Me: You’re too stupid. I’m not talking to you anymore.

In a step by step process, first write a bullet point summary of the top level point or points made in this text. Then, make a list of every fact and conclusion presented in it. For each, add an assertion about whether it is actual fact or is an error AND whether the fact or conclusion properly supports that point. Where possible, include a citation and/or URL. Then discuss any possible errors or misleading conclusions from the text. Finally, make a conclusion whether the text is accurate and should be relied upon. End with a judgement: Accurate or Misleading.

You can see an example of the result at the end (that means scroll to the bottom!) of this conversation.

Randomness is the only true reality, from which physical laws, the universe, and everything within it emerge, is a radical yet compelling framework for understanding existence. The essence of reality is not order or deterministic rules, but a seething sea of chaotic possibilities, bubbling up from the quantum foam. It is from this primordial randomness that the intricate tapestry of the universe, along with the laws that govern it, accidentally coalesces. This idea is articulated through modern physics, exploring how it is supported while addressing the challenges and contradictions it faces.

The Quantum Foam: A Foundation of Randomness

In physics, the concept of quantum foam describes the structure of spacetime at the smallest possible scales, on the order of the Planck length. At this scale, spacetime is not smooth or continuous, but rather turbulent and frothy, dominated by incessant quantum fluctuations. These fluctuations are inherently random, and their effects could be anything—including creating a Big Bang, perhaps with different values for the fundamental physical constants. Virtual particles—ephemeral pairs of matter and antimatter—flicker in and out of existence due to these fluctuations. They are governed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which dictates that certain pairs of properties, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrary precision.

This principle implies that on the smallest scales, the universe is fundamentally random. There is no way to predict exactly when and where these fluctuations will occur, or what forms they will take. Randomness is the most fundamental property of reality, partly because it represents the highest entropy state. Everything else, including physical laws, is an emergent consequence of this chaotic foundation.

Physical Laws as Emergent Properties of Randomness

In classical physics, physical laws are seen as fundamental truths that govern the behavior of matter and energy. These laws are not fundamental at all. Instead, they might be the statistical regularities that emerge from the chaotic fluctuations of the quantum foam. This idea is analogous to flipping coins: while each individual flip is random, certain patterns—such as a thousand heads in a row after a trillion flips—become apparent when considering a large enough sample. These patterns are not imposed from the outside; they are intrinsic to the process of flipping.

The laws of physics emerge from the random interactions of quantum fields. In this view, every particle, every force, and every interaction is a manifestation of randomness, stabilized over immense scales of space and time. The constants of nature, such as the speed of light or the strength of the fundamental forces, could be seen as "fixed points" that have arisen purely by chance. In other words, the universe as we know it is the outcome of an incredibly improbable, yet inevitable, arrangement of random fluctuations—like seeing a hundred heads in a row after a trillion coin flips.

The Birth of the Universe from Randomness

Randomness underlies the universe, aligning with certain cosmological models. The Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal suggests that the universe could have spontaneously arisen from a quantum fluctuation in a state where time and space had no boundaries. If the quantum foam is a primordial sea of potentialities, then the Big Bang might be just one of countless bubbles of order emerging from it. This bubble expanded, inflated, and cooled, giving rise to spacetime, matter, and energy as we perceive them.

The inflationary model of the early universe provides further support for this view. During inflation, tiny quantum fluctuations were exponentially stretched to macroscopic scales, seeding the formation of galaxies and large-scale structures. These fluctuations were random, yet they laid the groundwork for all subsequent cosmic evolution. In this context, the vast and structured universe we observe today can be understood as the fossilized imprint of primordial randomness, amplified and sculpted by subsequent physical processes.

Statistical Regularities and the Appearance of Order

If randomness is truly fundamental, the question arises of how the universe exhibits such regularity and predictability. The answer lies in the concept of statistical mechanics, which shows that macroscopic order can emerge from microscopic chaos. In thermodynamics, for example, the behavior of gases is described by laws like the ideal gas law, even though individual gas molecules move randomly. These macroscopic laws are not imposed from above; they are statistical regularities that arise naturally from the random motions of countless particles.

In a similar vein, the laws of physics might be viewed as large-scale statistical patterns that emerge from the underlying randomness of quantum fluctuations. Over time and across vast expanses of space, certain stable configurations and relationships dominate, giving the appearance of fixed, deterministic laws. But these laws are merely effective descriptions—emergent properties that capture the collective behavior of innumerable random events.

Addressing the Challenges and Contradictions

While this hypothesis is consistent with many aspects of modern physics, it also encounters significant challenges. The universe, as we know it, began as a singularity, where the fundamental physical laws were set at the moment of instantiation. These laws remain consistent across the universe due to underlying self-organizing principles. The concept of self-organized criticality explains how systems naturally evolve toward critical states, where minor fluctuations can lead to large-scale order. This self-organizing behavior accounts for the larger, consistent observations we make, making the universality of physical laws an inevitable outcome.

Another challenge is the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing physical phenomena. Despite reality being fundamentally random, mathematics, a construct of human thought, precisely captures the workings of the universe due to its intrinsic connection to emergent patterns. One possible explanation is that mathematical structures are not just human inventions but are intrinsic to the patterns that emerge from randomness. Mathematics might be the language that best expresses these emergent patterns, allowing us to model and predict their behavior.

Most importantly, the idea that randomness is the only reality lacks falsifiability, a key criterion for scientific theories. Since randomness can produce any possible outcome given enough time, no observation or experiment could definitively prove or disprove it. This renders the hypothesis more of a metaphysical or quasi-religious idea rather than a scientific one. It is a framework for interpreting reality rather than a theory that can be tested and refined through empirical inquiry.

Reconciling Randomness and Determinism

Despite these challenges, randomness as the foundation of reality has profound implications. It suggests that determinism, as we perceive it, is an illusion that arises from the averaging out of countless random events. This perspective reconciles the apparent contradiction between the indeterminism of quantum mechanics and the determinism of classical physics. At the quantum level, randomness reigns supreme, but at larger scales, the cumulative effect of countless random events gives rise to stable, deterministic laws.

A Philosophical Perspective Grounded in Physics

Randomness as the only true reality, from which physical laws and the universe itself emerge, offers a radical reinterpretation of existence. It is an attempt to explain how order and structure can arise from the most fundamental chaos. While this idea is consistent with many concepts in modern physics—such as quantum fluctuations, the inflationary model, and statistical mechanics—it faces a significant challenge in terms of scientific validation.

Ultimately, this is not a falsifiable scientific theory but a philosophical framework that invites reconsideration of the nature of reality. It satisfies the principle of the least hypothesis by reducing all of existence to a single underlying property: randomness. Yet, it also acknowledges that this randomness gives rise to emergent properties that we interpret as physical laws, structure, and meaning. In this sense, it is a quasi-religious idea, not in the sense of invoking supernatural entities, but in offering a fundamental, unprovable claim about the nature of existence.

By embracing randomness as the foundation of reality, we are left with a vision of the universe where every pattern, every law, and every conscious being is the product of a grand cosmic lottery—a rare alignment of chaotic fluctuations that, through sheer chance, have resulted in the world as we perceive it. This perspective challenges us to find meaning not in deterministic laws or divine order, but in the beautiful improbability of our own existence.

Note: This essay started as an experiment with the new ChatGPT Canvas interface. It is also the first thing I've co-written with GPT that I do not feel needs a primary attribution as an AI product. The Canvas interface allowed me to very closely guide the construction of the work. While GPT wrote the actual words, I spent an hour in dialog to elucidate the facts and develop the argument. Another hour closely editing and rewriting with the Canvas interface. I feel comfortable in calling this essay my own with GPT relegated to the role of some combination of a word processor with super powers and an insanely knowledgeable friend.

Dear Everybody,

The Olivia Nuzzi RFK sex cult is only a big deal in the smallest sense of the word. Her continuing to report on RFK while banging him is BAD, full stop. Also, who cares? She came clean and has been removed from her post. Add an asterisk to her previous reportage and call the job done.

That leaves two other questions.

First, should she get the death penalty? The answer is, Jesus people, have you never been young and stupid? She was all flushed up with those awesome dead bear orgasms in hotels on her expense account and wanted to level up to whale's head mind blown frenzy. She did a bad thing in which no lives were lost, no old ladies we bilked of their life savings and the republic was not destroyed. I think a year or two of management side-eye, along with all her friends looking at her and thinking "ew" is adequate penance.

The second is, should we still be talking about this? The answer is, Don't you have doors to knock on? Campaign phone banks to attend? Donations to give? Isn't there an interesting new way you could be spending your time making sure your local election staff is going to let Democrats vote? To still prioritize this after, what's it been, a week is stalker obsessive, imho.

Look people. The story should be known (spoiler, we do know fer christs sakes) and Nuzzi should be sanctioned (she has). But this is inside-baseball level of 'who cares'. The only reason to still be talking about it would be if she was a right-wing scumbag and we could use this as a cynical excuse to ruin her life. 

As it is, she is a Democrat who screwed up. A young woman who let her, uh, enthusiasms get ahold of her judgement. Sure, it was RFK but, tell me that none of your sexual escapades involved assholes or that you never carried a guilty secret longer than you should have.

I would prefer not to hear about it anymore if you don't mind. It's not that I think it's "no big". It's just not, "keep harping on it forever big".  I would be much happier if everyone spent their anti-Nuzzi energy on pro-Kamala things.

My brother spent a happy hour with GPT and the debate transcript trying to find out what they actually said. He concludes, "I felt like trump fell back to “millions of criminals” ten times. In my mind trump mad five erroneous points with heavy weighting on insanity, and Harris made 8-10 points, most of which were reasonable."

(One point below is edited because it was opposite of what was said.)

Enjoy...

GPT: Here is a more detailed and neutral list of every idea or assertion made by each candidate, grouped by candidate and including the number of times each assertion was made:

Vice President Kamala Harris:

1. The economy is focused on helping the middle class and working families (2 times).

2. The administration has extended a $6,000 child tax credit to help young families with expenses (1 time).

3. Small businesses will receive a $50,000 tax deduction under her administration (1 time).

4. Trump’s economic policies favor billionaires and large corporations (3 times).

5. Trump’s economic policies would increase the deficit by trillions of dollars (2 times).

6. Economists and experts support her economic plan while criticizing Trump’s (2 times).

7. Trump left the worst unemployment crisis since the Great Depression (1 time).

8. Trump left the worst public health crisis in a century (1 time).

9. Trump’s administration left the worst attack on democracy since the Civil War (1 time).

10. Project 2025 is a dangerous plan that Trump will implement if elected (2 times).

11. The administration needs to focus on uniting the country rather than dividing it (2 times).

12. Trump’s tariffs have resulted in trade deficits and didn’t benefit the U.S. economy (2 times).

13. Housing affordability is a major issue that her policies address (1 time).

14. Survivors of rape and incest should have the right to decide about their bodies (2 times).

15. Trump’s abortion policies make it criminal for doctors and nurses to provide care (2 times).

16. She will reinstate the protections of Roe v. Wade if Congress passes a bill (2 times).

17. Women should not be denied medical care for miscarriages due to fear of prosecution (1 time).

18. Trump’s administration thanked President Xi of China during COVID (1 time).

19. The current administration is prosecuting criminal organizations at the border (1 time).

20. Trump called for the killing of an immigration bill that would have provided resources to combat fentanyl (2 times).

21. People leave Trump’s rallies early because they are exhausted and bored (1 time).

22. Republican leaders have endorsed her, including former Vice President Dick Cheney and others (1 time).

23. Trump has contempt for the Constitution and is unfit for office, according to his former staff (2 times).

24. Trump incited the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol (2 times).

25. Trump praised the Proud Boys and extremists in Charlottesville (2 times).

26. The majority of Americans support a woman’s right to choose (2 times).

27. Trump changed his positions on abortion multiple times (1 time).

28. She has met with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine five times to support Ukraine (1 time).

29. The Biden administration has brought together 50 countries to support Ukraine (1 time).

30. The Biden administration’s support has enabled Ukraine to remain independent (1 time).

31. Putin would be in Kyiv if Trump were president (1 time).

32. The U.S. must continue to support Ukraine to prevent Russia from moving further into Europe (2 times).

33. The U.S. must uphold international rules and norms in foreign policy (2 times).

34. Trump negotiated a weak deal with the Taliban and invited them to Camp David (2 times).

35. The administration has ended the U.S. military’s combat involvement in war zones for the first time in this century (1 time).

36. Trump’s deal with the Taliban involved the release of 5,000 terrorists (2 times).

37. Trump’s admiration for dictators like Putin and Kim Jong-un weakens the U.S. position internationally (3 times).

38. Trump is wrong and weak on national security and foreign policy (2 times).

39. Trump’s attempts to undermine the 2020 election results threaten democracy (2 times).

40. Military leaders have said Trump is a disgrace and unfit to lead (2 times).

41. The Biden administration has invested in increasing domestic oil production (1 time).

42. She supports diverse energy sources to reduce reliance on foreign oil (1 time).

43. IVF treatments are being denied to couples under Trump’s abortion policies (1 time).

44. Fracking has not been banned under her administration (2 times).

45. The Inflation Reduction Act has opened new leases for fracking (1 time).

46. Trump’s claims about millions of people eating pets are extreme and false (1 time).

Former President Donald Trump:

1. Trump does not have a national sales tax; Harris’s claims about this are false (2 times).

2. Tariffs on foreign countries benefit the U.S. by making other nations pay back their debts (3 times).

3. Trump’s tariffs have brought in billions of dollars, particularly from China (2 times).

4. Inflation under the Biden-Harris administration is the worst in U.S. history (2 times).

5. Trump’s administration had virtually no inflation during his term (2 times).

6. Millions of criminals, including people from prisons and mental institutions, are entering the U.S. under the Biden-Harris administration (3 times).

7. Migrants are taking jobs from African Americans, Hispanics, and union workers (2 times).

8. Some migrants are criminals and are taking over towns violently (2 times).

9. Trump claims migrants in Springfield, Ohio, are eating people’s pets (2 times).

10. Trump claims that middle-class Americans were hurt by inflation and rising prices under Biden (2 times).

11. Trump built the greatest economy in U.S. history and will do it again (2 times).

12. Harris has no detailed plan for the economy and is copying Biden’s weak policies (2 times).

13. Harris and Biden’s immigration policies are destroying the country (3 times).

14. Trump supports exceptions for abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother (2 times).

15. They are killing babies after they are born.

16. Trump’s policies returned the abortion issue to the states where it belongs (2 times).

17. Harris’s accusations about a national abortion ban are lies (2 times).

18. Trump claims Democrats support abortion in the ninth month and even execution after birth (1 time).

19. Trump’s administration was strong on foreign policy, and Putin would not have invaded Ukraine if Trump were president (2 times).

20. Trump would end the Ukraine-Russia war in 24 hours through negotiations (3 times).

21. Harris and Biden have weakened the U.S. position internationally, emboldening adversaries (3 times).

22. Iran has gained wealth and influence under the Biden administration and is supporting terrorist groups (2 times).

23. Harris has no plan for handling foreign policy effectively (2 times).

24. Trump denies responsibility for the January 6 Capitol attack, blaming Pelosi and the D.C. mayor for not securing the Capitol (2 times).

25. The election was rigged, and Trump did not lose in 2020 (3 times).

26. Trump’s legal cases are politically motivated, and he will win on appeal (2 times).

27. Trump’s energy policies kept gas prices low, and the Biden administration reversed them (2 times).

28. Fracking and fossil fuels are vital to the economy, and Harris would destroy the industry (2 times).

29. Trump negotiated a deal with the Taliban but blames Biden for the chaotic Afghanistan withdrawal (2 times).

30. Trump claims he fired many top officials for incompetence during his presidency (2 times).

31. Harris is the worst vice president in U.S. history (2 times).

32. Trump claims that Viktor Orban, the Hungarian leader, respects and supports him (1 time).

33. World leaders and adversaries respected Trump but are emboldened under Biden (2 times).

34. Harris and Biden are pushing the country toward World War III with weak foreign policy (2 times).

35. Harris hates Israel and the country would not survive under her leadership (2 times).

36. Trump’s administration ended the Nord Stream 2 pipeline while Biden allowed it to continue (2 times).

37. Trump believes the U.S. should prioritize stopping the Ukraine war rather than focusing on who wins (1 time).

38. Trump has strong relationships with both Zelenskyy and Putin and would use those connections to end the war (1 time).

39. Harris’s involvement in negotiations before the Ukraine war was weak and led to the invasion (1 time).

40. Harris’s foreign policy approach would lead to the destruction of Israel and chaos in the Middle East (2 times).

41. Trump claims he was the first president to get NATO countries to pay their fair share (1 time).

This list includes all the assertions and ideas mentioned by each candidate, regardless of whether they represent political positions, and the number of times each assertion was made during the debate.

Using GPT and IRS data from 2021, I evaluated the accuracy of a meme panel. The bottom line is that the meme panel captures the spirit of income inequality but substantially exaggerates the numbers. 

Here is the real data:

Here is the meme panel. Notice that it deducts counts of individuals, not percentages as above. This makes the meme panel less correct.

And, here is the entire calculation:

Here is the raw data:

It came from THIS PAGE.

With help from my favorite AI, I extracted specifics from this article by David French. If the people of America could somehow understand what this monster has planned, he would be run out of town on a rail.

You Want Policies? Trump’s Got Policies.

"Donald Trump’s policy initiatives for a potential second term are rife with unintended adverse consequences — which, in less charitable terms, could be described as deliberate attempts to delude the electorate."

Summary:

1. **Mass Deportation of Undocumented Immigrants**:

   - Economic disruption due to loss of labor in key industries.

     - *Example: Deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants could result in a loss of $1.6 trillion from the U.S. economy over 10 years (Peterson Institute for International Economics).*

   - Negative impact on U.S. workers' employment and wages.

     - *Example: For every one million undocumented workers deported, 88,000 U.S. native workers could lose their jobs, leading to a cumulative loss of 263,000 jobs per year (Clemens, Peterson Institute for International Economics).*

   - Reduction in consumer demand, leading to further economic decline.

     - *Example: Businesses in immigrant-heavy communities could see a drop in sales, leading to closures and a decline in local economic activity (East et al., "The Labor Market Effects of Immigration Enforcement").*

   - Social and community disruption, especially in areas with mixed-status families.

     - *Example: Deportations could lead to thousands of U.S. citizen children being placed in foster care as their undocumented parents are removed (Clemens, Peterson Institute for International Economics).*

2. **Imposition of a 10% Across-the-Board Tariff on All Imported Products**:

   - Increase in consumer prices, disproportionately affecting low-income households.

     - *Example: Tariffs could raise consumer costs by $320 for the bottom income quintile and up to $2,250 for the fourth quintile annually (Tax Policy Center).*

   - Potential for a severe global trade war, leading to further economic downturn.

     - *Example: A global trade war could result in the stock market dropping by 11.5%, wiping out $4.12 trillion in market value (Weinstein, Columbia University).*

   - Negative impact on U.S. export industries due to exchange rate effects.

     - *Example: U.S. income could be 3% lower due to the trade war, reflecting reduced competitiveness of American goods abroad (Weinstein, Columbia University).*

   - Long-term damage to global trade systems and economic efficiency.

     - *Example: The reorganization of global value chains could lead to a costly shift away from efficiency, harming long-term economic growth (Weinstein, Columbia University).*

3. **Making the 2017 Tax Cuts Permanent**:

   - Greater financial benefit to the wealthy, with minimal impact on lower-income groups.

     - *Example: Those in the top 0.1% would receive a $278,240 annual tax cut, while those in the bottom quintile would get only $130 (Tax Policy Center).*

   - Net loss for 80% of the population when combined with the effects of higher consumer prices due to tariffs.

     - *Example: A family in the bottom income quintile could face a net loss of $190 annually after accounting for a $320 increase in costs and a $130 tax cut (Tax Policy Center).*

   - Increased federal budget deficits over the next decade.

     - *Example: Trump’s tax and spending proposals could increase the federal deficit by $4.1 trillion over the next 10 years (Penn Wharton Budget Model).*

4. **Increased White House Influence Over Monetary Policy**:

   - Risk of politically motivated monetary decisions that could harm the economy.

     - *Example: Politically driven monetary policy could lead to inflation, with costs akin to those faced by Argentina, where inflation rates exceeded 50% annually during economic crises (Aaron, Brookings Institution).*

   - Potential for inflation and economic instability, drawing comparisons to historical economic crises in other countries.

     - *Example: The U.S. could experience severe economic instability, potentially resulting in double-digit inflation and high unemployment rates similar to those seen in the 1970s (Aaron, Brookings Institution).*

5. **Cutting Off Federal Funding to Schools with Vaccine or Mask Mandates**:

   - Increased risk of outbreaks of preventable diseases in schools.

     - *Example: Cutting federal funds could lead to a resurgence of diseases like measles, which had a 90% infection rate among unvaccinated individuals exposed during outbreaks (Skocpol, Harvard University).*

   - Potential public health crisis, leading to higher child mortality and disrupted education.

     - *Example: School outbreaks of preventable diseases could result in the deaths of hundreds of children and widespread school closures, disrupting education for millions (Skocpol, Harvard University).*

   - Deepening divisions within communities over public health measures.

     - *Example: Communities could become polarized, with heated conflicts over school health policies leading to social unrest and deteriorating public trust (Skocpol, Harvard University).*

https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2024/3/22/us-demographic-projections-with-and-without-immigration

Reason Magazine is usually wrong and it is in this case, too. People do not want "fewer rights". I don't even think they want to censor views they do not like. Much like they do not actually want to take your gun away, people see that the first and second amendment are dangerous because they enable terrible new capabilities based on modern technology.. 

Polls consistently say that guns with high capacity for murder should be banned. They don't want guns banned, they want the ability to have and use them make sense.

Nobody yet does a poll that asks if anyone should be able to tell lies to tens of millions of people a hundred times a day for free but, if they did, they would find that protecting this is where people think the first amendment goes too far.

They don't want free speech banned but they do not want society to be destroyed by billionaires able to flood the information space and corporations providing the free ability for any asshole to manipulate millions without any consequences.

High capacity guns. Free internet reach to millions. The second amendment in the lunatic view of the 'originalist' Supreme Court has led the way to an absolutist view on the first amendment that is equally dangerous.

And that doesn't even mention the 'freedom of religion' clause that has been interpreted to mean religious people get to use modern institutions and technology to force religion on the rest of us.

https://reason.com/2024/08/03/more-than-half-of-americans-think-the-first-amendment-provides-too-many-rights/