Saturday, November 10, 2007
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Quantum People - continued
People are not particles. The behaviour of the subject of our experiment cannot be described by a few simple equations, whereas that of a particle can. We believe this because we are people too.
The difficulty with quantum stuff is that we are trying to measure the properties of things by using those same things. It's like trying to deduce the movements of the players on a football field by listening to the crowd. It's probable that a few simple equations could describe the sequence of groans and cheers in relation to goals, but those equations would not represent the complex reality of the game.
So our subject is faced with choices. There are two doors: they are the only ways out. Which to use - or maybe wander around the walls looking for an alternative - or sit cross legged and chant - or do anything at all other than choose a door.
From the way our experiment is constructed, any behaviour other than passing through a door and crossing our line of sensors is recorded as a delay. It's probable that a few simple equations could describe the relationship of delay to signal, but those equations could not represent the complex reality of the subject's mind.
That said, most people most of the time in such a situation would head through an apparently random choice of door. They would proceed to cross our sensor line. We would deduce, from the data alone, that they travelled in a straight line at a certain velocity; but reality is more complex. Just as a minority of subjects would plump down and chant rather than choose a door, some would meander through, others rush. Some will imagine a collision and veer off course. Some may feel their way around the wall first. Some may even go back into the room through the other door.
If only a few people are thus perverse, as good scientists we would necessarily dismiss the signal from their behaviour as mere 'noise'. To include all such oddities in our equations would make them too complex and unwieldy. So long as our results are repeatable (and ideally useful) the anomalies can be ignored.
[aside] There's a short story here, of the experiment being performed, the measurements being taken, the results being collated, and the experimenters leaving, congratulating themselves for success. Then the technicians arrive to dismantle the experiment. But the room is not silent: a whispering, a shuffling, a sense of presence. On go the lights, and there are four people still there; one in the lotus position, softly chanting; two undressed in the glow after coitus; and one ashen faced slumped in a damp corner, panicked by the dark.
The difficulty with quantum stuff is that we are trying to measure the properties of things by using those same things. It's like trying to deduce the movements of the players on a football field by listening to the crowd. It's probable that a few simple equations could describe the sequence of groans and cheers in relation to goals, but those equations would not represent the complex reality of the game.
So our subject is faced with choices. There are two doors: they are the only ways out. Which to use - or maybe wander around the walls looking for an alternative - or sit cross legged and chant - or do anything at all other than choose a door.
From the way our experiment is constructed, any behaviour other than passing through a door and crossing our line of sensors is recorded as a delay. It's probable that a few simple equations could describe the relationship of delay to signal, but those equations could not represent the complex reality of the subject's mind.
That said, most people most of the time in such a situation would head through an apparently random choice of door. They would proceed to cross our sensor line. We would deduce, from the data alone, that they travelled in a straight line at a certain velocity; but reality is more complex. Just as a minority of subjects would plump down and chant rather than choose a door, some would meander through, others rush. Some will imagine a collision and veer off course. Some may feel their way around the wall first. Some may even go back into the room through the other door.
If only a few people are thus perverse, as good scientists we would necessarily dismiss the signal from their behaviour as mere 'noise'. To include all such oddities in our equations would make them too complex and unwieldy. So long as our results are repeatable (and ideally useful) the anomalies can be ignored.
[aside] There's a short story here, of the experiment being performed, the measurements being taken, the results being collated, and the experimenters leaving, congratulating themselves for success. Then the technicians arrive to dismantle the experiment. But the room is not silent: a whispering, a shuffling, a sense of presence. On go the lights, and there are four people still there; one in the lotus position, softly chanting; two undressed in the glow after coitus; and one ashen faced slumped in a damp corner, panicked by the dark.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Quantum People - a thought experiment
I've just read Chapter 1 of Volume 3 of the Feynman Lectures on Physics (ISBN 0201021188) "Quantum Behaviour". Therein is described the definitive two-slit experiments that reveal the quantum weirdness of wave/particle duality.
A couple of thoughts struck me:
Think of this: a large room full of people begins to fill with smoke. There are two exits close together in one wall. Outside it's pitch black. A line of sensors parallel to the wall but some distance from it allow us to detect when a person passes. (We shall assume these sensors have a cycle time adequate to the capture of all events, and that escapees do not jump on each others backs or trip etc..)
If only a single exit is open, we would expect to see a Bell curve in the sensor data: more people would go straight on than at an angle once they are through the exit. But if both are open, we would expect some of those that do leave the exits at an angle to collide and change course, giving us the classic interference pattern. So far, so obvious.
What happens if we run the experiment many times, but with only a single person in the smoke-filled room? If people are particle-like, we would expect a Bell curve, as for Feynman's bullets. But would we?
[to be continued]
A couple of thoughts struck me:
- 'particle' is a locality with specific properties; e.g. momentum
- 'wave' is a propagation; e.g. of energy or information.
Think of this: a large room full of people begins to fill with smoke. There are two exits close together in one wall. Outside it's pitch black. A line of sensors parallel to the wall but some distance from it allow us to detect when a person passes. (We shall assume these sensors have a cycle time adequate to the capture of all events, and that escapees do not jump on each others backs or trip etc..)
If only a single exit is open, we would expect to see a Bell curve in the sensor data: more people would go straight on than at an angle once they are through the exit. But if both are open, we would expect some of those that do leave the exits at an angle to collide and change course, giving us the classic interference pattern. So far, so obvious.
What happens if we run the experiment many times, but with only a single person in the smoke-filled room? If people are particle-like, we would expect a Bell curve, as for Feynman's bullets. But would we?
[to be continued]
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Point + Point => God?
There's a lot more can be said about our two point universe. So far we have recognised:
There is as yet no physical substance here. Points, and the properties they reveal, are meta-features. From these we can derive meta-meta-features; e.g. the range of possible motions of our two points in relation to each other; and meta-meta-meta-features, and so on.
The characteristic of a meta-*-feature is that it expresses statically a property of change. For example, a "constant acceleration" is one possible meta-feature of a changing velocity.
Even with just two Points, there is already a potentially infinite range of meta-*-features describing the available changes in the Distance between them.
[Because this is an imaginary universe, and our points have no corporeal substance, it's an arbitrary decision whether we allow the Distance to go zero or not.]
Notice that I've avoided using the word 'number'. In our Universe we represent the features of Points by numbers; but Numbers are themselves meta-*-features. It may mislead us to apply numbers to distance and time in our imaginary universe, as the constancy implied by Number might not be fundamental to it. If that is the case, then there will be available changes in the Distance/Time relationship between our two points that cannot be expressed mathematically. This is highly probable: see Godel's Theorem.
In fact, the implication is that not only mathematical notation, but that any system of static symbolic representation is doomed to be an incomplete expression of reality. Things change, and change changes Things, which changes the range of possible changes, and thus Things. (Feedback, in other words).
In our imaginary two Point universe (which is as simple as a Universe can be) there can be no meta-*-feature that remains eternally constant.
Is the same true of our real Universe?
Yes, because we cannot transmit reality, only information.
One final thought (for now). Our physical Universe is a meta-*-feature of quantum-level properties.
Phew! Time for breakfast :-)
- Distance
- Time
There is as yet no physical substance here. Points, and the properties they reveal, are meta-features. From these we can derive meta-meta-features; e.g. the range of possible motions of our two points in relation to each other; and meta-meta-meta-features, and so on.
The characteristic of a meta-*-feature is that it expresses statically a property of change. For example, a "constant acceleration" is one possible meta-feature of a changing velocity.
Even with just two Points, there is already a potentially infinite range of meta-*-features describing the available changes in the Distance between them.
[Because this is an imaginary universe, and our points have no corporeal substance, it's an arbitrary decision whether we allow the Distance to go zero or not.]
Notice that I've avoided using the word 'number'. In our Universe we represent the features of Points by numbers; but Numbers are themselves meta-*-features. It may mislead us to apply numbers to distance and time in our imaginary universe, as the constancy implied by Number might not be fundamental to it. If that is the case, then there will be available changes in the Distance/Time relationship between our two points that cannot be expressed mathematically. This is highly probable: see Godel's Theorem.
In fact, the implication is that not only mathematical notation, but that any system of static symbolic representation is doomed to be an incomplete expression of reality. Things change, and change changes Things, which changes the range of possible changes, and thus Things. (Feedback, in other words).
In our imaginary two Point universe (which is as simple as a Universe can be) there can be no meta-*-feature that remains eternally constant.
Is the same true of our real Universe?
Yes, because we cannot transmit reality, only information.
One final thought (for now). Our physical Universe is a meta-*-feature of quantum-level properties.
Phew! Time for breakfast :-)
Saturday, May 12, 2007
In the beginning ...
"Go back to First Principles" is a common request of pedants and managers.
Okay, let's do it.
Imagine a universe containing a single Point. It has no structure, no mass, no energy, or any property of any sort: it's just a Point. Only there is no point to a single Point. It exists, as we have defined it; but that's all: it only exists. It has no position, as there is no frame of reference for it to have a position in. Without position there can be no motion. It's a very lonely, very boring Point.
*Pop* and a second point exists. Now there is a frame of reference - the other Point. Assuming the universe containing these points is a lawful one, then each point now experiences Distance.
A universe without motion is not only dull, it's improbable. Change is possibly the only 'universal' constant. Thus our Points can move. Thus they also experience Time.
No matter how complex their motion might appear to external observers like ourselves, the Points are only able to notice change in the distance between themselves. Which may vary from infinitesimally small to infinity minus an infinitesimal. There motion may be smooth or rhythmical or complex, or all of these in turn.
If Time and Distance are infinitely smooth, then there are an infinite number of possible variations in the distance between these Points; but if Time has a definite tick and distance a minimum step (which must occur together: there cannot be one without the other) then the number of variations is finite. At some 'point' in time, the sequence of variations would be repeated.
So an imaginary universe of just two imaginary points already exposes one of the key challenges of modern physics.
First Principles have there limits :-)
Okay, let's do it.
Imagine a universe containing a single Point. It has no structure, no mass, no energy, or any property of any sort: it's just a Point. Only there is no point to a single Point. It exists, as we have defined it; but that's all: it only exists. It has no position, as there is no frame of reference for it to have a position in. Without position there can be no motion. It's a very lonely, very boring Point.
*Pop* and a second point exists. Now there is a frame of reference - the other Point. Assuming the universe containing these points is a lawful one, then each point now experiences Distance.
A universe without motion is not only dull, it's improbable. Change is possibly the only 'universal' constant. Thus our Points can move. Thus they also experience Time.
No matter how complex their motion might appear to external observers like ourselves, the Points are only able to notice change in the distance between themselves. Which may vary from infinitesimally small to infinity minus an infinitesimal. There motion may be smooth or rhythmical or complex, or all of these in turn.
If Time and Distance are infinitely smooth, then there are an infinite number of possible variations in the distance between these Points; but if Time has a definite tick and distance a minimum step (which must occur together: there cannot be one without the other) then the number of variations is finite. At some 'point' in time, the sequence of variations would be repeated.
So an imaginary universe of just two imaginary points already exposes one of the key challenges of modern physics.
First Principles have there limits :-)
Powered by ScribeFire.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Jabber jabber jabber ...
I've just discovered Jabber (XMPP). Which inspired one thought ...
Sun Inc use the strap line; "The network is the Computer". True enough.
If Jabber had a strap line, it would be "The Conversation is the Computation". Which paradigm makes soluble a lot of otherwise intractable problems; e.g. the need for GUI goodness. GUIs, afterall, are mere frozen conversations.
Sun Inc use the strap line; "The network is the Computer". True enough.
If Jabber had a strap line, it would be "The Conversation is the Computation". Which paradigm makes soluble a lot of otherwise intractable problems; e.g. the need for GUI goodness. GUIs, afterall, are mere frozen conversations.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
First try of ScribeFire
Discovered ScribeFire here. This is just a test post, to make sure I've grokked it.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Of Time and Gases
Both Newton's and Einstein's mechanics treat time as just another dimension. According to the math, movement forward and backward through time should both be normal. This cannot be the reality. Not only would such temporal freedom contradict our direct experience, there is a philosophical argument also.
Diffusion would occur.
Consider a box of gas. Every molecule of the gas is free to move in 3D. Molecules that try to occupy the same space at the same time collide and rebound. These collisions rapidly distribute the molecules evenly throughout the available space.
Now imagine the molecules are free to move in 4D. When they try to occupy the same space at the same time, they are now as likely to rebound in the temporal dimension as the spatial ones: this is what the math implies. So the molecules would become evenly spread throughout the available time as well.
But what would "available time" mean here? Presumably the construction and destruction of the box are involved. But these are temporal concepts. In our 3D universe, it is the unidirectional nature of Time that imposes order. All the molecules of the gas, and of the box that contains that gas, share a common Time value. In a 4D world, each molecule has a unique T value, similar to its unique X Y and Z values. Unless there is a unidirectional fifth dimension, such a world could not work: there could be no specific construction and destruction events separated by an invariant value.
There seems to be a general principle that every physical thing must be unique. In a1D world, atoms on a line could never pass each other. Their X values are unique, but their Y value is common; the X must remain unique. In a 2D world, where Z is common, it is the combination of X and Y that must reamin unique. In our 3D world, T is fixed and the combination of X, Y, and Z must be unique.
Time travel will only be possible if we can "break through" to the universe where F is fixed, enabling our T value to become just a component of the necessary uniqueness rather than the enabler of it.
Regardless, our mechanics will not be accurate until the unidirectional nature of Time is represented within the equations.
Diffusion would occur.
Consider a box of gas. Every molecule of the gas is free to move in 3D. Molecules that try to occupy the same space at the same time collide and rebound. These collisions rapidly distribute the molecules evenly throughout the available space.
Now imagine the molecules are free to move in 4D. When they try to occupy the same space at the same time, they are now as likely to rebound in the temporal dimension as the spatial ones: this is what the math implies. So the molecules would become evenly spread throughout the available time as well.
But what would "available time" mean here? Presumably the construction and destruction of the box are involved. But these are temporal concepts. In our 3D universe, it is the unidirectional nature of Time that imposes order. All the molecules of the gas, and of the box that contains that gas, share a common Time value. In a 4D world, each molecule has a unique T value, similar to its unique X Y and Z values. Unless there is a unidirectional fifth dimension, such a world could not work: there could be no specific construction and destruction events separated by an invariant value.
There seems to be a general principle that every physical thing must be unique. In a1D world, atoms on a line could never pass each other. Their X values are unique, but their Y value is common; the X must remain unique. In a 2D world, where Z is common, it is the combination of X and Y that must reamin unique. In our 3D world, T is fixed and the combination of X, Y, and Z must be unique.
Time travel will only be possible if we can "break through" to the universe where F is fixed, enabling our T value to become just a component of the necessary uniqueness rather than the enabler of it.
Regardless, our mechanics will not be accurate until the unidirectional nature of Time is represented within the equations.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
An Archimedes Moment - text sucks as data
While hunting the soap in the bath just now, I had an Archimedes Moment. It suddenly struck me that text is an awful means of communication. It would take a top notch writer to get across the mixture of thoughts, feelings, sensations, etc and so on that I was feeling at that moment.
No wonder NLP etc are so hard. It takes many years of constant practice to train a human brain to use text meaningfully; and even after a life time, mistakes and misunderstandings are distressingly common.
I suspect future sapients will label our one dimensional stream of characters or pictograms as the Semantic Text Age, a quaint time when people exchanged mashed trees and computed with rocks.
No wonder NLP etc are so hard. It takes many years of constant practice to train a human brain to use text meaningfully; and even after a life time, mistakes and misunderstandings are distressingly common.
I suspect future sapients will label our one dimensional stream of characters or pictograms as the Semantic Text Age, a quaint time when people exchanged mashed trees and computed with rocks.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Web 3.0
This blog entry got me thinking: just what do I want the computerverse to do for me?
Some thoughts:
Currently, every bit is vital. A single error in the reading or processing of anything usually results in a program crash. This makes the current computerverse incredibly fragile (only barely 'fit', in an evolutionary sense). It's also one of the major problems robotics seeks to overcome.
Data from physical sensors is inaccurate. Precision comes from the statistical
processing of the output of one or more sensors over a period of time. Us programmers are going to have to learn to manage vast datasets, every single member of which has to be treated as erroneous.
But the payoff will be huge. The web and the computer will become "just another social contact". Instead of thinking "what application can I use to...?" I can concentrate on the task at hand, expecting the software to adapt-and-learn as we go.
An OOTOMH example:
When visiting a strange town, Web 2.0 enables me to view a map of the place, overlay it with the locations of any local Balti restaurants, and check for any comments thereon by previous patrons. Web 3.0 would avoid the GUI-gumph. "Book me a Balti by taxi for 8:30-ish, budget £50" would suffice. Your personal cyber-PA would automatically "ring round" the best reviewed spots concentrically, having first checked the menu for options you like or haven't tried yet etc. When you've done, it will ask for your opinion of the meal, the decor, etc.
Attractive thought... and a dangerous dependency!
Some thoughts:
- GUIs - a 2.5D visual + speech alternative: no monitor required, ideally
- crashes - failure should be graceful, biologic-like
- cost - a fixed price subscription, UK TV licence style
- malleable - a user-centric meta-config that "just works"
- not just my (sometimes perverse) slave, but my (usually trustworthy) servant: a cyber PA.
Currently, every bit is vital. A single error in the reading or processing of anything usually results in a program crash. This makes the current computerverse incredibly fragile (only barely 'fit', in an evolutionary sense). It's also one of the major problems robotics seeks to overcome.
Data from physical sensors is inaccurate. Precision comes from the statistical
processing of the output of one or more sensors over a period of time. Us programmers are going to have to learn to manage vast datasets, every single member of which has to be treated as erroneous.
But the payoff will be huge. The web and the computer will become "just another social contact". Instead of thinking "what application can I use to...?" I can concentrate on the task at hand, expecting the software to adapt-and-learn as we go.
An OOTOMH example:
When visiting a strange town, Web 2.0 enables me to view a map of the place, overlay it with the locations of any local Balti restaurants, and check for any comments thereon by previous patrons. Web 3.0 would avoid the GUI-gumph. "Book me a Balti by taxi for 8:30-ish, budget £50" would suffice. Your personal cyber-PA would automatically "ring round" the best reviewed spots concentrically, having first checked the menu for options you like or haven't tried yet etc. When you've done, it will ask for your opinion of the meal, the decor, etc.
Attractive thought... and a dangerous dependency!
Sunday, March 11, 2007
The A.E.H. Cometh!
There are more products in more categories, and more variations thereof, than ever before. Which means more adverts competing for our attention.
Once upon a time (like, a decade ago) it was relatively easy to "get the message out". TV was a captive audience of many millions. Ongoing sagas, such as the Bisto family and the Gold Blend couple, became part of mainstream culture. Today, TV audiences are falling, and technology helps us filter out the adverts. Doom. The 'Net is awash with adverts - but technology helps us filter them out. More doom. People are busier than ever, spending more time and energy working and playing, interacting and chilling. Extra doom. Advertisers have infiltrated blogs, Second Life, etc and so on; but technology helps us filter them out. Only the least intrusive and most relevant 'verts seem to work (e.g. Google Adwords). But time and technology wait for no one: even the mighty Google is vulnerable.
The cost of sale is rising. So is the value of my time. These trends are related. Each day, despite flashblock and noscript and not watching TV and only listening to BBC radio and working from home, hundreds of 'verts pass before my eyes. Discovering what my choice of shaving foam says about my personality is not high on my agenda. Nor, being a bloke, am I worried about period pains. Adverting is coming dangerously close to spamming, as far as I'm concerned.
I use flashblock, as unwanted animations distract me from pursuing the purpose for which I visited the page. I use noscript for security. I don't watch TV because a) I don't have time! and b) I object to paying a subscription for a service where a quarter of every hour is adverts. I only listen to BBC radio because a) the programs are less tacky, and b) there are no adverts. (Working from home is simply a bonus.)
Are we approaching an Advertising Event Horizon? Will the cost of sale become so high that only products that don't advertise are affordable? Will producers start to pay us to be exposed to their wares? Might I one day be able to go along to a, for example, "Electric Shaver Trial" event where, for an entrance fee, I can try out different shavers and choose one ("half your money back if you don't find what you want").
The world changeth, and the people too ...
Once upon a time (like, a decade ago) it was relatively easy to "get the message out". TV was a captive audience of many millions. Ongoing sagas, such as the Bisto family and the Gold Blend couple, became part of mainstream culture. Today, TV audiences are falling, and technology helps us filter out the adverts. Doom. The 'Net is awash with adverts - but technology helps us filter them out. More doom. People are busier than ever, spending more time and energy working and playing, interacting and chilling. Extra doom. Advertisers have infiltrated blogs, Second Life, etc and so on; but technology helps us filter them out. Only the least intrusive and most relevant 'verts seem to work (e.g. Google Adwords). But time and technology wait for no one: even the mighty Google is vulnerable.
The cost of sale is rising. So is the value of my time. These trends are related. Each day, despite flashblock and noscript and not watching TV and only listening to BBC radio and working from home, hundreds of 'verts pass before my eyes. Discovering what my choice of shaving foam says about my personality is not high on my agenda. Nor, being a bloke, am I worried about period pains. Adverting is coming dangerously close to spamming, as far as I'm concerned.
I use flashblock, as unwanted animations distract me from pursuing the purpose for which I visited the page. I use noscript for security. I don't watch TV because a) I don't have time! and b) I object to paying a subscription for a service where a quarter of every hour is adverts. I only listen to BBC radio because a) the programs are less tacky, and b) there are no adverts. (Working from home is simply a bonus.)
Are we approaching an Advertising Event Horizon? Will the cost of sale become so high that only products that don't advertise are affordable? Will producers start to pay us to be exposed to their wares? Might I one day be able to go along to a, for example, "Electric Shaver Trial" event where, for an entrance fee, I can try out different shavers and choose one ("half your money back if you don't find what you want").
The world changeth, and the people too ...
Saturday, March 10, 2007
A Fax of Life
We are all uncultured. Examples
There is a new provincialism abroad, based not on geography but domain: e.g. World of Warcraft has it's own dialect, as does Second Life, as does etc. etc.. (Need a new word: domainialism?)
- more classic fiction was written in the 19C than there is time to read in a single lifetime
- more classic movies were produced in the 20C than ditto
- more classic blogs are written daily than ditto
There is a new provincialism abroad, based not on geography but domain: e.g. World of Warcraft has it's own dialect, as does Second Life, as does etc. etc.. (Need a new word: domainialism?)
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Assistive Technology For All!
I need a head mouse or similar NOW.
Having multiple monitors is great - except when I find myself typing into the window on the 'wrong' monitor (i.e. the one I'm not looking at) for the umpteenth time in a morning.
Having the title bar of windows changing colour when they get focus isn't good enough any more. On high res' monitors, the area of change is too small to be noticeable. A subtle change to the tone of the window background instead would be almost impossible to ignore.
Alternatively, just hiding the cursor when a window loses focus would be a big help. GEdit does this, but KWrite doesn't.
Having multiple monitors is great - except when I find myself typing into the window on the 'wrong' monitor (i.e. the one I'm not looking at) for the umpteenth time in a morning.
Having the title bar of windows changing colour when they get focus isn't good enough any more. On high res' monitors, the area of change is too small to be noticeable. A subtle change to the tone of the window background instead would be almost impossible to ignore.
Alternatively, just hiding the cursor when a window loses focus would be a big help. GEdit does this, but KWrite doesn't.
Friday, February 16, 2007
The Fifth 'F', Finally...
The four F's of evolution are one of those seductive simplifications that seem so wise and thus deceive so well. The choices to fight or flee, to feed or breed, are obviously important to both individual and group survival; but they are neither the whole story, nor a meaningful condensation of that story.
Evolution does not occur in isolation. Over the generations, that which is fled from will grow faster; that which is fought will grow stronger; food will defend itself; and potential mates will play harder to get. It's not species that evolve: it's entire ecosystems.
If evolution was the story only of how individuals (be they genes or giraffes) fled, fed, bred, and bled, then ecosystems would be more stable than they actually are. Instead, the introduction of a single new successful competitor can wreak havoc. Rats did for the dodo. The cane toad is a modern plague afflicting Australia. European diseases, such as smallpox, devastated the Americas. Every ecosystem is a balloon ready to pop whenever a new species which doesn't know the rules joins the game.
[Aside] Since Alvin discovered the mid-ocean ridge communities, there is probably no ecosystem on Earth that hasn't been visited by a camera crew. And their bacterial cowboys...
99% of all the species that have ever existed have played the evolutionary game, and earned themselves extinction. Those of us that are left are either astronomically lucky, or have evolved a special trick - a meta-F, if you will: something that gives us an extraordinary edge.
It's a very ancient edge. Creatures as "primitive" as bacteria (who, however you count it, are now and have always been the most numerous life forms on this planet) have it. If the "Global Brain" idea is anywhere near right (and their success is suggestive) bacteria were the best workers of this trick until we evolved language. They too communicate, cooperate, and coordinate, as well as competing. As a group, they appear to predict the behaviour of their environment. It's as if, as a group, they are 'thinking', in a manner that no one germ can be capable of. And it seems reasonable that those germs that seem to think best will actually survive better.
Feed, fight, fuck, flee, and fink (and don't forget feedback): the whole story? No, but a closer approximation to a suggestive condensation of it.
Evolution does not occur in isolation. Over the generations, that which is fled from will grow faster; that which is fought will grow stronger; food will defend itself; and potential mates will play harder to get. It's not species that evolve: it's entire ecosystems.
If evolution was the story only of how individuals (be they genes or giraffes) fled, fed, bred, and bled, then ecosystems would be more stable than they actually are. Instead, the introduction of a single new successful competitor can wreak havoc. Rats did for the dodo. The cane toad is a modern plague afflicting Australia. European diseases, such as smallpox, devastated the Americas. Every ecosystem is a balloon ready to pop whenever a new species which doesn't know the rules joins the game.
[Aside] Since Alvin discovered the mid-ocean ridge communities, there is probably no ecosystem on Earth that hasn't been visited by a camera crew. And their bacterial cowboys...
99% of all the species that have ever existed have played the evolutionary game, and earned themselves extinction. Those of us that are left are either astronomically lucky, or have evolved a special trick - a meta-F, if you will: something that gives us an extraordinary edge.
It's a very ancient edge. Creatures as "primitive" as bacteria (who, however you count it, are now and have always been the most numerous life forms on this planet) have it. If the "Global Brain" idea is anywhere near right (and their success is suggestive) bacteria were the best workers of this trick until we evolved language. They too communicate, cooperate, and coordinate, as well as competing. As a group, they appear to predict the behaviour of their environment. It's as if, as a group, they are 'thinking', in a manner that no one germ can be capable of. And it seems reasonable that those germs that seem to think best will actually survive better.
Feed, fight, fuck, flee, and fink (and don't forget feedback): the whole story? No, but a closer approximation to a suggestive condensation of it.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
There's a zero 'f' too...
It dawned on me while avoiding a van avoiding a cyclist avoiding a parked car that there's another 'f' word vital to evolution. Possibly the core concept, of which evolution is but an example:
Feedback.
Given its pervasiveness, hence near invisibility, I'm labeling it the "zero f" word; making six in all (maybe).
Feedback.
Given its pervasiveness, hence near invisibility, I'm labeling it the "zero f" word; making six in all (maybe).
Sunday, February 04, 2007
How many F's in Evolution?
Richard Dawkins famously promotes the "selfish gene" as the replicator on which all others rely. That individual genes are critical to survival is undoubtedly true. But a gene on its own is just a bunch of chemicals: it would quickly be eaten by a more organised entity. A genome on its own, no matter how large and complex, is just a larger bunch of chemicals, so would quickly be etc..
For everything, there is a context. A gene is just food, except in the context of its genome, which in turn is not a genome except in the context of its cell. And the cell...
... is a much more complex thing entirely. Let's instead use the broader concept of "organism".
And the organism is never alone. Most of them cannot replicate alone either. A gene in a genome in an organism that cannot mate is a gene without a future.
The apparent paradox is that our "selfish" genes must comply with our social needs in order to replicate.
The problem here is the word "selfish", defined in the dictionary as "a lack of consideration for others". A gene, being just a bunch of chemicals, has no consideration whatsoever, of it's "self" or of anything else. Likewise for the genome. The organism tho', even at the level of the single cell, is capable of discrimination; if only between its insides and the outside. Organisms can be selfish: genes are merely dumb.
But we are at their mercy, nonetheless.
And that, I think, is Richard Dawkin's point. Evolution is a game of chance, where a throw of the genes places limits on the capabilities of, and exposes new areas of opportunity for, the next generation. Those dumb genes that happen to work for this generation get another throw: those that don't, die.
"Feed, fight, fuck, and flee:
Do what it takes to make more 'we'!"
Distant tho' the relationship is, involving many subtle phase shifts etc. along the way, 'we' rely on those dumb genes.
Until one day, long long ago, those dumb genes happened upon the fifth 'F', changing the nature (pun intended) of the game ...
{to be continued...}
For everything, there is a context. A gene is just food, except in the context of its genome, which in turn is not a genome except in the context of its cell. And the cell...
... is a much more complex thing entirely. Let's instead use the broader concept of "organism".
And the organism is never alone. Most of them cannot replicate alone either. A gene in a genome in an organism that cannot mate is a gene without a future.
The apparent paradox is that our "selfish" genes must comply with our social needs in order to replicate.
The problem here is the word "selfish", defined in the dictionary as "a lack of consideration for others". A gene, being just a bunch of chemicals, has no consideration whatsoever, of it's "self" or of anything else. Likewise for the genome. The organism tho', even at the level of the single cell, is capable of discrimination; if only between its insides and the outside. Organisms can be selfish: genes are merely dumb.
But we are at their mercy, nonetheless.
And that, I think, is Richard Dawkin's point. Evolution is a game of chance, where a throw of the genes places limits on the capabilities of, and exposes new areas of opportunity for, the next generation. Those dumb genes that happen to work for this generation get another throw: those that don't, die.
"Feed, fight, fuck, and flee:
Do what it takes to make more 'we'!"
Distant tho' the relationship is, involving many subtle phase shifts etc. along the way, 'we' rely on those dumb genes.
Until one day, long long ago, those dumb genes happened upon the fifth 'F', changing the nature (pun intended) of the game ...
{to be continued...}
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Daisy Does Documentation
Documentation is difficult. Design documentation especially so. Traditional documentation tools, like Word and OOo, get in the way: using them is like wearing boxing gloves to build sandcastles. There has to be a better way.
To be useful, design documentation has to:
Collaboration used to imply SharePoint or Documentum or Alfresco or whatever. All of which IMO add further layers of complexity to an already over-complicated set of tools. Nor do they satisfy the linking requirements. Versioning is there, metadata is there, but the fact they all deal in de facto proprietary binary file formats, like .doc and .xls, slams the lid on their coffins.
Enter stage right Wiki 2.0, three examples of which I've had a play with.
First found was DekiWiki, the commercial site for which is very slick, and offers a VMWare image as a free trial. Which installed beautifully, but completely failed to send me the email containing its randomly generated admin password.
Next found was XWiki. While not as glittery as DekiWiki, it's stupendously flexible, and has an impressive list of current users. Some videos of it in use are here. I installed the standalone bundle, which, once I'd dug through the web site comments to discover the user 'Admin' password 'admin' (note the case change!) worked as promised, albeit slowly on my mere 1GHz test machine.
I don't doubt that, with a little bit of effort, either DekiWiki or XWiki could be tuned into excellent documentation tools. But there is one that's a 90% solution SOTW.
Daisy. The Flash demos are here. The extensive documentation - written using Daisy - is here.
The only omission is a report on broken and changed external links. Given that the GUI can be extended with JavaScript and/or Java Applets, adding these features shouldn't be too big a problem.
More later. I'm gonna go play :-)
To be useful, design documentation has to:
- be written collaboratively
- have rich internal linking (which doesn't break!)
- have rich external linking (with breakage and change reporting)
- be versioned
- be annotatable, globally and by version
- be machine readable (e.g. in XML)
Collaboration used to imply SharePoint or Documentum or Alfresco or whatever. All of which IMO add further layers of complexity to an already over-complicated set of tools. Nor do they satisfy the linking requirements. Versioning is there, metadata is there, but the fact they all deal in de facto proprietary binary file formats, like .doc and .xls, slams the lid on their coffins.
Enter stage right Wiki 2.0, three examples of which I've had a play with.
First found was DekiWiki, the commercial site for which is very slick, and offers a VMWare image as a free trial. Which installed beautifully, but completely failed to send me the email containing its randomly generated admin password.
Next found was XWiki. While not as glittery as DekiWiki, it's stupendously flexible, and has an impressive list of current users. Some videos of it in use are here. I installed the standalone bundle, which, once I'd dug through the web site comments to discover the user 'Admin' password 'admin' (note the case change!) worked as promised, albeit slowly on my mere 1GHz test machine.
I don't doubt that, with a little bit of effort, either DekiWiki or XWiki could be tuned into excellent documentation tools. But there is one that's a 90% solution SOTW.
Daisy. The Flash demos are here. The extensive documentation - written using Daisy - is here.
The only omission is a report on broken and changed external links. Given that the GUI can be extended with JavaScript and/or Java Applets, adding these features shouldn't be too big a problem.
More later. I'm gonna go play :-)
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Grow-your-own remote controls
One minor bane of modern life is the plethora of remote controls needed: one for the tele', one for the DVD, another for the VCR, yet another for the Mac , not to mention mobiles that need answering etc.. By the time I've found the remote(s) wanted, it would often have been quicker to walk over to the kit and poke it (very subtle geeky pun intended) directly.
Voice control probably isn't the answer, if only because it will always be possible to lose your voice or play stuff too loud.
Thought control is a more promising option. Some sort of cap to read brain emanations and transmit them as codes over Bluetooth might work. Better still, embed the 'cap' directly in the brain. Not a viable option for adults, perhaps, but for newborns, whose skull bones are soft and unfused, it would be a relatively minor operation. Babies thus equipped would learn their remoting in exactly the same way as talking and walking: by experiment. At first, the codes they emit could be used to flash lights or bang drums. Those same codes would later be used to control their whole environment, just by "willing" things to happen.
Voice control probably isn't the answer, if only because it will always be possible to lose your voice or play stuff too loud.
Thought control is a more promising option. Some sort of cap to read brain emanations and transmit them as codes over Bluetooth might work. Better still, embed the 'cap' directly in the brain. Not a viable option for adults, perhaps, but for newborns, whose skull bones are soft and unfused, it would be a relatively minor operation. Babies thus equipped would learn their remoting in exactly the same way as talking and walking: by experiment. At first, the codes they emit could be used to flash lights or bang drums. Those same codes would later be used to control their whole environment, just by "willing" things to happen.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Dumbed down? Not Melvin :-)
BBC Radio 4's "In Our Time", hosted by Melvin Bragg, is far and away my favourite (always streamed across the net, but you get the idea) radio program. Where else would you get a discussion of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics mixed with depictions of Hell (a much more modern notion than many might think) next to an examination of anarchy (also a much misunderstood ideal, being more Semco than Sodom) near by the Abbasid Caliphs and, last but never least, Greek comedy.
Well worth the licence fee :-)
Well worth the licence fee :-)
Weird materials
It's not water, but you can run on it. Walk tho', and you'll sink. And it's not an exotic substance at all!
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
3D UI not enough - Autonomic Computing the key
You may or may not recall my wittering on about 3D interactive whiteboards and stuff earlier on. To make such a beastie work, you either need to identify a "broad enough" algorithm, a "close enough" heuristic, or - the exciting new option - make it autonomic.
This really is exciting stuff. And having recently read works like John McCrone's "Going Inside", I believe it's possible, too.
This really is exciting stuff. And having recently read works like John McCrone's "Going Inside", I believe it's possible, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)