The Times cited people familiar with the situation as saying Tesla has been trying to find another top level executive to help relieve some of the pressure on Musk. RELATED TAGSTeslaNews We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles using Facebook commenting Visit our FAQ page for more information. Report: SEC moving in on Tesla and Elon Musk with subpoenasIn the interview, Musk stood by his Aug. 7 tweet saying he had secured funding to take Tesla private in a deal that could be worth more than $20 billion. But he told the newspaper that he wrote the tweet inside a Tesla Model S while it was driving to the airport, and that no one else reviewed it.Asked if he regretted it, he said, “Why would I?”Musk, 47, has a reputation for being an eccentric visionary. But his out-of-the-blue go-private announcement raised a huge ruckus and pushed Tesla’s shares up 11 per cent in a day, raising the company’s value by $6 billion. They’ve fallen back, including a 4 per cent decline in premarket trading Friday to $323.50.There are multiple reports that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating the disclosure. Experts say regulators likely are investigating if Musk was truthful in the tweet about having the financing set for the deal.The company said the board formed a special committee to evaluate proposals to take the company private. It later disclosed that Musk had talked with the Saudi Arabia government investment fund about the deal.Tesla didn’t respond to requests for comment from The Associated Press early Friday.Some of Musk’s stress comes from critical stock short-sellers who are betting against the company’s success. But much of it comes from Musk’s own statements issuing lofty goals for production of cars or turning a sustained profit starting this quarter. Tesla has never made money for a full year and has had only two profitable quarters since it went public in 2010.Musk told the newspaper that sometimes he did not leave the Tesla factory for three or four days straight, and that he had not taken off more than a week at a time since he was sick with malaria in 2001. See More Videos The Rolls-Royce Boat Tail may be the most expensive new car ever COMMENTSSHARE YOUR THOUGHTS Yet he told the newspaper he has no plans to give up his dual role as Tesla’s chairman and CEO, but added what appeared to be a plea for help.“If you have anyone who can do a better job, please let me know. They can have the job. Is there someone who can do the job better? They can have the reins right now,” he told the paper.The interview puts board members in a difficult position because Musk, who entered Tesla as a major investor and built the company into a force that has changed the perception of electric cars, is the company’s public identity.But Erik Gordon, a University of Michigan business and law professor, said Tesla’s board has a fiduciary duty to shareholders to take action.“If the board does not get him out of this slot at a minimum on a leave of absence basis, I think the board is going to be seen by a lot of people who love the company as being derelict in their duties,” Gordon said Friday. “You can love the company, you can love Musk and hate having him be the CEO at this point.”The board has stood behind Musk despite some bizarre behaviour including a tweet labeling a diver who aided in the cave rescue of Thai soccer players as a pedophile. But Gordon said it has to act now or be open to shareholder lawsuits. He suggested replacing Musk as CEO and keeping him on as a visionary chief technical officer.The interview and other actions, Gordon said, are signs Musk no longer can handle the CEO job. Musk spent nights at Tesla’s Fremont, California factory working out production problems on its new Model 3 car that is supposed to take Tesla from niche luxury carmaker to a mass producer that competes with Detroit.But Gordon said a CEO wouldn’t live at the factory. Instead, he or she would form a team to work overnight and solve problems.RELATED Trending Videos What do you do when your CEO confesses he’s cracking under the stress of his job? That’s the question the nine board members of electric car and solar panel maker Tesla must answer after Elon Musk, the company’s impulsive leader, admitted to The New York Times that work is rattling his nerves in what he described as the most “difficult and painful year of my career.”The newspaper reported that during an hour-long telephone interview on Thursday, Musk alternated between laughter and tears, acknowledging that he was working up to 120 hours a week and sometimes takes Ambien to get to sleep.His comments confirmed what many in and out of the company had suspected as Musk conceded that exhaustion was affecting his personal health and that friends have come by “who are really concerned.” advertisement Trending in Canada Created with Raphaël 2.1.2Created with Raphaël 2.1.2 In a Sept. 29, 2015, file photo, Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Motors Inc., talks about the Model X car at the company’s headquarters, in Fremont, Calif. Marcio Jose Sanchez / Associated Press PlayThe Rolls-Royce Boat Tail may be the most expensive new car everPlay3 common new car problems (and how to prevent them) | Maintenance Advice | Driving.caPlayFinal 5 Minivan Contenders | Driving.caPlay2021 Volvo XC90 Recharge | Ministry of Interior Affairs | Driving.caPlayThe 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning is a new take on Canada’s fave truck | Driving.caPlayBuying a used Toyota Tundra? Check these 5 things first | Used Truck Advice | Driving.caPlayCanada’s most efficient trucks in 2021 | Driving.caPlay3 ways to make night driving safer and more comfortable | Advice | Driving.caPlayDriving into the Future: Sustainability and Innovation in tomorrow’s cars | Driving.ca virtual panelPlayThese spy shots get us an early glimpse of some future models | Driving.ca Buy It! Princess Diana’s humble little 1981 Ford Escort is up for auction An engagement gift from Prince Charles, the car is being sold by a Princess Di “superfan” ‹ Previous Next ›
Physics, Earth & Space Determinism: Smart People and an Absurd ClaimCornelius HunterOctober 22, 2020, 6:51 AM Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share Email Print Google+ Linkedin Twitter Share “A Summary of the Evidence for Intelligent Design”: The Study Guide Congratulations to Science Magazine for an Honest Portrayal of Darwin’s Descent of Man A Physician Describes How Behe Changed His MindLife’s Origin — A “Mystery” Made AccessibleCodes Are Not Products of PhysicsIxnay on the Ambriancay PlosionexhayDesign Triangulation: My Thanksgiving Gift to All Jane Goodall Meets the God Hypothesis But why is that true? Hossenfelder makes the Humean appeal to the laws of nature. They show how systems evolve deterministically, so therefore the data from our personal experience must be false. Hossenfelder fails to see the unjustified leap she has made. She has declared the laws of nature to be authoritative without justification. Recommended Tagsanti-realismBig BangbrainsCorinthiansDavid Humedeterminismevolutionfree willhumansillusionintellectual necessity argumentJohn Earmanknowledgelaws of naturemiraclesparticlesPierre-Simon LaplaceSabine HossenfelderSt. Paultheoretical physicstruth,Trending This brings us to the second problem with Hossenfelder’s determinism, which is her many truth claims. As she explains above, “the whole story of the universe in every single detail was determined already at the Big Bang.” But if that is true then Hossenfelder cannot know anything. Everything she has typed out was, well, pre-determined by some initial conditions and some blind natural laws. Cornelius G. HunterFellow, Center for Science and CultureCornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot (Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter’s interest in the theory of evolution involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects of the theory. His blog is Darwin’s God. Share Why should Hossenfelder think for a moment that anything that occurs to her has any correspondence to truth? Above she made the classic intellectual necessity argument but, in fact, it is precisely the opposite. Her determinism undercuts her many truth claims, and knowledge in general. The End of Knowledge These laws have the common property that if you have an initial condition at one moment in time, for example the exact details of the particles in your brain and all your brain’s inputs, then you can calculate what happens at any other moment in time from those initial conditions. This means in a nutshell that the whole story of the universe in every single detail was determined already at the big bang. We are just watching it play out. An Unjustified Leap As if sensing a problem Hossenfelder attempts to justify her leap. She explains that “These deterministic laws of nature apply to you and your brain because you are made of particles,” and that “we know that brains are made of particles.” Furthermore, “the laws of nature that we know describe humans on the fundamental level.” But rather than saving the theory, Hossenfelder is merely digging deeper into the fallacy, as she simply begs the question. These are all non-empirical truth claims that are beholden to the assumption of determinism. She simply asserts these claims, but why should we believe any of them are true? The first problem with Hossenfelder’s sophism is that it is non-empirical. We experience free will continually in our personal experience. Hossenfelder’s claim amounts to a denial of untold mountains of evidence. Hossenfelder’s predictable solution is anti-realism. The problem, according to determinists such as Hossenfelder, is that our experience is uniformly false. We may think we have free will, but that is nothing more than an illusion. Yet Hossenfelder is supremely confident in her finding. Drop this free will nonsense, she warns, or “you will never understand how the universe really works.” This is the classic intellectual necessity argument, so common in the evolution literature. In this case it is determinism that is required for scientific progress and truth. Hossenfelder has identified a conflict: our experience says one thing, and the laws of nature say the opposite. Something must give, and Hossenfelder unilaterally and without justification concludes that the laws of nature win out. The fallacy is reminiscent of Hume’s argument against miracles that John Earman demolished twenty years ago. The Intellectual Necessity Argument Origin of Life: Brian Miller Distills a Debate Between Dave Farina and James Tour Photo: Sabine Hossenfelder, by HossenfelderS, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons.As noted here yesterday, theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder has become the latest in a long line of smart people to make the absurd claim of determinism (see her blog or video), and that therefore there is no such thing as free will. This silliness traces at least as far back as Laplace and is based on the idea that any system evolves from time point 1 to time point 2 according to the laws of nature. As Hossenfelder puts it: There would be no reason to think anything we ever generate has any particular truth value. For instance, I could decide to type 2+2=5. In fact, there I did it. But of course, Hossenfelder would say that sentence was all preordained. She also would say it is not true. So certainly preordained sentences are not necessarily true. In fact, for Hossenfelder our notions, thoughts, commitments, and conclusions are merely a consequence of the arrangement of particles in our heads. Why should we think they would be true, if there even is such a thing? Requesting a (Partial) Retraction from Darrel Falk and BioLogos Hossenfelder’s conclusion, that “the whole story of the universe in every single detail was determined already at the Big Bang. We are just watching it play out” is fitting. For it is the ultimate in meaningless, trivialization of the profound. She is mired in the absurd. Hossenfelder is the best and the brightest — a cutting-edge theoretical physicist. The wisest that the world has to offer and look where she has landed. As Paul informed the Corinthians in the introduction of his first letter to them, God made foolish the wisdom of this world.