank's constant. Even that is contested. However FWIW physicists almost universally accept this as a "scientific" question to be settled by science rather than philosophy or intuition. And as a valid experimentally testable question, not nonsense.
Given my friend's hardened position, I'm finding myself to lean more and more in the opposite direction. And various thoughts and theories come to mind.
1) Measurement as commonly understood is essentially discrete. Generally we seek numbers to describe our measurments, and such numbers can only be finite.
1a) It would be possible to do something like measurement in an analog way. For example, I could set a mechanical spanner to a particular opening size, and as long as I do not interpret this numerically, you could argue it represents an infinitely small quantization size, though practically only a finite actual precision.
1b) Given that measurement is quantized, and will only ever have limited precision as well, you could argue that continuousness is only and ever a theory. Everthing we can actually measure is either explicity quantized or of limited precision.
1c) This suggests that while quantization CAN be proven (as we have done for masses and particles), and continuousness will only ever be a theory which can never be proven by experimental means, only disproven.
2) Following from that, "information" itself must be discrete. Perhaps this is limited to what you might call "representative" information such as numbers. Direct or physical information, such as the opening width of a mechanical spanner, or the elapsed time between two instantaneous events*, could potentially be continuous. However this does NOT apply to things where the physical "information" is materially based, only spatially or temporally based. For example vinyl records and analog magnetic tape recordings must ultimately be limited at least by the sizes of various particles, such as molecules of vinyl or magnetic domains.
(*Of course, no physical events can actually be instantaneous. However, we could define the "time" of the event as the time at which it starts, which sounds like it could be infinitely small. However any possible physical event involving matter, energy, or physical forces, even the "starting" time does not have infinite quantization. Everything that starts takes a finite time to start, such as the time it takes to generate a photon from an orbital shift.)
3) Ultimately, continuousness would suggest that there is infinite information in every spacetime difference. A universe of such infinities within even the smallest spacetime differences seems absurd to me.
I don't know the answer, and the highest rated answer in one of many physics stack exchange threads on this topic (there are many!) being that the answer is not known. Central physical theories including General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics essentially assume that time and space are continuous by standard interpretations. But we know because these central theories are incompatible that they must not be the complete story. A number of leading contenders for a new Theory of Everything such as Quantum Gravity do propose the quantization of time and/or space. For some time now, the often proposed granularity of spacetime is derived from Plank's constant. However, critics of this point out that just because this is very very small (as we know must be required) and has units of spacetime, does not mean that IT is the ultimate quantization limit. Some recent experimental evidence suggests that if there is a quatization limit, it must be much smaller than even Plank's constant. Even that is contested. However FWIW physicists almost universally accept this as a "scientific" question to be settled by science rather than philosophy or intuition. And as a valid experimentally testable question, not nonsense.
Given my friend's hardened position, I'm finding myself to lean more and more in the opposite direction. And various thoughts and theories come to mind.
1) Measurement as commonly understood is essentially discrete. Generally we seek numbers to describe our measurments, and such numbers can only be finite.
1a) It would be possible to do something like measurement in an analog way. For example, I could set a mechanical spanner to a particular opening size, and as long as I do not interpret this numerically, you could argue it represents an infinitely small quantization size, though practically only a finite actual precision.
1b) Given that measurement is quantized, and will only ever have limited precision as well, you could argue that continuousness is only and ever a theory. Everthing we can actually measure is either explicity quantized or of limited precision.
1c) This suggests that while quantization CAN be proven (as we have done for masses and particles), and continuousness will only ever be a theory which can never be proven by experimental means, only disproven.
2) Following from that, "information" itself must be discrete. Perhaps this is limited to what you might call "representative" information such as numbers. Direct or physical information, such as the opening width of a mechanical spanner, or the elapsed time between two instantaneous events*, could potentially be continuous. However this does NOT apply to things where the physical "information" is materially based, only spatially or temporally based. For example vinyl records and analog magnetic tape recordings must ultimately be limited at least by the sizes of various particles, such as molecules of vinyl or magnetic domains.
(*Of course, no physical events can actually be instantaneous. However, we could define the "time" of the event as the time at which it starts, which sounds like it could be infinitely small. However any possible physical event involving matter, energy, or physical forces, even the "starting" time does not have infinite quantization. Everything that starts takes a finite time to start, such as the time it takes to generate a photon from an orbital shift.)
3) Ultimately, continuousness would suggest that there is infinite information in every spacetime difference. A universe of such infinities within even the smallest spacetime differences seems absurd to me.
Friday, April 13, 2018
No War in Syria!
Once again, we must bomb the country to save the children, we are being told. The US has been funding violent terrorists against Assad and his father for decades because Syria is a client state of Russia, and the US and Israel and Saudi Arabia want to own the middle east through Sunni Wahabi fundamentalist client states, the likes of which most Syrians do not want to be a part of. Among secular Syrians, Assad is considered too soft on terrorists. Alleged chemical attacks going way back have always been fake or false flag, staged by rebels precisely when they are being beaten. These rebels have the supplies to make chemical weapons, which have been proven to come to them through US clients. White Helmets who make the reports are rebel agents. Assad has no reason to use chemical weapons because he has vastly superior conventional forces and knows full well that chemical attacks would justify US intervention. US Citizens are the most brainwashed in the world through a multi-sided Big Lie media which actually speaks on only one side when it comes to matters of war and geopolitics.
Checking the news just now, it's all about Mueller and Comey and so on. I am relieved to see that war has not broken out yet. All these Mueller and Russiagate things are all about putting pressure on Trump to follow Deep State militarism. Mueller himself was a leader in propagating lies about 9/11 and the need to attack Iraq back in the day. He is still serving that function, but on the other side, by constantly blackmailing Trump into being more of a War President. When these deep state actors are pounding on Trump, that shows they are not getting their way. When Trump acts like the Deep State wants him to, the media lets up for a few seconds on Russiagate and the like.
Checking the news just now, it's all about Mueller and Comey and so on. I am relieved to see that war has not broken out yet. All these Mueller and Russiagate things are all about putting pressure on Trump to follow Deep State militarism. Mueller himself was a leader in propagating lies about 9/11 and the need to attack Iraq back in the day. He is still serving that function, but on the other side, by constantly blackmailing Trump into being more of a War President. When these deep state actors are pounding on Trump, that shows they are not getting their way. When Trump acts like the Deep State wants him to, the media lets up for a few seconds on Russiagate and the like.
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
In Russia, Healthcare is a Right
Since 1996, healthcare has been a national right in Russia. In law. As it certainly was during the Soviet era.
So much for those who say Russia is anti-socialist pure-cowboy-capitalist evil, which though "liberal" and maybe even "left liberal" is still part of the the fundamentally imperialist "Russia is Evul" chorus. What's it ours to say, anyway, about the way they run themselves, isn't the important measure of evul how much death and destruction one is dealing out elsewhere, mostly? Anything that doesn't recognize that context, foremost, and the tendency of the US to demonize the tiniest (and quite often fake) evul elsewhere (while often ignoring the real stuff at home, or even in context) to justify war, including such things as sanctions and de-diplomacizing, which are cold war.
Anyway, neoliberal Yelsin was nevertheless trying to privatize everything, and healthcare funding was set to $96 per person. Putin (often said here to be even more evul capitalist) actually increased the public health service funding tenfold by 2013, a significant portion of national income.
The wonderful US sanctions and the like have taken a toll since then, and public healthcare spending has (had?) fallen somewhat. There is also a private system, through which richer people get prompter and possibly better service.
So it isn't therefore perfect, as if we were the ones to judge.
And those sanctions have done what for us, exactly?
Oh, yes, the military industrial complex has been on a roll.
So much for those who say Russia is anti-socialist pure-cowboy-capitalist evil, which though "liberal" and maybe even "left liberal" is still part of the the fundamentally imperialist "Russia is Evul" chorus. What's it ours to say, anyway, about the way they run themselves, isn't the important measure of evul how much death and destruction one is dealing out elsewhere, mostly? Anything that doesn't recognize that context, foremost, and the tendency of the US to demonize the tiniest (and quite often fake) evul elsewhere (while often ignoring the real stuff at home, or even in context) to justify war, including such things as sanctions and de-diplomacizing, which are cold war.
Anyway, neoliberal Yelsin was nevertheless trying to privatize everything, and healthcare funding was set to $96 per person. Putin (often said here to be even more evul capitalist) actually increased the public health service funding tenfold by 2013, a significant portion of national income.
The wonderful US sanctions and the like have taken a toll since then, and public healthcare spending has (had?) fallen somewhat. There is also a private system, through which richer people get prompter and possibly better service.
So it isn't therefore perfect, as if we were the ones to judge.
And those sanctions have done what for us, exactly?
Oh, yes, the military industrial complex has been on a roll.
Thursday, March 22, 2018
Letter to my rep about Russiagate
Russiagate is a scam by the "centrist" neocons to pursue endless imperial dominance, including war with Russia, and "centrist" neoliberals to deny the unpopularity of neoliberal candidates like Hillary Clinton and policies like those of her husband, in particular. One of the best places to read how much a scam this is has been ConsortiumNews. The legendary Robert Parry was exposing the Russiagate flimflam daily until his recent death. He was fully backed up by the likes of Edward Herman, co-author of Manufacturing Consent. Now Caitlin Johnstone is one one of the best debunkers of Russiagate.
I am very sorry to see that otherwise progressive Representatives such as you and the Senator I supported for President in 2016, Bernie Sanders, have jumped fully in the arena on this. I have always voted for and supported you and intend to continue doing so, despite this terrible mistake, for your essential goodness in other areas. But I do believe the party and the people will ultimately pay a price, both for perpetuating this nonsense and for not focusing completely on stopping Trump in the here and now with the most progressive policies, like those of Bernie Sanders, which have proven popularity. We need to flip the switch back to the New Deal and Great Society, but ultimately further, with single payer healthcare for all, which had been the hopes of FDR and Johnson. There is no middle ground worth considering, and middle grounds don't sell anyway.
We ought to eliminate sanctions on Russia. Russia's influence is almost nil, and besides Russians should have free speech just as anyone else. We've been influencing the governments of other nations around the world to a far greater degree for decades. This is hypocrisy beyond imagining to the knowledgeable. BTW, RT shows many of the best US journalists our military-industrial-corporate media won't include. If that's what we did in other countries, I'd be proud. We spend billions a year on programs such as USAID and NED to "influence governments." And that's not counting the way we influence Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and many other countries by violence. Meanwhile, one headlined report that clogged our newstime for weeks was about a private Russian corporation spent less than $50,000 in Facebook ads before the election, which were not ever directed and candidates and only partly having political messages. In the State of Michigan, the amount spent on political message ads was much less than $100. How many other non-US-citizen actors were spending far more?
We should be more concerned about the endless influence Israel and Saudi Arabia have on our government, as well as multinational corporations and the super wealthy. Disposing of Citizens United would be the biggest and most important step in restoring a bit of Democracy here, not obsessing over Russia.
Respectfully.
Thursday, March 15, 2018
The War with Russia Wurlitzer belts out another one
Now, the poisoning of another Russian expat.
While the Mighty War Wurlitzer of the US Empire plays it's favorite tune, Evul Putin, once again it makes little sense that even the most possible Evul Putin would do this, especially now.
And I don't believe Putin is so uniquely Evul as to uniquely bear that title compared especially with the greater Evul of the US Empire and US Presidents.
One way to judge the greater evil would be to count the all dead bodies, such as the excess deaths caused by US Foreign Policy through wars and covert missions since 1945. Here we could just count the numbers, without regarding who was right or wrong. Mostly both were wrong. In no way did Soviet actions result in the many tens of millions of excess deaths that US actions did.
Since the Putin era, however, a slightly different pattern emerges. While the US continues long standing and mega deadly war crimes in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and threats and sanctions (which are illegal acts of war also), many of Putin's actions have some legitimacy. For example, he was invited in by the legitimately elected president of a legitimate and recognized country, Syria, to defend that country from terrorists. Meanwhile, the US has been creating, sponsoring, and funding those terrorists for decades. Here, generally speaking, Putin and Assad are fighting a "just war" while the US/Saudi/Israeli actions are war crimes, pure and simple, with no justification.
Likewise, but more complex, is what has happened in Ukraine. And when I defend Russian actions, which are almost as defensible as the ones in Syria, given the entire background, it's a long story. I've given it in previous posts. Basically we funded a coup against another legitimate government, and in this case it actually fell to our coup, upending what was once the heart of Russia. OTOH, some liked being that heart, and some didn't. I take the re-annexation of Crimea as a legitimate claim, and the case for separation of the Donbass is a good one also. Meanwhile, the US has used these arguably legitimate responses to the coup it engineered as an excuse for the first stage of war: Sanctions. For no good reason, as elsewhere in the world we are doing far worse.
But, we could still apply the cold war judging standard I am proposing, all excess deaths are equal, whether war crimes or justifyable, and the US has still caused far more.
Another essay on the Skripal case, showing false flag to be the only plausible explanation.
While the Mighty War Wurlitzer of the US Empire plays it's favorite tune, Evul Putin, once again it makes little sense that even the most possible Evul Putin would do this, especially now.
And I don't believe Putin is so uniquely Evul as to uniquely bear that title compared especially with the greater Evul of the US Empire and US Presidents.
One way to judge the greater evil would be to count the all dead bodies, such as the excess deaths caused by US Foreign Policy through wars and covert missions since 1945. Here we could just count the numbers, without regarding who was right or wrong. Mostly both were wrong. In no way did Soviet actions result in the many tens of millions of excess deaths that US actions did.
Since the Putin era, however, a slightly different pattern emerges. While the US continues long standing and mega deadly war crimes in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and threats and sanctions (which are illegal acts of war also), many of Putin's actions have some legitimacy. For example, he was invited in by the legitimately elected president of a legitimate and recognized country, Syria, to defend that country from terrorists. Meanwhile, the US has been creating, sponsoring, and funding those terrorists for decades. Here, generally speaking, Putin and Assad are fighting a "just war" while the US/Saudi/Israeli actions are war crimes, pure and simple, with no justification.
Likewise, but more complex, is what has happened in Ukraine. And when I defend Russian actions, which are almost as defensible as the ones in Syria, given the entire background, it's a long story. I've given it in previous posts. Basically we funded a coup against another legitimate government, and in this case it actually fell to our coup, upending what was once the heart of Russia. OTOH, some liked being that heart, and some didn't. I take the re-annexation of Crimea as a legitimate claim, and the case for separation of the Donbass is a good one also. Meanwhile, the US has used these arguably legitimate responses to the coup it engineered as an excuse for the first stage of war: Sanctions. For no good reason, as elsewhere in the world we are doing far worse.
But, we could still apply the cold war judging standard I am proposing, all excess deaths are equal, whether war crimes or justifyable, and the US has still caused far more.
Another essay on the Skripal case, showing false flag to be the only plausible explanation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)