Tim Hunt: Not a martyr

As with most incidents relating to the feminism vs. "men's rights" debate, I had planned on quietly ignoring the Tim Hunt issue.  Like previous events (donglegate, elevatorgate, etc.), this one is a fairly straightforward issue (Should Tim Hunt have said those things?  No, of course not) with a lot of stupid internet drama on the side (though since I left reddit, I have seen a lot less of that), and I prefer not to contribute to the latter.

But then I read a fascinatingly unhinged article in Reason.  I got about halfway through before I decided I wanted to blog about it.  The basic premise seems to be that Hunt is being oppressed in some fashion.  The truly bizarre part, however, is who's (allegedly) doing the oppression.

Meta-Compatibilism

Salviati

A few days ago, I bought a $5 desk toy on Amazon. Now that it's here, I'm regretting the purchase. It's not nearly as good as I expected. Oh well, it's not that much money.

Simplicio

Do you ever wonder if you could have done things differently?

Salviati

What do you mean?

Simplicio

Well, take that toy, for example. Could you have decided not to buy it?

Salviati

Well, if I had known I wouldn't like it, of course I wouldn't have bought it.

Simplicio

That's not what I meant. Could you have chosen differently if you hadn't known?

Salviati

What are you talking about? I didn't know and I did buy it. What more is there to discuss?

Simplicio

Were you making a real choice, or just following the laws of physics?

Salviati

What is a "real" choice?

Simplicio

A choice which could have come out differently.

Salviati

If I had decided by flipping a coin, then it could have come out differently. But that doesn't really strike me as much of a choice.

Simplicio

No, the coin's motion is determined by chaotic air currents and subtle physical factors. There isn't any real randomness there.

Salviati

OK, what if I use a Geiger counter hooked up to a radioactive mineral? Unless you subscribe to a hidden variable theory (which I do not), the counter's clicking is truly random. No matter how much you know about the situation, you can never predict exactly when it will go off.

Simplicio

We're missing the point. I don't want to know whether a Geiger counter could have made a different choice. I want to know whether you could have made a different choice.

Salviati

Either some part of my brain acts like a miniature Geiger counter, or no such part exists. If it does exist, then yes, I could have "chosen" differently, but I don't think you'll want to count that either. If it doesn't, then obviously not.

Simplicio

So you admit it! You did not make a real choice, because real choices don't exist. We're all slaves to physics.

Salviati

Nonsense. I wanted it, and purchased it because I felt like it. My action directly resulted from my desire. No one forced me to buy it. Physics isn't a person, actively controlling my life. You still haven't given me a definition of "real choice."

Simplicio

A real choice is a choice you could have made differently, under the same circumstances, under your own conscious direction.

Salviati

But why would I want to? At the time, I thought it was a grand idea. In that state of mind, why wouldn't I buy it?

Simplicio

That's irrelevant. The question is whether you could have chosen differently, not whether you actually would have.

Salviati

What's the difference between "I could have chosen differently, but never would have," and "I could not have chosen differently?" Those sound like the same thing to me.

Simplicio

They're not. "Could" is physics. "Would" is choice.

Salviati

But you just said choice doesn't exist. Besides, how can choice be independent of physics? Unless you want to start talking about an immortal soul or something...

Simplicio

It doesn't matter. A choice-making soul would have the same logical problems as a choice-making brain. And this quibbling is pointless. Choice, as I've defined it, doesn't exist. We both agree on that much, I think.

Salviati

It doesn't exist because it is ill-defined.

Simplicio

No, it doesn't exist because it fails to refer.

Salviati

The desk toy was just an example. Setting it aside for now, all of your arguments have been a priori, that is, logical reasoning divorced from empirical evidence. If you demonstrate by logic that something can't exist, it must be logically inconsistent. You've argued that your own definition of choice is logically inconsistent. Your position is the same as mine.

The above writing format is a blatant ripoff of Galileo. I find it rather convenient, but it is admittedly unoriginal.

Singularities happen all the time

We will soon create intelligences greater than our own. When this happens, human history will have reached a kind of singularity, an intellectual transition as impenetrable as the knotted space-time at the center of a black hole, and the world will pass far beyond our understanding. -- Vernor Vinge, 1983

 The technological singularity is supposed to occur when we develop "true" or "strong" AI.  Beyond that point, we are told, everything will be different, in the most conveniently vague ways.  Perhaps society will run on communism, or anarcho-capitalism, or something we don't have a name for (in other words, whatever the author happens to think would be ideal).  We are told that the resulting society will be totally incomprehensible to those of us still living in the present day.

My reaction to all this can be summed up in two words: "So what?"

DOMA is alive... for now

Earlier today, the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act.

Well, actually, that's not technically true.  SCOTUS struck down section 3 of DOMA, which prevents the federal government from giving marriage benefits to same-sex couples.  Section 2 of DOMA, which permits a state without same-sex marriage to deny recognition of same-sex marriages from other states, is still in force, at least for the moment.  But section 2 is a legal nightmare.

Ordinarily, when you sign a contract, its validity is a federal matter.  Either it is valid in every state, or it is valid in no state.  Marriage no longer works that way.  Suppose two men are married in New York.  Under Windsor, the federal government now recognizes that marriage, and extends tax and other benefits to them.  But then they travel to Texas, which does not recognize same-sex marriage.  Suddenly, they are single.  Or are they?  It's unclear whether the federal government should apply New York or Texas law in determining benefits.  But clearly, as far as the state of Texas is concerned, the men are single.

Next, they go to California, where (it would seem, given the outcome of Perry) same-sex marriage is recognized.  Are they married again?  Did their original marriage contract from New York survive this transition?  Or did it vanish at the Texas border?  If it did, then that suggests a contract has been dissolved without any legal process, which seems troubling to me.  If it didn't, then why wasn't it in force in Texas?  Was it in abeyance somehow?

If the contract was in some kind of legal limbo, but not actually dead, this suggests a rather interesting situation.  A contract is valid but unenforceable thanks to a provision of Texas's state laws.  State laws aren't allowed to impair contracts under the Contract Clause.  But maybe Congress can authorize them to do so via DOMA.  Let's consider that.

Section 2 of DOMA is as follows:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

I find the term "required" rather interesting in this context.  Required by whom, exactly?  If it means "required by the courts," then this seems an entirely inappropriate attempt to dictate the outcomes of court cases.  Under the doctrine of separation of powers, Congress isn't supposed to be doing that.

On the other hand, if it refers to constitutional requirement (i.e. "required by the constitution"), that really isn't much better.  If the constitution says one thing, and the law says something else, generally the constitution wins.  Laws aren't allowed to dictate how the constitution is interpreted; again, that's a matter for the judiciary.

Just about the only "required" that I believe Congress could refer to here would be "required by federal law."  But if that's what the statute means, I don't think it will have any effect whatsoever.  I'm not aware of any attempts by federal law to require Texas to recognize a same-sex marriage.

In conclusion, it's not at all clear to me that DOMA section 2 even needs to be challenged on due process and equal protection grounds.  It could fall to separation of powers.

Updated: It's been brought to my attention that the contract clause is inapplicable to marriage contracts under longstanding precedent.  This is why I'm not a lawyer.  All the same, there are quite a few interesting questions raised above, so I'm leaving this post up.

Nihilism and optimism

meaning

n. the end, purpose, or significance of something

NB: Emphasis added.

Consider the definition given above by Dictionary.com. We're told the meaning of something is its purpose.  If a thing has a purpose, that purpose must have been intended by someone.  If we're told something has "inherent meaning," we must ask from whence this intent comes.  There doesn't seem to be an obvious answer to this question.