(I'm not sure why but I wrote this in 2022. I found it and want it preserved here. Also, some of it is not quite right. Enjoy.)

You are correct in the idea that the photons that are reflected and not absorbed is what causes us to see color. The idea "what it passes through gives it its color" is not right. The color of a photon is determined by the amount of energy that goes into its creation and it never changes.

Absorption and reflection aren't exactly what they seem to us, though. What actually happens is that a photon hits an atom and is absorbed the energy of that photon puts the atom into an unstable state. This causes the atom to spit out a new photon to get back in balance.

Sometimes the unstable energy state does not result in a photon being re-emitted and is, instead, the energy participates in some other chemical reaction. Sometimes, there is energy left over from that reaction.

That energy is re-emitted. The new photon will have that amount of energy, ie, it will be a new color. The original did not change. It contributed to the creation of a new one.

This is what happens with photosynthesis.

Roughly speaking, chlorophyl molecules in plants absorb the light that hits them. That puts each molecule into an unstable energy state but, instead of re-emitting (reflecting) all of the energy, it keeps part of it by changing in ways that are part of the photosynthesis process. The part that is not used has the amount of energy to re-emit a green photon.

You mention white light as "pure". This is not really correct.

White light is not actually a color of light and it's sort of the opposite of pure. It is always a combination of photons with different energy levels contributing to a sort of illusion created by the chemistry of our eyes.

Our retinas have three chemicals that absorb photons. That means the the energy they absorb with the photon participates in a chemical reaction. That reaction causes nerve signals to our brains that we interpret as color.

Each of the three chemicals responds to photons in a narrow range of energies (which are also, btw, equivalent to wavelength). We call the experience we perceive from those chemicals, red, green and blue.

When all three chemicals absorb roughly the same amount of photons, ie, equal amounts of reg, green and blue, our brain interprets the signal as white light. The photons are not white, there is no such energy level. It is a bunch of different photons that our brains interpret as 'white'.

We cannot see infrared because the chemicals in our eyes do not absorb infrared light in a way that creates a nerve signal. Instead, those photons cause the molecules to vibrate in a way that we interpret as heat. That's why warming lamps in restaurants shine infrared on the food.

Sorry to go on so long but I find this all so fascinating.

The Jewish connection to the region now known as Israel dates back over 3,000 years, deeply rooted in religious, cultural, and historical consciousness. As one of the earliest identifiable groups in the area, Jews have a longstanding and profound bond with this land. Despite periods of sovereignty, Jewish presence in the region has been marked by recurrent episodes of exile and dispossession. Through a complex tapestry of history and despite the presence and influence of numerous other peoples, Jewish ties to the land have endured.

1. Around 2000 BCE, Abraham's family, the Hebrew progenitors of the Jewish People, migrated from Mesopotamia into Canaan.

2. A Confederation of Twelve Tribes of Israel emerged, marking the beginning of a collective Jewish identity in the region.

3. The united Kingdom of Israel was established, later dividing into the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, reflecting a significant period of Jewish sovereignty.

4. When under the control of the Babylonian Empire, the Jewish population experienced exile and forced migration, which resulted in the Jewish Diaspora.

5. During the Persian Empire, Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem and rebuild their temple, reinforcing their spiritual connection to the land.

6. Under the empires of Alexander the Great, the Hellenistic Seleucid Empire, and later the Roman Empire, Jewish life in the region varied from periods of relative autonomy to direct control and repression, yet Jewish presence and culture persisted.

7. Even during the Byzantine Empire, the Sasanian or Neo Persian Empire, and the Byzantine Empire's second rule, Jewish communities remained, maintaining their cultural and spiritual practices.

8. Throughout the control of the Umayyad, Fatimid, Ayyubid, Mamluk, and Ottoman Empires, Jewish communities continued to live in the region, sometimes experiencing periods of prosperity and other times facing persecution.

9. Under the Frankish and Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem during the Crusades, the Jewish population faced significant hardships but maintained a continuous presence.

10. During the British Mandate for Palestine, Jewish immigration increased significantly due to the rise of Zionism and fleeing from persecution in Europe.

11. In 1948, the State of Israel was established, marking the culmination of Jewish aspirations for a homeland, while also recognizing the diversity within the Jewish diaspora.

The original UN partition plan establishing the State of Israel in 1948 aimed to establish both a Jewish and an Arab state, was accepted by Jewish leaders but rejected by Arab leaders, leading to a war and the complex, unresolved situation that continues today. Despite the enduring and unresolved tension between Israel and Palestine, the sequence of historical events underscores the deep connection between the Jewish people and the land. 

Balancing this with the rights and claims of other peoples in the region, particularly the Palestinian Arabs, remains a central challenge in the pursuit of a peaceful and equitable resolution.

Postscript:

Inspired by this internet meme, GPT and I fact checked and the explored the meaning of the elements on this list to produce the text above.

There Has Never Been a State of Palestine

Version 2.0

Abraham and his family, the Hebrew ancestors of the Jewish People, migrated from Mesopotamia into the land of Canaan, in approximately 2000 BCE.

Next there was the Confederation of Twelve Tribes of Israel

Next there was the Kingdom of Israel

Next there was the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah

Next there was the Babylonian Empire

Next there was the Persian Empire

Next there was the Empire of Alexander the Great

Next there was the Hellenistic Seleucid Empire

Next there was the Jewish Hasmonean Dynasty

Next there was the Roman Empire. In 135 CE, to erase memory of the Jews, Romans renamed the land "Palestine" after an ancient enemy of the Jews - a people of Greek origin called the Philistines.

Next there was the Byzantine Empire

Next there was the Sasanian or Neo Persian Empire

Next there was the Byzantine Empire, again

Next there was the Umayyad and Fatimid Empires

Next there was the Frankish and Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem

Next there was the Ayyubid Dynasty

Next there was the Mamluk Sultanate

Next there was the Ottoman Empire

Next there was the British Mandate for Palestine. Britain reused the

name Palestine when given authority over the land in 1920, after WWI.

Next there was the Rebirth of Israel. Jews went back home to join those already there, to rebuild their homeland and establish the modern State of Israel in 1948 CE.

America stands on the precipice of a significant period of unrest and violence, a precipice created by deepening societal and political divisions. These divisions echo the fragmentation of Yugoslavia in the 1990s and the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, both of which led to large-scale violence and displacement. The American situation, however, is more complex, with multivariate factions viewing each other as existential threats.

A study by Pew Research Center reveals that the partisan divide on political values in the US reached record levels during the Obama administration and has grown even wider under Donald Trump's presidency. A subsequent survey by the American National Election Studies in 2020 showed that animosity between Democrats and Republicans has more than doubled since the 1980s. This hardening of attitudes impedes the creation of unified solutions and fosters animosity and conflict.

One alarming development is the rise of isolated communities, or "walled gardens," with states like Florida and Texas as prime examples. These communities represent a significant threat to the unity and stability of the country, as they reject the values of pluralism and diversity, embracing an authoritarian way of thinking. Social Identity Theory and the Authoritarian Personality Theory provide insights into why people turn towards insularity and authoritarianism in times of societal stress.

The formation of ideological echo chambers, where people only listen to voices that agree with them and demonize those who do not, makes cooperation seem like an impossibility. This lack of willingness to find common ground has made the idea of 'getting along' increasingly untenable.

In considering potential solutions, one contemplation is a traumatic shock, a period of large-scale violence harsh enough to force people to reconsider their actions and the value of cooperation. However, the cost of such a traumatic event is unthinkable. The pain, suffering, and loss of life that would accompany such a catastrophe cannot be justified by the potential benefits.

Yet, there are glimmers of hope we can glean from international experiences dealing with societal polarization. The Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland in 1998 led to shared power between Unionists and Nationalists and largely ended decades of sectarian violence. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa after the end of apartheid provides another example of confronting past human rights abuses to create a path for reconciliation.

So, we arrive at the crux of the matter. America is at a crossroads. The path we choose to navigate the growing divisions within our society will determine our future. The challenges are immense, but they must be faced head-on. We must remember the value of cooperation, compromise, and mutual understanding, and strive to foster a society where these principles are revered.

And yet, we must not shy away from voicing our outrage. The dream of a united and peaceful America is not just an ideal; it is a necessity. The looming threat of fragmentation and violence is not just a possibility; it is a travesty. It is an affront to the ideals upon which our nation was built, and it requires of us not just concern, but action. It demands not just reflection, but resolve. The time for complacency has passed. The time for change is now. For the sake of our nation’s future, we must unite, we must mend, we must heal.

The prolific theological work of St. Thomas Aquinas represents the pinnacle of medieval Catholic thought, but the evolution of doctrine owes itself to many figures across centuries of vigorous intellectual debate.

St. Thomas Aquinas stands as one of the towering intellectual figures of the Catholic Church. His prolific writings, especially the masterful Summa Theologica, organized and synthesized Catholic doctrine using Aristotelian philosophy in ways that deeply shaped theology and philosophy in the Church. Indeed, Aquinas' impact on Catholic thought deserves the honorific title "Doctor of the Church" bestowed upon him. However, it would be an overstatement to claim Aquinas was solely or even primarily responsible for defining Catholic dogma and philosophy. The evolution of Catholic doctrine owes itself to many figures and currents across the centuries, with Aquinas providing a crowning synthesis that built upon earlier foundations. 

To understand Aquinas' monumental, but not solitary, significance, we must situate him in the broader trajectories of Catholic intellectual history. The incorporation of Greco-Roman philosophy into Christian theology stretches back to the early Church Fathers. Augustine in the 5th century drew deeply on Neoplatonist ideas to elucidate doctrines like the nature of the Trinity and original sin. Boethius in the 6th century worked to translate Aristotle's logic and explore its relationship with theology. In the 11th and 12th centuries, the growing cathedral schools and then universities reintroduced Aristotelian philosophy to the Latin West via translations from Islamic and Jewish thinkers. renewed rigor in dialectic, metaphysics, ethics and more as scholars sought to apply reason to questions of faith.

This flowering of Catholic philosophy provided the backdrop for Aquinas' lifetime in the 13th century. The recently rediscovered theories of Aristotle offered new tools of logic, categories of thought, and general insights about nature, humanity and ethics that Catholic thinkers recognized could serve theology. Aquinas proved unmatched in his ability to systematically incorporate Aristotelian philosophy within orthodox Christian doctrine. The Summa Theologica applies Aristotelian logic, metaphysics and ethics to intricate questions about God, Christ, salvation, virtue and more. Aquinas' commentaries on earlier philosophers also shaped later interpretation of their ideas. 

However, while Aquinas creatively synthesized Aristotle and Catholic theology, he did not pioneer this integration. Augustine had already synthesized Neoplatonism and Christian thought centuries earlier. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th century formulated the famous ontological argument and began applying Aristotelian logic to theological questions before Aquinas. Peter Abelard introduced Sic et Non which highlighted apparent contradictions between authorities and the need for dialectic. Muslim philosophers like Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes) tried incorporating Aristotle into Islamic theology in ways that influenced medieval Christian thought. Earlier in the 13th century, Albertus Magnus also made strides in Aristotelian philosophy and science that set the stage for his student Aquinas. 

So while Aquinas excelled at weaving Aristotelian philosophy into Catholic doctrine, earlier Christian, Muslim and Jewish thinkers pioneered this integration before him. The university environment of Paris and Cologne provided a vibrant intellectual culture that profoundly shaped his ideas as well. It was the flowering of medieval philosophy across cultures that allowed Aquinas' synthesis to take root.

Secondly, Aquinas' theological positions, while highly influential, often represented the culmination of extensive earlier debates rather than a radically new perspective. Core doctrines like Christ's incarnation, the Trinity, transubstantiation and original sin had been explored for centuries before Aquinas treated them through his Aristotelian lens. For instance, mystery of Christ's simultaneous divinity and humanity had been discussed since the early Church, with definitive formulations appearing at the Council of Nicaea in 325 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Augustine and later Anselm extensively explored the doctrine of original sin and ideas of atonement. 

On the doctrine of transubstantiation, the eucharistic presence of Christ's body and blood in the bread and wine, debates trace back to the 9th century mystic Radbertus with extensive developments by other theologians. Aquinas' treatment represents the orthodox position cemented at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. But he was not breaking entirely new ground. 

While Aquinas brought tremendous rigor, clarity and depth to existing doctrines, earlier theologians had extensively mapped many central issues of Catholic thought. Aquinas provided a masterful summit to centuries of preceding debate, but should not be viewed as solely responsible for these dogmas.

Thirdly, Aquinas' theology, while profoundly influential across so much of Catholicism, did not represent the final word even within his lifetime. Fellow medieval philosophers and theologians such as John Duns Scotus and William of Ockham would critiques, modify and expand upon Aquinas' perspectives in the following decades. The Franciscans developed alternative schools of thought not entirely derived from Aquinas. Within Aquinas' own Dominican order, many future thinkers tried modifying and extending his philosophy as well.

This ongoing ferment of medieval philosophy underscores how even Aquinas' brilliant syntheses marked milestones amid a living tradition continuously debated. Aquinas towered over 13th century thought but did not stand alone or bring an end to discussion.

In fact, some of Aquinas' views would eventually be rejected by the Church, such as his opinion that Mary was conceived with original sin. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception affirmed in 1854 adopted Duns Scotus' position of Mary's sinless origins instead. Aquinas, while clearly the greatest medieval Catholic thinker, did not have the final or only say among his peers. 

Therefore, while St. Thomas Aquinas may deserve the title of the Catholic Church's premier theologian and philosopher for his monumental work, especially the Summa, it would be a significant overstatement to suggest he was solely or even primarily responsible for defining Catholic dogma and philosophy. Christian thinkers before and after Aquinas played irreplaceable roles in developing Catholic doctrine. Aquinas built upon patristic authors such as Augustine who had already integrated non-Christian philosophies like Neoplatonism and paved the way for applying systematic reason. The flowering of medieval philosophy from multiple cultural sources allowed Aquinas' attempted synthesis to thrive.

Aquinas brought tremendous analytical rigor and clarity to existing doctrines and debates that had already occupied the Church for centuries. His brilliance was not in inventing entirely new positions but providing systematic explanations using the latest philosophy of his day. Yet fellow medieval thinkers contested and amended aspects of Aquinas’ perspectives from the start, showing the ongoing evolution of Catholic thought. 

St. Thomas Aquinas earned his exalted status in Catholic intellectual history through his unparalleled ability to synthesize the height of medieval philosophy with Christian theology. However, this crowning achievement occurred against a backdrop of continuous debate within a faith tradition already centuries old. The shaping of Catholic dogma and philosophy owes itself to many figures across the tradition. Aquinas signals a pinnacle of medieval Catholic thought, not its sole genesis. His towering synthesis built upon earlier foundations and kicked off later developments in the continuous unfolding of Catholic doctrine.

NOTE: This essay was written entirely by Anthropic's Claude large language model according to a chain of prompt strategy that I devised. I did not change a single letter. Here is the prompting plan:

User Input: St Thomas was almost solely responsible for the definition of Catholic dogma and philosophy

Thinker Quartz: What sort of person should I ask to write an essay responding to this query: "<!human input!>? Please supply exactly one description of a candidate.

Thinker Apple: I want to invite three people to discuss this topic: "<!human input!>". I want you to figure out who I should invite, better, I want you to suggest the academic, professional or other discernable category of knowledge and experience that would help provide a well rounded discussion. Tell me about each of them.

-----

Thinker Star[1-n]: You are to contribute facts and ideas to the development of an essay answering the inquiry "<!human input!>". In a list form, produce several ideas that are very specific to your perspective as a <!Apple.n!>. These should be succinct ideas that contribute to further discussion, not a final answer.

-----

Thinker Ocean[1-n]

We are working a a response to this idea "<!user input!>", asked about it, other people said that these are important ideas to consider:

<!Star.X!>

<!Star.Y!>

Following is the suggestion you suggested:

<!Star.Z!>

Consider the other ideas and see if they can make any contribution to the clarity, correctness or creativity of your ideas. Please make sure that the ideas still represent your viewpoint from the perspective of a <!Apple.Z!>.

-----

Thinker Harmony

We are working on a response to the inquiry "<!human input!>".

Reasearch and discussion has provided the following ideas.

<!Ocean.X!>

<!Ocean.Y!>

<!Ocean.Z!>

You are a <!Quartz!> with excellent writing skills, subtle use of language and the ability to communicate well on all sorts of topics, especially those within your specialty. Your readers will be well educated and sophisticated adults who do not have much prior experience with this topic. Write a one thousand word essay.

After it is written, please check the word count carefully and make sure it is about one thousand words. If it is the wrong length, rewrite it and give me a version that is the correct length. Revise the essay as many times as needed to reach the required length, plus or minus a little bit.

-----

Thinker Blaze

Following is an essay responding to the topic "<!human input!>". 

Here is the essay.

<!Harmony!>

Identify any errors and unsubtantiated assertions in a list.

-----

Thinker Whisper

Following is an essay responding to the topic "<!human input!>". 

Here is the essay.

<!Harmony!>

Others have reviewed the essay and find the following problems.

<!Blaze!>

You are a smart editor with excellent grammar and linguistic clarity. Rewrite the essay, keeping it about the same length, to solve the problems listed while also making sure it is easily understandable by it audience of well educated and sophisticated adults who do not have much prior experience with this topic.

-----

Thinker Falcon

Responding to the inquiry, "<!human input!>, the following essay has been written.

<!Whisper!>

Please make up a headline title and two sentence subtitle for a magazine article.

-----

YouTube Link

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIPT

SEPTEMBER 28, 2023

Remarks by President Biden Honoring the Legacy of Senator John McCain and the Work We Must Do Together to Strengthen Our Democracy

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, thank you. Please — please, sit down. Thank you.

I’m going to put a little bit more meat on that bone — that last one. (Laughter.)

John and I used to travel together. When John got back from all the time in Vietnam in prison — when he was released, he decided he wanted to go back to stay in the military. And he was assigned to the United States Senate and to the military office there that travels with senators when they travel abroad.

And John and I put in a couple hundred thousand miles together. And on our way to — I think I was going to either China — I forget what the destination was — China, I think. And we stopped in — we stopped in Hawaii. And the — the Chief Naval — of Operations was there showing me around. They did an event for me.

And John kept looking at your mom. Oh, I’m serious. (Laughter.) And he said, “My God, she’s beautiful.” (Laughter.) I said — and I said, “Yeah, she is, John.” And I said, “Well, you to go up and say hi to her.” He said, “No, no, no, no, no, no.” (Laughter.) “I’m not going to do that.”

Well, as your mom come — I won’t go into more detail, but I’ll tell you: I insisted that they meet. (Laughter.) And I take credit. I take credit for you guys. (Laughter and applause.)

And I just told your mom: John and I had something in common, we both married way above our station — (laughter) — way above our station.

Cindy — or I should call you Madam Ambassador — thank you for all you’ve done, all you do, you continue to do. Jack and Bridget, the entire McCain family, and to all those who love the McCain family. (Applause.)

Oh, I didn’t see all up there. (Applause.) Whoa! Don’t jump. Don’t jump. (Laughter.)

Well, I tell you what, it’s an honor to be with you. It’s a genuine honor.

Governor Hobbs, you’ve done an incredible job. You’ve been a leader and defender of democracy. And you’ve always been available when I’ve called, and I hope I’ve been available when you called as well.

Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests — (applause) — in the end, John McCain thought about the beginning. Five years ago, as John was dying from brain cancer, John wrote a farell- — a farewell letter to the nation that he said — that he served so well in both war and in peace.

His words tracked back centuries to America’s founding and then toward a triumphant future. Here’s what John wrote, and I quote, “We are citizens of the world — the world’s greatest republic. A nation of ideals, not blood and soil. Americans never quit. They never hide from history. America makes history.”

And John was right. Every other per- — every other nation in the world has been founded on either a grouping by ethnicity, religion, background. We’re the most unique nation in the world. We’re founded on an idea — the only major nation in the world founded on an idea. An idea that we are all created equal, endowed by our Cr- — in the image of God, endowed by our Creator to be — to be able to be treated equally throughout our lives.

We’ve never fully lived up to that idea, but we’ve never walked away from it. But there’s danger we’re walking too far away from it now, the way we talk in this deba- — in this country. Because a long line of patriots from — like John McCain kept it from ever becoming something other than what it is.

I often think about our friendship of 40 years. The hammer-and-tong debates we’d have in the Senate. We’d argue — we were like two brothers. We’d argue like hell. (Laughs.) I mean really go at one another. Then we’d go lunch together. (Laughter.) No, not a joke. Or John would ride home with me. I mean, we — we traveled the world together.

And, by the way, when he found this magnificent woman and got married, I’m the guy that convinced him to run in Arizona as a Republican. Bless me, Father, for — (makes the sign of the cross). (Laughter and applause.) No, but it’s — you’ve got to admit, Cindy, I did. I talked to him, and I said, “John, you can do this job. My only worry is you’ll do it too well.” (Laughter.)

But, look, running on opposite sides of the nation’s highest office when — when he was running for president and I was on the vice presidential ticket — we still remained friends.

The conversations we had — he had with my son, Beau — the attorney general of the state of Delaware, a decorated major in the U.S. Army, was a guy who spent a year in Iraq — about serving in a war overseas, about the courage in battle against the same cancer that took John and my son.

Two weeks ago, I thought about John as I was standing in another part of the world — in Vietnam. I don’t want to be — I — excuse me if I — it was an emotional trip.

I was there to usher in a 50-year arc of progress for the two countries, pushed by John and, I might add, another John — this is the former Secretary of State, John from Massachusetts, won the Silver Star as well.

Once at war, we are now choosing the highest possible partnership, made possible through John’s leadership. I mean that sincerely. Think about it.

While in Hanoi, I visited a marker depicting where John — what John — where John had endured all the pain. Imprisoned five and a half years. Solitary confinement for two years. Given an opportunity — an opportunity to come home if he just said a couple things. He was beaten, bloodied, bones broken, isolated, tortured, left unable to raise his arms above his shoulders again.

As I stood there paying my respects, I thought about how much I missed my friend. And it’s not hyperbole. I — from the bottom of my heart, I mean this.

I thought about something else as well. I thought about how much America missed John right now, how much America needed John’s courage and foresight and vision. I thought about what John stood for, what he fought for, what he was willing to die for. I thought about what we owed John, what I owed him, and what we owe each other — we owe each other — we owed each other as well — and Americans as well.

You see, John is one of those patriots who, when they die, their voices are never silent. They still speak to us. They tug at both our hearts and our conscience.

And they pose the most profound questions: Who are we? What do we stand for? What do we believe? What will we be?

For John, it was country first. Sounds like a — like a movie, but it’s real with John: honor, duty, decency, freedom, liberty, democracy.

And now, history has brought us to a new time of testing. Very few of us will ever be asked to endure what John McCain endured. But all of us are being asked right now: What will we do to maintain our democracy? Will we, as John wrote, never quit? Will we not hide from history, but make history? Will we put partisanship aside and put country first?

I say we must and we will. We will. (Applause.)

But it’s not easy. It’s not easy.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: When will you stand against corruption, Mr. President?

AUDIENCE: Booo —

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Sit down!

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible) ask why you have yet to declare a climate emergency? Why have you yet to declare a climate emergency? Hundred of Arizonians have died!

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Sit down!

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hundreds of Arizonians have died because you won’t —

THE PRESIDENT: Why don’t you wait at —

(Cross-talk.)

Well, hang on one second. Hang on a second. I’ll be happy to meet with you after I speak, okay?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: You promised no new drilling on fossil fuels. Why have you yet to declare a climate emergency? Not (inaudible) —

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Sit down!

AUDIENCE MEMBER: We need your leadership, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I tell you what, if you shush up, I’ll meet with you immediately after this. Okay? (Applause.)

But democracy never is easy, as we just demonstrated. (Laughter.) The cause — the cause is worth giving our all, for democracy makes all things possible.

Let me begin with the core principles. Democracy means rule of the people, not rule of monarchs, not rule of the monied, not rule of the mighty. Regardless of party, that means respecting free and fair elections; accepting the outcome, win or lose. (Applause.) It means you can’t love your country only when you win. (Applause.)

Democracy means rejecting and repudiating political violence. Regardless of party, such violence is never, never, never acceptable in America. (Applause.) It’s undemocratic, and it must never be normalized to advance political power.

And democracy means respecting the institutions that govern a free society. That means adhering to the timeless words of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” A mission statement embodied in our Constitution, our system of separation of powers and checks and balances.

Our Constitution — the bulwark to prevent the abuse of power to ensure “We the People” move forward together under the law, rather than believing the only way is one way or no way at all.

But our institutions and our democracy are not just of gov- — of government. The institutions of democracy depend on the Constitution and our character — our character and the habits of our hearts and minds.

Institutions like the McCain Institute and the new McCain Library that will be built at Arizona State University with the funding from the American Rescue Plan, which I signed into law when I came to office. (Applause.) A library that’s going to house John’s archives, host dialogue and debate, inspire future leaders around the world, to serve tens of thousands underserved Arizonans as a reminder of our obligation to one another.

These principles of democracy are essential in a free society, but they have always been embattled.

Today, let’s be clear. While we’ve made progress, democracy is still at risk. This is not hyperbole; it’s a simple truth — a simple truth.

I’ve made the defense and protection and preservation of American democracy the central issue of my presidency. From the speech I made at Gettysburg, an Inaugural Address, to the anniversary of the June 6th insurrection — or January 6th insurrection, to Independence Hall in Philadelphia — to the speech I made at Union Station in Washington, I’ve spoken about the danger of election denialism, political violence, and the battle for the soul of America.

Today, in America [Arizona], to honor an institution devoted to the defense of democracy, named in honor of a true patriot, I’m here to speak about another threat to our democracy that we all too often ignore: the threat to our political institutions, to our Constitution itself, and the very character of our nation.

Democracy is maintained by adhering to the Constitution and the march to perfecting our union —

(A toddler in the audience babbles.)

THE PRESIDENT: — by protecting and expanding rights with each successive generation, including that little guy. He’s going to talk about it. (Laughter.)

That’s okay. In my house, kids prevail. Okay? (Laughter.)

This adherence isn’t op- — this isn’t optional. We can’t be situational. We can’t be only going there when it’s good for yourself. It’s constant and unyielding, even when it’s easy and, most important, when it’s hard.

For centuries, the American Constitution has been a model for the world, with other countries adopting “We the People” as their North Star as well. But as we know, we know how damaged our institutions of democracy — the judiciary, the legislature, the executive — have become — become in the eyes of the American people, even the world, from attacks from within the past few years.

I know virtually every major world leader. That’s what I did when I was a senator, as vice president, and now. Everywhere I go in the world — I’ve met now with over a hundred heads of state of the nations of the world — everywhere I go, they look and they ask the question, “Is it going to be okay?”

Think about this: The first meeting I attended of the G7 — the seven wealthiest nations in the world — in Europe, the NATO meeting, I sat down — it was in Feb- — Feb- — January, after being elected — so, late Janu- — early February — and it was in England. And I sat down, and I said, “America is back.” And Macron looked at me, and he said, “Mr. President, for how long — for how long?”

And then, the Chancellor of Germany said, “Mr. President, what would you think if you picked up the paper tomorrow — tomorrow, the London Times — and it said a thousand people broke down the doors of Parliament, marched, and killed two bobbies in order to overthrow an election of the new prime minister? What would you think then? What would America think?”

What would we think, the leading nation in the world, having gone through what we went through?

And many of you travel internationally. Many of you know people from around the world. I’d be surprised if you heard anything different than the concern about: Are we okay? Is the democracy going to be sustained?

And from that institutional damage, we see distrust and division among our own people.

I’m here to tell you: We lose these institutions of our government at our own peril. And I’ve always been clear: Democracy is not a partisan issue. It’s an American issue.

I have come to honor the McCain Institute and Library because they are a home of a proud Republican who put his country first. Our commitment should be no less because democracy should unite all Americans, regardless of political affiliation.

And there is something dangerous happening in America now. There is an extremist movement that does not share the basic beliefs in our democracy: the MAGA Movement.

Not every Republican, not even a majority of Republicans, adhere to the MAGA extremist ideology. I know because I’ve been able to work with Republicans my whole career. But there is no question that today’s Republican Party is driven and intimidated by MAGA Republican extremists. Their extreme agenda, if carried out, would fundamentally alter the institutions of American democracy as we know it.

My friends, they’re not hiding their attacks. They’re openly promoting them — attacking the free press as the enemy of the people, attacking the rule of law as an impediment, fomenting voter suppression and election subversion.

Did you ever think we’d be having debates in the year — stage of your careers where banning books — banning books and burying history?

Extremists in Congress — more determined to shut down the government, to burn the place down than to let the people’s business be done.

Our U.S. military — and this in not hyperbole; I’ve said it for the last two years — is the strongest military in the history of the world. Not just the strongest in the world — in the history of the world. It’s the most diverse, the most powerful in the history of the world. And it’s being accused of being weak and “woke” by the opposition.

One guy in Alabama is holding up the promotion of every — hundreds of these officers.

Frankly, these extremists have no idea what the hell they’re talking about. (Laughter.) No, I’m serious.

They’re pushing a notion the defeated former President expressed when he was in office and believes applies only to him. And this is a dangerous notion: This president is above the law, with no limits on power.

Trump says the Constitution gave him, quote, “the right to do whatever he wants as President,” end of quote. I’ve never even heard a president say that in jest. Not guided by the Constitution or by common service and decency toward our fellow Americans but by vengeance and vindictiveness.

We see the headlines. Quote, “sweeping expansion of presidential power.” Their goal to, quote, “alter the balance of power by increasing the President’s authority over every part of the federal government,” end of quote.

What do they intend to do once they erode the constitutional order of checks and balances and separation of powers? Limit the independence of federal agencies and put them under the thumb of a president? Give the President the power to refuse to spend money that Congress has appropriated if he doesn’t like what it’s being spent for? Not veto — he doesn’t like what it’s being spent for — it’s there. Get rid of longstanding protections for civil servants?

Remember what he did as he was leaving office: He imposed a new thing, the Civil Service — but then he imposed a new pro- — schedule. “Schedule F,” it was called. These civil servants had to pledge loyalty to the President, not the Constitution. It did not require that they had any protections, and the President would be able to wholesale fire them if he wanted, because they had no so- — no — no Civil Service protection. One of the first things I got rid of when I became President.

Just consider these as actual quotes from MAGA — the MAGA movement. Quote, “I am your retribution.” “Slitting throats” of civil servants, replacing them with extreme political cronies. MAGA extremists proclaim support for law enforcement only to say, “We…” — quote, “We must destroy the FBI.”

It’s not one person. It’s the controlling element of the House Republican Party.

Whitewash attacks of January 6th by calling the spearing and stomping of police a leg- — quote, a “legitimate political discourse.”

Did you ever think you’d hear leaders of political parties in the United States of America speak like that? Seizing power, concentrating power, attempting to abuse power, purging and packing key institutions, spewing conspiracy theories, spreading lies for profit and power to divide America in every way, inciting violence against those who risk their lives to keep America safe, weaponizing against the very soul of who we are as Americans.

This MAGA threat is the threat to the brick and mortar of our democratic institutions. But it’s also a threat to the character of our nation and gives our — that gives our Constitution life, that binds us together as Americans in common cause.

None of this is surprising, though. They’ve tried to govern that way before. And thank God, they failed.

But they haven’t given up. Just look at recent days: their accusations against — of treason — treason against the major new net- — news network because they don’t like its coverage. I don’t know what the hell I’d say about Fox if that becomes the rule. (Laughter.)

But think about it. I’m joking, but think about it.

Tomorrow, I have the honor of overseeing the change of responsibilities of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States military from one genuine hero and patriot, General Mark Milley, to another, General CQ Brown — both — both defining leaders of our time.

And yet, here is what you hear from MAGA extremists about the retiring patriot general honoring his oath to the Constitution: quote, he’s “a traitor,” end of quote. “In times gone by, the punishment…” — quote, “In times gone by, the punishment would’ve been death,” end of quote.

This is the United States of America. This is the United States of America.

And although I don’t believe even a majority of Republicans think that, the silence is deafening. The silence is deafening.

Hardly any Republican called out such heinous statements, just as they watch one MAGA senator outrageously — instead, blocking the promotions of hundreds of top military leaders and affecting not only those leaders but their families, their children.

MAGA extremists claim support of our troops, but they are harming military readiness, leadership, troop morale, freezing pay, freezing military families in limbo.

Just as they looked the other way when the defeated former President refused to pay respects at an American cemetery near Paris, referring to the American servicemen buried there — and I’ve been to this cemetery — as “suckers” and “losers,” quotes.

I’m not making this up. I know we all tried not to remember it, but that’s what he said. He called servicemen “suckers” and “losers.”

Was John a sucker? Was my son, Beau, who lived next to a burn pit for a year, came home, and died — was he a sucker for volunteering to serve his country?

The same guy who denigrates the heroism of John McCain. It’s not only wrong, it’s un-American. But it never changes.

The MAGA extremists across the country have made it clear where they stand. So, the challenge for the rest of America — for the majority of Americans is to make clear where we stand.

Do we still believe in the Constitution? Do we believe in the basic decency and respect? The whole country should honestly ask itself — and I mean this sincerely — what it wants and understand the threats to our democracy.

I believe very strongly that the defining feature of our democracy is our Constitution.

I believe in the separation of powers and checks and balances, that debate and disagreement do not lead to disunion.

I believe in free and fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power.

I believe there is no place in America — none, none, none — for political violence. We have to denounce hate, not embolden it.

Across the aisle, across the country, I see fellow Americans, not mortal enemies. We’re a great nation because we’re a good people who believe in honor, decency, and respect.

I was able to get the infrastructure bill passed. It’s over a trillion dollars. The majority of it so far has gone to red states who didn’t vote for me. Because I represent all — no, I’m serious. I represent all Americans. (Applause.) Wherever the need is.

And I believe every president should be a president for all Americans. To use the Office of the President to unite the nation, uphold the duty to care for all Americans.

I’ve tried my very best, and I’m sure I haven’t met the test of every — all of you want me to meet. But I tried to do my very best to meet the highest standards, whether you voted for me or not. Because that’s the job: to de- — deliver light, not heat; to make sure democracy delivers for everyone; to know we’re a nation of unlimited possibilities, of wisdom and decency — a nation focused on the future.

I’ve spent more time with Xi Jinpin [sic] than any world — -ping — than any world leader has. Sixty-eight hours alone with just he and I and an interpreter. Traveled 17,000 miles with him here and in China. On the Tibetan Plateau, he turned to me and he asked me — he said, “Can you define America for me?” And I was deadly earnest. I said, “Yes. In one word: possibilities.”

We, in America, believe anything is possible if we try it. Anything we do together, we can get done.

We’ve faced some tough times in recent years, and I am proud of the progress we made as a country. But the real credit doesn’t go to me and my administration for the progress — for this progress. The real heroes of the story are you, the American people. And that’s not hyperbole again.

Which is why I’m asking you that regardless of whether you’re a Democrat, Republican, or independent, put the preservation of our democracy before everything else. Put our country first.

Over the past few years, we can and should be proud of American democracy, proud of what we’ve been able to hold on to. We can’t take democracy for granted.

Remember when you were in high school and college, if you took political science, they said every generation has to protect democracy. I used to think that that was just a saying. But here I am, as President of the United States of America, making this speech about my fear of the diminishment of democracy.

Folks, every generation has to be vigilant.

You know, toward the end of my Senate campaign, I convinced Strom Thurmond to vote for the Civil Rights legislation — not a joke — and I thought, “Well, you can — you can defeat hate.”

You can’t defeat it. You just bury it. But when someone comes along and lifts up the rock and breathes a little oxygen in there, it comes roaring back. It comes roaring back.

We should all remember: Democracies don’t have to die at the end of a rifle. They can die when people are silent, when they fail to stand up or condemn the threats to democracy, when people are willing to give away that which is most precious to them because they feel frustrated, disillusioned, tired, alienated. I get it. I really do. I get it.

For all its faults, though, American democracy remains the best pass [path] forward to prosperity, possibilities, progress, fair play, equality.

And democracy requires all of us in all of the major parties. You matter. And, again, I’m not just trying to be nice here. You matter — all of you in this auditorium — because history and common sense tell us that we can change things by adhering to our Constitution and our institutions of democracy.

Our task — our sacred task of our time is to make sure that they change not for the worse, but for the better. That democracy survives and thrives, not be spa- — smashed by a movement more interested in power than in principle. It’s up to us, the American people.

In my view, the more people vote, the more engaged the whole nation becomes, the stronger our democracy will be.

So, the answer to the threats we face is engagement. It’s not to sit in the sidelines; it’s to build coalitions and community, to remind ourselves there is a clear majority of us who believe in our democracy and are ready to protect it.

To the students here today and the young people across country, you’re the reason I’m so optimistic.

I know I don’t look it, but I’ve been doing this for a long time. (Laughter.)

But all kidding aside, I’ve never been more optimistic about America’s chances in domestic and foreign policy as I am today. I really mean it. To see young people — a hundred thousand students at this university and all across America — they are the most gifted, the most tolerant, the most talented, and the best-educated generation in American history.

And it’s your generation, more than anyone else’s, who will answer the questions — the legitimate questions the young man asked me a moment ago — who I’m going to meet with — questions for America: Who are we? What do we stand for? What do we believe? Who will we be?

It’s not your burden alone, but your generation will not be ignored, will not be shunned, will not be silenced.

I’ve said it before: We’re at an inflection point in our history. One of those moments that not only happens once every several generations, it happens once every eight or nine generations, where the decisions made in the short period of time we’re in now are going to determine the course of this country and the world for the next six or seven decades.

So, you, me, every American who is committed to preserving our democracy and our constitutional protections, we carry a special responsibility. We have to stand up for American values embedded in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, because we know the MAGA extremists have already proven they won’t.

You know, Madeleine Albright wrote a book — the former Secretary of State — saying we’re the “essential nation.” We are. And I think you’ve fe- — sensed it abroad, Cindy, haven’t you? Any room I walk in and no matter what heads of state I’m with, everything stops. Not because of Joe Biden, but because I’m President of the United States of America.

We are the essential nation. We are the essential nation. The rest of the world is looking, so we have to stand up for our Constitution, our institutions of democracy, because MAGA extremists have made it clear they’re not going to.

History is watching. The world is watching. And most important, our children and grandchildren will hold us responsible.

So, let me close with this. In three years, we’ll commemorate the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence — a moment not only about our past, celebrating all we’ve done, but a moment about the future, about all we can be — still be.

Imagine that moment and ask: What do we want to be? Now is our time to continue to choose and secure a sacred cause of the American democracy.

I know we can meet this moment. John knew we could meet this moment. He believed, as so many patriots before him did, that character [is] destiny in our own lives and the life of this nation. He believed in us.

That’s what we see in the McCain Institute and Library and everyday places across America doing extraordinary things. And remember that the soul of America depends on the souls of all Americans — how we choose to see our nation, how we choose to see ourselves, how we choose to lead not only by the example of our power but by the power of our example.

So, let’s never quit. Let’s never hide from history. Let’s make history.

If we do that, we’ll be — have done our duty to our country and to each other. Future generations will say we kept the faith.

We’ll have proved, through all its imperfections, America is still a place of possibilities, a beacon for the world, a promise realized — where the power forever resides with “We the People.”

That’s our soul. That’s who we truly are. That’s who we must always be.

And that’s why I’ve never been more optimistic about America’s future. We just need to remember who we are.

We are the United States of America. There is nothing — nothing beyond our capacity when we act together.

Well, God bless you all.

May God bless John McCain and his family. And may God protect our troops. Thank you. (Applause.)

I think this is an especially good characterization, 

“And one interesting thing about the Republican party is, it is entirely captured by fascism, that is to say it is a popular political movement organized around a cult of personality, and mediated through an open and explicit reverence for violence as a redeeming force, and by a nationalist myth of purification.”

... 

And I think this is the right response,

"I think we need to persuade them that the margins of permission have snapped back, and let them know if you do this, you are going to have to fight—not because we want a fight, but because we won’t stand by and watch a beating."

https://armoxon.substack.com/p/youve-persuaded-us-already?fbclid=IwAR1A6OWm4rvMCUS6j--mqMQHllpp5yBuEQy1yBgoOhMn9eAEcROtq0d0lG8

Do I still have any friends here who are not well-to-do? Perhaps with some consumer debt that is in default? Who might, once in awhile, hear from a debt collector? Well, this is a topic that interests me, partly because I had a go with this problem several years ago. I beat it because I had a lawyer friend who told me a couple of key things that are strongly confirmed by this article, which has a few things that were not pertinent to me back then.

I read most of the Dobbs decision, enough to judge it. The Supreme Court is not entirely wrong. Abortion has long been considered a crime. Roe v Wade was, I think, judicial activism. Respect for precedent only goes so far. Eg, Plessy v. Ferguson was an insanely wrong decision that made racial segregation legal. Retaining it as controlling law would have continued a crime.

But it also has two flaws that make it unreasonable. First, privacy and personal autonomy are real, traditional human rights that deserve the utmost respect even if women have only recently been included in the list of humans who deserve it. Second, society has absolutely no legitimate interest in "preserving fetal life". Yet these are the foundation of the Dobbs decision.

The decision explains that everyone goes around claiming rights that are components of 'liberty' that are not mentioned in the constitution. It ridicules the ideas of privacy and "bodily integrity" yet, these are rights that men (in America, white ones) have had throughout history, so much so that nobody even thought to mention it. If someone had suggested to Willian Penn or Thomas Jefferson that anyone had authority over their personal bodies, they wouldn't have even argued. They would have laughed.

Of course, we all submit to infringements on our freedom in support of important goals. Your driving speed is restricted for my safety. Basically all laws restrict freedom. The operative phrase is "important goals". The Dobbs decision explains that many people consider the value of "potential life" to be an important moral point. It tells us that this fact gives legitimacy to the efforts to restrict womens' liberty. If most people value "potential life" over womens' freedom, that's enough to make it an "important goal".

But preserving potential life is no more legitimate an interest than, say, preserving racial purity. They both have arguments that favor them. They both have many adherents. But the values they propose are founded on completely personal, internal, emotion motivations. There is no consequence to society to justify either, no important goal that can be named.

Having spent my life arguing with anti-choice proponents, I can tell you that I have never, ever found an argument that didn't, at bottom, rely on God. Nobody has ever once said that "society needs more people", or "society's a better place if women have more babies", or "we need more Soylent Green". 

I have never heard, or read, a single explanation of why abortion should be illegal that did not come down to "God says so" and I have never heard of a single consequence of abortion that makes the rest of the people less safe, prosperous, secure or free.

Dobbs essentially says, "We see that many people hate abortion. That serves as a state interest. Some say a woman has a right to privacy. We don't think so. Let the rich people decide." Ok, I add "the rich people" but it's not as if the Supreme Court doesn't know that laws are made by rich people, after all they supported Citizens United.

Roe was a bad decision but only because it was afraid to simply say, "The right to privacy is obvious. The state has no possible interest in determining if a woman bears a child." Had they simply stood up for the right of a woman to determine the course of her life like every man in history, they would not have felt the need to say a lot of complicated crap that has made life worse.

And it would have put today's Supreme Court in the position of explaining exactly what interest the state has in regulating abortion. They would have had to explain why a woman doesn't have the right to control her body. 

Instead, they got to talk about a lot of extraneous bullshit to cover the fact that they don't think women are fully human.

I want to note first, that I have no thought to contradict the current edition of 'Stoic' ideas that are giving people comfort these days. Maxims cherry-picked from Marcus Aurelius Meditations are mostly perfectly good ideas, if taken out of context. My interest is in understanding my opinion of Stoicism as a technical philosophy and why I have, on that level, a generally bad opinion of it.

Also worth note is that Marcus Aurelius was the last in a series of four or five important Stoics. Zeno and Epictetus are the two others who influence my thinking most. (Though Seneca, another important Stoic is interesting in that he was tutor to Nero.) They varied significantly in their interpretations of Stoicism.

I am correct in my recollection of the fundamental Stoic reliance on God as a motivating concept. Though the Stoics were (like me) materialists believing the opposite of Plato's notion that the real reality is the ideas that occur in you mind, somewhat inspired by the information of your senses. The materialists consider the world to be physical and our perceptions to be indicative of what is really happening. (Eg, the mishapen circle we draw is more real than the ideal, mathematical one we imagine and use for our geometry).

For Stoics, God is the soul of the physical world with most of the attributes of the rest of the Gods. For them, virtue is obeying the laws of that God/nature, whatever those are. Zeno and Epictetus took this to the extreme of considering anything that distracted from behaving virtuously to be anti-virtuous and thereby actually seeking discomfort. So, for them, and this is where I start to be annoyed, comfort and pleasure are to be avoided and love for others is no virtue.

It has the famous idea, inspiration to Aurelius and the modern maxims, that the good life of virtue is entirely internal to the person, ie, one's thoughts. The quip has been made that a Stoic could be happy on the rack, under torture, if he retains his virtue. They hold that Socrates cheerfully choosing death rather than recant his philosophy is the ultimate hero. A good Stoic is not troubled by the death of, say one of his children since that external event is no obstacle to this sort of virtue.

The way that the Stoics got to the idea that the only virtue is (put over simply) good thinking is that they believed in determinism. Fundamentally (which I mean literally to distinguish from the nicer ideas in pop culture today), the Stoics thought that God created the world for an inscrutable reason and that our actions were merely motions of the cogs. It is true that they also considered humans to be God's purpose but that didn't make our will any more free.

Every doctrine has stupid crap like that and I am happy to overlook it. My real beef with the Stoics is the passivity it suggests. It turns out that Aurelius was king in a bleak time (war, pestilence, earthquake, insurrection). Much of the point of the Meditations (written as a diary, not for publication, and which I have not read) seems to be the account of his ways of enduring life in a difficult time, ie, obeying the will of God (in a deterministic universe where free will is not a thing).

As Bertrand Russell characterizes it, "When the Stoic philosopher is thinking of himself, he holds that happiness and all other worldy so-called goods are worthless; he even says that to desire happiness is contrary to nature, meaning that it involves lack of resignation to the will of God." 

Stoicism, then, provides a way to live with adversity and offers no guidance about how to avoid it or to make it better. This is appealing, of course, when times are difficult. I like the idea of controlling one's internal state to feel more comfortable but, when choosing a philosophy, I prefer one that offers ideas for a life that is better.

TURNS OUT THAT working with a bunch of people doing crimes in order to gain a benefit is a separate crime all on its own. 

"they knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump. That conspiracy contained a common plan and purpose to commit two or more acts of racketeering activity"

The indictment lists 161 criminal acts, many by Trump himself, to support the claim. Fani documented phone calls and meetings and emails and actions and speeches where Trump and his gang worked together (as an enterprise) to convince officials to illegally change the outcome of the election.

I read the entire indictment, all 98 pages, and Fani didn't shrink from her duty. She dug out every single outrage, documented it in detail and charged Trump and company with racketeering. She also charged them with 41 of the crimes separate from the racketeering charge. We finally have an official accounting of Donald Trump's crimes.

A friend praised an article in The Atlantic magazine. He quotes...

Brooks is a simpering boob. Atlantic won't let me read the whole article, HERE, (and, since it's David Brooks, I should thank them; it's bad enough I have to see him in the NY Times) so I can only respond to your quotation. I do not share your admiration for it. I mean, "fill a hole in his soul"? Who says that kind of thing? In 2023, who writes articles about peoples' souls?

(Obviously, this is a guest editorial. I post it here so I can see it whenever I want.)

It is literally impossible to be a woman. You are so beautiful, and so smart, and it kills me that you don’t think you’re good enough. Like, we have to always be extraordinary, but somehow we’re always doing it wrong. 

You have to be thin, but not too thin. And you can never say you want to be thin. You have to say you want to be healthy, but also you have to be thin. You have to have money, but you can’t ask for money because that’s crass. You have to be a boss, but you can’t be mean. You have to lead, but you can’t squash other people’s ideas. You’re supposed to love being a mother, but don’t talk about your kids all the damn time. You have to be a career woman, but also always be looking out for other people. You have to answer for men’s bad behavior, which is insane, but if you point that out, you’re accused of complaining. You’re supposed to stay pretty for men, but not so pretty that you tempt them too much or that you threaten other women because you’re supposed to be a part of the sisterhood. But always stand out and always be grateful. But never forget that the system is rigged. So find a way to acknowledge that but also always be grateful. You have to never get old, never be rude, never show off, never be selfish, never fall down, never fail, never show fear, never get out of line. It’s too hard! It’s too contradictory and nobody gives you a medal or says thank you! And it turns out in fact that not only are you doing everything wrong, but also everything is your fault.

I’m just so tired of watching myself and every single other woman tie herself into knots so that people will like us. And if all of that is also true for a doll just representing women, then I don’t even know.

So, I admit to being a dope. It's inescapable from the lack of insight I live with. But, this is a new low for me. 

I have had a Taylor Swift week. I watched her Reputation concert the other day, amazing. Tonight I watched documentary about her (Netflix, terrific). I have been a fan of hers forever but in a distant way. She’s not really talking to me but I enjoy her quality, perceptiveness and professionalism. I think she is this era's Madonna, a truly excellent artist.

This documentary told me about her journey. She had a huge turning point when she fought back at that guy who put his hand up her skirt at a photo shoot on Colorado. If you haven’t listened to her song, The Man, hurry up. She explains that she was galvanized by the experience, horrified at the realization that she only got justice because she had "seven witnesses and a photograph" and even then, she had to fight to be believed.

Now she is a modern female Neil Young writing intense, sophisticated political songs for the resistance aimed at young people, her incredibly devoted fans. She has a bunch of songs that are knife sharp but the one that strikes me most is this one, Only the Young, an urgent and, if her explanation in the documentary is to be believed, intentional call to arms. She makes clear that salvation is only going to happen if young people stand up for change with determination and resilience.

Dig the video. Listen to her songs. I think about the hundred thousand kids a week (or however often her current mega show, the Eras Tour, happens) hearing her exhortation. You see the concert footage and those kids recite her lyrics like religion. It gives me a small bit of hope.

Watch her HERE.

There is almost certainly intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Probably lots of it. Also, UFOs are bunk.

If there are, say, a million species that could build spaceships, that would average out to one every 1.3 x 10^4 light years if the universe was only one dimension. Since it's not, it comes out to, I guess, something like one every 1.44 x 10^8 cubic light years.

Now suppose they developed interstellar travel, and they could afford to send a hundred ships cruising to see what's what, knowing of course that it would be thousands of years before they found out what they learned (say everyone but us lives a really long time). If they sent them out at their equators, every three degrees, by the time they had traveled just one light year, they would be separated from each other by approximately 3.6 x 10^11 miles. That's a very, very large gap in the search pattern.

So, they aren't going to get here by accident and certainly not the several different kinds the conspiracy people envision. How about detecting us somehow and coming here specifically?

The strongest radio station I ever heard of was WGN. It was, I think, fifty thousand watts. Let's pretend that the entire earth is fifty thousand watts going in all directions, all the time.

Radio waves get weaker as they travel by something called the inverse square law (basically, the energy spreads out into a sphere, and the inverse square is the math that describes that).

At one light year distant, the inverse square equation looks like 5.0 x 10^4 / 3.6 x 10^26, ie 10^-22 or .00000000000000000000001 watts. I'm not even sure if that is one whole photon.

Suffice to say that you wouldn't notice it with the most sensitive detector ever made. And, that's only if the aliens happen to be only one light year away and if they happen to have their super-sensitive radio telescope pointed exactly at us.

How likely is that? Space is really big, and we are really small, so the precision of the aim required to see us is insane, and the numbers are too. Riffing off the example of spaceships, if they put one of their super-duper radio telescopes every one degree around their planet, that would take 65 thousand of them, and it would have the same problem as spaceships. 

Suppose the aliens are around Earth's closest neighbor, Proxima Centauri. Around 4 light years from here. That means there would be a gap of 4 x 10^11 miles between each telescope's sight lines (a tenth of a light year, give or take). But, it's worse because this is outer space. For each telescope, there would be a region of 16*10^22 square miles in which we could be missed. And, that is for the closest star.

Bottom line, even if interstellar travel weren't out of the question, it would take an insane stroke of luck on the order of winning the big lottery a thousand times in a row for them to find us.

Have I mentioned this already? Apologies if I did but it tells of an important data point. It turns out that measuring both successful and unsuccessful cohorts, they find that there is no important difference in the quality of the decisions they make. The canard that poor people should just decide to do the right things and stop doing the wrong things is simply wrong. 

The first amendment has become as dangerous and stupid as the second one. Obviously, the founders never wanted to protect the right of mass shooters to use automatic weapons. It is a gross, willful misinterpretation to say it does.

HERE

'Total Control' by The Motels showed up in a tv show last night. Today I thought to take a train down memory lane. The album was pretty good. Not quite what I remembered but, what is?

I don't know how the AI revolution is going to play out. It was obvious from the start that it was going to make the phrase, "seeing is believing" false and that the flood of bullshit words we already endure will become overwhelming. The speed and efficiency make the ability to be a slick, deceptive political messaging available to everyone.

Partway down this page is a video entitled, "Chuck offers his views on the combined firm". In it, Logan Roy, for some reason masquerading as Chuck Schwab, explains this view of the purchase of the gigantic adversary, GoJo. 

[Talking to a friend:] I wrote this as soon as I was done, before I read your note or looked into the rest of the world's opinion on the matter. You will see below that I differ somewhat in my evaluation though not entirely incompatible. You focused very much on the technique and its contribution to subsequent moving pictures, as did I. But, it sounds as though you like it more than I do. I am astonished at the idea of it winning an award for the screenplay. While I understand that the structure was novel for the time, Telling the story from multiple viewpoints is no longer novel. Maybe I would have liked it more if I hadn't see all the crap I've seen that was made after 1941.

Mostly, I was impressed by the technique. I thought the cinematography was fascinating and wonderful. Every shot was art. Sometimes a little heavy handed but, that made it more fun, extravagant. Also, there were a lot of times I noticed the music and sound design and thought it quite adroit.

The thing I kept thinking though is that this archetypal work is so clearly the work of an amateur. At 25, Orsen had no experience doing these things and had little regard for the audience or the experience of watching a movie. Clearly he was shooting for a major thematic point, in the interview with him that started today's exercise, he said it was about acquisitiveness and, I suppose he got it right. 

Structurally, the movie served that point, a person who got the ability to have everything with no contribution becomes frivolous and morally empty in the course of a good handful of acquisitions that he wastes through ego. He wanted Suzy to fight fight fight to win the audience, forced her to do so, but quit the paper, politics and then life itself. I guess I see a point there.

But, I have to say it was dull and, imho, somewhat vapid. Or, better, it was an amazingly good effort for a 25 year old kid making his first movie with no real help from the grownups. In the interview, he talked about how much creative freedom he had. Sure, but the flip side is that he had no editorial help.

The best thing I took away from this, aside from him inventing the visual style that became The Twilight Zone, is that simplistic tropes are just that. All these years I've heard about Rosebud and, though I knew it was the sled, I didn't know that it did not matter to the movie or story or even Charles Foster Kane at all.

In college, I wrote stuff that I thought was clever. Looking back I see how callow I was. I thought so many things I thought were profound but now I see them as simplistic. I realize I was actually me working my way through my cliche period, as young people do on they process the culture through to their own, new insights.

It makes me want to watch his later movies. GPT tells me that The Magnificent Ambersons and Touch of Evil are also considered masterpieces. Hopefully, he had a little bit richer understanding of the world by then.

Written by Nick Akerman in an NY Times guess essay, a "prosecutor on the Watergate special prosecution force", this article makes a decent case that we should relax about Trump's judge in Florida. It reminds us that, except from one really dumb decision, there is little evidence that she is biased in his favor. She is, otherwise, a very well qualified, if conservative, judge despite being appointed by President Shithead.

I love her, too, but, may I take a moment to complain about words? I am always irritated that people, for some reason, refuse to use the word 'hilarious' in favor of the totally incorrect 'hysterical' (no offense meant, each of us is a product of your culture). 

This NY Times author observes that, if you are worried about mental decline in older leaders, you should start freaking out at the prospect of Trump who, at his CNN sit-down, was wildly detached from reality. 

Dear Everyone,

If you use a public service, social media, online store, news website, OR ANYTHING ELSE, you are going to be tracked and, if you ever become interesting, can have your privacy violated.

(HERE)

Do not mention your crimes or your secrets online. If the authorities decide you need suppressing, these things WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU. If your job or personal life require physical anonymity, ALWAYS USE A VPN.

Emphatically: You are no safer in any way if you choose to avoid Tik Tok. It is possible for an Amazon employee to go rogue. Same with NY Times. Same with Reddit. Same with EVERYTHING.

It would have been nice if our culture and government had stood up for our privacy at the start of the internet era. But, just as gun control is no longer relevant due to the insane ubiquity of guns, the privacy horse has left the barn.

Mostly, it doesn't matter (as long as you avoid mentioning your crimes and secrets). Nobody cares what you do or who you are and it's not like every rando out there has access to Tik Tok's database. But, if you have a reason to need privacy, it's up to you, not Tik Tok or anyone else to preserve it.

Sincerely,

tqii

Model: GPT-4

User

Tell me about Tegmark Level III multiverse

ChatGPT

The Tegmark Level III multiverse is a concept within the framework of the multiverse hypothesis as proposed by the Swedish-American cosmologist and physicist Max Tegmark. The multiverse hypothesis is an idea that suggests the existence of multiple, parallel universes, each with its own set of physical laws, properties, and histories.

In Tegmark's classification, there are four levels of multiverses. The Level III multiverse is based on the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics. The MWI, first proposed by Hugh Everett in 1957, is an alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation, which is the more conventional explanation of quantum mechanics.

According to the Many Worlds Interpretation, whenever a quantum event occurs that has multiple possible outcomes, the universe splits into several parallel universes, each representing one of the possible outcomes. This leads to an ever-branching tree of universes, with each branch representing a different sequence of events or choices. In this framework, every possible history and future is played out in parallel universes.

Tegmark's Level III multiverse is essentially a collection of these parallel universes, each existing in their own separate, non-interacting "branches" of the universal wavefunction. Every possible quantum event that could occur does occur in some branch of the multiverse, leading to an infinite number of parallel universes.

It is important to note that the Tegmark Level III multiverse remains a theoretical concept, and its existence is still a matter of debate among scientists. While it is a possible interpretation of quantum mechanics, it has not been proven or disproven by experimental evidence.

User

tell me about level II

ChatGPT

The Tegmark Level II multiverse is the second level in Max Tegmark's classification of the multiverse hypothesis. The Level II multiverse is based on the concept of cosmic inflation, which is a widely accepted theory in cosmology. Inflation is the rapid expansion of the universe that occurred during the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang.

The Level II multiverse arises from the idea of "eternal inflation." According to this concept, the universe as a whole experiences a never-ending process of inflation, creating an endless number of bubble universes. Each of these bubble universes can have different physical constants and laws of physics due to the process of spontaneous symmetry breaking during the early stages of their formation. These bubbles are causally disconnected from one another, meaning they cannot interact or influence each other.

In this context, the Level II multiverse is essentially a vast collection of these separate, non-interacting bubble universes, each with its own unique set of physical properties. This idea of multiple bubble universes can explain the observed fine-tuning of our universe's physical constants, as there would be an immense number of universes with varying properties, and we just happen to live in one that is conducive to the existence of life.

While the idea of a Level II multiverse is intriguing and supported by some aspects of cosmological theory, it remains speculative and cannot be directly observed or tested. As such, the existence of a Level II multiverse is still a topic of debate among scientists.

User

I have thought that inflation results as a consequence of a quantum fluctuation

ChatGPT

Yes, you are correct that one of the proposed explanations for the initial trigger of cosmic inflation is a quantum fluctuation. This idea is based on the principles of quantum mechanics, which describe how particles and fields behave at extremely small scales.

In quantum mechanics, particles and fields are subject to random fluctuations due to the inherent uncertainty of their properties. These fluctuations can cause temporary changes in the energy of a system. In the context of the early universe, a quantum fluctuation in the energy density of the vacuum could have led to a brief, localized increase in energy.

This sudden increase in energy could have initiated the process of cosmic inflation, causing the universe to expand exponentially for a very short period of time. This rapid expansion would have amplified the initial quantum fluctuation, stretching it to cosmic scales and seeding the initial density variations that later evolved into the large-scale structure of the universe.

The idea that cosmic inflation could have been triggered by a quantum fluctuation is an intriguing hypothesis that connects quantum mechanics to cosmology. However, it is important to note that this idea is still speculative and not yet proven. Many aspects of cosmic inflation and its trigger remain uncertain, and further research and observations are necessary to improve our understanding of the early universe.

User

tell me about quantum fluctuation

ChatGPT

Quantum fluctuations are a natural consequence of the principles of quantum mechanics, which govern the behavior of particles and fields at the smallest scales. These fluctuations are manifestations of the inherent uncertainty and randomness that are fundamental to quantum systems.

Quantum fluctuations arise due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that it is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a particle with complete certainty simultaneously. As a result, even in the vacuum of empty space, particles and fields exhibit fluctuations in their energy and other properties.

These fluctuations can lead to the temporary creation and annihilation of particle-antiparticle pairs, a phenomenon known as vacuum fluctuations or zero-point energy. These pairs of particles and antiparticles emerge from the vacuum, exist for an incredibly brief period of time, and then annihilate each other, returning their energy to the vacuum.

Quantum fluctuations play a crucial role in several areas of physics, including:

Cosmology: As previously mentioned, quantum fluctuations in the early universe could have led to the initial trigger for cosmic inflation. These fluctuations would have been amplified during inflation, creating the seeds for the large-scale structure of the universe we observe today.

The Casimir effect: Quantum fluctuations give rise to an attractive force between two parallel, uncharged conducting plates in a vacuum. This force, known as the Casimir effect, is caused by the difference in the energy of the vacuum fluctuations between the plates and the surrounding space.

Quantum field theory: Quantum fluctuations are an essential component of quantum field theory, which describes the behavior of particles and fields in terms of quantized fields. These fluctuations can influence the behavior and interactions of particles in ways that can be observed and measured in experiments, such as the Lamb shift and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron.

Despite their seemingly abstract nature, quantum fluctuations have real, measurable consequences in the physical world and play a fundamental role in our understanding of the universe at its smallest scales.

User

what do we know about the conditions that allow the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs in vacuum fluctuations

ChatGPT

In the context of vacuum fluctuations, particle-antiparticle pairs can spontaneously arise and annihilate due to the inherent uncertainty of quantum mechanics, even in the absence of any external energy or force. This phenomenon is a consequence of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which allows for temporary violations of the conservation of energy, as long as they occur within a short enough time scale. The greater the energy fluctuation, the shorter the time it can persist, as dictated by the energy-time uncertainty relation:

ΔE × Δt ≳ ħ/2,

where ΔE is the uncertainty in energy, Δt is the uncertainty in time, and ħ is the reduced Planck constant.

This means that for a brief period, particles with a certain amount of energy can appear out of the vacuum, but they must quickly annihilate and return that energy to the vacuum. These virtual particle-antiparticle pairs do not directly violate the conservation of energy because the energy-time uncertainty relation allows for such temporary fluctuations.

While the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs in vacuum fluctuations is a random process, it is more likely to occur in regions with high-energy fluctuations or in the presence of external fields. For example, if a strong electric field is applied, the field can polarize the vacuum, making it more likely for charged particle-antiparticle pairs (such as electron-positron pairs) to be created. This phenomenon is known as the Schwinger effect.

It's important to note that these particle-antiparticle pairs are considered "virtual particles" because they exist only for a very brief time and do not have the same properties as real particles. However, their presence can have observable consequences, such as contributing to the Casimir effect or affecting the properties of real particles through processes like vacuum polarization.

User

I remember that there are, I think, three uncertainty pairs. I think location/momentum is one. what are they?

ChatGPT

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics that describes the inherent limitations on the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties can be simultaneously measured. The most well-known uncertainty relation is indeed the position-momentum uncertainty principle, but there are other pairs of properties that are also subject to similar uncertainty relations. Here are the three most common uncertainty pairs:

Position-momentum uncertainty: This is the most famous uncertainty relation, which states that the more precisely you know the position (x) of a particle, the less precisely you can know its momentum (p), and vice versa. Mathematically, this is expressed as:

Δx × Δp ≳ ħ/2,

where Δx is the uncertainty in position, Δp is the uncertainty in momentum, and ħ is the reduced Planck constant.

Energy-time uncertainty: This relation states that the more precisely you know the energy (E) of a system, the less precisely you can know the time (t) during which that energy is defined, and vice versa. This is the basis for phenomena like vacuum fluctuations, as discussed earlier. The energy-time uncertainty relation is given by:

ΔE × Δt ≳ ħ/2,

where ΔE is the uncertainty in energy, Δt is the uncertainty in time, and ħ is the reduced Planck constant.

Angular momentum-angular position uncertainty: This relation involves the angular position (θ) and angular momentum (L) of a particle, stating that the more precisely you know a particle's angular position, the less precisely you can know its angular momentum, and vice versa. The angular momentum-angular position uncertainty relation is given by:

Δθ × ΔL ≳ ħ/2,

where Δθ is the uncertainty in angular position, ΔL is the uncertainty in angular momentum, and ħ is the reduced Planck constant.

These uncertainty relations are a direct consequence of the wave-like nature of particles in quantum mechanics and play a fundamental role in shaping our understanding of the behavior of particles and fields at the quantum scale.

User

how does the energy time uncertainty explain virtual particles

ChatGPT

The energy-time uncertainty principle plays a crucial role in explaining the existence of virtual particles in quantum mechanics. This principle states that it is impossible to simultaneously measure the energy (E) and the time duration (t) of a system with arbitrary precision. The more precisely one of these properties is known, the less precisely the other can be determined. Mathematically, the energy-time uncertainty principle is expressed as:

ΔE × Δt ≳ ħ/2,

where ΔE is the uncertainty in energy, Δt is the uncertainty in time, and ħ is the reduced Planck constant.

This principle allows for temporary fluctuations in energy, even in empty space, where we would typically expect zero energy. In other words, the vacuum isn't a completely "empty" and static state but rather a constantly fluctuating environment with energy fluctuations occurring over short time intervals. Due to these fluctuations, particle-antiparticle pairs can spontaneously appear and disappear, even in the absence of any external energy input.

Virtual particles arise as a consequence of these energy fluctuations allowed by the energy-time uncertainty principle. The principle permits the temporary "borrowing" of energy from the vacuum to create particle-antiparticle pairs, as long as they annihilate each other and return the energy to the vacuum within the time frame dictated by the energy-time uncertainty relation.

These virtual particles are fundamentally different from real particles, as they are not directly detectable and exist only for a very brief period. However, they do have indirect, measurable effects on real particles and fields. For example, they contribute to the Casimir effect, the Lamb shift, and the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. These phenomena demonstrate that virtual particles, despite their fleeting existence, have real consequences in the physical world, and their behavior is deeply connected to the energy-time uncertainty principle.

User

some think that time is an emergent property resulting from the observation of things happening in a sequence

ChatGPT

The idea that time is an emergent property, rather than a fundamental aspect of the universe, has been considered by some physicists and philosophers. This perspective argues that time, as we perceive it, arises from the way we observe and describe the dynamics of the physical world, rather than being a fundamental component of the underlying fabric of reality.

In this view, time emerges as a result of the macroscopic behavior of physical systems and the way we organize our observations and experiences into sequences of events. This organization is rooted in the concept of causality, where events are ordered based on cause and effect relationships. Our perception of time is then built upon this causal structure, giving rise to the familiar "arrow of time," which dictates the direction in which we perceive time to flow, from past to future.

One of the key ideas supporting the emergent nature of time comes from the study of thermodynamics and the concept of entropy. The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system, entropy—a measure of disorder or randomness—tends to increase over time. This increase in entropy gives rise to the thermodynamic arrow of time, which aligns with our everyday experience of time flowing in a specific direction.

Some theories in quantum mechanics and quantum gravity also suggest that time might be an emergent property. In these theories, spacetime and the concept of time as we understand it might not exist at the most fundamental level. Instead, they may emerge from more fundamental, timeless structures or processes.

It is important to note that the idea of time as an emergent property is still a topic of ongoing research and debate among scientists. There is no consensus on whether time is fundamentally emergent or a basic aspect of the universe. Understanding the true nature of time is an open question in physics and remains one of the most profound and challenging problems for scientists to explore.

User

does the idea of time as an emergent property contradict energy/time uncertainty?

ChatGPT

The idea of time as an emergent property does not necessarily contradict the energy-time uncertainty principle, but it may require us to reexamine our understanding of this principle in the context of a more fundamental, timeless description of the universe.

The energy-time uncertainty principle is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics, which deals with the behavior of particles and fields at microscopic scales. This principle is deeply rooted in the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics and has been experimentally supported through various observations and phenomena, such as virtual particles and the decay of unstable particles.

If time were indeed an emergent property, we would need to develop a new framework to describe the underlying timeless processes that give rise to our perception of time and how these processes relate to the behavior of particles and fields at the quantum scale. This would likely involve formulating a new set of principles and mathematical formalisms that take into account the emergent nature of time.

One area of research that explores the possibility of time as an emergent property is the field of quantum gravity, which seeks to develop a unified description of gravity and quantum mechanics. Some approaches to quantum gravity, such as loop quantum gravity and causal sets, suggest that spacetime and time might be emergent phenomena arising from more fundamental, discrete, and timeless structures. In these frameworks, the energy-time uncertainty principle might still hold within the emergent spacetime, but it would be derived from the underlying timeless processes.

In conclusion, the idea of time as an emergent property does not directly contradict the energy-time uncertainty principle. However, it does challenge our current understanding of the principle and might require the development of new theoretical frameworks that can reconcile the emergent nature of time with the well-established principles of quantum mechanics.

User

explain the idea of the energy/time uncertainty

ChatGPT

The energy-time uncertainty principle is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics that describes the inherent limitations in simultaneously determining the energy (E) of a system and the time duration (t) during which that energy is defined. The principle is a consequence of the wave-like nature of particles in quantum mechanics and the mathematical formalism that describes their behavior.

The energy-time uncertainty principle states that the product of the uncertainties in energy and time is greater than or equal to a constant value, which is given by the reduced Planck constant (ħ) divided by 2:

ΔE × Δt ≳ ħ/2,

where ΔE is the uncertainty in energy, Δt is the uncertainty in time, and ħ is the reduced Planck constant.

This principle implies that it is impossible to measure the energy of a system with infinite precision over an infinitesimally short period. The more precisely the energy of a system is known, the less precisely the time duration during which that energy is defined can be determined, and vice versa.

The energy-time uncertainty principle has several important consequences and applications in quantum mechanics and particle physics:

Virtual particles: The principle allows for temporary energy fluctuations in the vacuum, leading to the creation and annihilation of particle-antiparticle pairs, known as virtual particles. These virtual particles exist for a very brief period and have indirect, measurable effects on real particles and fields, such as the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift.

Particle decay: The energy-time uncertainty principle also plays a role in understanding the decay of unstable particles. The principle implies that particles with shorter lifetimes have a larger uncertainty in their energy, which affects their decay processes and the range of possible decay products.

Quantum tunneling: The energy-time uncertainty principle can help explain phenomena like quantum tunneling, where particles can penetrate through energy barriers that would be classically forbidden. The principle allows for temporary violations of energy conservation within the uncertainty limits, which enables particles to tunnel through barriers.

Overall, the energy-time uncertainty principle is a key aspect of quantum mechanics, shaping our understanding of the behavior of particles and fields at the quantum scale, and has wide-ranging implications for various phenomena in the physical world.

User

Does energy/time uncertainty produce quantum fluctuations only in a vacuum?

ChatGPT

The energy-time uncertainty principle applies to all quantum systems, not just in a vacuum. Quantum fluctuations are inherent in the nature of quantum mechanics and arise due to the uncertainty principle, which imposes limitations on the simultaneous determination of certain pairs of properties, such as energy and time.

These quantum fluctuations can be observed in various systems and are not restricted to the vacuum. For example, fluctuations in the energy levels of atoms and molecules are also a consequence of the energy-time uncertainty principle. This principle contributes to phenomena like the natural linewidth of spectral lines in atomic and molecular spectroscopy, which reflects the uncertainty in the energy of excited states and the time duration during which they exist before decaying.

Moreover, the energy-time uncertainty principle plays a role in understanding the decay of unstable particles. Particles with shorter lifetimes have a larger uncertainty in their energy, which influences their decay processes and the range of possible decay products.

However, vacuum fluctuations are particularly interesting because they demonstrate that even "empty" space is not truly empty but rather a dynamic environment with constantly fluctuating energy due to the energy-time uncertainty principle. These vacuum fluctuations give rise to virtual particles, which are temporary particle-antiparticle pairs that emerge from the vacuum and then quickly annihilate each other.

In summary, the energy-time uncertainty principle produces quantum fluctuations in various systems, not just in a vacuum. These fluctuations are a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics and have wide-ranging implications for our understanding of the behavior of particles and fields at the quantum scale.

User

is is true that the particle-antiparticle pairs only emerge in a vacuum?

ChatGPT

It is not true that particle-antiparticle pairs only emerge in a vacuum. While vacuum fluctuations, which involve the creation and annihilation of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs, are a fascinating aspect of quantum mechanics in empty space, similar processes can also occur in the presence of matter or fields.

In fact, virtual particles can be created in various situations, not just in a vacuum. Virtual particles are a general feature of quantum field theory, which describes the behavior of particles and fields in terms of quantized fields. These virtual particles are involved in the interactions between real particles, serving as intermediaries in processes like the exchange of forces. For example, virtual photons mediate the electromagnetic interaction between charged particles, and virtual W and Z bosons are involved in the weak nuclear force.

Another example of particle-antiparticle pair creation in the presence of matter or fields is the Schwinger effect. In this phenomenon, a strong external electric field can polarize the vacuum, facilitating the creation of charged particle-antiparticle pairs, such as electron-positron pairs. These pairs are generated from the energy of the electric field and can become real particles if they manage to escape the field's influence before annihilating each other.

Thus, particle-antiparticle pairs are not exclusive to the vacuum but can emerge in various situations in quantum mechanics, both in the presence and absence of matter or fields.

User

how could the time/energy dichotomy and virtual particles explain an inflationary big bang?

ChatGPT

The energy-time uncertainty principle and virtual particles are not directly responsible for explaining the inflationary Big Bang, but they are related to some of the underlying concepts and mechanisms that drive the inflationary model.

The inflationary Big Bang model is an extension of the standard Big Bang theory, proposing a brief period of extremely rapid expansion (inflation) in the very early universe. This inflation is thought to be driven by a scalar field called the inflaton field, which is associated with a hypothetical particle called the inflaton.

During inflation, the inflaton field is in a high-energy state, and its potential energy dominates over other forms of energy in the universe. This potential energy acts as a repulsive force, causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate. As the inflaton field rolls down its potential energy curve, it eventually reaches a point where it starts to oscillate around the minimum of its potential. This process leads to the decay of the inflaton field into other particles and fields, which then reheat the universe and produce the hot, dense state described in the standard Big Bang theory.

The connection between the energy-time uncertainty principle, virtual particles, and the inflationary model comes in the form of quantum fluctuations in the inflaton field itself. During inflation, the rapid expansion of the universe causes these quantum fluctuations to be stretched to macroscopic scales, leaving an imprint on the large-scale structure of the universe. These fluctuations are the seeds for the formation of cosmic structures like galaxies and galaxy clusters.

Additionally, the decay of the inflaton field can be understood in terms of the energy-time uncertainty principle. The principle states that particles with shorter lifetimes have a larger uncertainty in their energy, which influences their decay processes and the range of possible decay products. In the context of the inflationary model, the inflaton's decay into other particles and fields is an example of how the energy-time uncertainty principle plays a role in the evolution of the early universe.

In summary, while the energy-time uncertainty principle and virtual particles do not directly explain the inflationary Big Bang model, they are related to the underlying concepts and mechanisms that drive inflation and influence the formation of cosmic structures.

User

suppose tegmark ii is true, how could these things contribute to the conversion of vastly empty space (trillions of light years between particles) and the initiation of a big bang?

ChatGPT

If the Level II multiverse proposed by Max Tegmark is true, it implies that there are infinitely many separate, non-interacting universes with different initial conditions, physical constants, and even laws of physics. The Level II multiverse arises from the theory of eternal inflation, which is an extension of the inflationary Big Bang model.

In the context of eternal inflation, our observable universe is just a small "bubble" within a vast inflating space. This inflating space consists of numerous other bubble universes, which form when the inflaton field transitions from the high-energy state driving inflation to a lower-energy state, similar to our universe's inflationary period. Each bubble universe will have its own initial conditions and physical properties, depending on the specific details of the inflaton field transition in that region.

The energy-time uncertainty principle and virtual particles don't directly contribute to the conversion of empty space in the Level II multiverse scenario. Still, they play a role in understanding the behavior of quantum fields, such as the inflaton field, during the inflationary phase. Quantum fluctuations in the inflaton field are essential for seeding the large-scale structure of the universe, as mentioned in the previous response.

In the Level II multiverse scenario, the vast empty space between particles in our universe would not be directly connected to the initiation of a Big Bang in another universe. Each bubble universe forms independently as a result of the inflaton field's behavior, with its unique set of initial conditions and properties.

However, it is important to note that the Level II multiverse is still a speculative concept, and its validity is an open question. While eternal inflation and the existence of other universes remain fascinating possibilities, they are challenging to test experimentally or observationally, and there is no definitive evidence to confirm or refute their existence at this time.

User

tell me more about the inflaton field

ChatGPT

The inflaton field is a hypothetical scalar field proposed in the context of cosmic inflation, a theory that seeks to explain the early rapid expansion of the universe just after the Big Bang. The inflaton field and its associated particle, the inflaton, play a central role in driving the exponential expansion of the universe during this brief inflationary period.

In the inflationary model, the inflaton field is initially in a high-energy state, and its potential energy dominates over other forms of energy in the early universe. This potential energy acts as a repulsive force, causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate. This rapid expansion helps to solve some problems in the standard Big Bang theory, such as the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and the monopole problem.

As the inflaton field evolves, it rolls down its potential energy curve towards a minimum. When it reaches the minimum, the field starts to oscillate around it. This oscillation leads to the decay of the inflaton field into other particles and fields through a process called "reheating." The energy transfer from the inflaton field to other particles and fields heats the universe, creating the hot, dense state described in the standard Big Bang theory.

Quantum fluctuations in the inflaton field during inflation also play a crucial role in the formation of cosmic structures. These fluctuations are stretched to macroscopic scales due to the rapid expansion, seeding the large-scale structure of the universe. The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) is a remnant of the early universe, and its anisotropies (tiny temperature fluctuations) are a direct observation of these primordial fluctuations in the inflaton field.

While the inflationary model has been successful in addressing several issues in cosmology and has received significant observational support from CMBR measurements, it is essential to note that the inflaton field and the inflaton particle are still hypothetical. Direct experimental or observational evidence for their existence has not yet been found, and the precise nature of the inflaton field and its potential remain open questions in cosmology.

User

is it possible that the inflaton field randomly occurred in some empty place and that its collapse is what we call the big bang?

ChatGPT

In the context of the inflationary model, the Big Bang is not directly linked to the random occurrence of the inflaton field in some empty place. Instead, the inflationary model extends the standard Big Bang theory by proposing that the early universe underwent a brief period of rapid expansion driven by the inflaton field. The Big Bang itself is still considered the initial singularity or the beginning of the expansion of the universe.

The inflaton field is hypothesized to have been present in the very early universe, starting in a high-energy state with a large potential energy. This potential energy acts as a repulsive force, causing the universe to expand at an accelerating rate during the inflationary period. Once the inflaton field rolls down its potential energy curve and reaches a minimum, it starts oscillating around the minimum and decays into other particles and fields. This reheating process leads to the formation of a hot, dense state, which evolves according to the standard Big Bang theory.

However, in the context of the Level II multiverse proposed by Max Tegmark, based on the idea of eternal inflation, one could think of the inflationary phase in different bubble universes as a random occurrence. In this scenario, the vast inflating space consists of numerous bubble universes, each with its own initial conditions and properties, depending on the specific details of the inflaton field transition in that region.

In this context, one could consider that the inflaton field randomly occurred in a particular region of space, leading to the formation of a bubble universe. The end of the inflationary period in that bubble universe and the subsequent reheating could be thought of as the "Big Bang" for that specific universe.

It is important to note that the idea of eternal inflation and Level II multiverse is speculative and not yet proven. While the inflationary model has gained significant observational support, the precise nature of the inflaton field and the potential that drives inflation remain open questions in cosmology.

User

I know that all of this is speculative. You do not need to keep reminding me about that.

ChatGPT

I apologize for the repetition. I will keep that in mind in future responses. If you have any other questions or need further clarification, please feel free to ask.

User

is there a limit to the dark energy acceleration of the expansion of spacetime?

ChatGPT

Dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and is responsible for the observed acceleration of the expansion of the universe. It is believed to constitute around 68% of the total energy content in the universe. The most widely accepted explanation for dark energy is the cosmological constant, which is associated with vacuum energy in the framework of general relativity.

As for a limit to the acceleration of the expansion of spacetime caused by dark energy, current observations and theoretical models suggest that the influence of dark energy is likely to increase over time. This is because dark energy's density remains roughly constant as the universe expands, while the densities of matter and radiation decrease. As a result, dark energy becomes increasingly dominant over cosmic time.

In a universe dominated by dark energy, the expansion of spacetime continues to accelerate indefinitely. This leads to a scenario called the "Big Rip" if dark energy's equation of state parameter (w) is less than -1, which would cause the universe to expand at an ever-increasing rate until all structures are torn apart, including galaxies, stars, planets, and eventually even atoms. However, the current best-fit value of the equation of state parameter is very close to -1, which corresponds to the cosmological constant and results in a more "gentle" future, where the universe expands indefinitely, but structures are not ripped apart.

In the case of the cosmological constant, there is no inherent limit to the acceleration of the expansion of spacetime. However, it's important to note that our understanding of dark energy is still incomplete, and future observations or advances in theoretical models could reveal new insights into its nature and potential limits.

User

is it fair to say that the cosmological constants value of -1 is another one of the physical constants that happens to have values that allow life as we know it to exist

ChatGPT

Yes, it is fair to say that the value of the cosmological constant (or dark energy) is one of the physical constants that happen to have values that allow life as we know it to exist. This idea is related to the anthropic principle, which states that the observed values of the physical constants in our universe must be compatible with the existence of life, as that is what we observe.

The value of the cosmological constant (or the equation of state parameter w) plays a crucial role in the large-scale structure and evolution of the universe. If the value of the cosmological constant were significantly different, the universe's expansion rate could have been too fast or too slow, which would have affected the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets, and ultimately, the development of life.

For example, if the value of the cosmological constant were much larger (more negative), the expansion of the universe would have been too rapid, preventing the gravitational collapse of matter into galaxies, stars, and planets. On the other hand, if the value were much smaller (closer to zero or positive), the universe might have decelerated or even recollapsed before sufficient time had passed for life to develop.

The apparent fine-tuning of the cosmological constant and other physical constants has led some physicists to propose the idea of a multiverse, where different regions of space or entirely separate universes could have different values for these constants. In this context, our universe would be just one of many, and we find ourselves in a region where the constants are compatible with life simply because it is the only type of region where life can emerge and observe these values.

It is important to note, however, that our understanding of dark energy and the cosmological constant is still incomplete, and future observations or advances in theoretical models could shed more light on the nature and implications of these constants.

(ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. ChatGPT May 3 Version)

Interestingly, having written a note this morning about my disregard of the listed dangers of AI, today brings me news of a danger that has never been mentioned and I never thought about, emotional connections owned by a corporation.

I read endlessly about the dangers of artificial intelligence. I see letters signed by experts and pundits of all sort warning us ever so seriously. I have longed for someone to take the time to present a comprehensive view of the specifics so I can find out what I am missing. The answer: nothing.

This meme panel has been floating around the internet forever. I captures an amazement at the cruel absurdity of antique religious concepts. Lately, though, I've been reading history and have become astonished at how different their ideas were. Through most of Western history, God was real, and not real in the sense of a vague ubiquity, and a fabulous influence, a reference for virtue and life well lived.  

People believed in God like you and I believe in electricity. We know it is real even though none of us has ever seen an electron. We believe that the light before the thunder is evidence, proof even, that electricity is powerful and real. The shock and occasional death from sticking fingers into electrical sockets is more proof, even though the heart attack that results is pretty much the same as any other heart attack.

I know that we have other references that convince us but the people back then, when the praised Abraham for his piety, had other references, too, and, most importantly, they had almost none of the ones we now have. These people did not actually understand cause and effect. 

Philosophic writings from back then are rife with inquires about the nature of reality that indicate that people really were confused about why a thing moves when you push it. They couldn't decide if the color of a leaf had anything to do with the leave itself or if it was a fantasy. I'd say it was ridiculous except for the large number of people who wrote about such things.

Twenty five hundred years ago, the idea of formal logic had just been found. Pythagoras had just conceived the idea of mathematics and the notion that 'ideas', per se, could have a useful relationship to the physical world. This was a revolutionary idea that caused him to be famous for hundreds of years. 

Yet, even he did not apply this to broad metaphysics. He is also the first person to have really thought through the idea that there is a separate, mystical world that is where reality actually takes place. The "useful relationship" was that our world was derived from this more perfect, if imperceptible realm.

It turns out that this latter thought prevailed and eventually turned into the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam and Christianity), all based on the notion that the real reality was the kingdom of God and that our reality is a temporary, imperfect reflection of that kingdom. Being given a concrete action that would allow one to absolutely, perfectly, for sure, be able to gain the favor of the mystical world where "reality actually takes place" was a huge gift. 

That it involved sacrifice is no surprise, everything worthwhile does. While we think of Isaac as analogous to our beloved, modern children who are the essential good in our lives, he was not. He was simply another imperfect reflection of the all-powerful, perfect God. His life or death was not going to happen where "reality actually takes place."

To most of us, that mystical notion is ridiculous. I don't believe that level of credulity is available to modern people. Our brains are built on technical understanding of cause and effect and surrounded by the mechanized proof that science is real. But, Abraham's was not. He, and the people who wrote the story and those who believed it, lived without having ever had anyone explain cause and effect, or how to think ethically, or how to rationalize.

These things are so deeply intrinsic in the modern world that the Akedah, the story of Abraham and Isaac, sounds absolutely ridiculous. But, if you believe Isaac was actually the ghost of God and you believed God was literally the arbiter of reality, your knife at his throat was no more controversial than cholera. God wills and it be done.

It's fascinating to me that its ability to write computer programs was a complete surprise to the creators of ChatGPT. They had done nothing to encourage that capability and, as I have read, never gave programming a single thought. It ability was *discovered* as it was used, much as you might be astonished when your child reveals fabulous musical talent when they first sit down to Chopsticks.