Cloud Hosting

An edgy biography of Stephen Hawking has me reminiscing about sciences good old days. Or were they bad? I cant decide. Im talking about the 1990s, when scientific hubris ran rampant. As journalist Charles Seife recalls in Hawking Hawking: The Selling of a Scientific Celebrity, Hawking and other physicists convinced us that they were on the verge of a theory of everything that would solve the riddle of existence. It would reveal why there is something rather than nothing, and why that something is the way it is.

In this column, Ill look at an equally ambitious and closely related claim, that science will absorb other ways of seeing the world, including the arts, humanities and religion. Nonscientific modes of knowledge wont necessarily vanish, but they will become consistent with science, our supreme source of truth. The most eloquent advocate of this perspective is biologist Edward Wilson, one of our greatest scientist-writers.

In his 1998 bestseller Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, Wilson prophesies that science will soon yield such a compelling, complete theory of nature, including human nature, that the humanities, ranging from philosophy and history to moral reasoning, comparative religion, and interpretation of the arts, will draw closer to the sciences and partly fuse with them. Wilson calls this unification of knowledge consilience, an old-fashioned term for coming together or converging. Consilience will resolve our age-old identity crisis, helping us understand once and for all who we are and why we are here, as Wilson puts it.

Dismissing philosophers warnings against deriving ought from is, Wilson insists that we can deduce moral principles from science. Science can illuminate our moral impulses and emotions, such as our love for those who share our genes, as well as giving us moral guidance. This linkage of science to ethics is crucial, because Wilson wants us to share his desire to preserve nature in all its wild variety, a goal that he views as an ethical imperative.

At first glance you might wonder: Who could possibly object to this vision? Wouldnt we all love to agree on a comprehensive worldview, consistent with science, that tells us how to behave individually and collectively? And in fact. many scholars share Wilsons hope for a merger of science with alternative ways of engaging with reality. Some enthusiasts have formed the Consilience Project, dedicated to developing a body of social theory and analysis that explains and seeks solutions to the unique challenges we face today. Last year, poet-novelist Clint Margrave wrote an eloquent defense of consilience for Quillette, noting that he has often drawn inspiration from science.

Another consilience booster is psychologist and megapundit Steven Pinker, who praised Wilsons excellent book in 1998 and calls for consilience between science and the humanities in his 2018 bestseller Enlightenment Now. The major difference between Wilson and Pinker is stylistic. Whereas Wilson holds out an olive branch to postmodern humanities scholars who challenge sciences objectivity and authority, Pinker scolds them. Pinker accuses postmodernists of defiant obscurantism, self-refuting relativism and suffocating political correctness.

The enduring appeal of consilience makes it worth revisiting. Consilience raises two big questions: (1) Is it feasible? (2) Is it desirable? Feasibility first. As Wilson points out, physics has been an especially potent unifier, establishing over the past few centuries that the heavens and earth are made of the same stuff ruled by the same forces. Now physicists seek a single theory that fuses general relativity, which describes gravity, with quantum field theory, which accounts for electromagnetism and the nuclear forces. This is Hawkings theory of everything and Steven Weinbergs final theory."

Writing in 1998, Wilson clearly expected physicists to find a theory of everything soon, but today they seem farther than ever from that goal. Worse, they still cannot agree on what quantum mechanics means. As science writer Philip Ball points out in his 2018 book Beyond Weird: Why Everything You Thought You Knew about Quantum Physics Is Different, there are more interpretations of quantum mechanics now than ever.

The same is true of scientific attempts to bridge the explanatory chasm between matter and mind. In the 1990s, it still seemed possible that researchers would discover how physical processes in the brain and other systems generate consciousness. Since then, mind-body studies have undergone a paradigm explosion, with theorists espousing a bewildering variety of models, involving quantum mechanics, information theory and Bayesian mathematics. Some researchers suggest that consciousness pervades all matter, a view called panpsychism; others insist that the so-called hard problem of consciousness is a pseudoproblem because consciousness is an illusion.

There are schisms even within Wilsons own field of evolutionary biology. In Consilience and elsewhere, Wilson suggests that natural selection promotes traits at the level of tribes and other groups; in this way, evolution might have bequeathed us a propensity for religion, war and other social behaviors. Other prominent Darwinians, notably Richard Dawkins and Robert Trivers, reject group selection, arguing that natural selection operates only at the level of individual organisms and even individual genes.

If scientists cannot achieve consilience even within specific fields, what hope is there for consilience between, say, quantum chromodynamics and queer theory? (Actually, in her fascinating 2007 book Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning, physicist-philosopher Karen Barad finds resonances between physics and gender politics; but Barads book represents the kind of postmodern analysis deplored by Wilson and Pinker.) If consilience entails convergence toward a consensus, science is moving away from consilience.

So, consilience doesnt look feasible, at least not at the moment. Next question: Is consilience desirable? Although Ive always doubted whether it could happen, I once thought consilience should happen. If humanity can agree on a single, rational worldview, maybe we can do a better job solving our shared problems, like climate change, inequality, pandemics and militarism. We could also get rid of bad ideas, such as the notion that God likes some of us more than others; or that racial and sexual inequality and war are inevitable consequences of our biology.

I also saw theoretical diversity, or pluralism, as philosophers call it, as a symptom of failure; the abundance of solutions to the mind-body problem, like the abundance of treatments for cancer, means that none works very well. But increasingly, I see pluralism as a valuable, even necessary counterweight to our yearning for certitude. Pluralism is especially important when it comes to our ideas about who we are, can be and should be. If we settle on a single self-conception, we risk limiting our freedom to reinvent ourselves, to discover new ways to flourish.

Wilson acknowledges that consilience is a reductionistic enterprise, which will eliminate many ways of seeing the world. Consider how he treats mystical visions, in which we seem to glimpse truths normally hidden behind the surface of things. To my mind, these experiences rub our faces in the unutterable weirdness of existence, which transcends all our knowledge and forms of expression. As William James says in The Varieties of Religious Experience, mystical experiences should forbid a premature closing of our accounts with reality.

Wilson disagrees. He thinks mystical experiences are reducible to physiological processes. In Consilience, he focuses on Peruvian shaman-artist Pablo Amaringo, whose paintings depict fantastical, jungly visions induced by ayahuasca, a hallucinogenic tea (which I happen to have taken) brewed from two Amazonian plants. Wilson attributes the snakes that slither through Amaringos paintings to natural selection, which instilled an adaptive fear of snakes in our ancestors; it should not be surprising that snakes populate many religious myths, such as the biblical story of Eden.

Moreover, ayahuasca contains psychotropic compounds, including the potent psychedelic dimethyltryptamine, like those that induce dreams, which stem from, in Wilsons words, the editing of information in the memory banks of the brain that occurs while we sleep. These nightly neural discharges are arbitrary in content, that is, meaningless; but the brain desperately tries to assemble them into coherent narratives, which we experience as dreams.

In this way, Wilson explains Amaringos visions in terms of evolutionary biology, psychology and neurochemistry. This is a spectacular example of what Paul Feyerabend, my favorite philosopher and a fierce advocate for pluralism, calls the tyranny of truth. Wilson imposes his materialistic, secular worldview on the shaman, and he strips ayahuasca visions of any genuine spiritual significance. While he exalts biological diversity, Wilson shows little respect for the diversity of human beliefs.

Wilson is a gracious, courtly man in person as well on the page. But his consilience project stems from excessive faith in science, or scientism. (Both Wilson and Pinker embrace the term scientism, and they no doubt think that the phrase excessive faith in science is oxymoronic.) Given the failure to achieve consilience within physics and biologynot to mention the replication crisis and other problemsscientists should stop indulging in fantasies about conquering all human culture and attaining something akin to omniscience. Scientists, in short, should be more humble.

Ironically, Wilson himself questioned the desirability of final knowledge early in his career. At the end of his 1975 masterpiece Sociobiology, Wilson anticipates the themes of Consilience, predicting that evolutionary theory plus genetics will soon absorb the social sciences and humanities. But Wilson doesnt exult at this prospect. When we can explain ourselves in mechanistic terms, he warns, the result might be hard to accept; we might find ourselves, as Camus put it, divested of illusions.

Wilson neednt have worried. Scientific omniscience looks less likely than ever, and humans are far too diverse, creative and contrary to settle for a single worldview of any kind. Inspired by mysticism and the arts, as well as by science, we will keep arguing about who we are and reinventing ourselves forever. Is consilience a bad idea, which wed be better off without? I wouldnt go that far. Like utopia, another byproduct of our yearning for perfection, consilience, the dream of total knowledge, can serve as a useful goad to the imagination, as long as we see it as an unreachable ideal. Lets just hope we never think weve reached it.

This is an opinion and analysis article; the views expressed by theauthor or authorsare not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Further Reading:

The Delusion of Scientific Omniscience

The End of Science (updated 2015 edition)

Mind-Body Problems: Science, Subjectivity and Who We Really Are

I just talked about consilience with science journalist Philip Ball on my podcast Mind-Body Problems.

I brood over the limits of knowledge in my new book Pay Attention: Sex, Death, and Science.

Read the original:

Science Should Not Try to Absorb Religion and Other Ways of Knowing - Scientific American

Back in October of 1927, the worlds leading scientists descended upon Brussels for the fifth Solvay Conference an exclusive, invite-only conference that is dedicated to discussing and solving the outstanding preeminent open problems in physics and chemistry.

In attendance were scientists that, today, we praise as the brightest minds in the history of mankind.

Albert Einstein was there so was Erwin Schrodinger, who devised the famous Schrodingers cat experiment and Werner Heisenberg, the man behind the world-changing Heisenberg uncertainty principle and Louis de Broglie. Max Born. Neils Bohr. Max Planck.

The list goes on and on. Of the 29 scientists who met in Brussels in October 1927, 17 of them went on to win a Nobel Prize.

These are the minds that collectively created the scientific foundation upon which the modern world is built.

And yet, when they all descended upon Brussels nearly 94 years ago, they got stumped by one concept one concept that for nearly a century has remained the elusive key to unlocking the full potential of humankind.

And now, for the first time ever, that concept which stumped even Einstein is turning into a disruptive reality, via a breakthrough technology that will change the world as we know it.

So what exactly were Einstein, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, and the rest of those Nobel Laureates talking about in Brussels back in 1927?

Quantum mechanics.

Now, to be clear, quantum mechanics is a big, complex topic that would require 500 pages to fully understand, but heres my best job at making a Cliffs Notes version in 500 words instead

For centuries, scientists had developed, tested, and validated the laws of the physical world which became known as classical mechanics. These laws scientifically explained how things worked. Why they worked. Where they came from. So on and so forth.

But the discovery of the electron in 1897 by J.J. Thomson unveiled a new, subatomic world of supper-small things that didnt obey the laws of classical mechanics. The biggest differences were two-fold.

First, in classical mechanics, objects are in one place, at one time. You are either at the store, or at home.

But, in quantum mechanics, subatomic particles can theoretically exist in multiple places at once before they are observed. A single subatomic particle can exist in point A and point B at the same time, until we observe it, at which point it only exists at either point A or point B.

So, the true location of a subatomic particle is some combination of all its possible locations.

This is called quantum superposition.

Second, in classical mechanics, objects can only work with things that are also real. You cant use your imaginary friend to help move the couch. You need your real friend to help you.

But, in quantum mechanics, all of those probabilistic states of subatomic particles are not independent. Theyre entangled. That is, if we know something about the probabilistic positioning of one subatomic particle, then we know something about the probabilistic positioning of another subatomic particle meaning that these already super-complex particles can actually work together to create a super-complex ecosystem.

This is called quantum entanglement.

So, in short, subatomic particles can theoretically have multiple probabilistic states at once, and all those probabilistic states can work together again, all at once to accomplish some task.

And that, in a nutshell, is the scientific breakthrough that stumped Einstein back in the early 1900s.

It goes against everything classical mechanics had taught us about the world. It goes against common sense. But its true. Its real. And, now, for the first time ever, we are leaning how to harness this unique phenomenon to change everything about everything

That is, the study of quantum theory has made huge advancements over the past century, especially so over the past decade, wherein scientists at leading technology companies have started to figure out how to harness the powers of quantum mechanics to make a new generation of super quantum computers that are infinitely faster and more powerful than even todays fastest supercomputers.

In short, todays computers are built on top of the laws of classical mechanics. That is, they store information on what are called bits which can store data binarily as either 1 or 0.

But what if you could harness the power of quantum mechanics to turn those classical bits into quantum bits or qubits that can leverage superpositioning to be both 1 and 0 data stores at the same time?

Even further, what if you could take those quantum bits and leverage entanglement to get all of the multi-state bits to work together to solve computationally taxing problems?

You would theoretically create a machine with so much computational power that it would make even todays most advanced supercomputers look like they are from the Stone Age.

Thats exactly what is happening today.

Google has built a quantum computer that solved a mathematical calculation in 200 seconds, that took the worlds most advanced classical supercomputer IBM Summit 10,000 years to do. That means Googles quantum computer is about 158 million times faster than the worlds fastest supercomputer.

Thats not hyperbole. Thats a real number.

Imagine the possibilities if we could broadly create a new set of quantum computers 158 million times faster than even todays fastest computers.

Wed finally have the level of AI that you see in movies. Thats because the biggest limitation to AI today is the robustness of machine learning algorithms, which are constrained by supercomputing capacity. Expand that capacity, and you get infinitely improved machine learning algos, and infinitely smarter AI.

We could eradicate disease. We already have tools like gene editing, but the effectiveness of gene editing relies of the robustness of the underlying computing capacity to identify, target, insert, cut, and repair genes. Insert quantum computing capacity, and all that happens without an error in seconds allowing for us to truly fix anything about anyone.

We could finally have that million-mile EV. We can only improve batteries if we can test them, and we can only test them in the real-world so much. Therefore, the key to unlocking a million-mile battery is through cellular simulation, and the quickness and effectiveness of cellular simulation rests upon the robustness of the underlying computing capacity. Make that capacity 158 million times bigger, and cellular simulation will happen 158 million times faster.

The applications here are truly endless.

And thats why the Boston Consulting Group believes quantum computing will be the next trillion-dollar industry.

I couldnt agree more. Over the next two decades, quantum computing is going to change everything about everything.

And thats why, Ive made my first-ever foray into quantum computing stocks recently, adding the best quantum computing stock to buy today in my ultra-exclusive newsletter service, Exponential Growth Report.

You can learn more about my premium newsletter subscription services, and my top picks in the worlds emerging megatrends, by becoming a free subscriber to Hypergrowth Investing. By signing up, youll also get my latest research report, 11 Electric Vehicle Stocks for 2021, sent directly to your inbox.

In Hypergrowth, my team and I cover the preeminent megatrends of today, and the top stocks to buy within them, sending a free issue to your inbox each day at 7:30 a.m. Eastern. Im talking about markets with hidden gems that could score investors 10X, 50X, or even 100X upside.

And you can learn all about my premium subscription services where I compile the best-of-the-best in the hypergrowth investing world. My latest pick in Exponential Growth Report is the top quantum computing company in the world a name no one has heard about yet which could one day be as big as Amazon Web Services or Google cloud.

This is the next big thing.

To find out more about this potential life-changing investment opportunity, start by following Hypergrowth Investing for free.

On the date of publication, Luke Lango did not have (either directly or indirectly) any positions in the securities mentioned in this article.

See the original post here:

Quantum Computing Stumped Einstein 100 Years Ago. Today, It's Ready to Change the World. - InvestorPlace

Welcome back to a space where we dont necessarily talk about Syracuse Orange sports, but instead, discuss what were doing without Syracuse sports on at all. Perhaps with the extra time on your hands lately, youve been spending more time with your family and/or spending more time outside. But if not, were here with recommendations.

During some Fridays this summer, the TNIAAM crew will come together to recommend things for you to enjoy and you can choose to ignore those if you wish. First up this year: Which books are you reading right now?

John: Hit Makers by Derek Thompson

This is far from the first Ive got the secret to this book, but Id argue its a far more interesting read than the sort of anecdotal preponderances that figurehead of that genre, Malcolm Gladwell, has put out. In Hit Makers, Thompson looks at what drives popularity, viral moments and buying decisions and relates it to a lot of things youre well familiar with. You may even find some clues as to why you continue to root for the Orange in there. Admittedly, I may be more predisposed to enjoying this sort of book because of my line of work(s). But I dont think you need a communications background to be intrigued.

Kevin: Off-Mike by Doc Emrick and Kevin Allen

Im wrapped up in Stanley Cup Playoffs fever right now as my Habs make their longest run in forever and I do miss that Mike Doc Emricks not on the call. This book takes you through his journey to becoming the voice of the NHL and its a nice look at the relationships he built with on-air partners Bill Clement and Eddie Olczyk. Above all though its the story of Doc and his wife Joyce and the challenge of chasing a career in sports without losing out on relationships and what truly matters.

Steve: Breakfast with Einstein by Chad Orzel and Priest by Matthew Colville

Two diametrically opposed offerings. A book on translating theoretical physics into the every day occurrences around you and the start of a fantasy series. Thats what Ive been reading. Orzel, who happens to also be my old physics professor at Union, has a way with taking concepts of quantum physics that start past where you are thinking and explains how they apply to things you do on the daily. Priest is just a really good world building novel that Ive been reading and seemed like a good plug.

***

What are you reading right now? Share your own selections below.

Go here to read the rest:

TNIAAM recommends: Which books are you reading right now? - Troy Nunes Is An Absolute Magician

This commentary was issued recently by money managers, research firms, and market newsletter writers and has been edited by Barrons.

June 24: Does monetary policy have things backward in this highly unusual cycle? Markets suffered only a fleeting blow from the Feds slight step back from uber-dovishness last week, as the bigger picture is that almost all central banks still have easy policies cranked to 11. The Bank of Mexicos shock rate hike this week is an exception that proves the rule. The fact that 10-year Treasury yields are planted at 1.5%, even as core inflation spikes above 3%, and equities are again testing all-time highs speaks to the lack of fear of the Fed among market participants. And, while Chair Powell flashed a hint of concern about the persistence of inflation at this weeks testimony, his main message is that we still have a long way to go in the recovery, particularly on the jobs front.

But the opening question is aimed at whether monetary policy is the proper vehicle to get us to the full-employment destination. As widely covered here and elsewhere, 9 million U.S. job openings do not suggest that there is a demand problem. It is becoming increasingly obvious that supply issues are the constraint on growth, whether its hesitant workers, bottlenecks, shortages, or backlogs. Yet, policy is still set at maximum support for demand, with fiscal policy now poised to add yet another leg, via an infrastructure deal. Those central banks that are now gingerly stepping backNorway, Mexico, and even Canadaare the few that seem to openly recognize this new reality.

Douglas Porter

The McClellan Market Report

McClellan Financial Publications

mcoscillator.com

June 24: Anyone can look at the VIX [ CBOE volatility index] to get sentiment indications about the stock market. Thats beginner stuff, although still pretty good. The real fun lies in going deeper into data that no one else looks at to find the fun insights.

This week [well look at] the total open interest in VIX futures. VIX futures first traded in 2004, but didnt really get going as a trading vehicle until around 2012. Normally, total open interest moves up and down with stock prices. It gets interesting when open interest moves too far in one direction or the other, or when the behavior changes.

In 2021, we are seeing a change in behavior. Total open interest has been falling since the peak in February, and is now down to the 200-day moving average, even though prices are continuing higher. This is the change in behavior that is so important to note. Since VIX futures first started trading in 2004, the important price tops for the S&P 500 have appeared when VIX open interest was well above its 200-day MA. I should clarify further that just being well above the 200-day MA isnt enough to put in a top. Prices can keep going up despite such a condition.

Rather, having VIX open interest below the 200-day MA is useful for ruling out the possibility that prices are now at a major top. It is a missing-topping condition. So we have some assurance that there should still be a lot more [room] for prices to run higher. When we see hedge funds getting excited again about trading the VIX futures, and open interest numbers rising to well above the 200-day MA, then we can worry about a meaningful top for stock prices.

Tom McClellan

Economic Update

Regions Financial

regions.com

June 22: Total existing home sales fell to an annualized rate of 5.80 million units in May from Aprils sales rate of 5.85 million units, a bit better than the 5.73 million unit pace we and the consensus expected. While the May headline sales number may have been a bit better than expected, the real May sales number is much worse than the headline number implies.

As our regular readers know, when it comes to the data on residential construction and sales, we have no use for the seasonally adjusted annualized headline numbers and even less use for any attempts at analysis based on these numbers, with our sole focus on the not-seasonally-adjusted data. The unadjusted data show that there were 528,000 existing homes sold in May, far below our forecast of 561,000 sales. While this is up from 513,000 sales in April, the 2.9% increase is much smaller than the typical increase for the month of May.

As has been the case for years, not months, lean inventories were once again a drag on sales in May. Listings of existing homes rose to 1.23 million units in May, a touch higher than our forecast of 1.22 million units, but this nonetheless left listings down 20.7% year-on-year. The median existing-home sales price rose to $350,300, the highest on record and a year-on-year increase of 23.6%, though the median sales price is being skewed higher by the mix of sales being increasingly weighted toward the higher price ranges given the dearth of inventory in the lower price ranges. While we do look for some relief on the supply front over the back half of 2021 to help blunt the pace of house price appreciation, affordability will remain an issue, particularly for prospective first-time buyers.

Richard F. Moody

Blog

William Blair

williamblair.com

June 21: There is at least one emerging technology with the potential to be highly disruptive: quantum computing. At some point, leading-edge semiconductors (the tiniest and best performing) will reach a physical limitchips cant get much smaller.

Computers using quantum physics instead of traditional semiconductor architectures have performance capabilities and processing power thats far greater than classical computers.

While it probably wont become mainstream for at least another five years, quantum computing has the potential to transform everything from technology to healthcare.

Greg Scolaro

Market Commentary

Texas Capital Bank

texascapitalbank.com

June 21: Remember that June is one of the worst months of the year for stock performance. Somebody must be in last place. Fridays [June 18] triple-witching day put the exclamation mark on stock performance for the month. Quarter-end portfolio positioning along with options expiration jolted most stocks lower by a percent or two. Each of the three Dow indices is in the red for June, with the recovery-oriented Transports faring the worst, -7% at Fridays close. One quarter of the S&P 500 consists of growth-oriented technology stocks, and the sector helped the big index stay above water for the month.

The late June jolt may stick around. Most index charts in the very short term are in downtrends, but all remain in their consolidation areas that date back to mid-April. Year 2 of a Bull cycle should see bumps along the way. Stocks are less than 4% below all-time highs, and earnings forecasts are improving. Any summer correction should be a buying opportunity.

Steve Orr, Greg Kalb

To be considered for this section, material, with the author's name and address, should be sent to MarketWatch@barrons.com.

Continue reading here:

Monetary Policy Around the World Is Too Loose - Barron's