#318, physics and philosophy with Tim Maudlin

This guy Tim puts the aunt in pedant. He spends far too much of his time burning air on trivial and obvious things like “actual“ versus “now.” Or on whether it was Laplace or Bosch who invented the free-will demon.

I do like his succinct explanation of the difference between “many worlds“ and Copenhagen. That is, a measurement or a photon collapses the photon’s wave function from a quantum superposition to a single state in the many worlds view because the photon in your universe picks one path and the other universes pick the other paths. Whereas in the Copenhagen view the photon wave function collapses because it interacts with a macroscopic object (an eye, a cat).

Tim doesn’t like this explanation because he says the definition of macroscopic is unclear. But I think it’s extremely clear. A macroscopic object is one made of a very large number of particles. Each particle has a wave function. All of those wave functions have become so enmeshed with each other that they have essentially collapsed. And any particle that interacts with them has to lose its quantum superposition too.

Of course, Sam doesn’t point this out because he hasn’t studied quantum physics. But where he does take issue with Tim is when they start debating free will.

Sam says a person choosing between a crème brûlée and a bowl of broken glass might think he’s choosing freely, but he can’t control the subconscious thought processes that determine his choice. So he doesn’t have free will. But Tim says he doesn’t care what the subconscious thought processes are, as long as he doesn’t have to eat the broken glass.

So Tim and Sam have different opinions about whether a choice that you are happy with was done with free will. Both agree that it was orchestrated by some unknowable force that is hidden from you, in your subconscious mind. Sam says that means it’s not free because we’re not in control of that force, and Tim thinks that it’s only not free if you don’t get what you want.

And even though he veers to the pedantic, I agree with him.

My take on #314, "The Cancellation of JK Rowling", with Megan Phelps-Roper

This conversation in itself, though more reasoned and thought-provoking than almost anything else I've come across recently, was not really all that remarkable for Sam, certainly not worth highlighting in this blog....

...but for one salient reason. And that is his recommendation to listen to Megan's podcast, "The Witch Trials of JK Rowling".

Once again, Sam has struck gold and then shared it with us. This podcast is remarkably well done: empathetic, intelligent, highly controversial, and very well produced. It was a fantastic find. And there's no way I would have heard of it--or even of Megan--without Sam's introductions to her. We'd met her already in podcast #12, "Leaving the Church" which, if it did nothing else for me, convinced me to seek a better way to communicate with people "outside my tribe."

So, be you muggle or witch, trans-philic or trans-phobic, I'd recommend you check out Megan's podcast--only 7 episodes long, but full of great moments.

Another new book

I just self-published another book. This has next to nothing to do with Sam Harris or Making Sense.

But on the other hand, I did write it. So here it goes: Here's the link: An IQ of 84: A Gaijin Chronicle

#307 The Long Game: with David Waldinger

This was more of a "feel-good" episode than anything eye-opening or world-view challenging. For the first-ever Sam Harris podcast listener, something new might come out. Otherwise, it's really nothing more than comfort food for intellectuals.

But let's be honest: in these times, intellectuals need all the comfort they can get.

To be fair, though, I did learn one thing: the meaning of this Koan:
"If you meet the Buddha on your path, kill him."

David explains that this means the ideal of an post-epiphanal existence where the subject has evolved beyond his imperfections and has become a guru beyond reproach, is not in keeping with Buddhism. There is no Buddhist delusion of anything like a Pope, the embodiment of God's Word, who can implicitly and unquestioningly be trusted with your 12-y.o. daughters (or sons).

Given the horrific records of so many Christian fathers, Islamic fatwaists, and Jewish fascists, one rather wishes this bit of wisdom was more broadly shared among the world's religions.

Another book promo

Disclaimer: This is a promomotion for my latest book, and not a review of a Sam Harris podcast.

My latest collection of short stories is now available at Amazon. These are stories set in eastern Europe, and Sam has had plenty of people on to discuss the problem's with Putin's Russia. Does that count for anything?

And all proceeds from the sale of the book are being donated to United24, the charity set up by president Volodymyr Zelenskyy to support Ukrainian victims of the Russian invasion. Which is one of the most effective charities working for Ukrainians. And Sam has interviewed the effective altruism guy, William MacAskill, a few times. So maybe that's a link?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BKXKCCJB

#300: A Tale of Cancellation, with Meg Smaker

I admit I was starting to waver recently about whether my monthly contribution to Making Sense wouldn't be better put to use buying mosquito nets for children in Africa. Blame it on his promotion of effective altruism, perhaps. And that the last several guests didn't really say anything that struck me as urgent--or even necessary.

However, this interview with cancelled filmmaker Meg Smaker convinced me that supporting Sam Harris is still the right thing to do.

Not just because her cancellation was clearly done by a few bad actors of bad faith for self-aggrandizing and self-enriching reasons. But also because I firmly believe that their core motivation--that only members of any minority group should be allowed to tell stories about that group--is such an idiotic and nefarious idea that it could literally make racism increase in America, and harm virtually every member of the respective minority populations that they belong to.

We need to be able to tell the stories of the Other, period. White writers need to be able to include characters of color in their stories. Female documentarians need to be able to report on male subjects. Muslims need to be able to write about non-muslims.

Anyone who can't understand the self-evident truth of this isn't trying very hard. Or maybe their reason has been coopted by their misguided attempt to force a place for themselves on the page or on the screen... a place that their own talents weren't able to win on their own merits.

#299: Steps in the Right Direction, with Russ Roberts

“There are known knowns, there are known unknowns, and there are unknown unknowns." – Donald Rumsfeld

This is the sort of podcast that one might listen to, not to get a single new idea or beliefs challenged, but merely for the (considerably less compelling) pleasure of eavesdropping on two intelligent men discussing current events.

You might think from the title of this episode and from the guest’s recent book (Wild Problems: A Guide to the Decisions that Define Us) that maybe something--a roadmap? a hierarchy of information?--will be outlined for how to make good decisions. How to live a good life. But au contraire, Russ says that it's foolish to try to use any methodology in making the BIG decisions. He warns that we often have no way to know all of the facts surrounding decisions like whom to marry or whether to have children. So, rather trying to tame the large unquantifiable truths with some kind of spreadsheet tally, the decision-maker will be better off going with what he feels in his bones as his basis for a decision.

The listener probably could have seen that coming, because early on in the interview, Russ observes that although economists claim theirs is the only quantifiable social science, it is unable to quantify any of the things that we really care about: respect, love, a sense of belonging, a sense of purpose.

So, basically nothing new in this interview. They veer off on other thoughts (it's a long episode). Russ and Sam don't seem to agree on whether Free Will exists. Or whether society is improving in regards to human rights. Because Russ thinks that recent periods of disturbing back-sliding are the norm and not the outliers: the Holocaust, Soviet oppression, even the anti-free-speech trend right now. But even at that, Russ doesn't go any farther than to observe the veneer of civilization runs thin on the human psyche. Not a new thought for all of us who read “Lord of the Flies" in high school.

One last thought: It occurs to me that Sam is so adamantly opposed to free will, but he has never really made the distinction between that and “having the lights on.” So I wonder if his guest and I and everyone else who disagrees with Sam might be merely conflating free will with consciousness?