Scott Aaronson on the November election and some other stuff

[John Clark]

On physicist Scott Aaronson's Quantum Computing blog he occasionally changes topics and talks about politics; recently he did so in a dialectic manner about Trump, and it's remarkable how closely his opinions coincide with my own, except that he can express them better.  

Never-Trump From Here to Eternity” FAQ

Oh and by the way, also on the blog Professor Aaronson informs us that just a few days ago the smallest Busy Beaver number that is known to be consistent with Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory has been reduced from BB(745) to BB(643).

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

fzs

[John Clark]

On Sun, Aug 4, 2024 at 8:15 PM Keith Henson <hkeith...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> On physicist Scott Aaronson's Quantum Computing blog he occasionally changes topics and talks about politics; recently he did so in a dialectic manner about Trump, and it's remarkable how closely his opinions coincide with my own, except that he can express them better.  

Never-Trump From Here to Eternity” FAQ 

> I replied to his screed.

Screed? I thought it was logical and concise and covered all the points that needed to be covered and covered nothing irrelevant. Did Aaronson say something that was illegal or immoral or just plain wrong? Did he keep repeating himself, did he say anything that was an exaggeration? If he did I have not discovered it.

> Why is there Trump/MAGA/QAnon interest/agitation/etc now and why is it confined to certain areas?  What is different about the current day and the past and what is different about those areas?

Those are all EXCELLENT questions and your theory can explain all of them, BUT ONLY AFTER THEY HAVE HAPPENED. Regardless of what turns out to have occurred your theory can ALWAYS find a way to explain it, therefore it has zero predictive ability. A good theory such as General Relativity predicted that when the light of a star passes near the sun it will be deflected by a certain very specific amount, if it had turned out that it was deflected by more or less than that precise figure then even Einstein would've had to admit that General Relativity was wrong because there was no easy way to change the theory so that it would match the new measurement . You can't fudge General Relativity because the parts it all fit together like a Swiss watch. Einstein stuck his neck out but he won. Your theory can explain anything, which is equivalent to explaining nothing.  

> I have found this very hard for most people to grasp

I understand what you're saying and I'm NOT saying you're wrong, I'm saying it's not a scientific theory because it has no predictive power. 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

yab

 

 

> Oh and by the way, also on the blog Professor Aaronson informs us that just a few days ago the smallest Busy Beaver number that is known to be consistent with Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory has been reduced from BB(745) to BB(643).

fzs 

 

[John Clark]

On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 1:56 PM Keith Henson <hkeith...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If the model is correct, it would be predictive.  As it is, we can
look at the historical record.  And, indeed, we see that resource
shortages or perceptions of them preceded wars and related social
disruptions. 

That's what I'm talking about, your theory can make "predictions" about history, that is to say you can make predictions about things AFTER they happened but not before, and therefore those predictions are of no use whatsoever and it's not a scientific theory. 

Sometimes shortages occur, and after that wars sometimes happen, and sometimes they do not. In the mid 1970s the US had a severe oil shortage, far far more severe than any shortage we've had since, but it didn't lead to a war or to a Trump-like demagogue gaining power. So what was so special about 2016, and in 2015 did you predict it would be special? What about the November election, can you predict what the outcome will be? Before Biden dropped out I thought I could, but now I don't know. 

>I think it does have predictive power.  It is consistent with evolutionary psychology.

 

For a psychological theory to be true it needs to be consistent with Evolution, but it takes more than that because being consistent with Evolution does not necessarily mean it's true.

John K Clark  

 

[Brent Meeker]

That which can explain anything, fails to explain at all.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2wy0ZrncCuBkaPgJjxhJhBGArGnybAcks6JAiwDGCx9w%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Mon, Aug 5, 2024 at 4:21 PM Keith Henson <hkeith...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> That's what I'm talking about, your theory can make "predictions" about history, that is to say you can make predictions about things AFTER they happened but not before, and therefore those predictions are of no use whatsoever and it's not a scientific theory.

> Hmm.  Major rain is followed by floods, we know that from history.  So when we have a majoir rain, what do you expect?

Anybody can see the obvious connection between rain and a flood, but nobody can see an obvious connection between lack of food and a war. History tells us there have always been periods of starvation and there have always been wars, but if there is a connection between the two it is a very weak one with lots and lots of exceptions. 

 

>> Sometimes shortages occur, and after that wars sometimes happen, and sometimes they do not. In the mid 1970s the US had a severe oil shortage, far far more severe than any shortage we've had since, but it didn't lead to a war or to a Trump-like demagogue gaining power.

> The evolution that led to such psychological traits happened before
agriculture when the only shortage of consequence was food.  I don't
think the oil crisis of the 70s had that much effect on food or the
prospects for food. 

There was no mass starvation in the USA during the 20th century, so according to you the USA should've had no wars during the 20th century, but that is not the case.  

 

> there was a food shortage in the US prior to the Civil War. It was not recognized at the time, but the historical records show stunting in the children of that time.

 

Compared with the 20th century, in the 19th century there was a food shortage in every country in the world resulting in the stunting of children. And the same thing could be said about the 18th century, and the 17th, and the 16th etc. So no matter what war in history I pick you can always find a food shortage somewhere to "explain" it. Your theory has no predictive power because it is so flexible it can be made to explain ANYTHING and therefore it is impossible to falsify. That means it is not a good theory.  

Worldwide human height has steadily increased over the past 2 centuries

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

whs