For at least a decade, I have been following the Federal Reserve's actions with respect to 3-month T-bill rates. I noticed that Alan Greenspan was a faithful follower of the 3-month T-bill rate, increasing or decreasing the federal funds rate (and the prime rate via proxy) each time the 3-month T-bill rate changed by at least 0.25%.* The T-bill rate is a market rate determined by auction. It reflects the short-term value of finance capital under no-risk conditions. Greenspan became famous for his mumbo-jumbo, all the while quietly following this key statistic, just like anyone of us could have done. Ben Bernanke, on the other hand, has dared to defy the market gods, delaying the inevitable rate decrease so long that, in one fell swoop, he has had to drop the rate by three times as much as the 0.25% increment Greenspan was noted for. Bernanke’s “too slow Joe” approach has not prevented the slide into recession that normally is accompanied by a drop in the 3-month T-bill rate. Instead, it has thrown the financial markets into a tizzy worldwide. Surplus capital is now jumping in and out of the shaky stock market on a daily basis, while the still-artificially high interest rates continue to contribute to real estate foreclosures. The prime rate generally is about 3% more than the 3-month T-bill rate. With the 3-month T-bill rate heading below 3%, Bernanke’s 6.5% prime rate is still at least 0.5% too high.
What does this have to do with univironmental determinism, the scientific worldview? The example above demonstrates the univironmental interaction of one microcosm (the Fed) with its macrocosm (the global economy). No matter how much it wishes, the Fed can no more stop a recession than it can stop capitalism itself. The surplus capital accumulated during an economic expansion must be invested somewhere. Like any supply/demand situation, the more the supply, the less the demand. Interest rates reflect that demand. Thus each economic expansion produces greater and greater amounts of capital as well as surplus goods. Interest rates decline, cheap goods flood the stores, and factories lay off workers. When the Fed does not immediately puppet the 3-month T-bill rate it produces aberrations. The macrocosm slaps it back down, forcing it to follow the demands of the market. It would be more efficient to tie the prime rate directly to the 3-month T-bill rate and dispense with the Fed altogether.
*With data from as far back as 1946, Tim Wood, one of the sharpest economists around, clearly shows that the popular belief regarding the influence of the Fed is wrong. Interest rates control the Fed; the Fed does not control interest rates. In every case, changes in the 3-month T-bill rate precede changes in the Discount Rate (http://www.safehaven.com/article-8375.htm).
This is a blog that takes the name of my magnum opus on scientific philosophy called "The Scientific Worldview." Reviewers have called it “revolutionary,” “exhilarating,” “magnificent,” “fascinating,” and even “a breathtaking synthesis of all understanding.” There is very little math in it, no religion, no politics, no psycho-babble, and no BS. It provides the first outline of the philosophical perspective that will develop during the last half of the Industrial-Social Revolution.
20080123
20080121
Reponse to a Believer in "Naked Brains"
“"Religion" has many definitions, but what distinguishes it from simple "spirituality" is dogma, a canon of beliefs that cannot be questioned.”
On the contrary, both science and religion have “a canon of beliefs that cannot be questioned.” In science, the Big Bang Theory currently is one of the best examples of that. It is a rare cosmologist who does not subscribe to the theory. But as I show in TTAOS and in TSW, the fundamental difference between science and religion is that each holds opposing assumptions that are not completely provable (that is why there is no end to the debate between them). One either believes that “matter and the motion of matter neither can be created nor destroyed” or one does not. One either believes that there are material causes for all effects, or one does not. In an infinite universe it is impossible to discover all the causes for even one effect. Nevertheless, we must believe in causality in order to do science. As I have argued in TTAOS and TSW, dogmatism is not the essential difference between science and religion. Instead, we simply are dogmatic about opposing assumptions. As scientists, we know what truth is and how to find it. For us, truth may be found only by interacting with the external world. Our ideas about the external world must be tested through observation and experiment. Religion has no such requirement.
“In science, it is acceptable to assert anything... provided there is evidence. The "naked brains" idea is no doubt weird…”
There is, of course, absolutely no “evidence” that “naked brains” could exist. That conjecture is based on at least two basic errors:
1. The microcosmic view based in today’s all-too-prevalent systems philosophy, which overemphasizes the system and neglects the environment. I thought it especially silly because brains are so obviously parts of a “univironment.” Brains are microcosms that require a very special macrocosm for their evolution and existence. “Naked” they are not.
2. The application of probability theory in an erroneous way. Because the universe and everything within it is infinite, mathematics can never provide us with more than a mere cartoon of reality. Math is a servant of science; science is not a servant of math (as it currently is in modern physics and cosmology). Probability theory, like science, is appropriately used to describe what we know and what we don’t know. But the example given is akin to the equally silly one about monkeys typing all the great books, simply because one can calculate a probability for such. Anyone who asserts that there is evidence for that needs to write more books and do less calculation.
“But then again, so is a universe that goes on forever and ever. At least a naked brain can be imagined. I can't imagine "forever," because it is not a finite conception, and the mind only deals in finitudes.”
What you or I can imagine has nothing whatever to do with whether the universe is finite or infinite. The universe doesn’t “care.” It just is; everywhere and for all time. Empty space can be imagined, but it has been found nowhere. I have no trouble imagining an infinite, eternal 3-dimensional universe. Good luck with imagining the universe exploding out of nothing!
It is true that “multiple interpretations are the food of science,” but this does not mean that science allows for just any old interpretation. In TSW I claim that valid interpretations must be founded on “The Ten Assumptions of Science.” Just because UNCERTAINTY (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything) is one of the assumptions, does not mean that anything goes. Speculations or interpretations must fit the other nine assumptions as well as the facts regarding a specific situation. I don’t regard it as being particularly dogmatic to state that brains require special nourishment from their surroundings for their survival. NASA, for example, doesn’t send astronauts into space without including some of the environment responsible for their evolution. An astronaut, like a “naked brain,” would not survive long in outer space without that connection. We know a lot about what it takes for a brain to survive, and it has very little to do with the probabilities promulgated by the New York Times.
Thus, I certainly don’t believe your statement that “Naked brains are possible.” I assume, instead, that the infinite universe has a huge number of brains in regions so far not discovered, but from what I know about their evolution on earth, I don’t believe that a single one of them could be naked and completely isolated from its environment. The NYT article is just another version of “Math Gone Wild.”
On the contrary, both science and religion have “a canon of beliefs that cannot be questioned.” In science, the Big Bang Theory currently is one of the best examples of that. It is a rare cosmologist who does not subscribe to the theory. But as I show in TTAOS and in TSW, the fundamental difference between science and religion is that each holds opposing assumptions that are not completely provable (that is why there is no end to the debate between them). One either believes that “matter and the motion of matter neither can be created nor destroyed” or one does not. One either believes that there are material causes for all effects, or one does not. In an infinite universe it is impossible to discover all the causes for even one effect. Nevertheless, we must believe in causality in order to do science. As I have argued in TTAOS and TSW, dogmatism is not the essential difference between science and religion. Instead, we simply are dogmatic about opposing assumptions. As scientists, we know what truth is and how to find it. For us, truth may be found only by interacting with the external world. Our ideas about the external world must be tested through observation and experiment. Religion has no such requirement.
“In science, it is acceptable to assert anything... provided there is evidence. The "naked brains" idea is no doubt weird…”
There is, of course, absolutely no “evidence” that “naked brains” could exist. That conjecture is based on at least two basic errors:
1. The microcosmic view based in today’s all-too-prevalent systems philosophy, which overemphasizes the system and neglects the environment. I thought it especially silly because brains are so obviously parts of a “univironment.” Brains are microcosms that require a very special macrocosm for their evolution and existence. “Naked” they are not.
2. The application of probability theory in an erroneous way. Because the universe and everything within it is infinite, mathematics can never provide us with more than a mere cartoon of reality. Math is a servant of science; science is not a servant of math (as it currently is in modern physics and cosmology). Probability theory, like science, is appropriately used to describe what we know and what we don’t know. But the example given is akin to the equally silly one about monkeys typing all the great books, simply because one can calculate a probability for such. Anyone who asserts that there is evidence for that needs to write more books and do less calculation.
“But then again, so is a universe that goes on forever and ever. At least a naked brain can be imagined. I can't imagine "forever," because it is not a finite conception, and the mind only deals in finitudes.”
What you or I can imagine has nothing whatever to do with whether the universe is finite or infinite. The universe doesn’t “care.” It just is; everywhere and for all time. Empty space can be imagined, but it has been found nowhere. I have no trouble imagining an infinite, eternal 3-dimensional universe. Good luck with imagining the universe exploding out of nothing!
It is true that “multiple interpretations are the food of science,” but this does not mean that science allows for just any old interpretation. In TSW I claim that valid interpretations must be founded on “The Ten Assumptions of Science.” Just because UNCERTAINTY (It is impossible to know everything about anything, but it is possible to know more about anything) is one of the assumptions, does not mean that anything goes. Speculations or interpretations must fit the other nine assumptions as well as the facts regarding a specific situation. I don’t regard it as being particularly dogmatic to state that brains require special nourishment from their surroundings for their survival. NASA, for example, doesn’t send astronauts into space without including some of the environment responsible for their evolution. An astronaut, like a “naked brain,” would not survive long in outer space without that connection. We know a lot about what it takes for a brain to survive, and it has very little to do with the probabilities promulgated by the New York Times.
Thus, I certainly don’t believe your statement that “Naked brains are possible.” I assume, instead, that the infinite universe has a huge number of brains in regions so far not discovered, but from what I know about their evolution on earth, I don’t believe that a single one of them could be naked and completely isolated from its environment. The NYT article is just another version of “Math Gone Wild.”
20080115
Cosmogony Loses It
The New York Times, venerable supporter of the Big Bang Theory, is getting deeper and deeper into the intellectual mess it had no little hand in creating. The absurdities are piling up in the form of brains running around naked through the universe with the possibility of reincarnation thrown in for good measure:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
How long before the NYT finally realizes that it is riding the wrong horse?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15brain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
How long before the NYT finally realizes that it is riding the wrong horse?