donutte

The experiment demonstrates quantum entanglement. I gather you don’t believe this. So how about this: I don’t believe you.

I don’t believe that you could, even theoretically, produce the data from a loophole-free Bell test without invoking superdeterminism, superluminality, or quantum entanglement.

Can you describe how this would be theoretically possible?

I’m not sure I follow your argument, but if I understand you right, I don’t believe what you’re quoting is relevant. From the article you are (I think?) criticizing:

We measure a Bell signal S of 2.0732 ± 0.0003, exceeding the maximum value |S| = 2 for a classical system by 244 standard deviations. In the experiment, we deterministically generate the entangled state, and measure both qubits in a single-shot manner, closing the “detection loophole”[11]. Since the Bell inequality was designed to test for non-classical behavior without assuming the applicability of quantum mechanics to the system in question, this experiment provides further strong evidence that a macroscopic electrical circuit is really a quantum system [7]. https://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/papers/Ansmann20...

That says in plain English that they have not assumed that this system behaves according to quantum principles. In fact, it is precisely the opposite: the quantum nature of this system is a conclusion of their results. It would be statistically impossible for any system following classical rules to produce the same data.

(It bears repeating that the math underlying that conclusion is truly not very complex, and it is very, very well studied. If you can show that it’s flawed somehow, don’t bother publishing— just post your proof here and I’ll, uh... pick up the Nobel for you.)

The only caveat is that this experiment closes the detection loophole, but not the locality loophole; it is theoretically possible that a classical signal could be sent from one qubit to the other quickly enough to fabricate this data. There’s no particular reason to suspect a secret signal is in play, but it isn’t theoretically prohibited.

Assuming you haven’t found a flaw in their mathematics, and that you aren’t alleging that the researchers deliberately fabricated their data, the locality loophole is your best (and likely only) avenue to dispute their conclusions. However, if you wish to pursue that, you should keep in mind that there are many other experiments which close the locality loophole but not the detection loophole, and, since 2015, several that close both. Three-card monte may be a better investment of your time.

Just to be clear, these are experimental results that are statistically impossible assuming a classical physics. Are you actually worried that they are somehow studying the wrong self-evidently non-classical thing, or what?

Mmm, it sounds like we have some difference of principle, though not much in practice. I think I don’t see competing interests as zero-sum in the way you seem to.

That is, suppose A desires to kill B, and B desires to kill A, but neither A nor B desires to die. These interests are irreconcilable. “A and B kill each other with equal probability” is a potential resolution to the dilemma, but to my mind, that does not make it morally neutral. To wit, it is morally dispreferable to the universes where A and B resolve their differences, forget each other exists, hallucinate having succeeded in killing each other without actually doing so, and so on.

The preferred resolutions may be outlandishly infeasible to implement, but that won’t ever convince me that they are all morally equivalent.

Since we’re aligned on taking practical steps to minimize unnecessary suffering, we probably won’t gain anything from debating principles, but hopefully that helps you understand my surprise at your question.

I think it’s likely that you do apply my sort of reasoning in other situations, as I likely do yours. Something to muse on, maybe.

This sounds like you would not have a problem running your own farm and eating your own livestock.

No substantial moral problem, no. On the other hand I also have no substantial moral reason to do so, and it would be an unpleasant change to my current lifestyle :)

It’s also worth noting that as of 2015[0], this has been experimentally verified.

We’ve made real-world measurements here that correlate with measurements made at the exact same time over there in a way that mathematically cannot be accounted for without some species of intuition-violating spookiness. It’s all very real.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments#Hensen_e...

Thank you for the candid response! I have to admit I’m a bit confused, though. In particular, these statements seem slightly at odds:

I really do have zero problem with animals killing and consuming other animals.

If the world could exist in a different state that had less suffering, that might be good. Not sure what it would cost though.

The first sounds like you agree with my posit “I sincerely don’t care.” The second sounds like you agree with my posit “I care a small amount, but not enough to make the unworkable solutions attractive.” The rest of your comment makes the latter seem more likely, and I’m inclined to believe that since it seems like a more coherent and defensible ethical framework.

If that’s the case, I think we’re basically in agreement: there is some problem with wild animals eating other wild animals. Terminology aside, predation clearly involves unnecessary suffering. (Not only on the prey, but on sick or injured predators, who painfully starve for want of prey!)

All else being equal, it would be preferable for that suffering not to happen, but since we can’t make it any better, we tacitly consent to the current state of affairs.

The only part I find curious is that where I would call that “a slight moral force”, you would call it “morally neutral”. Why is that? Why does the question “do you have any problem with this” make sense to you, when it sounds like you agree there is a self-evident — though nuanced, and relatively minor — problem?

I hope this doesn’t sound like I’m arguing with you. In fact, to reinforce our agreement:

If you killed an animal painlessly, would there be any moral problem in consuming animals?

Speaking for myself, I certainly do have far less issue with eating an animal that I can be personally assured has only had “one bad day”. I don’t think animals care that they live in a cage, iff the cage is big enough; in fact, they probably prefer it. This opinion is overwhelmingly common among the other vegetarians I know. Those who dissent are generally worrying about other less-humane-seeming things such as premature separation of young from parents— and those concerns are always tempered with the acknowledgement that it’s still far more humane than the common practice.

(Primary reasons such people still do not eat meat: One, this type of meat is prohibitively expensive in most urban areas, and would be very infrequent; two, eating meat that infrequently has a tendency to make folks feel ill.)

Again, I’m mostly curious why you would have expected any other answer, since it seems like it’s the answer you believe is reasonable. Why do you expect us to disagree, here?

Digressing, I’ve noticed something curious about the cultural perception of vegetarians, in these comments and elsewhere. Folks like yourself, who have clearly thought quite a bit about the ethics of your practice, I think see vegetarians basically eye-to-eye, and we can agree to disagree about exactly where to draw the line personally.

But think about your typical suburban meat eater who deliberately avoids learning more about how livestock is raised or slaughtered, since that makes them feel uncomfortable about eating meat. I think that person is genuinely a bit concerned that if they thought too hard about it, they would realize that it’s wrong in their own moral code to thoughtlessly consume factory-farmed meat, and then they’d have to change their lifestyle in an unpleasant way.

So maybe it’s soothing for that person to believe that all vegetarians are pursuing some radical or fallacious reasoning to an absurd conclusion. But the thing is... we’re really just not.

Myself, and every (ethical) vegetarian I know, we’re using the same boring moral principle that applies to pre-verbal infants, PVS patients, chimps and dolphins, mammals culturally coded as pets, and so on: if it is not absolutely necessary to save another life, it is respectively [impermissible..very not-ok] to kill and eat that thing.

Yes, we expand the circle of concern by a single logical step. The rest is just... normal ethics. Whatever are the moral beliefs you think a reasonable person would consistently hold after taking that step, yeah, of course we hold those. Why on earth wouldn’t we?

I’m genuinely curious: you ask if one has any problem. Do you mean to imply that you have zero problem with this?

When you watch a big cat torture and eat a prey animal, do you not have any sense at all that maybe the prey would prefer that not to happen? Or that, all else being equal, if the tiger could eat something that doesn’t seem to mind being eaten, that would be at least as good for everyone?

Like, obviously we can’t really do anything about that without killing all the cats, which we don’t really like any better, and even that would probably end up killing all the prey species too... so we’re kind of stuck with things this way.

But — again, genuinely asking — does the intractability of that problem really force you, personally, to assign zero moral weight to the experience of animals? Or do you sincerely just... not care?

Why do you say that? It’s certainly in line with the spirit of the ADA, and a cursory Google suggests that lawsuits related to dietary restrictions have been successful.

For what it’s worth, I’m a vegetarian and broadly in support of this policy, assuming it can be made compliant with the law.

“Intensely terrible” is one way to phrase “illegal under the ADA”...

I would assume there will be accommodations made for folks with dietary restrictions that require them to eat meat, whether that’s through a simple waiver or a massive lawsuit.

Should it?

If I argue that it’s immoral to not vaccinate your children, am I failing in not arguing that wild deer should vaccinate their children?

So, I’ve never finished Infinite Jest. My father once told me that’s okay— it ends in the middle.

Cloud Atlas employs the same structure deliberately, with wonderful narrative impact. You have to climb up the mountain in order to climb back down.

I do think GEB is the same way. The first half of the book is the climb. The second half is merely the question, what can we see from way up here?

So did a lot of Nazis who enabled the Holocaust. Isn’t that the point?

That’s maybe too flippant. “This is fake” is a way someone can rationalize doing something that they know is wrong. It’s important that they came up with that idea themselves, in response to a seemly inappropriate demand from an authority.

Notice:

The most common explanation was that they believed the person they’d given the electric shocks to (the “learner”) hadn’t really been harmed. Seventy-two per cent of obedient participants made this kind of claim at least once, such as “If it was that serious you woulda stopped me” and “I just figured that somebody had let him out“.

It doesn’t seem that there was anything evident in the room to make participants believe that it was anything besides what it appeared to be. They’re not saying “the screams were obviously acted.” Not “I could see that the box wasn’t connected to anything.” Definitely not “the experimenter told me it was staged.”

What led them to that belief was the social and cultural context. They believed the experiment was fake primarily because they believed that the authority figure would not make or let them actually harm someone. They transferred responsibility for their own actions to the authority figure; “I knew it was fake” is merely the mechanism.

At least, that’s a coherent theory we could put together based on the evidence. If Milgram had sneakily passed participants a note under the table, it would be a foregone conclusion that participants would believe it was fake, the evidence collected would therefore be meaningless, and the experiment generally worthless. That’s why this allegation is so damning to Zimbardo’s project.

I don’t think that’s an accurate characterization of the criticism. The Milgram study, and its numerous replications, have pretty conclusively shown that most folks will do something they know is wrong if a perceived authority instructs them to. That’s not really in dispute.

The allegation is that Zimbardo orchestrated his project in order to produce a more dramatic narrative of spontaneous cruelty that wasn’t scientifically justified. It would be (it is alleged) as if Milgram had passed participants a note under the table that said, “FYI the subject is an actor— just go along with it, we’re trying to prove a point.”

Whether or not the Milgram results are valid, that certainly wouldn’t be a good demonstration of them.

I hear where you’re coming from, and we seem agreed that there’s nothing internet sleuths are entitled to. I do think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this:

The implication is that the family either wanted to know or ought to have wanted to know. We have no information to evaluate those judgments, and there's enough gray there that it's irritating as an assumption.

I think if someone has died — even if it was a fairly long time ago — it’s safe to presume that there are people somewhere who still care about them, still think about them, would like to know what happened. From a state of ignorance about who those people are, I think it’s compassionate to try to let them know, especially when no one else is trying.

And naturally, the same compassion instructs one to respect their wishes after that point. Again, all working as intended.

That seems stronger than what I’m saying. The folks who can’t let it go, who are still trying to circumvent the family’s privacy, they obviously are motivated by something besides concern for the victim and his kin. I don’t have any sympathy for them.

But I think the point I’m trying to make is that there’s a lot of distance between “right to intrude” and “none of your business”. The fact is that the identity of this person was their business, for a decade, simply because it wasn’t the business of anyone else.

Of course there’s no right to know the name of a stranger. But I am glad they made it their business — I’m glad someone cared — and I’m sorry the outcome hurt them. It’s not any more complicated than that.

I think about this sometimes.

I put together my own IoT infrastructure in our apartment. I did everything by hand: I wrote the embedded code, I wrote the server code, I pieced together the hub with a router and RasPi I had lying around. I spliced cheap WiFi relays into our IKEA lamps— and just to keep things simple, I also removed the original hardware switches.

The upshot is we have this nice web-accessible home automation system for a total parts outlay of probably under $100. It works really well! (As long as the Let’s Encrypt cron job is set up properly...) And most importantly, I know that I own it.

The thing about that is... I own it. I’m the only one in the world who understands how it works. I’m the only one who can fix it if it breaks. But I don’t live alone. If I pack up and leave, my partners aren’t going to be able to turn the lights on without going out to buy brand new lights.

And wow, that’s a huge amount of trust to put in me! Of course my partners do trust me that much, but it’s striking that I didn’t take that into consideration at all when I started the project.

This is really interesting:

It was then that the realization set in in the subreddit: after all these years, after hundreds of thousands of hours of theorizing and plotting and thinking and organizing, they might never find out the true identity of Lyle Stevik. His identity was known to the police, and to DNA Doe, but it was never revealed to the subreddit. And it might never be; as of press time, the family has declined to share the information.

It seems like there’s two ways to look at this. The first is... the subreddit didn’t materially contribute to solving the case, apart from putting up $1500 for DNA sequencing. The critical research was done by a specialist volunteer org, and law enforcement located and contacted the family.

It seems like being able to identify folks using genetic ancestry is a really valuable service; it also seems like a good thing that, to the average redditor, this service is a black box that produces a single bit of output. If the person (family, in this case) who has been identified doesn’t want their name to be public, that should be their choice.

So, that all is working as intended. But at the same time...

In 20 years, nobody ever put up the money for DNA testing. Why would they? There must be millions of cases like this, and for most of that time sequencing cost a lot more than $1500.

The price is still going down, so eventually someone would have done this. Maybe once the cost of sequencing hit $50, or $1. I don’t know, at what point do we start DNA testing every single cold case Doe, since forever? Probably not for a long, long time. Maybe long enough to be forgotten entirely.

The folks on the subreddit cared, is my point, when no one else did. They picked this person to care about, out of all the unsolved mysteries to choose from. I don’t think there’s any particular explanation; he just happened to catch their fancy, and then they spent a lot of time thinking about him. In a weird digital-era way, he was kind of their friend.

And it makes a lot of sense that there would be some shock and isolation at having their care rejected, having their “friendship” invalidated. I can get that. And I kind of think that if the family grokked how much these folks cared about their person, and how little anyone else did, their response might be a little different.

Reading further down in the docket reveals a few suggestive details. Of particular note, this filing which lead to the revocation of Schulte’s bail [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.480183...]. Two salient points:

1. Schulte agreed as a condition of his pretrial house arrest not to own, possess, or use a computer or any other form of internet access. Surveillance showed internet connections from his house, accessing his personal email as well as the TOR network.

His attorneys argue that these connections were Schulte’s cousin (who lives with him) checking his email (and TOR?) on his behalf, which after all the Court never said he couldn’t do.

2. At his bail hearing, the prosecutor mentioned a photograph (apparently recovered from Schulte’s phone) showing an unconscious person (apparently Schulte’s roommate) being sexually assaulted (apparently in their shared bathroom). The identity of the assailant having not being established, this wasn’t taken into consideration at pretrial. But...

Since that hearing, the cops in Virginia followed up and have a reasonable suspicion that the person seen in a photograph on Schulte’s phone, sexually assaulting Schulte’s unconscious roommate, in Schulte’s house, might indeed be Schulte himself. So it sounds like he’s facing sexual assault charges in Virginia, as soon as his federal child-porn-cum-treason prosecution gets sorted out.

So... well, even if these additional allegations don’t change your perspective on his character, they proooooobably cut against any presumption of doubt based on dude’s mastery of opsec.

For what it’s worth, I’m poly and I disagree with that characterization. Polyamorous relationships are held to a different standard.

A monogamous relationship where everyone isn’t having their needs met can continue in perpetuity, for one reason or another. Such a polyamorous relationship is more unstable and likely to end more swiftly and decisively. It’s possible to see that as a good thing.

(If you buy this reading, “open relationships hurt marriages” isn’t a story about failing poly relationships, it’s a story about monogomous relationships that already failed without anyone noticing.)

At least in the US...

A psychiatrist is a physician. They go to the same schools as future radiologists, surgeons, and general practitioners. They learn gross anatomy by dissecting cadavers. They work 80 hour weeks learning to perform medical procedures on actual patients. After that, as doctors, they receive specialized clinical training in years-long residency programs. They are licensed by state medical boards in addition to their own professional orgs.

A psychiatrist is authorized to hand you a prescription for antibiotics, for amphetamines, for opioids. Christ, a psychiatrist is authorized to detain you on their credibility alone for upwards of 48 hours, arguably exceeding the legal detention power of the police.

Psychologists are certainly competent, well-educated experts in their discipline, but they don’t and can’t do all that. Of course the two deal with loosely related subjects, but there is very little comparison between them in any practical sense.

I’m not sure that’s a counterexample either? The claim is “if X is in moderation, then X is fine”. If we let X be necessarily not in moderation, the claim holds of X by impossibility of the antecedent.

IOW “if X is in moderation, X is fine” is logically consistent with “some things cannot be in moderation”.