I think I agree with you. I prefer the Copenhagen view as it suggests that we just don't really understand how nature really works (I know I'm reliving Einstein and Bohr's' arguements), whereas the MW seems to close off the debate. Neither are supported by and testable (i.e. disprovable) science.
And there is obviously a revision needed, either fundamental or trivial, to reconcile the quantum and the relativistic theories.
But (and back to my sounding like an indignant Einstein) the newer ideas, such as string theory and loop gravity, are much more ontologically satisfying than quantum mechanics - they make a claim about what is happening in nature rather than just stating abstract maths that seems at odds with logic as well as intuition.
It seems very disappointing that physics ended up in a position where it can't actually describe what the world is like - since around 1930 it isn't possible to describe what is being talked about, even by greatly simplifying it. Can anyone find a laymen's book about Chromodynnamics? About Symmetry and Noether's theorem? About weak interactions? Unless you look at it purely mathematically it isn't really possible to get into these things.
Keep in mind that (in the standard QM theory) the waveform describe by the Schrodinger equation is a probability wave - which is to say that the intensity (amplitude squared) of the wave at any one point in spacetime describes the probability of finding the particle at that point in spacetime.
So if you have two waves which meet, and they are exactly 180 degree out of phase, then there will be no point in spacetime that has a non-zero probability and so you won't find any particle anywhere (presumably this can't actually happen, as it would violate all sorts of conservation laws for a particle to suddenly have a zero probability of being anywhere - I suspect relativity will give us a way out here).
If the waves are not exactly out of phase, then you will have places with destructive superposition where the probability is low or zero (hence, the particle will not be found there) but other places where it might be.
What is the consensus on the metaphysical messiness of the many worlds interpretation. I would argue it is the very opposite of Occam's Razor at work - it invokes and assumes so much (new universes being created every plank time) that can't be explained that it seems little better than saying God chooses which measurement will happen.
The principle benefit seems to me to be that it renders the interpretation as being outside of science as it is logically not possible to test a many worlds theory. Whereas logically you could test a waveform theory, we just don't know of any way to do it
For example, there might be a way to measure it using gravity, but we don't have first clue how to manipulate gravity in order to figure this, whereas a many worlds theory doesn't lead to any possibilities, even hypothetical, whereby it could be tested.
So, it seems it's main use is in making the interpretation problem go away.
In an atom, you can only describe the electrons in a consistent way if you describe them as being standing Schrodinger waves vibrating around the nucleus. But they are vibrating around the nucleus because they are confined by the electric charge of the nucleus and electrons. That is an interaction, an electrical one between different fermions. Most material interactions are electrical.
So, an atom ought to collapse immediately as the electrons' wave functions immediately collapse and the electrons spiral into the nucleus.
Now you could say that the electrons are not interacting all the time with nucleus, but are confined by it in some way that doesn't include constant interaction. But then the same problem would occur when atoms interact with other atoms, the new electrical interaction with the other atom would cause the electrons' WF to collapse and molecules wouldn't form.
So, if matter is to exist in any real macroscopic way it can't be that ALL interactions cause a waveform collapse.
But if macroscopic interactions (measurements) do cause a collapse, then there must be some demarcation between macro and micro scopic. But what would this be, in a scientifically and ontologically meaningful way?
Our definitions are completely arbitrary. We say subatomic, but we have observed quantum behaviour in things as big as a virus. And a virus interacts macroscopically.
As has been explained several times, if I invoice you for a service, and you pay my invoice (thus, implicitly accepting the agreement), then I have a risk - that you will want me to provide services to the value of the invoice.
The only way out is to have a contract behind the invoice stating the (lack of) activity required to validate the invoice.
But then clearly the author of story is trying to hide the money from management (or more likely, their accountants).
In summary, he is asking an OSS company (or perhaps group of individuals) to take on a load of legal risk.
Also, there is the ethical issue that it isn't his mone to spend. If thheir department has come in under budget, then it isn't his job to decide what to do with the surplus. He is being presumptious in assuming that he should make that decision.
It would be an incredibly stupid instruction to tell someone to spend $x on rifles, without any conditions on how many or what quality they should be. There is no incentive to get a good deal.
The proper instruction should be to procure x rifles of y quality, with a mximum budget of z. Give the procurement officer an incentive to come in lower than z and also measure and enforce y, and you have a decent incentive structure that is more likely to get results.
"That isn't the point of debt. Debt is borrowing money or resources now and paying for them with future income or resources. So you can borrow more to produce more, but as a consequence, you will be producing less in the future for a period of time.
Let's put this into perspective. Suppose the interest rate on that public debt was very considerable 100% per year for ten years and adjusted for inflation. That is, every dollar you borrowed, you had to pay back each year for ten years. According to your view, you get massive creation of "output" in that first year followed by ten years of lost "output" of the same amount each year. I'm sure it'd be great to be the lender, at least till year two or so when the borrower and economy collapses without paying back enough of the loan to make it worthwhile."
That can be how debt works if done badly, but it isn't supposed to be (if you're a sensible borrower).
Let's say I am a writer (I chose a profession that doesn't use any physical resources of note). I have a crappy biro and some cheap paper. I can write 1000 words per day, and have trouble with QC (since I can't use software spell checks, etc.), so I can sell my work for $100 per day.
I borrow $1000 to buy a computer and a printer.
I can now output 10,000 words per day, which are off higher quality. I can earn (roughly) 10 times as much per day. I can sell my work for $1100 per day.
I can pay of the debt and easily have plenty left over.
The general amount of productivity in society has increase by 10 times, and I have only 10 days work required to pay of the debt.
I have obviously exagerated the numbers here, but most debbt is like this - borrowed to invest in improvements. Recessions tend to happen when large amounts of a nation's capital are put into investments that are not productive, and so the debt (in the aggregate) cannot be paid back by the returns.
Please ignore my previous post to you mentioning money creation and fr-banking, which on reflection was a bit patronising. It is clear that you understand the subtleties involved and we are operating at different levels of abstraction.
I agree with your points above, and with your general theme that money is an abstraction used to account for real resources, and that balance of trade accounts merely record (rather than dictate) the exchange of resources or investments.
It isn't true that it is only the US (or other national governments) that are the only creators of money. Most western countries operate a fractional reserve banking system, so the banks create a fair amount of money.
You could argue that the banks' scope for lending and money creation is regulated, and so limited, but it is limited by the central bank (in most countries) which is mostly independent of the government.
Which is why there are other terms in use than just 'recession'. A recession is a reasonably short term description. Medium and longer term descriptions such as stagnation and depression exist too.
It is useful to have precise language available so we can communicate precisely. If everyone understands the recession = 2 quarters of GDP decline then we know where we are and can analyse patterns over time.
I think the solution is to remember that 'recession' has a technical definition, rather than a coloquial one.
There were economic bibbles all the way through the 19th century. There was a huge depression in the 1870's that puts the current problems to shame - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression
Keynsian counter-cyclical policy is a useful way of mitigating boom-bust business cycles, but it is more or less politically impossible in the western world - when has a democratically elected goverment ever raised taces and interest rates and cut spending during a boom period? (and if they have/had, do they win the next election?)
Britain was not the British Empire. The British Empire was the territory that Britain ruled. The empire is not the ruling entity, the empire is the territory ruled. An imperial power does the ruling, but the empire is the recipient of rule, not the originator.
Well, this is what I would expect in a 2 party system over a long period of time. When you have 2 parties in power on and off over a long period and there are a small number of central issues then both parties will converge on an acceptable middle position. The alternative would be constant political strife leading to either unrest or a strong third party.
Keep in mind that for each of the issue you mention above there are a lot of people who care strongly about one of them, but very few who care strongly about all of them - there is very little strong consensus about all central issues, and very few people care strongly about al of them.
Many voters may care strongly about a single issue, or a couple. But few care strongly about many issues.
Most people care strongly about their own economic well being more than other issues, and so (this being an issue affected a lot by government) this is generally the strongest area of contention in politics in western governments.
Britain is much the same. There is a little bit of different on social issues such as immigration, gay marriage, etc. but really very little, and a fair amount of disagreement on economic issues (within the generally accepted framework of standard economics - e.g. debating furiously about a few percent of govt.. spending and taxing)
And used car salesman are basically the experts when it comes to the sale and purchase of used cars. But you wouldn't trust them would you.
If someone trust a 'professional' so blindly with a huge amount of their own resources without stopping to think about the conflicts of interest that professional is subject to, then yes, they are behaving stupidly.
Slashdot Mirror
So your argument is that two wrongs (even if one of them is hypothetical) do indeed make a right?
You're mixing up two different definitions of what 'compression' means.
I think I agree with you. I prefer the Copenhagen view as it suggests that we just don't really understand how nature really works (I know I'm reliving Einstein and Bohr's' arguements), whereas the MW seems to close off the debate. Neither are supported by and testable (i.e. disprovable) science.
And there is obviously a revision needed, either fundamental or trivial, to reconcile the quantum and the relativistic theories.
But (and back to my sounding like an indignant Einstein) the newer ideas, such as string theory and loop gravity, are much more ontologically satisfying than quantum mechanics - they make a claim about what is happening in nature rather than just stating abstract maths that seems at odds with logic as well as intuition.
It seems very disappointing that physics ended up in a position where it can't actually describe what the world is like - since around 1930 it isn't possible to describe what is being talked about, even by greatly simplifying it. Can anyone find a laymen's book about Chromodynnamics? About Symmetry and Noether's theorem? About weak interactions? Unless you look at it purely mathematically it isn't really possible to get into these things.
In principle, yes.
Keep in mind that (in the standard QM theory) the waveform describe by the Schrodinger equation is a probability wave - which is to say that the intensity (amplitude squared) of the wave at any one point in spacetime describes the probability of finding the particle at that point in spacetime.
So if you have two waves which meet, and they are exactly 180 degree out of phase, then there will be no point in spacetime that has a non-zero probability and so you won't find any particle anywhere (presumably this can't actually happen, as it would violate all sorts of conservation laws for a particle to suddenly have a zero probability of being anywhere - I suspect relativity will give us a way out here).
If the waves are not exactly out of phase, then you will have places with destructive superposition where the probability is low or zero (hence, the particle will not be found there) but other places where it might be.
What is the consensus on the metaphysical messiness of the many worlds interpretation. I would argue it is the very opposite of Occam's Razor at work - it invokes and assumes so much (new universes being created every plank time) that can't be explained that it seems little better than saying God chooses which measurement will happen.
The principle benefit seems to me to be that it renders the interpretation as being outside of science as it is logically not possible to test a many worlds theory. Whereas logically you could test a waveform theory, we just don't know of any way to do it
For example, there might be a way to measure it using gravity, but we don't have first clue how to manipulate gravity in order to figure this, whereas a many worlds theory doesn't lead to any possibilities, even hypothetical, whereby it could be tested.
So, it seems it's main use is in making the interpretation problem go away.
David Hume has a lot to answer for.
Except, it can't be that simple.
In an atom, you can only describe the electrons in a consistent way if you describe them as being standing Schrodinger waves vibrating around the nucleus. But they are vibrating around the nucleus because they are confined by the electric charge of the nucleus and electrons. That is an interaction, an electrical one between different fermions. Most material interactions are electrical.
So, an atom ought to collapse immediately as the electrons' wave functions immediately collapse and the electrons spiral into the nucleus.
Now you could say that the electrons are not interacting all the time with nucleus, but are confined by it in some way that doesn't include constant interaction. But then the same problem would occur when atoms interact with other atoms, the new electrical interaction with the other atom would cause the electrons' WF to collapse and molecules wouldn't form.
So, if matter is to exist in any real macroscopic way it can't be that ALL interactions cause a waveform collapse.
But if macroscopic interactions (measurements) do cause a collapse, then there must be some demarcation between macro and micro scopic. But what would this be, in a scientifically and ontologically meaningful way?
Our definitions are completely arbitrary. We say subatomic, but we have observed quantum behaviour in things as big as a virus. And a virus interacts macroscopically.
Hence, the well known 'measurement problem'.
Have you read 1984?
As has been explained several times, if I invoice you for a service, and you pay my invoice (thus, implicitly accepting the agreement), then I have a risk - that you will want me to provide services to the value of the invoice.
The only way out is to have a contract behind the invoice stating the (lack of) activity required to validate the invoice.
But then clearly the author of story is trying to hide the money from management (or more likely, their accountants).
In summary, he is asking an OSS company (or perhaps group of individuals) to take on a load of legal risk.
Also, there is the ethical issue that it isn't his mone to spend. If thheir department has come in under budget, then it isn't his job to decide what to do with the surplus. He is being presumptious in assuming that he should make that decision.
It would be an incredibly stupid instruction to tell someone to spend $x on rifles, without any conditions on how many or what quality they should be. There is no incentive to get a good deal.
The proper instruction should be to procure x rifles of y quality, with a mximum budget of z. Give the procurement officer an incentive to come in lower than z and also measure and enforce y, and you have a decent incentive structure that is more likely to get results.
Your /. ID is low enough that you should know that mod points aren't used to indicate agreement or disagreement with a line of reasoning.
With a history of 200 - 300 years only, and a shared history, language, culture and economy.
Not quite the same as comparing Spaniards, with their history going back the Roman Empire, to Finland.
Language in particular, I think, makes a huge difference to how people approach the world.
"Trying to sway people to a false dichotomy? Fuck you."
Is this what political discourse in the US is like? What's wrong with using good manners while talking to people you disagree with?
Hello khallow,
"That isn't the point of debt. Debt is borrowing money or resources now and paying for them with future income or resources. So you can borrow more to produce more, but as a consequence, you will be producing less in the future for a period of time.
Let's put this into perspective. Suppose the interest rate on that public debt was very considerable 100% per year for ten years and adjusted for inflation. That is, every dollar you borrowed, you had to pay back each year for ten years. According to your view, you get massive creation of "output" in that first year followed by ten years of lost "output" of the same amount each year. I'm sure it'd be great to be the lender, at least till year two or so when the borrower and economy collapses without paying back enough of the loan to make it worthwhile."
That can be how debt works if done badly, but it isn't supposed to be (if you're a sensible borrower).
Let's say I am a writer (I chose a profession that doesn't use any physical resources of note). I have a crappy biro and some cheap paper. I can write 1000 words per day, and have trouble with QC (since I can't use software spell checks, etc.), so I can sell my work for $100 per day.
I borrow $1000 to buy a computer and a printer.
I can now output 10,000 words per day, which are off higher quality. I can earn (roughly) 10 times as much per day. I can sell my work for $1100 per day.
I can pay of the debt and easily have plenty left over.
The general amount of productivity in society has increase by 10 times, and I have only 10 days work required to pay of the debt.
I have obviously exagerated the numbers here, but most debbt is like this - borrowed to invest in improvements. Recessions tend to happen when large amounts of a nation's capital are put into investments that are not productive, and so the debt (in the aggregate) cannot be paid back by the returns.
Hello reve_etrange,
Please ignore my previous post to you mentioning money creation and fr-banking, which on reflection was a bit patronising. It is clear that you understand the subtleties involved and we are operating at different levels of abstraction.
I agree with your points above, and with your general theme that money is an abstraction used to account for real resources, and that balance of trade accounts merely record (rather than dictate) the exchange of resources or investments.
It isn't true that it is only the US (or other national governments) that are the only creators of money. Most western countries operate a fractional reserve banking system, so the banks create a fair amount of money.
You could argue that the banks' scope for lending and money creation is regulated, and so limited, but it is limited by the central bank (in most countries) which is mostly independent of the government.
Inflation expectations are factored into the price of government debt. Unexpected inflation surges will be priced into future gilt purchase prices.
Plus a fair amont of US govt. debt is in TIPS, which are indexed against the CPI.
Which is why there are other terms in use than just 'recession'. A recession is a reasonably short term description. Medium and longer term descriptions such as stagnation and depression exist too.
It is useful to have precise language available so we can communicate precisely. If everyone understands the recession = 2 quarters of GDP decline then we know where we are and can analyse patterns over time.
I think the solution is to remember that 'recession' has a technical definition, rather than a coloquial one.
Then what do you call the bit in-between?
There were economic bibbles all the way through the 19th century. There was a huge depression in the 1870's that puts the current problems to shame - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression
The first known bubble being a stock market explosion in Britain in the 18th C known as the south sea bubble http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Company
Keynsian counter-cyclical policy is a useful way of mitigating boom-bust business cycles, but it is more or less politically impossible in the western world - when has a democratically elected goverment ever raised taces and interest rates and cut spending during a boom period? (and if they have/had, do they win the next election?)
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a judicial issue. I can accuse you of being a criminal, but all I'm doing is usimg words, nothing more.
The police and the courts have a burdon of proof, since they have legal power.
Manning was a member of the armed forces, and so subject to a ifferent judicial process. This is no secret.
Britain was not the British Empire. The British Empire was the territory that Britain ruled. The empire is not the ruling entity, the empire is the territory ruled. An imperial power does the ruling, but the empire is the recipient of rule, not the originator.
Well, this is what I would expect in a 2 party system over a long period of time. When you have 2 parties in power on and off over a long period and there are a small number of central issues then both parties will converge on an acceptable middle position. The alternative would be constant political strife leading to either unrest or a strong third party.
Keep in mind that for each of the issue you mention above there are a lot of people who care strongly about one of them, but very few who care strongly about all of them - there is very little strong consensus about all central issues, and very few people care strongly about al of them.
Many voters may care strongly about a single issue, or a couple. But few care strongly about many issues.
Most people care strongly about their own economic well being more than other issues, and so (this being an issue affected a lot by government) this is generally the strongest area of contention in politics in western governments.
Britain is much the same. There is a little bit of different on social issues such as immigration, gay marriage, etc. but really very little, and a fair amount of disagreement on economic issues (within the generally accepted framework of standard economics - e.g. debating furiously about a few percent of govt.. spending and taxing)
And used car salesman are basically the experts when it comes to the sale and purchase of used cars. But you wouldn't trust them would you.
If someone trust a 'professional' so blindly with a huge amount of their own resources without stopping to think about the conflicts of interest that professional is subject to, then yes, they are behaving stupidly.