The Three Degrees of Freedom

In physics there’s this notion of a degree of freedom. Technically, it’s the number of independent variables required to specify the configuration of the system of interest. A particle, which is a point-like object, moving in space has 3 degrees of freedom. If you have n such particles, then the entire system of n particles has 3n degrees of freedom. If you have a single extended object (like a golf ball, for example) then it has 6 degrees of freedom - the 3 translational ones (it can move in x, y and z) and 3 rotational ones (rotation around the three independent axes of rotation).

I was wondering whether there’s a sort of analogy to be had with single human beings. It seems to me we need the freedom to be able to say what we think, the freedom to be able to hear what others think, and the freedom to think (or ‘see’) in the first place; the three degrees of freedom that are essential for anything even approaching a life of some liberty and dignity.

The meme above is obviously aimed at the growing section of the population who are starting to seriously question the ‘official’ narratives. This bunch of awkward gits are very much seen as a ‘problem’.

I am proud to consider myself a member of this worldwide class of awkward gits.

I am, according to this meme, an awkward git that is dumber than shit. Although one does have to wonder, given the almost universal amount of evidence that masks have no benefit at all (and lots of evidence for harms) as far as limiting the spread of an airborne aerosolized virus, exactly who is dumber than what in this scenario?

The more I have learned about vaccines, the more I have changed from my previous position of their being a “medical miracle” to one that they’re very much a mixed bag; some seem good, others not so good, and some downright dangerous.

With global warming I’m still learning, but the fact that most of the models (from which many of the dire warnings are derived) do not properly predict things is something of a very large red flag for me. There are others - but the mismatch between the models and observed reality is a very fundamental problem that needs to be fixed before definitive statements about the state of “the climate” can be made - and we certainly shouldn’t be considering “solutions” before we’ve an adequate enough understanding.

I don’t particularly object to the meme. I will freely admit there have been far too many times in my life where “dumber than shit” was quite an accurate description. But let him who is without occasional stupidity solve the first equation. Doesn’t quite have the same impact as Jesus’ more famous version of this saying, but you get the drift.

I also confess to quite enjoying internet spats where both sides describe each other as morons, or worse, so I’ve no problem being called one (or worse) and no problem describing others in the same way. It’s all part of the fun.

One significant problem, for me, starts to happen when we start moralising about certain viewpoints. This is not always bad, of course. When it comes to something like child trafficking, for example, then moral arguments are somewhat central and massively outweigh any ‘rational’ argument that could be made¹.

The problem isn’t with moralising, or making moral arguments, per se, but with a consideration of how far this process extends and what weight should be attached in a specific case.

I would hope that the vast, vast, majority of us would feel an extreme disgust, based on morality, for the traffickers. But what about someone who insists that sex, in humans, is binary? Many seem to have a similar kind of disgust, or claim to have such a disgust, at people who stress the importance of biological sex. For them, the moral argument far outweighs any rational argument based on the biological reality of sex.

The issue of child ‘gender’ transitioning, for example, is another in which both sides accuse the other of harming kids. A sense of morality, on both sides, permeates the whole debate. It should. We’re talking about kids and potential harms - which brings the moral dimension into sharp focus.

The example of “gender identity” for kids nicely illustrates a major divide. Both sides, I think, believe they are trying to protect kids², to do the best for kids. But only one side routinely accuses the other of “hate” and tries to stifle debate.

The strategy is not to engage in rational debate - to try to figure out who is right or wrong when it comes to the things that can harm kids - but to cast one side as so hateful, with opinions so disgusting, that their arguments can be summarily dismissed and, ideally, censored.

This trend towards censoring (or the use of other tools like “de-amplifying”) opinions with which you disagree is very, very concerning. I think it’s the most important problem we face, because without those 3 degrees of human freedom all other freedoms will be lost.

The use (abuse) of “morality” to silence your opponent is one technique. Another is to intimate that certain positions are only held by fringe weirdos, or those “conspiracy theorists”. Another is to accuse your opponent of being “anti-science”.

All of these techniques exist for one purpose only; to stifle any debate.

If you can make someone who thinks focused protection for the elderly and vulnerable during a pandemic is a good idea (think Great Barrington) appear to be on roughly the same footing as someone who thinks that alien lizard people have infiltrated the highest positions of power, then you don’t ever need to actually engage with the substance of their arguments.

The “dumber than shit” meme is attempting to achieve this kind of thing.

I used to spend a lot of time on physics forums arguing with the surprisingly large number of amateur scientists who thought that Einstein “got it wrong” or that quantum mechanics was wrong. I thought most of them were nuttier than a walnut tree. But I always engaged with the substance of their claims and tried to demonstrate where they had gone wrong in their thinking.

And, to be fair, they sometimes asked interesting questions that required some detailed investigation to figure out where the flaw in their thinking was.

I was never able to persuade any of them - but that wasn’t really the point. The point was to demonstrate to other readers how the various concerns of the nutters could be properly addressed.

A secondary point was to re-examine the fundamentals again - which is never a bad thing. It’s always a good idea to re-visit the foundations upon which your understanding is based.

The downside is that it can take a lot of time to drill down into some of the concerns and interesting questions that were raised - and there’s very little personal upside for your own work in this. So I do understand when bona fide experts are reluctant to engage with every counter opinion.

I’ve yet to see any claim of these amateur scientists hold up to proper scrutiny - at least not with Einstein or QM.

But arguing about time dilation or whether there is a hidden-variable version of QM that respects both locality and realism is kind of abstract.

Injecting an experimental substance into the arms of billions of people is about as far from “abstract” as we could possibly get.

Deciding that the entire ‘west’ needs to go net zero by 2050 (or whatever the date is set at) is decidedly not abstract because of the massive implications for our way of life and our economies.

It’s one thing to refuse to engage with some random person on the internet - I get it - time is precious. But when the dissent is coming from Nobel Laureates (or others with similar expertise) it’s quite another matter altogether. Winning a Nobel prize, like winning a papal election, does not automatically confer infallibility, of course. But, at the very least, a Nobel Laureate has earned the right to have their claims and arguments properly considered.

John Clauser, for example, whose work in physics I’m very familiar with, is an extremely smart and capable guy. When someone like that raises concerns, it’s probably a good idea to see what he’s got to say - particularly when he’s got the technical capability to understand the details. Now, one might say, Clauser is a master quantum jockey, but not an “expert” on the climate. But he’s spent his entire life examining detailed and sophisticated arguments that are highly technical - to suggest that he’s got nothing to bring to the table when it comes to climate science is silly.

At the very least, it’s highly unlikely that he has only trivial concerns³ - especially if he’s studied the issues in any depth, which Clauser has.

None of this makes Clauser right about the climate. But it does make any cavalier dismissal of his concerns somewhat suspect.

What kind of thing do we get in response? Things like the whole “97% of scientists think blah, blah, blah” and not even that much very often. The climate denier or anti-science label will get trotted out ad-nauseum.

As Igor Chudov talks about in a recent article, however, things are getting even worse.

Freedom is a 'Threat to Our Democracy'

Chud the Chad⁴ has a knack of pointing out some really fundamental issues - and if you haven’t already subscribed to his newsletter then do so. But let’s look at something he mentions. From the Center for Countering Digital Hate.

In this report, for the first time, researchers at the Center for Countering Digital Hate have quantified the startling and important rise over the past five years in what we call “New Denial” — the departure from rejection of anthropogenic climate change, to attacks on climate science and scientists, and rhetoric seeking to undermine confidence in solutions to climate change. “New Denial” claims now constitute 70% of all climate denial claims made on YouTube, up from 35% six years ago.

You do not need to possess the intellect of someone like Clauser to be able to see just how flaky the proposed “solutions” to the climate change issue are. Even if one had swallowed all the climate “science” and was convinced that CO2 was this demonic gas almost solely driving temperature change, and that a modest temperature rise over the next century constitutes an existential crisis for humankind, a truly objective look at the proposed ‘solutions’ would raise some serious concerns.

We’re proposing to very radically transform our way of life, to limit freedoms on a global scale, and we can’t even get the models upon which the fears are based to do a good job. The fact that these models don’t do a good job means that there are pieces we’re missing, or have got wrong. This means that we have not, yet, properly understood the issues.

And this is the basis upon which we’re going to implement a set of crappy ‘solutions’ that will have a massive impact upon the lives of the non-elite?

And now people (the CCDH) are arguing that being sceptical of the proposed solutions is a form of “climate denial”? More ‘misinformation’ for the censors to protect us from?

They will use any lever to shut down debate.

Here’s another from Igor’s article.

Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.

This one from someone called Sandra Korn. But scientific publishing has already made great⁵ strides in this direction. Papers can be routinely rejected if they don’t meet certain “social justice” criteria. And the bias in covid research was rather obvious; papers supportive of the ‘narrative’ were rushed through, those with even mild disagreement often summarily rejected⁶.

The icing on the cake of Igor’s piece are the articles which argue that elections themselves are a threat to democracy.

It’s the old vaccine ‘logic’ all over again. Not taking the vaccine threatens those who have taken the vaccine. One can only presume that the unvaccinated get a different kind of covid than the covid the vaccinated got (more frequently).

This drive to restrict our three degrees of freedom is everywhere. If you don’t sign up to the current woke catechism you can be treated quite harshly. Even when you’re not treated harshly, as in this next example, there are no other options. You can’t always just ‘opt out’ of woke - even if they don’t go all blue-haired screamy weirdo on you.

One user of a lesbian dating app gave a bad review because of the men who were using the app. Apparently, now, even trans men can be lesbian⁷. Basically, it seems, if you’re attracted to a woman you’re a lesbian, these days. You can see the problem here. If trans men are actually men then why are they allowed on a lesbian dating app? And if you exclude (real) men from the app doesn’t this mean there’s a difference between trans men and men?

So, if you don’t think the lesbian whose profile pic⁸ has been included above, is actually a lesbian, you’re a shameful bigot.

But what’s interesting here is the recommendation to go “elsewhere”. Where? Anyone who tries to establish a female-only lesbian dating app (only real lesbians allowed, of course) will be hounded and attacked. I don’t know the scene (obviously) but are there any female-only lesbian dating apps? Is this even, legally, allowed in many jurisdictions or is it deemed ‘discriminatory’?

Lesbians in some places can’t even organise a (real) woman only event. According to HER you would have to include anyone who is attracted to a woman in that event.

In the grand scheme of things, the plight of lesbians who just want to have a real relationship with non-artificial lesbians, might be seen as a side issue when compared to things like covid ‘vaxxes’ or ‘climate change’, but it’s illustrative of the playbook.

They’ll turn the screws until you have no place left to go. Hit 𝕏-Twitter with punitive fines until it’s brought ‘into line’. Attack Substack until all those people whose opinions we don’t like can no longer publish. And so on.

But, thankfully, more and more people are waking up to the reality

We must fight⁹ like all hell to preserve our three degrees of freedom, because once they’re gone we might not ever get them back again.

1. The traffickers might argue on rational grounds that children, like other things, are a commodity that can be exploited for profit. It’s a rational argument, but one devoid of morality. Rational does not mean “correct” - it just means you’ve constructed a logical argument from your premises. There are rational arguments to be made against trafficking, but moral arguments against this vile trade should be uppermost.

2. There are some who use the gender confusion, and consequent inappropriate introduction of sexual ideas at far too young an age, to groom kids, but I believe most people on the gender woo side are not like this.

3. Trivial here means something that can easily be dismissed - usually because the person has something relatively simple wrong.

4. Igor, in the unlikely event you’re reading this, this is a compliment.

5. By ‘great’ I mean batshit crazy and ill-advised.

6. Which is, of course, a great way to establish an illusion of consensus (this effect can be seen in climate science too).

7. Woke ‘logic’ is truly a joy to behold

8. As I understand it, this is the profile pic of a ‘lesbian’ on a lesbian dating app. Not sure if it’s the HER app or not.

9. For the hard-of-comprehension (i.e. certain anti-Trump Democrats) I’m not actually advocating for an insurrection here, or even violence - it’s just a long-established figure of speech.