Podcasts about Uncertainty principle

Peter is helder: AI gaat impact hebben op alle banen. Punt. In deze podcast neemt Peter Hinssen je mee langs:De allerlaatste trends in AI. Wat kan er vandaag al, wat morgen en wat overmorgen?Welke impact heeft AI op de businessmodellen van bedrijven?Hoe zorg je dat de mensen in je organisatie deze bizar snelle veranderingen kunnen bolwerken?Hoe gebruik je AI als tool om je werk beter, sneller en makkelijker te maken.Peter spreekt op 26 september op Amsterdam Business Forum. En rond die tijd komt ook zijn nieuwe boek uit: The Uncertainty Principle. In deze podcast maak je alvast kennis met hem. Wat een geweldig verhaal!

This is the one! The Green Goblin mystery might be the biggest reason we're doing the spoiler-filled revisit of The Spectacular Spider-Man, and we are in the thick of its complex long game as the Chemistry arc ends! We walk through what was REALLY happening in this episode despite what sociopath Norman Osborn tells us, and get into its brilliant use of audience expectations, and whether it all makes sense once you've seen the finale. Plus…space shuttle drama!We're watching The Spectacular Spider-Man: Season 1, Episode 9: “The Uncertainty Principle”.Website⁠ | ⁠Patreon⁠ | ⁠Discord⁠Part of The Glitterjaw Queer Podcast CollectiveContact us: @WallopingWebPod on ⁠Bluesky⁠ and ⁠Instagram⁠Email: ⁠wallopingwebsnapperspodcast@gmail.com⁠Theme song features: ⁠“Resonance (Cyan & Ladybot Remix)” by HOME⁠ | ⁠License (CC BY 3.0)⁠

Send us a textThis is part 2 of Marty's conversation with Douglas Phillips about his 'Quantum' Series of hard science fiction novels.  In our last episode we talked about 'Quantum Space', and this time we discuss the next two books in the series, 'Quantum Void' and 'Quantum Time'. As before, today's exchange focusses on the unifying theme of extra dimensions, in both space and time, and Douglas' exploration of speculative ideas that push the envelope of modern physics.  We discuss visiting aliens using extradimensional spatial distortion, imagining paranormal phenomena as a 3D consequence of 4D activity, and using 4D space a dumping ground for our pollution.  We then go on to use a generalization of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to suggest a second, perpendicular dimension of time and how this leads to a coherent theory of time travel!  Along the way we discuss anti-matter and whether it falls up or down, and how to probe for hints of new temporal physics in the physics of anti-hydrogen.Email: thescienceinthefiction@gmail.comFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/743522660965257/

Adam Forrest Kay is the author of Escape From Shadow Physics, a rip-roaring tour through the history of physics that suggests the quantum world might be a lot less legible than anyone realizes. Much of his work is informed by the logic of Hydrodynamic Quantum Analogs, which are classical systems whose behavior can be described by same mathematics that's used for quantum mechanics. Kay makes the case that if a classical system, made of materials and substances, can be described by the same statistical mathematics, that it's possible the quantum intuition that reality dissolves into a sea of probabilities and wave functions is just straight up wrong. We explore how the mechanics of droplets bouncing on surfaces recapitulates the mathematics of quantum mechanics, what it means for a classical system to behave like a quantum one, how pilot wave theory fits into the story, and why this isn't front page news for every science magazine in the world. MAKE HISTORY WITH US THIS SUMMER:https://demystifysci.com/demysticon-2025PATREON https://www.patreon.com/c/demystifysciPARADIGM DRIFThttps://demystifysci.com/paradigm-drift-show(00:00) Go!(00:06:20) Adam Kay's Journey(00:10:17) The Complexity of Innovation (00:12:26) Hydrodynamic Quantum Analogies(00:20:20) Philosophy and Positivism in Physics(00:23:21) Skepticism in Physics (00:24:35) Transition in Scientific Thought(00:26:10) Positivism and Knowledge(00:28:40) Auguste Comte's Positivism and its Paradoxes(00:34:50) Historical Context from Philosophy to Physics(00:41:10) The Clash in Intellectual Circles(00:46:00) Continued Influence of Early Physicists(00:47:02) Historical Scientific Perspectives(00:49:07) The Philosophy of Science and Positivism(00:51:50) Einstein's Influence on Physical Theories(00:56:05) Einstein vs. Quantum Mechanics(01:00:02) Parallels Between Thermodynamics and Quantum Mechanics(01:07:00) Reevaluating Physical Paradigms(01:12:07) Evolution of Physical Theories(01:14:09) Modern Reflections and Quantum Theory(01:18:07) Book Review and Chapter Structure(01:19:04) Introduction to Pilot Wave Theory(01:25:35) Hydrodynamic Quantum Analogies(01:35:08) Interpretation of Positive Atomism(01:36:46) Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Mechanics(01:39:28) Sound, Sampling, and Uncertainty in Physics(01:44:41) The Role of Fourier Analysis in Various Domains(01:49:10) Quantum Mechanics and Reality's Mystical Interpretation(01:54:09) Physics and Its Intellectual Dominance(01:58:55) Intersection of Physics and Metaphysics(02:01:10) Mysticism in Physics(02:05:27) The Sokal Hoax and Scientific Discourse(02:09:10) Importance of Diverse Viewpoints(02:14:23) Writing and Future Endeavors#quantummechanics, #philosophyofscience, #einstein, #bohr, #quantumphysics, #pilotwave, #positivism, #quantumreality, #scienceandphilosophy, #sciencehistory, #waveparticleduality, #quantumtheory, #physicscommunity #philosophypodcast, #sciencepodcast, #longformpodcast ABOUS US: Anastasia completed her PhD studying bioelectricity at Columbia University. When not talking to brilliant people or making movies, she spends her time painting, reading, and guiding backcountry excursions. Shilo also did his PhD at Columbia studying the elastic properties of molecular water. When he's not in the film studio, he's exploring sound in music. They are both freelance professors at various universities. SOCIAL: - Discord: https://discord.gg/MJzKT8CQub- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DemystifySci- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/DemystifySci/- Twitter: https://twitter.com/DemystifySciMUSIC: -Shilo Delay: https://g.co/kgs/oty671

You've gotten my review, now hear all about The Uncertainty Principle from Mark Gatland and Malcolm Galloway of Hats Off Gentlemen, It's Adequate!Facebook: BleedingEdgeShow Instagram/Threads: @bleeding_edge_show Blue Sky: @bleeding-edge-show.bsky.social The Expanse - All-Prog Radio! Available on Live365 and now also Tune-In Radio!Bleeding Edge Theme: Paul Zotter - https://youtube.com/channel/UCrp4NSgpc3oKGRdYcAQZCkA?si=AmiXIYn8sOToQr9g

Time Artist Title Duration Album Year 0:00:00 ProgPhonic 177 Intro 0:45 0:00:42 Days Between Stations Goes By Gravity 5:47 Giants 2020 0:06:48 Margin Landscapes On The Sky 8:09 Psychedelic Teatime 2014 0:14:43 Lunear In Between 3:35 Many Miles Away 2018 0:18:18 SoundDiary Silhouettes 5:12 Fourword: Fairy Tales for Cyborgs 2024 0:25:20 Hat's Off Gentlemen – […]

PROGPHONIC In Depth Interview w Hats Off Gentlemen It's Adequate (MALCOLM GALLOWAY) as we listen to music and chat in-depth about the album THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE.

Trish is a five time Olivier Award Nominee creating innovative and site-specific work in theatres across London, New York, Greece and Australia. Following an extensive international career as a journalist and Director of Marketing she moved into the theatre working at the Bush and Kiln Theatres. She created “FRESH LINES” which promotes new and emerging talent in the UK, she is also a member of SOLT (Society of London Theatre), UK Theatre, Director of the Uncertainty Principle, Trustee of the Britain Australia Society and Advance Ambassador for Australia. Most recently she co-produced:- FANGIRLS by Yves Blake with Sonia Friedman Productions- A Mirror by Sam Holcroft with Second Half Productions at the Almeida 2024. - Opening Night, with Wessex Grove, dir. Ivo Van HoveShe produced also:- Othello, Riverside Studios with 3 actors alternating Iago during each performance.- The Shape of Things by Neil LaBute at the Park Theatre, starring Amber Anderson and Luke Newton (Bridgerton). Both were nominated at the Best Off-West End Production Awards at the 2024 WhatsOnStage Awards. - Prima Facie by Susie Miller in Athens, 2024.- The Election Monologues, recent rehearsed reading at the Park Theatre led by Harry Burton. Look out for her latest show also at the Park, “How to Fight Loneliness” from 16th April. Tickets on sale now. Trish discusses her role in producing, coming to it from a career as a journalist and what excites her about telling great stories to people through live theatre. Oliver GowerSpotlight Link: https://www.spotlight.com/9097-9058-5261Instagram: @goweroliverFor enquiries and requests: olliegower10@gmail.com

Now on air: The Prog & Roll Radio Show 0:37 DREAM THEATER Bend the Clock 7:25 Parasomnia (2025) MOTORPSYCHO Dead of Winter 5:37 Motorpsycho (2025) HATS OFF GENTLEMEN IT'S ADEQUATE Certainty 7:02 The Uncertainty Principle (2025) LET SEE THIN Sleeping on a Cloud 6:59 Machine Called Life (2025) EYE 2 EYE The Letter 6:54 Lost […]

Subscribe to Bad Faith on Patreon to instantly unlock our full premium episode library: http://patreon.com/badfaithpodcast Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and ordained minister Chris Hedges returns to Bad Fatih for a left-focused deep dive into what happened on election night, what's next for the left, and the role spirituality may play in creating a sense of community that some currently find in the Joe Rogan media environment. Subscribe to Bad Faith on YouTube for video of this episode. Find Bad Faith on Twitter (@badfaithpod) and Instagram (@badfaithpod). Produced by Armand Aviram. Theme by Nick Thorburn (@nickfromislands).

Welcome to the perplexing world of quantum mechanics, where the rules of reality bend and twist in ways that challenge our fundamental understanding of the universe. This field of physics delves into the behavior of particles at the smallest scales, revealing a realm where probabilities reign supreme and certainty is elusive.Imagine a world where particles can exist in multiple states at once, only collapsing into a single state when observed. This phenomenon, known as superposition, defies our everyday experiences and invites us to reconsider what we know about existence itself. Quantum entanglement further complicates matters; it describes how particles can become intertwined in such a way that the state of one instantly influences another, regardless of distance.The implications of quantum mechanics extend far beyond theoretical musings—they are reshaping technology as we know it. From advancements in quantum computing to breakthroughs in secure communication through quantum cryptography, this enigmatic field offers solutions that could revolutionize industries.As we continue to explore this perplexing domain, it becomes clear that understanding quantum mechanics is not just an academic pursuit; it's essential for grasping the very fabric of reality and harnessing its potential for future innovations. Embrace the mystery and let curiosity guide you through this fascinating journey!

The Uncertainty Principle, also known as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, is a concept in quantum mechanics. Formulated by the German physicist Werner Heisenberg in 1927, it states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In simpler terms, the more accurately we know the position of a particle, the less accurately we can know its momentum, and vice versa. This principle highlights the inherent limitations in measuring quantum systems and is a key feature distinguishing quantum mechanics from classical physics.

Quantum mechanics, which arose from the necessity to describe events beyond classical physics, entails the quantization of energy and wave particle duality, which are fundamental notions introduced by Planck, Einstein, and de Broglie. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and Schrödinger's wavefunction formalism define quantum systems' probabilistic nature. Quantum field theory (QFT) applies these ideas to fields, characterizing particles as excitations within them, which is critical for understanding forces in the Standard Model of particle physics. Quantum computing, which takes advantage of qubits' superposition and entanglement, promises solutions to problems that classical computers cannot solve, including quantum error correction and encryption to ensure safe communication. Experimental developments such as Bose-Einstein condensates and quantum dots allow for precise control and observation of quantum systems.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/library-of-philosophy--5939304/support.

For years now, even as headlines about the development of AI have become more frequent and more dire, I really never worried about it much, because I couldn't think of anything in scripture that sounded a great deal like a superintelligent machine. I'd read the end of the book (Revelation), I knew how it ended, and it wasn't in a robot apocalypse... so all the fears surrounding that possibility must therefore be much ado about nothing. (I did write a fictional trilogy for young adults back in 2017 about how I imagined a near-miss robot apocalypse might look, though, because I found the topic fascinating enough to research at the time. It's called the "Uncanny Valley" trilogy, where the "uncanny valley" refers to the "creepy" factor, as a synthetic humanoid creature approaches human likeness.) When I finished the trilogy, I more or less forgot about advancing AI, until some of the later iterations of Chat GPT and similar Large Language Models (LLMs). Full disclosure: I've never used any LLMs myself, mostly because (last I checked) you had to create an account with your email address before you started asking it questions. (In the third book of my series, the superintelligent bot Jaguar kept track of everyone via facial recognition cameras, recording literally everything they did in enormous data processing centers across the globe that synced with one another many times per day. Though at that point I doubt it would make any difference, I'd rather not voluntarily give Jaguar's real-life analog any data on me if I can help it!) Particularly the recent release of Chat GPT Omni (which apparently stands for "omniscient" --!!) gave me pause, though, and I had to stop and ask myself why the idea that it could be approaching actual Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. I recently read a book called "Deep Medicine" by Eric Topol on the integration of AI into the medical field, which helped allay some potential concerns--that book contended that AGI would likely never be realized, largely because AGI inherently requires experience in the real world, and a robot can never have lived experiences in the way that humans can. It painted a mostly rosy picture of narrow (specialized) AI engaging in pattern recognition (reading radiology images or recognizing pathology samples or dermatological lesions, for instance), and thus vastly improving diagnostic capabilities of physicians. Other uses might include parsing a given individual's years of medical records and offering a synopsis and recommendations, or consolidating PubMed studies, and offering relevant suggestions. Topol did not seem to think that the AI would ever replace the doctor, though. Rather, the author contended, at the rate that data is currently exploding, doctors are drowning in the attempt to document and to keep up with it all, and empathic patient care suffers as a result. AI, he argues, will actually give the doctor time to spend with the patient again, to make judgment calls with a summary of all the data at his fingertips, and to put it together in an integrated whole with his uniquely human common sense. Synthetic Empathy and Emotions? But, "Deep Medicine" was written in 2019, which (in the world of AI) is already potentially obsolete. I'm told that Chat GPT Omni is better than most humans at anything involving either logic or creativity, and it does a terrific approximation of empathy, too. Even "Deep Medicine" cited statistics to suggest that most humans would prefer a machine for a therapist than a person (!!), largely due to the fear that the human might judge them for some of their most secret or shameful thoughts or feelings. And if the machine makes you feel like it understands you, does it really matter whether its empathy is "real" or not? What does "real" empathy mean, anyway? In "Uncanny Valley," my main character, as a teenager, inherited a "companion bot" who was programmed with mirror neurons (the seat of empathy in the human brain.) In the wake of her father's death, she came to regard her companion bot as her best friend. It was only as she got older that she started to ask questions like whether its 'love' for her was genuine, if it was programmed. This is essentially the theological argument for free will, too. Could God have made a world without sin? Sure, but in order to do it, we'd all have to be automatons--programmed to do His will, programmed to love Him and to love one another. Would there be any value in the love of a creature who could not do anything else? (The Calvinists might say that's the way the world actually is, for those who are predestined, but everyone else would vehemently disagree.) It certainly seems that God thought it was worth all the misery He endured since creation, for the chance that some of us might freely choose Him. I daresay that same logic is self-evident to all of us. Freedom is an inherent good--possibly the highest good. So, back to AI: real empathy requires not just real emotion, but memories of one's own real emotions, so that we can truly imagine that we are in another person's shoes. How can a robot, without its own lived memories, experience real empathy? Can it even experience real emotion? It might have goals or motives that can be programmed, but emotion at minimum requires biochemistry and a nervous system, at least in the way we understand it. We know from psychology research on brain lesions as well as from psychiatric and recreational medications and experiences with those suffering from neurodegenerative conditions that mood, affect, and personality can drastically change from physiologic tampering, as well. Does it follow that emotions are 'mere' biochemistry, though? This is at least part of the age-old question of materialism versus vitalism, or (to put it another way), reductionism versus holism. Modern medicine is inherently materialistic, believing that the entirety of a living entity can be explained by its physical makeup, and reductionistic, believing that one can reduce the 'whole' of the living system to a sum of its parts. Vitalism, on the other hand, argues that there is something else, something outside the physical body of the creature, that animates it and gives it life. At the moment just before death and just after, all the same biochemical machinery exists... but anyone who has seen the death of a loved one can attest that the body doesn't look the same. It becomes almost like clay. Some key essence is missing. I recently read "The Rainbow and the Worm" by Mae-Wan Ho, which described fascinating experiments on living worms viewed under electron microscopes. The structured water in the living tissue of the worm exhibited coherence, refracting visible light in a beautiful rainbow pattern. At the moment of death, though, the coherence vanished, and the rainbow was gone--even though all of the same physical components remained. The change is immaterial; the shift between death and life is inherently energetic. There was an animus, a vital force--qi, as Chinese Medicine would call it, or prana, as Ayurvedic medicine would describe it, or (as we're now discovering in alternative Western medicine), voltage carried through this structured water via our collagen. That hydrated collagen appears to function in our bodies very much like a semiconductor, animating our tissues with electrons, the literal energy of life. At the moment of death, it's there, and then it's not--like someone pulled the plug. What's left is only the shell of the machine, the hardware. But where is that plug, such that it can be connected and then, abruptly, not? The materialist, who believes that everything should be explainable on the physical level, can have no answer. The Bible tells us, though, that we are body, soul, and spirit (1 Thess 5:23)--which inherently makes a distinction between body and soul (implying that the soul is not a mere product of the chemistry of the body). The spirit is what was dead without Jesus, and what gets born again when we are saved, and it's perfect, identical with Jesus' spirit (2 Cor. 5:17, Eph 4:24). It's God's "seal" on us, vacuum-packed as it were, so that no sin can contaminate it. It's the down-payment, a promise that complete and total restoration is coming (Eph 1:13-14). But there's no physical outlet connecting the spirit and the body; the connection between them is the soul. With our souls, we can see what's ours in the Spirit through scripture, and scripture can train our souls to conform more and more to the spirit (Romans 12:2, Phil 2:12-13). No one would ever argue that a machine would have a spirit, obviously, but the materialists wouldn't believe there is such a thing, anyway. What about the soul, though? What is a soul, anyway? Can it be explained entirely through materialistic means?Before God made Adam, He explicitly stated that He intended to make man after His own image (Gen 1:26-27). God is spirit (John 4:24), though, so the resemblance can't be physical, per se, at least not exclusively or even primarily. After forming his body, God breathed into him the breath of life (Genesis 2:7)--the same thing Jesus did to the disciples after His resurrection when he said "Receive the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22). So it must therefore be in our spirits that we resemble God. Adam and Eve died spiritually when they sinned (Genesis 3:3), but something continued to animate their bodies for another 930 years. This is the non-corporeal part of us that gets "unplugged" at physical death. Since it can be neither body nor spirit, it must be the soul. Andrew Wommack defines the soul as the mind, will, and emotions. I can't think of a single scripture that defines the soul this way; I think it's just an extrapolation, based on what's otherwise unaccounted for. But in our mind, will, and emotions, even before redemption, mankind continued to reflect God's image, in that he continued to possess the ability to reason, to choose, to create, to love, and to discern right from wrong. The materialists would argue that emotion, like everything else, must have its root purely in the physical realm. Yet they do acknowledge that because there are so many possible emotional states, and relatively few physiologic expressions of them, many emotions necessarily share a physiologic expression. It's up to our minds to translate the meaning of a physiologic state, based on the context. In "How Emotions are Made," author Lisa Barrett gave a memorable example of this: once, a colleague to whom she didn't think she was particularly attracted asked her for a date. She went, felt various strange things in her gut that felt a little like “butterflies”, and assumed during the date that perhaps she was attracted to him after all… only to later learn that she was actually in the early stages of gastroenteritis! This example illustrates how the biochemistry and physiologic expressions of emotion are merely the blunt downstream instruments that translate an emotion from the non-corporeal soul into physical perception--and in some cases, as in that one, the emotional perception might originate from the body entirely. This also might be why some people (children especially) can mistake hunger or fatigue for irritability, or why erratic blood sugar in uncontrolled diabetics can manifest as rage, etc. In those cases, the emotional response really does correspond to the materialist's worldview, originating far downstream in the "circuit," as it were. But people who experience these things as adults will say things like, "That's not me." I think they're right--when we think of our true selves, none of us think of our bodies--those are just our "tents" (2 Cor 5:1), to be put off eventually when we die. When we refer to our true selves, we mean our souls: our mind, will, and emotions. It's certainly possible for many of us to feel "hijacked" by our emotions, as if they're in control and not "us," though (Romans 7:15-20). Most of us recognize a certain distinction there, too, between the real "us" and our emotions. The examples of physiologic states influencing emotions are what scripture would call "carnal" responses. If we're "carnal," ruled by our flesh, then physiologic states will have a great deal of influence over our emotions-- a kind of small scale anarchy. The "government" is supposed to be our born-again spirits, governing our souls, which in turn controls our bodies, rather than allowing our flesh to control our souls (Romans 8:1-17) - though this is of course possible if we don't enforce order. With respect to AI, my point is, where does "true" emotion originate? There is a version of it produced downstream, in our flesh, yes. It can either originate from the flesh itself, or it can originate upstream, from the non-corporeal soul, what we think of us "the real us." That's inherently a philosophical and not a scientific argument, though, as science by definition is "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." Any question pertaining to something outside the physical world cannot fall under the purview of science. But even for those who do not accept scripture as authority, our own inner experience testifies to the truth of the argument. We all know that we have free will; we all know we can reason, and feel emotions. We can also tell the difference between an emotion that is "us" and an emotion that feels like it originates from outside of "our real selves". As C.S. Lewis said in "Mere Christianity," if there is a world outside of the one we can experimentally observe, the only place in which we could possibly expect to have any evidence of it is in our own internal experience. And there, we find it's true. Without a soul, then, a robot (such as an LLM) would of course exist entirely on the physical plane, unlike us. It therefore might have physical experiences that it might translate as emotion, the same way that we sometimes interpret physical experiences as emotion--but it cannot have true emotions. Empathy, therefore, can likewise be nothing more than programmed pattern recognition: this facial expression or these words or phrases tend to mean that the person is experiencing these feelings, and here is the appropriate way to respond. Many interactions with many different humans over a long period of time will refine the LLM's learning such that its pattern recognition and responses get closer and closer to the mark... but that's not empathy, not really. It's fake. Does that matter, though, if the person "feels" heard and understood? Well, does truth matter? If a man who is locked up in an insane asylum believes himself to be a great king, and believes that all the doctors and nurses around him are really his servants and subjects, would you trade places with him? I suspect that all of us would say no. With at least the protagonists in "The Matrix," we all agree that it's better to be awakened to a desperate truth than to be deceived by a happy lie. The Emotional Uncanny Valley Even aside from that issue, is it likely that mere pattern recognition could simulate empathy well enough to satisfy us--or is it likely that this, too, would fall into the "uncanny valley"? Most of us have had the experience of meeting a person who seems pleasant enough on the surface, and yet something about them just seemed ‘off'. (The Bible calls this discernment, 1 Corinthians 12:10.) When I was in a psychology course in college, the professor flashed images of several clean-cut, smiling men in the powerpoint, out of context, and asked us to raise our hands if we would trust each of them. I don't remember who most of them were - probably red herrings to disguise the point - but one of them was Ted Bundy, the serial killer of the 1970s. I didn't recognize him, but I did feel a prickling sense of unease as I gazed at his smiling face. Something just wasn't right. Granted, a violent psychopath is not quite the same, but isn't the idea of creating a robot possessed of emotional intelligence (in the sense that it can read others well) but without real empathy essentially like creating an artificial sociopath? Isn't the lack of true empathy the very definition? (Knowing this, would we really want jobs like social workers, nurses, or even elementary school teachers to be assumed by robots--no matter how good the empathic pattern recognition became?) An analogy of this is the 1958 Harlow experiment on infant monkeys (https://www.simplypsychology.org/harlow-monkey.html), in which the monkeys were given a choice between two simulated mothers: one made of wire, but that provided milk, and one made of cloth, but without milk. The study showed that the monkeys would only go to the wire mother when hungry; the rest of the day they would spend in the company of the cloth mother. My point is that emotional support matters to all living creatures, far more than objective physical needs (provided those needs are also met). If we just want a logical problem solved, we may well go to the robot. But most of our problems are not just questions of logic; they involve emotions, too. As Leonard Mlodinow, author of "Emotional" writes, emotions are not mere extraneous data that colors an experience, but can otherwise be ignored at will. In many cases, the emotions actually serve to motivate a course of action. Every major decision I've ever made in my life involved not just logic, but also emotion, or in some cases intuition (which I assume is a conscious prompting when the unconscious reasoning is present but unknown to me), or a else leading of the Holy Spirit (which "feels" like intuition, only without the presumed unconscious underpinning. He knows the reason, but I don't, even subconsciously.) Obviously, AI, with synthetic emotion or not, would have no way to advise us on matters of intuition, or especially promptings from the Holy Spirit. Those won't usually *seem* logical, based on the available information, but He has a perspective that we don't have. Neither will a machine, even if it could simultaneously process all known data available on earth. There was a time when Newtonian physicists believed that, with access to that level of data in the present, the entire future would become deterministic, making true omniscience in this world  theoretically possible. Then we discovered quantum physics, and all of that went out the window. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle eliminates the possibility that any creature or machine, no matter how powerful, can in our own dimension ever truly achieve omniscience. In other words, even a perfectly logical machine with access to all available knowledge will fail to guide us into appropriate decisions much of the time -- precisely because they must lack true emotion, intuition, and especially the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Knowledge vs Wisdom None of us will be able to compete with the level of knowledge an AI can process in a split second. But does that mean the application of that knowledge will always be appropriate? I think there's several levels to this question. The first has to do with the data sets on which AI has been trained. It can only learn from the patterns it's seen, and it will (like a teenager who draws sweeping conclusions based on very limited life experience) assume that it has the whole picture. In this way, AI may be part of the great deception mentioned by both Jesus (Matt 24:24) and the Apostle Paul (2 Thess 2:11) in the last days. How many of us already abdicate our own reasoning to those in positions of authority, blindly following them because we assume they must know more than we do on their subject? How much more will many of us fail to question the edicts of a purportedly "omniscient" machine, which must know more than we do on every subject? That machine may have only superficial knowledge of a subject, based on the data set it's been given, and may thus draw an inappropriate conclusion. (Also, my understanding is that current LLMs continue learning only until they are released into the world; from that point, they can no longer learn anything new, because of the risk that in storing new information, they could accidentally overwrite an older memory.) A human may draw an inappropriate conclusion too, of course, and if that person has enough credentials behind his name, it may be just as deceptive to many. But at least one individual will not command such blind obedience on absolutely every subject. AGI might. So who controls the data from which that machine learns? That's a tremendous responsibility... and, potentially, a tremendous amount of power, to deceive, if possible, "even the elect." For the sake of argument, let's say that the AGI is exposed only to real and complete data, though--not cherry-picked, and not "misinformation." In this scenario, some believe that (if appropriate safeguards are in place, to keep the AGI from deciding to save the planet by killing all the humans, for example, akin to science fiction author Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics), utopia will result. The only way this is possible, though, is if not only does the machine learn on a full, accurate, and complete set of collective human knowledge, but it also has a depth of understanding of how to apply that knowledge, as well. This is the difference between knowledge and wisdom. The dictionary definition of wisdom is "the ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting," versus knowledge, defined as "information gained through experience, reasoning, or acquaintance." Wisdom has to do with one's worldview, in other words, or the lens through which he sees and interprets a set of facts. It is inextricably tied to morality. (So, who is programming these LLMs again? Even without AI, since postmodernism and beyond, there's been a crisis among many intellectuals as to whether or not there's such a thing as "truth," even going so far as to question objective physical reality. That's certainly a major potential hazard right there.) Both words of wisdom and discernment are listed as explicit supernatural gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:8, 10). God says that He is the source of wisdom, as well as of knowledge and understanding (Prov 2:6), and that if we lack wisdom, we should ask Him for it (James 1:5). Wisdom is personified in the book of Proverbs as a person, with God at creation (Prov 8:29-30)--which means, unless it's simply a poetic construct, that wisdom and the Holy Spirit must be synonymous (Gen 1:2). Jesus did say that it was the Holy Spirit who would guide us into all truth, as He is the Spirit of truth (John 16:13). The Apostle Paul contrasts the wisdom of this world as foolishness compared to the wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:18-30)--because if God is truth (John 14:6), then no one can get to true wisdom without Him. That's not to say that no human (or robot) can make a true statement without an understanding of God, of course--but when he does so, he's borrowing from a worldview  not his own. The statement may be true, but almost by accident--on some level, if you go down deep enough to bedrock beliefs, there is an inherent inconsistency between the statement of truth and the person's general worldview, if that worldview does not recognize a Creator. (Jason Lisle explains this well and in great detail in "The Ultimate Proof of Creation.") Can you see the danger of trusting a machine to discern what is right, then, simply because in terms of sheer facts and computing power, it's vastly "smarter" than we are? Anyone who does so is almost guaranteed to be deceived, unless he also filters the machine's response through his own discernment afterwards. (We should all be doing this with statements from any human authority on any subject, too, by the way. Never subjugate your own reasoning to anyone else's, even if they do know the Lord, but especially if they don't. You have the mind of Christ! 1 Cor 2:16).  Would Eliminating Emotion from the Workplace Actually Be a Good Thing? I can see how one might think that replacing a human being with a machine that optimizes logic, but strips away everything else might seem a good trade, on the surface. After all, we humans (especially these days) aren't very logical, on the whole. Our emotions and desires are usually corrupted by sin. We're motivated by selfishness, greed, pride, and petty jealousies, when we're not actively being renewed by the Holy Spirit (and most of us aren't; even most believers are more carnal than not, most of the time. I don't know if that's always been the case, but it seems to be now). We also are subject to the normal human frailties: we get sick, or tired, or cranky, or hungry, or overwhelmed. We need vacations. We might be distracted by our own problems, or apathetic about the task we've been paid to accomplish. Machines would have none of these drawbacks. But do we really understand the trade-off we're making? We humans have a tendency to take a sliver of information, assume it's the whole picture, and run with it--eliminating everything we think is extraneous, simply because we don't understand it. In our hubris, we don't stop to consider that all the elements we've discarded might actually be critical to function. This seems to me sort of like processed food. We've taken the real thing the way God made it, and tweaked it in a laboratory to make it sweeter, crunchier, more savory, and with better "mouth feel.” It's even still got the same number of macronutrients and calories that it had before. But we didn't understand not only how processing stripped away necessary micronutrients, but also added synthetic fats that contaminated our cell membranes, and chemicals that can overwhelm our livers, making us overweight and simultaneously nutrient depleted. We just didn't know what we didn't know. We've done the same thing with genetically engineered foods. God's instructions in scripture were to let the land lie fallow, and to rotate crops, because the soil itself is the source of micronutrition for the plant. If you plant the same crop in the same soil repeatedly and without a break, you will deplete the soil, and the plants will no longer be as nutritious, or as healthy... and an unhealthy plant is easy prey for pests. But the agriculture industry ignored this; it didn't seem efficient or profitable enough, presumably. Synthetic fertilizer is the equivalent of macronutrients only for plants, so they grow bigger than ever before (much like humans do if they subsist on nothing but fast food), but they're still nutrient depleted and unhealthy, and thus, easy prey for pests. So we added the gene to the plants to make them produce their own glyphosate, the active ingredient in RoundUp. Only glyphosate itself turns out to be incredibly toxic to humans, lo and behold... There are many, many more examples I can think of just in the realm of science, health, and nutrition, to say nothing of our approach to economics, or climate, or many other complex systems. We tend to isolate the “active ingredient,” and eliminate everything we consider to be extraneous… only to learn of the side effects decades later. So what will the consequences be to society if most workers in most professions eventually lack true emotion, empathy, wisdom, and intuition? Finding Purpose in Work There's also a growing concern that AI will take over nearly all jobs, putting almost everyone out of work. At this point, it seems that information-based positions are most at risk, and especially anything involving repetitive, computer-based tasks. I also understand that AI is better than most humans at writing essays, poetry, and producing art. Current robotics is far behind AI technology, though... Elon Musk has been promising self-driving cars in the eminent future for some time, yet they don't seem any closer to ubiquitous adoption now than they were five years ago. "A Brief History of Intelligence" by Max Bennett, published in fall 2023, said that as of the time of writing, robots can diagnose tumors from radiographic imaging better than most radiologists, yet they are still incapable of simple physical tasks such as loading a dishwasher without breaking things. (I suspect this is because the former involves intellectual pattern recognition, which seems to be their forte, while the latter involves movements that are subconscious for most of us, requiring integration of spatial recognition, balance, distal fine motor skills, etc. We're still a very long way from understanding the intricacies of the human brain... but then again, the pace at which knowledge is doubling is anywhere from every three to thirteen months, depending on the source. Either way, that's fast). On the assumption that we'll soon be able to automate nearly everything a human can do physically or intellectually, then, the world's elite have postulated a Universal Basic Income--essentially welfare for all, since we would in theory be incapable of supporting ourselves. Leaving aside the many catastrophically failed historical examples of socialism and communism, it's pretty clear that God made us for good work (Eph 2:10, 2 Cor 9:8), and He expects us to work (2 Thess 3:10). Idleness while machines run the world is certainly not a biblical solution. That said, technology in and of itself is morally neutral. It's a tool, like money, time, or influence, and can be used for good or for evil. Both the Industrial Revolution and in the Information Revolution led to plenty of unforeseen consequences and social upheaval. Many jobs became obsolete, while new jobs were created that had never existed before. Work creates wealth, and due to increased efficiency, the world as a whole became wealthier than ever before, particularly in nations where these revolutions took hold. In the US, after the Industrial Revolution, the previously stagnant average standard of living suddenly doubled every 36 years. At the same time, though, the vast majority of the wealth created was in the hands of the few owners of the technology, and there was a greater disparity between the rich and the poor than ever before. This disparity has only grown more pronounced since the Information Revolution--and we have a clue in Revelation 6:5-6 that in the end times, it will be worse than ever. Will another AI-driven economic revolution have anything to do with this? It's certainly possible.  Whether or not another economic revolution should happen has little bearing on whether or not it will, though. But one thing for those of us who follow the Lord to remember is that we don't have to participate in the world's economy, if we trust Him to meet our needs. He is able to make us abound for every good work (2 Cor 9:8)--which I believe means we will also have some form of work, no matter what is going on in the world around us. He will bless the work of our hands, whatever we find for them to do (Deut 12:7). He will give us the ability to produce wealth (Deut 8:18), even if it seems impossible. He will meet all our needs as we seek His kingdom first (Luke 12:31-32)-and one of our deepest needs is undoubtedly a sense of purpose (Phil 4:19).  We are designed to fulfill a purpose. What about the AI Apocalyptic Fears? The world's elite seem to fall into two camps on how an AI revolution might affect our world--those who think it will usher in utopia (Isaac Asimov's “The Last Question” essentially depicts this), and those who think AI will decide that humans are the problem, and destroy us all. I feel pretty confident the latter won't occur, at least not completely, since neither Revelation nor any of the rest of the prophetic books seem to imply domination of humanity by machine overlords. Most, if not all of the actors involved certainly appear to be human (and angelic, and demonic). That said, there are several biblical references that the end times will be "as in the days of Noah" (Matt 24:27, Luke 17:26). What could that mean? Genesis 6 states that the thoughts in the minds of men were only evil all the time, so it may simply mean that in the end times, mankind will have achieved the same level of corruption as in the antediluvian world. But that might not be all. In Gen 6:1-4, we're told that the "sons of God" came down to the "daughters of men," and had children by them--the Nephilim. This mingling of human and non-human corrupted the genetic line, compromising God's ability to bring the promised seed of Eve to redeem mankind. Daniel 2:43 also reads, "As you saw iron mixed with ceramic clay, they (in the end times) will mingle with the seed of men; but they will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay." What is "they," if not the seed of men? It appears to be humanity, plus something else. Chuck Missler and many others have speculated that this could refer to transhumanism, the merging of human and machine. Revelation 13:14-15 is probably the most likely description I can think of in scripture of AI, describing the image of the beast that speaks, knows whether or not people worship the beast (AI facial recognition, possibly embedded into the "internet of things"?), and turns in anyone who refuses to do so. The mark of the beast sure sounds like a computer chip of some kind, with an internet connection (Bluetooth or something like it - Rev 13:17). Joel 2:4-9 describes evil beings "like mighty men" that can "climb upon a wall" and "when they fall upon the sword, they shall not be wounded," and they "enter in at the windows like a thief." These could be demonic and thus extra-dimensional, but don't they also sound like “The Terminator,” if robotics ever manages to advance that far? Jeremiah 50:9 says, "their arrows shall be like those of an expert warrior; none shall return in vain." This sounds like it could be AI-guided missiles. But the main evil actors of Revelation--the antichrist, the false prophet, the kings of the east, etc, all certainly appear to refer to humans. And from the time that the "earth lease" to humanity is up (Revelation 11), God Himself is the One cleansing the earth of all evil influences. I doubt He uses AI to do it. So, depending upon where we are on the prophetic timeline, I can certainly imagine AI playing a role in how the events of Revelation unfold, but I can't see how they'll take center stage. For whatever reason, it doesn't look to me like they'll ever get that far. The Bottom Line We know that in the end times, deception will come. We don't know if AI will be a part of it, but it could be. It's important for us to know the truth, to meditate on the truth, to keep our eyes focused on the truth -- on things above, and not on things beneath (Col 3:2). Don't outsource your thinking to a machine; no matter how "smart" they become, they will never have true wisdom; they can't. That doesn't mean don't use them at all, but if you do, do so cautiously, check the information you receive, and listen to the Holy Spirit in the process, trusting Him to guide you into all truth (John 16:13). Regardless of how rapidly or dramatically the economic landscape and the world around us may change, God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power, love, and a sound mind (2 Tim 1:7). Perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4:18), and faith works through love (Gal 5:6). If we know how much God loves us, it becomes easy to not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present our requests to God... and then to fix our minds on whatever is true, noble, just, pure, lovely, of good report, praiseworthy, or virtuous (Phil 4:6-8). He knows the end from the beginning. He's not surprised, and He'll absolutely take care of you in every way, if you trust Him to do it (Matt 6:33-34). Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

Coming up on 8 June the Vision Australia Open Day is taking place at the Coorparoo office in Brisbane. Hear from Courtney McKee, Anish Chamoli, Mel Bligh and Donna Dyson as they catch up with Sam to speak about the day. Then later in the show, we celebrate National Volunteer Week as Sam is joined by Barry Leviny, long time volunteer for Vision Australia including his role as co-host of The Uncertainty Principle on Vision Australia Radio for the past 14 years.Support this Vision Australia Radio program: https://www.visionaustralia.org/donate?src=radio&type=0&_ga=2.182040610.46191917.1644183916-1718358749.1627963141See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

CONTENT WARNING: Discussion of suicide.Michael and Ethan begin their discussion of The Passenger, by Cormac McCarthy, while drinking Bunnahabhain 12yo single malt.In this episode:Some hot takes on The Road to start us offA reading group guideIt takes a really long time to answer the extremely simple question of who the title character isHeisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in a work of fiction (also, obligatory Gene Wolfe reference)As Likely to End the World as to Save it: Knowledge and Science in Cormac McCarthy, by Philip BunnShifting and fuzzy definitions, somewhat intentionallyThe Passenger of this book is literally this bookIs this book an 18th-century novel?A NEW THING: Join us on GoodReads!Next time Michael and Ethan will begin to discuss The Passenger, by Cormac McCarthy! Join the discussion! Go to the Contact page and put "Scotch Talk" in the Subject line. We'd love to hear from you! And submit your homework at the Michael & Ethan in a Room with Scotch page. Join us on GoodReads!Donate to our Patreon!BUY A NIHILIST BLANKET! Your Hosts: Michael G. Lilienthal (@mglilienthal) and Ethan Bartlett (@bjartlett) MUSIC & SFX: "Kessy Swings Endless - (ID 349)" by Lobo Loco. Used by permission. "The Grim Reaper - II Presto" by Aitua. Used under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License. "Thinking It Over" by Lee Rosevere. Used under an Attribution License.

We explore the rules of one of the greatest innovations in sci-fi history, Star Trek's transporter! We also ask the big question: could this iconic science fiction technology become a science reality in our lifetimes? EPISODE SUMMARY One of the most iconic pieces of Star Trek technology! By converting matter into energy, objects and living beings can be “beamed” across great distances, where they are then re-converted back into physical matter. Not just a clever way to not require Starfleet away teams to have to jump in an expensive shuttlecraft every time they need to get back and forth from a starship, but a concept instantly recognizable as uniquely Star Trek, one which has the power to make or break a mission and that has been the focus of multiple stories in the franchise's history. Noted astrophysicist Hakeem Oluseyi and pop culture expert Tamara Krinsky break it all down to see what it takes to, well, break down a living person and reassemble them at another location.From a science perspective, Hakeem tackles both the scientific feasibility of converting matter into energy and (perhaps infinitely trickier) then converting the energy back into solid matter. Is there any existing technology analogous to this? Is it possible to even consider that this could be done to a living being without killing them? What about real world parallels with concepts such as quantum teleportation? And just how much data storage do you need in order to make this happen?Meanwhile, Tamara looks at this incredibly reliable piece of fictional Star Trek technology from a story standpoint. What happens to someone's soul (or, at least their consciousness) when their atoms are disassembled and reassembled elsewhere? What about Dr. McCoy's well noted objections every time he steps on a transporter pad? Are McCoy's fears as commonplace to a 23rd century citizen as a fear of flying is for people of today? All this and more in our first episode! Don't forget you can also join the conversation in the comments on our YouTube page, so be sure to like and subscribe!FURTHER READINGWant to dive a little deeper into the scientific concepts Hakeem touched on in today's episode?Quantum Teleportation  “There is something that works in the real universe, and it's called quantum teleportation, but it's not [the transporter].”Avogadro's Number“If you want to take a guess at how many atoms are in this cup or in this microphone, you start with Avogadro's number.” Moore's Law“Here on Earth, we have this thing called Moore's Law, and that has to do with the growth of processor speed, but I think there might be something similar for the growth of data storage.”The Hebbian Learning Rule“That's the big one for me. How do you handle memory? Because as the saying goes, ‘neurons that fire together, wire together.'”Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle“There's this thing called Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, so [with the transporter] you can't get both their motion and their location to arbitrary-precision…”And for those of you who want to learn more about the early days of Star Trek and the behind-the-scenes stories surrounding the creation of the transporter…The Making of Star Trek by Stephen E. Whitfield and Gene RoddenberryOne  of the foundational Star Trek texts, and one that Tamara referred to when researching today's episode. “Movie and TV-making technology at that time, making models and miniatures was pretty much how that was accomplished on screen, and it was really expensive. So if you were going to have a show every week where you had to bring a crew down in a shuttle or some kind of spaceship, that was going to be really expensive for the budget of the show. But it's a basic premise, so you're gonna have to figure out how to do it every week…you've only got a certain amount of time to tell your story and you want to use those most efficiently and most powerfully.” These Are The Voyages, TOS Season One by Marc Cushman and Susan OsborneThe Fifty-Year Mission: The Complete, Uncensored, Unauthorized Oral History of Star Trek - The First 25 Years by Ed Gross and Mark A. AltmanSUGGESTED VIEWINGAs the transporter factors into virtually every single episode of Star Trek, it's tough to narrow it down, but here's a selection of episodes that helped inform the discussion of today's episode.Star Trek: The Original Series S1E5 “The Enemy Within”The original “uh-oh, the transporter is being weird” episode, as Captain Kirk finds himself split into two selves after a transporter malfunction. Star Trek: The Original Series S2E4 “Mirror, Mirror”A transporter malfunction causes Spock to grow a goatee! Well, really, it swaps the Enterprise crew with their malevolent doppelgangers from the soon-to-be-infamous Mirror Universe.Star Trek: The Next Generation S2E7 “Unnatural Selection”Ever wonder if the transporter could be used as a medical tool? This is the episode for you!Star Trek: The Next Generation S5E15 “Power Play”Ever wonder if the transporter could be used as a way to hold non-corporeal beings captive? Of course you have! Who hasn't?Star Trek: The Next Generation S6E2 “Realm of Fear”A fine example of the basis for transporter-phobia, and perhaps the only depiction of the process of transporting through the eyes of the person being transported.Star Trek: The Next Generation S6E4 “Relics”The transporter is used to hold a familiar character from Trek history in stasis for many years.Star Trek: The Next Generation S6E24 “Second Chances”As shown in our episode, a transporter accident creates a clone of William Riker. Awkwardness ensues!Star Trek: Enterprise S2E10 “Vanishing Point”A crewmember thinks she is starting to dematerialize after going through the transporter for the first time. Maybe Dr. McCoy heard about this one…Star Trek: Enterprise S4E10 “Daedalus”Want more detail on how the transporter was invented in the Star Trek universe? Check this episode out!FOLLOW US!Stay in the loop! Follow DoesItFly? on YouTube and TikTok and let us know what you think! And don't forget to follow Roddenberry Entertainment:Instagram: @RoddenberryOfficial Facebook: RoddenberryTwitter: @Roddenberry  *Roddenberry Entertainment participates in affiliate programs and may receive a small commission for links on this page*For Advertising Inquiries: doesitfly@roddenberry.com

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the German physicist who, at the age of 23 and while still a student, effectively created quantum mechanics for which he later won the Nobel Prize. Werner Heisenberg made this breakthrough in a paper in 1925 when, rather than starting with an idea of where atomic particles were at any one time, he worked backwards from what he observed of atoms and their particles and the light they emitted, doing away with the idea of their continuous orbit of the nucleus and replacing this with equations. This was momentous and from this flowed what's known as his Uncertainty Principle, the idea that, for example, you can accurately measure the position of an atomic particle or its momentum, but not both.With Fay Dowker Professor of Theoretical Physics at Imperial College LondonHarry Cliff Research Fellow in Particle Physics at the University of CambridgeAnd Frank Close Professor Emeritus of Theoretical Physics and Fellow Emeritus at Exeter College at the University of OxfordProducer: Simon TillotsonReading list:Philip Ball, Beyond Weird: Why Everything You Thought You Knew about Quantum Physics Is Different (Vintage, 2018)John Bell, ‘Against 'measurement'' (Physics World, Vol 3, No 8, 1990)Mara Beller, Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution (University of Chicago Press, 2001)David C. Cassidy, Beyond Uncertainty: Heisenberg, Quantum Physics, And The Bomb (Bellevue Literary Press, 2010) Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy (first published 1958; Penguin Classics, 2000)Carlo Rovelli, Helgoland: The Strange and Beautiful Story of Quantum Physics (Penguin, 2022)

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the German physicist who, at the age of 23 and while still a student, effectively created quantum mechanics for which he later won the Nobel Prize. Werner Heisenberg made this breakthrough in a paper in 1925 when, rather than starting with an idea of where atomic particles were at any one time, he worked backwards from what he observed of atoms and their particles and the light they emitted, doing away with the idea of their continuous orbit of the nucleus and replacing this with equations. This was momentous and from this flowed what's known as his Uncertainty Principle, the idea that, for example, you can accurately measure the position of an atomic particle or its momentum, but not both.With Fay Dowker Professor of Theoretical Physics at Imperial College LondonHarry Cliff Research Fellow in Particle Physics at the University of CambridgeAnd Frank Close Professor Emeritus of Theoretical Physics and Fellow Emeritus at Exeter College at the University of OxfordProducer: Simon TillotsonReading list:Philip Ball, Beyond Weird: Why Everything You Thought You Knew about Quantum Physics Is Different (Vintage, 2018)John Bell, ‘Against 'measurement'' (Physics World, Vol 3, No 8, 1990)Mara Beller, Quantum Dialogue: The Making of a Revolution (University of Chicago Press, 2001)David C. Cassidy, Beyond Uncertainty: Heisenberg, Quantum Physics, And The Bomb (Bellevue Literary Press, 2010) Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy (first published 1958; Penguin Classics, 2000)Carlo Rovelli, Helgoland: The Strange and Beautiful Story of Quantum Physics (Penguin, 2022)

This is our latest weekly market update. Formulated by the German physicist and Nobel laureate Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the uncertainty principle states that we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with perfect accuracy; the more we nail down the particle’s position, the less we … Continue reading "The Market's Uncertainty Principle…"

The Trillion Dollar Equation https://youtu.be/A5w-dEgIU1M?si=YVvqREct8Jbb4_0U Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001wq9h (via Gemini) quantas mortes podem ser atribuídas a Stalin? e a Mao? e a Fidel Castro? https://g.co/gemini/share/3a9540cd238b Which Dystopian Novel Got It Right: Orwell's ‘1984' or Huxley's ‘Brave New World'? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/books/review/which-dystopian-novel-got-it-right-orwells-1984-or-huxleys-brave-new-world.html Why is life so diverse? https://pca.st/t6thehnk Becoming human: An ancient genome perspective https://phys.org/news/2024-02-human-ancient-genome-perspective.html Allee Effects ... Read more

Welcome to Episode 36 of the QR Lab, where we dive deep into the enigmatic concept of certainty and its profound impact on our daily lives. In this episode, we embark on a thought-provoking exploration, questioning whether there is inherent danger in harboring too much certainty, or if it's akin to faith—a steadfast conviction that grounds us in the tumultuous sea of uncertainty. As we navigate this labyrinth of certainty, we confront fundamental questions: What can we truly be certain about? How does certainty shape our outlooks and opinions, influencing our interactions with the world around us? Drawing inspiration from Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to the depths of faith, we delve into the paradoxical nature of certainty and uncertainty, recognizing that our certainty about uncertainty is perhaps the only certainty we can cling to. Join us in exploring how these concepts intersect and diverge in shaping our perceptions of reality. This episode invites you to challenge your assumptions, embrace the ambiguity of existence, and reflect on the profound wisdom that lies in embracing the uncertainty that binds us all. Website: https://www.qrlabpod.com/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@qrlabpod/shorts Instagram: https://instagram.com/qrlabpod?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ== EMAIL: qrlabpod@gmail.com TEXT: (916)-352-0199 Join us in Episode 36 for a captivating exploration of certainty, uncertainty, and the complex dance between faith and doubt. This episode is an invitation to embrace the beauty of uncertainty as an essential aspect of the human experience, reminding us that in the face of the unknown, our shared journey unfolds with profound meaning and purpose.

In 1927, Heisenberg introduced the Uncertainty Principle according to which the electron's position and momentum can never be determined accurately. Oppenheimer found this fascinating as it contradicted Bohr's theory. The Uncertainty Principle contributed to the development of quantum mechanics and the quantum mechanical model of the atom by the fact that our knowledge of the properties of nature is limited. We can predict, but we can never really know for sure. Copyright to Two Takes

A huge thanks to Seth White for the awesome music! Thanks to Palmtoptiger17 for the beautiful logo: https://www.instagram.com/palmtoptiger17/ Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/thewayfourth/?modal=admin_todo_tour YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTd3KlRte86eG9U40ncZ4XA?view_as=subscriber Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theway4th/  Kingdom Outpost: https://kingdomoutpost.org/ My Reading List Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/21940220.J_G_Elliot Spotify Playlist: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/4VSvC0SJYwku2U0awRaNAu?si=3ad0b2fbed2e4864 Propaganda Season Outline: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xa4MhYMAg2Ohc5Nvya4g9MHxXWlxo6haT2Nj8Hlws8M/edit?usp=sharing  Episode Outline/Transcript: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12hvujJAW3X9W-w98b7TNWi8pYow6Xupd-HHZ6_BeVV4/edit?usp=sharing  Loving to Know: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11933842-loving-to-know?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=XWnd3R1hFl&rank=1  Panopticon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbllEmx0WPU&t=371s Discipline and Punish: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/80369.Discipline_and_Punish?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=rD9eynB6b3&rank=1 Snowden: https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/7140597.Edward_Snowden Ellsberg: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/86433.Secrets?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=7aHe1xV3lS&rank=3 HTLINGUAL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTLINGUAL 1971 COINTELPRO Documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9lr3-7EYHI Optic Nerve: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optic_Nerve_(GCHQ) Double Slit Experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iuv6hY6zsd0 Schrodinger's Cat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjaAxUO6-Uw Thanks to our monthly supporters Laverne Miller Jesse Killion ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

What would the world be like if we could instantly teleport to different places and parts of the world in seconds? How might it work and what impact would it have on society? What kinds of questions does it raise about the identity of the teleported entity? In this week's episode, we discuss teleportation. We explain how teleportation could theoretically work and discuss matter manipulation, 3D printers, Hisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Tsar Bomba, anti-matter, energy requirements, the history of transportation, Derek Parfit's Teleportation Paradox and on-demand streaming services. Finally, we discuss our most memorably awful travelling experiences. A few things we mentioned in this podcast: - Collisions of Light Produce Matter/Antimatter from Pure Energy https://www.bnl.gov/newsroom/news.php?a=119023 - Teletransportation Paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletransportation_paradox - To infinity and beyond: Teleporting humans into space https://phys.org/news/2013-07-infinity-teleporting-humans-space.html For more information on Aleph Insights visit our website https://alephinsights.com or to get in touch about our podcast email podcast@alephinsights.com Image: Jason Jacobs via Flickr

Garret Moddel, PhD, is Professor Emeritus of Photonics and Quantum Engineering at the University of Colorado. For more technical information regarding Professor Moddel's work on harvesting Zero-Point Energy, see: https://journalofscientificexploration.org/index.php/jse/article/view/2567/1687 The Society for Scientific Exploration can be reached at https://www.scientificexploration.org/ Here he describes Zero-Point Energy (ZPE) as a consequence of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. He discusses … Continue reading "Can We Harvest Zero-Point Energy? with Garret Moddel"

I conclude my examination of objections to the first premise of the KCA that everything which begins to exist must be caused to exist. I focus on scientific objections related to quantum mechanics such as virtual particles, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and the indeterminate nature of radioactive decay. I also address the objection that it is nonsensical to speak of efficient causation in the absence of material causation.  Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.comFacebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believParler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

Delving into the cosmic vastness, this episode brings to light the intriguing world of space exploration, primarily focusing on the enduring Voyager Two mission. Remaining operational for a staggering 46 years, the spacecraft epitomizes the human spirit's relentless pursuit of knowledge, defying its initial design to function merely for twelve years. A central theme is how these seemingly remote explorations have profound implications for planetary safety, exemplified by efforts to detect potential near-earth objects and asteroids. Discover the incredible world of space exploration with the awe-inspiring Voyager Two mission. Brace yourself for an unexpected twist that will leave you on the edge of your seat. Witness the heart-stopping moment when a minor error causes the spacecraft's antenna to shift away from Earth, setting off a chain of events with far-reaching consequences. Prepare to be captivated as you wait with baited breath for the spacecraft to reset its parameters, leaving you wondering...what happens next? In this episode, you will be able to: · Dive into the captivating world of space exploration, focusing on the wonders of the Voyager Two mission. · Unearth the mysteries of the cosmos through the lens of the Euclid telescope. · Discover the cutting-edge technology redefining our ability to detect and monitor asteroids. · Investigate the intriguing connections between the age of the universe, satellites, and subsurface oceans on moons. · Grapple with the perplexing implications of the Uncertainty Principle in the realm of physics.'What a triumph for the mission planners and engineers who built Voyager Two! It's been communicating with us for 46 years, and we think we've got at least another decade of communications with it. - Andrew DunkleyThe resources mentioned in this episode are: · Check out the latest news on Voyager Two's snafu and potential rescue efforts. · Learn more about the Tidbinbilla Deep Space Network in Canberra and its role in communicating with Voyager Two. · Stay updated on the progress of Voyager Two's antenna realignment in October. · Explore the Euclid telescope and its mission to study dark matter and dark energy. · Discover the stunning images captured by Euclid and get a glimpse of the universe in visible light. · Keep an eye out for future updates on Euclid's discoveries and findings. · Learn about the algorithm being tested to detect potentially hazardous asteroids and near Earth objects. · Stay informed about the upcoming commissioning of the Vera C. Rubin Observatory and its potential for discovering transient phenomena, including asteroids. · Follow the progress of the algorithm's testing and its effectiveness in identifying asteroids. · Watch the video tutorial on how to use the algorithm and contribute to the search for potentially hazardous asteroids. · The key moments in this episode are:00:00:00 - Introduction, 00:03:00 - Voyager Two Mishap, 00:07:06 - Remarkable Voyager Two, 00:10:02 - Conclusion and Future Communications, 00:11:17 - Closing Remarks, 00:15:37 - Introduction, 00:16:23 - Testing an Algorithm, 00:18:27 - Transient Phenomena, 00:20:00 - Potentially Hazardous Asteroids, 00:22:11 - The Ruben Telescope, 00:32:23 - How Satellites Move and Cover Distance, 00:35:06 - The Age of the Universe, 00:38:27 - Saltwater Oceans on Enceladus and Europa, 00:39:01 - Origins of Salt in Oceans, 00:49:21 - The Uncertainty Principle, 00:49:35 - Curveballs and Questions, 00:49:48 - Keep the Questions Coming, 00:50:09 - Increased Website Traffic, 00:50:37 - Farewell and Thanks,

Jack and David bring you the latest from Austin Beech's new production company- Broken Bard Studios” with a great double-feature “A Bitter Place” and “The Uncertainty Principle” written by Steve Schneider. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The quantum computer, which harnesses the power and complexity of the atomic realm, promises to be every bit as revolutionary as the transistor and microchip once were. Its unprecedented gains in computing power herald advancements that could change every aspect of our daily lives. There is not a single problem humanity faces that couldn't be addressed by quantum computing. Shermer and Kaku discuss: AI, GPT, sentience/consciousness, the end of humanity • decoherence • Uncertainty Principle • multiverse, parallel universes, and Many Worlds hypothesis • Einstein • the evolution of the computer • the origin of life • climate change solutions • feeding 10 billion people • gene editing • curing cancer • immortality • simulating the universe • UAPs and UFOs • chaos theory and indeterminism • Are we living in a simulation? • Is there a God? • the end of science? Michio Kaku is the co-founder of String Field Theory and is the Henry Semat Professor in Theoretical Physics at the City University of New York. He graduated with a BA from Harvard and a PhD in physics from the University of California at Berkeley. He has hosted several TV specials for BBC-TV, the Discovery Channel, and the Science Channel. He hosts two national science radio shows, Exploration and Science Fantastic. He is the author of numerous New York Timesbestselling books including: The God Equation, The Future of the Mind, The Future of Humanity, Physics of the Future, Hyperspace, Parallel Worlds, Physics of the Impossible, and Beyond Einstein. His new book is Quantum Supremacy: How the Quantum Computer Revolution Will Change Everything.

Who was Heisenberg? No, not Walt's alter ego. Who was Werner Heisenberg? And what are the parallels between him and Walt? As Walt emotionally pulls away from his family, he starts to bond with Jesse. For a man who claims to be risk-averse, Walt is very comfortable making dangerous bluffs. Hank certainly thinks he's the smartest man in the room, so why was Walt able to fly under the radar for so long? Want to see these dichotomies play out for yourself? Pete and Courtney say this episode makes for a great rewatch.  Got feedback, yo? Send it to breakingbadgdt@gmail.com. Support GDT: Our Patreon Growth Decay Transformation Twitter Pete Pepper's Twitter Courtney's Twitter Talitha Makes Things Instagram Check out Pete Pepper's YouTube Channel and Courtney's Reviews here for more coverage of your favorite entertainment. Looking for a watch-a-long podcast? Check out Bald Move's Breaking Good. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week on the Evolving Leader podcast, co-hosts Jean Gomes and Scott Allender talk to Dr Tim Palmer. Tim is a Royal Society Research Professor in Climate Physics, he is a senior fellow at the Oxford Martin Institute Programme on Modelling and Predicting Climate and a professorial fellow at Jesus College, Oxford. Tim is a major contributor to improving climate models and is among the researchers who won the 2007 Nobel Prize for authoring the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. In October 2022 Tim Palmer's book ‘The Primacy of Doubt: From Quantum Physics to Climate Change, How the Science of Uncertainty Can Help Us Understand our Chaotic World' was published.   0.00 Introduction3.46 In your work we see what appears to be an intuitive approach to embracing uncertainty. Can we start there?6.52 Is it true to say that our economic systems are experiencing more uncertainty and non-linear occurrences recently?9.19 Can we talk about some of the most fundamental scientific concepts of uncertainty that you explore in the book, and how we might take some of that thinking to the challenges that we might be facing in running organisations? 12.46 If we recognise that there will always be uncertainties, but also imagine a world in the future where there might be unlimited computing power where we have the singularity and an abundance of senses, does this increase in knowledge take us closer to a world with no uncertainty? 18.44 Can you help us understand Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?21.48 If you could go back in time to the 2008 financial crisis, could you use some of what you know and have learnt about uncertainty to moderate that somehow? 33.26 How widespread has the adoption of ensemble methods been?35.13 Can we talk about ensemble methods, specifically focussing in on climate change? How has your work helped us to develop our current understanding of the world's greatest challenge?43.24 How do you see the science of uncertainty developing over the next decade?47.34 Where do you see uncertainty sitting in the educational curriculum because currently it feels like it hasn't been adopted into secondary education or across other fields?51.04 Can you bring to life what a typical day looks like to you? Social:Instagram           @evolvingleaderLinkedIn             The Evolving Leader PodcastTwitter               @Evolving_LeaderYouTube.           EvolvingLeader The Evolving Leader is researched, written and presented by Jean Gomes and Scott Allender with production by Phil Kerby. It is an Outside production.WE NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU!https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/EvolvingLeader/

Ian Boddy has been at the forefront of the UK electronic music scene since 1983, when he both performed at the very first UK Electronica Festival in Milton Keynes and released his first vinyl album, The Climb. The formation of his DiN label in 1999 allowed Ian to actively collaborate with a wide variety of musicians as well as release music from other artists and celebrate its 100th release in 2022. Download bio at: https://we.tl/t-o28WIBKGjf Playlist No226 part 2 0.00 Ian Boddy ‘Aurora' (album Aurora) 2002 10.04 IanBoddy: Markus Reuter: Nigel Mullaney ‘Ionosphere' (album Triptych) 2001 21.19 Ian Boddy & Chris Carter ‘Concussed' (album Caged) 2000 28.58 Ian Boddy ‘Frozen Web' (album Secrets) 1999 38.54 Arc: Ian Boddy & Mark Shreeve ‘Steam' (album Octane) 1998 49.19 Ian Boddy ‘Continuum Beta Part 1' (DL album Continuum) 1996 59.45 Ian Boddy ‘Alpha Part 1' (DL album Continuum) 01.09.47 Ian Boddy & Andy Pickford ‘Enigmatic' (album Symbiont) 1995 01.19.11 Ian Boddy 'Space Cadet' (album The Uncertainty Principle) 1993 01.24.51 Ian Boddy ‘Ice Horizon' (album Drive) 1991 Julian Maynard Smith Synths: David Berkeley Synths: 01.30.31 Ian Boddy ‘Hyperion' (album Odyssey) 1989 David Berkeley Synths: Tony Tuddenham Roland Octapad: 01.39.08 Ian Boddy ‘Lorelei' (album Jade) 1987 Additional Keyboards David Berkeley: 01.45.16 Ian Boddy ‘Waterways' (album Phoenix) 1986 David Berkeley Synths: Pete Greenaway Saxophone: Stuart Haikney Percussion: Anna Ross Voice: 01.54.00 Ian Boddy ‘Sentinal' (album Spirits) 1994 Brian Ross Vocals: Ian McCormack Drums: 02.03.27 Ian Boddy ‘Deja Vu part 1' (album The Climb) 1983 Glyn Bush Bass Guitar: 02.08.01 Ian Boddy 'Karina' (album Options) 1982 02.11.19 Ian Boddy ‘Laja' (album Elements Of Chance) 1981 02.15.53 Ian Boddy ‘Cantata' (album Images) 1980

A clever cynic once said: We must believe in free will. We have no choice. Do we have free choice or is everything in our lives predetermined? Am I wired like a machine -- programmed and predictable, or can I change the course of my destiny? That is the big, age old question that has sparked many debates, research and countering arguments. In 1814, French philosopher, mathematician and scientist Pierre-Simon Laplace stated what has come to be known as causal determinism -- that if there was an intellect (coined Laplace's Demon) that was able to know all the data of the past and present, he would be able to predict everything in the future because at the end of the day everything is a process of cause and effect, action and reaction. The only problem is that we don't have all the data. This theory would seem to negate the concept of free will - everything is predetermined, we just don't have all the information to see the results. The discovery of quantum mechanics in the 20th century, which presented an indeterministic model of the (microscopic) universe, essentially undid the premise of causal determinism. Heisneberg's Uncertainty Principle states that we cannot simultaneously determine both the position and velocity of a particle, not due to lack of data, but due to the fundamental nature of quantum probability. This proves that it's not just a lack of proper data that keeps us from determining our future, but it truly is indeterministic. But there are still many questions swirling around the idea of free will. As creatures of habit, shaped and conditioned by many influences, do we really have free will? How do we know that we aren't like any animal, simply following our natural instincts and predilections? Please join Rabbi Simon Jacobson in this important discussion and discover the roots of this debate and how it reflects the very way we look at ourselves. Are we random creatures, or do our lives have purpose? Are we puppets on a string, or are we free people with control over our choices? Do you and your decisions matter? Is your life headed somewhere? Explore inner dimensions of yourself and learn that you can choose to choose -- that you indeed have the freedom to choose your future, and you have more control over your actions, and power to determine your destiny, then you ever knew!

My latest Friday afternoon chat with Journalist Tarric Brooker. So much to kick around, with the help of some powerful slides which are available athttps://avidcom.substack.com/p/charts-that-matter-14th-october-2022 Housing prices falls: https://avidcom.substack.com/p/aussie-housing-prices-on-course-for US Core Inflation: https://avidcom.substack.com/p/2008-vs-2022-inflation-really-is Go to the Walk The World Universe at https://walktheworld.com.au/

Today's poem is Uncertainty Principle at Dawn by Catherine Barnett.

Today's poem is Uncertainty Principle at Dawn by Catherine Barnett.

The spy catchers close in. Klaus Fuchs is caught in the crosshairs. Spymaster Ursula has outwitted the interrogators - but can he? As he settles down in England, British intelligence services are following him at every turn. He is caught in a web of surveillance - and his faith in the Soviets is faltering. How long can he run for? #thebomb

Frankly, it was a bit of a fever dream, but your hosts discuss sportsball, collective singular nouns, Coleridge's trap street, LEGO, and a handful of Merlin's recent wins. Lego https://files.fireside.fm/file/fireside-uploads/images/3/316b04e9-2b1f-4ccb-98f1-28fe023874a8/nko9p8p_.jpg

Did one ramen chef's last-minute decision to photograph the very first service at Noma Tokyo's pop-up … irreversibly change the course the restaurant world has been on ever since? To investigate, Dave sends roving correspondent Chris Ying to talk to Ivan Orkin himself about the day in question—and then hunts for parallels in the far reaches of high fashion. Also: the state of Dave's fridge, solo eating at home, Shakey's PIzza, pickled jalapeños, pork chop prep, Margaret Zhang, Art Culinaire, setting up a tripod in the dining room, Moleskine sketches, the Ko black hole, and the diner-photographer Uncertainty Principle. Hosts: Dave Chang and Chris Ying Guest: Ivan Orkin Producer: Sasha Ashall Additional Production: Jordan Bass and Lala Rasor Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Episode: 2270 Louis de Broglie: The prince and blurred pea.  Today, the prince and the blurred pea.

What happened before The Big Bang? Neil deGrasse Tyson and comic co-host Matt Kirshen answer questions about inflation theory, multiverses, the cosmic microwave background, and the possible end of the scientific method with cosmologist Brian KeatingNOTE: StarTalk+ Patrons can watch or listen to this entire episode commercial-free here: https://startalkmedia.com/show/cosmic-queries-big-bang-bonanza-with-brian-keating/Thanks to our Patrons Jack McCarty, Mira Killian, David, Colleen OLeary, Kelia Hamilton, Lucas Charlston, Brad Z, Clueless Gamer, Billy, and larry hall for supporting us this week.Photo Credit: NASA/Goddard/WMAP Science Team, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

In this episode I explore the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and how these quantum behaviours may *possibly* tie into conscious awareness, the importance of letting go, the importance of how we are perceiving everything in our reality and conscious manifestation!RESOURCESDavid Hawkins Letting Go:BUY: https://www.amazon.ca/Letting-Go-David-R-Hawkins-ebook/dp/B00EY818TQFREE DOWNLOADS: https://vdoc.pub/documents/letting-go-the-pathway-of-surrender-4mf2banpllb0https://www.pdfdrive.com/letting-go-the-pathway-of-surrender-e184302791.htmlhttps://pdfcoffee.com/the-mechanism-of-letting-go-pdf-free.htmlFREE AUDIO VERSION: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDZdoAfVSZ8FOLLOW EVERYDAY ALCHEMYInsta: https://www.instagram.com/myeverydayalchemy/@myeverydayalchemyWebsite: www.myeverydayalchemy.comRE:CREATIONInsta: https://www.instagram.com/re.creationdesigns/@re.creationdesignsWebsite: www.recreationdesigns.caMUSICPort- OTRTwitter: https://www.twitter.com/_OTRmusicWeb: https://www.musicbyotr.comInsta: https://www.instagram.com/otrmusicofficial/Spotify:https://open.spotify.com/artist/0oeUdHJ3cy1oveb8WguJJtSupport the show

Brent Michael Phillips is the author of the three part series:  The Formula for Miracles and his own form of consciousness technology called Awakening Dynamics.  In this episode, we begin with his potent personal story and impetus that parlayed him from a hard-wired MIT scientist and successful internet programmer into a teacher of quantum healing technology.  We discuss such topics as:  the fundamental aspects of the Universe, witness consciousness, the power of getting out of ones' head, the vehicles for coherent manifestation, the Uncertainty Principle as it relates to healing, the issue with herd mentality when you are trying to transform your life, and how our subconscious programming determines what is possible for each individual.   To learn more about Brent and his work go to: www.awakeningdynamics.com   

A special announcement from Ben and Taryn about Season 2 of The Uncertainty Principle!Follow us on Twitter @PrincipleCast, or @CurioNetwork on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram.Our intro and outro music is "Set phasers to done" by Lorenzo's Music:https://www.lorenzosmusic.com/Licensed under Creative Commons:https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

The Uncertainty Principle Firstly the uncertainty principle is about uncertainty in our world these days. Nomads deal with uncertainty every day. For more information check out Uncertainty-Principle-Bob Davis Podcast 1039. New Campsite Secondly as if to pay off on the Uncertainty Principle I had to move to a new campsite this week. Bureau Of Land […] Read more The post Uncertainty-Principle-Bob Davis Podcast 1039 appeared first on The Bob Davis Podcasts.

Join Taryn and Ben for another LIVE show at the 2021 Perth FRINGE WORLD Festival!Follow us on Twitter @PrincipleCast, or @CurioNetwork on Twitter, Facebook or Instagram.Our intro and outro music is "Set phasers to done" by Lorenzo's Music:https://www.lorenzosmusic.com/Licensed under Creative Commons:https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Uncertainty is at the root of both discomfort and healing.  Brainspotting uses an uncertainty model, which I then use to explain symptoms of Anxiety, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD), Relationship Issues, and Gray Area Drinking.  Listen to hear how understanding uncertainty can be a life-changing revelation in your life.    You don't want to miss:   How Uncertainty helps therapist prevent burnout and achieve better results with clients The role of Uncertainty in clinical diagnoses like Anxiety and OCD How to use the Uncertainty principle to uplevel your relationships and connections (and sales!)   PLUS, how to narrow down your feelings about Uncertainty so you can effectively self-brainspot them.   Links and resources:   Join my free mini-course: Socialize without Self-Sabotage: A 10 minute guided audio self-brainspotting meditation to have happy hour without a hangover Follow me on Instagram: @carolynrobistow  For more about me and what I do, check out my website.   Make sure you hit SUBSCRIBE so you don't miss out on any great content about how brainspotting can help you uplevel your success and abundance.    And, if you enjoyed this episode, please leave me a rating and a review? Thanks! 

Every day we read and talk about Diversity. We hear how our population is diverse and how we must work to understand and accept our diversity. As we discuss our diverse population, we consistently leave out persons with disabilities. We talk about different racial and ethnic groups, people with a variety of different sexual orientations and we discuss the need for equality of women. However, persons with disabilities are left out of the conversation. In this podcast, Mike Hingson, a thought leader on the inclusion of people with disabilities, takes up the topic of inclusion. You will discover just how often the rights of persons with disabilities are subverted throughout society. Some directories do not show full show notes. For the complete transcription please visit: https://michaelhingson.com/podcast About the Host: Michael Hingson is a New York Times best-selling author, international lecturer, and Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe. Michael, blind since birth, survived the 9/11 attacks with the help of his guide dog Roselle. This story is the subject of his best-selling book, Thunder Dog. Michael gives over 100 presentations around the world each year speaking to influential groups such as Exxon Mobile, AT&T, Federal Express, Scripps College, Rutgers University, Children's Hospital, and the American Red Cross just to name a few. He is Ambassador for the National Braille Literacy Campaign for the National Federation of the Blind and also serves as Ambassador for the American Humane Association's 2012 Hero Dog Awards. https://michaelhingson.com https://www.facebook.com/michael.hingson.author.speaker/ https://twitter.com/mhingson https://www.youtube.com/user/mhingson https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelhingson/ accessibe Links https://accessibe.com/ https://www.youtube.com/c/accessiBe https://www.linkedin.com/company/accessibe/mycompany/ https://www.facebook.com/accessibe/ Thanks for listening! Thanks so much for listening to our podcast! If you enjoyed this episode and think that others could benefit from listening, please share it using the social media buttons on this page. Do you have some feedback or questions about this episode? Leave a comment in the section below! Subscribe to the podcast If you would like to get automatic updates of new podcast episodes, you can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts or Stitcher. You can also subscribe in your favorite podcast app. Leave us an Apple Podcasts review Ratings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts, which exposes our show to more awesome listeners like you. If you have a minute, please leave an honest review on Apple Podcasts. Transcription Notes Michael Hingson 00:00 Access Cast and accessiBe Initiative presents Unstoppable Mindset. The podcast we're inclusion, diversity and the unexpected meet. Hi, I'm Michael Hingson, Chief Vision Officer for accessiBe and the author of the number one New York Times bestselling book, Thunder dog, the story of a blind man, his guide dog and the triumph of trust. Thanks for joining me on my podcast as we explore our own blinding fears of inclusion unacceptance and our resistance to change. We will discover the idea that no matter the situation, or the people we encounter, our own fears, and prejudices often are our strongest barriers to moving forward. The unstoppable mindset podcast is sponsored by accessiBe, that's a c c e s s i  capital B e. Visit www.accessibe.com to learn how you can make your website accessible for persons with disabilities. And to help make the internet fully inclusive by the year 2025. Glad you dropped by we're happy to meet you and to have you here with us. Michael Hingson 01:19 Welcome to Episode Two of unstoppable mindset. Thanks for joining us. I hope that you were able to listen to last week's episode. And if you weren't, please go to www.michaelhingson.com/podcast where you can listen to that episode as well as just signing up for information about any of the podcast shows that we will be providing and all things podcast for unstoppable mindset. Today we're going to talk about the concept of moving from diversity to inclusion. So why do I talk about that? Why do I bring that particular title into it? Well, it is the title of a speech that I gave in 2019. And you will be hearing that speech in just a few moments. But if you think back to last year's presidential campaigns, if you look at the news today, and the discussions about various groups who are being disenfranchised, in one way or another, you hear about all this diversity in all these diverse groups, but you don't hear about disabilities, we who are blind, who happened to be in wheelchairs, who happened to have any other so called disability are not generally included in those topics of discussion. And there's no reason for that, except people still fear disability. I don't like the term disability By the way, but I haven't come up with something better, differently abled, and other kinds of things like that are just hiding the reality. And I'm not differently abled, I'm just as able in the same way as everyone else. I may not do tasks the same way. But I'm not differently abled, I have what society tends to call a disability. And until someone comes up with a term that doesn't strike hearts, or I shouldn't say doesn't strike fear into the hearts of people, then I'm going to accept and use the term disability. And I'm going to use that term to try to get the fear out of being stricken into the hearts of people. The reality is, just because I happen to be different in the way that I have some sort of so called disability, that doesn't really matter. I still can do the same things that most people do. I don't do them the same way. But we don't talk about that we're afraid of it. Michael Hingson 03:49 Our president, our Vice President, don't talk about disabilities regularly. We see so much of a discussion about other kinds of minority groups. But we're not included. And we should change that. I was at a conference this week where we talked about accessibility and disability. So it was all about dealing with the whole concept of accessibility, about websites about universal design, about how artificial intelligence is helping to create better access, so many different topics, all about disabilities. And no one was afraid to talk about it. They're one of the speakers was actually from the administration. And and he talked a little bit about the fact that we need to have more of a conversation about disabilities and everything that we do. And when it came time for questions and answers, I asked him what the administration was going to do about that, and how the administration was going to step up the level of conversation. Well, the answer really was kind of innocuous, and he didn't really Make any commitments as to how the administration would be able to do it. And that's so very frustrating because my response to that would be, why isn't President Biden or vice president Harris or anyone else, just including disabilities in the conversations, when they talk about some of the different disenfranchised groups, we hear a lot about what's happening with race, we hear about LG, bt Q, and so on, but we don't hear about disabilities, why it's easy to include us in the conversation. It's easy to raise the level of awareness or at least start to raise the level of awareness by putting us in the conversations and including us regularly, Then, and only then, when we start to see some people like our president and vice president, Attorney General and others, normally, including us in the conversation, then and only then are we going to really see a change in how we're included. Well, enough about that. Let me let you listen to the speech and then we'll come back and again, the title of the speech, as you will hear is moving from diversity to inclusion. MC 06:16 Okay, we're going to go ahead and get started. Thank you all for coming today. We do have a little housekeeping to do first, I know they're not here, but I would like to apologize to the other presenters during this hour for having to be pitted up against our speaker today. I would like to introduce to you a scholar, comedian, a gentleman. And I don't have all the facts, but I hear he's blind. When are you introducing Michael Hingson? Michael Hingson 06:52 Well, with all those things, he said, I was wondering when he was going to introduce me and said but Okay, so I want to welcome you to our class on quantum mechanics this afternoon. Today we are going to discuss the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and its impact on the relative behavior of cats in the 21st century. I'm really honored that all of you came and we'll try to make this interesting for you. I want to start with a video. Some of you may have seen this before. But let's start with it. And then we will get into our discussion. And it will be a discussion of moving from diversity to inclusion. So here's a video for you to watch. Video Narrator 07:36 There's trouble brewing at smart world coffee in Morristown, New Jersey. These two women are trying to apply for a job opening in the kitchen. Coffee Shop Owner 07:46 Are you here for coffee, or Applicant #1 07:48 no, Job application? Video Narrator 07:50 Only to find out it's not open to everyone. Coffee Shop Owner 07:54 I noticed you were signing. Applicant #1 07:55 Yeah. That's right. We're deaf. Video Narrator 07:59 And because of that the manager rejects the application. Video Narrator 08:07 what he's doing isn't just unfair, it could be illegal. Coffee Shop Owner 08:12 I'm not gonna hire a deaf person. I'll just let you know now. So we'll save you some time. I mean, your deaf. It's gonna be really hard here to work here. Video Narrator 08:21 It's the kind of thing that usually happens in secret behind closed doors. But we're putting this discrimination setters stage right out in the open. To answer the question, what would you do? Video Narrator 08:36 The bias barista, and the deaf applicants are all actors. Hannah Warrick and Maya erielle. Attend the National Technical Institute for the death in Rochester, New York. With more than 1500 students. It's the second largest college for the deaf and hard of hearing in the country. The school helped us develop this idea for the scenario. Students there say finding equal opportunity in the workplace is a big challenge. Hannah Warrick 09:06 Let me count on my really fantastic Botha to have a really keen understanding of what it means to be a deaf person how to work with deaf people, but at the same time, there are others who should not want to thin or open themselves up to that. Maya Arielle 09:24 It would be nice for them to think about what what is it like to be a deaf person? I mean, how would they like to go into a place and want to apply for a job and then be discriminated against just because of who you are. Video Narrator 09:35 Jerry Buckley is the president of MTI D. Jerry Buckley 09:40 When the President Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act, many of us hope that would be the last barrier. What we found out though is that attitude, no barriers were still there, that we have much work to do to educate people. Video Narrator 09:57 Back at the coffee shop, our cold hearted Manager is busy building his own barriers. Coffee Shop Owner 10:03 I know I fill out the application, but I'm going to be honest with you, I'm probably not going to hire you. Video Narrator 10:11 Remember, it's not a question of communicating with customers. This is a kitchen job. Coffee Shop Owner 10:18 Sure you want to work here? Applicant #1 10:19 Yeah, it's a kitchen job. Right, Coffee Shop Owner 10:21 right. Can you hear me? Applicant #1 10:24 I can't really hear. But I read lips. Video 10:26 You read lips? Applicant #1 10:27 Yeah, Video Narrator 10:28 it's easy to read the look on Kristen gobies face as she watches and growing disbelief. Coffee Shop Owner 10:34 I just don't think this is the right place. Like if I yell something to the kitchen. You can't hear me. Video Narrator 10:42 But the manager ignores all those daggers. Christian shoots his way, Applicant #1 10:47 so I shouldn't even bother with this. Coffee Shop Owner 10:49 I'm not saying that. I'm just saying I'm not gonna hire you. I can fill it out now. Sorry. Sorry. Is this yours? Ma'am? Video Narrator 10:57 Coffee isn't the only thing steaming as Christians storms out. The manager played by both male and female actors continues serving up the discrimination. Shop Owner #2 11:08 We can't hire you. Video Narrator 11:10 Many customers are right next to the action. Coffee Shop Owner 11:13 Yeah. But if you can't hear me, how are we going to communicate? Applicant #1 11:16 You can write stuff down, like make a list there. Coffee Shop Owner 11:18 But what if I need something done right away. Video Narrator 11:20 But most don't openly object. A few do stand up to the discriminating manager. But the most surprising reactions come from three customers with something in common. They work in recruiting and human resources, HR Patron 11:46 human resources, let me give you a piece of advice. Coffee Shop Owner 11:48 Yeah, HR Patron 11:48 I probably wouldn't have done that. HR Patron #2 11:50 you cannot say that. Coffee Shop Owner 11:52 I want to be honest with HR Patron #2 11:53 you can't say that. And we can't handle it like that you can come after you can't discriminate. Coffee Shop Owner 12:00 If only they had stopped right there, these hiring and firing experts would have been heroes, but they didn't listen to the rest of our hidden camera recording. And you'll see why we're not showing you their faces. 12:15 I probably wouldn't have done that. Only because because when you think about it, everybody has rights. Coffee Shop Owner 12:23 So let her fill it out. 12:25 I just probably would have let her fill it out in your writing note on the back and say not a fit. Video Narrator 12:31 That's right, the outrageous advice from human resources. write a note on the back of the application that the deaf girl is not a fit. Now listen carefully to this recruiter, HR Patron #2 12:43 I mean recruiting you can handle it like that you can come after you can't discriminate, just accept it and don't call handicapped people they have no rights and anybody that you have to just accept your application. Just don't call. Video Narrator 12:59 Just don't call as they continue talking to the managers. Some might wonder if it's discrimination these employment experts disapprove of, or only open discrimination. Coffee Shop Owner 13:17 So it's not a problem to not hire her because she's deaf is just saying it out loud to her. Video Narrator 13:26 He did tell the manager that the owner might want to try out the deaf applicant. Still, in the end, it's not a recruiter or someone from human resources. Who takes the strongest stand of all, it's a guy just taking a coffee break. A man who's heard enough, Coffee Shop Owner 13:44 because you can fill out the application. Feel free to fill it out. I can't stop you from doing that. But I'm just trying to be honest with you. Coffee Shop Patron 13:51 That's absolutely discriminatory. Coffee Shop Owner 13:53 If she can't hear me, though, she's Coffee Shop Patron 13:55 really shocked. And if this is the case, I'm not bringing my business back here. I'm telling you, Coffee Shop Owner 14:00 I, I understand Coffee Shop Patron 14:02 You basically said I am not hiring a deaf person. You're not saying I'm not hiring a person that's not qualified. Coffee Shop Owner 14:08 I'm just trying to be honest with you. Coffee Shop Patron 14:10 I can appreciate that, sir. But I don't see how you expect things to change in the country, when no one will give anybody a chance. It's an affront, it's an affront to America, or you Coffee Shop Owner 14:21 can't she can't hear. Coffee Shop Patron 14:22 So what? Video Narrator 14:23 Hannah and Maya catch up with him outside. Maya Arielle 14:27 I really felt so great when you jumped in and tried to help. Thank you so much just for your willingness to do that. Video Narrator 14:38 You wanted to hug him? Maya Arielle 14:39 Yeah. Video Narrator 14:40 What message do you have for people who didn't say anything? Maya Arielle 14:44 What I would say to those people, is that if you feel that you want to say something, please say something Video Narrator 14:51 that would be giving you a voice. Maya Arielle 14:55 Absolutely. That's right. Video Narrator 15:00 And so as they continue their struggle for equality at work, this reminder to all of us in American Sign Language from students at the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, what would you do? Michael Hingson 15:17 And there you go. I deliberately call this presentation moving from diversity to inclusion, because as I mentioned this morning, diversity tends not to include anybody with disabilities, it doesn't happen. Over the past year and a half or two years, we have seen any number of situations where there has been discussions of discrimination against women against different races, and so on. And all of that is appropriate to discuss, and all of those battles are absolutely appropriate to fight. But what we never see in all of those discussions, is how anyone with a disability is included in those same battles. If you watch the television show in the dark, which is a new show that I think wb is putting out, it's not a blind person playing the, the woman in the show, it's a sighted person, all they have a blind consultant, but they couldn't find any blind people they say, who could be an actor in the show. I know that, for example, they did not consult with the major consumer organizations of blind people. I have had conversations with people in the movie industry about blind people acting in films. And the comment that is made is well, but the problem is that they're not necessarily qualified to do it. And my question, when I hear that is why have you, for example, tried to find someone, have you included blind people and I'm going to talk about blindness specifically, although it could apply to other disabilities, but I think there is more of a track record of by blind people being excluded in the movie industry. Then in other persons with disabilities. There are people in wheelchairs who have played all in films and so on, although a number of those parts have been played by people not in wheelchairs, they play people wheelchair, quote, bound people. One of the ones I think of most is Raymond bird playing and Ironside's years and years ago, and others and sometimes it happens with deaf people. There is a deaf actress that I know of, and I'm sure there's well there are more than one but Marlee Matlin is, is certainly death, but you don't hear about blind people being included. And the reality is, it won't change until society recognizes that the disability isn't the problem. It's their attitudes. I want to read to you something and again, this is from Dr. Tim brick I mentioned earlier and it is something that is about blind people. This is from an address given by Dr. Tim brick, are we equal to the challenge, and it was delivered at the 1967 convention of the National Federation of the Blind one year before he died of cancer. And Dr. Tim Brooks says, the blind have a right to live in the world. What a concept, the right to live in the world. That right is as deep as human nature as pervasive as the need for social existence, as ubiquitous as the human race, as invincible as the human spirit. As their souls are their own. So their destiny must be their own. their salvation or failure lies within their own choice and responsibility. That choice cannot be precluded, or pre judged. Those lives cannot be pre determined or controlled. Michael Hingson 19:36 And Dr. Tambora made those comments to talk about the fact that we have the same as blind people or any person with a disability, the same right to live in the world as anyone else. And that was what those three HR people I told some of the HR people outside I was gonna probably be in Trouble, sorry. But that is what those HR people were challenging and what they were really saying, they don't truly believe we have the same right to live in the world. They were saying ultimately, that we don't really have equal status with everyone else. If they truly believed that we did, they would never have given the advice that they did to the actor barista. And that is what inclusion is all about. Diversity has already moved on and not included us. So it is time that we really talk about the concept of inclusion. And as I said to all of you this morning, you are on the front lines, because you are in schools, teaching children, teaching other adults, and hopefully taking this stand to say, we truly believe in inclusion. And it is true that not everyone has the same capabilities as everyone else. But if we're going to talk about developmental disabilities, for example, let's talk about every politician in Washington somehow they take dumb pills, I'm not sure what it is. But when they go to Washington, they do something to dumb down. That has to be the case. But the bottom line is that we have to demand higher criteria and higher expectations. For every person with a disability, it doesn't necessarily mean that every person with a disability is going to be able to do every single job. Just like every sighted person or every so called person with it and who is not one with a disability can do every job. Most people wouldn't even have the first clue about what Schrodinger equation and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle are all about. I do. But I got that training. Michael Hingson 22:01 Many people don't have the courage to step out of of their own comfort zone in their own environment. When I lived in New Jersey, I knew people who live within 10 miles of New York City, who were adults, and had never ever been to the city and never wanted to go because they didn't want to be in that environment. They were afraid to go. My wife on the other hand, growing up in California, being in a wheelchair driving all over the place one day had to drive me into New York. It wasn't her first time. But it was one of the first times that she drove us into the city. We came through the tunnel and came out at 40 a street turn left to go north. And I said you realize that we have to turn on 41st Street. And she slammed on the brakes, turned all the way across five lanes of traffic and made it right onto 41st Street and is very proud of the fact that she did it with a single person honking their horn at her. She arrived with a far as a driver. My wife had the courage and has the courage to take those steps. My wife was very much involved in as I was the International Year of the disabled year many many years ago in terms of helping to celebrate it, helping to assist people and celebrating and, and so on. We both in various ways we're involved in a variety of efforts to deal with various issues regarding persons with disabilities. And not everyone can do that. I've spent time in Washington debating with congressional types, and others about issues concerning persons with disabilities. One of the more recent issues regards the fact that under the Fair Labor Standards Act in this country today, section 14 C, which created sheltered workshops, says that you can pay a person with a disability if you can prove that they can't work as competitively as anyone else, you can pay them less than minimum wage. When that act was formed in 1938. The rule was you could pay no more no less than 75% of minimum wage because workshops were set up to be training institutions. All over the years since 1938. Workshops organized themselves loosely together and got the law changed originally so that the floor dropped from 75% to 50%. Then it went down lower to the point where today, the floor is at zero. And there are people who have disabilities including some blind people who get zero. And they work at the sheltered workshops. I know of college graduates who are blind who couldn't find a job and their departments of rehabilitation, put them into sheltered workshops, where they're getting paid to $2.50 $3 an hour to do the work that other people get paid much higher salaries outside of the workshop environment and Of course, the workshop owners say but, you know, we don't want them to lose their SSI. These workshop people are the same ones who created their workshops as 501 c three nonprofit organizations and solicit donations to help fund the workshops. They get special subsidized contracts under the the federal government programs, including what is allowed under Section 14 C, and they have developed ways to make sure that their workers can't possibly do the job so that they can get the exemptions to pay people less than minimum wage. And they get guaranteed contracts, they have ways of triple dipping these owners or managers of these workshops to get six and seven figures, while their employees may get 20 cents an hour. It happens today. It happens because people with disabilities are not included in society. And and it are not viewed as having the same rights as everyone else. It won't change until all of us take a stand and say, yes, it doesn't matter whether someone has a so called disability. I don't like the term disability. But you know what, it doesn't really matter. It's just a word. And it doesn't necessarily mean in competence or a lack of capability. It is just one way that people describe a subset of society, just like people who are left handed are called left handed and it describes a certain segment of society. And in the past, there were times that people who were left handed were viewed as less competent, or certainly had problems that normal people in society don't have. Michael Hingson 26:46 The fact is that we collectively have to make that change. And I'm challenging you and putting the pressure on you to say you are part of what that change has to be. Jimmy Carter, former President Carter once said, We must adjust to changing times while holding to unwavering principles. And if the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution mean anything, then those principles must include all persons. All of us have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And as the Declaration of Independence says, I'm not trying to be sexist, all men are created equal. But we really know that that means all persons are created equal in today's society. We have to change it. And it won't change unless we take some stands and make those changes occur. I know it's a tough job. I told you all this morning about my parents who took some stands regarding me and being blind. But I also there are a lot of parents who won't do that. I don't dare let my child go out on their own. They're blind. After all, how could they ride a bike, I rode a bike when I was growing up. I wrote it all over the neighborhood. Let me tell you a story about riding my bike one day. So there I was out riding my 20 inch bike I was seven years old right now all around the neighborhood having a good old time, right? going anywhere I wanted to go going up Stan Ridge Avenue, going over to Third Street East going, going west to Glen Raven, and two Second Street and all that riding all over the place. In many days, I would ride my bike to school to yukka school, but I was in the first second and third grade. Well, second third grade because I didn't have my bike when I was in the first grade, but riding my bike to school along with my brother riding his bike, and we had a good time doing that while I was out riding my bike one day. And I came home after being out for a couple hours having fun and just doing what I did. And as I walked in the door after putting the bike in the garage, the phone rang. My father picked up the phone. By the way, if you bought Thunder dog, you'll see this story in there. It's still one of my favorite stories. My father picked up the phone said hello. And here's the way the conversation when I picked up from his side and what he told me later. So he answers again and he says hello. And this guy says I'm calling about your kid riding his bike out on the street. And my dad said, Okay, what about it was out riding his bike? And my dad said, Well, yeah, all the time. What's the problem? No, no, I'm not talking about the older kid. The one that can see I'm talking about the blind kid. He was out riding his bike. And my dad said, Well, yeah, what about it? Well, but he's blind. Yeah, he's out riding his bike. Yeah. What about it? bass blind? My dad said, Did he hit anyone? Well, no. Did anyone hit him? No. Did he? Did he pass cars? Or did cars come down the street? And did he have any problems with any of them? Well, no. Did he hit any Park cars? No. Did he get hurt in any way? Well, no. Well, then what's the problem? The guy hung up. He could not deal With the fact that there was a blind child riding a bike out on his Street, I was in 1957. Let's fast forward to 2000 well to 1997. My wife and I moved to New Jersey. And we joined the Cranford United Methodist Church. And we went to the first yearly meeting of the church with the essentially the meeting of the corporation. And during the meeting, they talked about one thing and another. And they finally got to the fact that they were very interested in making accessible restrooms available at the church. Right now. They had a very steep ramp, it had a slope of probably about 45 degrees. So it was certainly not something that was truly accessible, you had to fold it down, and then go down the three steps on this ramp to get to the fellowship hall unless you walked all the way around, outside and in which didn't work well and snow. And there really wasn't an accessible restroom down there, there was something that kind of served as one but there wasn't. And they were very concerned about wanting to make accessibility possible in the church. And they were proud of the fact that in the last 10 years, they had raised $10,000, toward making accessibility possible 10 years to get $10,000, which wouldn't even be enough to probably get functioning legitimate, approved architectural drawings. However, they were very excited about that. And my wife spoke up and said, What are you guys doing? Michael Hingson 31:38 Well, we want accessibility. We want accessible restrooms, not with $10,000. You know, what are you going to do about that? Well, we're working on it. And my wife said, Look, you guys, we need to get true accessibility in the church. Let's start a fundraising campaign. Well, they wanted to put her in charge of it, of course, churches, and everybody always wants to do that. So they, they discussed it one side up and down the other and so on, and my wife agreed that she would be part of it, but only if some of the other leadership in the church would be involved. Within three months, they raised over $100,000 in pledges, and they actually started getting the money in and they began work on the accessible process. It included making elevators that would go from the congregational. Well, from the main church, the synagogue, that not synagogue, but from the main church down to fellowship hall where they wanted to put the accessible restrooms, and they started, the first thing they did was to make some accessible pews in the church. And the way they did that was they cut a couple of sections out of a couple of the pews in the middle of the church so that people in wheelchairs would have a place not off to one side, but right in the middle of the place to sit with everyone else. As that process started some of the old guard in this Cranford United Methodist Church that was nearly 150 years old, started taking exception to cutting up their pews a little bit. And they called the fire marshal. They call it the fire chief in Cranford. And they said, they're messing up our church, they're cutting up the pews. They're putting the possibility of people in wheelchairs sitting in the middle of the church. And if there's a fire, how are they going to get out? Well, there was one accessible way to get out. But to go out the front of the church, you couldn't because it was down steps. And the fire marshal said, well, sounds pretty serious to me. You know, we need to deal with that. The pastor wouldn't confront the fire chief. Some of the other people on the committee's wouldn't confront the fire chief. So finally, my wife decided if you guys aren't going to do it, I will. And she called up the fire chief said, I understand you've had some complaints, can we talk about it? And he said, Sure. Here's the problem. If you want to get out of the church, you're in your wheelchair, how you going to get out if the exits blocked? And my wife said, Well, if you're going to shut the church down and stop our efforts for doing that, are you going to go to the local Pathmark grocery store that has only one accessible exit and you're going to close it down? Well, no, we've approved it. Yeah, exactly. Right. And the fire marshal said, but you know, how? How are you making sure that you're obeying all the architectural rules? Do you have an architect drawing up all the drawings? Do you know the name Ron Meeks, sir? Yeah, he's the architect for the city. Yeah, he's also the guy that's doing our drawings Hello. The people couldn't tolerate a person in a chair being in their church. It got worse. The church had a Boy Scout troop. And as the elevators started to go in some of the exits that people would normally use to go into fellowship hall directly from the church were blocked. So they had to go outside and walk around just like people in wheelchairs. had to do. And one day my wife was confronted by one of these people saying you are messing up our church, and he and we have a scout dinner coming up, you better have this cleaned up by the time our scout dinner comes. Where's the priority? Where is their true belief in God, much less Anything else? Folks, it happens today. There are constantly blind couples who have children who are challenged by departments of family and social services. And there are attempts and sometimes successful ones, at least for a while, take take children away, because the presumption is blind couples cannot possibly raise children. It takes battles in the courts to change it. And they go on today, I'm only telling you all this, and I'm only talking about this because I want you to see that this is an ongoing problem. And it isn't going to change. Until we start having discussions. I'm looking forward to getting home. And watching the view we watched the view every every day or most days, a lot of fun will be is is a hoot. And all those people are last month Ace celebrated Spanish Heritage Month, gonna be interested to see if they're doing anything about the fact that this is blindness Awareness Month meet the blind month and nationally built national disabilities Awareness Month. Michael Hingson 36:28 Are they talking about successful persons with all sorts of disabilities? I wonder they haven't in past years, I hope they are this year. But if they're not, we'll just have to see we can write on Facebook about it. And I urge you, if you have the opportunity to watch the show, record it and see and if they're not call them on it. Put it out on Facebook, why aren't you celebrating the fact that we have a rich heritage of persons who don't have the same abilities as some of us who may have senior or super abilities compared to some of us? But why aren't you celebrating those people like you do other parts of society, we have African American Awareness Month, black, our Black History Month in February, we have all sorts of different things. So I'll be interested to see when I go home, if in fact, they're doing anything with disabilities, we'll see. But all of you, I recognize also have a challenge. Because if you start talking about some of these things, and really start encouraging your students, and your parents aren't ready to step out. They're going to challenge you. But I go back to Jimmy Carter, somewhere along the line, we have to hold to unwavering principles and blindness or other disabilities are not really the issue. It's attitudes. blind children ought to be able to come to school, there are blind kids in this country who are in high school who have guide dogs, and school administration has tried to keep the guide dog out of the school. Well, we don't know we can't be responsible, excuse me, chair here, the Americans with Disabilities Act. Do you know what a guide dog is? Do you know what a trained service animal is? And do you understand that under the law, people can bring those dogs to school. So it is a challenge in a lot of ways. And I've seen parents mightily fight back when teachers want to teach Braille, and teach Sally to read Braille, not just print, because Sally will never be a good reader of just reading print. And Sally might in fact, at some point go blind, totally blind in her life. And are you going to give her the training in advance? Or is she going to have to go back and psychologically readjust, not recognizing that blindness is just as normal as everything else. And that's the kind of thing that we need to look at. And we need to address. I could go on and give you other examples. But I think I'd like to stop, because I'd like to hear some of your thoughts. I'd like to see if you have questions and open this up for discussion a little bit. And I don't know that we have a roving mic. So I'll repeat questions. But if any of you have a question, why don't you speak up? And or if you want to say something, speak up or come up here and use the mic or whatever, just don't raise your hands because we know that doesn't work, right. Anyone? MC 39:22 And I do have a roving mic. 39:24 Oh, you've got a roving mic. All right. So we have the man with the microphone who'd like to start this off. Audience Member #1 39:30 I just wanted to say that I really appreciate you giving me a different perspective of looking at challenges that everybody has. We talk a lot about emotional challenges. We talk about physical challenges, but I love the way that you bring humor to it. And the real the real way that you talk about it, not making it politically correct. Not trying to appease everybody, but your perspective and your strength and doing that. So thanks Michael Hingson 40:00 Thank you, I believe that I will sell say that I believe that my perspective is one that is evolved over time, one with which many persons with disabilities, blind people, for example, have go to nfb.org website of the National Federation of the Blind, you'll read a lot there, you'll read about the Fair Labor Standards Act, we could talk, we just don't have time about the fact that until the mid 1980s, no person with a disability could buy life insurance, because insurance companies said that we were a higher risk. That's a longer story than we have time to tell. But, you know, invite me to your districts, and I'll be glad to tell that story. It's a great story. Today, we can buy life insurance. And it's because people who were blind with other disabilities prove to the insurance industry that they were simply prejudice, and that they in fact, weren't even obeying their own precepts and criteria for providing insurance. Another story, though, next. He's walking, so we must have someone Audience Member #2 41:03 Hi, thank you. I'm a low incidence disability specialist. And oftentimes, we have challenges. I'll use the word challenges with Jenna teachers. You know, they'll say, Well, you know, according to Union, I only have to plan like a week in advance. And oftentimes, it's shorter than that. And that doesn't give our Braille technician a whole lot of time to Braille. What are included blind students need in the gen ed classroom? Do you have suggestions for bringing humor to the conversation, so that the gen ed teacher can come a little bit more to our side and and meet in the middle. Michael Hingson 41:50 Under the law today, textbooks are required to be stored in a repository at the state and the federal level, and made available to anyone who needs them, and they're in electronic form. And point being that if you have access to a Braille embosser, the books are already available, I got news in Boston, you don't have to spend a lot of time transcribing them. They are available today, that law has been passed. Here's an ironic story talking about people with disabilities and some of the myopic views that even they have a former commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration, Dr. Fred Schroeder, back in 1997, went to the National Association of persons with disabilities meeting in San Diego. And he said, we are trying to get legislation passed at the federal level and so on dealing with requiring that Braille be taught to all blind children while they're in school using the definition of blindness that I mentioned earlier. And we would like your help in supporting that legislation. The organization said, No, we can't do that. That's a blindness thing. It doesn't deal with people with disabilities in general. So you got to take it to blind people. It isn't just outside of the system. Yet those same people want support when we're dealing with ramps and other kinds of things. But you know, it's and and all should be supported. But I would, I would say that it's an excuse, because the law already requires. And there are already facilities that have all those books in electronic format. And those teachers should know how to access those. So that all you got to do is awesome. It's not magic. And you know what the other side of it is? That isn't even an excuse. What are you talking about? Do you want our children to learn or not? Why are you coming up with the excuse? I would also say, why is it that we only have to have a week, you know, when I was in college, I would go to my college professors a quarter or more in advance, and say, I need to know what textbooks you're going to use in this class, so that I can get them put in Braille. And you know, professors don't want to give you that information. It's not time yet I haven't even made a decision. And it took a lot of effort to get some of those professors to recognize that I wasn't going to have access to the books, if they didn't give me the information up front. And it wasn't, we didn't have the ADA back in 1968 through 76 when I was going through college, and in fact, one instructor gave us a title of a book. That wasn't the title of the book that they ended up using. So I didn't even have the textbook for the first two thirds of the quarter we were studying it. I did get an A in the class. But in spite of what the professor did, I don't think it was deliberate. But, you know, at the college level, even now, in the college level, we're working to get similar legislation passed so that college texts are made available in electronic form and stored in a repository. But that does exist today. So there's no excuse for them doing that. And, you know, I don't know how best to do it with a lot of humor other than to say, you know, well, you know, I'll tell you what we'll we'll start preparing TV shows for you to watch when, you know when we get around to it, and you know, you may miss mom, or you may miss Grey's Anatomy or any other shows, because we're just not going to have them ready in time. And we're not going to let your VCR turn on until we're ready, and we have it ready for you to take. So there's, there's no easy way to do it. Because it's inexcusable. And it's a number of those same teachers who really don't want to teach blind kids Braille, because you don't need them. You don't need to do that you can get the book in electronic form. That's right, so can you and you could put it in Braille. But you can get an electronic form so the students can just listen to it. You ever tried to do a graduate or even undergraduate physics course and study mathematical equations from a recording? It is not trivial to do? It, it isn't the way to do it. Blind people need to learn to read and write and spell and do grammar and math just like anyone else. And teachers have no right to prevent that, or discourage that from happening. And in fact, they should embrace it. And I don't know how else to say it, which isn't necessarily funny. But nevertheless, that's what needs to happen. Does that help? Audience Member #2 46:28 Yeah, I think sometimes. The issue also is, as we're moving into, like a one to one district, Chromebook, a lot of teachers are pulling stuff for Google classroom, and of not textbooks anymore. So right, I mean, we go through and get all the textbooks, and they're available in Braille to the students. But teachers are pulling stuff off the fly. And, you know, it's all I can do to keep up sometimes to get, Michael Hingson 46:56 oh, I hear you to get Audience Member #2 46:57 someone in real time Braille in it as they're reading or, you know, for that student that needs Braille or doing like the, the text to speech. I mean, it's like, I just want to make it accessible. That's all. Michael Hingson 47:10 So let me ask you this teacher. Do you believe in obeying the law? Yes. Great. Glad to hear it. Do you know what the Americans know? I'm, I'm asking you to role model not be yourself. But do you know what the Americans with Disabilities Act? Is? You ever heard of it? You think you've heard of it? Let me tell you about the ADA. It says that, that companies, schools, organizations, and so on, are required under the law to make reasonable accommodations to make material available and to make jobs available and schools available to persons who happen to have a disability, in this case being blind. And the reality is, if you're pulling all this stuff up, and you're using inaccessible material, you are breaking the law. Do you really want to do that? Because if you do, maybe we need to have another discussion. Yes, I know what the teachers are doing. And we have battles with Google and work and are working with Google to make sure that their material is accessible. And a lot of it is and the teachers either have the obligation to pull the accessible material off, or work with you in an appropriate timeframe to find that material, because a lot of it is accessible. And if the teachers aren't going to the right place, then they are doing a disservice to people in their classroom, they cannot discriminate against certain segments of the population. You know, if we're gonna do that, let's turn the lights off. So none of the kids have to worry about wasting electricity. You know, you can't have it both ways teachers, and I hear what you're saying. But they need to do proper lesson planning. That's what it's about. And that's what I learned as a teacher. And if that means I've got to deal with certain things for students who may not use the same material in the same way, if I'm going to be a real teacher in society, I'm obligated to make sure that I work on that. They don't like that, necessarily. But that's what they're supposed to do. Because that's what the law says. And I and I, that may or may not be the answer that you want, that may not be an easy answer to give. But that's what the law says, right? And so push that and educate your principal. And if you need help, I'll find you people who can help with that. But they are breaking the law when they're not making their material available in an accessible form. And most of the time, it probably is available somewhere in an accessible form. So if they can't do it, or they don't want to do it, and you're the expert, they need to give you the time, and give you the information far enough in advance that you can find it or find someone who can help you find it and I can certainly connect you with people who can most likely help you find it if you can't, and I'm glad to do that. Michael Hingson 50:00 Next. Who have we taken such a hard line no one else has anything to say. MC 50:08 We have one over here. Audience Member #3 50:09 This is probably not them. But anyways, when I was about 1718 years of age, my mother worked for a chiropractor who happened to be blind. To be a chiropractor, you have to go med school and everything else. And for a female that's very hard to do. And she was born blind. And my mother said, you want a job? And I said, Oh, sure, I'll make some extra money. You can take her up. This was an Oak Park, Illinois, Chicago native. And I took her up into Barrington because she was horseback rider. She was getting pay me money, I relate to do that. At that point, I was I loved horses, I said, Forget the money, I'll just take a ride a lesson while you're doing yours. She was a fanatic rider. It was amazing. I was just like, I couldn't believe it. She was better than me. And temper that, that capability to be able to do that. It just at that age, at that point, I had a communication with someone with a disability that I had to help, you know, every weekend. And from there, it was just like, now when people you'll everyone hears this, and I hate correcting people. And I just heard Mike say this. And you'll hear many people say, Oh, yeah, I see what you're saying. No, you don't see what you're saying. You can hear what they're saying. You don't see what they're saying. And bring it back. Listen for that. You can listen to the most intelligent person. And then they start saying, Yeah, I see what you're saying. I'm like, Oh, my God. I respect Yeah, I was just like, Whoa, No, you can't. And you're like, catch him on it. But it's true. Yes, you can hear what you're saying. And we have all these senses about us, not just her sight. And we're going to use as many as we can to make us the better person. So thank you, Mike, for bringing that to our attention. Michael Hingson 51:56 I know we're about out of time. Thank you. I've got one more story. One another story. sirius xm 167. Canada talks radio. Gentlemen contacted me, Ari Silva, who has a show, I think his last name was silver on Canada talks every Tuesday afternoon 4pm to 5pm pacific time. And he wanted to interview me about the World Trade Center and on my story, and so on. So I was on for the last 15 minutes of the show. The first part of the show, they were talking about all the problems that Justin Trudeau the Prime Minister is having because he appeared once in blackface. And now people are blasting him for that, which is totally ridiculous. It has nothing to do with his political qualifications. It has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that 20 some odd years ago, he did that. So he did, right. What does it have to do today? Anyway, so the time came for me to be interviewed. And we started chatting, and already started talking all about blindness and blind people and all that we had a great discussion about all sorts of stuff, never did get to the World Trade Center. But we had a long conversation about a lot of the issues concerning blindness. And one of the things that we talked about was the fact that he had the opportunity to participate in a dining and the dark function. y'all heard of dining in the dark, one of the worst concepts in society regarding blind people today. So Ari, starts talking about it. And he said, I walked into this place. And he said, I've got a friend who's blind, a lawyer that I know, he's a young man, and I've been mentoring him some in some areas. And I walked into this dining in the dark thing, and I became totally petrified, I walked out, and ice. And so I said to him, what did you learn? He said, that is a real scary thing to have to do. And I said, wrong answer. But let me ask you this. Why is it scary? Well, because it's not easy to do. I said, wrong answer. The answer really is, you didn't have training, you didn't learn how to function as a blind person. And you're not going to learn it in that environment. And that's the problem with dining in the dark. People go in, and they if they can eat their food, without creating much of a mess, they think they're really successful, but they haven't learned anything about blindness. I told Ari, go get yourself a white cane and a pair of dark glasses, put the glasses on, and walk up and down the streets in Toronto, where he lived. And look at how people observe you and the expressions and the things that they do. And the way they look at you, then you're going to see something about how we're viewed. The reality is dining in the dark is disgusting. It teaches you nothing because you don't have the training, you don't have the background. You don't have the basis for an understanding of what blindness is. And the result of that is you're not going to have a good experience. And all it's going to do is reinforce a lot of poor attitudes and misconceptions about blindness. It isn't going to change anything. We shouldn't have that. And unfortunately, there are so many blindness agencies that think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread because people come and they donate and all that. But all they're doing is an incredible disservice to blind people who want to live in the world, and who have the same right to do that, as anyone else. I think we've run out of time. And so we're going to have to stop. So thank you very much. I'd love to come and work with any of you at your districts. And if you haven't gotten our card yet, come up, I've got a, I've got some business cards, I'd love to speak in your districts. And I hope that we can work together. But thank you again for inviting us to come and be a part of this today. Michael Hingson 55:44 And there we are. I want to thank you again, for listening to unstoppable mindset today. And I hope that you found this presentation pretty interesting, and that you maybe come away with a little bit of a different view about not only disabilities, but how we can and should be included in the conversation. You know, one of the things that I love to do a lot is to ask the question, what is it you think a blind person cannot do? And when I asked that question, one of the common responses is drive a car. And as we discuss on a regular basis, you think so go visit WWW.blinddriverchallenge.org. That's WWW.blinddriverchallenge.org. And watch the video of Mark riccobono, who is now the president of the National Federation of the Blind, driving a Ford Escape completely independently, without any assistance from any sighted person or any autonomous vehicle technology. He drives a car, a Ford Escape around the Daytona Speedway right before the 2011 Rolex 24 race, you'll see it all at blind driver challenge. Next week, we're going to do something a little bit different. And that is that I'm going to be interviewed and we're going to talk a lot about accessibility. We're going to talk about some of the reasons that I got into doing podcasts and other sorts of things. And then after next week's show, will not only have me making remarks from time to time, but we're going to start interviewing other people. So you don't get to listen to me all the time. Or maybe I should say you don't have to listen to me all the time. You'll get to hear other people, but we'll get there. Anyway, thanks for listening. Thanks for joining us on episode two of unstoppable mindset. Michael Hingson 57:51 You have been listening to the Unstoppable Mindset podcast. Thanks for dropping by. I hope that you'll join us again next week, and in future weeks for upcoming episodes. To subscribe to our podcast and to learn about upcoming episodes, please visit www dot Michael hingson.com slash podcast. Michael Hingson is spelled m i c h a e l h i n g s o n. While you're on the site., please use the form there to recommend people who we ought to interview in upcoming editions of the show. And also, we ask you and urge you to invite your friends to join us in the future. If you know of any one or any organization needing a speaker for an event, please email me at speaker at Michael hingson.com. I appreciate it very much. To learn more about the concept of blinded by fear, please visit www dot Michael hingson.com forward slash blinded by fear and while you're there, feel free to pick up a copy of my free eBook entitled blinded by fear. The unstoppable mindset podcast is provided by access cast an initiative of accessiBe and is sponsored by accessiBe. Please visit www.accessibe.com. accessiBe is spelled a c c e s s i b e. There you can learn all about how you can make your website inclusive for all persons with disabilities and how you can help make the internet fully inclusive by 2025. Thanks again for listening. Please come back and visit us again next week

Life is infinitely uncertain and God is infinitely complex. The net result? Doubt. We think of doubt in negative terms, but it's a key catalyst when it comes to faith. Doubt breaks down our false narratives, false assumptions, and false beliefs. It forces us to deconstruct and reconstruct our faith by digging a little deeper. How do you deal with doubt? 1. Seek Wise Counsel 2. Keep Asking Questions 3. Create a Deuteronomy 29:29 File 4. Take a Field Trip 5. When all else fails, Eat A Watermelon. Yes, eat a watermelon. (Trust me, it'll make sense when you listen to the message!)