Month: February 2017

Posted on

How to pay off the US national debt

All the US government has to do is to revalue the Treasury’s gold enough that they can use it to pay off the debt and still have backing for the “new dollar”. This will probably require some kind of subsidy for the electronics industry because otherwise they wouldn’t be able to afford gold needed in circuitry, and similarly for other industries that absolutely must have gold to function. But that is a minor problem compared to either declaring bankruptcy or destroying the remaining value of the “dollar”, which are the other possibilities.

Of course they also have to close down the Fed, guarantee 100% gold backing for the “new dollar” and balance the budget, preferably with constitutional amendments to ensure that all of those changes stick. Fortunately, after the next general election cycle in 2018, if Trump does reasonably well and the Democrats continue with their “strategy” of throwing a constant tantrum about absolutely everything he does, it’s possible there will be enough Republicans in Congress and the state legislatures to put those Constitutional amendments through quickly.

Posted on

The puzzle of the Golden Rule

It should be obvious that there is a big problem in society, namely that people don’t generally follow the Golden Rule very seriously. Sure, in a specific case where they know the person(s) involved, most people will avoid causing intentional harm most of the time. But most people generally don’t care if someone harms others in their name, e.g., in political action via the State. In fact, many are all too happy with apparently getting something for nothing even though they themselves wouldn’t want to be on the other end of that transaction, i.e., getting nothing for something.

Why is this? Of course there can be many reasons why people act, but in this case it seems obvious that most people look around them and see that others are getting away with horrible behavior, e.g., stealing (“taxation”), kidnapping (imprisonment for “victimless crimes”), and even murder (“war”). Nothing seems to happen to those people who commit these vile acts, so why not participate in the plunder?

The missing piece would have to be one that solves this riddle of bad actions seemingly not leading to bad results for those committing those actions.

But what if consciousness survives bodily death and the next time we come back here, we have the detritus of our past actions as a millstone around our necks? Note that I’m not saying that there is a personal God who keeps score. All this requires is the law of cause and effect: if we cause harm to others, that harm  becomes part of us until we face up to it and take responsibility for it, thus changing ourselves for the better.

If this is true (which I think it is), then the best course of action in every case is to act in the best way we can, following the Golden Rule to the best of our ability. Any slacking off or attempted shortcuts by violating the sanctity of other people’s rights to decide their own fate will come back to (possibly literally) haunt us later. It’s easier and more pleasant just to face up to it on the spot rather than leaving it for later.

So all we have to do is to convince people of this, and the world will be a better place.

Posted on

A new interpretation of quantum mechanics, part 1

I have recently invented a new interpretation of quantum mechanics. This is synthesized from various sources, along with a few observations of my own. I would welcome any comments or discussion.

Here are the “sections” of this theory, numbered I through IV, followed by the conclusion:

I. There are an infinite number of parallel earths

The cover article in the May 2003 edition of Scientific American is entitled “Infinite Earths in Parallel Universes Really Exist”. The article begins:

“Is there a copy of you reading this article? A person who is not you but who lives on a planet called Earth, with misty mountains, fertile fields and sprawling cities, in a solar system with eight other planets? The life of this person has been identical to yours in every respect. But perhaps he or she now decides to put down this article without finishing it, while you read on.

The idea of such an alter ego seems strange and implausible, but it looks as if we will just have to live with it, because it is supported by astronomical observations.”

The article continues by explaining that not only is there an exact replica of you or me, but “infinitely many other inhabited planets, including not just one but infinitely many that people with the same appearance, name and memories as you, who play out every possible permutation of your life choices.”

And, of course, given that quantum mechanics describes only the probability of an event’s occurring, not whether it actually does occur, any conceivable series of events must be taking place somewhere at this instant, in fact in infinitely many places.

This means that there is no such thing as fiction. Any story, dream, vision, or idea of how things might be is in fact being played out “right now” (in a sense that I will describe shortly), has been played out infinitely many times before, and will be played out infinitely many times again.

II. The entire universe is connected by an “instantaneous telephone line”

There is a famous “paradox” called the “Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect” (EPR), colloquially referred to by physicists as “spooky action at a distance” (see http://www.counterbalance.net/ghc-obs/epr-body.html for a more-or-less intelligible English description of this effect). Here is a case where Einstein was wrong: he believed that the extreme weirdness of this effect indicated that quantum mechanics (which predicts its existence) must be incorrect. In fact, experiments have indicated that this effect actually exists.

To vastly oversimplify, EPR says that when two particles are “entangled” and then separated to any distance whatsoever, measurements made on one of the particles will instantaneously affect the results of measurements made on the other particle.

A special issue of Scientific American (“The edge of physics” issue, available spring 2003) explains this in a fair amount of detail, including the standard disclaimer that (paraphrasing, because I do not have that issue at hand) “we cannot use nature’s instantaneous telephone to transmit information faster than light”.

However, even though we cannot use that “telephone”, its very existence means that it is possible for influences from any part of the universe to affect events anywhere else in the universe, without any time delay or attenuation whatsoever.

III. The reason for the randomness of quantum mechanical effects

I am a computer programmer by trade, and am interested in a couple of topics that may seem unrelated to the above discussion, but in fact aren’t.

These topics are randomness and compression. Random data can be defined as data that cannot be compressed. That is, the most compact way to represent the data is by simply giving the data itself, rather than some means of generating it such as a computer program. This has the interesting implication that perfectly compressed data cannot be distinguished from random data by any test (other than finding the decompression algorithm and successfully decompressing it, of course).

How are these related to the nature of the universe? Well, quantum mechanical calculations are couched in terms of probabilities, not certain outcomes. Which actual outcomes occur in any given case cannot be predicted, according to current theories; only the likelihood of any given occurrence can be determined in advance.

Let us suppose that the “instantaneous telephone” is actually being used by some entity, which we will call “God” for convenience, to transmit information from one place to another in the universe. If that information is ideally compressed, it will appear to be, by any test known to man, perfectly random.

IV. The nature of time, free will, and causality

Every possible organization of matter actually exists somewhere in the universe, including the organization that follows one millisecond “after” any existing organization, given the decisions, actions, purposes, and behaviors of sentient beings. This provides an explanation for the “paradox of time’s arrow” (why does time seem to flow from past to future irrevocably, given that there is no physical theory as to why this should occur?): namely, we’re not in fact moving from past to future, but from one universe to another, according to the decisions that we make.

This also finally reconciles the paradox of free will vs. determinism that has been puzzling mankind for thousands of years. If the universe follows laws (whether Newtonian, Einsteinian, or those of quantum mechanics), how can our decisions, intentions, and thoughts affect the future? Clearly, in a Newtonian universe, given sufficient information about the starting positions and momenta of all particles, one could predict (in theory, at least) the entire future evolution of the universe in detail. This leaves no room for free will at all.

However, the situation is not much improved by including the randomness caused by quantum mechanics. If quantum mechanical events are truly random, then they cannot be affected by free will either. This would mean that, although it would be impossible to predict the future in complete detail, it would also be impossible for sentient beings (or anything else) to cause certain events to occur by exercise of will.

If my hypothesis is true however, each individual universe that we pass through can indeed obey the laws of quantum mechanics (and therefore be deterministic, with the exception of the quantum mechanical randomness effects), but our path through those universes can still be determined by our behavior, thoughts, and decisions. Thus, the universes that we see are in fact influenced by our will.

V. Conclusion

The simplest hypothesis that accounts for all of these facts is that the apparently purposeless “instantaneous telephone” is in fact essential to the existence and functioning of the universe. It is the mechanism by which our decisions and actions allow us to “switch” from one potential universe to another instantaneously.

This implies that our decisions and actions are much more important than we realize. We are actively creating the universe in which we live by the way we treat others and ourselves.

Posted on

More about the Golden Rule

The Golden Rule Revisited

A few years ago, a friend of mine asked me the question “If you could have two wishes granted by an all-powerful, all good, all knowing genie, what would they be?”

I thought for a few seconds and then answered “I don’t need two wishes. I only need one.”

My friend argued with me briefly that, based on a complex logical analysis, I really did need two wishes, the first of which was to set up the conditions for the second one.

I repeated, “I don’t need two wishes. I only need one.”

He replied, “Okay, what is it?”

“I would wish for what is best.”

He continued to try to find reasons why his analysis was superior to mine. To each of these I replied “Would the results of your wish be better than the results of mine?”

“Yes. And here’s why…”

I patiently explained that the results of his wish could not possibly be better than mine, because I wished only for what was best. By definition, nothing could be better than what is best.

He countered that with “But what if what is best isn’t what is best for me?”

That was a little bit more difficult than the original question of what to wish for in the first place, but I shortly realized the answer wasn’t much more complicated: “Then you should change so that what is best is best for you.”

I believe this is within the reach of each of us, and if we accept the challenge, the world will be a different and better place.

Several paths to spiritual enlightenment

There are many paths to spiritual enlightenment. Each person must choose for himself or herself which path best suits their abilities, previous experience, and approach to life.

But there are many people who don’t seem to be able to find a path that they can use, even with the hundreds or thousands of different options to choose from. I was one of these people, until I read a book called Conversations with God. I had tried a number of different approaches previously, but none of them had really done the job for me. I had become disillusioned with the “standard” varieties of organized religion early in life, but had been willing to try other approaches. I did so on several occasions, in one case spending years trying to advance along one particular path. Although I did find that approach quite helpful in some areas of spiritual advancement, I found it too doctrinaire and limiting, and eventually terminated my involvement in it.

So I was between “faiths” when I ran into an alumna of my alma mater, Shimer College, at a meeting that I had set up for such alumni in North Texas. She asked me if I had read Conversations with God, by Donald Walsch. I said that I had not. She replied that I must read it.

I took her advice, and was almost instantly converted from a fairly staunch atheist (albeit one who believes that this is not the only plane of existence, and that we are reincarnated again and again to work out our problems, a fairly standard neo-Buddhist approach) into a, well, a “Conversationalist” (to use the term coined by my wife Susan).

I won’t try to give a thorough account of the spiritual system propounded by the Conversations with God books; you should read them for yourself. However, very briefly, they portray a God who is simultaneously omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent. I’d never before seen even a hint of a system that could (logically consistently) portray such a God; they all foundered on the shoals of the question “How can God permit suffering?” Of course, Christians would claim that they have such a system, but I’m afraid I must respectfully disagree. Of course, I do not wish to denigrate or minimize the spiritual comfort that Christianity and other organized religions provide to millions of people around the world. However, that does not mean that they provide a path that is appropriate for everyone.

To get back to the “Conversationalist” system, even more briefly, the answer to the question about suffering is “God created the world to experience every possibility of life. This inevitably includes pain and suffering. However, we experience pain and suffering as such only because we do not see through the illusory nature of the apparent world.”

As you may already know, the Buddha taught that attachment was the basis of suffering, and this is consistent with the “Conversationalist” approach. Buddhism also has the “Eightfold path” which teaches how one can live life better (i.e., more morally). I have no disagreement with their precepts, but driven by a desire to simplify, I have tried to figure out if there is one overarching principle that, followed consistently, would result in a happy and moral life.

I believe there is such a principle, one that has been discovered many times. It has been known by many names, such as “The Categorical Imperative (Act as though your actions were a universal law that everyone would follow)”. But its most commonly known name in our current society is the “Golden Rule” (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you)”.

So could I possibly have anything to add to this well-worn topic?

Yes, I think I do. Although there is fairly general agreement that this rule, if followed, would make the world better, because each person wishes others to treat him fairly, there has (up to now) been no explanation of exactly how this rule works on an individual level, i.e., how it directly makes each individual person’s life better for him, not just for society in general.

I believe I have found that explanation.

The Society of the Golden Rule

The rule that one should wish for “what is best” is closely related to the Golden Rule. This relationship is revealed by the question “best for whom?”.

If you act as you would have others act toward you, then what is best in an overall sense will also be what is best for you. This is because the motive of your actions will then be consistent with the good of everyone.

To see this, let us examine the ramifications if everyone followed the Golden Rule. Would there be war? No, because no one wants to be warred upon. Rape? No, because no one wants to be raped. Murder? Likewise.

Actually, the uncontroversial nature of the Golden Rule is quite remarkable. Have you ever heard anyone say they disagreed with it? What possible argument could anyone make against it? Even those who violate it every day, e.g., criminals and politicians, claim they are in favor of it.

The real question, then, is not whether it is true or whether people agree with it, but how we can convince people that they should follow it.

The Key to the Treasure

I believe there is a way to explain to people why they should obey the Golden Rule, and what the consequences are for not doing so.

The key is that everyone, even those who violate the Golden Rule, would prefer that other people follow it. Therefore, violating the Rule, from a strictly practical viewpoint, causes your intentions to be misaligned with the intentions of others, and thus causes conflict between you and those others.

This can be rather easily seen from the fact that, from the viewpoint of anyone else but yourself, you are one of the “others”. Therefore, that other person would like you to follow the Rule. However, we know from our assumption that you aren’t following it. Therefore, there is conflict.

On the other hand, if you do follow the Rule, there is no inherent conflict between your behavior and the behavior you expect from others, either from your viewpoint or the viewpoint of those other persons. Of course, you can still disagree with others on exactly how to implement the Rule. However, such disagreements are not inherent in the nature of things, as those caused by Rule-breaking are.

“Best for Whom”, solved

This still leaves the question of whether “what is best” is always “what is best for you”. We have already seen that if this is true, then you will not have any inherent conflicts in following the Rule. However, this does not answer the question of whether it is indeed true.

Here is another key to the puzzle: If you define “what is best for you” as “what is best in a global sense”, then these two apparently different notions fuse into one. This immediately quashes the possibility that they will be in conflict, and leads directly to the ability to seek “the best” without qualification.

A problem and a solutionBut there is still one problem that people often bring up when I suggest this simple, yet radical, approach to living: what if others take advantage of one’s generosity and kindness? Wouldn’t that put Golden Rule followers at a disadvantage?

Perhaps it would, in some cases. But there is a relatively simple mechanism by which this problem could be avoided: creating a registry of Golden Rule adherents and a means by which they could settle disputes should any arise.

A service like Facebook should be an excellent way to start such a movement, as it would make the requirements much easier to fulfill:

  • A worldwide registry of people who have agreed to follow the Golden Rule in their dealings with one another.
  • A worldwide registry of people who have agreed to mediate disputes among registrants, with the primary aim of re-establishing a proper Golden Rule relationship between disputants.
  • An automated linking service that would allow Golden Rule registrants to have their Web sites linked from the homepage of the Golden Rule site.

 

Of course, this does not exhaust the possibilities. I’m sure there are many other collaborative tools that people might find useful. But these tools alone could make following the Golden Rule much more desirable and profitable, in many senses.

Posted on

The Golden Rule and its relationship with the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle)

The Golden Rule has been part of morality for thousands of years. One famous formulation is “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” (credited to Hillel the elder. See https://infogalactic.com/info/Golden_Rule#Judaism)

Given the validity of the Golden Rule, we can prove the NAP very simply:

1. NAP requires only that you don’t force anyone to do anything (or to refrain from doing anything).
2. It is logically impossible to want to be forced to do anything (or to refrain from doing anything), as anything you are willing to do (or refrain from doing) doesn’t require force to get you to do it (or refrain from doing it).
3. Thus, forcing someone else to do something (or to refrain from doing something) violates the Golden Rule, because you are doing to someone else what you wouldn’t want to have done to you.

Q. E. D.

Posted on

The Non-Aggression Principle explained

The Non-Aggression Principle is the fundamental requirement for being a libertarian. If you accept it as valid, then you are a libertarian. If you don’t, you aren’t a libertarian.

But what is it exactly? Nothing more (and nothing less) than the agreement that you will not use violence against other people other than defensively (to protect yourself, your possessions, or another innocent person). This means that all people have the right under the NAP not to have aggressive violence used against them, even if they themselves do not accept the NAP.

The NAP is not pacifist. You can use (an appropriate level of) violence against other people to defend a value. E.g., self-defense is not a NAP violation, but holding someone up with a gun to get their wallet, or for that matter shooting them just because they annoy you, is a NAP violation.

Having said that, there seems to be some confusion about what the NAP does and doesn’t imply.

1. What it does imply: That people who follow it will never be in a position to have defensive violence used against them, because they themselves do not employ aggressive violence. Thus, any violence used against them must be aggressive rather than defensive, and therefore will by definition be prohibited by the NAP.

2. What it doesn’t imply: that people who follow it are behaving in a moral way, i.e., that that their actions are morally right or socially acceptable. That is, a person can follow the NAP but still be a jerk. In that case, others still can’t use violence against that person without violating the NAP, but those others can shame, boycott, or use any other non-violent means to teach that person a lesson.

3. Also please note that actual violence or a credible threat of actual violence against a person or people is required to violate the NAP. Mean words or even very nasty actions like doxxing someone, don’t violate the NAP, although they are still bad actions.

What does this mean? It means that just because some action doesn’t violate the NAP doesn’t mean it is a good or socially acceptable action. Groups have rules that often require considerably more than just following the NAP. For example, you can be thrown out of a group for calling others names or advocating violence, even though neither of these violates the NAP. More generally, you can follow the NAP while disregarding the Golden Rule, although it is advisable for many reasons to follow the Golden Rule to the extent possible.

Note: “people” and “person” refers to entities that are capable of agreeing to accept the NAP. To the extent of our current knowledge, the only entities that satisfy this requirement are members of homo sapiens. If it can be demonstrated that there are animals, aliens, or AI entities that can accept the NAP, then it would apply to them also.