Saturday, February 19, 2005
No Reason
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Space? Time? Spacetime?!
So we all exist in space. Further it seems that time is manadtory. Eisten said it's even a bit more than that. Space and time are linked and what happens in space effects time (and vice versa).
I went to go see Brian Greene tonight. He is a physicist who has popularized string theory, because of his ability to make it accessible to people without math backgrounds. A couple of the highlights of the show were:
1. Just because we percieve it doesn't mean that's all there is.
2. There is a big difference between knowing something and predicting something.
3. If you know a lot about physics be prepared to be asked strange quesitons.
So point 1. Dr. Greene pointed out that Newton explained the world as he (and everyone else) percieved it. Einstein explained why gravity, space and time are all linked. The difference between Einstein and Newton is that things predicted by Einstein don't necessarily make themselves obvious. For example: A clock on board the International Space Station doesn't match with the national atomic clocks on earth. Why? Well space and time are linked and if you move in space you "drag" time with you. So if you extend this out, you could say that the present of the satellite is the past of people on earth. Whoa. That means that the ISS inhabitants are living in the past! Get with the times men (and women)! So the point is that perception (seeing hearing... believing) is not all there is. The math of physics predicts a more precise world. Which leads to the next point....
Predictions versus knowing. We know there will be weather, but wouldn't it be nice to know WHAT the weather is? That's the beauty of sceince. Deterministic (and probabilistic) understandings of the world allow us to predict what will be. But what is a prediction? It is to know the outcome, as opposed to random which is to not know the outcome. Physics has a strong ability to predict thefuture because it builds off of the very probable existance of the phsyical world. When we wake up tomorrow gravity will still be there and there will probably still be three dimensions that we can move in. I can predict that, so can science. Physics however, can predict some really crazy things (take the previous paragraph as an example), but sometimes we don't need that. Sometimes we just know it. Life goes on. Somethings are good some are bad. These are statements that are true, but they don't tell us what will be. BUT THAT'S OK.
Climate change is an example of prediction versus knowing. We know the climate is changing. Without a doubt. Change happens. What will come of the change is to be debated. Some predict a global heating that causes catastrophic failure, while other warn of irreversible changes. But we don't know know what will ACTUALLY happen. So to know something exists does not indicate knowledge of what will happen.
Finally my lasy point. Dr. Greene got asked a crazy question. You know the statement, "There are no stupid questions"? Well. Aaah. There might be. I truly feel there are no stupid questions, if the intention is to gain an understanding, but some poeple ask questions because they don't agree. Furthmore, they REALLY DON'T agree. So it's not really a question, but an oppurtunity to prove you wrong.
Dr Greene: String theorist's hope to show that energy is lost in super high energy collisions of particles.
Audience question: I don't think anything can be shown by breakingthings, you can only combine things, what do yout think?
Embarassingly, the audience laughed the man off the microphone. But for good reason. The tone of his question was not "what do you think?", but "say something that I can show you're wrong"
so there you have it. It must be tough being Dr. Greene.
I went to go see Brian Greene tonight. He is a physicist who has popularized string theory, because of his ability to make it accessible to people without math backgrounds. A couple of the highlights of the show were:
1. Just because we percieve it doesn't mean that's all there is.
2. There is a big difference between knowing something and predicting something.
3. If you know a lot about physics be prepared to be asked strange quesitons.
So point 1. Dr. Greene pointed out that Newton explained the world as he (and everyone else) percieved it. Einstein explained why gravity, space and time are all linked. The difference between Einstein and Newton is that things predicted by Einstein don't necessarily make themselves obvious. For example: A clock on board the International Space Station doesn't match with the national atomic clocks on earth. Why? Well space and time are linked and if you move in space you "drag" time with you. So if you extend this out, you could say that the present of the satellite is the past of people on earth. Whoa. That means that the ISS inhabitants are living in the past! Get with the times men (and women)! So the point is that perception (seeing hearing... believing) is not all there is. The math of physics predicts a more precise world. Which leads to the next point....
Predictions versus knowing. We know there will be weather, but wouldn't it be nice to know WHAT the weather is? That's the beauty of sceince. Deterministic (and probabilistic) understandings of the world allow us to predict what will be. But what is a prediction? It is to know the outcome, as opposed to random which is to not know the outcome. Physics has a strong ability to predict thefuture because it builds off of the very probable existance of the phsyical world. When we wake up tomorrow gravity will still be there and there will probably still be three dimensions that we can move in. I can predict that, so can science. Physics however, can predict some really crazy things (take the previous paragraph as an example), but sometimes we don't need that. Sometimes we just know it. Life goes on. Somethings are good some are bad. These are statements that are true, but they don't tell us what will be. BUT THAT'S OK.
Climate change is an example of prediction versus knowing. We know the climate is changing. Without a doubt. Change happens. What will come of the change is to be debated. Some predict a global heating that causes catastrophic failure, while other warn of irreversible changes. But we don't know know what will ACTUALLY happen. So to know something exists does not indicate knowledge of what will happen.
Finally my lasy point. Dr. Greene got asked a crazy question. You know the statement, "There are no stupid questions"? Well. Aaah. There might be. I truly feel there are no stupid questions, if the intention is to gain an understanding, but some poeple ask questions because they don't agree. Furthmore, they REALLY DON'T agree. So it's not really a question, but an oppurtunity to prove you wrong.
Dr Greene: String theorist's hope to show that energy is lost in super high energy collisions of particles.
Audience question: I don't think anything can be shown by breakingthings, you can only combine things, what do yout think?
Embarassingly, the audience laughed the man off the microphone. But for good reason. The tone of his question was not "what do you think?", but "say something that I can show you're wrong"
so there you have it. It must be tough being Dr. Greene.
Friday, February 11, 2005
Expected States of Development
I watched Kinsey. Wow. What a movie. I didn't even think they had sex in the 50's, but apparently, some people even had really good sex. Apart from all the discussion on sex behavior one of the most interesting points raised in the movie was what is "normal". Because Kinsey was a taxonomist and also a statistician he firmly believed that to study something you needed to collect data, A LOT of it, and split it into categories and characterize it by the numbers. So this guy collects the sexual history of 10's of thousands of people and compiles it into a book (and here). So now that we have all these categories it is natural to look back and check out which categories are the most popular. Even more so, let's call one that "normal" behavior.
Wait.
That last statement may have been sarcastic, or maybe it's facetious, I'm not actually that good with words (I like analogies better, or is metaphors?). Ok I looked up all those words. My previous statement was both a little facetious and sarcastic and it is definitely analogies I like.
So the point is that normalicy is defined in many ways as the average or mean, or the most popular event of a random variable (like the speed of cars down a street). Where it gets hairy is when normal morphs into *expected* or even as far as *MORAL*. It may be normal for humans to have sex, but that doesn't make it moral. Furthermore, it my not be normal for girls to have sex with stuffed teddy bears, but that isn't immoral either (is it?). Because I'm a fan of my toolbar dictionary I like to look things up. Moral: "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior "
So there you have it. is right or wrong? what's interesting about morality is that it is mostly a personal thing. It develops from the early childhood in the form of decideding on issues that are black and white and self-centered and then develops as you get older into more abstract concepts like what actions do to other people and society as a whole. However, it is the "mores" that gives us so much greif. These are the "normal moral attitudes" of a group. Mores (pro nounced More-ayes: too much dictionary time...) truly are the average beliefs of a group (although sometimes are biased by the leaders). So when it comes to sex, we look to the mores to define our own behaviour, rather than perform our own moral test of right and wrong.
So to get back to my original point (the title of the blog) I'll review what I've said (albeit maybe not well):
I don't believe that normal is always an appropriate measure.
Nor is popularity.
Sex is underrated and not talked about enough.
Go see Kinsey.
Those arguements aside, there clearly are things that are normal (statisically high chance of happening), such as growing old. And (I think) becoming entrenched in your battles (tilting at your windmills). So what I realized the other days is that my issues in life may be morphing into Quixote's windmills. Am I going ot get old and starttalking about how grand it would be if people could just talk about sex (without feeling guilty) and have an economic system that doesn't measure itself by growth alone?
Wait.
That last statement may have been sarcastic, or maybe it's facetious, I'm not actually that good with words (I like analogies better, or is metaphors?). Ok I looked up all those words. My previous statement was both a little facetious and sarcastic and it is definitely analogies I like.
So the point is that normalicy is defined in many ways as the average or mean, or the most popular event of a random variable (like the speed of cars down a street). Where it gets hairy is when normal morphs into *expected* or even as far as *MORAL*. It may be normal for humans to have sex, but that doesn't make it moral. Furthermore, it my not be normal for girls to have sex with stuffed teddy bears, but that isn't immoral either (is it?). Because I'm a fan of my toolbar dictionary I like to look things up. Moral: "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior "
So there you have it. is right or wrong? what's interesting about morality is that it is mostly a personal thing. It develops from the early childhood in the form of decideding on issues that are black and white and self-centered and then develops as you get older into more abstract concepts like what actions do to other people and society as a whole. However, it is the "mores" that gives us so much greif. These are the "normal moral attitudes" of a group. Mores (pro nounced More-ayes: too much dictionary time...) truly are the average beliefs of a group (although sometimes are biased by the leaders). So when it comes to sex, we look to the mores to define our own behaviour, rather than perform our own moral test of right and wrong.
So to get back to my original point (the title of the blog) I'll review what I've said (albeit maybe not well):
I don't believe that normal is always an appropriate measure.
Nor is popularity.
Sex is underrated and not talked about enough.
Go see Kinsey.
Those arguements aside, there clearly are things that are normal (statisically high chance of happening), such as growing old. And (I think) becoming entrenched in your battles (tilting at your windmills). So what I realized the other days is that my issues in life may be morphing into Quixote's windmills. Am I going ot get old and starttalking about how grand it would be if people could just talk about sex (without feeling guilty) and have an economic system that doesn't measure itself by growth alone?
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Snowcave
This is what I slept in last night!
The Varsity Outdoor Club held their annual WinterLongHike and we camped 2 hours east of Vancouver. You'll notice the tremendous pile of snow... Due to the shortage of snowfall this year we had to create our own snowpack. So now with a sore back I fondly look back at my cozy snow shelter and think about the fantastic fondue we had. (Yes, someone brought fondue.)
