21/05 Rather than have a skinny guy on the sign

This to me is humorous.



I can't imagine the conversation that must have taken place prior to choosing the man for the photoshoot.

"We need to find somebody for the sign who will relate to the type of people who might consider buying dozens of hot dogs at the local convenient store."

"Dwayne!"

14/01 Religious Debate

Welcome, my good friends. This is a little different from the tidbits you've been reading here; rather than adopting an informative approach, here I will be quickly challenging your view of religion and science and asking why it is that so many people have trouble debating the subject (and why they even spend the time doing so). I'll try and keep this topic as brief as possible, but keep in mind it's sort of a heavy subject. Please try to absorb and digest my words here with a clear mind; discard all predispositions and predictions about what you think I will probably say, and instead, hear what I am saying in this topic.

If you've been a member of internet communities for a while, chances are you've witnessed one of the frequently-recurring religious debates. When they pan out properly, such debates are undoubtedly healthy, thanks to the introspection they impose upon their participants. Many devoutly religious people would certainly benefit from a greater understanding of science's contributions, as would many empiricists benefit from a greater understanding of the reasoning behind a person's faith. Both sides certainly have something to teach as well as something to learn, however lopsided each particular exchange may be.

Unfortunately, though, such exchanges rarely unfold in a productive manner; more often than not, they end in bitter division between the various involved parties, both of whom exit the debate merely hardened in their current beliefs. Ninety-nine percent of people on both sides of the table never change their minds even ever-so-slightly throughout these arguments, and yet they continue, on and on, over and over, with only minor adjustments made by the participants each time to try and enhance their influence over the opponents.

WHAT MAKES RELIGIOUS DEBATE SO INFLAMMATORY?

It's important to understand just why it is that religious debates always seem to encourage such inflammatory rhetoric and response. For one thing, religion unfailingly deals with such profound questions as "Where did we come from?", "What happens when we die?", and "What is the meaning of life?" These are arguably the most important questions a person can ask, and so it’s not surprisingly that people feel so strongly about their personally adopted explanations.

Also, though, religious debate carries another quality that sets it apart from the myriad "normal" debates, dealing with a variety of other topics, which we witness on a day-to-day basis. This unique quality is the element of ambiguity; while debate over religion is often infused with a generous dose of modern science and bulletproof logic, it still is, in the end, grounded entirely in a wholly indeterminate question. Science surely offers loads of revealing answers regarding our world (as well as the promise of many more answers to come as our mastery of observation and interpretation continues to spread), but it can only extend so far. Astrophysicists and quantum mechanists both agree that there is a very real limit—a set boundary—to what we can know through science. The exact coordinates of this boundary are still being determined, but we know for a fact that one side of it lies in one particular location: at the beginning of time.

(A short passage of advanced cosmology follows; feel free to skip to the next italicized heading if you don’t feel up to reading it)

The beginning of time was set at the beginning of our universe—the Big Bang. Whether you subscribe to the traditional Big Bang model or that of the more sophisticated inflationary cosmology theory (which refines the standard model through the introduction of a so-called inflaton field, a sort of supercooled Higgs Field that permeated all of space prior to the Big Bang, leading to the negative gravity required to fuel such a violent outburst of energy), you will still agree that time’s arrow was set at the time of the Big Bang. As with everything else, the various parameters of our universe (time, the familiar laws of physics, etc.) were conceived at this crucial point in our history. The most compelling proof we have of its occurrence is the cosmic microwave background radiation that exists all throughout space in a nearly uniform state, a cold reminder of the once hot and extremely low-entropy beginnings of our existence.

The point is, our observational ability comes to a screeching halt at this set of coordinates in spacetime… and it just so happens that everything we know about our world is derived from our observations. That means that there is no way we can ever determine with any certainty whatsoever what it was that occurred prior to the Big Bang. Quantum cosmologists such as Stephen Hawking and James Hartle love to tempt us with theoretically consistent yet entirely unsatisfying interpretations of this question to mean that, since familiar time was created by the Big Bang, there is no period “before” the Big Bang about which to ask questions. They dismiss the question by positing that familiar causality is a product of the continuous, yet inherently indefinite, expansion of all matter and time that occurred as a result of the Big Bang. And that may be, but no one really knows for certain… and no one ever will.

(Okay, you can come back now.)

Therein lies the problem. Here we have a subject of debate centered on a completely unknown and indeterminate solution, and yet, remarkably, those involved present their arguments as though they are resting on an unshakable foundation of irrefutable proof—which is simply not the case. It never will be the case. Both theists and atheists rest their arguments on faith. In truth, the most rational approach is agnosticism.

I CAN SEE YOUR POINT

There are some concessions needing to be made. For one thing, in support of you atheists out there, plenty of people still do not “believe” in evolution. My advice to these people is that if you don’t yet believe in it, you’d be well advised to start doing some reading. Regardless of your personal religious beliefs, a truly informed person will never deny the almost entirely proven findings of modern science… and evolution is a proven natural technique of biology. It is one and the same with DNA and the magnificent biochemistry undergirding the microbiology of the cell. The same goes for the Big Bang—we’ve essentially proven its existence, from the expanding universe to the uniform distribution of microwave background radiation referred to earlier.

But if you’ve got your scientific ducks in a row, you’re free to believe whatever you wish. Everything beyond the Big Bang and elsewhere beyond the eventual reach of science classifies squarely as philosophy. And you’re perfectly justified in nearly any relatively uncomplicated philosophical belief you might hold. Anecdotes, analogies, and ancillary teaching methods like those found in the Bible aside, the belief in a God is unchallengeable on the grounds of empirical argument and logical proof. Now, granted, the more complex your theory, the less likely its accuracy, as suggested by the frequently cited Occam’s Razor (even though this model only suggests the preferred philosophical approach; keep in mind that if Occam’s razor were used to justify the results of the Big Bang if we didn’t already know, it would predict something along the lines of a chaotic nothingness… in other words, its explanatory power is limited in such a wildly complicated context). And that’s something that definitely has to be considered, as many atheists reference invisible unicorns and orbiting teacups as proof of the irrationality of a belief in God.

THE PHILOSOPHICAL HORSE RACE

Philosophy that deals with the origins of the universe and the destination of our souls when we die works a little bit differently from your average purely logical decision, however. The reason why is pretty easy to see if you’ll just agree to go with me for a day at the horse racing track. Take a look at the odds on the screen. The odds on Horse 5 (“Occam’s Racer”) are a scorching 2 to 1, meaning that there’s a very good chance he’ll win. On the other hand, the odds for Horse 3 (“Ex Nihilo Tango”) are something along the lines of 4 to 1, meaning there’s slightly less of a chance that he’ll win. One last horse (“Colt of God”) carries odds of 10 to 1 due to complications.

Now, the rational better would bet on Occam’s Racer thanks to his excellent odds. Logically, he has the best chance of winning. However, I might bet on Ex Nihilo Tango, even in spite of his slightly less favorable odds (4 to 1), in hopes of reaping greater rewards if I am proven correct. Our good friend, that I forgot to mention, who came along with us decides to place a hefty bet on Colt of God, based partially on faith, as well as a tip he received that he personally believes.

In case you haven’t already figured it out, the horses in my analogy represent Atheism, basic Theism, and Christianity, respectively. All of them share different odds, with the odds worsening as the unfounded belief complicates (as mandated by Occam’s Razor). However, depending on your personal philosophy, you might find it more exhilarating and/or worth your while to place your money on a less favored position if you believe the results to be greater should you be proven correct. Christians and most theists believe they will be reserved a spot in Heaven if they submit to a belief in God, and so this promise, along with personally-appraised “evidence” in the form of ancient holy texts and teachings, coalesces to form a belief that they consider to be perfectly justified in spite of its less logical properties.

Would you criticize your friend openly for betting on a horse with less favorable odds?

LET’S SAY YOU STILL DON’T HEAR ME…
…I still can offer you help on your mission

Okay, so you’ve read this far, and you’ve actually, honestly considered what I have to say… but you still don’t buy it. That’s fine—your opinion is your own, and it’s one of life’s greatest gifts that we’re able to take ownership of our own beliefs and live our lives in accordance with our closely-held principles. Or maybe you’re just an agnostic, and you’re planning on posting to try and convince others to relinquish their faulty beliefs and join you in your proud agnosticism. That’s fine. But if you’re going on the attack against one side or the other armed with self-righteousness and camouflaged insults, you’re making a mistake.

Imagine that you’re sitting at home, eating a Hot Pocket and watching your favorite television show (Mr. Belvedere), when suddenly, to your horror, you're met with a commercial for motor oil.

"Still using Pennzoil? You're an idiot. Clearly you don't know what you're doing, and you need to examine your position more logically. One of these days you'll relinquish your feeble, irrational approach to automotive care and switch to Valvoline. Valvoline. The choice of intelligent vehicle owners."

Would you rush out and buy Valvoline motor oil after seeing this commercial? I doubt Valvoline would have much success in selling their oil after airing such an unproductive commercial.

It's the same thing with opinions. When you and I engage in an argument, I'm trying to sell my opinion to you. If I attempt to force my opinion on you by insulting your intelligence and suggesting that you're inferior for holding your position, you aren't going to listen to me; you're going to ignore me. Every time I insult you or question your intelligence, you erect a wall between you and me, so that it is ever harder to communicate. As we scream louder and louder to try and compensate for this newly-erected wall, neither one of us can hear the other person for our own wailing and screaming.

This is not an effective discussion… and yet this is the way these discussion usually take place. It doesn’t take a highly intelligent person to express themselves—people do that all the time (just take a look around you). Anyone can voice their opinion. The truly great among us find ways of doing so without isolating those we are speaking to. If we want someone to buy our product, we first have to establish a rapport with them; we must show them that we respect and understand their position.

Stephen R. Covey said it best in his terrific (and terrifically successful) book, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. Habit number three is one of the best of them all:

SEEK FIRST TO UNDERSTAND, THEN TO BE UNDERSTOOD

And this is something that you can do immediately. Look, I’m not good at this either, but I’m trying really, really hard to get better, because it’s one of the most valuable tools you can learn.

When you’re speaking with someone—especially when it’s a touchy subject or you’re trying to convince them to adopt your opinion—first do everything in your power to see things their way. Put yourself in their shoes and adopt the argument as your own. Explore their reasoning and try to understand the causes of their beliefs not through your own lens, but through theirs. Step out of your myopia for just a moment and ask yourself all of the tough questions that will help you to truly understand where the person is coming from.

Restate in your own words what you think they mean. Admit it when you don’t fully follow them, and when you need clarification, ask for it. This flatters people. They will see that you actually are considering what they are telling you, and once you express true comprehension of their opinion, they will open up to yours in ways you could never imagine.

DON’T SEEK TO CONQUER

Philosophical discussion, just like nearly every other form of argument, doesn’t need to be a win-lose interaction. It’s very possible to see things through to a much more mutually satisfying and much more effective win-win outcome, where both parties walk away with a greater respect for each other, as well as each others’ arguments.

JUST THINK ABOUT IT, OKAY?

What do you want? Another useless flame war where you waste hours of your time scrolling down the list and quoting every single post, thinking of the fastest, wittiest, and most pointed response possible in hopes of rallying those who agree with you to “beat down” your opponents into submission… or a pleasant, though-provoking thread filled with civil and intelligent conversations between a number of highly capable human beings? In the former, even if you win, you lose. In the latter, no matter what side of the argument you’re on, as long as you play with an open mind, you win.

Think about it.

~os

12/12 26: The World According to Quantum Mechanics

Ready to have your mind blown?

So I've recently witnessed a lot of talk about quantum theory, particle physics, and all that good stuff, and I've been a part of a few of those discussions. After a bit of pondering, I decided that such concepts wouldn't be a bad idea for a new Tidbit. Of course, unlike most of my Tidbits, this is pretty heavy stuff, so if you aren't primed to think outside the box at the moment you might want to defer your reading of this post until a later, quieter time. I'm not going to deal with a lot of relativistic theory here... though I might in a future edition. So at least we won't be getting into stuff that confusing.

But if you're ready, let's dive in. In this Tidbit, I will attempt to introduce you to the basic concepts of quantum mechanics, explain what they mean, and extrapolate basic conclusions about our existence from what we know. I'm no expert in this field by any means, but I do a lot of reading on the subject, and I'm hoping that my explanations here will spark a serious interest in people who are prone to debating such confusing matters. Keep in mind that my journey through the subject here is going to be highly selective in order to make the material stomachable. But also keep in mind that everything we're discussing here actually is true. Very little of this is speculation or a product of uncertainty. We're talking about the very world around you in this article--everything you see as you look around from your vantage point sitting in your chair.

So let's start with the basics: what is quantum mechanics? Well, in short, it's the study of things of the very small--atoms, electrons, photons, and the like--in an attempt to make some sense of their erratic behaviors. Until around a century ago, it wasn't clear how anything worked apart from things closer to our scale of existence. In fact, what we see as a smooth and predictable universe, governed clearly by the laws of Newtonian physics, is in fact nothing like that at all. These Newtonian laws, such as calculations of gravity's effects on a ball tossed into the air, apply only in our large-scale world. Once you break things down into the world of particles, it's much more difficult to predict anything (in fact, it's actually impossible, as we'll see later on). The movements and actions of particles seems much more jittery than the smooth-looking stuff we perceive around us.

Anyway, a century ago, some German guy named Max Planck made some discoveries regarding the behavior of oscillating atoms, as well as a number known as Planck's constant, which relates the energy of an electromagnetic wave to its frequency. A little later on, Werner Heisenberg declared a fundamental--and rather startling--principle of quantum theory that shook the scientific world: he found that it is impossible to measure both a particle's velocity and position simultaneously with sufficient accuracy. In fact, the more you know about a particle's speed, the less you know about its location. That means it's just plain impossible to predict anything with accuracy relating to particle physics. Read that again just in case you didn't get the importance of it!

This discovery became known as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and it just so happens to be parodied in my signature. :) This stuff is true of ALL particles... it's just the way things are. If you're curious as to WHY... well, there really isn't a very good explanation... it's just a highly complex, so-called "entangled" quantum system (see later for more on entanglement).

So, you might ask, then why is it possible to measure the path of a ball through the air? Well, as I said before, in our large-scale world, we perceive only the "quantum average" of such events. In other words, we only see the grand scale result, which is always pretty much what we expect it to be here in the "big" world. Think of it like the pixels on a television screen; up close, they appear clearly separate and multicolored. But together, they blend to form a smooth and familiar picture that is interpreted effortlessly by our brains.

Are we having fun yet? Whew--not exactly the type of stuff you would want to talk about at parties.

The next big foundational principle--and this one will blow your mind--is the two slit experiment. Here's how it works. Imagine a wall with two small vertical slits cut into it at equal heights. Now, stand back from that wall and place a machine gun around twenty feet back, aimed at the center of the two slits. Fire it for a few seconds, and then walk behind the two-slit wall and check out the pattern of bullet holes on the wall behind it. Obviously, they're also arranged in a distinct pattern of two vertical lines.

Now, replace the machine gun with an electron gun. Fire off a few hundred electrons, and then check the back wall again. Same pattern, right? Heh, wrong. In fact, not even close. No two lines at all--instead, there's a muddled swelling and fading of vertical waves across the entire wall. How in the world did that happen?

Well, maybe the particles are interfering with one another; you know, bumping into each other as they fly toward and through the slits. That's got to be why. Let's test our theory to make sure. Now, we're going to fire one electron every few seconds, so that way we give them plenty of time to hit the wall on their own before firing off another one that might screw up its path... After a few hours, though, we end up with the exact same pattern. Is blood shooting out of your eyes yet?

In case you didn't catch all of that (I know it's pretty hard to get in writing), here's a visual demonstration of pretty much the same analogies I used.

The reason this occurs is thanks to a property known as wave-particle duality. Basically, that means that electrons and other very small things have to be thought of as both particles (bullets) and waves (like water). This is exemplified by the stuff you've heard of as "electromagnetic waves," which, by the way, is the same thing as light (it's just a stream of photons).

So, now, let's see which slit each electron travels through. We're going to place a detector (sort of like a camera we could say) by each slit to reveal which path each electron takes. We fire up our electron gun, start up the detectors, and then let it run for a few hours to collect some data for our graphs while we head to Wendy's for a #6 (Biggie-sized with a Fruit Punch to drink).

When we get back, we drop our food on the floor at the sight of not an interference pattern, but instead a uniform distribution along the wall that looks nothing like before. What in the world happened? How is that even possible? It's as though the electrons knew that we were watching them, so they magically decided to stop acting like waves and instead reverted to their usual particle selves.

In conclusion, the ONLY way to think of this problem is to imagine the electrons travelling through BOTH slits at the same time. Every electron goes through BOTH slits--they don't choose one or the other like you would think. This whole concept leads into a massively confusing approach involving probability waves, wavefunctions and their spontaneous collapse, among other completely unnecessary concepts that I'm not even going to go into here.

SO. That's the basics of quantum theory. From these experiments was born the study of such a counterintuitive subject that even Einstein himself hated it. His famous remark, "God does not play dice," was made in response to some of the quantum goings-on at the time. However, now we know that both quantum theory AND Einstein's theories are correct. The problem is, we have no idea how to connect them in harmony. That leads to a constant searching by scientists for a state of theoretical consonance between the two theories referred to as a "unified theory." Such a theory would be the ultimate "theory of everything"--and that is essentially now the primary goal of modern theoretical physics.

As an example of how these theories (and, in fact, reality) are at odds with Einstein's theory of general relativity, let's talk about quantum entanglement. If you ever really wanted to prove to yourself how very little we actually understand about how the world around us works, this is a good place to start. It is essentially a stated law (authored by Einstein) that nothing--and that means, nothing--can move faster than the speed of light. It's a sort of absolute speed limit for all matter and forces in our universe. However, oddly enough, scientists have recently found some disturbing (or interesting, depending on how you look at it) results from their experiments involving photons and prisms. If you split a photon with a special prism to result in two different photons, traveling in opposite directions from one another, they are what is called "entangled." Let's say you then let these photons continue on their opposite paths for millions of years.

Now, they're on opposite ends of the galaxy (or maybe they're even in different galaxies). If you are now to influence one photon's spin (a common property of all particles that determines their nature), the other particle's spin will instantaneously shift as well in the opposite way. This is horribly confounding to particle physicists, seeing as the only way this seems possible is if the communication between them moved faster than the speed of light. Some theories have been proposed that perhaps it is still limited by the speed of light, but instead the message travels through time as well (spacetime is indeed a strange thing... time doesn't actually progress the way we think it does. I'll get into this in a future Tidbit to twist your mind further). But currently, no one really has any idea, and this is something that science is still working on an explanation for.

But uncertainty is what it's all about anyway. Quantum mechanics reveals, according to what is called the Copenhagen interpretation, that it isn't possible to calculate things in our world to predict what's going to happen next. We don't live in a deterministic world, in other words... we live in a probabilistic world. Everything is based on a set of possible outcomes, not a value of solid certainty.

And one truly uncertain thing is whether or not I'll post a second edition to all of this stuff, dealing next time with advanced relativity concepts and how they intermingle with the confusion of our quantum reality. But either way, stay tuned. :)

Thanks to Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time and Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos for this Tidbit!