alQpr

One doesn’t “besiege” a site that is not resisting. So the question that comes to mind here is who is returning fire and how did they get in to “defend” the hospitals?

Source: Israeli forces besiege two hospitals, kill dozens in new Gaza attacks, Palestinian medics say – The Globe and Mail

and this on the after effects.

John Polkinghorne’s  Quantum Theory – a Very Short Introduction is a decent enough introduction to quantum theory, but might have been even better if 30% shorter.

The first two chapters are a pretty good introduction to the historical motivation and some basic features of the theory. But the third chapter is more problematic – perhaps in part because it is discussing philosophy rather than physics, and in philosophical discussions it is easier to misinterpret and/or misrepresent the opinions of others.

On pp42-43 Polkinghorne alludes to an “error” that some claim to have discovered in the work of John von Neumann, but many others read vN as not having ever actually made the claim that is found to be wrong.

On page 45 he makes the incorrect assertion that “the electron’s magnet can only point in two opposing directions”, when in fact the magnetic moment of the electron can be measured (and found to be nonzero) along any axis we like. What is true is that for  whatever direction we choose to measure, there can only be two possible observed values, which will be seen with probabilities depending on how the electron was prepared (eg on what previous measurement it has been subjected to); and this more correct statement is actually sufficient to motivate the subsequent discussion of “collapse”, so perhaps that error can be overlooked.

I don’t think Polkinghorne says anything particularly wrong or unfair about most of the approaches to the measurement/collapse issue, but as an advocate of the ‘Irrelevance/RelativeState’ school/sub-school I find it odd that he considers “seems very odd” to be a serious objection to an interpretation of Quantum Theory. Surely we all agree that, compared to our natural intuition, quantum theory is indeed “very odd”. Also I think he misses the point that the predictions of any human theory of physics are about what a human observer will see, so we should not be surprised that it’s also true of quantum theory; and the relative state approach does not actually depend on consciousness per se, as it can be applied more generally for states of one part of the universe relative to another regardless of whether or not the “observing” part corresponds to a conscious entity. And to call what is perhaps the most widespread approach among physicists “abhorrent to the mind of the scientist” is a bit presumptuous – as is the misuse of “treason of the clerks” to refer to an attitude of philosophical restraint when the term was originally used with regard more to the opposite.

When he gets back to proper physics in Chapter 4, I think the content is a pretty good summary of what is going on, but I start to have issues again in Chapter 5.

In particular the claim on p.79 that “the majority view leads to the conclusion that measurement on 1 produces an instantaneous change at 2” is, I think, false. Although the Bertelmann’s socks analogy does not in fact resolve the more sophisticated conundrums related to Bell’s inequality, it does show how the existence of a correlation does not necessarily imply any transmission of effect. And the spurious “produces an instantaneous change” language is especially odd since Polkinghorne does end the chapter pretty well clarifying that no FTL information transfer is enabled by quantum correlations.

Finally, while I don’t really find anything to object to in the more philosophical Chapter 6, neither do I see it as adding anything useful to our understanding of the physics.

Many (but not all) anti-genocide protests are themselves genocidal (in the opposite direction), so opposing those protests does not imply endorsing what they are protesting against.

And failing to recognize the genocidal aspects of an entity’s behaviour is not the same as being pro genocide.

Source: (1000) Alan Cooper’s answer to Why are there so many staunch pro genocide Israel supporters? Why do they oppose anti-genocide protests? – Quora

The life of Scandinavian writer Victoria Benedictsson, who achieved literary stardom under a male identity as Ernst Ahlgren and then committed suicide apparently due to unrequeited love for a man, is quite a fascinating story.

But it seems odd that in an essay (by a woman) suggesting that the story of that life was “stolen” by August Strindberg (as source material for one of his plays) we see mention of the titles and dates of various works by Strindberg (and other male authors) but only vague allusions to all but one of the many widely praised Benedictsson/Ahlgren works – including the novelized diaries that she left to a male friend, who published them in portions over the next 30 years, and which became a bestseller, which though not identified by title is described in the essay as “forceful as” (you guessed it) an explicitly named Strindberg novel.

Source: The woman behind Strindberg’s Miss Julie and her male alter ego | Aeon Essays

This makes things so much clearer (and more acceptable) to me.

According to Kenneth Stern, the lead author of the I.H.R.A. “definition”, its main intent was more to identify things as warning signs of possible antisemitism than as de facto evidence of actual antisemitism. And interpreted that way, as opposed to as a list of prohibited opinions, I could well agree with it.

Holding Israel to a higher standard than some other nations is often a sign of semitophilic respect rather than the opposite, but it is also often just an excuse for giving vent to pre-existing hatred. So, it’s certainly legitimate to include it as a sign of the need to look more deeply.

But the wording of the I.H.R.A. “definition”, and its claim to be such, definitely encourage what Stern would identify as its current misuses.

A much better version is provided by the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) and I am disappointed that Stern has not signed it, nor has he formally repudiated the I.H.R.A. definition.

This is especially odd given his recent observation that asking whether something is or is not antisemitism is the wrong question. “The question is, Why is this so binary that we want to label it this way or that way?”

Source: The Problem with Defining Antisemitism | The New Yorker

Nancy Mace claimed that she was being “shamed” as rape victim when George Stephanopoulos asked her how she could support Donald Trump after seeing the result of the E Jean Carroll lawsuit. But Stephanopoulos made no reference to Mace’s personal history in either his question or the subsequent argument. If he was “shaming” her it was for her support of someone found to be a rapist (albeit only in a civil trial where the criterion for proof is just on a “balance of probabilities” rather than to the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard of a criminal conviction). And any shaming of victims was by Mace herself when she belittled Carroll’s complaint on the grounds that she had been unexpectedly pleased that the amount of punitive damages awarded was vastly greater than what she had claimed as actual damages.

Source: Nancy Mace says she was ‘shamed’ as rape victim by George Stephanopoulos – The Washington Post

All sides in politics these days seem to think that it is a good idea to include and endorse any argument or “evidence” that appears to support their own cause, no matter how stupidly outlandish or unreliable the purported argument or evidence may be. Such overreach should be counterproductive by virtue of undermining the credibility of the presenter among potential supporters, but sadly it seems too often to actually get taken up by them (while rightly bringing ridicule from the other side) and so just ends up further entrenching both sides in ever more ridiculous positions.

A recent example occurs in this WaPo article about far-right anti-LGBTQ2S+++ activist Chaya Raichikcle, where it is alleged that she “pushed the false accusation that schools were installing litter boxes in bathrooms for children who identify as cats”. If that allegation is true, then of course the accusation (which I think we can all agree is certainly false) would indeed be an example of overreach by Ms Raichikcle. But I strongly suspect that it is in fact the reverse, and that the overreach is by WaPo author Taylor Lorenz in that the purported accusation was merely a joke.

Source: Libs of TikTok has become a major presence in Oklahoma’s schools – The Washington Post

A Quora questioner asks: How do you solve the Twin Paradox if everyone (including the waypoint) is co-moving at the get-go? But what’s with the “if” in this question? And what do they mean by the word “co-moving” other than perhaps stationary with respect to one another?

The standard version of the Twin “Paradox” starts with two twins, who are obviously “co-moving” in that sense at birth, and a distant star which is also “co-moving” (ie stationary with respect to the twins). Then at some point one of the twins travels to the star and back (usually with unspecified periods of acceleration and mostly constant speed in both directions).

Any correct application of Special Relativity predicts that when they re-unite the traveller is younger. The age difference can be calculated in terms of any frame of reference and (for any specified acceleration history – including that of instantaneous speed jumps) the answer is always the same so there is no real paradox.

The alleged “paradox” arises only in the mind of someone who notices that the traveller perceives the homie to have been ageing more slowly during the constant-speed legs of the trip and then just ignores the fact that the traveller also perceives a sudden rapid ageing of the homie during the turn-around. (During that turn-around the traveller feels the force of acceleration and so is aware of being in a non-inertial frame, whereas the homie feels no such forces. So the situation is definitely NOT symmetrical.)

Source: (1001) Alan Cooper’s answer to How do you solve the Twin Paradox if everyone (including the waypoint) is co-moving at the get-go? – Quora

This essay suggesting that “it’s time to replace the genetic blueprint idea” seems to be confounding the genome itself with its expression. For while the genome as a whole only implicitly and incompletely specifies the overall structure and behaviour of an organism, it does basically comprise a library of what are almost literally (and certainly much more than figuratively) actual blueprints for component proteins which fit together like a jig-saw puzzle (though perhaps one with more than one “solution”) to create parts including organelles and ribosomes which open successive volumes in the library and continue the process of expression to construct ever more complex parts which eventually culminate in the entire organism.

So, although I empathize to some extent with the political motivation here, I think that, as often happens, the desire to correct an overly simplistic interpretation has through its own overreach led to a less than credible attack on the basic validity of the metaphor.

Source: Why it’s time to replace the genetic blueprint idea | Aeon Essays

https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/wp-content/uploads/Godel-Basic-Theorems-and-Their-Implications-1.pdf

In addition to his amusing “proof” of the existence of God, Kurt Gödel also argued for belief in an afterlife in letters written to his mother. But I don’t share the view, expressed by Alexander T Englert in this Aeon Essay, that “because the correspondence was private, he did not feel the need to hide his true views, which he might have done in more formal academic settings and among his colleagues at the IAS”.  On the contrary I suspect that he knew well that the arguments were not valid and just used them as a comfort for his mother to alleviate her distress – probably not at death itself but at the fact that they lived far apart and he was unwilling to travel to see her.

Source: Kurt Gödel, his mother and the argument for life after death | Aeon Essays

While there needs to be a broad campaign emphasizing that Trump is a threat to the rule of law it should be something that Joe Biden actually refrains from making any comment on so that he can remain above the perceptions of mere name-calling and muckracking. Rather he should continue to focus on policy differences and economic performance.

Source: Joe Biden Makes Saving Democracy the Center of His Campaign | The New Yorker

I agree that the idea of ‘precolonial Africa’ is Eurocentric, and that in versions which imply that pre-Eurocolonial Africa was simple and homogeneous it is insultingly vacuous and wrong. But Africa is not alone in being so insulted, and on the other hand many students of ‘precolonial Africa’ as well as the similarly misnamed ‘precolonial America’ and (to a lesser extent) ‘precolonial Australia’ and (to a greater extent) ‘precolonial Asia’ do indeed recognize the diversity of those cultures and histories.

Also, I find it a bit ironic that the other side of that Eurocentric misnaming is the implication that colonialism is a uniquely European invention; as in fact all those pre-Eurocolonial histories are replete with instances of colonial and other imperialism – many of which give Eurocolonialism a substantial run for its money as being the most offensive.

Source: The idea of ‘precolonial Africa’ is vacuous and wrong |  Essays

Cruz and even deSantis have too much of an “elite” manner to take over the mantle but Vance has more of the people touch.

His autobiography (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillbilly_Elegy), which has already been made into a movie, takes a more nuanced view than he now seems to be espousing, so it’s not clear where he really stands. But I think he has the capacity to appeal to Trump’s base – and then to take it God knows where.

Source: Opinion | How a senator’s stunt proved the Trump dictatorship theory – The Washington Post

The possibility of looking at this evidence in new ways or in conjunction with new information should never be abandoned so long as there is any chance that some surviving collaborator or negligent investigator is still around to have at least the fear that it may someday be used against them.

Source: Western Canada: Family, advocates strongly opposed to RCMP’s move to destroy evidence in Pickton case – The Globe and Mail

I think the author of this article doesn’t really make his case with the dress example as immediately after saying “none of this explains why the visual systems of different people would automatically infer different ambient light” he adds that “one predictive factor seems to be a person’s typical wake-up time: night owls have more exposure to warmer, indoor light” which I would take as a perfectly good possible explanation of why different people make different inferences without any need for attributing that to innate differences in their visual systems per se.

Another point in the article that interests me is the reference to ‘aphantasia’. I’ve seen quite a few references to this recently, but am not convinced that it is real as opposed to being just a difference in how different people interpret the difference between an imagined scene and one that is actually seen. I have never had the experience of an imagined object being anything near so vivid as to be indistinguishable from reality, and so could perhaps think of myself as aphantastic; but on the other hand I have no reason to assume that others see their imaginings as more real than I do. Does anyone really “see” what they imagine with anything like the intensity of what they actually see in the real world? And if so, how would one quantify the difference so as to decide whether or not I am relatively aphantastic?

Source: The moral imperative to learn from diverse phenomenal experiences | Aeon Essays

I don’t understand why they could not just have the autopilot disabled by default and only enabled when gps indicate that the vehicle is on a road which has been approved as safe for its operation.

Source: Tesla recalls 2 million cars with ‘insufficient’ Autopilot safety controls – The Washington Post

Source: What might NuScale’s cancellation mean for Ghana and other nuclear aspirants?