Friday, August 22, 2008

The Bush Debacle: Inevitability and Consequence

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

There is a mathematical inevitability to Bush's many and consistent failures which are as numerous as his many lies and directly related to his certitude of all things though he is never correct about any of them! The 14th-century philosopher William of Occam said:
Multiplicity ought not to be posited without necessity.
In other words, the best hypothesis is the one with the fewest number of unproven assumptions. Occam did not say that the 'simplest' explanation is the best, nor did he say that the simplest explanation is always true. In many cases an hypothesis that is simplest on its face is just 'flat' wrong. There is a simple case in point. 'The world is flat' is simple but untrue but believing the world to be flat was true enough until you ventured past the 'Pillars of Hercules'. Likewise, Newtonian physics is true enough to get you to the moon and back, whether or not we really went there. When the time comes to navigate interstellar space, however, even Einstein may prove insufficient to get us there and back.

In advance of his time, Occam introduced a measure of probability into the very concept of truth and, by doing so, presaged Heisenberg's uncertainty principle by some 500 years or so. Heisenberg posited that either the position or the velocity of a sub-atomic particle may be known with certainty —but not both at the same instant.
The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.
--Heisenberg, uncertainty paper, 1927
If one value is known, the other is but a probability. If the velocity is known precisely, location may only be expressed as a probability inversely proportional to the degree to which the location is known. This is knowledge as probability.

If Occam's razor is problematic for the conservative mentality accustomed to thinking in terms of absolute truths —a world of black or white, a world of you are either for us or against us, a world of if you are liberal you are a traitor, then Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is a nightmare.
Heisenberg realized that the uncertainty relations had profound implications. First, if we accept Heisenberg's argument that every concept has a meaning only in terms of the experiments used to measure it, we must agree that things that cannot be measured really have no meaning in physics. Thus, for instance, the path of a particle has no meaning beyond the precision with which it is observed. But a basic assumption of physics since Newton has been that a "real world" exists independently of us, regardless of whether or not we observe it. (This assumption did not go unchallenged, however, by some philosophers.) Heisenberg now argued that such concepts as orbits of electrons do not exist in nature unless and until we observe them.
--Quantum Mechanics, Implications of Uncertainty
This mentality will discount a 'proposition' if it conflicts with a prejudice, a pre-conceived notion for which there is neither proof nor evidence. The GOP inclined, for example, will discount empirical evidence if it conflicts with cherished ideology. In other centuries, this 'top down' mentality burned witches, disemboweled heretics, and, more recently, in Kansas, it forbade the teaching of biological science and mandated the teaching of superstition and discredited dogma.
In the early 20th Century, neither Bertrand Russell nor Alfred North Whitehead would have supposed that ancient Egyptian, Greek or Alexandrian mathematicians first thought out a logical formal system from which they, then, derived mathematics as we know it.

Mathematics probably preceded the formalization of a logic upon which mathematics may be derived. The 'Principia Mathematica ' attempted a 'formal system' from which mathematics might be deduced. Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem dealt the project a fatal blow. Gödel's 'Incompleteness Theorem' proved logically that no formal logic system is capable of yielding every true theorem. It struck at the very heart of Russell and Whitehead's grounding of mathematics in pure logic. [See: Principia Mathmatica] .

Both developments harken back to Occam. Truth may be fuzzy but is always the enemy of bigotry, moral certitude, propaganda and state-sponsored lies. [See: Medieval Theories of Consequence] Liars and moral absolutists have much in common: God and/or truth is always on their side.

There is, then, much comfort to be had in the embrace of uncertainty, the affirmation of doubt, the celebration of 'fuzzy math' and sub-atomic particles that are neither here nor there or, more accurately, neither 'here' and 'now' but here at some time or the other!

More recently, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem strikes at the very heart of Russell and Whitehead's grounding of mathematics in pure logic. Gödel proved that in any formal system —consisting of a finite set of axioms and the meta-language in which the rules for inference are set —there will always be at least one true theorem that is not derivable by inference.

It was David Hume, as I recall, who spoke of the moral imperative to be intelligent. On the other hand, if God and truth are always on one's side, one need not be intelligent; one need not 'do nuance'. One need not think! One need not learn anything new! Is it mere coincidence that Bush, who professes to be both certain and correct about all things, is, in fact, wrong and incorrect in every instance in which he has put his policies to the test.

Put another way, Bush is demonstrably wrong to the degree to which he is 'certain' and he is always certain to the degree that he is unintelligent. Having 'God' on his side, as he has claimed, just hasn't worked out for him.

I would like to be as certain of one thing as Bush is of all things. Interestingly, the chances of my being right more often are infinitely greater than are chances that Bush will ever be right at any time about anything!

Both Occam and Heisenberg are threats to orthodoxy. From the grave Occam still poses the greatest threat to orthodoxy, conservatism of any sort, and ideology itself. Some 500 years on, Occam's Razor is still the fatal blow that has, in fact, already demolished Bush's official conspiracy of 911 whether Bush understands that or not. Even Einstein was threatened by Heisenberg's embrace of 'uncertainty'. 'God does not play dice with the universe', he protested!

How is it possible that Bush and the GOP are so absolutely correct about all things at all times? How is it possible that every one who opposes them is always wrong? The odds that Bush or the GOP are ever right at any time are inversely proportional to Bush/GOP certitude. GOP certitude is infinite; therefore, GOP chances of being right approach zero.

What is known they lie about. 'Global warming' is an example. Bushies must surely know the truth about 911 but lie about it in order to protect a robber baron constituency of corporatist and militarist sponsors for whom the dollar today is worth the villainous sacrifice of millions of innocent people.
The falsehoods of the Bush administration may be classified as follows:
  • Deliberate, planned campaigns of lies, falsehoods and propaganda!
  • Incompetent mistakes!
The war in Iraq is both. Colin Powell's infamous presentation to the United Nations was clearly a well-planned and orchestrated gestalt of deliberate lies based upon plagiarized student papers, exaggerations in which the Bush administration ignored evidence to the contrary and 20 year old black and white satellite photos. The consequences have not yet dawned upon the American public and, indeed, our elected officials.

Let's try to make clear the significance of this series of lies. If Bush deliberately misled the American people and the world in order to justify his attack and invasion of Iraq, then the war, itself, is and continues to be, a crime against the peace. Its continuation is but a series of individual crimes against humanity. As such, it violates the Nuremberg Principles that the United States had insisted upon at the end of World War II. Violations of Nuremberg are criminal offenses in the United States, prohibited specifically by US Codes, Section 2441.
(a) Offense.— Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection (b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.
US Codes; Section 2441
Bush's order to attack —whatever Congressional authorization he may claim —violates both Nuremberg and US Codes. Moreover, if Bush lied to the American people and to the world, he lied also to Congress. Whatever was passed by Congress is, therefore, null and void by virtue of Bush's deliberate fraud, itself a deliberate subversion of the Constitution. As such, it is high treason.

The war against the people of Iraq is just one fraud among many that Bush continues to perpetrate upon the world and the American people. A short list includes Global warming —about which the GOP and the oil industry waged a 15 year campaign of lies and misinformation. Other lies, frauds, and hoaxes include the tax cut; faith-based initiatives; the unilateral and illegal abrogation of Kyoto; "no child left behind"; the attack on Social Security; the illegal, unconstitutional and widespread domestic wiretapping program; the Bush crack down on American civil liberties; his every signing statement or rule by decree, his revocation of habeas corpurs, his assertion that 'officials' in his administration may not be prosecuted for their crimes, his having arrogated unto himself the powers of judge, jury, and legislature.

The Bush government was illegitimate! Viva la revolucion!

Published Articles

11 comments:

SadButTrue said...

A simple corollary to the statement, "the truth shall set you free" would be "lies are intended to enslave."

Unknown said...

sadbuttrue sez...

"lies are intended to enslave."

That's absolutely true, a brilliant observation. Thanks.

SadButTrue said...

Oh, and H.L. Mencken seems to have been addressing those who would oversimplify William of Occam's principle when he said,
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

I think it's kind of a watershed moment in anyyone's education in physics when you learn about the controversy concerning the nature of light - modern physics eventually concluded that it was both wave and particle. A fact that may have been counter-intuitive, but was borne out by experimental results.

SadButTrue said...

As facile as that corollary may be I believe it to be original, and it was first presented immodestly as 'SadButTrue's corollary.'

Unknown said...

SadButTrue said...

I think it's kind of a watershed moment in anyyone's education in physics when you learn about the controversy concerning the nature of light - modern physics eventually concluded that it was both wave and particle.

I am very fond of the idea that 'particles' (for lack of a better word) can be both 'particle' and 'wave'. They may even be something else that we have yet to 'visualize'.

I've come to the conclusion that ultimate reality is even 'spookier' than that! Whatever it is that we call 'particles' now are neither really particles or waves; rather, 'particles' and/or 'waves' are the just the handles we use to make statements about them. In other words, neither 'particles' nor 'waves' exist in nature. They are the mathematical constructs that we have come up with it that make it possible to make statements about them.

And --as long as 'they' are behaving themselves, we can attach symbols and numbers to them and pretend that we know what they are.

We use either 'particle' or 'wave' in the 'appropriate' circumstance because we simply cannot visualize pure, abstract probability.

runnerfrog said...

Will sound lame, but I simply didn't want the post to ever end. I think I never read something like this on the internet.

Unknown said...

runnerfrog said...

I think I never read something like this on the internet.

Thank you most humbly for the compliment, runnerfrog. And keep up your great work.

opit said...

By the time we hit the quantum level, our limited perceptions are also fudged by geometry ! I've read stuff which indicates position ( not just right or left-handedness of molecules ) affects the way a particle is perceived ( rather reminds me of the Hindu proverb about the blind men and the elephant ) and cataloged.
Anyway, those 'cyberwarfare' DNS attacks has fudged pinging to Technorati for many. I've been using Auttomatic's Pingomatic facility to keep up somewhat.
http://pingomatic.com/
The thing has been ditzy for weeks but still has some recognition value : besides, RSS updates are likely Fubar.

Unknown said...

opit said...

I've read stuff which indicates position ( not just right or left-handedness of molecules ) affects the way a particle is perceived

I believe 'Particles' are just 'parts' of waves that we have delineated mathmatically so that we can talk about them. That, of course, raises the question: what is a 'wave' if not a vibrating 'something', namely, a 'particle'.

It's not only science as we know it, but language that breaks down at this point.

Particle physics will really get interesting if we should survive the 'black hole' that CERN's particle accelerator threatens to open up! (Just kidding, although some have actually feared that such a thing could happen).

The thing has been ditzy for weeks but still has some recognition value : besides, RSS updates are likely Fubar.

I had suspected that Technorati had gone lame but didn't pursue it.

opit said...

I'm batting above my class on this stuff, despite being a fan of 'hard' sci-fi. The most astounded I recall being was when Robert Forward, a California theoretical physicist, took some writing 'lessons' from Florida's Piers Anthony and banged out two or three novels before his untimely death.
Hal Clement would have wept. Regrettably, it's only been the last few years when I returned to the habits of my 'misspent youth.'
Can the CERN accelerator be that much more alarming than fool 'hydrogen bomb' experiments where the physicists literally didn't know the Earth's crust wouldn't catch fire or the French pursuit of 'breeder reactors' which 'ran away' faster than mechanical controls could respond ?
Anyway. I suggest you have a peek at The Daily Galaxy and Contrary Brin if you have a taste for such. The former was recommended to me by Dad2059 of the SF blog.

Unknown said...

opit sez...

Anyway. I suggest you have a peek at The Daily Galaxy and Contrary Brin if you have a taste for such. The former was recommended to me by Dad2059 of the SF blog.

As a youngster, I was determined to be either an astronomer or a nuclear physicist. But, by the time I left high school, I had veered off into philosophy, politics and debate. I still like to read some of the better scientific mags from time to time. I like the new thinking about 'time' and, several yeas ago, read with interest some papers by Julian Barbour.