About the redesign

To all of you hecklers about to write me that, "Um, I think someone hacked your site, bro, LOL": No, I accepted the services of someone I know from Less Wrong. The eminent Ian Pollock, freelance graphic designer and electrical engineering major, did the redesign. I like this much better that what I had before.

The Möbius strip exemplifies the site's goal: where before, an issue was hopelessly twisted on itself, I cut through the assumptions and let it start making sense again!

If you find yourself in need of a site redesign, well, now you know where to go.

Another parallel between IP and EM spectrum rights

I constantly bring up the EM spectrum in discussions of IP, and for good reason. It's quite difficult to justify rights in one but not the other, leading some people to unpalatable conclusions. Heck, even Stephan Kinsella, the big anti-IP poomba, isn't sure whether there should be rights to radio waves.

But recently, I've found yet another parallel. Consider the case of someone who, like in lots of instructive thought experiments, wants to block the propagation of radio waves from a nearby tower so that people can't receive them (well, extract information from them, but you get the point).

There's a device that lets you block EM waves, known as a Faraday cage. I didn't know how they work before, but it turns out that, by being made of conducting material, their electrons realign so as to produce the *opposite* field from the one around it (which superposes over it and cancels it out).

See where this is going? To protect your right to to transmit information via EM waves, you need to be able to prevent others from ... er ... instantiating the same pattern! Now, where else have people asserted that kind of right?

(By the way, first post ever from my first smartphone, the wonderful Samsung Moment. And no, unlike when Tyler Cowen promotes a product, I didn't get it for free or otherwise get paid to say that. No, the links weren't added from the Moment.)

Sumner Severally Suprises Silas

(The title was going to be "Sumner Surprises Me Again", but I wanted it to be an alliteration.)

Once again, I let loose with another complaint about mainstream monetary economics, and once again Scott Sumner casually agrees that there's a dilemma.

I say,

... considering that dinosaur banks can borrow at 0% by only putting up toxic MBSes as collateral, ...

Why can’t *I* get secured loans from the Fed at 0%? Why should big banks have all the fun?

And Sumner replies

Silas, Good question.

Then, I get keyboard crease marks in my forehead.

Setting monetary stimulus straight

In light of my recent link to Gennady Stolyarov's post about the gloomy future of the economy (especially for young people), I thought it would be a good idea to put it against the backdrop of mainstream economics and the "experts'" solutions.

A characteristic post is this one by the relatively libertarian Scott Sumner. Like pretty much every day, his idea is for the Federal Reserve to do a "monetary stimulus" by injecting money into the economy to prop up nominal GDP. (Yes, nominal GDP -- you know, the one that doesn't mean anything until you adjust it to real GDP and even then commits you to a easily-abused framework.) This, it would do by various mechanisms, all of which aim to "get banks lending". Stop paying interest on reserves, buy more of banks' (junky) securities, rapidly debase the currency ("quantitative easing") so they have to loan or else hold worthless cash, etc.

In frustration at such a stupid policy, I made this sarcastic comment on that post:

Yes, the economy will definitely collapse if the Fed doesn’t print up more money to make shoddy loans for purchases people don’t want, and it’s a shame that folks at the Fed are stopping Bernanke from such a wise action.

And to my utter surprise, Sumner replied:

Silas. I agree. :-)

Note: the smiley was in recognition of my sarcasm, not to indicate he's changed his mind.

So, Sumner realizes exactly what he's asking for, and still thinks it's a good idea. But since it apparently isn't obvious to everyone what's wrong with such a policy, I thought I'd spell it out clearly for once:

Banks aren't lending (in sufficient numbers). Mainstream economists want to prod them into lending. But why won't they lend in the first place? Because they don't expect the future loan payments to justify the loan. Now, when you grip them so tightly that they have to, for some reason or another, make these loans, have you changed the factors causing banks to believe loans won't be paid? No, you haven't. So, the loans will just throw money after wasteful projects, destroying output and making everyone poorer.

Note: even if you -- quite reasonably -- care about unemployed workers, and you dismiss this concern about wastefulness on the grounds that, "hey, at least it will lift off the joblessness albatross for so many families", that still wouldn't make such policies a good idea. The wastefulness means that reality will eventually rear its head and force these projects to be abandoned. Then, all the new skills workers could have developed while working on sustainable projects that satisfy actual demand, instead don't get developed, and whatever they did do has just retooled them for a useless activity, leaving them even worse off. Doesn't sound too compassionate to me ...

But let's say I'm wrong about that. Let's put aside, for the moment, our skepticism about economists' claims that the same policy that forces banks to lend, also causes these loans to work out and get repaid, making them not such stupid loans to begin with. Even then, you're still causing inefficient activities to happen that cause workers and investors to dig themselves deeper on unsustainable activities.

Looking back, one has to wonder how economists ever came to the consensus that making ultra-underpriced loans to clumsy, inflexible banks could ever possibly be a good idea. My suspicion is that it is a kind of Goodhart phenomenon: at the time these economic models were created, the metrics economists cared about did serve as good proxies for general economic health. But as they were targeted by policy, they lost their value as indicators.

Furthermore, economists failed to continually ground their concept of a "good economy" in what is meant by the term in common parlance. They don't keep checking back to see whether their policies would mean that people get the best combination of work, leisure, and consumption (all broadly defined). No: if an improvement doesn't show up as a cash exchange, it doesn't matter. If people aren't spending enough, then obviously that's hurting the economy and they should spend more.

You would almost think the economy is some god that demands sacrifices, given the way economists talk, rather than a characterization of our collective ability to satisfy wants.

So please, understand my anger when I read about how young people have all of their options cut off by the earlier generation, how they can't save or invest because of how much will be taken to make up for the failures of poorly run enterprises, how genuinely productive ventures are quashed by an outdated mentality of how the world should work ... and then Scott Sumner swings in to tell us that the best way to improve "the economy" is with ridiculously underpriced loans from newly-printed money to aging, inefficient companies that just wasted trillions of dollars destroying our productive capacity.

Advice for economists: Ask whether, not why.

-Don't ask, "What can we do to increase aggregate demand?"
Ask, "Why should we increase aggregate demand?"

-Don't ask, "What can we do to keep people from saving so much?"
Ask, "Why does 'the economy' so crucially depend on people not saving, and why do I care about the health of the 'economy' in that sense?"

-Don't ask, "What can we do to get (traditionally measured) output back up?"
Ask, "Why is it necessary for that measure of output to go up? Would it be so terrible for people to produce less, if that's what they really want, based on honest assessments of the future?"

Get the picture?

Setting the future economy straight

Gennady Stolyarov II does it much better than I can in a guest post on Bob Murphy's blog.

My summary: young people are f'ed. New and existing laws, along with entrenched norms, make it effectively impossible for them to succeed through standard education and career paths. Success has become decoupled from merit, and the upcoming generation will be barred from home-ownership, even if they're responsible. A constellation of irresponsible financial policies by the government shifts most of the cost of government to these young people through ever-growing inflation, taxes, and one-size-fits-all laws. The only answer is for the new generation to break from traditional norms and bypass the standard dinosaur institutions, using new technologies -- mainly the internet -- to meet their economic needs, without the waste and inefficiency that has crept into the system over time.

Lots of thoughts I've had, but put together with rigor I have yet to match on the issue.

Why would a Serious Thinker(tm) fear my comments?

Gene Callahan now has the cute slogan on his blog: "Silas-free for over eight twelve days":



I had submitted thoughtful criticisms to his blog more recently than that, alerting him of errors he's making, and of phenomena he might not be aware of. (Example saved from before then.) So why would this Serious Thinker feel the need to reject, on sight, my comments from appearing, and then advertise it?

A self-serving reason I might give is "Well, Callahan actually not a very good thinker and only gets validation from a clique that already agrees with him, so he can't bear to see remarks that might cause him to question his worldview." But I'm far too biased to make such a judgment.

Instead I invite readers to judge for themselves how Deep and Serious a thinker Callahan is by looking at the link above. He uses the example of a monk who can't explain why a prohibition on touching women exists as a characteristic example of how some things can only be learned from experience.

(It looks to me like maybe Callahan just isn't very good at explaining, and doesn't have much of an incentive to change that. After all, that would undermine his worldview that requires knowledge to be mostly inarticulable, not to mention the aura of unquestionable expertise he tries to maintain.)

As you might expect, he justifies the Silas-free-ness by reference to the "many sites I've been banned from" for my unhelpful comments. True -- I have been banned from many sites for that reason -- it's just that they've all been controlled by him! Information cascade, anyone?

Yay! I'm famous now! For real!

Despite the general lack of updates to this blog, I'm now famous by the Google standard. Try it out for yourself: type in "silas" to Google, and watch the suggestions pop up. The first suggestion after "Silas Marner" and silastic (the silicone/plastic gel), you get ME! Take a look (click to enlarge):



And what if you type in "silas b"? You get this:



So in case you're wondering, I'm available for speaking engagements. I charge $10 million per visit, but I give discounts if I agree with your cause.

When you can't go back to sleep: thermodynamics

Did you miss my posting? Well, it's been one of those days when you wake up early and can't go back to sleep. My mind's running wild this morning, and I figured I'd make some good use out of it. (It is no longer early as of completing this post because of interruptions from a playful kitty.)

I'm going to continue the lesson about thermodynamics that last left off about a year ago, by discussing some more interesting implications of the idea that "energy per unit temperature" is a measure of degrees of freedom. You see, in the time since then, I read John S. Avery's book Information Theory and Evolution, which, as you might have inferred, discusses life from the perspective of that ever-so-useful field of information theory. He also applies it to cultural (often called "memetic") evolution.

The first interesting insight that this book alerted me to is about molar entropy. Some background: in your chemistry class, you might have learned about the Gibbs free energy of a reaction, ΔG, which is calculated from ΔH - TΔS, where H is the molar enthalpy (internal + flow energy per mole), T is absolute temperature, and S is the molar entropy. For a chemical reaction, you look up the molar enthalpies of the products and subtract off the enthalpies of the reactants. Then you do the same for molar entropies, multiplying by the absolute temperature at which the reaction takes place, and add them. A negative sign for ΔG means the reaction happens spontaneously (well, as long as there is an available pathway).

With that out of the way, what are the units for S? Most tables give them as J/K*mol (Joules per Kelvin per mole, or energy per unit temperature per quantity of molecules). But, as the last post in this series showed, energy per unit temperature measures degrees of freedom, which can also be expressed in bits. So, as Avery neatly derives on pages 81-82, you can also express molar entropy in bits per molecule. (The conversion factor is 1 J/K*mol = 0.1735 bits/molecule.) I find this a much more intuitive way to think about it, because it connects the concept of molar entropy to the underlying dynamic: how many bits of information (on average) do you need to specify a molecule's current state, beyond that which you know from the temperature?

Also, rather than having to empirically derive this value directly (either from reaction data or by integrating its specific heat capacity per unit temperature from 0 K to its current temperature), it can be inferred from the known properties of the molecule: its shape, size, and bond strength. The stronger ("stiffer") its bonds are, the lower the entropy of the molecule, because large deviations from its equilibrium configuration are less probable. (Diamond, with its very strong covalent bonds, has the incredibly low molar entropy of 0.24 bits per carbon atom at STP, meaning you need less than one bit of information to specify every four atoms.)

[ADDENDUM: Avery also adds that if you divide the Gibbs equation through by T, you can describe a reaction in terms of the "information lost", i.e., the greater number of degrees of freedom you have permitted by letting the reaction take place.]

By recognizing this interconnection between molecule properties and complexity (needing more information to fully specify = more complex), one sees more unity ("consilience") to the science as a whole: entropy and bond properties aren't just off in their own domains, but have a lawful relationship. Unfortunately, however, I haven't worked out how to derive entropy from stiffness of a degree of freedom, and I haven't found a text that does it either.

Next in the series: A discussion of Eric J. Chaisson's Cosmic Evolution: The Rise of Complexity in Nature, which proposes specific energy flux (energy flow through a system per unit mass) as a measure of complexity that is applicable to everything from stars to planets to life to vehicles to computer chips to culture.

Mixing economics, thermodynamics, and heterogeneity

... or METH, as some call it. And if you want some more drug innuendo, read on.

On Brad DeLong's blog, a commentator named "MJ" deftly applies insights from thermodynamics to the issue of heterogeneity of goods in economics:

What would statistical mechanics be without a quantitative model of heterogeneous vs. homogeneous distributions? Such a statistical mechanics would miss a few subtle but crucial concepts. Such as entropy.

Note how the negentropic development of increasingly heterogeneous capital allocations over the past decade was accomplished through entropy production: bundling good with bad, compromising tranches, etc... Goldman Sachs made a killing, basically, off of knowingly producing entropy. The entropy production, of course (2nd law), far exceeded the negentropy production of their wealth aggregation- as reflected in the order of magnitude between financial industry's gains and the over all loss.

We're now learning Fannie and Freddie also engaged in entropy production, obscuring the distinction between scores over and under 660.

I can vouch for that as showing a good understanding of entropy, and it gives a good perspective for viewing economics:

1) An efficient economy produces as little net entropy as possible: the entropy it generates (destruction of heterogeneity) should be offset by the entropy it destroys in organizing inputs for their uniquely optimal roles.

2) A sign of inefficiency is when economic actors destroy distinctions (like in MJ's example of very different tranches and borrowers being made indistinguishable) without making a corresponding useful distinction or organization.

Definitely some issues worth fleshing out. I know I've seen papers that try to view economics from a thermodynamic perspective, but they invariably have me rolling my eyes.

Happy (premature) New Year's!

That is all.

Setting circular anti-IP cliches straight

In a recent discussion on intellectual property (IP) on the Mises blog, I saw Stephan Kinsella advancing (again) a circular argument against IP: that it claims rights in already-owned property. But he very dispute is about which ownership rights people have in property!

I know what you're thinkin: "meh, dog bites man ... what else is new," right? Well, what's interesting is that my standard foil, Peter Surda, actually agrees with me that this specific point is circular, even as he generally agrees with Kinsella in his opposition to IP. Here's what Kinsella said in response:

Peter, I don't think it's circular because our view of property rights is grounded in a Lockean homesteading view as applied to scarce resources. Under that view you can perform any action you want so long as you do not invade the borders of (i.e., change the physical integrity of) another's Lockeanly-owned scarce resource, without his consent. How is this circular?

What follows is my response on the blog, with some hyperlinks for context:

***

The circularity lies in your assumption about which rights you gain by doing how much homesteading, and it is in no way obvious how the rights must work the way you think they do.

Say I homestead a plot of land. How far above and below does that homesteading entitle me to? Yes, you can justify a specific amount, but that's the point: you have to justify why your rights extend to that boundary (abstract or otherwise), not just assume that your land ownership implies ownership of the airspace through which planes fly, and then argue that "airplanes necessarily violate the property rights in already-owned land" ... which, when you think about it, is pretty much what your IP case is.

But that's just the beginning: does homesteading the land entitle you to block (non-nuisance) concentrated sound waves from passing through your land (e.g. ultrasound)? And of course, back to the ol' chestnut: does the land ownership entitle you to block every single frequency of the EM spectrum passing through?

Now, there are many cases where you can assume that homesteading entitles you to certain rights. However, here, the very debate is about which rights you are morally entitled to by virtue of homesteading what. And in that case, it is in fact circular to assume a certain level of homesteading-based rights, since you're trying to prove what the homesteading-based rights are in the first place, which people dispute!

Note that since this is the central argument of Against Intellectual Property, its circularity isn't very encouraging when judging its merit as an argument against IP.

Silas Barta, information theorist by night

UPDATE 12/17/09: Steven Landsburg, after responding several times in the comments section here, posts a defense of his position on his blog, although without mentioning me or Bob Murphy. Hey, I can understand: if I were in his position, I'd hide the existence of me and Bob too!

***

Bob Murphy invokes my expertise on information theory to criticize (yet) another bizarre argument from Steven Landsburg, that the natural numbers are more complex than human life. Here's the mistaken part of Landsburg's reasoning:

...the most complex thing I’m aware of is the system of natural numbers (0,1,2,3, and all the rest of them) together with the laws of arithmetic ...

If you doubt the complexity of the natural numbers, take note that you can use just a small part of them to encode the entire human genome. That makes the natural numbers more complex than human life. Unless, of course, human beings contain an uncodable essence, like an immortal soul

Naturally, I don't necessarily agree with the broader theological points Bob makes in his reply, and such issues will remain even scarcer on this blog than on his. However, I will expand on point I made in discussion with Bob.

The error in Landsburg's line of reasoning is: the fact that you can use instances of X to build Y does not mean X is more complex than Y. Just the opposite, in fact: in order to describe Y, you must describe X as a substep. Like in the analogy I gave, you can use bricks and mortar to build a house, but that means it's the house that's more complex. To fully specify the house you must describe not only the bricks and mortar, but the form they take as a house -- how they're supposed to be put together.

As for arithmetic and natural numbers, it's their lack of complexity that makes them so useful. By appealing to it, you can make sense of a diverse array of phenomena. The more complex arithmetic were, the less helpful it would be in making sense of things.

Just to be clear, this doesn't mean it's easy to learn math (different people have different problems in different topics and levels), or that you can't do anything complex with math. The point is that no amount of complexity produced in using arithmetic could ever imply arithmetic's complexity, for the same reason that no matter how complex a house you make with one kind of brick, you can't make the brick more complex.

But of course, Landsburg's errors don't end there. He wants to go so far as to say that by merely encoding the genome in base 4, you've described human life. That's certainly the impression people get from discussions of DNA in the popular media and movies like Jurassic Park. Hey, all you need is a string of letters made up of A,G,C,T, and you've described someone completely!

To put it mildly: that's not how it works. First of all, you need to say what the letters actually mean. And then, even if you know that much, all you have are empty labels -- suggestively named LISP tokens. So you know that C is cytosine? Okay, but what's that? Now you need to describe where the carbons and nitrogens and oxygens go to make up cytosine. But wait -- what's this "nitrogen" thing, anyway? And so on.

Don't worry -- the process terminates: once you've described the generative model that puts all of these concepts together in a way that yields a description of human life as its output.

Needless to say, you're using more than a few integers by that point!

World's newest space agency: Reuters

I normally don't pay much attention to photo credits, but I had to do a double-take on this one. An article in the Telegraph has a satellite picture of the sun. Of course, to get that kind of picture, you have to get pretty close, exist in a high temperature environment, and have photography equipment capable of significantly attenuating the EM radiation thrown off from the sun

And who do they credit for the photo? NASA, right? No, we get:

Professor Henrik Svensmark argued that the recent warming period was caused by solar activity. Photo: REUTERS

Um, yeah dude. I think Reuters got that photo from someone else. With the budget cuts the media have had to make in the past few years, they can only afford near-earth satellites. Deeper-space probes are just out of the question.

ANYWAY, since I haven't posted on Climategate, or for that matter, anything in a while, here are my thoughts: It's absolutely disgraceful, the way the scientists in question have acted. Disclosure of your data does not mean that skeptics get to go on a multi-year scavenger hunt to find your raw data and then play guessing games about which sources you threw out and why.

The very fact that you have to make a post like this one in order to summon forth all the data is proof that you weren't being transparent enough.

There's also clear evidence that the scientists didn't seem to understand that you can't contort one data source to look like another and then call it two independent sources of data. Eric S. Raymond has done a tremendous job at exposing the tricks in the code, which explains exactly why the insular climate science doesn't want critics poring over their work

Oh, and just a hint: when you only allow people you approve of to review your work, that's not science.

PS: Recall that my outrage at many libertarians has been to their reactions *conditional* on AGW being real, and that outrage remains.

Sarcasm, applied properly

In case you've been living in a cave for the past few weeks -- or rely on the mainstream media for your news -- you've probably heard about climate scientist Joe Romm's expose of the shoddy work on global warming in the new book SuperFreakonomics by Levitt and Dubner. (Excellent compilation of the discussion in the blogosphere and some mainstream publications.)

Long story short, it's like the kerfuffle a while back between me and Bob Murphy about his own, um, imprecise commentary on global warming, except that the mistakes by Levitt and Dubner were much bigger, they got called on their shoddiness by a lot more people, and they continued to dig themselves much deeper that Bob ever tried to. To top it off, they deliberately misrepresented one of their experts (Ken Caldeira added the quote you see to his web page in contradiction of a position attributed to him in the book after he found out what was in it.)

(Note: this isn't about "rah rah let's cut carbon emissions" vs. "those durn whiny hippies". Regardless of your opinion on the issue, Levitt and Dubner's handling was extremely shoddy, and exactly the kind of thing that neither side should want, even and especially if you agree with their policy positions.)

With that in mind, take a look at this post on the Freakonomics blog, where Levitt complains that he's unfairly portrayed, in his university's alumni magazine, as someone not tackling the "big questions" and who's ruining economics.

Yep, this is one of those times when only Silas-grade sarcasm will do. Here's what I posted:

Well, it's a good thing you've moved on from sumo-wrestling into important issues like global warming, where you've carefully researched the issue, accurately represented expert opinion, and presented an even-handed, informative discussion of the issue that helps sustain the University of Chicago's excellent reputation.

Needless to say, the comment didn't make it through moderation.

By the way, it's my birthday today! Wish me a happy 28th if you haven't already!

Paul Krugman actually allows criticism on his blog!

I had heard bad things about Keynesian economist Paul Krugman not allowing comments on his blog that are too critical, but that turned out not to be an issue. In a recent post he argues that the gold standard is obviously flawed because economic recovery during the Great Depression was highly correlated with going off the gold standard. Nevertheless, my usual criticism of this point got approved for others to see. It's this comment, which I'll repost here:

****

I’ve known about this correlation for a while, but I think it’s misleading, regardless of the merits of a gold standard.

Think about it this way: at the time, people expected their money to be convertible at a specific rate into gold. “Going off the gold standard” is therefore a roundabout way of saying “robbing people of their wealth”, because it amounts to expropriation of their gold holdings.

So this correlation (between going off the gold standard and recovery) reduces to the observation that “when times are bad, taking rich people’s stuff and redistributing it can making things look a lot better in the short term” … which isn’t so impressive when you look at it that way.

The real question is, *discounting* for the usual effects of looting the rich, did it make the economy better off than it would have been without such capricious, revolution-like activity?

Setting Callahan Straight -- on reductionism and the history of science

In a recent post on his blog, Gene Callahan tried to defend the "mysterious vital force" hypothesis from the clueless reductionists, saying that hey, it was a good idea at the time, and might even show some promise today.

After I explained that the "vital force" of the 18th century used to "explain" life (in the way that the "train force" explains the motion of trains) was not scientific in the way that gravitational force was, the exchange started to get lengthy. So, he did was all pursuers of the Truth do: he closed comments.

And this isn't the first time for Callahan to use argumentum ad closum: in a previous exchange where "TokyoTom" was the critic, he did the same thing, and TokyoTom recounts the pre-cutoff (and pre-coverup!) exchange on his blog.

So, since I can't post on Callahan's blog for that discussion, I decided to post my response to his latest comment here. So, take a gander at the discussion thus far, and read my response below. Let's hope it's just a "blog malfunction" this time, too!

********

Now, of course, this is not an explanation, just like Newton's force laws do not "explain anything," as the Cartesians ceaselessly pointed out.

And the Cartesians were dead wrong to argue this. Generating a model that correctly predicts the paths of celestial bodies (and bodies in vacuums, and falling bodies on earch with a high mass/drag ratio, etc.) is an explanation. The alternative -- your alternative -- results in such absurdities as "Okay, okay, sure, you were able to accurately predict celestial motions, material strengths, rocket propulsion capabilities, air properties, blah blah blah ... but you don't truly understand what it means to fly to the moon and return safely. Yeah, you have a 'model' that accurately predicts all that stuff, but you didn't truly [*suggestive emphasis*] explain it."

What else could you want from an explanation? The satisfaction of Gene Callahan's personal aesthetic standards? Or your presuppositions about things that have to be there?

Descartes and other mechanists developed models showing how gravity and magnetism could be reduced to the motion of particles alone -- Descartes, for instance, posited a flow of little screw shaped particles drawing iron to magnets.

And that would be a *different* explanation. It may be a better or worse explanation. But "reducing to particle motions" is not a requirement for an explanation, especially if it's wrong or unnecessarily long. Newton's model remains an explanation in that it constrains our expectations.

At the time, vitalism was a sound scientific hypothesis, and the vitalists expected to find good force laws just like for gravity, etc.

And they had no basis for such an expectation, even before an experiment, since "the vital force" is an "explanation" for everything, and therefore nothing. No matter what experiment they performed, it would be consistent with a "vital force". That was how they actually used the term.

me:"Your claim was stronger because you are saying that now, even given all the scientific knowledge we have, there still remains hope for the vital force "hypothesis"..."

you:All sorts of scientific hypotheses get revived after being "soundly rousted" earlier.

Right, but about the issue we were discussing: My claim, the one you're responding to here, is that the position you do endorse ("Vitalism may turn out to be a fruitful hypothesis") is a stronger claim than the one you excused earlier vitalists for believing (that it's reasonable given the limited evidence so far).

Yes, theories do get revived after being discarded. But as for the point that I was actually discussing there, it's irrelevant; the fact remains that you are making a stronger claim.

Now, with that said, scientists are indeed looking for causal phenomena and more general laws they may not have noticed before. But they keep a *broad* outlook. There are many, many shorter hypotheses to rule out before positing an additional, ontologically-fundamental "vital force" -- if in fact the "hypothesis" claims anything at all.

Oh, and what do you think about the complete overthrow of reductionism in quantum mechanics, where the behaviour of "atomic" particles turns out to be not atomic at all, but dependent instantaneously on the state of all other particles they have interacted with throughout their entire history, so that ultimately their state depends on the state of the entire universe?

Now you're just showing more ignorance of science on top of ignorance of reductionism. It was the philosophers, not physicists, who fell into the trap of thinking of particles, rather than an amplitude distribution over configurations, as being ontologically fundamental entities, and so were seduced to believe, "hah, I can say that you can never prove two electrons are identical, because that's an issue of epistemology, which I'm an expert in, rather than physics", which is wrong.

Reductionism of the kind I (and Drescher and Pearl and Jaynes and Hofstadter) endorse was never predicated on the existence of "atomic particles". Rather, it identifies where such hidden assumptions come in.

What modern quantum physics shows is that the wave equation is deterministic, and each point need only look at its immediate neighbors to iterate to the next state. See the excellent work of Gary Drescher in Good and Real: Demystifying Paradoxes from Physics to Ethics, or, for an online source, Eliezer Yudkowsky's quantum physics sequence.

My new kitty!

Last weekend, I adopted a little black male kitten that a friend of mine had found and was taking care of. He (the kitten, I mean) will be joining my other cat, Cordie, whom you may remember from her younger days. Cordie's a lot bigger now, though, and is playing mommy for her new friend.

Here are some pictures of the most adorable kitty ever! (Click to enlarge.)

What a Bayesian causal network on Newcomb's problem might look like

Explanation of Newcomb's problem.

ADDED: Oh, and here's the long discussion that led me to draw the network above. Click the picture to enlarge.

What "interference" with radio signals really means, and its implications for property rights

A common confusion often arises: people talk of the "interference" with radio tower transmissions, without understanding what physical process the term refers to. This misunderstanding makes it hard to see the logic in my analogy between intellectual property and rights to radio frequencies.

In a recent debate on intellectual property, I finally decided to set the record straight, and what follows in this post borrows heavily from what I said in the debate.

First, how does radio communication actually work? I'll admit that I don't know the answer all the way down to the nuts-and-bolts level. But I can explain it from the perspective of information theory.

Radio communication works, to the extent that it works, because a listener can perform a measurement, and thereby learn something about the source, i.e. the message transmitted. (This "something" they learn is called the "mutual information" between the two points, and is equivalent to so-called "Bayesian evidence".)

And when it comes to your radio, what is that actual measurement? Setting a dial on it that changes a circuit's properties so that it resonates when the surrounding area is filled with electromagnetic (EM) waves around a certain frequency. And when it resonates, an electrical signal in the radio follows a certain pattern that's correlated to the signal the radio tower is sending. Your radio then converts the circuit's electrical signal into sound that is meaningful to you.

All of this functioning relies on an assumption: that by performing the measurement, you do in fact learn something about the source. That assumption is violated when more than one tower transmits with enough intensity at the frequency you perform a measurement on. In this case, no measurement result tells you anything about either source: the transmitted waves overlap each other, coming across a gibberish on your radio. (In the lingo, there's no "mutual information" between you and either source.)

So whenever you talk about "interference" with radio communication, what you really mean is "violation of an assumption some parties were using to communicate which, when violated, makes them unable to communicate."

To understand the significance of using the term "interference" in this way, let's look at a more practical, intuitive example with the same dynamic, but unrelated to the EM spectrum.

An Illustrative Example

Let's say that I live in a small village where I have a few friends. I want an easy way to communicate to them that I expect a rainstorm today. So, I work out an "encoding scheme" with them in advance: if they hear me hit my gong before 8 am, I predict rain. If they don't hear me hit my gong, I don't predict rain. So, instead of having to tell them all individually, I can just hit the gong. They'll hear it, and they'll get a message from me. By "measuring" the sound they hear before 8 am, they learn the "signal" I'm sending.

So far, so good.

But there's a little snag: my friends will hear a gong sound as long as anyone hits a gong not just me! So, our communication scheme only works as long as we can rely on no one else hitting a gong before 8 am. If we can't rely on that, I can't send them the message, at least not as reliably. Because when they hear a gong, sure, it could be me, but it could also be anyone else with a gong. Hearing the gong sound is no longer a reliable sign that I think it will rain.

So there you see it: our communication system can be defeated by "interference" from other people, either because they're trying to set up their own similar system, or because they just like being mean. But this "interference" simply means: violating an assumption that we, rightly or wrongly, thought we could rely on.

And how does this relate to radio communication? Simple: the existence of the gong sound before 8 am is just like a radio signal within a given frequency range: it can provide information to others, but only if others don't try to use the same means to communicate.

Conclusion

So do you think people should be able to "homestead" such "communication assumptions" like that? Should I be able to assert rights as "the only one who can hit a gong in this area before 8 am"? (Or, to be less greedy, the right to hit a gong in this area in a certain five-minute window, with a certain rhythm.) Your answer to that question tells you a lot about how you should look at other issues.

For example, how about asserting rights as "the only one who can broadcast radio waves in this area within a particular frequency band"? How about asserting rights as "the only one who can distribute books containing Harry Potter stories"?

Hey! That last one kinda sounds like intellectual property rights...

Update on Billy Mays

Turns out he died of heart disease. (HT: Megan McArdle)

In honor of Billy Mays's characteristic style, and because I don't know the appropriate waiting time for stuff like this, I feel like I have to write the following:

***

Genial pitchman appears

"Are you suffering from clogged arteries?"

[footage of attractive middle-aged actor clutching chest and wincing]

"Does your doctor tell you to cut back on the foods you love?"

[footage of stereotypical doctor grimly advising attractive patient, who appears to be saddened]

"Well, now you can plow STRAIGHT THROUGH that build-up with Arta-cleanse! Using its patented formula, you can clear out those harmful deposits that put you at risk for heart disease!"

[computer simulation of large artery with ugly-looking blockage that is being magically washed away with pretty fluid]

"Powered by nature's very best ingredients, Arta-cleanse gives you INSTANT results you can SEE! Just watch!"

[Pitchman goes over to attractive middle-aged woman sitting down, injects syringe into upper inner right right arm]

"Watch as Arta-cleanse works its way through the system to BLOW AWAY all the nasty build-up that drags down your mood and strength!"

[camera zooms in on woman's arm, as discoloration propagates through arm where vein is located]

"In just MINUTES you have a cleaner, meaner, healthier circulation, or your money back!"

[camera cuts away to woman jogging, then to her blood pressure being checked, with a good reading showing up on a conspicuous monitor]

"But wait! Order in the next ten minutes and we'll throw in this free tourniquet that will make the injection even easer! And that's not all. Call within the next FIVE minutes and we'll DOUBLE your order for FREE! All this for just $29.99."

"HERE's how to order!" [points at camera]

***

You BETTER pay me royalties if you make that video! >:-(