Thoughts on MITHC - The Man in the High Castle (2015) Discussion

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 6 years ago

I suppose I have a somewhat different take on parallel universe stories, because if you've studied quantum mechanics this is one theoretical prediction that's likely to be true (although the ability to jump around between timelines is a reach). Yep. According to the Schrödinger equation all possible outcomes are part of a quantum system's wave function. There probably are alternate versions of us with alternate lives, for real.

This is a big, high concept show that's not quite like anything else we've seen on television. There seem to be two main thrusts to it right now. The alternate history aspect, with the possible beginnings of a rising up against fascism, and the parallel world stuff. I have a feeling the two facets are going to come together at some point but I don't know how. It'll be interesting to see how they handle that. I was surprised when the machine wasn't destroyed considering how Juliana saw "flashbacks" (if that's the right word) of it - you kind of assumed her world of ash vision would be realized near the end. We'll have to see what the Nazis do with that thing in season 4, which has already gotten the green light from Amazon.

It's fascinating how they use real life historical figures on the show. Hitler himself, Heinrich Himmler, Reinhard Heydrich, and this season Josef Mengele, the infamous Nazi death camp doctor, who in the High Castle timeline decided to go into experimental physics rather than medicine. He shows that same ruthlessness though in the way he expends test subjects perfecting his portal device.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

> because if you've studied quantum mechanics

That is the most overused pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. There are so few people in the world that can understand quantum mechanics and the wave-functions and probability math, let alone speak intelligently about it. When 99.9% of people claim to have studied quantum-mechanics the usual thing is they've read a book by Deepak Choprah or something.

Lots of mathematical functions have multiple solutions where some of the solutions are ridiculous ... like in almost all cases the square root of a number that has - or + solutions.

It is easy to do the thought experiment and understand that if there is a universe that is parallel to ours starting NOW, but there is just one difference, how that difference will ripple through time and cause complete changes until the parallel universe is completely different. The whole theory is what scientists do when they want to appeal to non-scientists and make them feel smart so they vote for more funding ... it is selfishly motivated.

The universe is roughly 14 billion years old ... if there were small changes in these parallel universes by now they would be completely different.

I guess the other thing is that now that there is so much known about the Nazis and how crazy they were, it is doubtful they would have ever been able to take over anything in the long run let alone rule it and expand it. The whole mindset of leaders and people was different back then ... think of how different Donald Trump and his white Republican buddies are than the average American.

I have not gotten to the points in the series you are talking about - so I have end this conversation until I can catch up. I am just at the ending of E4. I just do not find these pseudo-science things interesting.

reply

[–] jam920 (24) 6 years ago

It seemed the premise of the book and the show is about the possibility of different realities and the science behind it was not that important. Which is fine with me if the story telling is good.

I don't really see much difference among white people who support Trump or don't day to day unless maybe the topic of politics is brought up. Not sure I also follow your point about the mindset of leaders and people were different. Not saying you are wrong but was just curious in what way you feel they were different.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

The point about Trump and his supporters is that here is a group that is disgruntled and angry and being whipped up and exploited without any counter-balancing force.

I usually try to make some kind of allegorical sense, or symbolic understanding of fantasy, and that is how I look at most of these alternate world stories. One of them that got completely out of control was "Lost". People will go off the deep end to rationalize their favorite stories or TV show and unless there is a clear point to it, in general I don't have much use for it.

reply

[–] jam920 (24) 6 years ago

But what is going on today, is in many ways not different than in past, be it the 1960s or the 1860s. People act and respond on their belief system, even when it may be false. False perceptions from both sides of a political spectrum lead their supporters to think the other side is conspiring against them. We seem to be at that point today from both sides, as we have been in other points of time.

I agree with you about Lost, I watched it regularly only in the end did not understand the point of it.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

I was completely entertained by Lost, but I was glad when it finally ended, it began to be a burden to watch after a while.

I think the difference is that ( and I have to be partisan here because that is the difference between today and the past ) in the 80's the Right Wing got Reagan in, cut taxes on the rich and started to impoverish and pressure working and middle classes, while taking over the media, even as they complain about the Liberal Media. The got the smartest people in the world on their payrolls and instead of saying how can we make the world better the question was how can we increase our power and wealth and remove it from everyone else, and the graph of income shows that is exactly what happened.

The odd and ironic thing is that I don't think Trump supporters are conspiring against the Democrats, they have been lied to. True, this has happened in other times, but in other times there was never the differential in wealth and power that there is today. There was never the monolithic press and private industry surveillance and data on us. There was never the control we had. There was never a situation where education was the make or break of someone's career, and today most students with good education are the children of the very rich. Yes, poor children can get good education, but if at any time they show signs of the wrong politics they can be jettisoned out of the system.

People do not understand what is going on, but the right-wing think tanks know exactly what is going on. Look at Donald Trump for instance ... it is not coincidence that this mythology about Trump was built up and propogated, as it is about all our supposed Capitalist heroes ... self made man, smart, hard-working. Trump was the owner of a building at 3 years old and a millionaire at 7. The people's reality is build brick by brick by the media. The so-called Liberal media never mentioned anything about Trump or even investigated him.

reply

[–] jam920 (24) 6 years ago

Sorry I missed your reply from a few days ago.

Like you, I of course have my own partisan beliefs, just as everyone does today or in the past. For example the different groups leading up to the Civil War both in the North and the South were also partisan. They certainly felt different groups were conspiring against their way of life and what their conception of America was.

Even if you believe Trump supporters are not personally conspiring against Democrats, but if you believe they are being lied to than you at least believe they are tools to a bigger conspiracy against those that view things differently than they do, and want to deprive them of power. Today this seems to be the gist of the message I hear from both sides.

But is the news media monolithic today? I am not sure I follow you there, at least their views do not seem that way. I would think maybe from the 1960s-80s during the golden age of broadcast news was probably when that adjective might more closely be applied to some degree.

That propaganda or myth building being done for Trump is not new, either today or for any one side of the political spectrum. As for Trump, I am not sure if a more public person has been elected to the presidency, certainly not in the modern age. One could debate on how much investigation into him is needed, but I think it would be hard to say he has not been investigated, at least that is my perception.

Over the course of history, if you look at the struggles over Republic-ism vs Monarchy, capitalism vs socialism you can see the same repetitive behaviors. The contrast how people view the world maybe best expressed by the countering views of Hobbs and Locke and has been forever.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

>> Today this seems to be the gist of the message I hear from both sides.

I reject the implication here that both sides are equal. Same thing with the Confederacy. It is easier to see today that slavery is morally wrong, and the South is still a mess for it.

reply

[–] jam920 (24) 6 years ago

Although I also agree slavery was and is morally wrong, I am not taking a side in the Civil War; that has already been decided and was long over before I was born. I am only pointing out that they were very partisan at that time and all sides felt they were right and feared the other. I see the attitudes (not as much the causes) today when it comes to politics and economics as much more similar to that era, than different.

When you say both sides, do you mean Democrat v. Republican, Liberal v. Conservative, Socialist V. Capitalist? I would only suggest that they are equal because they are led by human beings and because of that are flawed by nature and have overstepped the moral boundaries to achieve their goals at some point and will do so again.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

> that has already been decided and was long over before I was born.

I lived in the South as a kid, and then revisited in the 90's as an adult military contractor ... let me tell you, the Civil War is not over - but it should be.

All systems are capitalist, there is no way getting around the free enterprise system. Socialism and Fascism are the two faces of capitalism, and they are political, no economic. Socialism is Democracy, Fascism is Corporatism/Elitism.

Yep, human beings are flawed, but as we define terms and work towards human rights we put our flaws under the vision of other people or the society - we restrict our own freedoms because we gain in other ways.

reply

[–] jam920 (24) 6 years ago

What if people from different ends of spectrum both believe they are working towards the betterment of society, yet sometime they are and sometimes they are not.

Socialism could perhaps be more democratic, but democracy just means the majority rules but does not guarantee freedom. The majority government could make all other parties illegal.

That is not to say there are not flaws with capitalism, but hard to have a free society without a free market. This is a problem for socialist or communist societies. Or Fascism where the state still gets to pick favorites in the marketplace. The crony capitalism in the US market probably closer resembles this at times.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

> What if people from different ends of spectrum both believe they are working towards the betterment of society

It really doesn't matter what people say they believe, you never know and it shouldn't matter what they believe. The data says it all. George Orwell wrote 1984 because way back when people were playing with fake news, lies, disinformation. Republicans says they believe that social programs hurt the poor, which coincidently would save them tax money and keep more people down longer so they have no competition and can pay lower wages. You cannot trust whatever they say.

reply

[–] jam920 (24) 6 years ago

Orwell's book 1984 speaks to totalitarianism, but many interpret as a warning of fascism but really it spoke to the Marxist-Leninist regime like the Soviet Union at the time. Sure there are similarities between the two ideologies. I always thought the political spectrum described as circle makes the most sense with Communism and Fascism side by side on the extreme halves of the circle. That is what is interesting about 1984 because both the left and the right use Orwell's words against one another whenever both drift closer to their extremes.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

> but really it spoke to the Marxist-Leninist regime like the Soviet Union at the time.

Bull.

Firstly, there is no communism, there never was any system that anywhere near approximated what the theories of communism were - nonthing.

It is the West that has had all the power and technology. It was the US that was manipulating governments all over the world, and before that it was monarchies and empires. Those are not socialist, they are not communist, they are not democratic, and yet that is what we have today in the US.

reply

[–] jam920 (24) 6 years ago

Orwell was a social democrat and a old school one at that. The SD's and communist were often rivals and Orwell wrote 1984 and Animal Farm based on his view of the Marxist-Leninist. That "true" communism was not achieved or if one believes the US is one of the most evil nations in the history on earth does not change what Orwell's motivations for those books were.

Nobody could argue that the US has manipulated governments and has often failed to live up to ideals it even preaches to other nations. You ruled out the Soviet Union as living up to the ideals of either socialism or truly hoping to reach communism. There are smaller countries like the obvious examples in Scandinavia that have strong social programs but are not socialist. Since they have a capitalist free market, the government does not own the means of production. Are there any nations or societies, capitalist, socialist, autocrat, republic etc. that you feel has lived up to its ideals?

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

The USSR was broken right from the start of their revolution, it was just powermad lunatic trying to fool the people into thinking they cared about them. What is why there must be some kind of democracy.

Socialism requires a capitalist market because the universal system of economics is capitalism ... socialism was Marx's attempt to deal with some of the problems of capitalist economic in the same way the Constitution was the way our forefathers in the US were dealing with corrupt despotic forms of government.

I think societies that meet the needs of their citizens are the ones that are working, but I don't think it is possible to live up to ideals because you never know what the problems are until you experience them and then find a solution.

reply

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 6 years ago

No, I actually have studied quantum mechanics. At Cornell University. I'm not getting this from one of those popular books on the New York Times Bestseller List. It's true no one has an intuitive understanding of it, any more than you can visualize n-dimensional spaces or the Riemannian manifolds which are the mathematical basis for General Relativity.

What you described as ridiculous though are called nonphysical solutions. Differential equations often have such solutions, sometimes an infinity of them. You use other constraints, like basic conservation laws, to rule them out. This is different. Taken at face value the solutions of the Schrödinger equation are a superposition of eigenfunctions (if you know what those are) representing possible states of a physical system. Electron energy levels in an atom would be one example of this. Remember those s, p, d, and f shells from high school chemistry?

The probability interpretation of the Schrödinger wave function is designed to get it to disgorge numbers we can use in a practical sense. But the function itself does not imply that only one state exists at any given moment in time. They all exist at once, with an amplitude (the equivalent of volume with a sound wave) proportional to their probability. This is where the idea of "parallel worlds" originally came from. The branching timeline picture is merely a visual aid that makes it easier for us to grasp. But to use that visualization, every possible outcome of every event since the dawn of our universe exists and is unfolding simultaneously. All timelines that can exist do exist - and are equally real.

There are experiments we could theoretically do to obtain empirical proof. Alas, existing instruments aren't yet up to the task. We will be able to put this prediction to the test eventually though. And given how well quantum theory has passed every other test to which it's been subjected, I wouldn't bet against Schrödinger if I were you.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

>> Taken at face value the solutions of the Schrödinger equation are a superposition of eigenfunctions (if you know what those are) representing possible states of a physical system

I think talking about alternate worlds based on this is silly myself. It is like generalizing say that because certain subatomic particles can appear in microcosm to travel or have traveled back in time that this can be used to used to infer that a time travel machine is possible.

I never heard any evidence that Schrodinger seriously put forth the idea of parallel universes.

reply

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 6 years ago

Schrodinger himself never discussed the idea extensively. I'm not sure what he thought of it. But Albert Einstein always regarded the Schwarzschild solution to his field equations (i.e. black holes) as a mere mathematical curiosity, and took a long time accepting that quantum theory could possibly be an accurate description of how the universe behaves. He was letting his own personal prejudices override his objectivity.

There are a whole slew of counterintuitive predictions made by quantum mechanics which have nevertheless proven accurate. To reject one of them because it offends some sensibility of yours is to make the same sort of mistake Einstein did. We're talking about a mathematical framework which has generated many descriptions of physical phenomena no one ever suspected or thought to look for, but are now confirmed. Just as the existence of black holes has been confirmed. Believe whatever you like, but don't call something psuedoscience because you're determined to reject it on non-rational grounds.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

> and took a long time accepting that quantum theory could possibly be an accurate description of how the universe behaves.

Describing or finding mathematical solutions is not really the same thing as describing how the universe behaves.

Just like you cannot infer how I behave - "To reject one of them because it offends some sensibility of yours is to make the same sort of mistake Einstein did." and assume that I am offended is condescending and dismissive. As I said, in the macroscopic level these theories fall apart, time travel, alternate universes ... I could just as much say without any evidence based on our different views of things that you believe this stuff because it plays up some cocktail party capital you get from being able to sound like Deepak Chopra when chatting up people at a party.

This conversation is going to be over if you slide any more toward condescension or trollism. You are defending something that is wild speculation because a set of a equations works to describe the behavior of very small particles ... that is not like a pure scientist me.

You can believe what you want and stick to that without disparaging people over things you cannot prove, and that ultimate don't matter a wit in real life.

> Schrodinger himself never discussed the idea extensively.

I think you also know there is a reason for that.

The real discussion around this might be, what difference it would make to us if there were alternate universes? Like what about time travel, future, past? How would that work, what would be the point or the function?

reply

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 6 years ago

Oh it's certainly true that it makes no difference to our everyday lives. But we did spend time discussing this in physics classes and I've had more than a few discussions about it since my college days. Erwin Schrodinger was a methodical and careful man. Not the sort to hold a press conference and announce that he had evidence of alternate universes.

The Schrodinger wave function describes a reality of overlapping states. States we tend to regard as mutually exclusive and contradictory, like the cat being both alive and dead. And the macroscopic effect of all particles behaving this way is additive. Unlike, say, the blurring of location and velocity which cancels out in the aggregate. And calculating the energy of a quantum system depends on summing up all those phantom states you're proposing do not really exist.

While we can never be certain of anything which hasn't been verified by experiment, that doesn't mean we can't place a pretty good wager on what those experiments will find. Quantum mechanics makes a large number of mind blowing predictions that are totally contrary to common sense. And yet, in nearly a century there hasn't been one reproducible experimental result that contradicts any of them. In fact every challenge to the theory (and there have been many) has served only to bear it out. It would be quite surprising to find such a basic feature of Schrodinger's equation was the lone exception.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

>> And calculating the energy of a quantum system depends on summing up all those phantom states you're proposing do not really exist.

I told you do not invent arguments I did not make or state.

reply

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 6 years ago

You implied that the multiplicity of states was nonphysical, an artifact of the math. Unless I completely mistook your meaning.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

You are so busy trying to push your own viewpoint you are not paying a bit of attention to what I am saying and are either misinterpreting it or twisting it. To me that is the worst characteristics of a scientist, and it impeaches your credibility claims of authority in QM. On the internet only a fool makes an argument from authority.

reply

[–] chrisjdel (2714) 6 years ago

Don't think people don't notice when you fail to offer a line of reasoning of your very own, but simply launch personal attacks. That's all we've gotten so far. Why you've chosen to be so touchy and get offended by a rather esoteric subject I have no idea.

However if you don't have anything to tell us other than "what he says is crap", please for your own sake stop embarrassing yourself and just drop the discussion. You don't actually need to have the last word you know. But if you want to fire back with more personal stuff, go ahead. I don't know you. It doesn't really bother me. :)

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

Glad I wasted little time with this kind of person.

reply

[–] jam920 (24) 6 years ago

I kind of had the reverse reaction with Season 3, and enjoyed 1 and 2 much more. I did read the book and enjoyed it but did not care if the story's plot was the same so much. I do agree with you season 3 definitely plays more homage to the book especially with the Blake character. I also find the Japanese side of the story more interesting in the series which may or may not have to do with that being what is really featured in the book.

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

I thought the kind of stereotypical ideas from the 70's about Eastern philosophy from PKD was interesting, and it is a shame PKD did not live long enough to develop these ideas more. He died at 53, which is very sad. I remember hearing him in a Sci-Fi discussion seminar on Pacifica radio many years ago and he become a favorite of mine. It is clear he favors the Japanese side, in an odd way. One scene in the book I really enjoyed and I am not sure if it is in the series is the shoot-out in the Trade Minister's office with the Nazis. ( don't tell me, I need to see the rest of Season 3.)

reply

[–] TiaTamaragohomee (91) 6 years ago

horrible show

reply

[–] brux (14724) 6 years ago

horrible ( and unappreciated ) comment

reply

[–] TiaTamaragohomee (91) 6 years ago

cool story

reply

[–] kenburke (2369) 6 years ago

I have not read the book (I hope to do so eventually). Like yourself I give the series a 9 out of 10 and recommend it. WARNING TO POTENTIAL VIEWERS - This series does not pull its punches as far as atrocities and reprisals are concerned.

reply