Monthly Archives: April 2014

Do You Know What a Photocopying Machine Is?

Posted on by

In the spirit of the History Channel, which interprets “history” as “anything that happened, might have happened, could possibly happen or is complete baloney”, the New York Times has begun a new feature called “Verbatim”:

This marks the debut of a new series, presented by Op-Docs, that transforms verbatim (word for word) legal transcripts into dramatic, and often comedic, performances. Here you will find re-creations of actual events from the halls of law and government. You, our readers, can help us find material for future episodes. Have you come across court trials, depositions or government hearings that you think are surprising, bizarre or baffling — and lend themselves to performance? We especially seek original, publicly available transcripts, along with details about the source.

In this week’s episode, actors perform a scene from a lawsuit that went to the Ohio Supreme Court a few years ago. A lawyer tries to get someone from the Cuyahoga County Recorder’s Office to answer the question: “Do you know what a photocopying machine is?”.

Watching the video, which is 7 minutes long and actually pretty entertaining, you’ll probably form some opinions. Maybe that justifies including this brief play in the “Opinion” section of the Times. I’m not a journalism purist, but it’s definitely a sign of the times when the New York Times starts sharing videos like this.

Moving ahead, it may not be long before the Times and other newspaper sites present dramatizations of more recent, more newsworthy events, whether or not a “verbatim” transcript exists. It will all be a modern version of the old You Are There program, in which CBS News correspondents pretended to interview historical figures like Thomas Jefferson (“Just a quick question, Mr. Jefferson! When will you be finished with the Declaration?”).

Even better, the “Opinion” section will be the perfect place to present videos in which actors portray “what probably happened” yesterday in the Oval Office or at an Exxon board meeting. A left-wing columnist can present a video that shows the Koch brothers conniving with Republican politicians to destroy democracy (which actually happens all the time). A right-wing columnist can offer President Hillary Clinton plotting to implement sharia law (probably during her second term).

The future is coming and it’s going to be (fill in your own adjective)!

Clearing Up This Multiple Universe Thing (Maybe)

Posted on by

I haven’t been blogging much lately. It’s not that I have anything against blogging – I haven’t been doing much of anything lately, unless breathing and digesting count.

In another universe, however, I’ve been blogging up a storm while hiking through Alabama with Gwyneth Paltrow and Vladimir Putin. That’s what many physicists seem to believe anyway. (In that other universe, Vlad promised Gwyn and me that he’s going to stop interfering with Ukraine.) 

For example, Max Tegmark of M.I.T. has written a book that, according to the New York Times, suggests that he was almost hit by a truck while riding his bike in Stockholm, and the truck hit him, resulting in some slight injuries, and the truck really clobbered him, which meant he didn’t live to write the book he later wrote: 

He endured every possible outcome, happy and unhappy, that can befall a bicyclist who encounters a speeding truck. All of these happened, he argues, because everything that can happen does happen — in at least one of an infinite number of universes.

This extremely large set of parallel universes is called the “multiverse”. Our universe, the particular one that I’m experiencing now, in which I’m not pals with Gwyn and Vlad, is merely one universe among many – no more real than the others. 

Very smart people like Max Tegmark and Stephen Hawking accept the multiverse theory, which is also known as the “many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics”. They think this apparently crazy idea best explains the truly crazy stuff that happens at the quantum level of reality, like the double-slit experiment and the situation with Schrödinger’s cat. We’ll probably never know for sure, since verifying the existence of another universe is supposed to be impossible.   

Still, something has been bothering me since I read that article in the Times. When people talk about parallel universes, they usually talk about universes branching off from each other. What supposedly happens is that whenever there’s more than one possibility in a given universe, that universe somehow splits into two or more separate universes. You start out in one universe and get hit by a truck but in another universe you escape injury. In one universe, you order pork chops, in another you have a salad and in a third you go somewhere else to eat. The examples in these discussions are almost always familiar events or decisions, the kind of possibilities we can all relate to.

Physicists, however, don’t usually concern themselves with what people have for dinner. Quantum physics, in particular, concentrates on very small-scale events. Will an atom of carbon-14 decay or not? How frequently do quantum fluctuations (the so-called “appearance and disappearance of virtual particles”) occur? In theory, each of these small-scale, apparently random quantum events marks a divergence in the history of the universe. If an atom decays, the universe goes one way. If it doesn’t decay, the universe goes another way. According to the many-worlds theory, as it’s almost always explained, each event that could have happened differently results in the creation of separate universes.

Of course, since the universe is a very big place, there is room for lots of events to occur, especially the tiny, random ones. Here’s a quote from The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics by the physicist Bryce DeWitt: 

This universe is constantly splitting into a stupendous number of branches, all resulting from the measurement-like interactions between its myriads of components. Moreover, every quantum transition taking place on every star, in every galaxy, in every corner of the universe is splitting our local world into myriads of copies of itself [161].

Wow! Is it really possible that equally gigantic, almost exact replicas of the universe, with all its particles, planets, galaxies and so on, are springing into existence zillions of times a second, whenever a sub-atomic particle somewhere in the universe sneezes? And that those replicas immediately start replicating themselves? As that old TV commercial said, that’s one spicy meatball!

The effect seem way, way, way out of proportion to the cause. Where does all the energy come from to create fully-formed copies of previously existing universes? Assuming that these new universes immediately pop into existence, how do they get so big and so detailed so quickly? Or maybe universe creation takes a long “time”, but we don’t notice any breaks in the action because we keep coming into existence with our memories and instrument readings intact, as if nothing weird has happened (remember that you and I have lived through zillions of such universe creations – it’s not as if we’ve always lived in the nice, stable universe and everybody else is off living in copies).

I don’t know enough math or physics to criticize the many-worlds theory for real, but I was pleased to see that one of the things bothering me is a standard objection to the theory. From Wikipedia:

Conservation of energy is grossly violated if at every instant near-infinite amounts of new matter are generated to create the new universes.

To which, proponents of the theory are said to have two responses:

First, the law of conservation of energy says that energy is conserved within each universe. Hence, even if “new matter” were being generated to create new universes, this would not violate conservation of energy. (That doesn’t seem like a very good answer to me, since it amounts to saying, “It’s very strange that there’s an exception to this fundamental law, but that’s what happens”.)

Second, conservation of energy is not violated since the energy of each branch has to be weighted by its probability, according to the standard formula for the conservation of energy in quantum theory. This results in the total energy of the multiverse being conserved. (Which seems to mean that if there’s a 50/50 chance of some atom decaying, each new universe has half as much energy as the last one. Wouldn’t that eventually result in new universes having no energy at all?)

So it was with some relief that I turned to a helpful website called “Ask a Mathematician”. It should really be called “Ask a Mathematician or Physicist”. because it’s apparently a mathematician and a physicist answering questions, most of which have to do with physics (they don’t identify themselves, they just answer questions). A few years ago, they got this question:

According to the Many Worlds Interpretation, every event creates new universes. Where does the energy and matter for the new universes come from?

Here’s some of the physicist’s (rearranged) answer:

If you go online (or read some kind of book or something), you generally find the Many Worlds Interpretation presented as the universe “splitting”. Something along the lines of “everything that can happen will, just in different universes”. Supposedly, every time any kind of quantum event happens that could have one of several results (which is essentially every moment for every thing, which is plenty) the entire freaking universe splits into many universes. But, the universe contains a lot of energy….So, whence does this energy come?

[However,] there is no new energy or matter (or even new universes)…The universe doesn’t split or spawn new universes…. The universe doesn’t branch so much as it meanders and intertwines….If you want a picture to work with, rather than thinking about the universe as an ever-branching tree, think of it as an intertwining (albeit, very complex) rope.

The many (like: many, many) different versions of the universe branch apart, and come together all over the place. That is: one event can certainly lead to several outcomes, but in the same way, several causes can lead to the same event.  Everything that could happen will happen (given the present) and everything that could have happened did happen (given the present)….

A particle comes along with some amount of energy. When it has a choice of two paths it takes both.  The energy of the particle is divided in proportion to the probability of the path taken.  So, for example, a 50% chance of each path means equal division of the energy and matter of the particle.  Before the fork all of the energy is on one path, and afterwards, despite the fact that the particle is behaving as though it’s in two places, the same amount of energy is present, just spread out.

So, while it’s fun to talk about “other quantum realities” and “different universes”, it’s more accurate to say that everything is happening in one universe. One, stunningly complex, weirdly put together, entirely counter-intuitive universe.

Clear? Despite the standard explanation, we’re all living in the same universe, but it’s a universe that has lots of its contents in strange, probabilistic quantum states. Since these various states (like when a photon is 50% likely to be here and 50% likely to be there) are equally real, they can be thought of as parts of different universes, but that’s just a manner of speaking.

Whether or not this way of understanding the multiple universe theory is correct (is it, since Max Tegmark apparently suggests otherwise?), it makes me feel better. For one thing, it’s less mind-boggling. Big branching universes seem both implausible and terribly wasteful. Secondly, I think there’s zero probability that one of me is hiking through Alabama with Gwyneth and Vladimir (while wearing a blue shirt, and a red shirt, and a green shirt, and no shirt, etc. etc.) while also breathing and digesting here in the Garden State.

(Note, however, that if the universe is infinite in time and space and configured a certain way, it’s possible, maybe even a sure thing, that everything that isn’t contradictory happens over and over again. But that’s something to wonder about another day.)

More Good News For America

Posted on by

From the Los Angeles Times:

Driven by a last-minute flood of enrollments, particularly in California, sign-ups for health insurance through the Affordable Care Act’s online marketplaces hit 8 million in the law’s first year, President Obama announced Thursday.

That beats the forecast by 1 million people and caps a remarkable comeback from a disastrous rollout last fall that gave rise to predictions the law would collapse in its maiden year.

Instead, the health law, often called Obamacare, has helped bring about the largest increase in insurance coverage in the U.S. in half a century.

“This thing is working,” Obama said from the White House briefing room, taking a jab at Republican critics who continue to pledge to roll back the law. “The repeal debate is, and should be, over”….

Millions more Americans have signed up for health insurance without using the marketplaces, including through Medicaid, employers or directly from insurers. That has helped to dramatically drive down the nation’s uninsured rate, according to a growing number of national surveys.

Estimates of the total gain in insurance coverage nationally are still preliminary….But new Gallup survey data released this week suggest that as many as 12 million previously uninsured Americans have already gained coverage since last fall.

Republicans are still mouthing off about the numbers being inflated or misleading or whatever. To hell with them. And remember to vote in November.

“Obamacare” Not Such a Disaster After All; Republicans Reconsider Opposition

Posted on by

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has issued a document entitled “Updated Estimates of the Effects of the Insurance Coverage Provisions of the Affordable Care Act, April 2014”.

I quote (some posts are easier to write than others):

Relative to their previous projections, CBO and JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation] now estimate that the ACA’s coverage provisions will result in lower net costs to the federal government: The agencies now project a net cost of $36 billion for 2014, $5 billion less than the previous projection for the year; and $1,383 billion for the 2015–2024 period, $104 billion less than the previous projection….

CBO and JCT estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will increase the proportion of the non-elderly population with insurance from roughly 80 percent in the absence of the ACA to about 84 percent in 2014 and to about 89 percent in 2016 and beyond… CBO and JCT project that 12 million more non-elderly people will have health insurance in 2014 than would have had it in the absence of the ACA. They also project that 19 million more people will be insured in 2015, 25 million more will be insured in 2016, and 26 million more will be insured each year from 2017 through 2024 than would have been the case without the ACA.

In other words, the Affordable Care Act will cost less and result in more people having health insurance than previously estimated. Given these very encouraging new estimates, leading Republicans are reconsidering their short-sighted, hypocritical opposition to “Obamacare”. (I made up that last part.)

Perception: A Representative Theory by Frank Jackson

Posted on by

Frank Jackson is a well-known philosopher from Australia. Perception, first published in 1977, is an argument for a Representative theory of visual perception similar to John Locke’s. Jackson sums up the book in the last paragraph:

The first four chapters present my case for a Sense-datum theory of perception. Chapter 5 gives the reason for holding that all sense-data are mental. This forces a choice between Idealism and Representationalism. In chapter 6, I argue that there is no good reason for not choosing Representationalism. And, finally, in [the last] chapter, I have, first, attempted to justify my taking the perception of things as basic throughout; and, secondly, I have tried to make more precise … the particular kind of Representationalism that should be chosen.

The Sense-Data theory of perception has had a long history in philosophy. Its principal tenet is that we never perceive physical objects directly. Instead, what we immediately perceive are mental objects called “sense-data”. Thus, when I see the wall in front of me, I immediately perceive a mind-dependent blue expanse, a sense-datum (or set of sense-data), not the wall itself. In Jackson’s words, a visual sense-datum is “something seen, but not in virtue of [seeing] anything else”. Physical objects, on the other hand, are seen, but always by virtue of seeing something else, namely, sense-data. Furthermore, there is a kind of causal relationship between physical objects and the sense-data that “belong to” those objects. That’s why sense-data are said to “represent” the external world.

I’ve read that Jackson no longer endorses the theory he presents here, but Perception still provides a good account of one version of the Sense-Data theory. Professor Jackson makes many interesting distinctions and responds to a number of criticisms. One criticism he anticipates is that he is spending too much time analyzing the language of perception (Chapter 2, for example, is called “Three Uses of ‘Looks'”). He responds that his analysis of language isn’t meant to show whether sense-data actually exist. Instead, it’s meant to help us decide whether believing in the existence of sense-data (accepting the theory) is a reasonable thing to do and how the theory should be stated.

I read Perception because I’ve been thinking about the topic a lot lately and think the Sense-Data theory is probably the best one (even though it’s probably considered a bit old-fashioned now; for one thing, philosophers talk about “qualia” these days instead of sense-data). It’s common for philosophers to think of the mind as software running on the hardware of the brain. But if we’re going to think of our minds/brains as computers running programs, it makes sense to think of the input to these computers as data. Just as a computer program processes data and not the real stuff in the world, we process data as well. In our case, colors, sounds, smells, and so on, are different kinds of data. It just so happens that the data we process isn’t made up of numbers or ASCII characters (or electronic on/off settings); our perceptual data is made up of red or blue expanses, soft or loud noises and pleasant or unpleasant aromas. We don’t perceive the world “directly”, because that can’t be done. We perceive sense-data that represent the world; in similar fashion, computers process electronic values that represent the world too.