Archive for the ‘philosophy’ Category

Metascience: the nature of the laws governing the universe

Sunday, January 22nd, 2006

Given what we know about the laws of the universe so far, I suspect that there are not too many of them - i.e. that when we finally figure out how to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity, the resulting "theory of everything" will be conceptually quite simple - perhaps just a few lines of equations when written down in their simplest form (although they might be rather difficult to do actual calculations with).

But what if there are exceptions to these laws of physics? What if there are a finite number of points in spacetime where these equations do not hold, and events happen that are not predicted by these laws? We couldn't do science with these directly - as each of them would only happen once, any experiments around them could not be repeated. There is a great deal of evidence pointing to the existence of one such point - the one the exact moment of the big bang at the beginning of the universe.

I got this idea from thinking about the classification of the finite simple groups. I won't go into great detail about what that actually means, but a very simple introduction follows in the next paragraph for the curious.

A group is just a mathematical object consisting of a set of things and an operation (e.g. addition or multiplication, call it "*") which takes any two of these things (e.g. a and b) and generates a third thing, a*b = c. This operation must also have certain special properties: (a*b)*c = a*(b*c), an "identity" element I such that a*I = I*a = a and an inverse element a-1 for every element a such that a*a-1 = a-1*a = I. The simple groups are just groups with particular properties - kind of like the equivalent of prime numbers for groups, or the chemical elements in chemistry - they can't be broken down into smaller simple groups.

Mathematicians wished to classify the finite simple groups, to find the equivalent of the "periodic table" for them. It turned out to be a rather big job - the result is the biggest theorem in mathematics (so far), consisting of some 15,000 pages in 500 articles by 100 mathematicians over a period of 28 years. It turns out that the simple groups can be classified into 18 different families (each of which is infinitely large). However, strangely there are 26 solitary finite simple groups (called the "sporadic groups") which don't fit into any of these 18 families! The largest of these has 808,017,424,794,512,875,886,459,904,961,710,757,005,754,368,000,000,000 elements, which can be thought of as a group of rotations of some object in a space with 196,883 dimensions.

I wonder if the universe works the same way. If it does, perhaps a theory of everything could be made much simpler by including such "sporadic events". By adding a finite number of sporadic events, it might be possible to change the theory of everything from an analog of the "18 families" form to a form analogous to the definition of a finite simple group. In so doing, one could predict when and where these sporadic events occurred (or would occur). We could seek out evidence for the sporadic events predicted to have occurred in the past. For sporadic events in the future, we could go to the place they were predicted to occur at the time that they were predicted to occur and perform experiments to observe them directly and gain evidence for the simplified version of the grand unified theory. Presumably if that were to occur, any alien species who had also achieved our level of scientific knowledge would be there too. I hope that by then we would be mature enough not to go to war with them over who gets to observe it. It would be kind of like the physics version of a pilgrimage to Mecca.

This might make a rather good science fiction short story.

Overreactions to terrorism

Wednesday, September 14th, 2005

I do not understand why a terrorist exploding a bomb which kills (say) 50 people is considered so much worse of a crime than (say) a serial killer murdering 50 random people for non-terrorist reasons. The objection people have to terrorism is, after all, the killing rather than the motive. If Al Qaeda pursued non-violent means to their ends instead of violent ones, they would not be nearly the enemy of the US that they are (in fact, their requests might even be taken seriously if they could persuade the US government to listen to them without violence).

I guess the point of taking terrorist crimes more seriously is prevention. Serial killers generally work alone, so once you have arrested one the stops. But if you arrest one terrorist (or he dies in the explosion he causes) there is always another to take his place. So in order to put an end to terrorism, the US government is attempting to eliminate all the people who could become terrorists, even if they have done nothing wrong. The trouble with that plan is that you have to turn this wonderful free country into a police state to do so. It is not enough just to arrest people who attempt to create or buy explosives or who contribute financially to terrorist causes, you also have to arrest people for the books they read, the photos they take, the websites they visit, the people they talk to and the things they say. You have to spy on everyone to find out if they have any sympathies for terrorist organizations. You have to completely gut the concepts of free speech and privacy which are some of the most important principles upon which the country is based. Already such rights are being eroded, and terrorism is showing no signs of disappearing. And instead of abandoning these dangerous and ineffective policies, the US government is trying to expand these anti-terrorist activities and erode more rights in the process. I think most people would (if they thought enough about it) rather take the freedoms we have along with a small chance of being killed in a terrorist attack than live in the world of 1984 but be safe from terrorists. As with all law enforcement it is a question of balance. I for one am more afraid of being arrested on suspicion of terrorism charges than I am of getting killed by a terrorist, which means that the balance has swung too far to the side of fascism. In fact I was in two minds whether to post this lest it be interpreted as supporting terrorism.

Here is what I think the government should do instead: treat terrorists as the criminals they are. There is no need to implement any special policies like deporting people to countries where they will be tortured, or imprisoning people indefinitely without trial, or removing judicial oversight from surveillance operations, or requiring libraries and bookshops to hand over their records. None of these things were needed in the past when it was just normal criminals that were being dealt with, so they should not be needed now. All that is needed is a sensible set of laws and the ability to enforce these laws. If we need laws against things like "possession of explosives with intent to murder" or "financially aiding a criminal organization" then so be it but no laws should be made limiting free speech or evading the checks and balances that have evolved to keep the system fair and just.

At the same time, the US government should be more open to considering the points of view of any political group who feels they have a legitmate gripe, even terrorist ones such as Al Qaeda (there is no point excluding the terrorist ones because any such organization will just split into two groups - a "political" one which does not officially endorse terrorism, but which secretly funds it, and a "military" one which blows things up). The idea is that if a group is given the same amount of attention whether or not they commit terrorism, there will be no incentive to commit terrorism. And there is still a definite incentive not to commit terrorism - namely that if you do so, your followers are liable to get arrested. Also, no-one should ever be left feeling that terrorism is the only option they have to get their point across.

And once you have your enemy sitting at the same table as you and prepared to talk, the war is half over.

Seven deadly sins

Sunday, June 12th, 2005

I've never really liked the original 7 deadly sins.

Pride. What's wrong with taking pride in doing a good job at something? Without pride we would have no impetus to ever doing anything above the mediocre. I think the original idea behind this is that excessive belief in one's own abilities could interfere with one's recognition of the "supreme grace of God". But if God is so supreme why would He feel the need to limit our belief in our own abilities? Surely nobody is so proud that they think they can do anything that God can supposedly do? Also, take a look at modern technology today. We do things without thinking that would have been “in the realm of the Gods” a couple of thousand years ago. Without the pride of the creators of that technology, we would still be living in the dark ages.

Envy. Whilst there is such a thing as destructive envy I think that’s the exception rather than the rule. Envy can inspire one to greatness. If I see someone else who has something that I want I am inspired to better myself so that I can have one too. It’s only destructive if you try to take away something someone else has so that you can have it instead. But in that case it’s the taking (the action) that should be the sin rather than the envy which was the inspiration for it.

Gluttony. I can definitely see how this could be considered a sin in times or places where food was scarcer than it is now – eating more than you needed could mean someone else ended up starving. But that’s simply not true in today’s world. Enough food is grown to feed the whole world – huge amounts of food are destroyed every day. The problem is getting it to people who need it, not people eating more than their fair share. Now conceivably some people could eat less, spend less money on food and donate the spare money to charities which would feed the hungry. But in practice that wouldn’t happen – rather than donating the spare money to charity people would put it towards their next holiday or the house remodeling account. The sin there is lack of charity (selfishness) rather than gluttony.

Lust. That is a perfectly natural and wholesome phenomenon. We have evolved to lust in order to propagate the species. Without lust we would have no impetus to reproduce, or at the very least we would just reproduce with the first willing participant who came along rather than with somebody we are actually attracted to. Now again it is possible to take things too far and go around raping people but again the sin there would be the action rather than the feeling which inspired it. Denying lust is denying our own nature and doesn’t do anybody any good.

Anger. This one has inspired plenty of bad things but also (perhaps surprisingly) plenty of good things. Anger at some injustice inspires the injustice to be corrected. Without anger against tyrants, those tyrants would be running the planet. Unchecked anger (like so many other unchecked things) can be bad but again it is a natural emotion and has its purpose if we avoid being controlled by it (as most of us can).

Greed. Kind of redundant given that the same ideas are covered in Envy, Gluttony and Lust. Greed is nothing more than wanting to improve oneself (albeit materialistically) and without people wanting material goods much of the industry which sustains our society would collapse.

Sloth. In the field in which I work, laziness is a highly prized quality – if you can write a program to automate some repetitious task and save effort in the long run that is a very good thing. One can also avoid having to answer questions about that program by documenting it well. In both cases the world is better off in the long run. As most disciplines could in principle be automated this applies to fields other than programming too.

Here’s my proposal for a better set of sins for the modern age: Hate, Thoughtlessness, Boredom, Guilt, Insincerity, Cowardice and Regret.

Hate. Specifically, hate for hate’s sake – hate for no reason (or no reason that holds up to scrutiny). Much evil in the world comes from people hating people who are different somehow, or come from a different place or who believe different things to the hater.

Thoughtlessness. Be thoughtful in all you do, and the people who interact with you will thank you for it. If you’re thoughtless you will be inconsiderate of the lives of people around you and make them miserable. If everybody was thoughtful of others the world would be a much better place.

Boredom. If you’re bored you’re wasting your life. Do something constructive with that time – there’s much more to do in this universe (more books to read, more programs to write, more games to play) that you’ll ever have time for so make the most of what little time you have. Get rid of anything in your life that you find boring. If your job bores you, leave it and find something better to do, something that utilizes your unique talents better. If you don’t think you have any unique talents, spend some of that time you would be spending bored developing some. If there’s some job that bores everybody who tries it, it should probably be automated but won’t be as long as there are people who are prepared to do boring work for less money than it would take to do that automation.

Guilt. Some may find this an odd thing to consider a sin (especially Catholics, who seem to thrive on it). There are two types of guilt: (1) feeling guilty about something you have no control over and (2) feeling guilty about something that you do have control over. In neither case is guilt constructive. If your guilt is of type (1), get over it already because there’s nothing you can do. If your guilt is of type (2), just get on with doing the thing you’re feeling guilty about not doing. Guilt can generally be replaced with a “to do list”, avoiding a lot of stress and emotional baggage.

Insincerity. Life is too short for lying. While a little white lie may save feelings in the short term, it doesn’t help the person being lied to make better choices in the future. And in the long term, lies about anything important are always found out. Always be sincere in what you do and that sincerity will be recognized and respected - you will get a reputation as someone who can always be trusted to say what they really mean.

Cowardice. While some cowardice (avoidance of things which are likely to injure or kill you) is sensible, too many people are afraid of doing things just because they’re difficult, because they might fail, or from an over-inflated sense of the danger that is involved. The greatest rewards in life come from doing things which may seem terrifying at first, like moving to a new continent to start a new job, or asking out someone you’ve admired from afar. Cowering in the corner will get you nothing except a wasted life.

Regret. As with guilt, there are two types of regret – regret about something that you have no control over and regret if about something that you do have control over. If you have the means, fix it so that you no longer have that regret. If you don’t, well there isn’t much you can do but always try to live your life in such that way that at the end you will able to say that you regret nothing. Whenever there’s a decision to make – to do something or not to do something, think to yourself “am I more likely to regret doing this, or to regret not doing it”.

Three books

Tuesday, June 7th, 2005

I have been meaning to post this for quite some time now. Three books I read recently (well, more like 5 months ago), all of which have something in common - they might just change the way you think about the universe.

A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson. Just about everything in this book has been done before but it's still quite something to see so many diverse branches of science presented in a compact, accessible format like that. And the descriptions of truly ancient forms of life that can still be found in remote areas of Australia today is really fascinating.

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark Haddon. A great idea well executed, and many people elsewhere on the web have written much about this book so I won't go into great length about it. But there is one part in particular which really made me think - the part about how the mind and consciousness works. This was really fascinating to me since in my opinion the mystery of consciousness is one of the great mysteries of the universe but the hero of this book says (effectively) "oh, this is how it works" and describes a very coherent theory in a very matter of fact way.

One of Us by Michael Marshall Smith. Smith is a British novelist who writes brilliant science fiction novels which are incredibly imaginative and superbly paced but also very very gory, gratuitously violent and disturbing. Actually "One of Us" is probably less gory and violent than the other two novels of his that I have read ("Only Forward" and "Spares") but still only recommended for the non-squeamish people. To say how this book explains the mysteries of the universe would be to give away the ending so I won't say any more about it here.