Bastille Day

 

La Marseillaise.

Aux armes, citoyens
Formez vos bataillons
Marchons, marchons!
Qu’un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons!

Viva La France!

On this French National Day, the French National Anthem is sure to be played.  As you listen, remember that it is about the love of any country.  In the film Casablanca, its playing is led by a Czechoslovakian resistance leader in an American Club in French Morocco while the resistance leader’s Norwegian wife looks on and a Spanish guitarist lustily joins in.  The song is sung to drown out the singing by the Nazi soldiers.  But it is because of a love of country.  The song inspires the phrase “Long Live France”, not “Death to Germany”.  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOeFhSzoTuc

On the US's Independence Day, the Boston Pops plays the 1812 Overture which also features the melody of the French National Anthem.  But in this case it is first played triumphantly and then as a fading melody to symbolize the retreat of Napoleon’s invading Army.   This same Anthemn can symbolize love of country in the face of domination, or the failed domination by an invader.  Sing this stirring Anthem with love, and oppose domination.

Choice V

 

Freedom of Choice

A victim of collision on the open sea

Nobody ever said that life was free

Sink, swim, go down with the ship

But use your freedom of choice

But it is your choice, not my choice.

Variance, σ², is the number that expresses the range of choices.  If there are two choices, e.g. a two‑sided coin, then the two choices are 1, heads and 2, tails, and the square root of the variance, σ²,  is 1/6 because the mean choice, µ, is 1.5, and 1.5 plus 3σ, where σ is the square root of the variance, includes those two choices.  For a six-sided die, with outcomes of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6, the mean choice is 3.5, the square root of the variance is 2.5/3=.83333, and the variance is 0.69444 .  For a one-sided die, a mobius strip, where the choice is only 1, the mean choice is 0.5, which is also the odds, and the variance is 1/36.  If there is no choice, then the variance is NOT zero. It is undefined.  Acting as if there is no choice, which is virtually identical to saying that everyone should be making my choice, may be why we are in the current dilemma. 

Saying that Lies are equal to Truth means that there were two choices.  Saying that you have chosen Truth and everyone else should choose Truth does not change the fact that there were originally two choices, not one choice.  Saying that there is Truth and No Truth, but Truth is greater than No Truth means that there is only one choice,  i.e. is pro-choice, not no choice.  

The following graphs are intended to visualize the problem.  The exponential distribution is one attempt to show how outcomes are distributed given an input.  Its Probability Density Function, PDF, is λe^-λx and its Cumulative Distribution Function, CDF, is 1-e^-λx for x>0.  This can be coordinate transformed to a new location from a location of 0 to a location of μ, as PDF =λe^-λ(x­-μ) and CDF  Cumulative Distribution Function as 1-e^-λ(x-μ) , both for x>µ. However all inputs, not just x>µ , should be considered and the exponential distribution can only consider a limited number of inputs.  It might be mirrored to consider all inputs.  

A random normal distribution is the logistics distribution whose PDF is ½*(1/2s)*sech²((x-μ)/2s) and whose CDF is ½*(tanh((x-μ)/2s)+1).  S is a range variable that is related to the variance by σ²=s²π²/3.  If the variance is equal to the odds for one choice, Random Normal 2 , then its PDF looks like the exponential distribution and its mirror PDF.  However if s, not the variance, is equal to the odds for one choice, Random Normal 1, then its  PDF no longer looks like that of the PDF for the exponential distribution and its mirror.  The exponential distribution and its mirror also appears more similar to two choices rather than one choice when its CDF is considered.  And the CDF is absolutely not like no choice which would be a flat line.

Calling the variance, the odds for choice, because you don’t like the choice is no different than calling yourself Indiana because you don’t like the name Junior.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYtWWLqeSKA  It does not change the fact that your name is Henry Junior, and the dog’s name was Indiana. 

Storytelling II

 

As Time Goes By

It's still the same old story
A fight for love and glory
A case of do or die
The world will always welcome lovers
As time goes by

And we will ALWAYS need stories.

Star of stage, screen, and television? No matter what, it is all about storytelling. 

Performances/storytelling on stage are unique to a time AND place. It is a  performer's medium who decides when it is pencils down. (e.g. Taylor Swift, Hugh Jackman, Lauren Bacall, Zero Mostel, etc.)

The screen is also about storytelling, but the performance can be shown at multiple places at the same time, but only at the times dictated by those who own the screens. The screen is a director’s medium who decides when it is pencils down. (e.g. Michael Curtiz, John Ford, Steven Spielberg, Frank Capra, etc.)

Television is also storytelling but the producers decide when it is pencils down and who freeze the medium (e.g. Shonda Rimes, Quinn Martin, Norman Lear, Mark Burnett, etc.) .  The story can be told in multiple places at many times AND can be shown in the home.

Thus it is always a story, art, but who owns and sells that story, art, gets complicated.

IMHO, the art can NEVER be owned by a corporation or AI, and must be always be a human. https://dbeagan.blogspot.com/2023/06/intellectual-property.html .  IMHO, AI, is Artificial Inference,  and those inferences can NOT be made from copyrighted material, or else it is a copyright infringement. The copyright is issued by a nation, and the people of that nation own the art after the copyright has expired, and have agreed that the artist has a right to license that art for a certain period of time.

IMHO, the people also have a right to say how a copyright holder can license the art while it is copyrighted/protected. It was true when the constitution was written and it still is true. Those who create the story should be compensated for that story, or there is no incentive to create new stories.

Atheism

 

God Only Knows

God only knows what I'd be without you
God only knows what I'd be without you
If you should ever leave me
Well life would still go on believe me
The world could show nothing to me
So what good would living do me

Unless you are God, then you don’t know.

A common assumption is that all scientist are atheists.  I would suggest that nothing could be further from the truth. Scientists instead try to uncover natural laws which explain how the mind of God works.  This instead leads to a possible lack of humility that if humans can just find all of the natural laws, then humans will be equal to God and THIS can be confused with atheism.  But if the natural laws include random results, choice, and scientists are not able to predict the results of random events, then scientists have discovered how the mind of God operates, but scientists can never be equal to God.

The hubris is thus that scientists can uncover all natural laws AND that there are no random events, which is the basis for Determinism.  One of the most famous proponents of Determinism was perhaps Albert Einstein who, when confronted with the randomness of quantum mechanics, objected by supposedly saying "God does not play dice with the Universe".  In Determinism, where everything happens for a reason, if you can just discover that reason, then eliminating those reasons that cause outcomes you don’t desire will lead to only outcomes that you do desire.  If you are a believer in Determinism, then eliminating certain actions ( e.g. not stepping on cracks) or blaming actions on scapegoats, makes sense.  However if stuff just happens, then you are NOT a believer in Determinism, and superstition or scapegoating makes no sense.  Saying that God only knows and I can not ever be God is consistent with the latter position.  Saying God knows AND you can be like God is consistent with the former position.

So the question is NOT “Are scientists atheists?”.  The question is “Do Determinists believe in God, tolerance, and free will?”.

Supreme Court V

 

Opps, I Did It Again

Oops, I did it again
I played with your heart, got lost in the game
Oh baby, baby
Oops, you think I'm in love
That I'm sent from above
I'm not that innocent

Has SCOTUS did it again?

SCOTUS, especially the Robert’s court, has made some decisions with which I do not agree.  Some major recent decisions have been:

Citizens United v. FEC.  Corporations are NOT the People. The plaintiffs had no standing, and the Corporations also had no right of free speech.

Shelby County v. Holder.  Pre-clearance was being applied to a group, not to an individual.  While 50 years is indeed a long time for an individual, that time is irrelevant for a group.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. et al. A non-viable fetus has no standing.  The taking of a woman’s womb by the state to protect a non-viable fetus for no compensation is a constitutionally prohibited taking, in this case, and in Roe v. Wade.

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis In addition to accepting lies on the part of the plaintiff, the decision also confuses the artist with the art.  In every transaction there are three components, the buyer, the seller, AND the goods and/or services being exchanged. The seller, the artist, has free speech.  The buyer, the customer, has free speech.  But the goods and services have NO such right.  I can agree that Kevin Spacey is a morally repressible human being and that Kevin Spacey deserved an Oscar for his performance in American Beauty. The two statements are not inconsistent because the artist is not his art. I can also agree that 303 Creative has free speech, and that 303 Creative can not discriminate in providing its services.

Biden v. Nebraska.  The government has a responsibility to regulate common goods.  An educated workforce is a common good.  Expenditures for an educated workforce that is directly to educational institutions, or the expenditures on the students of those institutions should be treated identically.  The forgiveness of loans after the expenses have occurred, is no different than grants to students before the expenses have occurred.  Student loan forgiveness thus appears to be a legitimate government expenditure.

Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President And Fellows Of Harvard College.  The court confused the process of admitting individuals with the outcome for a group.  The actions were intended to achieve a diverse outcome for the group, and that outcome does appear to be to be of interest to the court. However the court should have made no ruling on the process by which that outcome was achieved.

In these and other cases, the Court has been improperly considering standing, has confused the rights and dominance of the individual, with certainty of the group.  Remedies to address this confusion would appear to be in order.  The court should be making decisions which increase the certainty of the Nation and protects individuals, not merely protecting the dominance of certain individuals. 

Pro-Choice

 

I’m A Man

If I had my choice of matter
I'd would rather be with cats
All engrossed in mental chatter
Showing where your mind is at

If you believe in God, then you must also believe in choice and in tolerance.

The exponential distribution is defined for the range of x>0.  It is convenient to translate from an origin of 0 to a new location, μ, and thus it becomes a range of x>μ at that new location.  It is also convenient to define x<µ as the mirror, negative of this exponential distribution.  Otherwise, when x is between 0 and µ, the probability density function and the cumulative distribution function will be undefined.

Thus a translated mirrored exponential equation also has a maximum value of 1 at the discontinuity of µ, and the combination has a Probability Density Function, PDF, and a Cummulative Density Function, CDF, of

x>μ,  PDF= λ e^{- (x-µ)} and CDF =  1-e^-λ(x-µ) 

and

x<μ, -PDF=- λ e^-λ(x-µ) and CDF = -1+e^-λ(x-µ).

While the mean of an exponential distribution is 1/λ and the median is 1/λ, the mean of the combined exponential and negative exponential distribution is 0, the median is 0 and the mode is equal to 0 but a value of 1 occurs at µ.  But this is NOT a normal distribution, becuase it is very skewed. 

The CDF of the combined exponential and negative exponential distribution appears similar to a hyperbolic tangent that has been translated to a new origin of (μ,0).  That hyperbolic tangent would have an amplitude, a, and a period, p, and thus be

a*(tanh(p*(x-µ))+C) with a constant, C, of 0, and a of 1.

which can also be expressed exponentially as

a*((e^-p*(x-µ)- e^p*(x-µ))/(e^-p*(x-µ)+ e^p*(x-µ))+C), with a constant, C,  of 0, and a of  1.

However if this is the CDF for the entire range of x, then its integral, PDF, would be 
p*sech²(p*(x‑µ)).  This is not very different than the logistics distribution, 1/(4*s)*sech²((x‑u)/(2*s)).
Its CDF is ½*tanh(((x-u)/(2*s))+ ½  which can also be expressed as an exponential as 
½*((e ^(x-µ)/2-e^-(x-µ)/2s)/(e^-(x-µ)/2s+ e^(x-µ)/2s)+ 1).  This normal CDF is a hyperbolic trigonometric function with an amplitude of ½, a period of 1/(2s) and a constant of 1. The hyperbolic tangent repeats every p/(2πi) which means that it only repeats in imagainary planes.  Because the variance, σ², for this distribution can be expressed as s²π²/3, this means that the period, p, can be expressed as √3/(2πσ).  This means that with the discontinuity, the variance must be 0, which means that the period is undefined, the amplitude must be 1, and the constant must be 0.  In other words, having no difference, the variance; no choice, the amplitude; and no God, the constant; is not normal.  Having choice, variance AND God is normal.

Independence

 

You’ll Be Back

You say the price of my love is a price you're not willing to pay
You cry in the tea which you hurled in the sea as you see me go by
Why so sad?
Remember we made an arrangement when you went away
Now you're making me mad.
Remember despite our estrangement, I'm your man

You'll be back
Soon you'll see
You'll remember you belong to me
You'll be back
Time will tell
You'll remember that I served you well
Oceans rise, empires fall
We have seen each other through it all
And when push comes to shove
I will send a fully armed battalion to remind you of my love

Was it only the taxes on Tea?

As we approach the July 4^th holiday, I am sure that most people will agree that  the phrase “No Taxation Without Representation” led to this day.  However what was not spoken and not acknowledged was the phrase “No Emancipation Without Representation” that was probably the impetus for the southern states joining in the rebellion again the King of England.  The northern states, particularly Massachusetts, as traders, were upset by the Intolerable Acts and the Tea Tax which gave the British East India Company an effective monopoly on the tea trade.  But the southern colonies did not have the type of trade that would prompt them to join with the northern trading colonies.  What prompted them to join in the rebellion? ( It is known as  the Revolution on this side of the Atlantic,  but the diffence between Rebellion and Revolution depends on the side that you support.)

The southern states were probably more upset by the 1772 case of Somerset v. Stewart. 

In that case, James Somerset, an enslaved African, was purchased by Charles Stewart, a customs officer when he was in Boston, Province of Massachusetts Bay, a British crown colony in North America.

Stewart brought Somerset with him when he returned to England in 1769, but in October 1771 Somerset escaped. After he was recaptured in November, Stewart had him imprisoned on the ship Ann and Mary (under Captain John Knowles), bound for the British colony of Jamaica. He directed that Somerset be sold to a plantation for labor. Somerset's three godparents from his baptism as a Christian in England, John Marlow, Thomas Walking and Elizabeth Cade, made an application on 3 December before the Court of King's Bench for a writ of habeas corpus. Captain Knowles on 9 December produced Somerset before the Court of King's Bench, which had to determine whether his imprisonment was lawful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart

Lord Mansfield, the Chief Justice of England, ruled

“The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law, which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged.”

The Town in Massachusetts in which I live was named for Lord Mansfield.  On this July 4^th let us remember that Independence was just as much about No Emancipation, as it was about No Taxes, without Representation.