Jun 5, 2023 04:30 PM
How math has changed the shape of gerrymandering
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-math-...-20230601/
INTRO: Until recently, gerrymandered districts tended to stick out, identifiable by their contorted tendrils. This is no longer the case. “With modern technology, you can gerrymander pretty effectively without making your shapes very weird,” said Beth Malmskog, a mathematician at Colorado College. This makes it that much harder to figure out whether a map has been unfairly manipulated.
Without the telltale sign of an obviously misshapen district to go by, mathematicians have been developing increasingly powerful statistical methods for finding gerrymanders. These work by comparing a map to an ensemble of thousands or millions of possible maps. If the map results in noticeably more seats for Democrats or Republicans than would be expected from an average map, this is a sign that something fishy might have taken place.
But making such ensembles is trickier than it sounds, because it isn’t feasible to consider all possible maps — there are simply too many combinations for any supercomputer to count. A number of recent mathematical advances suggest ways to navigate this impossibly large space of possible simulations, giving mathematicians a reliable way to tell fair from unfair.
Like so many things related to redistricting, their work is ending up in court. In the last five years, simulations have been accepted as evidence in redistricting court cases in Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Michigan. And they are the central objects of debate in Allen v. Milligan, a crucial case pending before the Supreme Court in which Black voters accuse the state of Alabama of drawing its Congressional district map to disadvantage them. In this case, as in many others, simulations are being enlisted by both the plaintiffs and the defendants to plead their case. The Court is expected to issue a decision in June or July.
But, as one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers told Justice Samuel Alito in oral arguments in October, “the simulations actually generate more questions than they answer.” (MORE - details)
Bernard Carr: physics of the observer
https://youtu.be/Eslt6W7Uv6o
EXCERPT: Many of the physicists I've been talking to have what I'd call a deflationary approach to the observer [...] you have a stronger view of the importance of of consciousness in in understanding physics. How does that work?
Most physicists take the view that consciousness is just an epiphenomenon produced by the brain. Indeed, many physicists therefore think it's essentially independent of physics itself -- that is physicists they don't really have to confront the problem of consciousness.
[...] Consciousness does potentially come in, as you say, in the context of quantum theory. Because some people have suggested that the reason the wave function collapses is because it is the observer -- the consciousness of the observer -- which actually collapses the wave function.
Now I have to say though that [...] it is not primary view. I think most physicists would prefer to think that the collapse of a wave function was was determined by something other than consciousness. However that does not mean that the hypothesis that consciousness collapses the wave function is is dead. On the contrary, there's still quite a number of people who push that view very strongly.
[...] I'm interested right now in in the importance of of the observer what is an observer in physics...
Closer To Truth: "Bernard Carr - Physics of the Observer" ... https://youtu.be/Eslt6W7Uv6o
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/Eslt6W7Uv6o
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-math-...-20230601/
INTRO: Until recently, gerrymandered districts tended to stick out, identifiable by their contorted tendrils. This is no longer the case. “With modern technology, you can gerrymander pretty effectively without making your shapes very weird,” said Beth Malmskog, a mathematician at Colorado College. This makes it that much harder to figure out whether a map has been unfairly manipulated.
Without the telltale sign of an obviously misshapen district to go by, mathematicians have been developing increasingly powerful statistical methods for finding gerrymanders. These work by comparing a map to an ensemble of thousands or millions of possible maps. If the map results in noticeably more seats for Democrats or Republicans than would be expected from an average map, this is a sign that something fishy might have taken place.
But making such ensembles is trickier than it sounds, because it isn’t feasible to consider all possible maps — there are simply too many combinations for any supercomputer to count. A number of recent mathematical advances suggest ways to navigate this impossibly large space of possible simulations, giving mathematicians a reliable way to tell fair from unfair.
Like so many things related to redistricting, their work is ending up in court. In the last five years, simulations have been accepted as evidence in redistricting court cases in Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Michigan. And they are the central objects of debate in Allen v. Milligan, a crucial case pending before the Supreme Court in which Black voters accuse the state of Alabama of drawing its Congressional district map to disadvantage them. In this case, as in many others, simulations are being enlisted by both the plaintiffs and the defendants to plead their case. The Court is expected to issue a decision in June or July.
But, as one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers told Justice Samuel Alito in oral arguments in October, “the simulations actually generate more questions than they answer.” (MORE - details)
Bernard Carr: physics of the observer
https://youtu.be/Eslt6W7Uv6o
EXCERPT: Many of the physicists I've been talking to have what I'd call a deflationary approach to the observer [...] you have a stronger view of the importance of of consciousness in in understanding physics. How does that work?
Most physicists take the view that consciousness is just an epiphenomenon produced by the brain. Indeed, many physicists therefore think it's essentially independent of physics itself -- that is physicists they don't really have to confront the problem of consciousness.
[...] Consciousness does potentially come in, as you say, in the context of quantum theory. Because some people have suggested that the reason the wave function collapses is because it is the observer -- the consciousness of the observer -- which actually collapses the wave function.
Now I have to say though that [...] it is not primary view. I think most physicists would prefer to think that the collapse of a wave function was was determined by something other than consciousness. However that does not mean that the hypothesis that consciousness collapses the wave function is is dead. On the contrary, there's still quite a number of people who push that view very strongly.
[...] I'm interested right now in in the importance of of the observer what is an observer in physics...
Closer To Truth: "Bernard Carr - Physics of the Observer" ... https://youtu.be/Eslt6W7Uv6o