Eric Weinstein Explains the Relevance of Schrodinger’s Cat to Abortion and other Issues with Limited Multiple Choice False “Solutions”

"The Portal," a newish podcast by Eric Weinstein, has become a favorite of mine. Eric has a knack for recasting commonly discussed social problems in head-wrenchingly new ways that suggest solutions. I invite you to listen to an episode or two. I think you'll be hooked too.

The first 10 minutes of Episode 35 is a good example of how Weinstein reconceptualizes a problem. He begins by discussing the conundrum of Schrodinger's cat. Is it alive or dead? But not so fast! Why are there only two "solutions" offered? Especially where neither of these "solutions" captures the complexity of the situation? Weinstein offers his own interpretation of this "super-position" problem: Asking whether the cat is "alive or dead" improperly attempts to lock us into an over-simplistic binary, a false dilemma. This is not the end of Weinstein's thoughts on superposition, but only the beginning. He then turns his sights toward many thorny social problems, all of which tend to be (improperly) presented as having only two (or a few) possible answers. Take, for example, abortion. The following is a transcript I created of a part of Weinstein's discussion:

The Portal – Ep 35 May 21, 2020

Eric Weinstein:

I've come to believe that we are wasting our political lives on [ ] superposition questions. For example, let's see if we can solve the abortion debate problem right now on this podcast using superposition, as it is much easier than the abortion problem itself. The abortion debate problem is that everyone agrees that before fertilization there's no human life to worry about, and that after a baby is born, there's no question that it has a right to live. Yet pro-choice and pro-life activists insist on telling us that the developing embryo is either a mere bundle of cells suddenly becoming a life only when born or a full-fledged baby the moment the sperm enters the egg. You can guess my answer here. The question of "Is it a baby's life or a woman's choice?" is agreed upon by everyone before fertilization or following birth because the observable in question has the system as one of the two multiple choice answers in those two cases.

However, during the process of embryonic development, something miraculous is taking place that we simply don't understand scientifically. Somehow a non-sentient blastula becomes a baby by a process utterly opaque to science, which has yet has no mature theory of consciousness. The system in utero is a changing and progressing superposition tilted heavily towards not being a baby at the beginning and tilted heavily towards being one at the end of the pregnancy.

But the problem here is that we have allowed the activists rather than the embryologists and developmental biologists to hand us the "life versus choice" observable with its two terrible multiple choice options. If we had let the embryologists set the multiple choice question there would be at least 23 Carnegie stages for the embryo before you even get to fetal development. But instead of going forward from what we both know and don't know with high confidence about the system, we are instead permanently deranged by being stuck with "Schrodinger's Embryo" by the activists who insist on working backwards from their political objectives.

So does this somehow solve the abortion issue? Of course not. All it does is get us to see how ridiculously transparent we are in our politics that we would allow our society to be led by those activists who would shoehorn the central scientific miracle of human development into a nutty political binary of convenience. We don't even think to ask, Who are these people who have left us at each other's throats debating an inappropriate multiple choice question that can never be answered?

Well, in the spirit of The Portal, we are always looking for a way out of our perennial problems to try to find an exit. And I think that the technique here of teaching oneself to spot superposition problems in stalemated political systems brings a great deal of relief to those of us who find the perspective of naive activism a fairly impoverished worldview.

The activist mindset is always trying to remove nuanced selections that might better match our world's needs from among the multiple choice answers until it finds a comical binary. Do you support the war on drugs? Yes or no? Are you for or against immigration? Should men and women be treated equally? Should we embrace capitalism or choose socialism? Racism: systemic problem or convenient excuse? Is China a trading partner or a strategic rival? Has technology stagnated or is it in fact racing ahead at breakneck speed? Has feminism gone too far, or not far enough?

In all of these cases, there's an entire industry built around writing articles that involve replacing conversations that might progress towards answers and agreement with simple multiple choice political options that foreclose all hope. And in general, we can surmise when this has occurred because activism generally leaves a distinct signature where the true state of a system is best represented as a superposition of the last two remaining choices that bitterly divided us, handed us by activists.

So I will leave you with the following thought. The “principle of superposition” is not limited to quantum weirdness, and it may be governing your life at a level you have never considered. Think about where you are most divided from your loved ones politically. Then ask yourself "When I listen to the debates at my dinner table, am I hearing a set of multiple choice answers that sound like they were developed by scholars interested in understanding or by activists who were pushing for an outcome?" If the latter, think about whether you couldn't make more progress with those you love by recognizing that the truth is usually in some kind of a superposition of the last remaining answers pushed by the activists.

But you don't have to accept these middlebrow binaries, dilemmas and trilemmas. Instead, try asking a new question: If my loved ones and I trashed the terms of debate foisted upon us by strangers, activists and the news media, could we together fashion a list of multiple choice answers that we might agree contain an answer we all could live with and that better describes the true state of the system? I mean, do you really want open or closed borders? Do you really want to talk about psilocybin and heroin in the same breath? Do you really want to claim that there is no systemic effect oppression or that it governs every aspect of our lives? Before long, it is my hope that you will develop an intuition that many long-running stalemated discussions are really about having our lives shoehorned by others into inappropriate binaries that can only represent the state of our world as a superposition of inappropriate and simplistic answers that you never would have chosen for yourself.

Continue ReadingEric Weinstein Explains the Relevance of Schrodinger’s Cat to Abortion and other Issues with Limited Multiple Choice False “Solutions”

The Potential Purposes of College Education . . .

Quote from The American Conservative article, "Two Lawsuits That Could Kill Yale":

There is currently much scholarly debate over whether the true function of colleges is education, credentialing, skill-building or signaling. If academic selectivity is done away with, they will no longer perform any of those functions.

Continue ReadingThe Potential Purposes of College Education . . .

The Topic of this Post is “Offensive”

[Note from Erich Vieth: Welcome to Bill Heath, our newest author at DI]

Greetings. I am, indeed, Bill Heath. I graduated Frostburg State University in 1970. I enjoyed the atmosphere of free exchange of ideas that the University promoted at the time. I have recently read the policy on posting at Lane University Center, and am disturbed. It appears unclear and and subject to abuse through capricious and arbitrary use. Specifically, " Postings that are deemed offensive, and/or that promote alcohol use, abuse, sale or distribution, will not be approved and are not permitted to be posted on LUC bulletin boards, with the exception of events approved by the University."

I have no problem with barring the alcohol-related content, nor the exception of University-approved events. I have a significant problem with "deemed offensive." The immediate questions are by whom, to whom, and under what standards?

I give a pass to postings and conduct that use a "reasonable person" standard, although I would prefer a "reasonable and prudent person" standard as that is better-defined in case law.

Under harassment policies, "Verbal/Written Assault includes verbal or written acts, including social media sites, which place a person in personal fear or which have the effect of harassing or intimidating a person...." authorizes the individual who believes he or she was offended, harassed or intimidated to set the standard, leaving the accused in a position of needing to prove his or her innocence. That policy cannot be reconciled with the University I attended, nor with my understanding of English Common Law and the U.S. legal practices descended from it. In short, without a revived office of the advocatus diaboli, or a Red Team with official sanction, the standards are clearly unconstitutional within a government entity such as FSU.A statement of policy is unlikely to be sufficient. Rather, action to affirm that the accuser's rights are not unlimited, nor are the accused's rights to be infringed.

I describe this example of a modern attempt to control speech to illustrate a wide and growing problem. For many additional examples courtesy of an organization that is willing to bring lawsuits against colleges and universities with over broad speech codes, see the website of FIRE, FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IN EDUCATION.

Continue ReadingThe Topic of this Post is “Offensive”

Why the University of California System Stopped Using the SAT

Why did the UC system stop using the SAT? This article by Andrew Conway offers some insight "The University of California and The SAT: Speaking the Truth?." Here is an excerpt:

Here are two main conclusions from the report:

“Overall, both grades and admissions test scores are moderate predictors of college GPA at UC. The predictive power of test scores has gone up, and the predictive power of high school grades has gone down, since the 2010… study of this issue. At present, test scores are a slightly better predictor of freshman grades than high school grades are. Both grades and scores are stronger predictors of early outcomes (freshman retention and GPA) than of longer-term outcomes (eventual graduation and graduation GPA).”

“Test scores contribute significant predictive power across all income levels, ethnic groups, across both first-generation and non-first-generation students, and across all campuses and majors.” Based on these results (and more), the special task force recommended that the UC continue to use the SAT in the admissions process.

But then, on May 21, 2020, the University of California Regents released a statement. They announced their decision to drop the SAT requirement for all applicants to all UC schools. I was shocked. Drop the SAT? Why?

Continue ReadingWhy the University of California System Stopped Using the SAT