Comments for Detailed Balance http://blog.bbbeard.com A Peculiar, Yet Refreshing, Blog Sun, 20 May 2012 11:58:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 Comment on Determinism is inconsistent with relativity by Tom Cohoe http://blog.bbbeard.com/2010/07/11/determinism-is-inconsistent-with-relativity/#comment-2720 Tom Cohoe Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:27:43 +0000 http://blog.bbbeard.com/2010/07/11/determinism-is-inconsistent-with-relativity/#comment-2720 I would say that your relativistic indeterminism is not the same thing as quantum mechanical indeterminism. The difference is that even though one observer cannot, in principle, determine an event in his future if it will also be influenced by events outside his past light cone, the requirement for consistency means that only one future is possible, even though it is not determinable, because the future event has to be consistent with all of the influences from its past light cone, which includes those events in spacetime not accessible to the predictor at the time of the prediction. Suppose I am aware of event A and predict from it that either event B or event C will happen, but which one will happen is not then determinable by me, because I do not know which of event D of event E (assume they are mutually exclusive), separated from me by a spacelike interval at the time of my prediction, will influence the result. However, the result must be consistent with whichever of event B or event C has happened in its past. Only one result is actually possible. It is predetermined by the state of the universe before event D or E, but it is not determinable by me because my local nature restricts my access to information (here, I discount the function of quantum mechanics and speak a universe which is only relativistic). This is why I would say that a relativistic universe is <i>indeterminable</i> rather than indeterminate. Now there is a requirement for consistency with quantum mechanics as well, in that the result of an observation at A affects the wavefunction of all entangled entities everywhere, so that observations involving them must be consistent with the observation at A. But in this case, knowledge of the state of the entire universe in the past of event A (rather than just locally accessible information) would still not allow a prediction to be made. So I would say that a QM universe is indeterminate, whereas a relativistic universe is indeterminable. I would say that your relativistic indeterminism is not the same thing as quantum mechanical indeterminism. The difference is that even though one observer cannot, in principle, determine an event in his future if it will also be influenced by events outside his past light cone, the requirement for consistency means that only one future is possible, even though it is not determinable, because the future event has to be consistent with all of the influences from its past light cone, which includes those events in spacetime not accessible to the predictor at the time of the prediction.

Suppose I am aware of event A and predict from it that either event B or event C will happen, but which one will happen is not then determinable by me, because I do not know which of event D of event E (assume they are mutually exclusive), separated from me by a spacelike interval at the time of my prediction, will influence the result. However, the result must be consistent with whichever of event B or event C has happened in its past.

Only one result is actually possible. It is predetermined by the state of the universe before event D or E, but it is not determinable by me because my local nature restricts my access to information (here, I discount the function of quantum mechanics and speak a universe which is only relativistic).

This is why I would say that a relativistic universe is indeterminable rather than indeterminate.

Now there is a requirement for consistency with quantum mechanics as well, in that the result of an observation at A affects the wavefunction of all entangled entities everywhere, so that observations involving them must be consistent with the observation at A.

But in this case, knowledge of the state of the entire universe in the past of event A (rather than just locally accessible information) would still not allow a prediction to be made.

So I would say that a QM universe is indeterminate, whereas a relativistic universe is indeterminable.

]]> Comment on Objects in Space by Air Jordan http://blog.bbbeard.com/2008/08/27/objects-in-space/#comment-2097 Air Jordan Tue, 20 Apr 2010 07:52:39 +0000 http://blog.bbbeard.com/2008/08/27/objects-in-space/#comment-2097 Good post. Leaving a moment not only reflects we respect the bloggers' labor but also can enhance people' feelings. It's benefit for each other. <a href="http://www.airjordan.cc" rel="nofollow"> Air Jordan</a> Good post. Leaving a moment not only reflects we respect the bloggers’ labor but also can enhance people’ feelings. It’s benefit for each other. Air Jordan

]]> Comment on Buddha noodling by Air Jordan http://blog.bbbeard.com/2008/08/19/buddha-noodling/#comment-2041 Air Jordan Thu, 15 Apr 2010 01:56:44 +0000 http://blog.bbbeard.com/2008/08/19/buddha-noodling/#comment-2041 It just shows that experience in writing brings such depth and meaning to readers. Thanks for sharing. <a href="http://www.airjordan.cc" rel="nofollow"> Air Jordan</a> It just shows that experience in writing brings such depth and meaning to readers. Thanks for sharing.
Air Jordan

]]> Comment on “Part of the burden of being so bright is that he sees his error immediately” by dantel modelleri http://blog.bbbeard.com/2010/02/25/part-of-the-burden-of-being-so-bright-is-that-he-sees-his-error-immediately/#comment-1788 dantel modelleri Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:08:24 +0000 http://blog.bbbeard.com/2010/02/25/part-of-the-burden-of-being-so-bright-is-that-he-sees-his-error-immediately/#comment-1788 wery nice site. Thanks wery nice site. Thanks

]]> Comment on The other shoe [BUMPED] by bbbeard http://blog.bbbeard.com/2009/11/06/the-other-shoe/#comment-383 bbbeard Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:43:35 +0000 http://blog.bbbeard.com/2009/11/06/the-other-shoe/#comment-383 Well, no, what I'm saying is that people -- "the public" -- will hold Obama accountable for continuing unemployment after the six-month mark, even as Reagan "owned" the unemployment rate from mid-1981 onward. However, it is clear to me that it can take a couple of years for an economic downturn to wash through the economy. These are two different sets of considerations: the political and the economic. = The Republicans lost seats in the 1982 elections, and surely Democrats understand that they will lose seats in the mid-term elections, no matter how unworthy they think the Republican Party is. But by 1984 Reagan was able to convince "the public" to "stay the course", even though we had only just begun the recovery that would become the longest peacetime expansion in American history. It might be the case that Mr. Obama will convince people to stay the course of massive deficits, socialized industries, withdrawal from international leadership, and general race-baiting that seems to be Obama's current policy direction. I hope not, but to paraphrase Lincoln, you only have to fool half the people once every four years. = You seem to take it as a given that Reagan's policies hurt the poor, and I'll repeat my request that you at least dig up a fact or two to support that accusation. I read through the Reaganomics link you provided and the thrust of the (disputed) criticism seemed to be that the cause-and-effect of the economic growth in the 1980's can be obfuscated by using peak-and-trough analysis. = And on the other side, I dispute the assertion that Obama's accumulation of massive deficits is not deliberate. In fact, his economic team seems very much to buy into the Krugman analysis, which says we should be spending even more to make up for "lost demand". I suppose by definition, intelligent people can disagree on this (if you grant the controversial assumption that Krugman and I are both "intelligent"), but I think a small amount of deficit spending (1-3% of GDP) is probably optimum, but that 12% of GDP is insane. = Now, unlike Krugman or me, you seem to be implying that this policy is inadvertent. I'm not sure where you draw that inference. My understanding of the argument about the stimulus is that both sides very much understand that the deficit thereby created is intentional, indeed is the point. It's just that Obama believes a 12% deficit is a good thing, but people like me demur. = In a late-breaking twist of irony, the <em>Swedish </em> government has announced that they are cutting marginal tax rates in order to spur job growth. See <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.a3018ceef6a0590e0fe87c97c608ebdc.4b1&show_article=1" rel="nofollow">the story here</a>. Well, no, what I’m saying is that people — “the public” — will hold Obama accountable for continuing unemployment after the six-month mark, even as Reagan “owned” the unemployment rate from mid-1981 onward. However, it is clear to me that it can take a couple of years for an economic downturn to wash through the economy. These are two different sets of considerations: the political and the economic.
=
The Republicans lost seats in the 1982 elections, and surely Democrats understand that they will lose seats in the mid-term elections, no matter how unworthy they think the Republican Party is. But by 1984 Reagan was able to convince “the public” to “stay the course”, even though we had only just begun the recovery that would become the longest peacetime expansion in American history. It might be the case that Mr. Obama will convince people to stay the course of massive deficits, socialized industries, withdrawal from international leadership, and general race-baiting that seems to be Obama’s current policy direction. I hope not, but to paraphrase Lincoln, you only have to fool half the people once every four years.
=
You seem to take it as a given that Reagan’s policies hurt the poor, and I’ll repeat my request that you at least dig up a fact or two to support that accusation. I read through the Reaganomics link you provided and the thrust of the (disputed) criticism seemed to be that the cause-and-effect of the economic growth in the 1980’s can be obfuscated by using peak-and-trough analysis.
=
And on the other side, I dispute the assertion that Obama’s accumulation of massive deficits is not deliberate. In fact, his economic team seems very much to buy into the Krugman analysis, which says we should be spending even more to make up for “lost demand”. I suppose by definition, intelligent people can disagree on this (if you grant the controversial assumption that Krugman and I are both “intelligent”), but I think a small amount of deficit spending (1-3% of GDP) is probably optimum, but that 12% of GDP is insane.
=
Now, unlike Krugman or me, you seem to be implying that this policy is inadvertent. I’m not sure where you draw that inference. My understanding of the argument about the stimulus is that both sides very much understand that the deficit thereby created is intentional, indeed is the point. It’s just that Obama believes a 12% deficit is a good thing, but people like me demur.
=
In a late-breaking twist of irony, the Swedish government has announced that they are cutting marginal tax rates in order to spur job growth. See the story here.

]]> Comment on The other shoe [BUMPED] by D. Franks http://blog.bbbeard.com/2009/11/06/the-other-shoe/#comment-355 D. Franks Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:54:14 +0000 http://blog.bbbeard.com/2009/11/06/the-other-shoe/#comment-355 Well, some info here http://en.allexperts.com/e/r/re/reaganomics.htm looks fairly even-handed at first glance (and makes the point that cycling is not all president-initiated), but my objection was to the term "policy": I don't think Obama and his advisors sat around and discussed how they might "accumulate massive debt obligations" any more than Reagan and his folks talked about how they might stick it to the poor and middle class. Yeah, "FDR’s incompetent and ideological commandeering" and its supposed result is iffy history at best--especially since we have no way of knowing the results of alternativestrategies. You're "bending over backwards" yet Obama "owns" the unemployment after 6 months while Raegan got years? The psychological 10% as--what, something that will instill terror and so head us back down again? Your implications throughout are pretty clear! But, BBB, I think you might enjoy the article on healthcare by David Goldhill in this month's Atlantic: a very different perspective from anything I've seen on either "side," and makes some sense although it would have some problems too--seemed it might reconcile w/ your own ideas on that subject. Well, some info here http://en.allexperts.com/e/r/re/reaganomics.htm looks fairly even-handed at first glance (and makes the point that cycling is not all president-initiated), but my objection was to the term “policy”: I don’t think Obama and his advisors sat around and discussed how they might “accumulate massive debt obligations” any more than Reagan and his folks talked about how they might stick it to the poor and middle class. Yeah, “FDR’s incompetent and ideological commandeering” and its supposed result is iffy history at best–especially since we have no way of knowing the results of alternativestrategies. You’re “bending over backwards” yet Obama “owns” the unemployment after 6 months while Raegan got years? The psychological 10% as–what, something that will instill terror and so head us back down again? Your implications throughout are pretty clear!

But, BBB, I think you might enjoy the article on healthcare by David Goldhill in this month’s Atlantic: a very different perspective from anything I’ve seen on either “side,” and makes some sense although it would have some problems too–seemed it might reconcile w/ your own ideas on that subject.

]]> Comment on The other shoe [BUMPED] by bbbeard http://blog.bbbeard.com/2009/11/06/the-other-shoe/#comment-287 bbbeard Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:42:39 +0000 http://blog.bbbeard.com/2009/11/06/the-other-shoe/#comment-287 No, actually, I'm bending over backwards NOT to blame Obama for not solving the unemployment problem in six months. It can reasonably take a couple of years for the economy to recover from a downturn -- IF you do the right thing, fiscally speaking. That's why the previous post was called "Lagging Indicator". But I am trying to make the case that Obama is doing exactly the opposite of what it takes to get us out of the doldrums. = What fiscally aware folks are concerned about it is that Obama looks to be repeating the mistakes of the Great Depression. FDR's incompetent and ideological commandeering of the economy extended the Depression long past the few years it should have taken to recover. But, as Mr. Babel might say, that's "iffy history", so I won't press the point. = Can you give me an example of Reagan kowtowing to industry? Can you show me some statistics that show that the poor and working class were worse off after eight years of Reagan? = And, yeah, I guess "we shall see". ;-) = BBB No, actually, I’m bending over backwards NOT to blame Obama for not solving the unemployment problem in six months. It can reasonably take a couple of years for the economy to recover from a downturn — IF you do the right thing, fiscally speaking. That’s why the previous post was called “Lagging Indicator”. But I am trying to make the case that Obama is doing exactly the opposite of what it takes to get us out of the doldrums.
=
What fiscally aware folks are concerned about it is that Obama looks to be repeating the mistakes of the Great Depression. FDR’s incompetent and ideological commandeering of the economy extended the Depression long past the few years it should have taken to recover. But, as Mr. Babel might say, that’s “iffy history”, so I won’t press the point.
=
Can you give me an example of Reagan kowtowing to industry? Can you show me some statistics that show that the poor and working class were worse off after eight years of Reagan?
=
And, yeah, I guess “we shall see”. ;-)
=
BBB

]]> Comment on The other shoe [BUMPED] by D. Franks http://blog.bbbeard.com/2009/11/06/the-other-shoe/#comment-282 D. Franks Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:25:08 +0000 http://blog.bbbeard.com/2009/11/06/the-other-shoe/#comment-282 So, when Reagan takes years to cure the unemployment rate, it's okay, because he did it the Right way. Obama, however, sucks when he hasn't turned it around in 6 months , because he's relying on "policies" of higher taxes, deeper national debt, and nationalizing major industries. You might just as truthfully credit Reagan for implementing his bold policies of kowtowing to industry and leaving the poor and the working class to rot. Indeed, we shall see, but if your Limbaughian rhetoric is any indication of the soundness of Republican "policy," I'm banking on the Democrats, foolishness and all. So, when Reagan takes years to cure the unemployment rate, it’s okay, because he did it the Right way. Obama, however, sucks when he hasn’t turned it around in 6 months , because he’s relying on “policies” of higher taxes, deeper national debt, and nationalizing major industries. You might just as truthfully credit Reagan for implementing his bold policies of kowtowing to industry and leaving the poor and the working class to rot. Indeed, we shall see, but if your Limbaughian rhetoric is any indication of the soundness of Republican “policy,” I’m banking on the Democrats, foolishness and all.

]]> Comment on Contradictions by dave http://blog.bbbeard.com/2008/10/08/contradictions/#comment-204 dave Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:01:46 +0000 http://blog.bbbeard.com/2008/10/08/contradictions/#comment-204 again, most of my reply was deleted. The CRA explicitly forbade lending to people who didn't otherwise qualify for credit. The consensus among bankers subject to the CRA is that it was an unimtigated success, and should in fact be strengthened and expanded Sheila Baird, the Dole protege whose FDIC is the primary overseer of CRA covered institutions, argued insistently that the chorus promoting your view was simply and flatly wrong The subprime fiasco eruped after the FBI warned of an epidemic of mortgage fraud, and still the Bush administration continued to follow their combination of radical laissez-faire/crony capitalism tenets, elminating as much enforcement of regulations-such as the CRA- as they could. To reiterate, for 25 years the CRA failed to cause a credit crisis (and in fact led banks to make , in their view, exceptionally sound and profitable loans), and then largely sopped being enforced:I suppose you could call that "the CRA causing the subprime crisis"- if you were perverse and/or had had a WSJ Editorial pahe pod attached to your brain. again, most of my reply was deleted.
The CRA explicitly forbade lending to people who didn’t otherwise qualify for credit.
The consensus among bankers subject to the CRA is that it was an unimtigated success, and should in fact be strengthened and expanded Sheila Baird, the Dole protege whose FDIC is the primary overseer of CRA covered institutions, argued insistently that the chorus promoting your view was simply and flatly wrong
The subprime fiasco eruped after the FBI warned of an epidemic of mortgage fraud, and still the Bush administration continued to follow their combination of radical laissez-faire/crony capitalism tenets, elminating as much enforcement of regulations-such as the CRA- as they could. To reiterate, for 25 years the CRA failed to cause a credit crisis (and in fact led banks to make , in their view, exceptionally sound and profitable loans), and then largely sopped being enforced:I suppose you could call that “the CRA causing the subprime crisis”- if you were perverse and/or had had a WSJ Editorial pahe pod attached to your brain.

]]> Comment on Contradictions by dave http://blog.bbbeard.com/2008/10/08/contradictions/#comment-203 dave Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:52:47 +0000 http://blog.bbbeard.com/2008/10/08/contradictions/#comment-203 It did so by creating incentives for banks and mortgage companies to lend money to people who didn’t meet traditional credit requirements. It did so by creating incentives for banks and mortgage companies to lend money to people who didn’t meet traditional credit requirements.

]]>