A team of mathematicians, physicists, philosophers and psychologists argue that the decline of democracies is poorly understood, but concepts from complex systems theory may offer a solution.
More objective measures also add weight to this perception. The Freedom House democracy index, for example, measures the strength of democracies around the world according to a rubric that takes into account things like free and fair elections, a free press, and civil liberties. According to Freedom House, almost twice as many countries registered a decline in these democratic markers this year compared to the number of countries that saw an increase in democratic principles. This marked the twelfth consecutive year that the nonprofit saw a global decline in democracy.
But what Wiesner and her collaborators wanted to understand was the socio-economic and political mechanisms that are driving this democratic decline.
Their research shows how feedback loops are intimately connected to the health of democratic institutions. For example, the researchers found that economic inequality and a healthy democracy are closely linked. In cases where economic inequality vastly increases between a society’s wealthiest and poorest—such as after the 2008 financial collapse—democracy also suffers.
“This is because democracy presupposes a basic equality of influence,” Wiesner and her colleagues wrote. “But when economic inequality increases, so do differences in influence over institutions. Those who have large financial resources can better influence institutional change than those who do not. A shock increase in economic inequality leads to corrosion of the relationship between less well-off voters' choices and institutional outcomes. It may even lead to effective or actual non-democratic rule.”
HALIFAX — A dirt sample taken from a wilderness area outside Halifax has led scientists at Dalhousie University to discover a new branch on the evolutionary tree of life. It turns out the small dirt scrape contained one-celled microbial organisms
A new paper proposes resonance may contribute to human consciousness.
The central thesis of our approach is this: the particular linkages that allow for large-scale consciousness – like those humans and other mammals enjoy – result from a shared resonance among many smaller constituents. The speed of the resonant waves that are present is the limiting factor that determines the size of each conscious entity in each moment.
As a particular shared resonance expands to more and more constituents, the new conscious entity that results from this resonance and combination grows larger and more complex. So the shared resonance in a human brain that achieves gamma synchrony, for example, includes a far larger number of neurons and neuronal connections than is the case for beta or theta rhythms alone.
"Philosophical anthropology on the grandest scale. . . .Gellner has produced a sharp challenge to his colleagues and a thrilling book for the non-specialist. Deductive history on this scale cannot be proved right or wrong, but this is Gellner writing, incisive, iconoclastic, witty and expert. His scenario compels our attention."—Adam Kuper, New Statesman
"A thoughtful and lively meditation upon probably the greatest transformation in human history, upon the difficult problems it poses and the scant resources it has left us to solve them."—Charles Larmore, New Republic
Scientists from around the world have unanimously voted for a new definition of the kilogram – one based on fundamental constants instead of “Le Grand K”
Karl Friston’s free energy principle might be the most all-encompassing idea since Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection. But to understand it, you need to peer inside the mind of Friston himself.
I hate the indifferent. By Antonio Gramsci*. I hate the indifferent. I believe that living means taking sides. Those who really live cannot help being a citizen and a partisan. Indifference and apathy are parasitism, perversion, not life. That is why I hate the indifferent. The indifference is the deadweight of history. The indifference operates…
But eventually the events that are hatched come out into the open; the fabric woven in the shadows is completed, and then it seems that fatality overwhelms everything and everybody. It seems that history is nothing but an immense natural phenomenon, an eruption, an earthquake, and that we are all its victims, both those who wanted it to happen as well as those who did not, those who knew it would happen and those who did not, those who were active and those who were indifferent. And then it is the indifferent ones who get angry, who wish to dissociate themselves from the consequences, who want it made known that they did not want it so and hence bear no responsibility. And while some whine piteously, and others howl obscenely, few people, if any, ask themselves this question: had I done my duty as a man, had I sought to make my voice heard, to impose my will, would what came to pass have ever happened? But few people, if any, see their indifference as a fault – their scepticism, their failure to give moral and material support to those political and economic groups that were struggling either to avoid a particular evil or to promote a particular good. Instead such people prefer to speak of the failure of ideas, of the definitive collapse of programmes, and other like niceties. They continue in their inindifference and their scepticism.
Mathematics: What do grad students in math do all day? - gist:4158578
“A lot of math grad school is reading books and papers and trying to understand what’s going on. The difficulty is that reading math is not like reading a mystery thriller, and it’s not even like reading a history book or a New York Times article.
The main issue is that, by the time you get to the frontiers of math, the words to describe the concepts don’t really exist yet. Communicating these ideas is a bit like trying to explain a vacuum cleaner to someone who has never seen one, except you’re only allowed to use words that are four letters long or shorter.
What can you say?
“It is a tool that does suck up dust to make what you walk on in a home tidy.”
That’s certainly better than nothing, but it doesn’t tell you everything you might want to know about a vacuum cleaner. Can you use a vacuum cleaner to clean bookshelves? Can you use a vacuum cleaner to clean a cat? Can you use a vacuum cleaner to clean the outdoors?
The authors of the papers and books are trying to communicate what they’ve understood as best they can under these restrictions, and it’s certainly better than nothing, but if you’re going to have to work with vacuum cleaners, you need to know much more.
Fortunately, math has an incredibly powerful tool that helps bridge the gap. Namely, when we come up with concepts, we also come up with very explicit symbols and notation, along with logical rules for manipulating them. It’s a bit like being handed the technical specifications and diagrams for building a vacuum cleaner out of parts.
The upside is that now you (in theory) can know 100% unambiguously what a vacuum cleaner can or cannot do. The downside is that you still have no clue what the pieces are for or why they are arranged the way they are, except for the cryptic sentence, “It is a tool that does suck up dust to make what you walk on in a home tidy.”
OK, so now you’re a grad student, and your advisor gives you an important paper in the field to read: “A Tool that does Suck Dust.” The introduction tells you that “It is a tool that does suck up dust to make what you walk on in a home tidy,” and a bunch of other reasonable but vague things. The bulk of the paper is technical diagrams and descriptions of a vacuum cleaner. Then there are some references: “How to use air flow to suck up dust.” “How to use many a coil of wire to make a fan spin very fast.” “What you get from the hole in the wall that has wire in it.”
So, what do you do? Technically, you sit at your desk and think. But it’s not that simple. First, you’re like, lol, that title almost sounds like it could be sexual innuendo. Then you read the introduction, which pleasantly tells you what things are generally about, but is completely vague about the important details.
Then you get to the technical diagrams and are totally confused, but you work through them piece by piece. You redo many of the calculations on your own just to double check that you’ve really understood what’s going on. Sometimes, the calculations that you redo come up with something stupid, and then you have to figure out what you’ve understood incorrectly, and then reread that part of the technical manual to figure things out. Except sometimes there was a typo in the paper, so that’s what screwed things up for you.
After a while, things finally click, and you finally understand what a vacuum cleaner is. In fact, you actually know much more: You’ve now become one of the experts on vacuum cleaners, or at least on this particular kind of vacuum cleaner, and you know a good fraction of the details on how it works. You’re feeling pretty proud of yourself, even though you’re still a far shot from your advisor: They understand all sorts of other kinds of vacuum cleaners, even Roombas, and, in addition to their work on vacuum cleaners, they’re also working on a related but completely different project about air conditioning systems.
You are filled with joy that you can finally talk on par with your advisor, at least on this topic, but there is a looming dark cloud on the horizon: You still need to write a thesis.
So, you think about new things that you can do with vacuum cleaners. So, first, you’re like: I can use a vacuum cleaner to clean bookshelves! That’d be super-useful! But then you do a Google Scholar search and it turns out that someone else did that like ten years ago.
OK, your next idea: I can use a vacuum cleaner to clean cats! That’d also be super-useful. But, alas, a bit more searching in the literature reveals that someone tried that, too, but they didn’t get good results. You’re a confident young grad student, so you decide that, armed with some additional techniques that you happen to know, you might fix the problems that the other researcher had and get vacuuming cats to work. You spend several months on it, but, alas, it doesn’t get you any further.
OK, so then, after more thinking and doing some research on extension cords, you think it would be feasible to use a vacuum cleaner to clean the outdoors. You look in the literature, and it turns out that nobody’s ever thought of doing that! You proudly tell this idea to your advisor, but they do some back of the envelope calculations that you don’t really understand and tell you that vacuuming the outdoors is unlikely to be very useful. Something about how a vacuum cleaner is too small to handle the outdoors and that we already know about other tools that are much better equipped for cleaning streets and such.
This goes on for several years, and finally you write a thesis about how if you turn a vacuum cleaner upside-down and submerge the top end in water, you can make bubbles!
Your thesis committee is unsure of how this could ever be useful, but it seems pretty cool and bubbles are pretty, so they think that maybe something useful could come out of it eventually. Maybe.
And, indeed, you are lucky! After a hundred years or so, your idea (along with a bunch of other ideas) leads to the development of aquarium air pumps, an essential tool in the rapidly growing field of research on artificial goldfish habitats. Yay!”
Understanding via Exploring @fireydelta - Tumblr Blog | Tumgag
