Chaos Patch (#92)

(Open thread + links)

Tech-decay. Unregimented order. Hold the genocide. Men stuff. The weekly round.

Oil zombies, plus $20 a barrel? The transhumanist candidate.

Calamity for the Left in Venezuela (comedy version). Saudi didn’t do anything wrong (it’s just unlucky). Japanese at work. The nationalist surge in France (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), and Germany. Sweden on the brink. A blitz-tour of future chaos. Resurgent nationalism against the Internet (also, and).

Trumpenführer panic update (going hyperbolic): “Are Republicans and Democrats finally uniting against Donald Trump’s racist fascism?” Straight-up Trump-Fascism howling and analysis (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). Running the numbers (and more). Ridiculous, or not? He’s a hate machine. Family values (video). “Asked about what prompted the statement, Trump said simply, ‘death.'” The broken Overton Window. Molyneux and Whittle on the case (video). What a guy! Plus, more chaos (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). The Left Accelerationist argument for Trump.

Terror and politicization. Post-ISIS super-jihad. Yes, there’s a problem. The WMD angle. Oops. Under the rock. Narrative collapse. The case for cultural profiling. “New horrors are likely ahead — that will continue America’s turn to the right.” A return to borders (1, 2, 3). Islam breaks the Left. Obama’s on it.

Media in crisis (see also). Hiding the decline.

Classical mastery.

Nostalgia for apartheid. Roots of black resentment. The real lesson of Clock Boy. “The Antiracism religion, then, has clergy, creed, and also even a conception of Original Sin.” In black and white. East and West (comment).

Hive Mind reviewed (plus notes, and see also). SEK III. Try capitalism (or not).

Stoicism 101. Harrowed by Hollywood. Recruiter. Confused (but fun).

Tech trends. Buying in to the nightmare. Shockley (Part 1).

Science is dead and what’s left is raw power.”

Tegmark reviewed. “Bullets are magic.” ISS on the chopping block. Pluto video. Dark fire. 4D celestial mechanics. Quantum indeterminacy. Quantum hell. Beyond the End. Flaky (but fun).

December 13, 2015admin 27 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , , , , , , , ,

27 Responses to this entry

  • SVErshov Says:

    The transhumanist candidate.

    Research which can actually deliver any results are behind closely guarded corporate doors. Those clowns, who are trying to gain some political capital on transhumanism ect does not have slightest idea what is going on is this field. Elites club only. Once about 15 years back I have seen transgenic pig lab in South Korea. A lot of cutting edge equipment and also Controled rate freezer. Once I saw this device, it become clear this project going to waste tons of money and deliver nothing. People, who know how to freez cells not found in such projects and they do not buy controled rate freezers, they buy vacuum vitrification machines (completely out of reach and of market, for non elites at present).

    Similarly everything what this guy is talking is the dead end in the future. While a lot of problems with related issues been solved long time ago (Elites only). Who knows what Novartis is doing in stem cells for last 20 years – nobody knows. top level researchers (nobody knows names), cutting edge stem cell research facilities, attached university and hospital and no information and no pubilcations, besides ordinary carees papers. I know it sounds like conspiracy theory, but it is actual state of affairs. if some times ago gap between media publications and actual research was like 2-4 years, now it 15 years or more. science is not dead, it just got on dark side.

    Do those corparate guys who spend billions need any political clowns and Pentaganon advisers any close to thier faclities? So, what is left for media persons is getting increasing looks like science fiction.


    Erebus Reply:

    The Transhumanist candidate, Istvan, is a cretin. I once tried to read one of his books & it was nothing more than slavish, third-rate mimicry of Ayn Rand — but much more poorly-written & with a character modeled after Istvan himself as the mighty hero! (LOL.) His “three laws” of transhumanism are completely retarded and unserious. I consider myself a transhumanist, but I wouldn’t vote for Istvan if he were running for local dog-catcher.

    ..Your comments are extremely odd, though. You’re basically asserting that there’s a conspiracy in pharmaceutical and biological research. What proof do you have?

    >”if some times ago gap between media publications and actual research was like 2-4 years, now it 15 years or more.”

    This is just completely untrue. In fact, it’s laughable how wrong you are. University PR people are always in a hurry to rush results out of the lab and into the press — even when they’re preliminary, or not really worthy of mention. The PR folks who work for industry can be the same way.

    …Regulatory (FDA) approval for therapeutics can sometimes take as long as 15 years. Don’t confuse that with media reports, pre-clinical work, etc.

    Anyway, what you’re saying is “elites only” seems like wishful thinking to me. Speaking of Novartis: They’re currently testing HSC835 which, as the name indicates, is a haematopoietic stem cell product. Trials are recruiting now — check out
    (They’re a public company, they need to make money, keep clear accounting records, meet regulatory approval, etc., etc… it wouldn’t do to get involved in conspiracies.)


    SVErshov Reply:

    if you are trying to say, that science world is a such nicely regulated and everythign working tip top, then our mental models is quite different. from my swamp point of view it is corrupt, predatory, greedy and full of conspiracies.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    I like math because I like bullets that hit their targets.

    Erebus Reply:

    This has little to do with “regulation.” There are honest scientists and dishonest scientists. There is junk science and there is legitimate science. It’s not all-or-nothing.

    You’ve said that that the gap between discovery to publication is 15 years. This is false. I don’t know if you belong to any technical or trade organizations, but I belong to a few, like the ACS… and they send me at least a half-dozen press releases every day. These tend to originate with University-affiliated PR groups, and most of ’em attempt to drum up interest in projects which are extremely preliminary. Society members are often “invited to discuss further with the University’s Office of Technology Transfer.”

    Besides, under the USPTO’s new “first to file” rules, there’s plenty of incentive to file patents fast, so there’s not a whole lot of waiting around. Submarine patents are a thing of the (distant) past. And if the patents are filed, the clock is ticking, so monetization efforts typically come right on the heels of filing — and monetization tends to start with publication, PR, and development work. If you’re in pharmaceuticals, patent filing is an early part of the pre-clinical development process.
    …So, 15 years to publication? Where the hell did you come up with that? It’s demonstrably untrue in pharmaceutical research, in engineering, in materials, in physics and math (arXiv)…

    You’ve also said that Novartis is involved in a conspiracy. Again, this sounds ludicrous. Large, public pharmaceutical companies are the most regulated businesses on this Earth — especially when they’re based in the EU, as Novartis is. I could see shady individual researchers or groups working to develop black-market therapeutics before said therapeutics have gone through the regulatory approval process. (Particularly when it involves making cutting-edge technologies available to the wealthy. This is already clearly the case with rich or government-sponsored athletes and designer PEDs.) But a company like Novartis would never even consider such a thing.

    Posted on December 13th, 2015 at 1:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chaos Patch (#92) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on December 13th, 2015 at 2:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    Someone please break out ‘Trumpophobe.’


    SVErshov Reply:

    feer of trumpets


    Alrenous Reply:

    Someone photoshop The Hair’s texture onto a brass instrument.


    Posted on December 13th, 2015 at 3:07 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    As a matter of fact, no. Zero mathematical constructs contain self-aware beings. They all die to Ockham’s razor. All you need to describe them is the math. Ergo, all they are is the math. Additionally, the subjective must be ontologically real. Math is objective, thus separate.

    Taylor Hornby is a third-rate intellect. Tegmark says many interesting, novel things, but Hornby seems to have an instinct for the incorrect, stale things.

    I wonder if Tegmark still answers his email.


    frank Reply:


    I’d like to hear Tegmark’s arguments for the hypotheses that universe is a mathematical object and that all mathematical objects are real, because on the surface, they look ridiculous to me. I mean empirically speaking (alas we only have one universe to draw on) most mathematical objects are not to be found in the universe –at most they tangentially relate to physical reality–, including the ones that look most real, such as triangle, sphere, circle, real numbers, all smooth and continuous surfaces. This is apparent form two facts: 1) That universe is not continuous, but rather it is discrete: there’s a unit length, time, mass, and energy. 2) That universe is not infinite, does not contain infinity. This pretty much only leaves discrete math and some finite algebra – finite groups etc – to be found in nature. Incidentally, I’ve been thinking about this due to Curt Doolittle’s constant bashing of Cantor. He’s eternally butt hurt about Cantor’s cardinality concept–which is quite useful in certain contexts–for the reason that it’s not ‘operationally’ constructible, and hence, is not real. Yeah, most of math is not real. In fact it strikes me as ridiculous to expect mathematical objects to exist–isn’t it tautological to say that abstract concepts don’t exist in the real world? But that’s just me.

    Unfortunately, I don’t currently have the time preference to read Tegmark’s book nor his paper.


    Alrenous Reply:

    Theoretical physics works. Einstein, to get his relativity, looked at Maxwell’s equations and said, “Hmm.” He got the right answer. Physics is exactly described by math. When you do math on the models, you get more math, which describes more physics – it is related to other bits of physics the same way math is related to other bits of math. Physics just is a subsection of math. Quacks like a duck, etc.

    That said, saying ‘all’ mathematical objects are real is thing-called-metaphysics. It’s something you can believe or not, since it has no testable predictions. It cannot, even in principle, matter to anyone whether it is true or not.

    However, to say that our universe is a mathematical object – to be specific, basically a wavefunction – is Ockham’s razor. What does a large, complex wavefunction look like when it’s at home? Well, look out your window, there’s some wavefunction.

    You can try to posit some non-math thing which, nevertheless, exactly obeys all mathematical laws, but what for? Posit that math obeys mathematical laws.

    The geometry of sphere and triangle are intimately related to pure physics. Every time you see a pi, there’s an essential circle-ness in there somewhere. Pi squared refers to a sphere. Pi cubed refers to a ball. The fact the r^2 forces are powers of two is a fact about spheres. The only thing more real than a real number are complex numbers. The continuity is found in the underlying wavefunctions.

    It almost has to be this way. All of math is ultimately generalizations of counting. They are ideas and operations which are consistent with counting. Counting was originally derived from physics, meaning it had to be a feature of and consistent with physics. Betting any particular supposedly-pure math can’t be applied to physics at some point is not a winning bet.


    frank Reply:

    >Physics is exactly described by math.

    The universe might, in the end, be described completely by mathematics, after all it’s discrete. But current mathematical models don’t describe it exactly. Mathematical physics is a nice language to summarize nature, but it doesn’t ‘exactly’ describe it. It uses all kinds of unreal mathematical objects to model things. I don’t think you can exactly describe nature without exactly simulating it–i.e constructing it. The fascinating thing about math is that it produces low entropy descriptors for high entropy nature very well. This, I believe, comes from the fact that language–be it math or not–is an approximation device that produces low entropy information at the expense of precision–describing a discrete system as a continuous, differentiable system.

    >You can try to posit some non-math thing which, nevertheless, exactly obeys all mathematical laws, but what for? Posit that math obeys mathematical laws.

    To clarify my position, I’m not claiming that universe is non-mathematical. It is implied when you assume causality. What I’m saying is that I really don’t think that universe is a nice, reasonably simple, possibly smooth object, like say a Minkowski Space. But it could well turn out to be a Turing Machine-like object.

    >The geometry of sphere and triangle are intimately related to pure physics.

    They might be related, by they’re not real.

    >The only thing more real than a real number are complex numbers.

    What? Infinite decimal points don’t exist in the universe.

    >The continuity is found in the underlying wavefunctions.

    I’m not trained in quantum mechanics, but as far as I understand Planck constant implies a non-continuous reality.

    >Counting was originally derived from physics, meaning it had to be a feature of and consistent with physics.

    Yeah, but when you start introducing infinite sets, counting stops.

    >Betting any particular supposedly-pure math can’t be applied to physics at some point is not a winning bet.

    It may well be applied, but it still cannot be found in nature. If the universe is indeed discrete, no matter how hard you look, you won’t find a Euclidean Space in there.

    Posted on December 13th, 2015 at 4:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Thank you for including us. The main story this week is that Trump broke the race/taboo line and has survived, despite all of the pundits and wise hipsters assuring us that he would burst into flame at that moment.


    Posted on December 13th, 2015 at 6:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • Butler Says:

    The Dark Fire paper compounds my suspicions that physics departments are learning far too much from humanities departments about the black art of “making up subjects and getting people to pay us to agonize about them”.

    ‘Dark matter physics’ is science’s ‘Minority studies’.
    A fictitious discipline predicated on a blinkered faith in the infallibility of the zeitgeist.

    Ethnic group X performed to a to a lower standard on test Y?
    “Well, it must be on account of a invisible bias on the part of the people who write the exams. Couldn’t POSSIBLY be that they are actually dumber.”

    Galaxies not spinnin’ the way the equations say they should?
    “Well, it must be magical invisible matter that dwarfs the effect of normal matter. Couldn’t POSSIBLY be that the equations are incomplete.”


    Alrenous Reply:

    Dark matter is real. There’s a photo. Google up the Bullet Cluster.

    That said, it could well be anything at this point. Happy Pixie Dust civilization can’t be ruled out. You know, with ponies and cupcakes. Or aliens. Or both.

    There were lots of alternate theories. MOND. Miscalculations of redshift. All ruled out by the Bullet Cluster.


    I prefer to remain anonymous Reply:

    It’s worse actually… The entire field of cosmology can be dismissed out of hand. But it has nothing to do with the ills that plague the “softer” “sciences”. (This one’s a genuinely hard nut to crack.)


    Posted on December 13th, 2015 at 7:13 pm Reply | Quote
  • Grotesque Body Says:

    Moly and Whit, everybody’s favourite knit sweater-wearin’, Gran Torino-drivin’ crime-bustin’ Youtube celebrity cop duo. It’s waiting to be written.


    Posted on December 13th, 2015 at 8:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • Kgaard Says:

    Any chemists/biologists on here who can handicap the likelihood that a disgruntled A-rab will in fact get hold of and release chemical or biological WMDs in Europe in the next, say, 10 years?

    This is just the sort of black swan event that markets are not good at discounting. As a non-scientist, I would be tempted to just straight-line extrapolate the current trends for developments in chemistry and biological agents. At some point in the future, then, logic would suggest it would become pretty easy for a halfway intelligent Jihadist to do a WMD attack in some big western city like London or Paris and kill a million people.

    I suppose one challenge is the age-old trade-off between virulence and contagiousness. It’s hard for a disease to be both super-virulent and super-catchy. This was the weakness with Ebola and the reason it was the right call to buy airline stocks at the worst of the Ebola scare a year or two ago …


    SVErshov Reply:

    if believe to RT reports, it is already smugled into europe. regardles, no stock is good imo, buy bitcoins instead.


    Posted on December 13th, 2015 at 10:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • John Hannon Says:

    Liked the final “Flakey (but fun)” link. Maybe you could make this a regular feature in Chaos patches.
    Or maybe not.
    In any case that John Hagelin’s a rather interesting guy, don’t you think? Impeccable science credentials – researcher at CERN and the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC), and publisher of more than 70 papers on particle physics, electroweak unification and supersymmetry – but also heavily involved with Maharishi International University and the Natural Law Party. And then there’s that somewhat unsettling overly bright-eyed self assurance he exudes.
    Considering the radically far-out nature of his cosmology, he reminds me of my old mate Terence McKenna and his admission that – regarding his Timewave theory – “I am in the absurd position of being either an unsung Newton or completely nuts.” (alas the later proved to be the case)
    So Hagelin – Newton or nuts? You decide –


    Posted on December 14th, 2015 at 4:33 am Reply | Quote
  • ryan Says:

    a more frightening reality?

    “Jeb will continue to get mentions, stories and positive coverage in the MSM for now. In the meantime of course everything that is anything in the news will get “Jeb’s take and opinion” no matter how low his poll numbers are, all the while he will sort of stay under the radar while the MSM masturbates the public with The Adventures Of Donald Trump.
    Then, late in the game, Trump will start to fade and fake polls showing his fall and a strong surge for Jeb Bush will start to appear. Jeb will surge so much at the late stages of the game that it will be his resurgence in popularity that will be the main story, not his record, not his qualifications, not anything of any import, just the nations thirst for a stable, steady hand to lead the GOP and how his miraculous surge in popularity is “so unprecedented”. This allows Jeb to skate in without facing the typical media spotlight and the magnifying glass of media scrutiny.”


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    If this eventuates, salvation can only come in the form of a Hillary victory and four years of popcorn-worthy foreign policy.


    admin Reply:

    A Jeb candidacy would be ghastly enough. A Jeb Presidency would be a catastrophe of scarcely imaginable proportions.


    Grotesque Body Reply:

    ¿Cuatro años de muertos?

    Posted on December 14th, 2015 at 7:33 am Reply | Quote
  • Joseph Moroco Says:

    “A blitz-tour of future chaos.”

    Having followed Stratfor since before 911, they have been wrong about a lot. The main thing about the operation is it is reliably neocon.


    Posted on December 14th, 2015 at 1:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    that way 10 bloggers may appears like 1000 bloggers.

    Tech trends

    Bots. Software applications that run automated tasks are called “bots.” 2016 will bring a host of creative bots that will supercharge our productivity, keep us company, and help us track what others are doing. What’s new: you’ll have the opportunity to use and program them yourself. Microsoft’s experimental Mandarin-language bot, Xiaolce, is akin to Samantha in Her. She lives inside a smartphone and has intimate conversations with her users, because the program is able to remember details from previous conversations. She also mines the Chinese internet for human conversations in order to synthesize chat sessions.

    Bots do more than offer conversation. News organizations will soon use bots to sort and tag articles in real time. We’ll see advanced bots manipulating social media and stocks simultaneously. The intelligence community might deploy bots for surveillance and for digital diplomacy. HR managers can use bots to train employees. Meantime, as Slack continues to grow in scale and popularity, bots within that environment will help automate meetings and status updates and so on, saving time and increasing productivity.


    Posted on December 15th, 2015 at 3:02 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment