Is You Is or Is You Ain't?

Neil deGrasse Tyson

As I was surfing the net for interesting intellectual fodder I chanced upon the headline, “Neil deGrasse Tyson (Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space in New York) thinks there’s a very high chance the universe is just a simulation.”  This caught my attention so I read the article.  It seems that every year a group of high thinkers gather at the American Museum of Natural History for an event named the Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate.  This year’s topic addressed the question of whether or not the universe is a simulation.  Ooh, heady stuff; maybe somebody should make a movie about this!  The panel was made up of scientists and philosophers.  The article was rather skimpy on discussion details and was more or less a teaser to introduce an attached YouTube video of the panel discussion.  The video is two hours long.  I lasted about twenty minutes.  It was like watching the TV show The Big Bang Theory (CBS, Thursday 8:00) without the jokes… and no Penny.

I like an intellectual challenge, as long as it doesn’t require mathematics.  And this seemed like a topic I could have some fun with.  The question becomes, “Is our existence real, or are we merely features of some other entity’s simulation?”  More about why the answer to that question renders the whole discussion moot a bit later.  But pretending now that we are not smarter than a panel of physicists and philosophers let’s explore this hypothesis.

Rene Descartes

We are all familiar with Descartes’ pronouncement of existence, “I think therefore I am.”  While I am certain this statement has generated untold hours of discussion among countless philosophers and pseudo intellectuals, it is plain enough on the surface: My self-awareness is proof that I exist.  I am okay with that. It would certainly be difficult to assert my existence if I were not self-aware.  And as a negative cannot be disproved, we must allow our mere existence is not proof that our existence does not exclude our non-existence. (How many times did you read the previous sentence before your realized I was just screwing with your mind… or was I?).   But can we end it there?

Being sympathetic to lesser beings, I ponder the existence of the common slug.  Do you think that the slug is self-aware?  We can certainly prove its existence by witnessing its presence in the physical world.  I know, I encounter them every time it rains and they are coaxed out of the flower beds onto my concrete driveway where they die for lack of moisture.  I am pretty sure that this behavior demonstrates a lack of thinking ability; If they could think, they wouldn’t expose themselves to such peril.  So I’m going out on a limb here and stating with whatever modicum of intellectual authority I can muster, existence and awareness are not interdependent.

The debate is whether perception equals reality.  Inspired by science fiction ala the Matrix, they want to explore the likelihood that we are the creation of some superior intelligence that controls how we perceive the universe.  And that the universe in which we actually live, generated in the imagination of its creator, is different than that which we perceive.  We (and our experiences) are merely thoughts in someone else’s mind.  Okay, here is the shocker: A belief in a universe created by a superior being in which we live at that being’s pleasure is… RELIGION!!!

Here is the hidden land mine that will explode this whole discussion.  What is, is.  It makes no difference the origin of our being.  Whether we are the product of a computer supported world or the creation of a spiritual deity, the operative word in all cases is “is”.  (Do you understand the meaning of the word yet, Bill?)  Perception is reality.  And if you doubt that, throw yourself off of a one-hundred-foot-high building and see if you don’t start to believe in the reality of your situation as you tally up the floors racing by. (Accelerating at a rate of 132 ft./sec./sec with a terminal velocity of approx. 120 mph)

I believe they have fallen into the same trap that our ancient forbearers did.  If we cannot distill our understanding of what we see around us to absolute logic (experimental or observational evidence… you know, scientific fact), we create myths to shed light into the dark corners of uncertainty. At some future time, when scientific understanding has resolved the mysteries beyond our current comprehension of the physical world, they will look back at such debates about reality versus perception with the same disdain with which we look at the superstitions of our history. 

(I refer you to my blog post How or Why? of 8/26/13.)

Princely Regard

At midday today, Friday, April 20, 2016 my AT&T Web news feed offered seventy (70, or LXX for you classicists) headlines.  Twenty-five (25, or XXV) of these stories are about Prince.  Yeah, I lived through the 80s.  I remember Prince.  But come on, this is enough!  It's not like he cured cancer or developed a vaccine for stupidity.  I am considering resigning from the human race and starting my own species, holbrookus disgruntilus.

Brazen Defined!

It seems the current specie for purchasing votes is either free college for all or college debt forgiveness.  I have heard the clarion call from Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders, “A public education is your birthright as a Millennial: Vote for me and your education will be free!”  It seems it’s just not fair that a recently minted college graduate should be burdened with all of that debt.

Why not?

You have all seen the coverage on the evening news; public demonstrations at which students (we are asked to presume… they wouldn’t employ professional agitators… would they?) are demanding that we; that’s you and I, not them, because they have no money to pay taxes, provide at least a public college level education to any and all who demand it.

Well here’s a fresh way to approach the problem; get a job and work your way through school.  I did it.  Now my diploma may not have the prestige of a Harvard or Stanford sheepskin.  But my “state school” education was sufficient foundation on which to build a career that allowed retirement at fifty.  Oh, and my degree?  It was in accounting, not cultural anthropology or racial studies. I was able to leverage my education into a high-paying, in-demand skill set; no debt.

How did I do it? 

Was I intellectually advantaged? 

Were the endowment committees throwing cash at me? 

No.  I did it the “economical way”.  I started off at a Community College that had a guaranteed credit transfer program to my four-year college of choice. Students often compare their SAT scores when discussing their academic careers.  Guess what; if you go the Community College route, you don’t have to take the SAT (or any other admissions test) as long as you’re in good academic standing when you apply to the four-year institution. I’m sure the CC program saved me thousands of dollars.  When I was in college I didn’t screw around.  I mapped out the shortest distance to the degree I wanted and didn’t get sidetracked by non-relevant academic powder-puff classes.  When I wasn’t working (full time) or in class (full time), I was, guess what… studying!  And it paid off.  I graduated with a solid “C” average.  But eventually, upon graduation, I was able to land a job with a good employer despite being launched into the workforce during Carter’s (Jimmy; 39^th POTUS) Depression.

And I didn’t have some on-campus, minimum-wage sinecure.  I worked in the real world.  I worked for a local department store chain as a security agent.  I didn’t keep track of the arrests I made.  There is no tally of the fights I was in.  But it was all for the greater good.  My greater good, because the yield was invaluable.  There are some people who are not academically oriented.  They should not go to college.  There are some people who have no life direction when they are sixteen, or twenty-six.  They should delay college until they have a clear academic goal.  If a youngster isn’t ready to make life decisions, they should join the military.  College is not a parking lot to be used until one decides which road they want to take.  Enrolling in college without some sense of one’s career ambitions is just a costly waste of time and money.  Think before you leap.

Does it seem I’m bragging a bit about my life accomplishments?  Well it should, because I am.  And for you socialists out there who want me to pay for everyone else’s education, go to hell!

Next week, something about space… I promise.

***Late Breaking News***

Prince has died.  I was not rabid fan of Prince.  I think his most significant contribution was ease with which he changed monikers to suit contractual need: Prince after he had become, The Artist Formerly Known as Prince which he was after he was Prince, initially.  Well, if that has you scratching your head then you are just like those of us who lived through this nominal evolution during the 80s.  But that is not the point of this bulletin.  My rant concerns the headline wording announcing this transitional development.  CNN and Fox News labeled Prince as a “legend” while MSNBC deemed him an icon. Well let’s check in with Mr. Webster and get his opinion of legend:

1a:  a story coming down from the past; especially:  one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable

Now let’s try icon:

: a person who is very successful and admired

I think the decision is obvious; MSNBC wins the battle over syntax in this case.  Now that’s just something you’re not going to get from MSNBC very often.  But what is the big deal?  Well if we cannot look to our journalists to protect the language, we are doomed.

Suspension of Disbelief

If you are a reader of fiction, or a fan of film, or even a zombie under the spell of entertainment television, then you are familiar with the practice of suspending your disbelief.  “But Dale,” you say, “I wear a belt!  No braces for me thank you.”

Well, perhaps I should address this missive at a slower pace making no assumptions about the perspicacity of my audience.  Let’s begin again.  All fiction and a great deal of “documentable truth” contains some modicum of, shall we say, exaggerated fact.  What’s more, this element of untruth is usually apparent to even the least cerebral among us.  For example, our life experience has taught us superheroes do not really exist.  But for diversions sake, we will allow ourselves to accept Batman, Superman, Spiderman, Wonder Woman (don’t want to leave out the fair sex) can live in a world in which ultra-human exploits are not only possible but commonplace.  To enjoy this entertainment, we allow the story teller the latitude of credibility where none should exist.  We, in fact, suspend our disbelief.

While most authors (directors, et al) will confine their affront to the limits of the real world to a degree that our intelligence is not too badly insulted, there are those instances where the fabric of believability is stretched beyond our limit of forgiveness and we lose interest in the narrative.  I must admit that sometimes these forays into the ridiculous have their mirth value and I appreciate the outcome but on some plane other than the presenter’s intent.  All tastes are different, but I am particularly enamored of the “bug” movies of the 1950s: Them! (giant ants); Tarantula; Attack of the Crab Monsters; The Black Scorpion; The Deadly Mantis, etc.

I am not addressing their impact on me as a child.  Yes, as with all of you (if old enough) I would be transfixed by the television on Saturday afternoon as the hero scientist(s) engineered some incredible weapon to save us from these species of atomic mutated monsters.  No, I’m addressing the adult (or as close as I’m ever gonna get) Dale’s pleasure in re-watching them to appreciate just how truly bad they were.  I watch them without need to suspend my disbelief.  In fact, the more disbelief the better.  But hold on, I have yet to address the intent of this posting.  Are you ready?

It is truly a shame we cannot suspend disbelief in the idiotic goings on that comprise the current cycle of the presidential election pre-season.  Because no writer of fiction would dare proffer a combination of characters and actions as we have seen in the real world of 2016.  The players: A liar, a socialist, a bombast, a whiner and a delusionary hopeful.  I’ll leave it to you to figure out which is which.  And I can hardly wait to see who materializes as the parachute candidate at the Republican convention.

I am a skeptical man.  When an absolute truth is averred I am wont to engage my olfactory mechanism and take a deep whiff.  But I have tried these some sixty plus years not to become a cynic.  I want to hold out for truth and hope that those running for office really are in pursuit of the public and individual good.  I fear though, that the seeds of paranoia are beginning to sprout their arils into my heretofore resistant psyche.  To imagine that any of these presidential hopefuls from either party is equipped to turn the ship onto the right heading would require I suspend disbelief.  But unfortunately, I cannot.

James Madison

Here is the problem as I see it: Government has outgrown its beneficial qualities. The founders were motivated to wage war against the most militarily (and economically… but lack of response to last week’s blog post convinces me economics has worn thin with my venerable readership) powerful nation of the time to cast off tyrannical government.  In the debates that led to the creation of our nation, a key thesis was the limitation of government’s ability to intrude into the lives and endeavors of the citizens by specific assertion that powers not enumerated in the defining document (the Constitution, in case your falling behind) were reserved by the states or the people. And to underscore the sentiment, they appended the Bill of Rights in the form of the first ten amendments so there was no question about said Federation’s limited authority.

Thomas Jefferson

Almost immediately, a contest of wills between the two political camps; federalists (strong central government) and anti-federalists (strong state governments) resulted in the birth of the original political parties: The Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. And there has been a battle for the soul of the citizenry ever since.  This would be of less consequence if we had kept to our original intent, limited government.  But of course the thirst for power and advantage (both political and economic, which of course are unavoidably intertwined) is the very nature of human civilization and results in eternal efforts to garner favor among the voters by pandering to their wants, tangible and ethereal.

Unfortunately, the desire to receive more from the government leads to the surrender of individual freedoms; and thus we have the state of the nation today, “Ask not what I can do to secure my own treasure, but what I can expect the government (i.e., the other taxpayers… the government has no wealth of its own) to provide for me.”  Embracing this philosophy has led to a bloated, unwieldy bureaucracy that has become insatiable.

And now, the move is on to engender college attendance as a right; to be paid for by the government (uh, the taxpayers).  We are now providing rent to people who are underemployed, food to lower income families, cell phones to the disadvantaged.  And soon, if the Democrats get their way, a full college scholarship. What’s next, a Chevrolet?  And don’t you Republicans wag your fingers… you have had more than enough opportunity over that last forty years to stem the tide of personal responsibility erosion.  But is seems that fear of the loss of power share has turned the conservatives cowardly.  And I’m just talking economics here.  Let’s not even get started on social issues.

There is only one solution, but I fear it may be too late.  Too many of our fellow citizens have become snuggly tucked in the blanket of comfort and ease.  But if we were able, could somehow find it within ourselves to say no to the seductive powers of a free-spending government, we could reduce the influence that government wields over our lives and then it would not be nearly as consequential if we elect a clown, dreamer or moron to the presidency or any other government office.  They are only as important as we let them be.

So let’s get together and build one big metaphorical shoe to stomp on the giant bug… bring back DDT!

Economics for Ladders

Forgive the awkward title but I was attempting to build in some nominal continuity with previous posts on issues economical (Don’cha just love The Pirates of Penzance? ...but I digress.)  If you are a resident of The People’s Republic of Kalifornia you should be aware that this past week the servant of the people (Wait, do I have that backwards? Oh, well.) i.e., the four-term Governor Interruptus, Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown, signed into law a new minimum wage statute that requires the current mandated wage of $10.00 per hour be escalated (elevators make me feel claustrophobic so I prefer the escalator… watch your toes) to $15.00 per hour by 2022.  Oh there is a provision to protect the small (less than twenty-five) employer by extending the schedule to 2023.  Thank you, your munificence!

“Hooray, “you say, “finally a champion steps forward to ease the suffering of the people.  Surely now the gap between super rich and miserable poor will start to close.  Huzzah!”  Well, my feeble brained protégés, not quite.  A caveat, I do not hold myself out as an economist, although I was required to complete three courses in the dismal science (emphasis: complete …there is no assumption of mastery) to earn my business degree.  But the experience did arm me with enough argot that if I can’t dazzle you with my brilliance, I will at least baffle you with my bullshit.  So much for my bona fides, now back to the matter at hand.

Please recall from earlier postings that Economics is the study of human behavior in an environment of scarce resources.  As with many terms, “scarce resources” differs in meaning for scholastic economists than it does for your average cafeteria worker.  For the hair net set, scarce means hard to locate or acquire.  In the world of John Maynard Keynes et al, it means of finite supply, no matter how large that supply might be.  So right there we underscore one of the challenges of applying economic theory to everyday life; economists make up their own definitions for words with which we are intimately familiar.

Keep this economist’s notion of scarcity in mind as we proceed with the discussion of the merits of an increase in the minimum wage, or the existence of government mandated wage levels at all.  The hair pulling populace lament the growth of the lower (income) class (Honestly, isn’t America, after all is said and done, at its heart, a classless society?  Yeah, I had to kind of chuckle while I wrote that too.) and the demise of the middle class.  No one ever quantifies those numbers with any gusto.  But I have read essays that proffer more people have migrated from the ranks of the middle income to the upper income than have fallen from the middle to the lower.  Rather conveniently, I cannot recall the resource from which I gleaned this tidbit: But in absentia does reinforce the aforementioned notion of resource scarcity.

The labor unit, i.e. worker, i.e. you, are a finite resource. There are only so many of you (hey, don’t count me in that number, I finagled my talents into an early retirement) to go around when it comes to filling job openings.  Here it is, the dreaded discussion of supply and demand:  If demand (work to be done) exceeds supply (appropriately skilled workers), the price of labor (wages) goes up naturally.  If an artificial floor is established by government, no matter the dollar amount, the mandated wage is still the bottom rung on the ladder (Oh, okay Dale, the whole ladder thing makes sense now) and eventually the system will adjust to the new calibration and $15.00/hr. tomorrow will buy what $10.00/hr. bought today.  Get it?  The value of any commodity (resource) will naturally set itself at the right price vis-à-vis the rest of the market.  The hamburger flipper will be earning 50% more that he did before Gov. Jerry worked his magic, but the price of the hamburger will eventually go up that much as well.  So will rent, car payments, beer… and so there you are, washing dishes on the bottom rung of the economic ladder, making $15.00/hr., if your job was not eliminated because it is now more practical for your former employer to buy a new-fangled dish washing machine.

It is all interconnected, that’s why I like to think of myself as the holistic economist-lite. In addition to this simplistic illustration of the effect wage increases on product prices there are other things to consider: Price elasticity, capital availability, economic vs. financial profit, mustard (don’t get me started on the great mustard vs. catsup debate of 1887).  You can now see how valuable proprietary argot can be in shutting down an argument.

As I see your eyes are beginning to roll back in your head, we will now switch to our regularly scheduled Vogon Poetry Hour.  See you next week.