Posts by Martin

Happy 20th!

I guess it comes from remnants of the medieval territories controlled by local warlords, from Buddhism itself, which accepts large income disparities, and from a shift in actually practiced philosophy from Buddhism, which is still upheld by rituals and protected by the Constitution and other laws, to Confucianism, which puts emphasis on accumulating wealth and the primary allegiance to the family/clan.

One more important item: Traditionally, old poor Thais can rely on support from their children.

The welfare system in Thailand is rudimentary. Old people can get enough to buy food but not to pay rent. There is cheap, basic health service for the poor and that is about it. People can supplement with insurance for reasonable fees but would need income for that. Regular employees of regular companies can get better health care and contributions to retirement funds. Only government officers get a pension and free, decent health care after retirement. So anyone below retirement age needs to find work just for survival. Relying on wealthier family members may sometimes work but usually, the family will exert quite some pressure on free-loaders to work. The disabled get support from there families and can beg for sufficient donations from passersby because this is a culture where people like to donate to make merit. The steep income differences and the latent social conflict suppressed by the last 2 military coups indicate that Thailand is not a close-knit society beyond local communities.

Germany's welfare system is close to it except that people need to apply for their handouts and cannot reject every job offer without risking cuts in their handouts. Statistics, old studies on long-term unemployment and my observations match in the conclusion that a large percentage of people get stuck in it with a fatalistic attitude and a false sense of entitlement.

Specific support for mothers/fathers, students and other target groups is fine but I would rather vote against universal basic income. Moreover, it is unlikely that a sizeable universal basic income can be sustained in the long run.

Welcome Jasper!

I agree except for the golden mean. It is OK as a guidance for many things, and hedonic calculus often results in moderation. However, I attribute some of my greatest pleasures and successes, which in turn enabled further pleasures, to go full throttle into mostly beneficial obsessions for extended periods despite some pains which I incurred. I do not recall anything from Epicurus which would advocate the golden mean as a standard.

Thanks for the details. On the 3 items, let us agree to disagree, especially since they are mostly outside philosophy.

I hope we can meet up occasionally when you are here.

I will be on a time-out in Germany for about 2 months from April, and sooner or later after that 2 weeks in Canada. So, if we cannot meet soon after your arrival, we should have plenty of opportunity in the second half of the year. To discuss details, we should eventually use private communication channels.

"Determinism applies to statistics and macroscopic scales. Randomness and probability apply to individual instances.

As individuals we have free will, as a group our behavior is predictable.

This is why the swerve is important on a quantum scale, while macroscopic events obey strict causality."

These assertions are typically adequate but not in general/strictly:

Instead of boiling smoothly at 100 C as usual, a large portion of liquid water may overheat considerably above 100 C and then suddenly evaporate by a large percentage with explosive power.

A totalitarian regime may appear to be stable and invincible for decades and then quickly crumble in an unexpectedly successful revolution (France 1789, East Germany and Romania 1989, in a wider sense the victory of the American independence movement over the UK, the victory of the meager remainder of the Texan "army" against the much larger contingent of the Mexican army at San Jacinto 1836).

So, the swerve may become important for macroscopic events but this is just much less often observed than at a quantum scale (and in complex non-linear systems which by their structure amplify quantum fluctuations or other microscopic fluctuations to macroscopic events), where swerve may happen at a rate of about every millisecond.

"Why do we need to demand social justice for workers in India or China, if we never met one?"

Because that social injustice makes them unfairly compete with our offspring for jobs and has reduced potential growth of our own paychecks for 2 decades already. The loss of mass-manufacturing in Europe and North America is a major contributor to unpleasant political developments. Therefore, it is in our own interest to support social justice in Asia. Another reason is to prevent undesirably large streams of migrants.

As lab manager at manufacturing service factories in Thailand since 2004 and in other jobs already since 1996, I have unintentionally been supporting economic globalization. I am pleased to see how much social progress local engineers have made but I am very dissatisfied with the meager progress of workers' rights and prosperity at lower levels. That lack of progress has certainly contributed to the dramatic drop in Thailand's political stability since 2005.

Florius, I appreciate your clarity and depth regarding philosophy and agree mostly with your comments. Now, I found 3 items where I disagree. Here is the first one:

"Why do we need unverifiable theories about black holes, if we have never encountered one?"

Black holes are an important part of cosmology and therefore directly relevant for our understanding of the world. Although we may not be able to verify all details of the models of black holes, we have sufficient evidence of their existence and therefore encounter them remotely. E.g. we are fairly sure that there is one in the center of our galaxy.

Our offspring might even accidentally produce one in a future accelerator and better will have a fairly good understanding before taking that risk.

That black holes are often in the science headlines reflects rather public interest than that current science was putting a lot of effort on them. The percentage of researchers in that field is extremely small. I am an old physicist and have never knowingly met any of them in person.

Happy 20th!

Welcome Florius Lupus!

Welcome Godfrey!

I perceive bright as more inviting. However, dark is more comfortable to my eyes when working a long time on the computer. So, although I suggest light for the first look, I might set it to dark for myself later on. I agree with Elayne's explanation.

Welcome Domagoj!

Welcome Elayne!

As mentioned in an earlier related discussion on FB, I do not expect infinity and eternity of the universe to be the truth or to have any relevant meaning. Regarding the items under 5, I still need to make up my mind on some subtle differences I have with some of them and and verbalize those. Everything else is fine with me for now.

Welcome Daryl!

Welcome Brad!