Scott Aaronson Passes the Cash...

 Scott Aaronson is handing out $$$ to some worthy STEM causes; read all about it:

https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=6256

Scientific American, Scott Aaronson, and Warning Against Indifference

 Scott Aaronson wonders aloud if Scientific American was Sokal’d in this posting:

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=5850

…but perhaps my favorite part is this bit he adds in the comment section:

“Yeah, I’ve been bummed about it all day, and there’s a part of me that’s genuinely surprised how all my friends are just ignoring it and going about their day. It’s like, do they not understand what Scientific American used to be, in its 50s/60s/70s heyday? Can they not see that for Scientific American to print such self-parodying dreck is as shocking, in its way, as for the January 6 insurrectionists to gallavant all over the US Capitol waving Confederate flags? Or was no one else shocked by that either? I mean, if you support either ravaging of our culture’s main symbols of democracy and reason, then by all means say so, celebrate, cheer in the streets about this, but for God or Bertrand Russell’s sake don’t be indifferent about it! 🙂”

Waxing Eloquent on Weinberg...

 There have been, and will be, many tributes to Steven Weinberg this week; I highly recommend this very personal one from Scott Aaronson:

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=5566

Quantum Computing Primer

 Who better than Scott Aaronson to explain a bit about quantum computing to you:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/why-is-quantum-computing-so-hard-to-explain-20210608/

ACM Prize In Computing

 Deservedly, Scott Aaronson wins a prize... and, asks for charitable suggestions:

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=5448

Continuum Hypothesis via Scott Aaronson

 

Bored with the headlines, folks?... Is election news getting you down?... Or the blitz of political ads scraping on your last nerve?... Is that what's buggin' you, kiddies??? 

Well, OK, this won’t be everyone’s cup-a-tea, or fun distraction, but in a longish post (first of multiple) Scott Aaronson tackles the independence of the Continuum Hypothesis:

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=4974

I knew it would be a great read when he started off with this quote from Bertrand Russell:

 ;)

“in adolescence, I hated life and was continually on the verge of suicide, from which, however, I was restrained by the desire to know more mathematics.”

Foundations, Randomness, Free Will, the Aaronson Oracle

To end the week, another wonderful new episode from PBS's Infinite Series, this time on the foundations of mathematics:

Also, sort of cool… in the commentary after the episode the show host, Kelsey Houston-Edwards, briefly mentions the Aaronson Oracle, which I was unfamiliar with, and which interactively demonstrates the difficulty of 'randomness.' It's a program from Scott that predicts a choice (generally succeeding well-over half the time, with two possible choices) that you will make in attempting to randomly press two computer keys:

Read a little about it here:

https://github.com/elsehow/aaronson-oracle

...and then try it out here:

http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nick/aaronson-oracle/

"the psychology of unspeakable truths"

I hope you've already seen it, but in case not, Scott Aaronson's latest post is both a thoughtful tribute to A.N. Kolmogorov and a somewhat stoic commentary about the world we  find ourselves in:

http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3376

...an important read, though not for any math.

3 To Launch the Week With

Might as well kickstart the week with a couple of pieces from folks I recognized yesterday at MathTango (NOT that they need any recognition from ME):

1)  Scott Aaronson has a nice essay (and less technical than much of his stuff) over at Aeon on "the great mystery of mathematics":
https://aeon.co/opinions/the-great-mystery-of-mathematics-is-its-lack-of-mystery
(this was posted a few days ago, though I believe it's a re-post of an earlier essay)

2) ...And from Keith Devlin this new piece on the history of algebra and the nature of mathematics (in part a response to a certain book and author I shall not mention):
http://devlinsangle.blogspot.com/2016/04/algebraic-roots-part-1.html

3)  Finally, not math, but a quite fun 13-min. talk from physicist Sean Carroll on his career and how Stephen Hawking figures into it:
https://soundcloud.com/the-story-collider/sean-carroll-what-would-stephen-hawking-do
(again, I think this is much older, but I only came across it today)


Enjoy....

Aaronson Optimized...

Not much math here, but another fabulous post from Scott Aaronson, this time (in general) on the social sciences (...the comments, as usual, are fascinating as well):

http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2494

(I'm dang near wanting to declare Aaronson a national treasure for the thoughts and discussion he generates! ...seriously, anyone know if Scott has ever been nominated for a MacArthur Award? hint, hint...)

Not-so-common Common Knowledge

If thinking about thinking is among your interests, a phenomenally rich (and LONG), widely-romping post from Scott Aaronson on "common knowledge," something called "Aumann's agreement theorem," Bayesian thinking, and much more here:

http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2410
(it's actually from an earlier talk Scott gave at SPARC)
 
While this won't be everyone's cup-of-tea, and it is more epistemology-logic-cognition than it is mathematics, it is (to me) one of the most fascinating, remarkable posts I've ever read on a math-related blog! Indeed, several readings likely required to take in all the ideas Scott puts on display here.

Aumann’s Theorem predicts that all "rational disagreements" should "terminate in common knowledge of complete agreement." But of course that doesn't happen so much in real life, and in one passage (that reminds me of so much stuff on the internet ;-)) Aaronson writes,

"You could say that the 'failed prediction' of Aumann’s Theorem is no surprise, since virtually all human beings are irrational cretins, or liars. Except for you, of course: you’re perfectly rational and honest.  And if you ever met anyone else as rational and honest as you, maybe you and they could have an Aumannian conversation.  But since such a person probably doesn’t exist, you’re totally justified to stand your ground, discount all opinions that differ from yours, etc."

Anyway, give it a gander; you'll probably know before you're half-way through it if it's the sort of mind-stretching thought-exercise that strikes your fancy or not. (I suspect I may still be re-reading it a week from now, trying to better grasp parts!)  The piece also contains some key links to related material.

Math for Conspiracy Theorists... or Not

This week's 'Sunday reflection' courtesy of Scott Aaronson:

"Math, you might say, is a conspiracy theorist’s dream: it’s the one part of life where, when you see things match up, the odds are excellent that it’s not just a coincidence, that there is a deep explanation waiting to be unearthed.  On the other hand, precisely because the entire subject is shot through with non-coincidental patterns, once you’ve spent enough time doing math you might stop being so surprised by them; you might come to see them as just part of the terrain."