I'm Really Tired Of People On Social Media Saying Things Like "being Silent On An Issue Means You Side

Tips for working with children?

1. Don't lie to them if you can avoid it. Water down truths at your discretion, but if you try to lie outright, a good number of them are probably going to pick up on your weird energy and figure you're hiding something. This will very likely come off as "adult who doesn't think we're real people", which is how you promote rebellion.

2. Listen to the problems they come to you with. Imagine they were your problems. If Brůnden at work stole all your pens and ignored your requests to leave you be, you'd be pretty pissed if your manager told you to "just use your nice words" or "let him get bored". Decide what you would want an adult to do, and form a reasonable response.

3. Let some of your weird (child appropriate) interests show. Odds are, when they see your passion, they'll take interest. I accidentally wound up teaching an intro to animal biology to a group of first graders in my after school program this way, and it became what they knew me for. Great for bonding, teaching, and bartering for completed chores.

4. Learn about things they're interested in, but don't force it into things. It'll help you understand what you overhear, and pitch in at the right moment.

5. Treats and stickers. They work on adults, and they work on kids. Make them take a little bit of effort to earn, but also pick special occasions where everyone gets one free. Once you get a better idea of their personalities, lives, strengths, and weaknesses, you can tailor this for personal growth.

6. Acknowledge their feelings. Verbally affirm that they are upset, they are frustrated, they are angry or sad, and encourage them to explain why, and work to find acceptable solutions. Staying perfectly calm and happy while they're angry might help to a point, but ignoring their obvious feelings will make them feel that you don't care or understand, which will make things worse. A lot of kids have a hard time figuring out how adults feel, and why, so empathy will need to be clearer.

7. Play with them on their own level. When you play a game they started on their own, follow their rules, and if you can't, explain why. Expect a few of them to try and mess with you. You're not as distant or alien if you can fall for the same things they do, or admit when you've been outsmarted or outclassed. Be aware that some rules may change at random, and don't go all out on winning.

8. Be honest in ways other adults won't be. When telling a personal story, mention offhand that you didn't like someone, or someone was mean for no reason, or another adult was rude or broke rules, they'll see that you think and feel in similar ways as them, and it can reinforce that yeah, sometimes life is unfair, no, growing up doesn't numb your personality, and no, you don't have to feel happy and positive and pleasant all the time. Sometimes things just suck, and you need to handle it maturely. It's acting on bad feelings that's bad, not the bad feelings themselves. And hey, sometimes adults ARE mean or rude or wrong! They're not crazy or dumb when they notice!

9. Literally just be yourself. Curb any cursing or inappropriate subject matter, but otherwise, they'll recognize that you're an individual with your own personality, and either they'll like you or they won't. Either way, they'll decide how to act from there. Kids are mostly just distilled adults with social restrictions, they can adapt to a lot.

“[Keanu] Reeves said a recent conversation about “The Matrix” with a 15-year-old put things into a terrifying perspective. The actor explained to the teenager that his character, Neo, is fighting for what’s real. The teenager scoffed and said, “Who cares if it’s real?” “People are growing up with these tools: We’re listening to music already that’s made by AI in the style of Nirvana, there’s NFT digital art,” Reeves said. “It’s cool, like, Look what the cute machines can make! But there’s a corporatocracy behind it that’s looking to control those things. Culturally, socially, we’re gonna be confronted by the value of real, or the non-value. And then what’s going to be pushed on us? What’s going to be presented to us?” “It’s this sensorium. It’s spectacle. And it’s a system of control and manipulation,” Reeves continued. “We’re on our knees looking at cave walls and seeing the projections, and we’re not having the chance to look behind us.””

—

Keanu Reeves Slams Deepfakes, Film Contract Prevents Digital Edits - Variety

Honestly something that bothers me more than most things is having my compassion mistaken for naivety.

I know that another fish might eat this bullfrog right after I spend months rehabilitating it.

I know that turning a beetle back onto its legs won’t save it from falling over again when I walk away.

I know that there is no cosmic reward waiting for my soul based on how many worms I pick off a hot sidewalk to put into the mud, or how many times I’ve helped a a raccoon climb out of a too-deep trashcan. 

I know things suffer, and things struggle, and things die uselessly all day long. I’m young and idealistic, but I’m not literally a child. I would never judge another person for walking by an injured bird, for ignoring a worm, or for not really caring about the fate of a frog in a pond full of, y’know, plenty of other frogs.

There is nothing wrong with that.

But I cannot cannot cannot look at something struggling and ignore it if I may have the power to help.

There is so much bad stuff in this world so far beyond my control, that I take comfort in the smallest, most thankless tasks. It’s a relief to say “I can help you in this moment,” even though they don’t understand.

I don’t need a devil’s advocate to tell me another fish probably ate that frog when I let it go, or that the raccoon probably ended up trapped in another dumpster the next night.

I know!!!! I know!!!!!!! But today I had the power to help! So I did! And it made me happy!

So just leave me alone alright thank u!!!!

THAT guy Early Morning thoughts. #pascalcampion

Quantum Mechanics Itself as Emergent 'Phenomenon'?

Recently, we've been talking about emergence - more explicitly about emergent phenomena in many body systems. But what if the concept of emergence would not only apply 'within' quantum mechanics but also 'outside' the theory? What if quantum mechanics itself is an emergent theory from a classical-type underlying 'reality'? This is exactly the approach of an interpretation of quantum mechanics, called emergent quantum mechanics (EmQM).

Where is EmQM located in the 'zoo' of interpretations?

The 'zoo' of interpretations and alternative theories of quantum mechanics can be classified by their answers to the violation of Bell's inequalities. Bell's Theorem is a theory-independent result and therefore must hold for any possible approach which reproduces the results of standard quantum mechanics. Roughly speaking, the theorem's consequences are that one either has to give up the traditional understanding of realism, or the idea of locality. E.g. Rovelli's approach and QBism belong to the camp which gives up traditional realism and adheres to locality, whereas Bohmian Mechanics sticks to realism and therefore embraces nonlocality. In general, hidden variable theories belong to this 'realist' camp.

EmQM suspects a locally deterministic theory from which standard quantum mechanics emerges. Walleczek and Groessing (p. 2, [1]) suppose that instead of "absolute quantum randomness" there might be "quantum interconnectedness" - indicating the presence of some kind of nonlocality, e.g. nonlocal causality. Hence, this approach seems to belong to the above called 'realist' camp, in which a traditional understanding of realism is embraced and the price to pay is nonlocality, more neatly called "quantum interconnectedness".

Why EmQM?

Walleczek and Groessing [1] argue that a metaphysical fundament is needed in order to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics. Since general relativity is strictly deterministic and standard quantum mechanics inherently indeterministic, the metaphysical fundament of each theory starkly opposes each other such that the lack of unification seems inevitable. However, setting a microscopically causal fundament for both branches of physics, as well as the focus onto emergent phenomena, might yield a solution. For instance, the theory of quantum gravity already relies on the idea of emergent spacetime - together with EmQM it may be possible to lay a metaphysical framework of 'all physics'. Nevertheless it might be questionable, in my view, how this is supposed to work with an approach as EmQM in which nonlocality is a cornerstone, i.e. possibly causing trouble with causality as we know it from relativity.

EmQM and Bohmian Mechanics

Since EmQm and Bohmian Mechanics (BM) belong to the same, 'realist' camp, both seem to be related. Both claim to describe the underlying 'reality' beneath standard quantum mechanics. Both approaches share the belief that standard textbook quantum mechanics does not have descriptive character regarding the nature of reality, even though the theory is empirically successful. Then, standard quantum mechanics is regarded as an 'effective' theory.

However, two approaches can be well compared by regarding how they attempt to reproduce standard quantum mechanics. One main aspect in this respect is the appearance of randomness. Both approaches claim to be fundamentally deterministic and therefore have to explain why we experience the randomness of standard quantum mechanics in our laboratories. Bohmians do this by introducing so called "absolute uncertainty" [3], which is a consequence of the quantum equilibrium hypothesis. Effectively, this means that a universe in which Bohmian Mechanics governs the dynamics, it is impossible to gain knowledge about the configuration of a system beyond the probability distribution determined by the wave function ρ=|ψ|^2. Hence, the complete configuration of point particles, their positions and velocities do exist, but there is no experimental access to it. This limited knowledge is supposed to be the source of randomness and uncertainty that we encounter in standard quantum mechanics:

"This absolute uncertainty is in precise agreement with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. But while Heisenberg used uncertainty to argue for the meaninglessness of particle trajectories, we find that, with Bohmian mechanics, absolute uncertainty arises as a necessity, emerging as a remarkably clean and simple consequence of the existence of trajectories." (p.864 [3])

Instead of making use of a (more or less ad-hoc) hypothesis, the appearance of randomness in EmQM seems a bit more natural: Only because the underlying dynamics is supposed to be deterministic, this does not imply pre-determination. This is something one can already observe in purely classical systems: The more complex a system is, the more uncertain is the outcome (often referred as "deterministic chaos"). A minor change in the boundary conditions can cause a huge change in the result. Thus, the central point is emergence:

"Critical in this context is that emergent phenomena are subject to unpredictability as a consequence of the intrinsically self-referential nature of the governing dynamics [...]." (p.5 [1])

In comparison, BM formulates its theory in a rather rigid manner. It formulates postulates from which the theory can be deduced. The issue with this is that these postulates have kind of an ad-hoc character. In my view, EmQM circumvents these problems by being less strict/definite. This approach does not seem to have a fixed formalism yet (at least I haven't found analyses on the same level of rigor as there are for BM), while the research seems to be more focused on exploring how emergence can enter the picture - as e.g. 't Hooft does in [2], where he describes explicit examples of possibly emergent symmetries. (Disclaimer: maybe my impression is incorrect, since I have only superficial knowledge about EmQM.)

Regardless of this point, both approaches seem to be interconnected in the end. Walleczek and Groessing (p.2 [1]) claim that a future EmQM would include BM. Hence, in my view, it might be possible that EmQM might support BM in the sense that it lifts the necessity of possibly ad-hoc appearing postulates as formulated in BM. Thus, any theory of quantum mechanics (orthodox or unorthodox) might not only yield emergent phenomena within the theory but quantum mechanics might unravel itsel as an emergent 'phenomenon'.

---

References:

[1] Walleczek, Groessing, Is the World Local or Nonlocal? Towards an Emergent Quantum Mechanics in the 21st Century, arXiv:1603.02862, 2016

[2] 't Hooft, Emergent Quantum Mechanics and Emergent Symmetries, arXiv:0707.4568, 2007

[3] Dürr, Goldstein, Zanghí, Quantum equilibrium and the origin of absolute uncertainty. J Stat Phys 67, 843–907 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01049004

Celestial Ceilings

“My standpoint is armed neutrality.”

— Søren Kierkegaard, Journals and Papers

the biggest lesson im learning is that nothing is as extreme or as permanent as our emotions convince us they are. nothing is certain and things are always fluctuating and there are always exceptions and there are always mistakes. there is always pain and there is always love. everything is a delicate touch away from changing

This question and its answer from The New York Times work advice column is W I L D.

why are french people rude?

Ah well, the safest explanation when an entire country’s people are stereotyped as rude is that they have their own culture with different criteria for politeness than the ones you are used to. It’s probably easier for Americans to forget this than for the rest of the world, because they consume less foreign media than the rest of us (from literature in translation to foreign films) and are less exposed to aspects of foreign cultures that could inform them about different norms of politeness (online interactions happen in their own language and follow their own (anglo) social codes.) With this insular worldview it’s easy to take it for granted that American good manners are universal. They are not!

A very common gripe against American tourists in Paris is that they talk so loudly in public spaces, which is definitely rude here but I assume that in the US, people just have a different threshold for what constitutes ‘loud’ (I wonder if it is due to being used to having more space than Europeans). I also remember a discussion I had with one of my translation professors about the American concept of ‘active listening’ and how negatively it is perceived in France. It may be that in the US it is polite to make ‘listening noises’ at regular intervals while someone is speaking to you, ‘uh huh’, ‘right’, ‘yeah’, ‘really?’, and that you would perceive someone who just stands there silently as disinterested or thinking about something else. In France it is more polite to shut up and listen (with the occasional nod or ‘mmh’) and it’s rather seen as annoying and rude to make a bunch of useless noise while someone is speaking.

There are of course countless examples like that. The infamous rude waiters in Parisian cafés probably seem a lot more rude and cold to people who have a different food culture… People from other cultures might consider a waiter terrible at his job if he doesn’t frequently check on them to make sure they don’t wait for anything, but the idea that a meal is a pleasant experience rather than just a way to feed yourself (esp when eating out) means we like having time to chat and just enjoy our table for a while, so we don’t mind as much waiting to order or for the next course. French people would typically hate if an overzealous waiter took the initiative to bring the note once we’re done with our meal so we don’t have to wait for it, as it would be interpreted as “you’re done, now get out of my restaurant.”

The level of formality required to be seen as polite is quite high in France, which might contribute to French people being seen as rude by people with a more casual culture. To continue with waiters, even in casual cafés they will address clients with the formal you and conversely, and won’t pretend to be your friend (the fact that we don’t have the American tip culture also means they don’t feel the need to ingratiate themselves to you.) I remember being alarmed when a waitress in New York introduced herself and asked how I was doing. “She’s giving me her first name? What… am I supposed to with it? Use it?” It gave me some insight on why Americans might consider French waiters rude or sullen! It might also be more accepted outside of France to customise your dish—my brother worked as a waiter and often had to say “That won’t be possible” about alterations to a dish that he knew wouldn’t fly with the chef, to foreign tourists who were stunned and angry to hear that, and probably brought home a negative opinion of French waiters. In France where the sentiment in most restaurants is more “respect the chef’s skill” than “the customer is king”, people are more likely to be apologetic if they ask for alterations (beyond basic stuff) as you can quickly be seen as rude, even by the people you are eating with. 

And I remember reading on a website for learning English that the polite answer to “How are you?” is “I’m fine, thank you!” because it’s rude to burden someone you aren’t close to with your problems. In my corner of the French countryside the polite thing to do is to complain about some minor trouble, because saying everything is going great is perceived negatively, as boasting, and also as a standoffish reply that kind of shuts down the conversation, while grumbling about some problem everyone can relate to will keep it going. (French people love grumbling as a positive bonding activity!)

Basically, before you settle on the conclusion that people from a different place are collectively rude, consider that if you travel there and scrupulously follow your own culture’s social code of good manners, you might be completely unaware that you are being perceived as obnoxious, rude or unfriendly yourself simply because your behaviour clashes with what is expected by locals.