Singularities and the Big Bang, Luminiferous Aether and Quantum Field Theory

In recent years I've been staying away from quantum physics because it doesn't make sense to me.  Is this a problem with me, or with quantum physics?

One post I read (Piekniewski) pointed out:

And above everything there is the singularity itself, a clear indication that something is wrong with this solution... My stance is that nature does not like singularities. Any time our equations suggest a singularity (particularly followed by paradoxes), we likely have the wrong equations.

And this makes sense.  The conclusion that black holes are singularities, and that the big bang resulted from a singularity are mathematically dubious.

In mathematics, a singularity is in general a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined, or a point of an exceptional set where it fails to be well-behaved in some particular way, such as differentiability. (Wikipedia)

So we have conventional wisdom positing a singularity, i.e. a point of undefined mathematics.  Yet, the whole basis for positing the singularity is mathematical -- there is no intuitive explanation of  the quantum physics of black holes and the big bang.

Much of quantum physics has been experimentally confirmed, but the parts regarding singularities in black holes and at the big bang can never be tested, much less confirmed.  My conclusion is that the problem is not me (or my unwillingness to tread the mathematically ardous road to singularities).  Rather, the conventional wisdom regarding black holes and the big bang is wrong.  I guess that there are mathematically sound explanations of these phenomena that do not require positing the magic of singularities.

With regard to quantum physics in general, there seems to be solid reason to believe in accept quantum field theory.  However, conceptually and intuitively, such fields  are similar to luminiferous aether, supposedly discredited in 1887.  I suppose there are some properties that were postulated for luminiferous aether that are different in quantum field theory, but this is not clear.  Force fields are everywhere and there are thresholds for realization as particles of energy or matter.  This is something that makes sense intuitively.  The conventional wisdom that we should accept mathematical singularities without intuitive support is less likely to be true or meaningful.

MMT Elevator Speech

Modern Monetary Theory, or MMT for short, is a school of economics. There are 2 aspects of MMT:

1. MMT is an improved (much clearer and more straightforward) description of how existing monetary and banking systems work.
2. MMT proposes a government job guarantee (employer of last resort) as a tool to reduce unemployment and act as an automatic fiscal stabilizer with regard to inflation.   (Note that we already have valuable automatic fiscal stabilizers in the form of income taxes and welfare benefits.)

#2 is substantially untested. #1 is unassailable as it is just a description of how things work. MMT supplements the classical economic story of the invisible hand of the market with the following insights:

1. Money is part of a larger accounting system of who owes what to whom in society.
2. The government is essential to this system in that it establishes the unit of account (e.g. U.S. dollar) and legal framework for financial activity.
3. The economy is more than the sum of its parts. For example, while it might make sense for individuals to save more, if everyone saves more the result will be widespread unemployment due to lower spending.

The implication of these considerations is that the federal government is not constrained in the same manner as the other economic sectors:

1. Since the government establishes the legal framework for accounting, the government can and should change the financial rules as appropriate for the benefit of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority.
2. The federal government is the entity most suitable for addressing societal issues such as resource constraints.

In sum, Modern Monetary Theory recognizes economic society as a network of obligations supported by a unit of currency and a set of laws established by the government. Just as the government was responsible for creating the currency and the laws, the government is responsible for adapting laws to modern circumstances including our increased interdependence. 
Footnote: From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergy:

In the natural world, synergistic phenomena are ubiquitous, ranging from physics (for example, the different combinations of quarks that produce protons and neutrons) to chemistry (a popular example is water, a compound of hydrogen and oxygen), to the cooperative interactions among the genes in genomes, the division of labor in bacterial colonies, the synergies of scale in multi-cellular organisms, as well as the many different kinds of synergies produced by socially-organized groups, from honeybee colonies to wolf packs and human societies: compare stigmergy, a mechanism of indirect coordination between agents or actions that results in the self-assembly of complex systems. Even the tools and technologies that are widespread in the natural world represent important sources of synergistic effects. The tools that enabled early hominins to become systematic big-game hunters is a primordial human example. In the context of organizational behavior, ... a cohesive group is more than the sum of its parts

MMT Elevator Speech (with links)

There are 2 aspects of MMT:

1. MMT is an improved (much clearer and more straightforward) description of how existing monetary and banking systems work.
2. MMT proposes a government job guarantee (employer of last resort) as a tool to reduce unemployment and act as an automatic fiscal stabilizer with regard to inflation.  (Note that we already have valuable automatic fiscal stabilizers in the form of income taxes and welfare benefits.)

#2 is substantially untested.  #1 is unassailable as it is just a description of how things work.

Here's a chart I drew showing the evolution of selected economic schools, with MMT being the focus: Evolution of Selected Economic Schools

Note that MMT draws from institutional economics (recognizing the role of large institutions as well as classical markets), chartalism (the basics of fiat currency), Keynesianism, financial instability considerations, and a sectoral balance perspective (accounting based economics).

I also wrote something of a The National "Debt" for Dummies -- not intended to be condescending but rather to be easy to understand: The Socrates Show, with guest Pete Peterson.

The best textbook presentation of MMT economics that I have seen is Eric Tymoigne's Money and Banking.
---
Post originally written February 2019.  Additional insight July 2020:
A major advantage of MMT, compared to conventional economics, is the level of discussion.  MMT economics is a view of the monetary system at a higher level than is common with the conventional wisdom.   Conventional wisdom is overloaded with assumptions, graphs, and jargon from a more detailed level which obscures the big picture.  The big picture shown by conventional economics is that government debt is like household or business debt.  The big picture shown by MMT is that paying back the debt is trivial for a currency issuing government.  Thus, the government debt is different from personal or business debt.  Conventional wisdom eventually gets to this point also, but only after obscuring the situation through discussion of government bonds, interest rates, and central bank procedures, and, often, misleading analogies to household and business finances.

The conventional economic wisdom is an example of excessive reductionism, comparable to other evils such as race reductionism.

Identity Politics and Nationalism

The thoughts here were triggered by a discussion in ForeignAffairs between Stacey Abrams and Francis Fukuyama.

Fukuyama made a couple of interesting points:

The first major expression of modern identity politics was nineteenth-century European nationalism, when cultural groups began to demand recognition in the form of statehood... Even as Americans seek to right injustices suffered by specific social groups, they need to balance their small-group identities with a more integrative identity needed to create a cohesive national democratic community.

As a humanist, the disadvantages of basing government on tribal/national/ethnic identities are clear to me.  Over and above all, we are all humans and must somehow work together or perish separately.  Identity politics goes against this by definition.  Socialism is a better way to go since it, by definition, emphasizes the greater society.

Ideologies and Principles

Nobody likes an ideologue.  Everybody likes a person who has principles.  What is the difference? 

Ideology is often used to refer to a political belief system.  A principle is a concept or value that is a guide for behavior.  Thus, ideology is more purely political, whereas a principle is more personal and more basic.  Ideologies are based upon principles.  Ideologies are often attacked by political opponents.  Principles are rarely challenged directly.  The common perception is that ideologies may vary from principles due to some form of corruption.

As an example, the ideology that I identify with most closely is Democratic Socialism.  My underlying values include majority rule and protection of minority rights.  Many people despise Democratic Socialists, but few are against majority rule and protection of minority rights.  I myself find such an ideological label (Democratic Socialist) as unappealing, as I would prefer to deal with issues on a case by case basis, rather than as an ideologue.

An ideology is based on a mental model of the world.  But all such models should be subject to reality checks.  Principles are much simpler (the concept of majority rule is simpler than the idea that democratic socialism is the best way to implement majority rule), and thus the mental models involved are more fundamental.

Kindness, Cultural Savagery, and the Democratic Response to Trump

David Brooks has written a couple of good columns (for my taste) lately:

• Kindness Is a Skill
• Kamala Harris, Call-Out Star

His reference to cultural savagery in the first really hit home, and his Kindness column contains some good tips for getting past that.  I'll keep it handy.

The Kamala Harris article (review of her memoir) provides good information and an intelligent take on unfolding 2020 presidential election campaign.

There are some ironic juxtapositions at play.  Brooks writes approvingly of Harris as ruthless and as someone with the ability to spot the villain in any situation.  That would seem to be at odds with his calls in the kindness article to fight the culture of savagery.  But Brooks puts it well in saying, "The immediate problem of Democratic voters is Donald Trump, and the culture of shamelessness he has instigated... Harris’s fearless, cut-the-crap rhetorical style will probably serve her well in this pugilistic political moment".  

It's a fine line, and one that I'd also like to walk -- How to combat cultural savagery on the one hand, while speaking clearly and forcefully against Trump on the other?  From my perspective, this has been one of Bernie Sanders' strong points.  He has embraced many of Trump's constituents by legitimizing their grievances.  But he has been quite clear in his statements regarding Trump.  While Brooks says, 

Democrats will want unity. They won’t want somebody who essentially runs against the Democratic establishment (Bernie Sanders); they’ll want somebody who embodies it (Harris). They’ll want somebody who seems able to pulverize Trump in a debate (Harris).

This is not the Sanders I know.  From the NY Times on 9/5/2016, 

Outside Senator Bernie Sanders’s first general-election rally for Hillary Clinton on Monday, a small group of Clinton supporters and former Sanders backers glared at one another...  The division is exactly the kind Mr. Sanders hopes to avoid in November. It is also why he spent 36 minutes at Lebanon High School here urging people to vote for Mrs. Clinton and laying out why he believes that Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, is a “pathological liar.”  

So I guess I still disagree with Brooks with regard to Bernie Sanders and the composition of the Democratic party / left wing.  But we're moving closer together in outlook.