Choice III

 

Uncle John’s Band

I live in a silver mine and I call it beggar's tomb
I got me a violin and I beg you call the tune
Anybody's choice, I can hear your voice
Wo, oh, what I want to know, how does the song go

What are the limits of anybody’s choice?

You might seem stationary, but the Earth is rotating.  The Earth is also revolving about the Sun.  The Sun is revolving about the center of the Milky Way galaxy.  The Milky Way galaxy is expanding from the center of the universe, which is the Big Bang.   Thus while you seem stationary, it is only because it is the perspective from your moving frame of refence that is the Earth.  In an inertial frame of reference, which adjusts for all of the rotating, revolving and expanding, you are hardly stationary.

Black holes are singularities where light can not escape.  However if light, and matter, can not escape, then releasing energy can also not increase the entropy of the Universe. Thus Black Holes might function similar to the Big Bang, the origin of the universe in an inertial frame and serve as the transition between the current universe and the universe before the Big Bang. It appears that, prior to the Big Bang, hyperbolic geometry, was rotated by 90 degrees.  Thus a Black Hole might also involve not only a singularity where light can not escape, but also a rotation of any geometry by 90 degrees.

A black hole in three dimensional Minkowski space, where the dimensions are space, time and possibilities, would be at the same space, and same time in our conventional universe, but then the only rotation could be around the axis of possibilities. Thus it is suggested that if our portion of the universe is one of choice, then the portion of the universe prior to the Big Bang might have not allowed choice. 

The probability of a choice was given by Nobel Laureate Daniel McFadden as exp(x_aβ)/(exp(x_aβ)+exp(x_bβ), that is the probability of making a choice x_a, is a function of the utility of that choice and the utility of not  making that choice, x_b. This has a shape of a sigmoid curve.  It is also true that this looks very similar to the hyperbolic tangent, tanh, which is  

tanh(x)=(exp(x)-exp(-x))/(exp(x)+exp(-x)).

This says that x is a function approaching an absolute, which is what exponential behavior is, and  also approaching the opposite of that absolute.  As x becomes very large, exp(-x) becomes very small and the minus term in the numerator can be ignored.  If you also say that there is no opposite of an absolute, this same function would be ½*tanh(x)+½, where the negative absolute is eliminated by the constant (i.e. it is shifted up to being no absolute), and the amplitude of tanh is adjusted to reflect that there is an absolute, 1 and the absence of that absolute, 0.  This can also be shifted such that it is a normal distribution, where the median is equal to the mean is equal to the mode and it follows the 68/95/99 rule, and is ½*tanh(x-µ)+½, where µ is the mean location.  This is also the Cumulative Distribution Function of the logistics distribution, 1/(4*s)*tanh((x-µ)/(2*s))+½ , where s is 0.5.  Fifty percent, 0.5,  is also the probability of making an unbiased normal choice. If the Cumulative Distribution Function, CDF, is as above, then its Probability Density Function, PDF, also has a variance, σ² , given as s²π²/3. If  s =0.5 this means that if choice happened in a normal hyperbolic universe, then that choice has a standard deviation, σ, of .5π/√3=.9069. The  probability of making the same choice as the absolute when x= μ is 50%  If x is increasing to infinity, then by x= μ+3σ, 99.97% of everyone making a choice of the absolute will have made that choice.  

In a Black Hole not only does the relative mass become infinite but the relative time also becomes infinite.  If time is infinite and there is choice, then even if the PDF <1, then the CDF=1.

Debt Ceiling II

 

Burning Down The House

Ah, watch out
You might get what you're after
Cool babies
Strange but not a stranger
I'm an ordinary guy
Burning down the house.

Debt ceiling deal anyone?

In the game of chicken that is the debt ceiling negotiations, the House Freedom Caucus that installed Kevin McCarthy as Speaker is prepared to crash and burn the United States’ economy.  This should not be a surprise.  Since they do not view the elected sovereign of the United States as their sovereign, they also do not view the economy as their economy.  Uh, “This land is your land, this land is my land” and all that jazz.  There is not a Democratic economy and a Republican economy.  There is only the United States economy.  The sovereign of the United States is NOT the President.  The President, of either party, is only the current steward of the People and their economy. This is confusing the ceremonial sovereign, the President, with the actual sovereign, the People. If you crash the economy, then you are crashing the People’s economy. Why should we ever let you be stewards of that economy, if there is any economy left after you try to burn down the house.

Meetings

 

We’ll Meet Again

We'll meet again,
 Don't know where, don't know when,
But I know we'll meet again,
Some sunny day.

Math has something to add about this.

Meeting means that you are in the same place at the same time as another person.  That does not mean that the probability of your being in that same place at the same time as another is the same, but that your two probability distributions overlap.

Again depends on whether the event repeats. A normal random distribution is a logistics distribution, also known as the sech squared distribution because its Probability Density Function, PDF, uses the hyperbolic secant function,  1/(4s)*sech²((x-μ)/2s).  The mean location where you are is µ. The most probable location you will be is that location.  The odds of you being at location x is defined by the formula.  S is the range of the probabilities of your being at another location.  A standard normal distribution is one where there is a 50% probability of your being at the mean location, in which case s must be equal to 0.5.  If you and that other person share a very similar mean location, and you have met once, then there is a high probability that you will meet again, as shown in the graph on the left below.  But if your most probable locations,  are very different, i.e. you both are ordinarily not in the same place at the same time as shown in the graph on the right below, then the chances of your probability distributions overlapping in the first place was very small.  The “again” depends on the period in which these probability distributions repeat.

And this is where math comes in.  The most probable meeting, as you can imagine, is halfway between the most common locations, e.g. your homes.  This is true regardless of whether the other person is your neighbor or not.  This might be obvious from the graph on the right since the probability of a meeting is the product of the two Probability Density Functions, PDFs.  However, what might not be obvious, but it is also true, is that the probability of meeting at one person’s most common location, is the same as meeting at the other person’s most common location regardless of whether the other person is your neighbor or not. I.e. if the two PDFs are normally distributed, then the product of those PDFs is also normally distributed.  

But a hyperbolic secant function does NOT repeat in the real plane.  It has a period of 2πi, where i is the imaginary number, √-1.  This means that a random event only repeats in the imaginary plane.  This is unlike the conventional trigonometric function, sec(x), which repeats cyclically in the real plane with a period of 2π.  So if the meeting was truly a chance random encounter that had a very low probability of occurring in the first place, you may only meet again in an imaginary plane.  Random events do NOT repeat in the real plane.  A once in a lifetime event, will only occur once in your lifetime.  That “when” will occur again, but that may only be in your imagination.

Personhood

 

Hey Boss Man

Well, I'm gonna get me a boss man, one gonna treat me right
Work hard in the daytime, rest easy at night
Big boss man, can't you hear me when I call?
Well, you ain't so big, you're just tall, that's all

A person is a person no matter how tall.

The Decennial Census of the United States is used to apportion representation among the states.  This includes both wards of the state (children, women before the 19^th amendment, and chattel slaves before the 13th Amendment) and citizens of the state.  The census asks questions about the current sex, gender, of the wards and citizens, but it does not ask the sex at birth.  Similarly it does not ask the sexual orientation of the wards or citizens. So legally, the previous gender and the sexual orientation must not be matters that concern the standing of citizens or wards of the United States.

You may DOMINATE persons because of their current gender, their sexual orientation, etc.  But that only means that you DOMINATED that person, not that it is no longer a person. E.g. a taller person may DOMINATE  a smaller person, but that smaller person is STILL a person.

Wards of the state may be born and die between decennial census, but they are still wards of the state while they are alive.  They are considered to be wards of the state because, had they been alive at the time of the Decennial Census, they would have been included. Thus viable fetuses, who might also have been born have legal standing as wards of the People. But NONviable fetuses are not wards of the People.  They might be considered to be persons by some, but legally they are not wards of the People.

Corporations are also not reported in the US Census, so corporations must also not be considered People.  Corporations may consist of people, but the assets of the people holding shares in the corporation are considered to be separate from the assets of the corporation.  So the rights of the shareholders can only be assets of the corporation if they have been completely transferred to the corporation.  The rights of the People (e.g. Freedom of Speech) are not considered to be transferable, so while the individual has Freedom of Speech, if that individual is a shareholder of a corporation, then that corporation does not automatically share in that right.

Legal matters should be considered by certainty, not dominance.  A person that is dominated still has the same certainty as before.  A judge that is overseeing any matter on which that judge has an interest in the outcome might be on the dominant side of those outcomes, but he can not increase the certainty of that outcome.

You may dominate persons because of their current gender, their sexual orientation, etc.  But that only means that you dominated that person, not that it is not a person. A taller person may dominate  a smaller person, but that does not mean that  person is NOT a person. I’m with Dr. Seuss’ Horton The Elephant who said that  “A person is a person no matter how small”.

Projection?

 

Little Red Riding Hood

I'm gonna keep my sheep suit on,
‘Till I'm sure that you've been shown
That I can be trusted, walking with you alone.

But the fact that you are warning about wolves, may be a warning that you can’t ever be trusted.

A wolf in sheep’s clothing, is a name for someone who is trying to deceive to gain trust, i. e a wolf who is donning sheep’s clothing to hide among  the sheep.  A classic ruse of those in sheep’s clothing to gain the trust of the sheep, and to also make sure that  suspicion does not fall on themselves as a wolf, is to warn the sheep about wolves.   I wish that we could say that this is a modern insight, but Little Red Riding Hood and a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing are an ancient stories.  "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" is a line from the play Hamlet by William Shakespeare.  The warning against pickpockets, “Vultures”, in the classic movie Casablanca comes from a pickpocket. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW5bcI0ADCY.

The point being that those who warn us about a threat may not be doing so not for our protection, but for their own purposes to deceitfully gain our trust.  Let this be a warning.  If someone warns you about something very vigorously, it may be because they are guilty of the same behavior about which they are warning. The warning may not be real and only be a projection of their own bad behavior that is intended to distract you from their bad behavior.  

Consequences

 

My Hero

Don't the best of them bleed it out
While the rest of them peter out?
Truth or consequence, say it aloud
Use that evidence, race it around
There goes my hero
Watch him as he goes

If you don’t believe in Truth, then probably also don't believe in Consequences.

You may know Bob Barker as the host of the Price is Right game show before Drew Carey. It is true that Bob Barker hosted that show 1972 to 2007, but I am old enough to remember that Bill Cullen was the host of the Price is Right from 1956 and that Bob Barker was the host of Truth or Consequences from 1956 to 1975. And it is Consequences that is the topic of this post.

Risk is the product of likelihood, probability, AND consequences, not just the probability alone. The likelihood of being struck by lightning in a thunderstorm is extremely low, but the consequences are extremely dire (you might die) which is why the risk is considered to be high. Conversely the likelihood of getting wet in a rainstorm which is not a thunderstorm is very high, but the consequences are very low (being wet until you dry out), so the risk of being out in an ordinary rainstorm is considered to be very low. But if you don’t believe in the truth, it is probable that you also don’t believe in the consequences either. It is not news that Donald Trump and the QAnon crowd do not believe in the truth and that  certainly has done enough damage. But he also apparently does not believe in the consequences either.        
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-plays-down-consequences-us-default-could-be-maybe-nothing-2023-05-11/).

If you don’t believe in the truth that is one thing. If you also don’t believe in the consequences, you can understate the risk considerably and that can affect more than just yourself. If you engage in risky behavior and damage others besides yourself, then your denial of consequences affects more than just you. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and we may tolerate what you consider to be your truth, but if you don’t accept the consequences either, then that can affect us all.

Trial by Combat?

 

With God On Our Side

Through many a dark hour
I've been thinkin' about this
That Jesus Christ was
Betrayed by a kiss
But I can't think for you
You'll have to decide
Whether Judas Iscariot
Had God on his side.

Are you certain that God is on your side?

“Trial by combat” is not forbidden in the United States. However dueling, assault, battery, manslaughter, murder, etc. are illegal, so presumably trial by combat is also illegal. However the matter has never been adjudicated and in same rare instances, “trial by combat” is called upon to decide disputes ( e.g. a custody case in Iowa, a case by Staten Island lawyer,  Rudy Giuliani’s  famous call to settle the election dispute of 2022 by “trial by combat” at the rally before the January 6^th insurrection at the US Capitol).

Despite the familiarity with deciding battles in war by champions (e.g. David vs. Goliath, Achilles vs. Hector), trial by combat is NOT part of the code of Hammurabi, the Law of Moses, Roman Law, etc. Its origin can be traced to Germanic Tribal Law. The purpose of a trial is to achieve certainty. A “trial by combat” can not achieve certainty unless one also assumes that the victor is supported by God and is thus certain. But because trial by combat can only assure the dominance of the victor, it does not achieve the certainty of his position, “trial  by combat” is NOT how disputes are settled in the civilized world. (Which is perhaps still another reason to disbar Rudy Giuliani?)  Dominance is NOT certainty.

Which calls into question the way in which Supreme Court decisions are rendered. A 5-4 decision might seem to indicate certainty, but it could also only indicate dominance. Scientific certainty is a function of the Standard Deviation, the square root of the variance, σ, the Greek letter Sigma. Scientific certainty is 3 (times) Sigma, reflecting 99.97% certainty. Particle physics demands even higher levels of certainty, 5 Sigma, 99.9994%. But both of these are only attainable with a very large number observations. A smaller sample panel will achieve less certainty. Also a smaller panel presents the possibility of a hung panel, no certainty, or only the lowest acceptable certainty to a single dissenter. To prevent a hung panel or a least offensive decision, it is suggested that at least 2 panel members be allowed to dissent from any decision. On a 9 member bench, this would mean  a 7-2 decision which is 97.72% certain or a 6-3 decision which is 96.68% certain. A 5-4 decision can not be differentiated from a decision by dominance and should not be considered binding. An 8-1 decisions would be 98.88% certain and a 9-0 decision would of course be 100 % certain. Both should be allowed, but neither should not be required because they give too much power to a single dissenter and might thus represent the lowest acceptable decision, not a certain decision. A 5-4 decision is thus only a sight more civilized version of  “trial by combat”.