Prime numbers

It might be worth reminding ourselves that there can be no largest prime number, only (as already noted above) a largest known prime.  The implication worth contemplating in this context is that no matter how many gazillion digits a prime number has, it is infinitesimally small (indistinguishable from zero if looked at from far enough away) compared to all the primes that exist.

It is also interesting that, although we have to admit the prime numbers, on average, steadily get further and further apart, there is nevertheless an infinite number of them separated by any given even number, even two.  (Primes can't be separated by an odd number since an odd plus another odd number always produces an even number, and even numbers are by definition composite).

Another mind-boggler -- the occurrence of primes in the number sequence seems, by every test we can imagine, to be random, but, of course, it can't be random, as it has to be something determined.

Man the Hunter

When I was in college we were taught all about "man the hunter," the males going out and bringing back the big game and the women collecting the veggies.

It now appears that the reality could not have been more wrong -- that only in the last 20,000 years or so have humans had the technology to bring down big game at all, and that previous associations with such animals were examples of human scavenging.  While "hunter-gatherer" societies did sometimes get small game, like maybe a rabbit or two, mankind did not evolve as the hunter but as the scavenger and root digger, and both men and women participated in both.

It is true some people get a thrill out of killing an animal.  I feel sorry for them and their karma.

Is God evil?

Thanks for that -- you make an important and profound point --"the more we justify suffering the less basis we have for saying something is evil at all."

Some religions don't identify suffering as the definition of evil, but, instead, violation of certain rules, allegedly provided by God.  It is hard to deal with that.  Why does God make such rules?  If it is because they are wrong in themselves, then God's inserting himself is of no meaning -- they would be wrong anyway.  If it is because he simply decides on some ineffable basis, then what happens if someday he changes his mind?

(This of course is an ancient argument from Plato).

It seems that suffering is really the only possible meaningful definition of evil, in which case, since God created a world so full of suffering (in fact the main operating of creation -- natural selection -- depends on suffering and death as its driving force), aren't we forced in the end to say that God is evil? 

Of course there are also good things in the world, so one can say God is doing the best he can, but for good to exist evil must also exist.  That is probably true, but then why do we need God in the picture at all?

Trump and Putin's propaganda

I noted an extensive article in this morning's Washington Post about how the Russian propaganda machine was extremely (an adverb I try to avoid but which fits here) active in spreading false stories about Clinton during the campaign, and how it seems Trump's people, at a minimum, did nothing to discourage it.

One wonders why.  Some possibilities, not to be taken too seriously, are that Putin sees in Trump an incompetent he can manipulate or maybe a fellow kleptrocrat he can cooperate with in mutual self-enrichment (what is it -- Trump will enter the White House with millions and leave with billions upon billions)?

It is ironic, at the least, that those who paint themselves most patriotic among Americans here buy this propaganda and push it along.  Some of it is no doubt their naiveté, but I have to say I wonder about those who also regularly post misinformation about how the rebels in Syria are all ISIS and the Russians are not engaging in atrocities -- and similar stuff about Ukraine.

We need to be aware that Putin is corrupt and ignores international standards and is a bald-faced liar.  I tend to think about the same regarding Trump, but am going to have to give him the benefit of the doubt for at least a few months.

Recognizing propaganda

There are two general categories of unfair debate -- what is called propaganda, and, of course, logical fallacies.  It occurs to me that people don't seem to know how to recognize these.  There are web sites that can be found in any search to help.

Basically, propaganda uses non-rational, emotional appeal.  This is often negative (name calling, talking down to people, personal insults, attacking the person and their history rather than what they say, dismissive labeling, and others).  They can also be positive (patriotic symbols and music, religious appeals, quotes of famous people, and others.  Far and away the most effective form of propaganda is the lie -- disinformation -- invented stuff repeated over and over and made to appear legit.  To defend oneself from this sort of thing requires identifying sources of misinformation by being widely read over a broad political spectrum.

One other form of propaganda is "band-wagon," where a partisan group gang up on individuals who have other views.  It does not work, folks, except for those worried overmuch about what others think.

I won't go into logical fallacies here, although I sure see a lot of those too.  It amazes me, and I have to think that a lot of the people around here haven't had much education or they would know better.

Trump reversals

According to the LA Times this morning, yesterday Trump compromised on at least three issues.

First, he said he had been persuaded that torture was ineffective and that other methods work better -- torture only generates fabrications, not truth.  I would wish he would address the moral issue here -- that the appeal of torture seems to be sadistic and revenge impulses in the interrogator and has no scientific basis, and, more significantly, is wrong.

Second, he backed off on prosecuting Mrs. Clinton, saying she had suffered enough and that the Clinton Trust actually does a good deal of good.  This is really nothing more than an admission that the Big Lie he based his campaign (that Mrs. Clinton is "evil") and apparently won the Presidency on is false.  He would in fact, or at least should in fact, have no influence on whether there are prosecutions or not -- this is supposed to be done in a non-political way by the attorneys investigating -- and it would seem that no prosecutions are in the offing.  Putting it in terms of having "mercy" on the Clintons is transparent and outrageous, after the way he conducted the campaign. 

Third, now he says he has an "open mind" about global warming and that US withdrawal from recent warming agreements will not be automatic.  That is perhaps the most encouraging thing of all, since the consequences of his sticking with his prior unscientific attitudes could lead to disaster for future generations.

Qualia and Chemicals

I think it might be useful to insert a distinction here between "it's just chemicals" and "it's real."  Chemicals are real enough, and there is a reason the chemicals are there, but the presence of the chemicals might not be the cause but a result.

What we do think we know is that we "experience" things (known as "qualia" -- emotions, sensations, an ongoing narrative of the world).  It has been realized by introspective people from ancient times that none of this can possibly be "real" in the usual and intuitive sense of the world -- that our experience is not real but generated somewhere -- moderns assume in the brain.  About the best we can say is that the ongoing narrative of our experience is a useful interface between the outside world and ourselves -- like the odometer on a car is not "real speed" but just an interface telling us about the car's real speed.

Evolutionary fact and evolutionary theory

I wince when I see expressions like, "scientific fact."  It implies something determined beyond doubt that could never be questioned or modified.  I realize that when a scientist says it, he means something a bit different, but it is misleading regardless.

The best word in my opinion is "theory." Scientific theories are models of the world that explain in terms we understand what we observe -- the data.  There is atomic theory, genetic theory, germ theory, quantum theory, and so on.  Sometimes they are readily understood, sometimes they are not, and require us to just accept the fact that the theory makes predictions that can be tested and check out.

By the way, I do think evolutionary theory is so supported by all the biological and geological and genetic evidence that it is as close to "fact" as is humanly possible.

Trump's effects

In all Trump will probably be good for the economy.  He will reduce environmental regulation (it is feared to the harm of the environment and an increase in global warming), increase regulations on unions (it is feared to the point they will have no ability to change exploitive situations), eliminate all sorts of consumer protection regulations and so on and on.  This will happen mostly unseen by changes in rules and in the attitude toward their enforcement, but will tend to help the economy, at least short term, so there may be some growth.

However, it also appears there will be a surge in wasteful spending, on military boondoggles and, of course, on The Wall.  A lot of bridges and such will no doubt be built, some needed, but things less visible, such as water pipes and sewage disposal systems, will continue to be pushed aside.

Then there is trade policy.  If things go according to the rhetoric, a trade war with Mexico and China is in the offing, if not the rest of the world.  What seems to be forgotten is that these countries can retaliate.  Also, of course, such a policy is tailor made to increase China's trade and other economic influence with Latin America, Africa and Asia.  If carried far enough, it could precipitate a world-wide depression.

What worries me most however is social.  That women will lose the right to an abortion seems inevitable -- not just in states that want to do so but via Federal regulation of medical practice.  That gays may lose the right to marry also seems, for similar reasons, likely, even though Trump himself has pretty much avoided the issue.   It will be done by his appointees in small steps.  Of course immigrants, even legal ones, will lose most of their rights, and will end up living under a constant shadow of the threat of challenge (even when they produce papers, this sort of disturbance will cause many employers to terminate, just to avoid attention).

  

Not just immigrants, too, but Muslims (how about Jews, Catholics, Mormons, atheists) will live in a shadow, and, of course, blacks will have it hard.  Nothing official mind you -- just selectivity in the enforcement of existing laws and their interpretation will be enough.

There is also the right to vote.  I can see identification laws applied like Florida tried to apply, designed to see to it that only whites vote.

Love versus oxytocin

I have a split with myself over this.  The pleasure of a life partner to share things with and to raise children with is not to be denied.  Of course children are not the only reason for marriage -- a life partner, solemnized by ritual and recognized by family and community, is precious by itself.

Still, the knowledge that it is mainly oxytocin behind these feelings helps us keep a certain detachment, in the realization that no pleasure is permanent and all ultimately ends in frustration.  Our wife dies, our children disappoint us, we disappoint our children, and when we die we desperately desire to restore what we had, but cannot (or maybe we don't -- that one is still in the air.  

Balance is needed -- to prevent our detachment from making it too easy to abandon relationships and love making it too hard when the relationship dissolves regardless.

Stolen election

I don't think the election was rigged -- that was Trump's nonsense and would be impossible to do.  It nevertheless does appear to have been stolen.

All the polls -- unanimously among those with a scientific basis -- two weeks before the election had Clinton winning, then out comes the FBI, illegally, with "revelations" it has to investigate (although it was forced fairly quickly to back down -- the revelation was timed too close and the back down looked political).  Therefore it changed maybe two percent of the vote -- some pretty much undecided types.

One has to wonder what went on in the FBI.  It is not likely Trump's campaign was involved, but that there were a lot of anti-Clinton folk there who might easily have pulled such a stunt, knowing what might happen, makes the scenario probable.

At any rate Trump will not be seen as legitimate by most of the world, and probably after a little while by most Americans.  He may have the office but he has no mandate (to have that he would need a popular vote majority anyway).

Should California secede

Interesting question: given what may happen, should California secede.

Along with Washington and Oregon and a couple others, it now has a vastly superior governmental structure, with non-partisan districts, open primaries and term limits applied universally.

It is also grossly underrepresented and over taxed by the Feds (in effect California subsidies the rest of the country with far less voting power).

To secede legally would be almost impossible, as it would require consent of two-thirds of the other states -- so we may presume any secession will not be very peaceful, although it would not necessarily be violent.  It would take consistent non-cooperation by the State and refusal to forward tax revenues and things like that to get the Feds to back down.

We nevertheless see that the underrepresentation of California has had the effect of putting a nut in the White House -- the American people, if California were treated fairly, did NOT elect him.
I wait to see what happens when the Feds decide to ban abortion and contraception, ban marijuana, ban gay marriage and make being gay a crime, remove consumer protection laws, as well as environmental protection, worker safety protection, and so on and on.  I also wonder what might happen if Feds go into California and start deporting Latins and Muslims and maybe even Asians.
I see a huge amount of civil disobedience, at a minimum.

Trump has no mandate from the people -- he is President simply because of ugly spots in the American system.  He would do well to back off and not try to push anything he promised.  Of course if he does he will lose his base.  Besides, he doesn't appear to be in touch with reality enough to see the situation he is in, and so is likely to blunder forward blindly. 

It would be an interesting thing to watch, if it weren't so scary.

The Founding Fathers and Trump

It is ironic.  The Founding Fathers were mostly landed and wealthy aristocrats, and back then to vote you had to own land and pay taxes.

The thing is, they were influenced by the myths of the Enlightenment and hence ended up designing a government far more "democratic" -- not as democratic as Athens, perhaps, but much more than what Rome ever imagined.  After one generation the aristocrats were gone and replaced by standard American mediocre politicians and lawyers.

The problem here is that closed primaries has allowed a nut case to win the Republican nomination and then the Electoral College has defeated the voice of the people and via a series of flukes put him in the Presidency.

I notice he is complaining that it is "not fair" that people are protesting.

  

I foresee hard times for America and the world.

Catching one's breath after the American electoral disaster

It does little good to argue that Clinton, as measured by actual vote counts, won the election.  By the outdated rules of the US Constitution she lost and the worst possible candidate won.  Still, this point needs making -- that he was not, by democratic rules, legitimately elected.  The problem is the US is an approximation of democracy.

The Democrats, led by Obama, have behaved properly, and not questioned the results and wished Trump the best.

Now, what happened?  Well the polls showed Clinton winning, so we have to assume it was the FBI behavior, both the "finding" of new tapes that weren't new and then the quick "decision" that there was nothing there to prosecute (which of course there wasn't) that flipped enough voters in key states.
That the FBI could not defend what it did was plain, so what happened next was a neat trick, overwhelmed by the seeming political decision to back off.   I see Putin is delighted, and thinks it was his activity (I think this is not likely but he probably did what he could to help).

I think we can also attach some blame to Sanders.  His behavior during the primaries forced Clinton to go further to the left than a lot of more centrist voters (such as myself) were comfortable with.  Then he took his good sweet time coming around -- it is plain the man has too much ego to be a leader and that his policy prescriptions are not acceptable to the American people.  Look at how Colorado voted for Clinton but rejected Sander's ballot proposition.

In the end, "big lie" propaganda worked, overcoming the fear and distaste for the boorish behavior and obvious incompetence.  The idea that the Clintons are "criminals" (an absurdity or they would long ago have been brought to task, in spite of repeated Republican efforts to do this) was repeated over and over and over, with the flimsiest evidence but lots of loud repeating.

Being turned off by God

It has been said that the reason many are atheists is the horrible picture believers pain about God and his history.  This is probably the case with a lot of people, but I think most atheists have a more favorable impression of what God, if he existed, would be like.

What the churches say is, of course, all over the place, but there are churches that have elevated and ethical ideas.  The simple problem with God is there is no good reason to say he exists, except various emotional and psychological reasons ("feelings").  I am skeptical enough about myself to realize that this sort of thing is not credible.