http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/06/30/trickle-down-economics-fails-to-deliver-as-promised/

Article discussing the trickle-down idea. Refers to a paper from a respected uni which shows that there is little evidence to believe that it works, and if it does work it a) doesn't work as well as widely touted and b) hardly works at all.

I also read another article from more recent than 2009 from some kind of financial group on or associated strongly with Wall Street itself that concluded even the wealthy see more spending power if their money is more evenly spread; they may have less money in a mathematical sense, but their money will be worth more and provide more because the flow of the economy is so much more active. I'll keep looking and edit if i find it.

Agreed. Thats also why psychology is actually mostly mathematics. Ask any 1st semester student. Its really just cause and effect. What really shocks me all the time is that most people just dont get this simple fact.

Is Reality A Mathematical Structure? has been added as a related post - related requested by billpayer on that post.

My post is not hyperbole, but actual personal observation.



You also have to factor in cost+ funding.

On one hand, it's necessary. Because you don't know how much something truly new will cost - you haven't done it before. You'll discover as you go.
It would be unfair to bind a company to a fixed cost, when nobody knows what the cost will be. It's mathematically unreasonable to entertain a fixed cost on new technologies.

(Granted, everyone gives silly lowballed best-case estimates when bidding. Anyone that injects a sense of reality into their bid is too costly and doesn't get the contract).

On the other hand, cost+ means that you make more money by spending more money. So hiring hordes of nobodies for every little task, making 89347589374 different position titles, is only gonna make you more money. There's no incentive to save.



F35 wise, like I said, it's not designed for any war we fight now.
It's designed for a war we could fight in the future.
Because you don't start designing weapons when you're in a war, you give your best effort to have them already deployed, tested, and iterated into a good sustainable state, before the onset of a conflict that could require them.

F35 variations are not complicated. The VTOL variation is the only one with any complexity. The others are no more complex than historical variations from early to late blocks of any given airframe.

The splitting of manufacturing isn't in itself a complication ridden approach. It's rather normal for different companies to work on unrelated systems. Airframe will go somewhere, avionics elsewhere, engine elsewhere, etc. That's basically a given, because different companies specialize in different things.

Keep in mind that the large prime contracts (Lockheed/GD/etc) don't actually "make" many things. They are systems integrators. They farm out the actual development for most pieces (be it in house contractors or external contractors - because they are easy to let go after the main dev is over), and they themselves specialize in stitching the pieces together. Connecting things is not difficult when they are designed with specified ICDs from the get-go. The black boxes just plug up to each other and go.

The issues that arise are often a matter of playing telephone. With one sub needing to coordinate with another sub, but they have to go through the prime, and the prime is filtering everything through a bunch of non-technical managers. Most problems are solved in a day or two when two subs physically get their engineers together and sort out any miscommunications (granted, contracts and process might not allow them the then fix the problem in a timely and affordable manner).

The F22 and F35 issues are not major insurmountable tasks. The hardest flaws are things that can be fixed in a couple months tops on the engineering side. What takes time is the politics. Engineers can't "just fix it". There's no path forward for that kind of work.

Sure, in a magic wonderland you could tell them "here, grab the credit card, buy what you need, make any changes you need, and let us know when you're done" - and a little while later you'd have a collection of non-approved, non-reviewed, non-traceable, non-contractually-covered changes that "just fix the damn thing"... and you'd also have to incur the wrath of entire departments who were denied the opportunity to validate their existence. The 'high paid welfare' system would be all over your ass.

-scheherazade

I couldn't even make it to the full minute mark. I think the video posted and related where Sean Carroll responds to the idea of a fine tuned universe is a good response.

This video is likely made by the same sort of people who once argued that "just a few feet in either direction and life on Earth couldn't exist". Of course the Earth doesn't have a circular orbit, and our Sun's Goldilocks zone extends from just past Venus (Earth side) to past Mars. Leaving both Earth and Mars well within the habitable zone.

My bigger problem with the video is you are trying to get to point Z, and saying it had to go through A-Y first in specific order. This is an argument used frequently against Evolution. The huge odds you'd have to go through to get to a modern human in the time allowed is greatly against modern humans forming when they did. Problem is you are working from the end result back, rather than the starting point and going forward, and it you are also discounting some other forces of nature. I used to quote the mathematical problem myself when I was a Creationist, though an Old Earth one as I was long of the opinion that Young Earth Creationist make Christians look stupid.

I may be an atheist, but I have no problem with a God of the Gaps if people want to believe that. I however don't believe that Jehovah is that God (there's too much evidence against Him, such as the fact He couldn't or wouldn't reveal himself beyond a tiny little backwater tribe, not to people in the Americas or Asia or Europe, but to one tiny group of people, either He's a Racist, which makes Him unworthy of serving, or He's not any more real than any of the other so called Gods). Whatever, or Whomever may have kick-started the Universe into existence didn't do it for some divine plan for mankind. The arrogance that it takes to assume the Universe in all it's glory was created just to awe man, or for whatever other reasons related to man and our involvement with Jehovah is arrogance beyond belief.

EDIT: Perhaps the better related video would have been http://videosift.com/video/Pure-Imagination-1

Some imprecise, false and misleading statements and baseless assertions in the video that are cogent to the argument:

0:20 "Scientists have come to the realization that these numbers have been dialed to an astonishingly precise value, a value that falls within an exceedingly narrow life-permitting range."

Imprecise. The highlighted bit implies that scientists have discovered an agent who did the "dialing", which is not the case. Rather, scientists have come to the realization that these numbers have values that fall within extremely narrow life-permitting ranges."

2:24 "... these and other numbers have been exquisitely balanced ...

Imprecise. Again, you cannot claim that they "have been balanced" without tautologically claiming a designer.

3:55 "The probabilities involved are so ridiculously remote as to put the fine tuning well beyond the reach of chance."

Assertion. For this statement to be true, someone would have to define when a probability becomes "too remote". We're talking about something that we don't understand, so it's not possible to determine that it is "too remote".

4:03 "So, in an effort to keep this option alive, some have gone beyond empirical science..."

Imprecise. Nobody decided the Multiverse was a good way to explain the appearance of fine tuning. The Multiverse arises unbidden out of other theories of mathematics, with the effect of making chance quite a viable possibility.

4:35 "... and this universe generator itself would require an enormous amount of fine tuning"

False. A machine making massive numbers of universes only has to create one with our balance of numbers one time. If I can shoot a billion arrows at a target, I can afford for the sights on my bow to be much less finely tuned than if I only have one arrow, and if I have an infinite number of arrows, I don't need any fine tuning at all. I can shoot in random directions and be assured that I will hit the target by pure chance.

The chart about high and low order universes

False. A small universe with a single observer may be more likely, and may also exist in addition to our own. The fact that our universe is vast (relative to what, exactly?) doesn't mean others don't also exist.

AND Imprecise. You cannot measure the creation of universes on a time line. Time is created within our universe.

4:55: "... a vast, spectacularly complex, highly ordered universe ...

Assertion. Vase, complex and ordered in comparison to what? We don't know if ours is very complex compared to how complex a universe could be.

5:05: "So, even if the Multiverse existed ... it wouldn't do anything to explain the fine tuning."

False. That's exactly what it would do, or at least it would easily explain away the appearance of fine tuning as random chance.

AND Misleading. It should be phrased, "... to explain the appearance of fine tuning," which is what we're trying to explain.

You can prove a negative: there are no married bachelors. The idea that your cat is the Creator of the Universe has no explanatory power. To have an argument that your cat is the Creator you need to provide positive reasons for it. The Universe is finely tuned: if design is an explanation than I wouldn't need to disprove anything and everything as being a potential Creator, I would simply need to examine the evidence for design to make a determination as to what kind of being this must be, and using Occams razor I could come to some definite conclusions about it.

The second question is actually a really good one. I would expect to see the "signature" of the creator: something empirical that would point directly to a creator-being as opposed to a universe governed by. and explainable by, mathematical laws.

How do you know that a Universe governed by laws isn't the signature of a Creator? Why would you expect to see a grand cosmos such as this, with such awesome beauty, whirling away with mechanical precision? The mere fact of its existence let alone its operation and stability is something too grandiose to be automatically regulated to some accident. The intelligibility of the Universe is also something you seem to be taking from granted. Why should we even be able to comprehend it as far as we do? Could it be that the Creator gave us that ability?

I would also ask you why you think that understanding the mechanism somehow explains away agency?

As was noted before, you can't prove a negative (what evidence are you using to prove the universe wasn't created by my cat?)

The second question is actually a really good one. I would expect to see the "signature" of the creator: something empirical that would point directly to a creator-being as opposed to a universe governed by. and explainable by, mathematical laws.

I agree. It starts with "Shut up and calculate" and ends with nothing useful. I'm not sure we're moving forward with anything but mathematical masturbation at this point. It's very frustrating.

I wouldn't keep beating this horse bloody if yours hadn't died HUNDREDS of years prior.

We're NOT talking about philosophy. This is NOT a perspective based on convictions alone. We are talking about TEST-ABLE SCI-ENCE...

This is the world (universe, perhaps multiverse) which engineers towards space discovery, sustainability of planetary bodies and their varied biology, geology, chemistry, and all of the sciences explainable through the holiest of holy languages -- MATHEMATICS -- based on innovation and implementation through repeatable testing.

Your beliefs do NOT contribute to that, though they do contribute elsewhere -- the realms of philosophy and mythology. I guess we call that religion. But not science.

In this life, we are concerned with temporal discovery and how to engineer with such discoveries. We're not concerned about the afterlife in THIS life. We are concerned with science, especially because it has a track record of proven results which we all benefit from.

It doesn't matter what you believe or once believed, there is a rigorous process for scientific knowledge; including a peer review process. All humans have emotional pain, but that shouldn't hold us back in the dark ages before reason.

Oh...so it's OK with you to simplify and 'falsify details' significantly by modeling the earth as a perfect sphere, but not ignore the mathematically insignificant and immeasurably small possible movement of the earth in some direction or another due to multiple immeasurably small gravities?! WHAT?!? ;-)

....Um...1 degree on earth is 111.2 KM, there's such a tiny difference (1 cm+-) they are in the same place for all possible measureable purposes, nothing like 1 deg apart. My scientific calculator won't give an answer, 1 deg * (1cm/111.2km) =0.00deg on it. (OK, it's not hard math...1/11120000 deg.) Because of this, yes, they WOULD cross the imaginary line, AND hit the earth at the same time by any possible measurement. If the smallest distance measureable is FAR larger than the distance they differ by, and the smallest time measureable is MUCH longer than the difference in time they hit, normal (and most abnormal) people say it's exactly the same.

And again...the experiment properly ignores any infinitely tiny immeasurable movement of the earth in ANY random direction for the obvious reasons already stated. There's far more difference based on the precise position of mercury than the position of the bowling ball and feather, especially when they are nearly touching...You know and understand this.

First....nice, nice.
Second. I get your point. They should have been more clear that they are intentionally ignoring any other forces, such as the force exerted by the objects on the planet and each other, and the pull of the observer, and the pull of the milky way, the sun, the moon, Venus, etc. Because those forces are completely inobservable, even with top notch equipment, it's simpler for most to not mention them at all. They have no bearing on what they're teaching, and the smart children who see farther into the details are smart enough to know what this experiment is designed to show, and what it ignores....or at least smart enough to ask the right questions, while the less science/math minded would only be confused by the mention of them while also ignoring them. it's not exactly the same thing as teaching that 5/0=0, when it's really infinity, the exact opposite of 0.

This experiment was about what's observable, not what's mathematically provable at the tiniest detail level. Those details are for higher level physics. I will agree, it's a disservice to not mention that clearly, but I think it's implied by the parameters and the intent (teaching that acceleration due to gravity is independent of mass).
EDIT: Also, please remember that for all intents and purposes, they are releasing the objects from the same point, so they still 'hit' at 'exactly' the same time because their forces are in line, off by what, perhaps <.0000000001deg?. As you said, all solved by equivocating 'exactly' to 'nearly exactly' or 'approximately the same' or even 'observably exactly the same time'.

What the fuck is that? That is not a committee of scientists!? That is absolutely and desperately embarrassing. And i'm sure there is some equivalent in the UK.

This is the problem. We need the scientific method applied to governance. The scientific method by which we choose the best option based on mathematical and scientific evidence. Why wouldn't we choose the best option based on the evidence we have? This is utterly ridiculous..

Far from conclusive, but the idea of a designer-god (demiurge) was at one time a thought provoking perspective on existence.

However, your statement is best expressed as a belief made through faith; NOT a conclusive argument made through PROOF, the definition of which you're incorrectly ascribing your statement to.

Which makes it less thought provoking now that we have more advanced ways of reasoning and pondering the universe. i.e. the scientific method.

Admirable, perhaps, to still cling to said belief, but not convincing in the least, considering it is something that is neither deniable nor undeniably a possibility. Concluding science to be "proof" of God is merely a logical trap to be avoided.

EDIT:
"...therefore the inference to the best explanation is that which points to a mind, and therefore a designer."

Also, just because our theories of abiogenesis are not as sophisticated as our theories of evolution, does not suddenly mean that a designer is the final, undeniable conclusion. If that were the case with science we'd drop all of our theories in conclusion that it must be a god. We can't connect our theory of gravity to abiogenesis, therefore it is God. Laughable conclusion based in logical fallacy.

The only thing that infers such an explanation is your mind saying it is so. Similar to my inference that trees being phallic and in abundance, necessitate a giant penis god. You fail to see that science isn't merely based upon human logic and pattern recognition, it is based in mathematical observation -- which your logical leaps and bounds are not able to compete with, no matter how hard your brain tries to find a hidden pattern in anything you can grasp for, like a man drowning in an ocean of possibilities.

Anyone can infer anything from something of similar value, ergo inference without a scientific basis is silly.

We live in a world of pyramid-shaped societies, so many people on the bottom will never move up, no matter how hard they work, because there simply isn't room. It's mathematically impossible. Working hard certainly increases your odds of advancement and should definitely be encouraged, but life is still largely chance.

The American Dream is that anyone can make it to the top, not that everyone can.

It's a fine dream, but sadly once people do well they often forget about dumb luck and start thinking it was all their hard work, and therefore people who haven't done well must be lazy.