I felt the need to write again. This seems like as good a place as any. I've been doing the usual.. contemplating the nature of time and space so that I can use it to take control of the universe. I like to think I am making some head way. But it is a bit of the chicken and the egg.. the more control I have over the universe the better I can understand space and time and vice versa. It is slow going, good thing I am patient. Sometimes I wish I was smart enough to do it all in one night but then what would I do the night after, right?

You know taking over the world is not that much different from bathing and elephant. You have to break it into managable chunks, realize there is no chunk that you cannot do and keep at it because it is worth keeping at.

I had a friend point out an issue recently. It was an issue I had too way back when I was thinking about that sort of stuff. It was Einstein's rubber mat illustration. Saying that gravity worked like how a ball will put a dent in a suspended rubber mat and effect other balls rolling on the same mat. The issue is that dent in the mat is litterally there because of gravity so the symbolism to explain the nature of gravity is kind of awash.

My model says that gravity is less of a dent and more of a drag, and caused less by matter and more by energy. Maybe relativity makes the distinction, I never read it that closely. I can also explain why there is an upper limit to velocities, but so far the model seems to predict differnt speeds for high and low energy radiation. This is obviously a problem, though I may be able to over come it.. or rationalize it.

As for taking over the universe. This is not quite as much fun as it sounds. It looks much like life but with a few small differences. Well, one major difference that leads to all the others. It is like life but with the intention of taking over the universe. I am also working with somebody on this project. Right now we are working on ways of communicating political type situations effectively. Once we can communicate them we can analyse them, interact with them, and predict them with better accuracy. Yeah, taking over the world isnt' easy.
- posted by Random @ 12:04 AM

 

Analytic Environmentalism

This is another (feeble) attempt to add something to an existing tension. This is about the tension of industry vs. environment.

In my experiences there have been many people that, when given the opportunity, have stood up to give their relative stance on environmentalism. That is to say that it is common for people to say we are not doing enough for the environment, or we are saving the environment at the expense of industry. People love to say we are not where we should be, but I have never heard anybody tell me exactly where that is. Enter: analytic environmentalism.

I think we would all be hard pressed to find anybody that has a problem killing a carrot to feed a hungry child. Similarly, few would be willing to kill all marine biology to save a child of a common cold. These are as far as my mind will go to the extreme of either side of the debate. Most of us lie somewhere in between trying to find the right balance of industry vs. environmentalism.

The first questions to ask in finding this balance is do either have intrinsic value. Are they important independent of what they do? IE, would industry still be important if it didn’t feed, clothe, employ… people? Would the environment still be important if it was not beautiful, a model of health and productivity…. If you answered ‘yes’ to any of these questions I may have something insightful for you in the future, but not in this article. For the rest of us, mainly I will elaborate on my opinion in the hopes it can be used as a template to find where you stand.

Among the first things to note, is that nature and industry are two ways of pursuing the same thing. If they are not intrinsically valuable, as we said they were not above, then they must be instrumentally valuable. They are valuable in helping us do something, persuing a higher purpose. What is that purpose?

My answer is culture and beauty. (If you have a different answer, that is what the comment box is for). Nature is beautiful, I know, but the Rockies of the western North America don’t do much for Easterners, unless there is some way to bring one to the other. Enter: transportation and communication. The fruits of industry help me enjoy the fruits of nature. Communications also help spread ideas and art, but these would be of little value if we didn’t have a healthy ecosystem to sustain the human population. The fruits of nature help me enjoy the fruits of industry.

If we are, as I suggested, working to produce culture and beauty, one would be very limited without the other. We should then let industry work ‘efficiently’ at the expense of the environment, until it gets in the way of our pursuit of beauty. I am aware there are limited natural resources, and that is why they must be used efficiently. Before anything is taken from the environment, it should be noted how it helps our higher purpose as part of nature. Is it beautiful, is it a link to a sustainable ecosystem, is it unique and unexplored, and thus potentially valuable in unforeseen ways? What role is it to play in industry? If it better serves our higher purpose in the hands of industry, let it go. If not, keep it in the bed of nature.

When debating over the value of the resource, it is important to know if you are ultimately trying to pursue the same higher purpose and disagree over means to a common end, or if you disagree about that purpose. I would be delighted to see such talk at the next environmental stand-off.

There are some things I will not do, not simply because they are bad for the environment, but they are bad for my higher purpose. That is my benchmark. Feel free to tell me yours.

- posted by Random @ 3:38 PM

 

I wonder if this is important

There is a new field of thought I have recently been exposed to. It is call moral evolutionism. The idea behind it, if you can’t tell, is that morals came to humans over time, through natural laws. It is often contrasted with the Christian view, of morals being derived directly of God’s will.

As the basic theory goes, some social order, or a set of characteristics and behaviours, were expected of humans by other humans. Presumably they would be behaviours that would be good for the community so that it might be perpetuated. Over time, instead of cognitively trying to obey and enforce the order, it slowly evolved into a moral feeling to encourage and recognise the behaviours. That way consequences could be delivered to those that did not follow the order without using the precious resources of the primitive human mind. Likewise, it could be followed without using the same precious resources. That is to say that you would know if you, or another was doing the best for the community just by observing how his or your actions made you feel. You would not have to actively question if something was good or bad for the community.

The main problem opponents have with this model is that it contradicts another natural law. Put in the words of George Burns, “Sincerity is everything. If you can fake that you’ve got it made.” That is to say that an individual would have a better chance of survival if he appeared to follow this order, but in all other cases did what was in his own best interest, ie the ones that lived and passed on their genes would be the exact ones that did not follow the order. Primitive humans, therefor, could not develop the intimate relationship with this order that would allow it to foster into instinct.

Obviously, I have a comment to add or I would not be writing this. Truthfully, I have two ideas to add.

Genes are not the only way to transmit information from the past. Humans certainly do not reinvent the wheel every generation. It is an idea that had been transmitted and adopted over and over again throughout human history. (The study of this process is called memetics. Very interesting) It is this very process that is responsible for the cultures of the world. Culture is merely the collection of the innumerable ideas that have not had their chain of transmittion and adoption broken. It is possible, therefor, that some of these ideas that make up our culture are the same ideas that were trying to be enforced all those years ago, those ideas about what was best for the community.

But then, how did these ideas develop into morals? As a Canadian I am well aware of our “French Question”. French Canadians are fighting political battles because they feel that their language should be saved. But the French language is only a few hundred years old. Certainly not enough time for it to affect their genes at any significant level. That is to say that I don’t know the mechanism from idea to feeling, or moral, but it has happened, and continues to in many ways.

That is the memetic counter rebuttal. I also have a genetic response.

As in the original model I described, there was once an order that primitive humans wanted to enforce. We will call this Order-1. This is the order what would alert a member of the tribe if he or another was being too selfish, too aggressive, mistreating another member of the tribe, or any other behaviour that might jeopardize the tribe as a whole. But where did this order come from? The behaviour that would lead to a successful tribe was defined by where and how they lived. Order-1 was a product of the natural laws of their environment – itself an order, a collection of behaviours and characteristics. We could call this Order-0. If Order-0 caused Order-1, could Order-1 not cause an Order-2? Yes it could. The natural consequences of the rules of the tribe, Order-1, were the actions of the individual, Order-2. This is the order that would create an individual to appear as though he is working for the good of the tribe while he is always acting in his own self-interest. This is what the individual is intimately connected to. This is the information that dictates the behaviour that could be passed on, and through various mechanisms be stored in the very genes you carry today.

Both of these models are variations on the basic moral evolution idea, though they still hold true to the idea of evolution, be it memetic or genetic.

One side note is that these models do not have to contradict derivation from the devine. If one were so inclined, one could consider God the original order, and in as much responsible for all subsequent orders. He would then, in deed, be the inspiration for the morals we carry with us.
- posted by Random @ 2:17 AM

 

Puppet Master

Somebody is pulling the strings. I don't know who. I've looked and asked, but I still don't know who it is.

The Americans are runninga 500 billion dollar, that's right, with a 'B', 500 billion dollar deficit. For those out there unfamilliar with international economics, a deficit is that amount of government spending that is in excess of taxes collected. That is to say that not only did the 'richest country in the world' spend all of its money, it had to borrow some from elsewhere. For those very familiar with international econimics, I want to know where elsewhere is.

The Americans are galavanting around the globe playing policeman while they are spending somebody else's money. Somebody is encouraging this behavior. For all those that have a thing, whatever it may be, against the Americans, this who is a very big deal.

It is this body that is encouraging the imperialism, and encouraging the consumerism, and the violence, and the hate. It is this body that is trying to push Western ideals across the oceans and into the minds of those of beautiful and exotic cultures.

Let us first assume that it is a wise decision to lend them your money. Let us assume that the world's policeman won't tend to write laws that favour the enforcer. That is to say, you will get your money back, but whose will it be.

What is it about american values that should be propogated. Surely one set of ultimate goals are as good as the next, an if not, you really feel the americans are the ones that should teach us. What is it about America that needs to be spread about the globe. Their industrial successes? I would say more so of the nations that are running the surpluses that need be represented.

500 billion is alot of money. It is not the kind of figure that is thrown around on principle. Who is it among us in this global community that want to capitolize on American excesses. Whoever it is, I can only hope your plan works. I can only hope you do not get annexed before the Americans see a surplus. I can only hope you see a return before they are unable to generate a surplus.

There is a dangerous unprecidented game being played. Perhaps someday my children will read about it when the smoke has cleared, and the puppets are distinguishable from their masters.
- posted by Random @ 2:13 AM

 

Sins against innovation

Everybody loves innovation (except the Amish, but they don’t get the net). Innovation is that magical thing that makes new things, and makes old thing better.

The printing press, the light bulb, to the gaming console and the turbocharger, all started as a flicker of an idea, and brought to life by sheer will.

Innovation is a limited resource. It is roughly proportionally to disposable intellect. That is to say that it takes a certain amount of effort for everybody to feed, clean, and shelter themselves, and the rest of the time not pursuing primary needs, is disposable time. And of that time, whatever is spent thinking about the world around us is deposable intellect. The more of that we get the better things get.

We all like it, how do we get more of it?

The bad news is that it is not easy, well at first. Like any other skill, riding a bike to driving a standard, it is hard at first and gets easier with time. This new skill is called construction. The basics of it of it are about breaking the bad habits you have right now.

So what are you doing that keeps an 8 speaker surround system out of your reach? Why is a car with 800 hp beyond your grasp? Why don’t women look better and smell sweeter?

There are a number of things that keep innovation from reaching its highest gear.

One of the most damning hold ups is apathy. Doing nothing. Most actions that you take, except for the ones discussed below, will do something to keep the innovation wheels turning. The most basic of constructive actions are working, learning and networking. Most kinds of work, even low level jobs, turn your time into effort that help people either get primary needs met, which is the first step toward innovation, or lets people indulge in innovation already gained.

One other sin against innovation is duplication of effort. It is not as bad as apathy because apathy tends to breed apathy. Typically it is a harder habit to break. Duplication of effort is doing something, but it is of less value because it is already done. For example, in Canada, drugs were approved at the provincial level. That meant that every province did the same testing and the same paperwork. Highly trained people were doing work that had already been done in every other province. The problem has since been solved, as drugs are now tested at the federal level. But it also applies to every day things. Car pooling is one way to eliminate duplication of effort.

Destruction is the next class of innovation stopper. It doesn't have to be physical destruction, but can be applied when harming anything of value. Obviously, if is destroyed resources will be used to rebuilt (or repaired) it when they could have gone toward innovation. Or it will not and the benefit of what was destroyed will no longer be reaped. Destruction can occur in very subtle ways like the lowering of morale which in turn lowers the productivity of a group or person. That is to say they give less to the innovation machine. Racial hatred does this very thing. Even if no explicit action is taken, the attitude is communicated in little ways a million times a day. It may not be a reason to like someone, but it is an excuse to try to stop hating them.

Another side effect of demolition is policing. Whenever something is harmed or even tried, resources are spent to keep it from happening again. Often huge resources, like all the fire walling, encrypting, and scanning to protect from viruses could be better spent, if people didn't feel the need to create the viruses that plague us.

Most things in life could be better if we had the resources the improve them. And there are so many insights left to be discovered that could make life better. These are just a few ways of keeping the innovation wheels turning.

- posted by Random @ 1:38 PM

 

Year-Zero

I’ve had a long standing battle with Christians. Well, not all Christians, mainly the ones that think I care what they believe. New ideas and connections between old ones are always of interest to me, but an updated list of arbitrary symbols is not what gets my attention.

I consider myself non-denominational. I have described my outlook to some people (they asked, really) who have told me that I sound Buddhist or Confucian, and I even think the Christians have some good ideas. What I don’t like, is that every time I make a blog entry, the date is paying respect to the Christian demi-god Jesus.

I do like that the world has a decided on a standard calendar, and that it is a good model of the astronomical phenomena happening around us, but I think we can do better for choosing a relative date.

So I am looking for help in brainstorming new ideas for year-zero. There are a few things that must be taken into account when choosing such an event, like the following:

The event should
 Be non-denominational, or at the very least, multi-denominational;
 Have international significance;
 Be constructive;
 Be timeless;

I don’t think the event has to be something documented, or its date firmly known. It could be something like the first cave painting or the death of Socrates. I think the balancing act here is to find something significant to the greatness of mankind, but that will also remain significant. The production of the first computer could be the bench mark that started the computer age, which is a big achievement, but when we are into the next age, and there will be a next, it will not seem so monumental. Also, the event should not be the birth, death or achievement of one person, but should be about mankind: the first casualty of war, or the first written reference to love.

I’m sure there are more ideas out there. Feel free to leave your four cents (inflation).

---

Good customer service

As I was staring blankly at the wall of selection I guess I made it clear I was in need of assistance. A sales representative near by stopped stocking shelves and asked what he could do for me. He read that I was not in a hurry and felt comfortable talking about inventory issues and recall. On checkout the man in front of me was having a crisis of some kind, and the cashier directed me to another checkout anticipating a lengthy discussion.

I felt closer to the store on my way out than on my way in.
This was at Staples Office Depot

- posted by Random @ 10:12 AM

 

The Rose Peddler

Wow. I'm getting a little bit of traffic, not a lot, but more than I would have guessed by the comments left (please, dear God, leave comments). These are meant to be semi-controversial writeups, so, whether you agree with me, disagree, or think the air too good for my breathing... tell me.

I am working on a few enteries, but I don't have enough time to do much work on them, so they will be up in a little over a week. In the mean time, no write-ups, but equally the product of a contorted mind I present:

The Rose Peddler

Since the fathering of Time,
A good friend of mine,
I've seen his glory reign.
The eternal child,
Was once reconciled
The giver of joy and pain.

His routes and phases,
Routines and stages,
They're well-travelled paths for me.
I chose to learn,
He's not my concern,
No longer his fool to be.

Friends of Humanity
Oft exclude Memory,
Recollections are few.
Each scene replayed
A million times a day
Each time as though anew.

Peddle my rose
To unwitting souls
Ever the fools of Love.
- posted by Random @ 2:45 PM