Dr. Forbush Thinks

When we think about the though police, we think of some future society in George Orwell’s 1984 where Winston Smith is actually arrested by the thought police that can actually read the minds of public and search for illegal thoughts. The government determines which thoughts are allowed and which thoughts are not allowed.

Currently our world is not so clever as to invent a thought reading device. Some people however are able to identify what others may be thinking. They are able to infer their likely thoughts based on their demographics. This is how elections are so very predictable that candidates need to change their public opinions in order to win over a fraction of those who are unaware of a candidate’s past thoughts.

If we look at a large group of people with a similar background and we offer them a selection of two candidates with extremely different opinions we can certainly predict the outcome of the election in advance. If we offer the same two candidates to a completely different group of people the opposite outcome could be very likely. In a democracy we certainly hope that this is the case, because that is how we believe the system should behave.

Now, if we turn the tables and carefully craft a candidates that says what we know that the electorate wants to hear then we stand a high chance of electing any candidate that is willing to read the speech. It doesn’t really matter what the candidate believes. It is what he is willing to say that can get him elected. And, that is the state of politics today.

Many people have much time and energy invested in this strategy of containment of political power. Many regions of our country have been determined to lean one way or the other, and there is fear that some number of people might change their thinking and be swayed to vote differently. Those who fear a change in thinking would like to control the thoughts of those that live around them. Politicians who have invested their careers into thinking in one particular way would like to maintain a base of supporters who continue to think the same way. Supporters of a candidate that is making laws in favor of them would also like to maintain a solid base of people that continue to think the same way. So, the question becomes - How can we get people to continue to think the same way?

Well, a real life thought police isn’t going to happen very soon, because our ability to read thoughts is only at a very infant stage. So, we resort to other forms of thought control. Peer pressure is probably the first form of control that comes to mind. We all want our friends to agree with us. Because, if our friends didn’t agree with us we would feel obligated to argue with them, and arguments might lead to conflict that might damage our friendship. So, we feel obligated to agree with our friends when we can and save the fights for the really important issues. If a friend likes a political candidate and we don’t have an opinion we might find ourselves supporting the candidate in an effort to prevent an argument.

This type of peer pressure may be extended to acquaintances and neighbors as well. A neighbor who knocks on the door and offers information on a candidate that they support might influence a person who does not have an opinion on a certain candidate.

Peer networks may also use single “frightening” issues to influence how people think that they should think. A “frightening” issue may become a handle for an entire political agenda. The Religious Right may want to change civil laws into religious laws, but the general public wouldn’t allow that to happen outright. But, if the majority of the public dislikes homosexuals, then gay marriage could be the issue that allows the religious right to grab onto a larger segment of society. A candidate running on gay marriage as political issue might be elected with a cohort of similar religious animals and pass a religious law banning divorce for anyone because Jesus told us how bad it is. Or, perhaps they could ban sex outside of marriage, or wearing bikinis in public. Or, perhaps they could even pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting the use of alcohol. Who knows where it would end?

People who have an ideology support their opinions on a set of supporting evidence. Sometimes the evidence that they use comes under fire. Sometimes the evidence itself is merely an opinion supported by only faith that the opinion is correct. Sometimes the arguments can not be supported by any logic at all. How do ideologies like this maintain support?

The older people who support a particular idea will eventually die. Younger people are always being born into the group, and the ideology of the group depends on converting the children to the ideology. This happens in religions all the time. Parents take their children to church, temple or meeting week after week and they hear the same stories year after year. Before they know it the children believe the stories before they can support the stories with reality based logic. If the story tells us that Hercules held the world on his shoulders while Atlas took a break, then the children will know and believe the story until reality bring it into question. When space science shows us that the world is a sphere floating in space the children ask the question: Where does Atlas stand? They won’t ask if Atlas is a real being, they already know that he is. They just want to know where he could stand.

Obviously the ideology that requires the largest “contortions of reason” in order to “believe” in the ideology requires the most defense. And, with that being said it is obvious that children need to learn the “facts” early, and avoid anything contrary to the “facts” until the ideology is hardened like cement. This is where the parents must become the thought police of their children. Parents actually have the power to create the thoughts in their children’s heads. At this point parents can either create thinking questioning children, or accepting faithful unquestioning children. Or, at least many parents believe that they can.

To be fair, this type of indoctrination is by no means restricted to religions. If we think about family history, we all know that there are stories that tell us the injustices suffered in our families. Sometimes these injustices lead to family feuds in which hatred in passed to future generations. Family feuds are extended into national or cultural feuds in some cultures. “Remember the Alamo,” has been passed future generations and remembered to provoke hatred at the future generations of Mexicans. When children are told about this defeat they are instilled with hatred and some are even provoked to feelings seeking revenge. Of course children don’t only react to the story, but they also react to the feelings that their storytellers evoke when telling the story. Stories of the burning of Atlanta evoke emotions of hatred toward the soldiers that burned that large swath of land. But those who burned that land are no longer alive to pay for that deed. Do Atlantans praise this action as an action that shortened that war, or do they hate the Northerners who inherited the responsibility of that action? The answer lies in who tells the story, and how it is told. Children are taught how they should feel from the stories they are told, long before the time when they can weigh all the evidence.

This may explain the seemingly crazy reactions of parents to the history lessons taught in school. History can never take into account of every person’s perspective. It is almost impossible to imagine every injustice that has been perpetuated throughout history. Young men have often been forced into battle to fight for ideas that they didn’t believe in. People have been forced into slavery and conditions that border on slavery. People throughout history have been cheated out of property and forced into tragic conditions. If you personally suffered these tragedies, then it is easy to understand the pain and suffering. If you are a family member from a family with a member who has personally suffered, then it is easy to feel empathy for that person. And, if a member of you local regional culture, ethic culture or national heritage, then you have heard the stories and you are sympathetic for your extended family. And, similarly people outside of this circle get much less sympathy. People with the agenda of passing down the hatred from generation to generation want each generation to feel extreme empathy for their own people and less or no empathy for those outside the circle. Regardless of the truth, the emotional feelings of empathy for one culture over the other is an agenda of some people. The cultural thought police form the young minds of children to pass these feelings to future generations.

And the thought police don’t want you to know this.






-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Reflection

I am not a medical doctor, so I certainly don’t know the intricacies of what happens in my body. But, I am a scientist and I do make observations for a living. This being the case I often wonder why my body reacts the way it does. For example, when I get sick I observe the symptoms and note how they correspond to the symptoms that my family members had days earlier when they were inflicted with the same virus. By knowing how a virus developed I begin to anticipate what I am in for.

Over the last few years I have gradually increased my stamina, lost weight and become generally more healthy. So, when I think about the changes in my body over these last few years I still have memory of what life was like before this happened. I remember the struggle I had trying to climb the cinder cone at Lassen National Park, which in my mind was the initial event that sent me in this direction.

One of the striking changes in my body is how it responds to temperature. Four years ago I sat outside on a cool fall night here in California to listen to a concert. The outdoor temperature was in the low 50s, and I was unfazed by the temperature. Some of my friends were also there and were obviously quite cold in their buttoned up jackets, but I remained comfortable through the concert. One of my friends commented about how the temperature didn’t seem to bother me. I told them that I had effective insulation.

On another day a few years later I found myself struck in traffic in the Texas summer heat without air conditioning. I sat there praying for the traffic to break up so I could get back to my apartment to cool off. And, while I sat there I remembered my first trip to Texas where the high heat and high humidity weren’t quite as uncomfortable. At the time I wondered why I had become less accustomed to the heat. But, today I realize that I had also put on some extra weight between those two events. Insulation is a good thing when you want to keep the heat inside, but it is a bad thing when you want to get rid of the excess heat. My body certainly works this way.

But I also know that body heat is more than just insulation. It is also about metabolism. Metabolism has to do with how a body uses energy. For example, when a body burns calories it generates heat. This happens during exercise, but it also happens in an effort to maintain body temperature. And, when a body has an excess layer of insulation it doesn’t need to generate as much heat to maintain body temperature. And, so the body learns to conserve energy and slow metabolism. Or, at least that’s what I’ve observed in my body. The ramifications of this is that as someone puts on body fat they increase insulation and no longer need to burn as many calories to maintain body heat. If one eats the same amount and exercises the same amount, then they are likely to produce less heat and have a lower metabolism rate. Of course there are certainly other factors here and I am not making a blanket statement, but this seems to be the case with my personal experience. But, the interesting thing is that by exercising one increases their metabolism for not only the period during the exercise but for some time afterward.

This is something that I personally noticed. When I started exercising I did not exercise regularly at first. But I did go to work everyday regardless of whether I exercised or not. So, I woke up, exercised then went to work or I woke up did not exercise and then went to work. I noticed that on days that I exercised I was much warmer in my office than on days that I did not exercise. My office temperature was basically the same temperature, so my warmth was related to whether I exercised or not. I made this observation over many days and thought about whether I ate differently on different days at breakfast or at lunch or during the day. The fact that I exercised in the morning had the most important effect, until I lost quite a bit of weight. So, the fact that I exercised and burned calories in the morning was part of my weight loss equation. I also boosted my metabolism so that I continued to burn more calories during the day as well.

When my body fat percentage dropped, I became more sensitive to temperature. Of course I had less insulation, or fat to burn. So, at this point it didn’t matter if I exercised or not I was still cold in my office. As I thought about this I wondered what would happen if I ate something for lunch. I soon found that by eating a high calorie snack I began to feel warmer. Putting the sugar in my blood stream tended to increase my generation of body heat. Of course, this made quite a bit of sense.

Any way, those are just a few observations on my personal physiology…



-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Exercise, Health

Will we go quietly into the deep dark night?

I am asking this question because it seems to me that America is on the verge of falling into the Dark Ages. I am sure that the Romans never felt like their empire would crumble, but it did. It took a while as the thinking and questioning of the Greek intellectuals was replaced by the non-questioning anti-intellectual religious that came to lead the Roman Empire into the Dark Middle Ages.

Yesterday, I was startled by a comment on my recent “Global Warming” post. The commenter, that I regard as quite thoughtful on many subjects, wrote, “it comes as no surprise there would be disagreement on such a politicized issue as global warming.” He went on to suggest that bureaucrats tended to be left leaning Democrats, therefore it would be natural that government scientists would promote the idea of Global Warming.

This sentiment should frighten us all.

First of all we should examine why we have government scientists at all. Is it because each issue needs to create a means to support its pre-determined agenda? If that is the case, then we should not have government scientists at all. Each political party should just pay additional science consultants to create their personal fiction to support their own ideas. Of course this is stupid from the point of view of an American citizen, but not the politician. No, Americans have government scientists for the same reason they have government intelligence agencies and government ambassadors. Government scientists among the many things that they do they look at the science and determine the risks of policy on our country, and based on those risks they offer suggestions for policy proposals and the risks of those policy proposals. If the scientists are influenced by the politics, then their assessment of the risks are as flaw as the CIA’s intelligence on the WMDs in Iraq.

The charter of government is to provide security, and if the risks are not studied in a fair non-political light the policy based on those assessments will certainly be flawed.

So, to think that government scientists are mainly left leaning Democrats flies in the face of the entire point of having government scientists at all.

But, it is easy to see how someone might come to this conclusion in a culture that is moving further away from science. When I was in college during one of those late night philosophical discussions that generally involve a bit of alcohol a friend told me that she had no idea how a TV worked. Well, I knew a bit about how a TV worked and I offered to explain it to her, but she told me that she didn’t care because she was happy to believe that it all worked by magic. And, I realized that I was in the minority and she was in the majority of the American people.

However, if we begin to fall back on the idea that we don’t care how things work and we can imagine them working by some mysterious magic called “science” we are not to far away from the dark ages. Because if we don’t think about how things work, we can easily begin to mix up the ideas of science and the fantasy ideas of magic that are removed by impossibility from the truth. And, if we allow our minds to intermingle these concepts based in reality and these concepts based in fiction our culture will be more susceptible to leaders who justify their actions with fiction and lies.

Perhaps that is the true reason we now find ourselves under the power of this regime, the extreme right wing coalition of neo-cons and fundamentalist Christians. These people have an agenda and they only need to search for the justification. They discredit science as a rule so that they can pick the things that they like, but then they can deny the rest as “only a theory” or “inconclusive.”

Aristotle was the main scientific philosopher of ancient Greece. His work was based on observation of the world around him and reasoning that allowed him to understand that the world was round long before Christopher Columbus. He estimated the circumference of the Earth by measuring the difference in the length of a shadow cast by the sun at noon on uniform sticks placed in two different locations across the Mediterranean Sea from each other. But, the works of Aristotle were lost in the burning of the libraries brought on by the religious leaders. If it weren’t for the Muslim clerics who found value in these writings we may have never heard of Aristotle today.

Similarly, if we lose the culture of scientific inquiry our people will be doomed to memorize texts and believe what they read without questioning. If these religious zealots that continue to plant seeds of doubt in the general public continue to grow in strength everything we know about the world will gradually be lost. If the value of science continues to be reduced our children will be pushed away from pure science.

In fact, I have heard arguments from the right claiming that only science with a known economic benefit should be pursued. But, if you know that it has economic benefit, then it isn’t science anymore, it is called engineering. Engineering uses what science has discovered and applies that to known problems. And, if we push our children away from pure science this “new” knowledge will not exist for the engineers who want to build “new” projects. Engineers will eventually be reduced to repeating old engineering ideas over and over again. Progress will only be made by accident, instead of by applying “new” science. And, slowly we will become a stagnant culture relying on other cultures to provide “new” things for us.

Even the fall into the Dark Ages wasn’t instantaneous. And, I wouldn’t expect America’s fall to be any different. Those scientists that are alive today will continue to use the science that they know and understand. They will continue to publish their work, but fewer young people will read their work. And over time these scientific reports and papers will have less influence on the American culture. Things on the fringe will be the first to be lost, but as time goes on fewer people will be able to understand more common things like Particle Physics, General Relativity, Physical Chemistry and Organic Chemistry. Some ideas about genetics will continue, because with the birth of every baby the parents look for the influence of genetics. But, the idea of evolution will certainly disappear from the main culture. Instead conversations will center on the idea that the different races must have descended from the different sons of Noah, or some other malarkey.

People will be happy to know that the wizards at Apple will continue to recite the incantations to create the same iPod that has existed for a hundred years, but it still plays the same 10,000 songs, because someone lost the recipe for downloading new ones.






-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics, Science, Religion, History, Global Warming

Some people laugh at the Amish. Some people respect their will to combat the “progress” of modern American society. I can say just about anything I want about the Amish here on the Internet, because no God fearing Amish person would be caught dead reading my blog, or any blog at all for that matter.

Religion has always had the effect of putting the brakes on progress. Examining the potential effects of “new” ideas and insights on society is important, and it shouldn’t be neglected. The conclusions of those examinations may be debated, and the debate should be public. But, religion should be able to be honest and acknowledge that knowledge is not automatically bad, even if it disagrees with what that religion claims to be “the truth.”

We can look back and laugh at the Catholic Churches condemnation of Galileo for his heresy 400 years ago. The Church should have already known that the Bible was not completely correct when Christopher Columbus discovered the “New World.” But, the Church continued to hold on to the threads of the Bible, saying that Earth was the center of the Universe. The simple observation of the moons of Jupiter orbiting that planet was heresy; even though that observation was the truth.

Science is about observation and religion is about faith. In science nothing is true until it is observed in some way. Observations lead to insight and predictions, which crave for more observations. In religion one assumes that the religion has all of the answers and observations can only present the proof of the truth that is already known.

For example, Galileo acquired a telescope and turned it on the planet Jupiter to see what he could see. If anyone has not already used a telescope to look at Jupiter they should, because at most times one can make out the four brightest moons of Jupiter in random positions about the planet. The power of this observation does not strike you until you look at the planet the next night and actually see how those moons have moved. One can easily imagine how Galileo must have felt seeing these objects seem to flit around that planet. Being curious he must have begun to mark down their positions and eventually learn that these small objects moved around the planet. The observation was clear, and when Galileo applied mathematics to his observations he could begin to predict the position of the moons days and months in advance.

The Church did not see these observations in the same light. Certainly some of the Church hierarchy shared the observations of Jupiter and its moons, but they must have claimed that there were other explanations. After all, the Church certainly knew that everything revolved around the Earth, because the Bible made it clear that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Galileo could not claim that his observation was what it appeared to be. Religion is about certainty and changing that certainty is not easy. Galileo had to find alternative ways to spread the news of his observations. He was finally sequestered to a small house in the country and his visitors were monitored. The church found it necessary to hide the truth in order to protect the faith. If you wish to read more about this there is a short outline of Galileo vs. the Church here. It is quite eerie how this argument mirrors the argument we have today about evolution.

Once again we find ourselves in an era of religious protectionism. Some religions in the United States of America have become so powerful that they have been able to influence the government to pass laws that are supposed to “protect the faith.” Conservative Christian religions fight the teaching of evolution in biology class, or they want religious explanations offered along with fact based arguments. As we continue to observe the world in which we live we continue to discover how the Biblical understanding of the world does not fit with the scientific observations. And, this inconsistency frightens those who are members of religions that claim to have firm understanding of the world we live in. Religions that value questioning and discovery as a method for becoming closer to God have no problem with the discovery of new and sometimes controversial observations about the world.

Sometimes we have a tendency to put all religions in one group, calling them all intolerant of new ideas. But, religion as a discipline varies from group to group as well as from person to person. Some religions tolerate the development of a personal faith or belief system. Some religions encourage this, within some wider limits. Other religions are militant in their belief systems and offer only one possible way to interpret the meaning of God in our lives. It should be quite obvious which type of religion would have the highest degree of skepticism and objection to the modern observations of science.

It is one thing to know how nature works. Observations of nature by way of careful scientific experimentation and measurement give us these facts. But once we know how nature does the amazing things that it does we also learn how we can manipulate it to benefit man. Mendel observed how the color of flowers on pea plants changed from generation to generation based on the color of parent’s flowers. These observations lead to the development of hybrid varieties of many different plants, which lead to higher yields of food. Mendel was not only religious, but he was also a monk. He had read the writing of Darwin, and he was known to disagree with some of what Darwin had written. But, even with his understanding of genetics he was able to blindly follow where his observations lead. This was surely the sign of a great scientist. Mendel was fortunate to be a member of a religion that valued questioning and discovery.

Today we face many science and religion issues. Some don’t even seem to be science vs. religion on the surface, but fundamentalists have peculiar ways of looking at the world. But, we should all keep in mind that these people already know the answer before we ask the question. How can people like that be trusted to have the “right” answer?




-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Politics, Religion, Science, Evolution

I had such a wonderful experience this weekend that I find the need to write about it. And, you should remember that this is coming from a person who once wrote, “I hate running.”

First, a little back ground for those of you who don’t read every post that I make. I assume that’s most of you. Twenty some years ago I was on a swim team. I was pretty good and I swam for one year on my college swim team. However, because of the time required for swim team I decided that I should put that time toward studies and social activities instead, and my training went from several hours per day to dancing in night clubs over the weekend. When I went to graduate school I did even less dancing and even more studying. Without much more explanation most of you can imagine that I put on some weight and became much less athletic, to put it lightly.

Actually I really like swimming and I should have continued swimming on my own, but even though it was easy to find a pool while I was in school, it was certainly more difficult once I started working in the “real world.” My current employer actually had an option to join a nearby sports club at a discount, but it was difficult to find the time to use the membership. I actually ended up using the membership to play racquetball during lunch with some of the guys from work and injured my elbow in the process. But, over the twenty some years since my swim team days I gained about 50 pounds.

My wife had been trying to encourage me to run with her, but my memory of running always went back to my high school cross-country days. Fall was the off season for swimming, so I ran cross-country to try to stay in shape in the off season, but I always hated running. I hated almost everything about it. I find it boring. I didn’t like the dryness in my mouth. I didn’t like the pushing at the start of the race. I didn’t like the pain of trying to climb the hills. I just didn’t like it, but I hoped that I would be able to maintain my physical fitness during the off season none-the-less.

Back in 2001 when my son had been assigned a school project to write a report on a National Park our family took a trip to Lassen National Park to see the volcanoes. This was the first hiking that I had done in quite a while, and the critical moment of the trip was the family climb of the “cinder cone.” This grueling climb proved that I was truly out of shape, and that needed to be fixed. But like all good intentions that is all that they are until you take action. I started walking a bit more often than I had been, but running was still out of the question. I still had the thought of that pain and discomfort in the back of my mind. I just remembered that I hated running, and even when my wife tried to encourage me to jog a little I scoffed at her and let her run ahead.

But, three years later I was involved in an accident that changed my life. My car was rear-ended and I needed to take the car to the body shop to fix it. And, while I was waiting to drop the car off early one morning I saw an athletic center across the street that had just finished building a pool. The pool wasn’t quite finished, but by the time that they had finished I was a member of the sports club. And, I religiously went to swim laps every morning for at least an hour.

After about a year of doing this I felt much healthier and I had lost about twenty pounds. I wasn’t in a hurry to undo the weight that I had put on over the years, so I wasn’t disappointed with the slow progress. But I did feel that I might be able to run a 5K with my wife and kids one weekend. In fact, my wife actually ran a 10K while I ran/walked the 5K with my kids just to keep them occupied. And, I was so sore the next day, it made me remember why I hated running. However, being the insane person that I am I figured that the 5K was actually good for me, and when my wife entered another 10K I entered the 5K with the kids again. And, once again I was extremely sore for even more than a few days.

I didn’t understand how I could be so sore if I worked out every day, even if it was swimming, and still be so incredibly sore after running a 5K. But that didn’t stop me, because I searched the Internet to find the answer. I came to the conclusion that if I ran at least once a week my running muscles would not become so sore after a race. And, I began to run on the treadmill at the very same club at least once a week. A strange thing happened, I began to like running on the treadmill. I liked running on the treadmill because I could set a pace and push myself just the right amount to get stronger, but not exhaust myself too quickly. I could gradually increase my pace, and best of all I could stop any time that I wanted without having to walk all the way home from some strange place. Of course this worked to keep me from becoming so incredibly sore after running a 5K. Well, I entered a 10-mile race and a 10K in the last few months and I actually enjoyed the runs. I tried to run them as fast as I could. And, over the last couple of months I am still getting better.

This weekend we went to a completely new type of run. It is called a trail run. The idea is to run a race through the hiking trails of a park. Obviously there are advantages and disadvantages of this type of run, compared to the typical street run. The disadvantage is that there isn’t much room on a trail for a large number of runners, so this race was limited to only 250 people. Another disadvantage is that there are hills on the hiking trails that are quite steep. This must be one of the factors that help to limit the number of runners on the trail.

However, the advantage of running through the beauty of the park and the added challenge of the course outweigh any of the disadvantages. Just to give an idea of the grueling nature of the race that I ran, it took me 57:20 minutes to run 5.5 miles up and down hills. There was a slow start at the beginning of the race where over 100 people tried to squeeze into a trail that was only wide enough for two or three people. Last month I ran a 10K, which is 6.2 miles in 47:28 minutes. Of course, every race depends on its terrain and conditions. That is what makes the race unique.

So, after my experience of this race I can’t wait to run the next one. I am hooked on trail running. I find myself needing to write the sentence that I never thought that I could write.

I love trail running.




-----------------------------------------------------





Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Running, Exercise, Health

On the very basic level the Universe is just puckers in space. These puckers are a little more complex than the puckers sewn into material to make than fancy dress oh just so fine. These puckers are waves in the very space-time continuum, as they like to say in science fiction movies. But, these puckers are the basis for everything that we experience and basically our own existence as well.

About 100 years ago quantum mechanics was born with the discovery that sometimes particles behave as waves and sometime waves behave as particles. This observation lead to confusion among scientists at the time, and it remains a puzzle in many ways to this day. This is because at the quantum level statistics becomes the predictor as to where a particle may go, as opposed to knowing where an object will go based on mass, momentum and forces acting on the particle. The confusion between particles and waves also manifests itself in the looking at very low intensity light waves that build up interference patterns one particle at a time suggesting that time is not what our existence suggests that it is.

But, it all comes down to interactions. Wave particles interact with particle waves. Sometimes these waves create attractive forces, and sometimes these waves create repulsive forces. Two particles near each other share waves that causes these particles to remain together. This more complex structure is just a more complex pucker in the space-time continuum. Sometimes when two of these complex puckers travel near each other the puckers rearrange themselves in a more complex way resulting in new wave puckers and new particle puckers to travel off in different directions. After some time a complex pucker may not have enough energy to maintain the complexity of its structure, and it will change its shape and emit a wave or particle pucker.

The amazing thing about this is that these complex puckers in space find ways to organize themselves into more and more complex puckers. But, every rearrangement of a pucker results in energy in the form of other puckers being generated or absorbed to allow this rearrangement to happen. And again the key to all of this is the interactions of the puckers at larger and larger scales.

If you think about this for a moment or two you will soon realize that we are also very complex puckers in the space-time continuum. And, in being puckers in this Universe we are also part of the Universe itself. We feel as if we are different entities existing apart from the Universe, but observation tells us that we are all part of the one entity - The Universe. We are all puckers in the Universe interacting in very complex ways with all the other puckers in the Universe.

This idea isn’t new at all. Many religions have an idea of humanity as being part of something greater than the self. The goal of meditation and yoga is sometimes expressed as becoming “one with the Universe.” This happens when you let go of all those ideas and things that tie you to the self and you become aware that you are a piece of the Universe itself. The idea is freeing, as is the actual experience of feeling it, not just knowing it. Some people have used drugs to experience this same feeling, and they repeat the procedure of partaking in this ritual in order to continue experiencing this feeling.

Imagination, drugs, ritual and meditation have all been used in an effort to bring people to this concept. All of these methods have problems and pitfalls, but once one has success with any method they wish to share the experience. But not all methods work the same for all people. Even the idea that I have expressed above may leave a sour taste in the mouth of many.

When we step back and look at the night sky with its many stars in the night the view is awesome. When we spend a little more time thinking that each one of those stars contains planets and complex structures and we have no idea what diverse conditions exist. The individual stars in the night that we observe are mainly members of our own galaxy, the Milky Way. But, there are thousands of galaxies, each one of which contains a similar number of stars as our own galaxy. The distances to these places are immense and the energy required to send instruments or people exploring to these places is mind boggling. Each person on Earth could own his or her own star and all the planets associated with it with many more left over. The only problem is to get to any of these stars. But, all those stars are also just puckers in the Universe.

Interactions between the puckers in space have been described as being mediated by the forces found in nature. There is gravitation, strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electromagnetic interactions. Great big puckers warp the space time continuum and cause an attraction between the great big puckers. This is kind of like two puckers on a bed sheet have the propensity to want to become one much bigger pucker.

However, if we think about communities of people (or animals) in terms of this same pucker analogy these large puckers also interact with each other in more complex ways. Communication in its many diverse and complicated ways becomes the mechanism for interaction. Communication becomes an action at a distance, persuading people to act on what they hear or see. Organization of groups of people into families, communities, and larger structures can be viewed as another even more complex systems of interactions between certain classes of puckers in the Universe. The problem or course is that these interactions are complex and difficult to understand at any level other than mere statistics.

In fact, it is funny that the simplest interactions in the Universe and the most complex interactions in the Universe can only be described by statistics.










-------------------------




Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."


Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit



Science, Philosophy, Complex Interactions

George W Bush went out on a limb last night and told us that the US had it in its technological know how to develop alternative fuels. America needs these alternative fuels because we are addicted to oil. This is funny, really funny. Wasn’t it 30 years ago when the environmentalists tried to get the government to create incentives for these types of programs? In 30 years we would certainly have already moved over to using hydrogen instead of oil to power not only cars but power plants and homes. Solar and nuclear energy would be used to store the energy in the form of hydrogen. We wouldn’t have created some percentage of the green house gasses that we already have, and we wouldn’t create some amount of the future ones either. Global Warming would have been put into check.

But, the environmentalists were laughed off the world stage and the world got a bit dirtier and hotter. But, now that George W Bush has declared that America is addicted to Oil things will change. After all, America is a technological leader and we will develop some new technology very soon. And, perhaps in twenty years or so we will be able to get the new fuel into the American infrastructure with private companies that will see a profit in this.

Well, too bad for America, because Brazil has already done this. Over 70% of Brazils cars can run on ethanol. Brazil worked with Ford to develop cars that can work on both ethanol and gasoline by virtue of a simple switch. And Brazil has a production and distribution system for creating and producing ethanol fuel. Brazil has worked the bugs out of the system. So, when gasoline costs more than ethanol then ethanol sales go up; and when ethanol is more expensive than ethanol then gasoline sales go up. The fuels are being tied together and the alternative fuels will become an alternative for the world.

So, perhaps it isn’t about America’s addition to oil that Bush cares about. Maybe Bush sees the dominance of the US oil cartel loosing more leverage. If Bush gives money to his oil buddies for them to do alternative fuels research they will simply copy the Brazilian example and put ethanol pumps at every American service station before new entrepreneurs are able to do the same thing more quickly using someone else’s capital. Oil companies aren’t stupid and they know that they could loose 50% of the market share if they don’t jump on the bandwagon quickly. And if gasoline continues to rise, as it is forecast, then alternative fuel could become even more attractive. Oil companies could loose even more market share.

So, this has nothing to do with the environment or care for our planet. In fact, burning ethanol still puts carbon dioxide into the air, but it’s carbon dioxide that has already been there and absorbed by the corn that is grown to make the ethanol. Looking at the system we still get smog in our cities, but it isn’t old smog from that was locked away, but new smog that was in the air last year.

But I still wonder, since America is addicted to oil and the SUV drivers waste more oil than any other drivers. And, addition to anything is considered a sin. And, SUV owners seem to be largely Republicans judging by all the W sticks and yellow ribbons I see on the backs of these vehicles. Given all that, can we finally call these idiots un-American?

Just wondering! But, there is hope that these American who revere George W Bush as if he were God will finally conserve some fuel. Perhaps only drive their SUVs off road like God intended them to be driven. Perhaps they will begin to think of the rest of us as we choke on their inordinate amount of exhaust, and they take up the neighboring parking spaces by virtue of the width of their car. Perhaps they’ll say, “Hey George won’t like if I drive my SUV, better sell it.” There is just so much to be optimistic about our new environment leader.




Environment,Gasoline,Alternative Fuels,Ethanol,Politics

There is an idea that I have been kicking around for a while. It pertains to evolution and alcohol use. We know that alcohol was a part of Middle Eastern society. Beer was brewed in ancient Egypt and it was part of the purification of drinking water. We also know that wine was used and added to water through out the Middle East as well. It isn’t clear how far back alcohol use goes, but it is clear that it was part of early civilization. It has been claimed that western civilization was born in the Fertile Crescent in the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in what is now modern Iraq.

But how did the organized structure of society emerge? Many people have stated that agriculture was the key to the rice of civilization. But, maybe agriculture is the ingredient needed to make alcohol, which was the real seed for civilization.

Perhaps we should examine the development of civilization in another way. Maybe alcohol was the key factor to its development. What are the requirements for civilization? Some of the requirements needed are communication, intelligence, and time for discussion incorporating the first two.

Anyone who has any experience with alcohol will acknowledge that drinking it will lower your inhibitions and encourage communication. The communication isn’t always intelligent, but there is certainly increased communication. Throughout human history places created for the purpose of drinking alcohol have also been places rich in communication. One can easily imagine early man, after his discovery of alcohol, creating special places for drinking alcohol and communicating with each other. The existence of these places for drinking and communicating would foster socializing and the early organization of culture and society. But, if early man never left these places, and never evolved intelligence civilization may not have progressed.

So, there is also the question of the evolution of intelligence. I would suggest that alcohol might have had a hand in this as well. We can imagine a group of individuals that have a range of intelligence measured in IQ from less than 70 to greater than 130 or so, where 100 would be the average IQ for an early man, not a modern man. The entire spectrum would be introduced to alcohol, much like the Indians were exposed to alcohol from the European settlers. As we know from experience that some people will be effected by alcohol in different ways. Those of lower IQ and lower ability to socialize may find themselves in more life threatening situations than those of higher intelligence and those more willing to socialize. Over many generations of alcohol drinking in the culture the overall population would have gradually become more intelligent and more prone to socialization. So, the conclusion is that alcohol is the key factor in the evolution of society.

If we accept this rigorous study of the effect of alcohol on society, :-} we can than apply it to the question of the effect of abstinence on society. It is quite clear that those who abstain from alcohol would be less likely to find themselves in life threatening situations. Therefore would make less difference as a matter of intelligence or ability to socialize whether these individuals would survive. Therefore we can agree that members of a group of abstainers who were less intelligent or less socially able would be more likely to survive. And, over several generations the genes responsible for these attributes would be more likely to be found in groups that have abstained from alcohol over these generations.

If we consider the groups that abstain from alcohol over several generations we need to consider conservative religious groups. These groups have a tradition of religion that has been passed down over many generations. Their religion is likely to consider alcohol to be sinful over these same many generations. Therefore these groups are likely to have a higher percentage of lower intelligence members. These groups also are likely to have a higher percentage of members who are less likely to be able to socialize. Therefore it would be likely that a group of Religious individuals who abstain from alcohol over many generations would have a higher number of lower intelligence individuals and a higher number of less sociable individuals if these traits are indeed genetic.

Well, the study to prove that this is indeed true would be to study these groups and compare them to a control group. This is pretty obvious to the most casual observer if you consider the aggression in the Christian Conservatives. There is certainly a higher number of Christian Conservatives that own guns and go out and shoot animals. There are certainly a higher number of Christian Conservative that advocate the reckless aggression that our government is committing in Iraq. There are certainly a higher number of Christian Conservatives that are against an organized government that protects its citizens. And, if you look at the number of Christian Conservatives that advocate Intelligent Design, creationism or a large number of other unsupported ideas it can be argued that the group also includes a higher number of lower intelligence individuals as well.



Disclaimer: This is only meant to be food for thought, it is in no way meant to be a rigorous scientific study into the matter. In fact, this argument is based on about as much scientific evidence as the argument for Intelligent Design is. Well, actually maybe this argument is built on slightly more evidence than the argument for Intelligent Design is, but not much more. :-}






Politics, Religion, Evolution

Since this is Friday I thought that I would write something a bit different.

I went to the doctor today. I thought that since I was in probably the best health that I’ve been in the last twenty years I should get it on the record. This is sort of the opposite reaction that the out shape guy has when he doesn’t want to go to the doctor, because he knows what the doctor is going to say, and he doesn’t want to hear it. In my case, I lost over forty pounds since the last time I was at the doctor and I feel great.

Of course this doesn’t make any sense at all, but it is human nature.

I already knew that my blood pressure was really good, because I used the machine at the grocery store and I discovered that my blood pressure was good. But, when I was there I discovered something surprising. My pulse was only 48 beats per minute. Of course I had the blood work done, and it verified that my cholesterol, kidneys and liver were all AOK.

When I got to the doctor’s office this morning they do the typical things. First, a nurse takes your vital signs, blood pressure, weight, pulse, EKG etc… Well, since I had seen that my pulse was 48 at the grocery store I became obsessed with taking my pulse. I go through these periods of obsession that’s basically why I am a scientist. I like to take measurements, and I take them often out of curiosity more than anything else does.

Since I work out in the morning I really get my pulse going during my workout. It generally gets as high as 150 beats per minute. After my workout it will settle down gradually over the next hour or so. Typically my pulse in the morning ranges between 54 and 66 beats per minute. This isn’t as low as the 48 beats per minute that the machine at the grocery store measured, but those are typical numbers for a male in fairly good shape. For some reason my pulse tends to be a bit lower in the evening hours, and 48 isn’t unusual in the evening, when I measured my blood pressure in the grocery store.

Well, I worked out this morning before my doctor’s visit. I wondered what my pulse was before I went into the doctor’s office and I measured it to be 66 beats per minute. I did this by counting the number of beats in 30 seconds and multiplied by two. Typically a pulse is measured by counting the number of beats in 10 or 15 seconds and multiplying by 6 or 4. When the nurse measured my pulse she got 84. I have no idea how she got such a high number. She didn’t spend much time taking my pulse. She may have spent 5 or 10 seconds, but certainly not 15 counting the beats. 84 is a number that could be calculated by counting 7 beats in 5 seconds, 14 beats in 10 seconds or 21 beats in 15 seconds.

You can see how the resolution changes depending on how many seconds you spend counting beats. For example, if you spend 5 seconds counting beats you will get 48 if you count 4 beats, 60 if you count 5, 72 if you count 6 and 84 if you count 7. If my pulse was actually 66 then you would have an equal probability of counting either 5 or 6 beats in 5 seconds. There is also a smaller possibility that you could count either 4 or 7 counts in 5 seconds. This means that if a pulse is taken by counting the number of beats in 5 seconds an actual pulse of 66 could be measured to be anywhere between 48 and 84. If we compare this to counting beats over 15 seconds instead we can see that a pulse of 66 would be about 16 or 17 beats. A count of 16 beats would result in a measure of 64 and a count of 17 would result in a measure of 68. A count of 15 would result in a pulse of 60 beats per minute and a count of 18 would result in a pulse of 72 beats per minute. It would be virtually impossible to measure a pulse of 84.

The measurement of my pulse certainly is not critical, and the record of my EKG has a much more detailed measurement of the time between pulses, so this doesn’t really matter much. In fact, I wonder why they even bother taking a pulse at all if they aren’t going to spend the time to do it well. After the nurse finished her measurements I took my pulse again, wondering if somehow my heart began to race for some reason. But, I soon found out that my pulse was 66 just like it had been earlier.

Well, this is just another lesson about being aware of what is going on when you visit the doctor. You need to understand what the doctor is saying, and how he reached his conclusions. You need to ask questions. For example, if he said that he came to some conclusion based on my pulse being 84 I certainly would have said that it was much lower. Since he shook my hand and said don’t come back for another year I didn’t worry about it.






Doctor Visit, Health, Science, Biology

When I was in High School my favorite author was Kurt Vonnegut Jr. At the time I couldn’t really explain why I liked his writing, but he always created interesting plots that were easy to follow and understand. He always added a dab of science, but his science fiction was more about human relations than new technology.

When my High School English teacher saw what I was reading she asked me if she could borrow the book when I was finished. The book was Cat’s Cradle, a story about the development of a new crystalline form of ice. This crystalline form of ice was known as ice-nine and when it was placed in water the water molecules would align themselves with the crystal of ice-nine and the water in this form would be solid at room temperature. The military could use this to turn bogs and swamps into solid ground. And, even all these years later I remember Kurt Vonnegut writing: “…and the Marines go marching on.”

Obviously all of the water in the world in connected in some way, and when the military puts the water into the environment the entire world becomes one large frozen ball of ice-nine. When my teacher returned the book to me she said one thing, “That book was certainly anti-science.” Even when I was in High School I didn’t see the book as being anti-science, but anti-military. Science only said that ice-nine existed. The military decided to use the ice-nine for war and in turn reeked enormous environmental damage. Scientists make the observations and try to understand the world. Ignoring the truth about the world is not an option. However, knowledge can be dangerous when people are determined to use the knowledge for their own gain without regard for the rest of the world.

Today I listened to an old radio program called “Dimension X.” This program and “X minus 1” the result of its evolution made radio plays out of Science fiction stories. The story I listened to today was called “A Report on the Barnhouse Effect” by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. Once again Kurt Vonnegut uses the same theme. A research scientist discovers a way to effect the world with telekinesis. The story was written in the 1940s, so the vocabulary is a bit different from what we use today, but Kurt Vonnegut had to create vocabulary to describe his ideas.

Professor Barnhouse first learns how to control dice so they will always land the way he wants, and he gradually learns how to do more. His assistant convinces him to divulge this knowledge to the military who quickly sets up a multitude of tests to see what kind of damage he can cause. After the destruction of 20 missiles flying across the ocean Professor Barnhouse runs off after leaving a note. The note says that after becoming the first super weapon with a conscience he has decided to remove himself from the stockpile. Then he proceeds to go out and destroy nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon factories around the world in an effort to create peace.

I thought that this was a wonderful way to illustrate the difference between science and how scientific information can be used. The science part is the discovery of telekinetic power. However, if that were actually true the observation of the existence of the power is the science. Once the existence is known it can be used in many different ways. Professor Barnhouse suggests that he can use the power to dig trenches and bring water to the poor farmers who need irrigation for their crops. In fact, using this telekinetic power could solve many of the world’s problems and its use could promote peace. But, the other side of the coin shows us that there are also those who fear others and would rather use the same power for destruction and war. The science is the same, but those who use the knowledge determine its use.

And, this brings us back to the 100-year-old argument about evolution. Scientists have observed evolution and they know the facts. These are observations of the way the world is. However, some people either deny the truth about what we know about the Universe or they deny that God left clues about the Universe. Science just tells us what has been observed. The knowledge that scientists have observed can be used to make arguments about religion, but since the premise of religion can never be observed the arguments make no sense. So, the most dangerous argument that is made begins by telling us that science tells us that man is the result of evolution. The Bible, however, tells us that man is the result of Gods creation. The Bible is right, therefore science is wrong. Science simply observes the world and collects the information.
The reason this is a dangerous argument is because it tells us that we can not believe anything that we observe. Since we can’t believe what we see, hear, touch then how can we even know that we exist? How can we believe anything about the world we live in? Doubt leads to mental illness and self-destruction. Doubt leaves a vacuum and the Radical Christian Right would have you believe that the only way to fill that vacuum is with the word of God in the Bible. Of course this is the way a cult operates. A cult demands that you deny everything and then you are ready to accept the “new truth.” Therefore, a philosophy based on this kind of assumption results in a culture that denies reality in favor of dogma and science and rational thought become less valued. This destroys the basis of American culture and moves us closer to a religious state.



politics, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Evolution, Science