Born to do Math 99 - Jive Metaphysicians (2)

In-Sight Publishing

Born to do Math 99 - Jive Metaphysicians (2)

Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner

December 8, 2018

[Beginning of recorded material]

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, from a long time ago, you used a phrase. You said,  "Agents of the universe." In the first example of Schrodinger's Cat, you spoke to a human being as an observer and a cat in a box as an observer.

What does "an observer" mean in an IC context? How does this work with "agents of the universe"?

Rick Rosner: It is easy to get confused because the universe observes itself. You can use "agents of observation" to apply to observing apparatuses within the universe, observing-and-information-transmitting apparatuses.

Those apparatuses can be something as simple as photons that record the state of something as they are emitted and then spread that information out. An agent of observation can be something as complicated as a conscious being plus some technology that transmits information.

Human beings that build broadcast apparatuses. All those are part of the universe and all of those can be part of how the universe observes itself or fails to observe itself. The universe transmits information about local conditions across time and space.

The sum of all these transmissions defines the universe. There is so much information that a finite universe can transmit about itself. So, the universe is only finitely defined. Things are blurry at the quantum level.

All information transmitting interaction is part of how the universe defines itself. Yes, we, humans, with our information-transmitting activities are part of the way the universe transmits information. But our significance is very local.

Although, we can imagine more advanced civilizations have more information transmitting significance across greater distances. You can imagine a Star Wars galaxy where that civilization transmits information across what we could consider vast distances.

They set up a network that transmits information across a big chunk of their galaxy, which kind of requires breaking the laws of physics in the Star Wars model; in that, you can't break the speed of light. It is possible that there is a civilization that has figured out how to conduct business across the distances between stars.

That would be part of the informational business of the universe. But it is still pretty limited, especially if some civilization learned how to live long enough and to do business across an entire galaxy. That is still only one out of a hundred billion galaxies of the universe.

So, the significance of even a galaxy-wide civilization in terms of the overall information business of the universe may still be trivial. But the issues of how trivial this stuff needs to wait on an overall model of an information-based universe.

Where the macro affairs of evolved civilizations of the universe may have almost nothing to do with how information is perceived and processed within the consciousness of the universe itself, which may be more based on the overall or macro distribution and dynamics of matter in the universe if the universe is itself a conscious information processor or even if it is an unconscious information processor.

Jacobsen: If the universe is a conscious information processor rather than an unconscious information processor, how does this change the Schrodinger's Cat experiment, as this adds a global third observer?

Rosner: It doesn't. It doesn't. The nature of the business of the universe isn't changed, which is the sharing of information.

Jacobsen: How can this be misinterpreted in an IC context?

Rosner: We don't have a good model yet. Nobody has a good model of the universe as an information processor. That means that you're subject to nothing but a misunderstanding. But one thing is clear, according to the laws of quantum mechanics, the situation doesn't change, regardless of the overall nature of the universe with regard to the information that is confined in the box with the cat.

It doesn't matter if the universe is conscious or not. It can't get to the information inside of the box because the universe, including us, set it up that way. You can't get the information in the box regardless of the overall state of the universe.

Jacobsen: Why doesn't box count as an observer?

Rosner: Because the box is the wall. When I say the universe is transactional, I mean things that happen in the universe don't matter, as if they didn't happen at all, if they are not communicated to the wider universe; it is an "as if" universe.

If information about what happened someplace is not recorded in the wider universe, it is as if that did not happen. There are subtleties to that, where it matters to us locally. You can build a whole planet inside of a Schrodinger Box. You could build a whole Schrodinger Box over the whole Earth with the entire probability of everyone on Earth dying or not being 50/50.

It is the analogy between the fate of humanity and the fate of the cat. But if you set up a shield between the Earth and the rest of the universe, it is as if the events happening in the rest of the shield never happened, because they never got information out.

Things signify locally if the information is conveyed or signaled locally. They only are signified wider if their information is signified to the wider universe. It is similar to consciousness. Some of your consciousness can be aware of some events that other parts of your consciousness are not aware of.

In the most brutally mechanistic way, there are people who have been subject to split-brain surgery. Some people with epilepsy have their corpus callosum severed where there is no direct way for each side of the brain to share information with the other side.

These people still have a complete consciousness. In that, they still find a way for the brain to be exposed to roughly the same information. You have two eyes feeding each half of the brain and so on. Those people function relatively normally, even though they have split-brain.

But you can sow with specialized experiments that they have two consciousnesses in that brain, where each awareness has a slightly different experience base and analysis base than the other. It is perfectly possible for parts of consciousness to aware of things that other parts of that same overall consciousness is not aware of.

It is all part of the transactional deal. Things only signify to the extent that they can share information with other parts of the universe. Then you can get into the wider argument that there is no permanent existence.

In that, if you wipe out the information in the universe, so there is no absolute existence of anything Because information can be obliterated.

[End of recorded material]

Authors[1]

Rick Rosner
American Television Writer
RickRosner@Hotmail.Com
Rick Rosner

According to semi-reputable sources, Rick Rosner has the world’s second-highest IQ. He earned 12 years of college credit in less than a year and graduated with the equivalent of 8 majors. He has received 8 Writer’s Guild Award and Emmy nominations, and was named 2013 North American Genius of the Year by The World Genius Registry.

He has written for Remote Control, Crank Yankers, The Man Show, The Emmy Awards, The Grammy Awards, and Jimmy Kimmel Live!. He has also worked as a stripper, a bouncer, a roller-skating waiter, and a nude model. In a TV commercial, Domino’s Pizza named him the World’s Smartest Man. He was also named Best Bouncer in the Denver Area by Westwood Magazine.

He spent the disco era as an undercover high school student. 25 years as a bar bouncer, American fake ID-catcher, 25+ years as a stripper, and nude art model, and nearly 30 years as a writer for more than 2,500 hours of network television. He lost on Jeopardy!, sued Who Wants to Be a Millionaire over a bad question, and lost the lawsuit. He spent 35+ years on a modified version of Big Bang Theory. Now, he mostly sits around tweeting in a towel. He lives in Los Angeles, California with his wife and daughter.

You can send an email or a direct message via Twitter, or find him on LinkedIn, or see him on YouTube.



Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Editor-in-Chief, In-Sight Publishing
Scott.D.Jacobsen@Gmail.Com
In-Sight Publishing

(Updated September 28, 2016)

Scott Douglas Jacobsen founded In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal and In-Sight Publishing. He authored/co-authored some e-books, free or low-cost. If you want to contact Scott: Scott.D.Jacobsen@Gmail.com, Scott.Jacobsen@TrustedClothes.Com, Scott@ConatusNews.Com, scott.jacobsen@probc.ca, Scott@Karmik.Ca, or SJacobsen@AlmasJiwaniFoundation.Org.

He is a Moral Courage Webmaster and Outreach Specialist (Fall, 2016) at the UCI Interdisciplinary Center for the Scientific Study of Ethics and Morality (Ethics Center), Interview Columnist for Conatus News, Writer and Executive Administrator for Trusted Clothes, Interview Columnist for Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), Chair of Social Media for the Almas Jiwani Foundation, Councillor for the Athabasca University Student Union, Member of the Learning Analytics Research Group, writer for The Voice Magazine, Your Political Party of BC, ProBC, Marijuana Party of Canada, Fresh Start Recovery Centre, Harvest House Ministries, and Little Footprints Big Steps International Development Organization, Editor and Proofreader for Alfred Yi Zhang Photography, Community Journalist/Blogger for Gordon Neighbourhood House, Member-at-Large, Member of the Outreach Committee, the Finance & Fundraising Committee, and the Special Projects & Political Advocacy Committee, and Writer for Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Member of the Lifespan Cognition Psychology Lab and IMAGe Psychology Lab, Collaborator with Dr. Farhad Dastur in creation of the CriticalThinkingWiki, Board Member, and Foundation Volunteer Committee Member for the Fraser Valley Health Care Foundation, and Independent Landscaper.

He was a Francisco Ayala Scholar at the UCI Ethics Center, Member of the Psychometric Society Graduate Student Committee, Special Advisor and Writer for ECOSOC at NWMUN, Writer for TransplantFirstAcademy and ProActive Path, Member of AT-CURA Psychology Lab, Contributor for a student policy review, Vice President of Outreach for the Almas Jiwani Foundation, worked with Manahel Thabet on numerous initiatives, Student Member of the Ad–Hoc Executive Compensation Review Committee for the Athabasca University Student Union, Volunteer and Writer for British Columbia Psychological Association, Community Member of the KPU Choir (even performed with them alongside the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra), Delegate at Harvard World MUN, NWMUN, UBC MUN, and Long Beach Intercollegiate MUN, and Writer and Member of the Communications Committee for The PIPE UP Network.

He published in American Enterprise Institute, Annaborgia, Conatus News, Earth Skin & Eden, Fresh Start Recovery Centre, Gordon Neighbourhood House, Huffington Post, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Jolly Dragons, Kwantlen Polytechnic University Psychology Department, La Petite Mort, Learning Analytics Research Group, Lifespan Cognition Psychology Lab, Lost in Samara, Marijuana Party of Canada, MomMandy, Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society, Piece of Mind, Production Mode, Synapse, TeenFinancial, The Peak, The Ubyssey, The Voice Magazine, Transformative Dialogues, Treasure Box Kids, Trusted Clothes.

Endnotes

[1] Four format points for the session article:

1. Bold text following “Scott Douglas Jacobsen:” or “Jacobsen:” is Scott Douglas Jacobsen & non-bold text following “Rick Rosner:” or “Rosner:” is Rick Rosner. 
2. Session article conducted, transcribed, edited, formatted, and published by Scott. 
3. Footnotes & in-text citations in the interview & references after the interview. 
4. This session article has been edited for clarity and readability. 

For further information on the formatting guidelines incorporated into this document, please see the following documents:

1. American Psychological Association. (2010). Citation Guide: APA. Retrieved from http://www.lib.sfu.ca/system/files/28281/APA6CitationGuideSFUv3.pdf. 
2. Humble, A. (n.d.). Guide to Transcribing. Retrieved from http://www.msvu.ca/site/media/msvu/Transcription%20Guide.pdf. 

License and Copyright

License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com and www.rickrosner.org.

Copyright


© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Born to do Math 98 - Jive Metaphysicians (1)

In-Sight Publishing

Born to do Math 98 - Jive Metaphysicians (1)

Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner

December 1, 2018

[Beginning of recorded material]

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does metaphysics jive with naturalism in some fundamental way, e.g. Laws of Logic and such?

Rick Rosner: If you want metaphysics to be a useful term: we were talking off-tape that if metaphysics is something applying to principles beyond the natural world, and if everything you discover about the principles of existence can be part of the natural world, then there is nothing for metaphysics.

It becomes a useless term. The way to make metaphysics a useful term is to say that metaphysics applies to the principles of existence that are reflected in the laws of the natural world. You have to divide someplace between physics and metaphysics.

Depending on how each is defined, you can have the set of things confined within metaphysics as zero things. Or you can say metaphysics applies to general principles that help determine the laws of physics. The natural principles like the principles of non-contradiction and self-consistency.

Except when you look at quantum stuff, for macro stuff to exist such as an apple, that apple has to have a non-contradictory set of attributes. It has to exist at a certain place, a certain time. It has to exist in a certain number. A non-contradictory apple can’t be both one apple and two apples at the same time.

Unless you set up some kind of experimental apparatus that really makes the indeterminacy explicit. When you’re talking about that, you might as well talk about Schrodinger’s Cat, which is the canonical indeterminate, macro experimental setup.

Jacobsen: Does this change with one observer outside or several billion observers outside in terms of the level of indeterminacy of the cat as dead or alive?

Rosner: The Schrodinger cat is set up to make the indeterminate state as explicit and macro as possible. To explain for people who may not be familiar, Schrodinger’s Cat is a cat in a box with a vial of poison that is attached to a detector of a radioactive particle; that has a 50% chance of decaying within a given time period, triggering the poison.

In the experiment, you run it for a half-life of this radioactive particle. You turn off the apparatus. After five minutes, there is a 50% chance that the cat is alive in the box and a 50% chance that the cat has been poisoned and is dead.

You cannot see into the box. The only way to check the status of the cat is to open the box. For right now, the box is yet to be opened. So, the cat exists as either alive with 50% probability or dead with 50% probability. That state can be characterized by a quantum mechanical waveform.

You can apply all the math of quantum physics that deals with indeterminate states to the state of the cat, which is unusual because the math of indeterminacy is typically applied to micro phenomenon like a radioactive particle or to the position of an electron or something small. This has been set up explicitly to be large.

Whether one or a billion observers through the internet of a live feed of the box, it does not change what is inside of the box; so, it has been set up that way. The box is closed off informationally from the rest of the world in order to preserve the indeterminate state of the cat.

Of course, PETA would hate this experiment. Over the last couple of days, they have argued if a responsible person then you will use certain terms, or if you are a good person then you will stop using stop terms: “Kill two birds with one stone” to “feed two birds with one scone.”

There are a lot of idiots in PETA. But, maybe, they aren’t that dumb with the good publicity for the idiocy of their stance here.

Jacobsen: Let's take two examples, I will start with the first one. One, does the probability change if the cat has some level of self-awareness and all the internal walls of the box are mirrors?

Rosner: Nope, nope, it doesn't change it. Everything is set up so that everything inside the box is different than what is outside of the box. The deal is, you set a part of the universe closed from the rest of the universe.

Things only have significance in the universe if that information can be communicated and you've set a special apparatus to keep the contents of the box closed off. Just because the box is a part of the universe does not mean the rest of the universe knows what's going on inside of the box.

The universe defines itself via its interactions that include us setting up experiments. We, as part of the universe, have set up an experiment where part of the universe, in the box, has been shielded informationally from the rest of the universe.

So, in practical terms, if that box is never opened, if you take the box and throw it into a crematorium without checking the status of the cat, you can make a situation in which the universe and the people in it never know what the state of the cat was before you threw the box containing the cat into the crematorium.

If you obliterate the information before it has the chance to escape via observation, that will remain forever indeterminate.

Jacobsen: What does this mean for black-ish holes?

Rosner: People have been debating the information state of black holes since they have been a thing. The principle is the same. If the information does not get out, and if the information is shielded from the rest of the universe, the effect it has on the rest of the universe is nil.

A black-ish hole is a hole that is more favorable for the transmission of information than a purely black hole. A black-ish hole can transfer information.

Jacobsen: Can you measure this rate of information exchange from a cat in the box to the black-ish holes?

Rosner: In theory, it would be part of an overall framework or some theory of black-ish holes.

Jacobsen: What would this imply? For example, the black-ish hole would presumably, be very close to the shape of a sphere.

Rosner: You would use some measure like bits per second or bits per square centimeter of event horizon per second. You would have the overall information transmission rate. You would have a transmission rate per unit area of the surface of either the black-ish hole itself or of space around the black-ish hole.

You can talk about stuff like black-ish holes but with event horizons; these come with black holes. Unless, I am confusing myself, and that is likely. That the math of the event horizon is such that nothing gets out. Although, that is not entirely true because event horizons radiate via the production of particles outside of the event horizon and the strain on space.

The strain on space is so charged with gravitational potential around the event horizon that there is enough strain there that the particles can be spontaneously created. Particles can always be spontaneously created via the rules of quantum mechanics.

Even more so in space that is under such tension from gravitation, that you're going to see more matter pop into existence around an event horizon than you would see in less stressed space. In that case, you have particle creation; two oppositely created particles to serve everything that is created.

In an event horizon, one particle goes into the black hole and one escapes. You have one particle escape the black hole in this scenario. Where, before, it is just the black hole. Now, it is the black hole plus the particle escaping the black hole.

Even a black hole with an event horizon, it emits information. A black-ish hole that is more permissive of the flow of particles and radiation in and out of it; it is going to have a higher rate of information exchange with the rest of the universe.

We have talked about the universe being an as-if thing. Everything is transactional in the universe. Things didn't happen if the wider universe does not have a way of knowing about it. Or if the part of the universe that you're concerned with - because the rest of the universe does not care if you have an alive or a dead cat in a box, it is only the people on Earth who care about a dead cat in the box.

There is a rate of information exchange with the cat in the box and the universe beyond our solar system. Even if you open the box, the odds that the state of the cat is going to have a significant impact on the universe beyond our local solar system - the odds are pretty low.

Because people like to say that other civilizations on other planets might be monitoring the transmissions of our TV broadcasts and radio broadcasts. They might come and see us because they intercepted signals from radio and TV, which might pique their interest.

But the odds are certainly larger than if you did an experiment with the cat; that that information would be intercepted. Is it really likely that other civilizations have been able to capture our broadcasts? Because they would be super attenuated and noisy. You would have to decode them to make them understandable.

Even that is a fairly unlikely thing, the odds that if you actually did the Schrodinger's Cat thing. That some alien civilization would be surveilling Earth to see the state of the cat. That is even more minuscule.

At some point, we get into larger issues of an information-based universe. Do the micro events in each corner of the universe do anything or pertain at all to the larger business of the universe? The answer is mostly, "No"; unless, the events in the corner of the universe lead to a civilization that explicitly spreads itself across greater and greater distances.

That is just a wild guess. The events on Earth do not have much to do with the overall story of the universe and the overall information transactions of the universe unless we become the civilization that develops a network that shares our trivia explicitly with the rest of the galaxy.

But, at this point, I have pretty much confused myself.

[End of recorded material]

Authors[1]

Rick Rosner
American Television Writer
RickRosner@Hotmail.Com
Rick Rosner

According to semi-reputable sources, Rick Rosner has the world’s second-highest IQ. He earned 12 years of college credit in less than a year and graduated with the equivalent of 8 majors. He has received 8 Writer’s Guild Award and Emmy nominations, and was named 2013 North American Genius of the Year by The World Genius Registry.

He has written for Remote Control, Crank Yankers, The Man Show, The Emmy Awards, The Grammy Awards, and Jimmy Kimmel Live!. He has also worked as a stripper, a bouncer, a roller-skating waiter, and a nude model. In a TV commercial, Domino’s Pizza named him the World’s Smartest Man. He was also named Best Bouncer in the Denver Area by Westwood Magazine.

He spent the disco era as an undercover high school student. 25 years as a bar bouncer, American fake ID-catcher, 25+ years as a stripper, and nude art model, and nearly 30 years as a writer for more than 2,500 hours of network television. He lost on Jeopardy!, sued Who Wants to Be a Millionaire over a bad question, and lost the lawsuit. He spent 35+ years on a modified version of Big Bang Theory. Now, he mostly sits around tweeting in a towel. He lives in Los Angeles, California with his wife and daughter.

You can send an email or a direct message via Twitter, or find him on LinkedIn, or see him on YouTube.



Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Editor-in-Chief, In-Sight Publishing
Scott.D.Jacobsen@Gmail.Com
In-Sight Publishing

(Updated September 28, 2016)

Scott Douglas Jacobsen founded In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal and In-Sight Publishing. He authored/co-authored some e-books, free or low-cost. If you want to contact Scott: Scott.D.Jacobsen@Gmail.com, Scott.Jacobsen@TrustedClothes.Com, Scott@ConatusNews.Com, scott.jacobsen@probc.ca, Scott@Karmik.Ca, or SJacobsen@AlmasJiwaniFoundation.Org.

He is a Moral Courage Webmaster and Outreach Specialist (Fall, 2016) at the UCI Interdisciplinary Center for the Scientific Study of Ethics and Morality (Ethics Center), Interview Columnist for Conatus News, Writer and Executive Administrator for Trusted Clothes, Interview Columnist for Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), Chair of Social Media for the Almas Jiwani Foundation, Councillor for the Athabasca University Student Union, Member of the Learning Analytics Research Group, writer for The Voice Magazine, Your Political Party of BC, ProBC, Marijuana Party of Canada, Fresh Start Recovery Centre, Harvest House Ministries, and Little Footprints Big Steps International Development Organization, Editor and Proofreader for Alfred Yi Zhang Photography, Community Journalist/Blogger for Gordon Neighbourhood House, Member-at-Large, Member of the Outreach Committee, the Finance & Fundraising Committee, and the Special Projects & Political Advocacy Committee, and Writer for Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Member of the Lifespan Cognition Psychology Lab and IMAGe Psychology Lab, Collaborator with Dr. Farhad Dastur in creation of the CriticalThinkingWiki, Board Member, and Foundation Volunteer Committee Member for the Fraser Valley Health Care Foundation, and Independent Landscaper.

He was a Francisco Ayala Scholar at the UCI Ethics Center, Member of the Psychometric Society Graduate Student Committee, Special Advisor and Writer for ECOSOC at NWMUN, Writer for TransplantFirstAcademy and ProActive Path, Member of AT-CURA Psychology Lab, Contributor for a student policy review, Vice President of Outreach for the Almas Jiwani Foundation, worked with Manahel Thabet on numerous initiatives, Student Member of the Ad–Hoc Executive Compensation Review Committee for the Athabasca University Student Union, Volunteer and Writer for British Columbia Psychological Association, Community Member of the KPU Choir (even performed with them alongside the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra), Delegate at Harvard World MUN, NWMUN, UBC MUN, and Long Beach Intercollegiate MUN, and Writer and Member of the Communications Committee for The PIPE UP Network.

He published in American Enterprise Institute, Annaborgia, Conatus News, Earth Skin & Eden, Fresh Start Recovery Centre, Gordon Neighbourhood House, Huffington Post, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Jolly Dragons, Kwantlen Polytechnic University Psychology Department, La Petite Mort, Learning Analytics Research Group, Lifespan Cognition Psychology Lab, Lost in Samara, Marijuana Party of Canada, MomMandy, Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society, Piece of Mind, Production Mode, Synapse, TeenFinancial, The Peak, The Ubyssey, The Voice Magazine, Transformative Dialogues, Treasure Box Kids, Trusted Clothes.

Endnotes

[1] Four format points for the session article:

1. Bold text following “Scott Douglas Jacobsen:” or “Jacobsen:” is Scott Douglas Jacobsen & non-bold text following “Rick Rosner:” or “Rosner:” is Rick Rosner. 
2. Session article conducted, transcribed, edited, formatted, and published by Scott. 
3. Footnotes & in-text citations in the interview & references after the interview. 
4. This session article has been edited for clarity and readability. 

For further information on the formatting guidelines incorporated into this document, please see the following documents:

1. American Psychological Association. (2010). Citation Guide: APA. Retrieved from http://www.lib.sfu.ca/system/files/28281/APA6CitationGuideSFUv3.pdf. 
2. Humble, A. (n.d.). Guide to Transcribing. Retrieved from http://www.msvu.ca/site/media/msvu/Transcription%20Guide.pdf. 

License and Copyright

License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com and www.rickrosner.org.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Born to do Math 96 - Statistical Probability of the Future of Rights

In-Sight Publishing

Born to do Math 96 - Statistical Probability of the Future of Rights
Scott Douglas Jacobsen & Rick Rosner

November 15, 2018

[Beginning of recorded material]

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is statistically likely to happen in the next two years with Kavanaugh passing into the Supreme Court only a couple of days ago?

Rick Rosner: If you want the most accurate predictions, you can go to 538.com. I like RealClearPolitics as well. But I like 538. Right now, they weight all the polls based on how accurate and reliable they are.

Right now, they are giving Democrats roughly a 74% chance of taking back the House and only 22% of taking back the Senate, and with the only 22% based on specific races may be too optimistic. Unless the Democrats make everybody surprised and show up in the mid-term. 

It may happen with widespread rage.

Jacobsen: Who's rage?

Rosner: Most women, though probably most Republican women are still behind him, Republicans only represent 1/3rd of the adult population and possibly less than that. So, everybody else. 

Most women, about 2/3rds or 70%, and if you want to be even more accurate, then probably 28% of women support Kavanaugh. 20% don't and 20% don't have a clue. Republicans probably take back the House and then start a series of investigations into whatever they can investigate mostly Trump-related stuff. 

Maybe, they can look into Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has done a lot of stuff in a less partisan, Republican-dominated world would have been disqualifying and was actually perjury. If the Democrats take over the House, they start a lot of investigations.

These will have the effect of making Trump unreelectable in 2020. But he was thought to be unelectable in 2016 and got elected. Given that his popularity has remained at roughly 40% and that only bad stuff will come out about him if the Democrats take over the House, I don't see him getting enough of a bump in approval to be elected to a second term. 

Although, the Democrats have to come up with a person that they can get Independents to vote for. Kavanaugh on the court does not immediately lead to the rollback of a bunch of human rights stuff including the right to abortion.

Because all that stuff takes a while to get to the Supreme Court. You cannot simply go to the Supreme Court and then say, "We want a case on this." It has to go to the lower courts first. Cases around abortion are designed to provide a pretext to throw out Roe v Wade are probably peppered throughout amenable courts, lower courts throughout the land. 

It will probably take a year or a year and a half for those cases to make it to the Supreme Court. If Roe v Wade is overturned. It almost certainly will be given the composition of the court. Abortion could become illegal in a majority of the states.

Jacobsen: What will happen to the wellbeing of women?

Rosner: Well, all this stuff will take time to play out. If people are lucky, the fully playing out of the end of Roe v Wade will take until after the beginning of 2021 when there will be a Democrat, very likely, in the White House. 

It is conceivable Trump could quit and then Pence would run for president while being president. It is possible Pence could be more electable than Trump. I'd give it at least a 60% chance of there being a Democrat winning the next presidential election. 

In terms of the actual implications for women in roughly half of the country, you have half of the population - women - who will be in states where abortion will remain illegal because it will be up to the states.

Jacobsen: In the Handmaid's Tale, New York was a holdout.

Rosner: Did they have to invade New York?

Jacobsen: I do not recall exactly.

Rosner: Since they changed the names of everything, we don't know if that is taking place in Michigan or elsewhere. Everybody is trying to get to Canada. I assume they were trying to get out of New York and then to the border.

Anyway, half of the population will still be able to get abortions fairly easily. The other half may have to drive for hundreds of miles for the nearest state where abortion is illegal. Although, some states could make it illegal for you to drive out of state to get an abortion.

I do not know if that would be enforceable. I do not know how they would enforce it. Half of the population would face the end of reasonable abortion. Although, there is a historical trend. The rate at which people get abortions has been steadily dropping thanks to liberal policies of sex education and making contraception available.

The purpose of Planned Parenthood is not to give abortions. It is to give all sorts of health services that help people. Nobody wants the abortion rate to not decline. Liberal policies tend to help reduce it. The teaching of sexual education, non-abstinence sexual education, is helpful. 

Liberal policies, which have been a force for decades, have been helping to steadily reduce the rate of people getting abortions. It isn't to say that the situation won't be dire for a lot of people but things will be much less fucked up than right before 1973 when Roe vs Wade made abortion legal for everyone.

What people have been missing, given that all the news has been Kavanaugh for the past four weeks or more, Trump has been rolling back all sorts of completely reasonable environmental regulations. For example, the insane rolling back of limits on radiation and other dangerous toxins. 

As long as he remains president, he will probably make it through his term. It is just crazy, against all logic rollbacks of common sense policy, and widely agreed upon health and safety regulations. Who the fuck in the world was going to the government saying, "We need to make it so that there is more radiation in the atmosphere"?

No one, it was simply Trump and his ideologues. That will go on for 2 years. His people have realized that there is so much news that they can do whatever they want, and what they do will be lost in the avalanche of awfulness.

The huge story about the Trump family avoiding paying taxes through fraud for the most part on a billion dollars. Instead of paying the $550 million, they are paying $50 million. They, basically, defrauded the US government out of $500 million.

It makes them one of the biggest financial crime families in US history. But probably if you took a poll, and people should, most followers would say, "Yes! Fuck the government, it shows you're smart." 

So, this stuff will keep going on. But the Democrats will slow down on stuff that can't be done by presidential decree or whatever. The stuff that actually takes the House to okay it. The stuff it takes to slow down or stop. 

Trump's approval may be eroding a little bit from 41% to 35% approval over the next 18 months. As the investigations of the House of Representatives rollout, we are still looking for Mueller to drop all of his biggest shoes. 

If that is given the most likely outcome of the mid-terms that Democrats take over the House; but if the 26% of the Republicans being in control, then you are looking at not an actual slide into a dystopia in terms of how day-to-day life is lived. 

But a bunch of dominoes will get knocked over that set up a shitload of stuff that will need to clean up the next time Democrats have control of some branch of government, and it may be that the Republicans will use the next two years to figure out how to hold on to government even longer against the disapproval of the majority of American.

For one thing, the next census, which happens in 2020, may contain the question, "Are you a US citizen?" There is no better way to get undocumented aliens to not fill out census forms than to ask about citizenship. 

The deal is, the census is based on everyone living in America, whether they are living in America or not. You have to understand the composition of the nation, regardless of the immigration status of some of its citizens. 

It is one more way to fuck over the blue states because the blue states tend to have more undocumented immigrants. I am not positive about that, but I am pretty sure about that. There will be more voter suppression. 

It is conceivable that if the Democrats don't take back the House then the Republicans will continue to manipulate the system to continue to have majorities in the House and the Senate, and may even be able to get another Republican elected or Trump re-elected. 

Even though, substantial and growing majorities of Americans do not want any of that. But likely, the most likely thing is the Democrats get the House and slow down some of the Republicans. One more thing, that 74% likelihood of the Democrats taking back the House.

Some caveats on that: a) polls can be inaccurate and improbable stuff can happen, b) the anger at Kavanaugh being confirmed hasn't yet hit the polls so I would guess that the likelihood of the Democrats taking back the House will rise into as high as 80% in the next week or so with 3 weeks to go. 

Everything always tightens up. It might to 80 or 82. It has been as high as 82 or 83 before the Republicans got all motivated because of Kavanaugh. It might get up there again for a week or two. But then races always tighten up in the last week or two. It may peak at 80 or 82 and then go back down to the 74 we're seeing now.

It may be nervous-making until November 6. Election day is November 6. But the new Congress doesn't come in until the first week in January, so it is conceivable that in the lame duck session - the two months between the election and the Republicans losing the majority - the Republicans could pull some crazy shit.

I do not know exactly what they could pull. But in the recent past, they pulled stuff that nobody ever believed they could pull. Given that they have nothing left to lose, and everyone already hates them, and if they lost their majority, there is no telling what they would do. 

That's it. 

[End of recorded material]

Authors[1]

Rick Rosner

American Television Writer

RickRosner@Hotmail.Com

Rick Rosner

According to semi-reputable sources, Rick Rosner has the world’s second-highest IQ. He earned 12 years of college credit in less than a year and graduated with the equivalent of 8 majors. He has received 8 Writer’s Guild Award and Emmy nominations, and was named 2013 North American Genius of the Year by The World Genius Registry.

He has written for Remote Control, Crank Yankers, The Man Show, The Emmy Awards, The Grammy Awards, and Jimmy Kimmel Live!. He has also worked as a stripper, a bouncer, a roller-skating waiter, and a nude model. In a TV commercial, Domino’s Pizza named him the World’s Smartest Man. He was also named Best Bouncer in the Denver Area by Westwood Magazine.

He spent the disco era as an undercover high school student. 25 years as a bar bouncer, American fake ID-catcher, 25+ years as a stripper, and nude art model, and nearly 30 years as a writer for more than 2,500 hours of network television.  He lost on Jeopardy!, sued Who Wants to Be a Millionaire over a bad question, and lost the lawsuit. He spent 35+ years on a modified version of Big Bang Theory. Now, he mostly sits around tweeting in a towel. He lives in Los Angeles, California with his wife and daughter.

You can send an email or a direct message via Twitter, or find him on LinkedIn, or see him on YouTube.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Editor-in-Chief, In-Sight Publishing

Scott.D.Jacobsen@Gmail.Com

In-Sight Publishing

(Updated September 28, 2016)

Scott Douglas Jacobsen founded In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal and In-Sight Publishing. He authored/co-authored some e-books, free or low-cost. If you want to contact Scott: Scott.D.Jacobsen@Gmail.com, Scott.Jacobsen@TrustedClothes.Com, Scott@ConatusNews.Com, scott.jacobsen@probc.ca, Scott@Karmik.Ca, or SJacobsen@AlmasJiwaniFoundation.Org.

He is a Moral Courage Webmaster and Outreach Specialist (Fall, 2016) at the UCI Interdisciplinary Center for the Scientific Study of Ethics and Morality (Ethics Center), Interview Columnist for Conatus News, Writer and Executive Administrator for Trusted Clothes, Interview Columnist for Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN), Chair of Social Media for the Almas Jiwani Foundation, Councillor for the Athabasca University Student Union, Member of the Learning Analytics Research Group, writer for The Voice Magazine, Your Political Party of BC, ProBC, Marijuana Party of Canada, Fresh Start Recovery Centre, Harvest House Ministries, and Little Footprints Big Steps International Development Organization, Editor and Proofreader for Alfred Yi Zhang Photography, Community Journalist/Blogger for Gordon Neighbourhood House, Member-at-Large, Member of the Outreach Committee, the Finance & Fundraising Committee, and the Special Projects & Political Advocacy Committee, and Writer for Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Member of the Lifespan Cognition Psychology Lab and IMAGe Psychology Lab, Collaborator with Dr. Farhad Dastur in creation of the CriticalThinkingWiki, Board Member, and Foundation Volunteer Committee Member for the Fraser Valley Health Care Foundation, and Independent Landscaper.

He was a Francisco Ayala Scholar at the UCI Ethics Center, Member of the Psychometric Society Graduate Student Committee, Special Advisor and Writer for ECOSOC at NWMUN, Writer for TransplantFirstAcademy and ProActive Path, Member of AT-CURA Psychology Lab, Contributor for a student policy review, Vice President of Outreach for the Almas Jiwani Foundation, worked with Manahel Thabet on numerous initiatives, Student Member of the Ad–Hoc Executive Compensation Review Committee for the Athabasca University Student Union, Volunteer and Writer for British Columbia Psychological Association, Community Member of the KPU Choir (even performed with them alongside the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra), Delegate at Harvard World MUN, NWMUN, UBC MUN, and Long Beach Intercollegiate MUN, and Writer and Member of the Communications Committee for The PIPE UP Network.

He published in American Enterprise Institute, Annaborgia, Conatus News, Earth Skin & Eden, Fresh Start Recovery Centre, Gordon Neighbourhood House, Huffington Post, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Jolly Dragons, Kwantlen Polytechnic University Psychology Department, La Petite Mort, Learning Analytics Research Group, Lifespan Cognition Psychology Lab, Lost in Samara, Marijuana Party of Canada, MomMandy, Noesis: The Journal of the Mega Society, Piece of Mind, Production Mode, Synapse, TeenFinancial, The Peak, The Ubyssey, The Voice Magazine, Transformative Dialogues, Treasure Box Kids, Trusted Clothes.

Endnotes

[1] Four format points for the session article:

1. Bold text following “Scott Douglas Jacobsen:” or “Jacobsen:” is Scott Douglas Jacobsen & non-bold text following “Rick Rosner:” or “Rosner:” is Rick Rosner.
2. Session article conducted, transcribed, edited, formatted, and published by Scott.
3. Footnotes & in-text citations in the interview & references after the interview.
4. This session article has been edited for clarity and readability.

For further information on the formatting guidelines incorporated into this document, please see the following documents:

1. American Psychological Association. (2010). Citation Guide: APA. Retrieved from http://www.lib.sfu.ca/system/files/28281/APA6CitationGuideSFUv3.pdf.
2. Humble, A. (n.d.). Guide to Transcribing. Retrieved from http://www.msvu.ca/site/media/msvu/Transcription%20Guide.pdf.

License and Copyright

License

In-Sight Publishing  by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Based on a work at www.in-sightjournal.com and www.rickrosner.org.

Copyright

© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing 2012-2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.