Some 1-dimensional slices of a 2-dimensional membranes vibrating in 11-dimensional spacetime give rise to space.
According to string theory…
Some quantum acoustics of some vibrating strings give rise to and effect quantum level particle interactions.
According to quantum theory…
Some quantum particle interactions give rise to and effect atomic particles.
According to chemistry…
Some atomic particles give rise to and effect molecular chemistry.
According to molecular physics…
Some molecules give rise to and effect organic chemistry.
According to abiogenesis…
Some forms of organic chemistry give rise to and effect biology.
According to biology…
Some forms of single celled organisms give rise to and effect multicellular organisms.
According to evolution…
Some multicellular organisms give rise to and effect social groups.
According to natural history…
Some social groups leave legacies. Sometimes good. Sometimes bad.
According to anthropology…
Some legacies give rise to and effect technology.
Some technologies give rise to connectivity.
Increased connectivity helps us collectively understand the time and universe we live in.
What wonders may complexity bring next?
]]>
Over the past few weeks hippies have been protesting on Wall Street. Some want a more fair slave trade. Some radicals among them want to end it altogether. To discus this further we’ve invited our Fox News contributor and analyst Charles Heyward. Charles, you of course as a successful businessman own 491 slaves. Can you tell me what these protesters want?
Charles Heyward: Well, Greta. There are some slaver sympathizers among them but really, they have no concise message. I heard the other day, some even want women to vote. They don’t really know what they want. They’re a ragtag bunch of unemployed peasants who are gathered there for food.
Greta: Now, there are some among them that want to end slavery. What do you think of that?
Charles Heyward: Slavery is the best system we’ve come up with so far. It’s what built this nation. I see some of these people protesting wearing cotton clothes, drinking their coffee. They wouldn’t have cotton clothes or coffee if it wasn’t for slavery. It’s ridiculous, frankly.
Greta: Some people just don’t know how good they really have it. Thank you Charles. Up next: Richard J. Gatling will be here with us (I think you’ll like him, Charles); He’s invented a revolving machine gun!
]]>Since September 17th, a group of people have gathered at Zuccotti Park – now called Liberty Square – in New York to #OccupyWallstreet and have their grievances heard.
They are forbidden by police forces to pitch tents, so they sleep in the rain.
They are forbidden by police forces to use megaphones, so they use a people’s mic. One person talks and the crowd repeats, so everyone can hear. On September 30th, the crowd was so big, multiple people’s mics were needed and the chants spread in 4 to 5 separate waves emanating outwards across thousands of people.
In order to function as a whole, inclusive, open democratic processes have emerged on the site that have resulted in Working Groups for everything from political groups to sanitation to food to General Assemblies where the working groups report back.
It is emergence at its finest. General Assemblies are currently being formed across the US from Los Angeles to Chicago and around the world from Greece to Latin America.
Having emerged from the collective, this is the declaration of the New York City General Assembly:
As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.
As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.
They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless nonhuman animals, and actively hide these practices.
They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.
They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
They have donated large sums of money to politicians supposed to be regulating them. They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantive profit.
They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.
They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.*To the people of the world,
We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.
Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.
To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.
Join us and make your voices heard!
*These grievances are not all-inclusive.
I wrote a number of comments in response to Chris Pirillo’s post on Google+ in which he put forth the question “Are humans computers?”. I decided they were worth repeating here – with some adjustments.
A computer is an entity that is subject to physics, that perceives the world through input, behaves according to its historically inherited characteristics and programming and is limited by its physical capacities and characteristics. Even bacteria have computational capabilities if you want to physically “compute” yogurt as an outcome into existence. We even share evolution and natural selection with technology.
All the matter in the Universe is subject to the same laws, be it emergent biological entities or technological ones. You can call one thing a computer and another thing Bob, yet both made of the same fundamental particles. We change and naturally select (evolve) our technology to whatever environments demand, make them behave more like Bob or more like people in military positions or people working in factories, but even now, computers can do some things that Bob obviously can’t. Computers, like us are expressions of complexities emergent from matter.
A laptop gets its energy from a power plant and stores the electrical energy by means of lithium-ion chemical reactions. Humans get their “charge” by ingesting food and store the energy as lipids. It’s basically the same concept and ultimately the Earth’s energy cycle isn’t even a closed system – Our primary source of energy is the Sun. We also use nuclear fusion for power generation and that also finds its origins in stars. Uranium -like all elements heavier than Helium, Hydrogen and Lithium- is created in stars through nucleosynthesis and spread by supernovae.
When you compare computers and humans, and ask if they’re the same, the question itself is a simplification with some ambiguous parameters. It depends on the overarching subject the comparisons takes place in. Are we constructed like computers? No. One is manufactured, the other grows to maturity. Do we both compute? Yes. Are we both as reliable at computing? No. One is digital, the other is analog. We are both constrained by inherent characteristics. Are we both evolved entities? Yes. Are we both as consistent? No. One is cloned and has fewer consistency issues than the other, which is subject to mutations and genetic recombination. But when you view it from a more abstract perspective or from a physics point of view, we may be more complex in some ways, but essentially we operate, consume energy and have a life-cycle just like computers.
It’s like asking “Are cars, horses?” The question has some open parameters but assumes a perspective of utility and one could argue that cars and horses do the same thing and compare their commonalities to conclude that cars consume energy, have a life-cycle and are used just like horses. Cars and horses are made from the same elementary particles and subject to the same laws of physics and both at a certain scale and time fill an ecological niche in the respective environments they evolved in.
I’m not sure if that answers the question of whether humans are computers. I guess the short would be “It depends on your point of view” but there is no doubt that the computational capacity of the Universe manifests itself both in biology and technology.
]]>I thought I’d give a shot at answering some of them myself.
The origin of organic molecules and “life” are events that can be described using chemistry. The fact that we don’t know exactly under what conditions those events took place, does not mean the events never took place and certainly does not grant creationists the right to claim a sky god did it. For example: The fact that you may not know who Alan Turing was, does not excuse you to postulate a sky god created computers. The same applies for an ignorance in the origin of mountains, trees, people, animals and every other thing in existence.
The origin of DNA is also a continuation of complexity from simple chemical origins. It is a most optimum, natural method for distributing one’s properties since no other method has endured and survived longer on Earth. The shape of the molecule is subject to chemistry and physics and is susceptible to degradation and mutation with length and age. This is why for most of the history of life on Earth, the only forms of life were microorganisms. Complexity’s rise is exponential. DNA is also not a work of a sky god, but a naturally occurring phenomena.
We all have mutations in our genes. Mutations, along with the genetic drift of populations and effects of genetic recombination constitute the playing field of evolution. Mutations are usually not noticeable but can effect our physical characteristics and in some cases our behavior. The consequences of genetic recombination are more apparent, for example in the differences in the genetic makeup of siblings. Traits that result (directly, or indirectly) in their propagation, endure to successive generations. The accumulation of these mutations and their natural selection over the generations, under various circumstances, result eventually in the current state of being with all of life’s variations.
Because the subject is Evolution through Natural Selection. Evolution is in principle the result of two types of events:
Mutations and Natural Selections.
Mutations occur randomly throughout gene pools. Natural selection is the result of the interactions between creatures and their circumstances. Should a gene survive because -or in spite of- a mutation, then it was “naturally selected”. Gene with mutations that do not survive circumstances, are not passed on. It’s so simple, even a creationist could understand it.
Any system that undergoes changes (mutations) is always, eventually subject to a natural selection that separates those that survive from those that do not. If the rate of mutation is too slow to adapt to changing circumstances, none eventually survive (For example, coral reefs are dying faster than they grow due to relatively sudden changes in the climate). If the mutation rate is too high, the gene pool slowly falls into degradation (For example, humans living in Chernobyl or Baghdad)
In short, the reason why natural selection is thought as part of evolution is because it’s an integral part of biology. The diversity of life could not happen without a naturally occurring selections.
Gradually and eventually by a process called evolution. If you want a more specific answer, I shall require of you a time machine or a 1:1 scale model of our planet.
In short, things look designed because we consider things that work our, well…designed.
I can write an entire post just on the subject of why things look as if they were designed….as a matter of fact, I did! Read on: The First Rule of Propagatability.
There are several hypotheses and theories on the origin of Multicellular organisms, none of which include a magic sky god. The most likely hypothesis will be the one demonstrating an advantage of multicultural over single celled organisms under certain circumstances.
Sex originated most likely as an advantageous, stable method of propagating gene variation and traits in multicellular organisms.
Because not all individuals are fossilized and not all species are fossilized. It’s a relatively rare event but given that life has been on this planet for about 3.5 billion years, we get lucky finding fossils. Furthermore, all fossils are either fossils of extinct species or transitional fossils that lead to later species or modern animals. All species have an evolutionary history. Even if we had no fossils, genetic mapping can still be used to show the relationships in the tree of life of animals living today.
Some species are so adapted to their environment that they can remain seemingly unchanged for long periods of time. When there are no significant changes in the selection factors that affect a species, genes are exchanged freely and selection is limited to reproductive ability within the environment the species has adapted to.
These traits evolved as a consequence of interactions between individuals living in social groups. Social interaction introduced selection factors that prove advantageous in individuals living in groups. As a consequence of selection factors and our environment we are continually developing, progressing and adapting.
It’s the strength of evolution as a theory that it can be used to explain a verity of things in biology. If this is upsetting to you, perhaps science is not for you. I’m sure you can still prove to be a useful member of society teaching gym or trading soybean futures.
Evolution effects almost every field in biology today. From paleontology to anthropology to botany. It’s difficult to find a field in biology that has not been effected and enhanced in understanding by evolution. But that’s just in biology. What about technology? Did you know that evolutionary algorithms are used to create more realistic video games?
Evolution is not a theory “about history”, but it does explain the history of life on Earth. That history is billions of years in range and imagining it can be challenging for most humans. Of course, we can observe evolution in species with relatively short lives, but the longer it takes for a species to reach maturity, the longer it takes for evolution to become apparent. Most evolutionary changes are gradual and takes place over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. This far exceeds to length of time we have been around, let alone the time it takes for an individual to observe these long term evolutionary changes.
The framing of the question is intended to convey the claim that evolution is a religious idea. The desperate attempt at sounding witty has failed this question miserably. Evolution is about as far from religious dogma as you could possibly get. The reason why it is taught in science classes is because it’s a scientific theory that is fundamental to understanding biology.
If the facts of life discomfort you, then perhaps it is time to reevaluate your beliefs.
Updates
* Correction in answer 3 related to sibling appearance. (thanks to @CosmicEvolution)
In two epic, surreal and mind-expanding films, Professor Jim Al-Khalili searches for an answer to these questions as he explores the true size and shape of the universe and delves into the amazing science behind apparent nothingness.
The first part, Everything, sees Professor Al-Khalili set out to discover what the universe might actually look like. The journey takes him from the distant past to the boundaries of the known universe. Along the way he charts the remarkable stories of the men and women who discovered the truth about the cosmos and investigates how our understanding of space has been shaped by both mathematics and astronomy.
]]>The second part, Nothing, explores science at the very limits of human perception, where we now understand the deepest mysteries of the universe lie. Jim sets out to answer one very simple question – what is nothing? His journey ends with perhaps the most profound insight about reality that humanity has ever made. Everything came from nothing. The quantum world of the super-small shaped the vast universe we inhabit today, and Jim can prove it.
When you leave your house in the morning and come back 12 hours later, you can confidently tell yourself that you’re “back home”, meaning that you once again occupy -roughly- the same space as you did in the morning. Having said that, you could amuse yourself with the thought that since the planet is now facing away from the sun, you in fact traveled along with it along Earth’s axes putting you -at most- around 12,450 miles (20,000 km) further from where you started off that morning. “Here” depends on the relative perception of the observer. You could extend this to include Earth’s rotation around the Sun: At 2,571,762 km a day; The orbit of the Sun around the galaxy: You’re moving at around 828,000 km/h relative to the center of the Milky Way. At this rate, it takes the Sun 230 million years to orbit the Milky Way once. In the time it took you to read that last sentence, the Sun along with Earth and you on it moved more than 1,200 kms. Further still, the space between us and galaxies beyond the cosmic horizon expands faster than the speed of light.
The grand notion of “here” is ultimately meaningless. The “here” of 1 second ago, relative to the center of our galaxy is 230 km away. Now, you might say that if you don’t leave the house and sit still, you’re not moving relative to Earth. Not even if you were frozen solid at near absolute zero could this be further from the truth.
When you’re not frozen, your inner organs move and the particles that make up the molecules that make up the chemicals that make up the cells that make up you, move. At near absolute zero, particles slow down. That’s fundamentally what energy is: a movement in the chain of events that is traceable to the inception of our Universe. Even at absolute zero, there are still quantum mechanical interactions that take place. Everything is always on the move on some level. An existing Universe never rests.
We’re only aware of the changing “here” by what we can perceive with our senses. We don’t feel plate tectonics unless there’s an earthquake. On a day-to-day basis, we don’t notice the Earth moving along in an orbit around the Sun.
Thanks to the “relative here”, no two things or moments in spacetime are ever exactly the same. No two moments, no two days in a decade; not ever are things completely alike. Progression is an incontrovertible force of nature in the Universe.
Incidentally, today was my birthday; The cosmically trivial “relative here” being the position Earth had relative to the sun around the time some half a million people -myself included- were born, 32 orbital rotations ago.
The sun is now 232 billion km away from then. I takes light 9 days to get there from “here”. Today couldn’t be further away from my birthday. Things move on and change, as they always have and always will.
]]>Science works as a means of understanding the world because scientists have the ability to examine commonly held views and adapt to new ideas. Most beings avoid this practice because evolution has taught us change brings risks. This instinctive fear of the unknown has proven itself useful throughout our evolutionary history, but now that we’ve won; Now that we’ve conquered the Earth to the extent that the competing animals (almost every other multicellular organism on the planet) are either subjects of our utility or slowly, but surely going extinct; Now that we hold dominion over the Earth’s resources, can we now stop being afraid of the unknown and cooperate?
Evolution’s selections shift as we evolve new abilities that change our environment. Most of us need not fear the dark in which our fears once lurked: fellow beings out to kill us for nourishment. Surely, if we were all one big happy family, we would by now have learned that we can share everything and no one need to starve. So, what happened?
We evolutionarily learned to cooperate as a means of survival. By doing so we shifted survival from an imperative posed by interactions with other species to one within the human species. This level of cooperation is an elevating force in complexity.
In biology, something interesting happened when the first multicellular organisms started to appear. Before that time, single celled microorganisms competed amongst others for nourishment. Multicellular organisms consist of multiple cells that naturally evolved to cooperate. This cooperation proved to be an efficient and effective means of group survival that was more conducive to complexity compared to single celled organisms fending on their own. As a result, multicellular life literally grew, persisted and evolved to encompass the vast diversity of life we see on Earth today. In so doing, they raised complexity to a paradigm that enabled our evolution. Multicellular complexity doesn’t directly compete with single celled life, but it thrives using cellular patterns that achieve genetic survival and propagation rates that are unattainable for groups of individual cells.
Keeping in mind the rapid paradigm shift that occurred as a result of multicellular life, one has to understand that this did not eradicate single celled life. Single celled organisms still exist due to some advantages they hold against multicellular organisms. For example, some single celled organisms can dry out completely, remaining dormant for long periods of time. In certain environments this gives them an advantage in survival over more complex multicellular life forms.
But we of course are not single celled organisms. I point this out because our level of complexity is different from theirs’. We compete with other multicellular organisms at the macroscopic scale of complexity. One interesting note on scale is that Valonia Ventricosa, the biggest single celled organism is about the size of a grape. Being that size, gravity prevents it from forming multicellular life.
When boundaries are defined, inward interactions within members of the same type of species (or people, governments, businesses, any group of equally complex entities) naturally create competition but also levels of cooperation as a means of survival. The extent of the corporation may be one on one or broader, resulting in even higher levels of complexity over time. Evolution may not always be apparent in biology, but in the development of civilizations, the propagation of memes, the methods of science, industrial development and technologies; they all demonstrate evolution by example.
When judged by characteristics, religions can be defined as single celled organizations in an ocean of rapidly evolving and converging ideas. Science is the result of a cooperative effort amongst various cells that take advantage of their corporation. By so doing, science allows us to more accurate describe the world and can thus facilitate our more efficiently and effectively utilization of it (technology). It has clear demonstrable advantages. As far as memes go, religions will continue to exist but will never come close to competing with science in our understanding of the Universe. The rigid cells evolved around religions may be durable but they barely evolve. Isolated from the rapidly developing memosphere of ideas while being relatively static, religions will increasingly find survival more challenging. Religious people will find themselves left behind in a legacy paradigm.
As Stephen Hawking put it, “Science will win, because it works.” Therein lies evolution’s brunt to religion. When the demands of complexity exceed the capabilities of an organization, it will not survive as-is. When, for example facts are required to elevate understanding (by utilizing proven ideas and rejecting those that aren’t-), religious concepts face extinction in the realm of truth finding. Ideas that allow corporation leading to improved sustainability, survive. For now, religions are characterized by their exclusivity. Most religions reject other religions. Its only hope is continued inward interactions and evolutionary steps that allow it to reach standards of understanding and cooperation. By rejecting ideas that don’t work and embracing those that do, religious people can create a more complete, scientific understanding of the Universe. The utility of religious thinking will over time dissolve to virtual oblivion.
The following is an example of one such a development within religion:
Image source: scottklarr.com
]]>Osama Bin Laden, as a Saudi national and a member of a powerful industrialist family insured his network reached deep amongst the Wahhabi ruling family of Saudi Arabia and their connections in Pakistan. They funneled money through shell businesses masked as “charitable organization”, funding and planned the attacks on 9/11.
Fifteen of the 19 hijackers who carried out the September 11 attacks were Saudi nationals, some of whom are believed by U.S. authorities to have received assistance from Saudi Arabia-based charities while they were living in the United States.
While not identifying the country or countries identified in the report, Graham said, “I will say that the foreign government went well beyond facilitating charitable giving to terrorists.
“There was also direct governmental involvement with some of the terrorists. And an unanswered question is, Was the same assistance provided to the other 19 terrorists?”
source
But their delicate relationship with the United States as a major supplier of oil, shielded them from any direct attacks. They’re also protected by Israel as they too are a partner in protecting American interests in the region.
Recognizing the complex web of interests and relationships, one can only conclude that the Iraq war’s true intent -as a consequence of the attacks on 9/11/2001- was to weaken Saudi Arabia’s position (not through direct action, but indirectly) by attacking its position in global economic.
Oil makes up 75% of Saudi Arabia’s national revenue. 40% of the world’s oil comes from Saudi Arabia. Optimizing the supply from an alternative oil rich country such as Iraq creates an economic competition that weakens Saudi Arabia as a supplier in the long haul.
Knowing that members of the Saudi ruling class were involved in 9/11 required a custom response strategy that insured the continuation of good relations with the Saudi government while simultaneously attacking Saudi economics. The Saudi’s cooperation in Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program meant it enjoyed protection under Pakistan’s Nuclear Deterrent Program. The threat of mutual assured destruction of interests eliminated an all out conventional war with Saudi Arabia. An unconventional approach was needed. A longterm strategy that ensured Saudi defeat while protecting American interests. The ultimate cold war.
By making Pakistan an ally in the war on terror, America built a relationship that now prevents Pakistan from giving nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia. In return the United States funds Pakistan’s military and helps it develop its economy. Israel retains its position as America’s strategic force field over its supply of oil, their “interests in the region” and the economy can recover from its 2001 hiccup. Of course, I could be wrong.
]]>It prompted me to think of a way to visualize what matter -stuff with mass- is and why it effects space in such a profound way.
Gravity is often visualized by imagining a 2 dimensional sheet that’s curved by the introduction of matter. As one person put it, like a marble orbiting a bowling ball that is placed on a mattress. Of course, the space around us is 3 dimensional and the mattress example cheats by using Earth’s gravity to make it work. I find it more useful to imagine a mass, such as our planet, pulling the space around it in all directions. This results in a difference in spatial density. The further you move away from Earth, the denser the space is. This difference is spatial density results in other masses falling towards less dense areas (towards Earth) because the space behind them is more dense than the space in front of them (the space between the object and Earth). If an object happens to have an angular momentum relative to Earth, one that is equivalent to the difference in spatial densities, it can move along a path and never move towards the Earth; in an orbit, like our satellites.
The mattress while being a representative example, still begs the question how mass does this space-pulling business to begin with. We know that low mass objects have less gravity than large mass objects. There is thus a relationship between the amount of mass an object holds and the amount of space it pulls towards it. I posit that the reason why matter attracts space is that at the string level, 3 dimensional space is wrinkled by string vibrations, like the wrinkles caused by children jumping on a bed. When someone jumps on a bed, the 2 dimensional sheet is wrinkled in 3 dimensions and its edges move towards the center of the wrinkle. Now, imagine our 3 dimensional space being wrinkled in 4 at a subatomic scale. As the trillions upon trillions of strings on Earth vibrate, the wrinkling of space accumulates to causes the “bigger” gravity we observe through, for example objects falling towards Earth. Objects, once on Earth join other masses to further contribute to Earth’s gravity, however slight with low mass objects or great with larger mass objects like those collisions in Earth’s early history.
A prediction of this model is that the shape of gravity in relation to its force -as seen from “the outside” of 4D space- in our 3D perspective looks curved. However, when taking relativity into account and plotting out the relative speeds at distances from a gravitational origin, one should see not a curved 3d surface but a linear plot line, stretching outwards to infinity from each object in 4D space.
This could explain why space is lumpy when viewed at both galactic scale and chaotically bumpy at the atomic scale.
The illusive Higg Boson, the “particle” that gives mass, could thus just be a type of string that happens to be configured in such a way that it causes space to slightly wrinkle around it while it vibrates.
Or not. What is called a “Higg Boson” could also be a particle that occupies space more than any other particle. This occupation could result in a spatial disequilibrium between the space occupied by matter and the surrounding space, causing spatial warps accumulatively measured as gravity.
We do this by taking the taxes you pay into the federal government and use it to give out contracts to our friends in the business, energy and arms world. It’s just how the world works and we’d like to keep it that way.
We want a limited government. This means that we want power to be concentrated to a limited number of people. We don’t want a bureaucracy. We also like to limit spending on infrastructure and education, because keeping the number of enlightened, educated people to a minimum is very important to us. People need to be smart enough to get a job so they can run the machines of our corporate friends; We want people to have the kind of knowledge taught in private schools with standards set by corporations. We don’t like wasting money on public schools. Where would our profit be in that?
Reality has such a progressive and liberal biased, it disgusts us. Most of us are religious to begin with, so, living in an information echo chamber, intending to ignore reality comes easy to us. We have our own Websites, Radio and TV channels to enforce the enforcement of our reality and to let you know how to think. We also have t-shirts and hats if you’re interested. Give us your money!
If you would like to join our loot and plunder crusade throughout history, too bad. All our really good positions are taken! But you can send us some more of that well earned money you’ve got there, if we’ve convinced you we’re on your side.
]]>Once while I was writing a piece of code I found myself having to declare a CONSTANT. A constant is something’s property that cannot be changed. I strongly hesitate to say that constants are a special kind of variable, because variables can be “varied” or changed. In physics, there are properties that cannot be changed. We call them the Fundamental Physical Constants. They give laws to all the matter whom’s shapes have produced in the Universe (Yes, that IS grammatically correct!). I say “shapes” because that’s exactly what the constants need to be in order to explain why they can only be represented as the strange numbers we express them as. In digital, analog shapes can only be represented as an approximation: Their true “value” is lost during the inscription of the property. This is true of all the constants that define our Universe. And it can only be true in a Universe where 1 represents the true form of the Universe and the constants represent properties of the fractions 1 is made from. (…I’ll wait).
Now, there is nothing to stop Universe 1 from having a neighbor that also looks like 1. Neighbor Universe 1 will have to be composed of fractions that sustain its existence. Neighbor Universe 1 may look like our Universe, but its fractalized representation, or its shape may also look radically different due to the laws that resulted from its fractions.
These analog fractions can be chaotically random in their proportional values, but due to logic, whatever their true values may be, they are subject to a natural selection. Everything is always tested, but only by reality’s nature. Only the stability of their outcomes can ensure their feasibility. Even the reason for their existence can be chaotic, yet subject to a logical natural selection. That, after all is what existing is:
Being able to be as opposed to not be.
]]>Personally, I think…
Time requires matter and energy. It is simply energy, represented as matter (including us) moving through space. Distance = Time x Velocity. Mathematically you can switch this around to understand time. This results in Time = Distance / Velocity. Our sense of time is thus changes in matter caused by the interaction of matter by virtue of energy that’s causing matter to move through space. Thus we are conscious of “time” as the amount of changes our brains amass as a result of physical laws, according to everything a brain interacts with.
As the configuration of our brain changes “over time” at a cellular level, our consciousness shifts through time, allowing us to “experience” these changes. Older configurations (memories) become more elusive “over time” as newer configurations rewrite the network of neurons in the synaptic pathways that make our brains who we are to others. This is what I suspect gives our brains a sense of duration for time. We don’t really experience the duration of time when we’re unconscious. When unconscious, those chemical system are subdued. Even the word “unconscious” means not being conscious; Not conscious of information resulting from an inability to store memories. Duration of time thusly, can be expressed as the quantity of changes in a given configuration.
Quoting Luis Villazon:
Most people agree that the years seem to pass at an ever-accelerating rate. That’s because traditions, anniversaries and celebrations gradually accumulate and merge, so that the difference between each year and the previous one grows smaller and smaller
Unfortunately the answer given by Luis is incomplete. Not only do anniversaries accumulate year by year, but our capacity to record information allowed by “time” -to store memories- diminishes. As brains gets older, nearing the end of their genetic life cycle, those synaptic pathways grow more rigid. A kind of mnemonic Doppler effect of experiences sets in the way we experience things. Information is stored at a lower frequency, changes are slower, thus it would seem as though time is speeding up. The speed of light is a constant and so, as we travel through space, relative to each other, we experience time more or less the same way. Someone traveling near the speed of light on the other hand would experience time slower relative to us. We on the other hand would age faster than the more speedy space-time traveler.
Of course, I could be wrong about all this. If you think I am don’t be shy about letting me know.
]]>
The very act claiming ownership of another thing demands the owner to suggest a certain kind of behavior to a subject and demand that certain behavior be exhibited back at the owner. This is done on penalty of being cast out, to fend on the subject’s own or even death. Slavery, pet ownership and some forms of racism are the psychological built-in social feedback loops that happen to have evolved.Those loops that gradually evolved in individuals to result in a benefit for both the subjects and the owners, survived. The more reciprocal the behavior, the better it survived, taking territory from selfish behaviors.
The behavior of slavery has evolved by the concept of ownership of others and is still very much alive today. It’s more regulated in order to avoid offending -our since- evolved reciprocal altruism. We wouldn’t have a productive workforce without it. The subjects are now contractually obligated to exhibit a certain behavior on penalty of being cast out of the social system to find another company (group of working people) to join and survive with.
Even though we have mostly abolished slavery, we cannot escape those evolved traits that helped us in the past and so instinctively we still want to own things. Anything that we think will help us in some way or another. We’re social beings, and so we own pets. We teach them tricks. We appreciate them for how they help us. And we play mind games to keep it that way.
]]>Our shared ancestry extends to everything else in the Universe. Our modern cosmic perspective gives new meaning to the phrase “we are all one.”
Music by Sigur Rós.
A philosopher once said “It is necessary for the very existence of science that the same conditions always produce the same result.” Well, they don’t. You set up the circumstance here and the same conditions every time, and you cannot predict behind which hole you’ll see the electron. Yet science goes on in spite of it – although the same conditions don’t produce the same results. That makes us unhappy, that we cannot predict exactly what will happen. Incidentally, you could make a circumstance which it is very dangerous and serious, and man must know, and still can’t predict.
For instance we could cook up -we rather not, but we could- cook up a scheme by which we arrange a photo cell, and one electron could go through, and if we see it behind hole No. 1 we set off the atomic bomb and start World War III; if we go see it go behind hole No. 2 we make peace feelers and delay the war a little longer. Then, the thing is the future of man would then be dependent on something which no amount of science can predict.
The future is unpredictable.
What is necessary “for the very existence of science” and so forth, and what the characteristics of nature are, are not to be determined by pompous preconditions. They are determined always by the material with which we work, by nature herself. We look, and we see what we find, and we cannot say ahead of time -successfully- what it is going to look like.
The most reasonable possibilities turn out often not to be the situation.
What is necessary for the very existence of science is just the ability to experiment, the honesty in reporting results -the results must be reported without somebody saying what they’d like the results to have had been rather than what they are- and finally -an important thing-, the intelligence to interpret the results but an important point about this intelligence is that it should not be sure ahead of time what must be.
Now, it can be prejudiced and say “That’s very unlikely. I don’t like that.” Prejudice is different than absolute certainty. I don’t mean absolute prejudice; Just biased. But not strict biased. Not complete prejudice. As long as you’re biased it doesn’t make any difference because if the fact is true, there will be a perpetual accumulation of experiments that will perpetually annoy you until they cannot be disregarded any longer. It only can be disregarded if you’re absolutely sure ahead of time of some precondition that science has to have.
In fact, it is necessary for the very existence of science that minds exist which do not allow that nature must satisfy some preconceived conditions like those of our philosopher.
- Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law
A lecture by physicist and Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman.
A lecture by physicist and Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman.
A lecture by physicist and Nobel Prize winner Richard Feynman.