I didn't feel like doing work tonight, and so I randomly picked a film to watch. I've heard of The Fountain a while back, and I think I even read the plot summary on Wikipedia, but it never stuck with me. So, since I know it's a sci-fi movie, and I don't know the plot, I picked it.
It made a good decision. After watching and going back to Wikipedia to find out how it was received, I was surprised that it was only received moderately well. I myself liked it a lot, although the plot (except for one part) was predictable. One of the critics on Rotten Tomatoes had called it a piece of poem, and I think that describes the film more than anything else. I can see how the director had aimed it at being comparable to 2001: A Space Odyssey, and in a way I think it is.
I highly recommend this film.
Survival of the Fittest
Anonymous, 2008-01-11
This topic has been sitting in my drafts folder for over a month now, but a recent NYTimes article ("God and Small Things" by Barnaby J. Feder) gave me a different angle to draw this topic in.
Over the past year, my thoughts about some of the biggest problems the world is facing (nuclear proliferation, global warming, petroleum production, etc) inevitably go back to the same thought: I don't care. This is not an "I don't care" because it doesn't affect me (which is more or less my views of politics), but an "I don't care" because I don't consider it a problem.
I'd imagine a lot of people will take issue with my previous statement, but let me explain. I'll start with the problem that has the least effect.
Nuclear proliferation is a strange sort of issue, because it's effect is so small. The attack on Hiroshima kill about half a million people, including deaths from burns, radiation, and related diseases, but not including deaths from cancer within 10 years. On the other hand, the 2003 "invasion" of Iraq has killed about 1.2 million Iraqis. Certainly, nuclear weapons are more dangerous than conventional attacks (for example, the attack on the twin towers which killed about 3000), but it is still a one time attack. Only a small portion of the population of the world is affected, and while it will change global politics, most people's way of life will not change.
The lack of petroleum is a slightly larger issue. Since there is only so much petroleum on earth, and our rate of extraction is much much higher than the rate of petroleum production in nature, all the usable oil will be used up in the near future, whether that's 100 years or 500 years. What are the consequences of not having petroleum? Well, it will be harder to get around, for sure. There won't be quite so many cars, planes or ships going around, and for those which still do go around, it will cost a lot more to get on them. In reaction, people will develop or put into more common use alternate sources of energy: nuclear, electric, biochemical (that is, human powered). There will be a period when these technologies are being developed, but in another 100 or 500 years power will not be a problem anymore. So really, the lack of oil is not so much a long term threat, than a warning that we should be switching to more sustainable forms of energy.
Global warming, on the other hand, has much larger impact. The affects of global warming might be felt even a million years from now, and it not only changes the way humans live, but also all plants and animals on earth. A large number of species may well become extinct from the rapid change in temperature, and it's also possible that a significant portion of humans will die too.
Here's the reason why I'm still calling it a small problem, and it will probably give more insight into what I'm saying about the previous two issues as well: even with global warming, life will continue. Note that I didn't say "my life will continue," or that "the life of people I know will continue." For that matter, I didn't even say "human life will continue."
Yes, that's right. I'm a lot more interested in the general survival of life than the survival of human life. Of course, since the survival of life encompasses more than the survival of humans, it deserves more attention. That's not quite how I feel; in fact, I feel more than a little apathetic about the survival of any particular species. Certainly, it will be a loss, but nothing that the phenomenon of can't withstand.
Let's go back to global warming for a moment. There are already species of plants and animals, cultures of humans living in the deserts and the tropics. An over-simplification this may be, the region these animals and cultures live in will just be expanded and/or moved north and south. These regions will remain habitable by these creatures and humans, and so life will continue.
This detachment from small entities extends beyond life, to other human constructs as well. That may be part of the reason I don't join cultural student associations, or college democrats or republicans, or perhaps even environmental groups. Cultural and political groups have a clearly narrow focus, and similarly I don't actively support Northwestern's various teams. If I display interest in someone else's Northwestern background, I feel it has more to do with the coincidence than pride. As for environmental groups, I've always felt that those groups are misnamed; they are not so much saving the environment than advocating a different way of using it. The environment doesn't need saving and it will survive regardless of what humans do (unless we actively destroy it, of course).
On the other hand, I invest time in science, maths, and philosophy. All three have to do with understanding the world around us, to discover hidden relationships in nature. While science and maths have practical applications, philosophy is more abstract. They are all, however, longer lasting than the study of politics. I do have a little interest in psychology and other social sciences, although one can argue they are much more limited in scope than the others.
After I read the NYTimes article mentioned at the beginning of this post, I read the Nature article mentioned, and then a few Wikipedia articles on transhumanism. That gave the realization that I've never contemplated how this philosophy extends to the future. Since I don't care too much about the human race, it is perhaps not surprising that I have nothing against biotechnological or cybernetic modification of human beings. Sidestepping the question of whether there is such a thing as "human nature", I don't think it's something sacred or above alteration.
In fact, as a student of computer science and believing that artificial intelligence will one day rise above human intelligence, I don't even mind if humans are taken over by machines. By "take over" I don't mean a violent suppression - while this exposition may portray me as unfeeling, I'm not completely amoral - but I mean I'm not against machines being the superior "race". I care more about general superior intelligence than I do about human intelligence, and if it takes creation to bolster evolution, then that will be the case.
I am previously aware of most of my views expressed here, but this is the first time I've connected them all with the theme of a detachment from smaller, concrete objects. I wonder where this detachment grew from.
Over the past year, my thoughts about some of the biggest problems the world is facing (nuclear proliferation, global warming, petroleum production, etc) inevitably go back to the same thought: I don't care. This is not an "I don't care" because it doesn't affect me (which is more or less my views of politics), but an "I don't care" because I don't consider it a problem.
I'd imagine a lot of people will take issue with my previous statement, but let me explain. I'll start with the problem that has the least effect.
Nuclear proliferation is a strange sort of issue, because it's effect is so small. The attack on Hiroshima kill about half a million people, including deaths from burns, radiation, and related diseases, but not including deaths from cancer within 10 years. On the other hand, the 2003 "invasion" of Iraq has killed about 1.2 million Iraqis. Certainly, nuclear weapons are more dangerous than conventional attacks (for example, the attack on the twin towers which killed about 3000), but it is still a one time attack. Only a small portion of the population of the world is affected, and while it will change global politics, most people's way of life will not change.
The lack of petroleum is a slightly larger issue. Since there is only so much petroleum on earth, and our rate of extraction is much much higher than the rate of petroleum production in nature, all the usable oil will be used up in the near future, whether that's 100 years or 500 years. What are the consequences of not having petroleum? Well, it will be harder to get around, for sure. There won't be quite so many cars, planes or ships going around, and for those which still do go around, it will cost a lot more to get on them. In reaction, people will develop or put into more common use alternate sources of energy: nuclear, electric, biochemical (that is, human powered). There will be a period when these technologies are being developed, but in another 100 or 500 years power will not be a problem anymore. So really, the lack of oil is not so much a long term threat, than a warning that we should be switching to more sustainable forms of energy.
Global warming, on the other hand, has much larger impact. The affects of global warming might be felt even a million years from now, and it not only changes the way humans live, but also all plants and animals on earth. A large number of species may well become extinct from the rapid change in temperature, and it's also possible that a significant portion of humans will die too.
Here's the reason why I'm still calling it a small problem, and it will probably give more insight into what I'm saying about the previous two issues as well: even with global warming, life will continue. Note that I didn't say "my life will continue," or that "the life of people I know will continue." For that matter, I didn't even say "human life will continue."
Yes, that's right. I'm a lot more interested in the general survival of life than the survival of human life. Of course, since the survival of life encompasses more than the survival of humans, it deserves more attention. That's not quite how I feel; in fact, I feel more than a little apathetic about the survival of any particular species. Certainly, it will be a loss, but nothing that the phenomenon of can't withstand.
Let's go back to global warming for a moment. There are already species of plants and animals, cultures of humans living in the deserts and the tropics. An over-simplification this may be, the region these animals and cultures live in will just be expanded and/or moved north and south. These regions will remain habitable by these creatures and humans, and so life will continue.
This detachment from small entities extends beyond life, to other human constructs as well. That may be part of the reason I don't join cultural student associations, or college democrats or republicans, or perhaps even environmental groups. Cultural and political groups have a clearly narrow focus, and similarly I don't actively support Northwestern's various teams. If I display interest in someone else's Northwestern background, I feel it has more to do with the coincidence than pride. As for environmental groups, I've always felt that those groups are misnamed; they are not so much saving the environment than advocating a different way of using it. The environment doesn't need saving and it will survive regardless of what humans do (unless we actively destroy it, of course).
On the other hand, I invest time in science, maths, and philosophy. All three have to do with understanding the world around us, to discover hidden relationships in nature. While science and maths have practical applications, philosophy is more abstract. They are all, however, longer lasting than the study of politics. I do have a little interest in psychology and other social sciences, although one can argue they are much more limited in scope than the others.
After I read the NYTimes article mentioned at the beginning of this post, I read the Nature article mentioned, and then a few Wikipedia articles on transhumanism. That gave the realization that I've never contemplated how this philosophy extends to the future. Since I don't care too much about the human race, it is perhaps not surprising that I have nothing against biotechnological or cybernetic modification of human beings. Sidestepping the question of whether there is such a thing as "human nature", I don't think it's something sacred or above alteration.
In fact, as a student of computer science and believing that artificial intelligence will one day rise above human intelligence, I don't even mind if humans are taken over by machines. By "take over" I don't mean a violent suppression - while this exposition may portray me as unfeeling, I'm not completely amoral - but I mean I'm not against machines being the superior "race". I care more about general superior intelligence than I do about human intelligence, and if it takes creation to bolster evolution, then that will be the case.
I am previously aware of most of my views expressed here, but this is the first time I've connected them all with the theme of a detachment from smaller, concrete objects. I wonder where this detachment grew from.
Deserve Victory
Unknown,
I thought I will share a personal motto I had for... the past few months, if not a year:
I know that Churchill used this phrase on his posters for WWII, but that wasn't where I got it from. Instead, it's from the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind. Each book in the series has a wizard's rule, and "Deserve Victory" is from the 8th book, Naked Empire. I personally haven't read that book (I stopped at book 6 or so), but a fan site gave the explanation as:
The most successful case of applying the motto was that I got my CTY job. Yes, I haven't told you yet, but I'm telling you now. I had to find an adviser for my independent study, to satisfy the requirements set forth by my student visa. I wrote my resume and cover letter after reading samples online, found references and mailed my transcript, and prepared and did my interview, all on my own. Having gotten the job, knowing that I have worked hard for it, I know I deserve it. Of course, if I didn't, it would be a shame, but at least I could say I tried.
I have, however, yet to work this motto into my social sphere. I've said I would several times in my journal, but it's less certain how to proceed. Although, I could be convinced that it only feels more risky, because the path is clear enough. I just need to pick up my courage.
Go Forth and Deserve Victory.
"Deserve Victory"
I know that Churchill used this phrase on his posters for WWII, but that wasn't where I got it from. Instead, it's from the Sword of Truth series by Terry Goodkind. Each book in the series has a wizard's rule, and "Deserve Victory" is from the 8th book, Naked Empire. I personally haven't read that book (I stopped at book 6 or so), but a fan site gave the explanation as:
"Be justified in your convictions. Be completely committed. Earn what you want and need rather than waiting for others to give you what you desire."I really like the motto, as well as the explanation. "Deserve Victory" is not telling you that you deserve victory, and that you are not happy is life's fault. Rather, it is an imperative, telling you to work to "deserve victory". You could sit in a dark room and watch as life passes, or you could stand up and take a chance.
The most successful case of applying the motto was that I got my CTY job. Yes, I haven't told you yet, but I'm telling you now. I had to find an adviser for my independent study, to satisfy the requirements set forth by my student visa. I wrote my resume and cover letter after reading samples online, found references and mailed my transcript, and prepared and did my interview, all on my own. Having gotten the job, knowing that I have worked hard for it, I know I deserve it. Of course, if I didn't, it would be a shame, but at least I could say I tried.
I have, however, yet to work this motto into my social sphere. I've said I would several times in my journal, but it's less certain how to proceed. Although, I could be convinced that it only feels more risky, because the path is clear enough. I just need to pick up my courage.
Go Forth and Deserve Victory.
Not Wetting Your Pants.
Unknown, 2008-01-10
Walking in heavy rain with an over large waterproof jacket results in the legs of your pants getting wet.
I just thought that it looked like wetting your pants in reverse, since those areas are the only dry ones.
Interesting.
I just thought that it looked like wetting your pants in reverse, since those areas are the only dry ones.
Interesting.
Packaging Folding
Unknown, 2008-01-09
I get annoyed when, after I finish a pack of chips, I've left with the packaging, a big, empty plastic bag. This especially annoys me when I'm on a plane, and there's limited space to put that bag. It only gets worse when the plane goes into turbulent winds in the middle of serving food, and so it takes an hour for the flight attendants to come and collect the trash.
What I do now is I fold the packaging into neat little "coins". This is not the same as simply folding it into halves over and over, as the packing is usually stiff and has the annoying tendency to spring open. What I do is, I first fold the packaging into thin strips; the width of the strip depends on how long the strip is. Then I fold the strip one section at a time, into 90 degree angles. Make sure that the strip turns into a spiral - that is, either use all mountain folds or valley folds. After four folds, the strip will be wrapping back over itself. Simply tuck upper end under the lower (or the lower end over the upper), and the strip should stay in its squarish shape, with no intention of springing open. Repeat for the entire strip, and you've reduced a large stiff plastic bag to a small square of trash.
Anyone else with the same pet peeve?
What I do now is I fold the packaging into neat little "coins". This is not the same as simply folding it into halves over and over, as the packing is usually stiff and has the annoying tendency to spring open. What I do is, I first fold the packaging into thin strips; the width of the strip depends on how long the strip is. Then I fold the strip one section at a time, into 90 degree angles. Make sure that the strip turns into a spiral - that is, either use all mountain folds or valley folds. After four folds, the strip will be wrapping back over itself. Simply tuck upper end under the lower (or the lower end over the upper), and the strip should stay in its squarish shape, with no intention of springing open. Repeat for the entire strip, and you've reduced a large stiff plastic bag to a small square of trash.
Anyone else with the same pet peeve?
Computer Science in Epistemology
Unknown, 2008-01-07
I had my first epistemology class today, and while we didn't talk about anything in detail, I did have a thought.
The professor spent some time on skepticism, to emphasize why epistemology is deeper than it might seem. The conclusion of skepticism is that we know close to nothing about anything at all, because all our knowledge depends on other pieces of knowledge, and each of these can in turn be questioned as to their validity. In other words, the question for validity regresses forever.
I thought about that for a bit, and decided that infinite regression actually does not apply to all knowledge. There are certain domains which have basic, undeniable truths, and everything else can be reasoned deductively from these first principles. This allows the knowledge of that field to be valid and consistent - provided that
Specifically, I'm talking about the field of mathematics.
Mathematics as a study of numbers can be thought of to be not entirely real, in the sense that numbers are not physical entities, but properties of objects, like color. Unlike color, however, numbers do not represent a physical property, like the frequency of light reflecting off an object. According to Wikipedia, this is similar to Plato's idea of forms, in contrast with the other understandings of numbers. Other fields of mathematics study similar abstract mental constructs.
Let's focus on number theory for a moment, since I know it best. Processes like addition, multiplication, exponentiation, concepts such as prime numbers, exist as long as the concept of numbers exist. These processes and concepts do not describe the physical world, but only abstract numbers. To prove their validity, therefore, we only need to prove that numbers exist.
That sounds like an absurd goal, since numbers are abstract entities, and clearly do not exist like the screen this text appears on exists. There are, however, restrictions on what numbers are, and in fact there have been definitions of numbers. The Peano axioms try to do just that. Of particular note is that the axioms start of defining 0 as a number, and then a successor function S(n) which takes one number as an argument and output another number. Under this definition of mathematics, skepticism only works to reduce the field to a pair of axioms already taken to be true, and so fails to put all of mathematics into doubt.
It is certainly possible to "cheat" in the same way with all knowledge, asserting that certain things be taken for granted, but it is extremely difficult to say exactly what needs to be assumed, and what can form the basis for all other knowledge. In my opinion, it is also interested to note that, if the assumptions "God exists" and "God is all powerful" are taken to be true, then religion is also exempt from the perils of skepticism. I think the difference between the two lies in how practical they are; that is, how it can influence reality, which unfortunates requires a study of how we know what is real (metaphysics). For the curious: I would classify religion (or at the very least, God), under intuitionalism, one of the other theory of numbers.
All this, by the way, can be said in much less words.
I've written a lot already, and I still haven't mentioned computer science. I was thinking about the infallibility of mathematics today, and was wondering if computer science can be reduced to similar axioms as well. My first thought was that computer science could be confined to objects and processes similarly artificially constrained, a study of Turing machines. While some aspects of computer science rely heavily on mathematics, however, a large part of the field also rests on reality, which cannot be simply defined to have first principles. I will give this idea more thought.
The professor spent some time on skepticism, to emphasize why epistemology is deeper than it might seem. The conclusion of skepticism is that we know close to nothing about anything at all, because all our knowledge depends on other pieces of knowledge, and each of these can in turn be questioned as to their validity. In other words, the question for validity regresses forever.
I thought about that for a bit, and decided that infinite regression actually does not apply to all knowledge. There are certain domains which have basic, undeniable truths, and everything else can be reasoned deductively from these first principles. This allows the knowledge of that field to be valid and consistent - provided that
Specifically, I'm talking about the field of mathematics.
Mathematics as a study of numbers can be thought of to be not entirely real, in the sense that numbers are not physical entities, but properties of objects, like color. Unlike color, however, numbers do not represent a physical property, like the frequency of light reflecting off an object. According to Wikipedia, this is similar to Plato's idea of forms, in contrast with the other understandings of numbers. Other fields of mathematics study similar abstract mental constructs.
Let's focus on number theory for a moment, since I know it best. Processes like addition, multiplication, exponentiation, concepts such as prime numbers, exist as long as the concept of numbers exist. These processes and concepts do not describe the physical world, but only abstract numbers. To prove their validity, therefore, we only need to prove that numbers exist.
That sounds like an absurd goal, since numbers are abstract entities, and clearly do not exist like the screen this text appears on exists. There are, however, restrictions on what numbers are, and in fact there have been definitions of numbers. The Peano axioms try to do just that. Of particular note is that the axioms start of defining 0 as a number, and then a successor function S(n) which takes one number as an argument and output another number. Under this definition of mathematics, skepticism only works to reduce the field to a pair of axioms already taken to be true, and so fails to put all of mathematics into doubt.
It is certainly possible to "cheat" in the same way with all knowledge, asserting that certain things be taken for granted, but it is extremely difficult to say exactly what needs to be assumed, and what can form the basis for all other knowledge. In my opinion, it is also interested to note that, if the assumptions "God exists" and "God is all powerful" are taken to be true, then religion is also exempt from the perils of skepticism. I think the difference between the two lies in how practical they are; that is, how it can influence reality, which unfortunates requires a study of how we know what is real (metaphysics). For the curious: I would classify religion (or at the very least, God), under intuitionalism, one of the other theory of numbers.
All this, by the way, can be said in much less words.
I've written a lot already, and I still haven't mentioned computer science. I was thinking about the infallibility of mathematics today, and was wondering if computer science can be reduced to similar axioms as well. My first thought was that computer science could be confined to objects and processes similarly artificially constrained, a study of Turing machines. While some aspects of computer science rely heavily on mathematics, however, a large part of the field also rests on reality, which cannot be simply defined to have first principles. I will give this idea more thought.
Computer as a Container
Unknown,
I came across a New York Times article the other day titled "If Your Hard Drive Could Testify..." It talked about how the law is ambiguous as to the nature of the computer, whether it is a container like a box, or whether it is an extension of our body, like how the brain "stores" memories. The difference is that a container can be freely searched by authorities at the border (for illegal firearms, drugs, etc.), while bodily invasions require a "reasonable suspicion".
The implications of such a definition is broad. If a computer can be freely searched at the border, then "border authorities could systematically collect all of the information contained on every laptop computer, BlackBerry and other electronic device carried across our national borders by every traveler, American or foreign."
CNET goes into the second mentioned case with a little more detail. I did a quick search and also came across this little incident. A full account from the reporter is also online.
More so than privacy issues, it was the technological capabilities of the scanner which I was more curious about. When I read the NYTimes article, I had immediately wondered if the traveler had been using Windows, which surely the scanners would work on, or at the very least the border authorities could operate. Macs are becoming more popular, too, so they might work. I use Linux, which natively runs on ext2/ext3 filesystems. Somehow I don't think the scanner would work on that. And then the incident I found mentioned encrypted drives...
I wish I was there to see the customs officer's face. It would also be fun to see the computer start, only for her to be dropped into a command line login shell. "Oh, it doesn't work on... er, Linux, right?"
*Snicker*
The implications of such a definition is broad. If a computer can be freely searched at the border, then "border authorities could systematically collect all of the information contained on every laptop computer, BlackBerry and other electronic device carried across our national borders by every traveler, American or foreign."
CNET goes into the second mentioned case with a little more detail. I did a quick search and also came across this little incident. A full account from the reporter is also online.
More so than privacy issues, it was the technological capabilities of the scanner which I was more curious about. When I read the NYTimes article, I had immediately wondered if the traveler had been using Windows, which surely the scanners would work on, or at the very least the border authorities could operate. Macs are becoming more popular, too, so they might work. I use Linux, which natively runs on ext2/ext3 filesystems. Somehow I don't think the scanner would work on that. And then the incident I found mentioned encrypted drives...
I wish I was there to see the customs officer's face. It would also be fun to see the computer start, only for her to be dropped into a command line login shell. "Oh, it doesn't work on... er, Linux, right?"
*Snicker*
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)