What’s alpha all about, Alfie? Why are you boring us with this?
The great biologist E.O. Wilson wrote a little book called Consilience, in which he argued that it was past time to apply the methods of science — notably quantification — to fields traditionally considered outside its purview, like ethics, politics, and aesthetics. Any blog reader can see that arguments on these subjects invariably devolve into pointless squabbling because no base of knowledge and no shared premises exist. Alpha theory is a stab at Wilson’s program.
What kind of science could possibly apply to human behavior?
Thermodynamics. Living systems can sustain themselves only by generating negative entropy. Statistical thermodynamics is a vast and complex topic in which you can’t very well give a course on a blog, but here’s a good introduction. (Requires RealAudio.)
Don’t we have enough ethical philosophies?
Too many. The very existence of competing “schools” is the best evidence of failure. Of course science has competing theories as well, but it also has a large body of established theory that has achieved consensus. No astronomer quarrels with Kepler’s laws of planetary orbits. No biologist quarrels with natural selection. Philosophers and aestheticians quarrel over everything. Leibniz, who tried to develop a universal truth machine, wrote someplace that his main purpose in doing so was to shut people up. I see his point.
Not a chance. Anyway, what’s alpha got that we don’t have already?
A universal maximization function derived openly from physical laws, for openers. Two of them. The first is for the way all living system ought to behave. The second is for the way they do behave. To put the matter non-mathematically, every living system maximizes its sustainability by following the first equation. But in practice, it is impossible to follow directly. Living beings aren’t mathematical demons and can’t calculate at the molecular level. They act instead on a model, a simplification. That’s the second equation. If the model is accurate, the living being does well for itself. If not, not.
Sounds kinda like utilitarianism.
Not really. But there are similarities. Like utilitarianism, alpha theory is consequentialist, maintaining that actions are to be evaluated by their results. (Motive, to answer a question in the previous comment thread, counts for nothing; but then why should it?) But utilitarianism foundered on the problem of commensurable units. There are no “utiles” by which one can calculate “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” This is why John Stuart Mill, in desperation, resorted to “higher pleasures” and “lower pleasures,” neatly circumscribing his own philosophy. Alpha theory provides the unit.
Alpha also accounts for the recursive nature of making decisions, which classical ethical theories ignore altogether. (For example, short circuiting the recursive process through organ harvesting actually reduces the fitness of a group.) Most supposed ethical “dilemmas” are arid idealizations, because they have only two horns: the problem has been isolated from its context and thus simplified. But action in the real world is not like that; success, from a thermodynamic perspective, requires a continuous weighing of the alternatives and a continuous adjustment of one’s path. Alpha accounts for this with the concept of strong and weak solutions and filtrations. Utilitarianism doesn’t. Neither does any other moral philosophy.
That said, Jeremy Bentham, would, I am sure, sympathize with alpha theory, were he alive today.
You keep talking about alpha critical. Could you give an example?
Take a live frog. If we amputate its arm, what can we say about the two separate systems? Our intuition says that if the frog recovers (repairs and heals itself) from the amputation, it is still alive. The severed arm will not be able to fully repair damage and heal. Much of the machinery necessary to coordinate processes and manage the requirements of the complicated arrangement of cells depends on other systems in the body of the frog. The system defined by the arm will rapidly decay below alpha critical. Now take a single cell from the arm and place it in a nutrient bath. Draw a volume around this cell and calculate alpha again. This entity, freed from the positive entropy of the decaying complexity of the severed arm, will live.
What about frogs that can be frozen solid and thawed? Are they alive while frozen? Clearly there is a difference between freezing these frogs and freezing a human. It turns out that cells in these frogs release a sugar that prevents the formation of ice crystals. Human cells, lacking this sugar, shear and die. We can use LHopitals Rule to calculate alpha as the numerator and denominator both approach some limiting value. As we chart alpha in our two subjects, there will come a point where the shearing caused by ice crystal formation will cause the positive entropy (denominator) in the human subject to spike through alpha critical. He will die. The frog, on the other hand, will approach a state of suspended animation. Of course, such a state severely reduces the frogs ability to adapt.
Or take a gas cloud. “You know, consider those gas clouds in the universe that are doing a lot of complicated stuff. What’s the difference [computationally] between what they’re doing and what we’re doing? It’s not easy to see.” (Stephen Wolfram, A New Kind of Science.)
Draw a three-dimensional mesh around the gas cloud and vary the grid spacing to calculate alpha. Do the same for a living system. No matter how the grid is varied, the alpha of the random particles of the gas cloud will not remotely match the alpha of a living system.
Enough with the frogs and gas clouds. Talk about human beings.
Ah yes. Some of my commenters are heckling me for “cash value.” I am reminded of a blessedly former business associate who interrupted a class in abstruse financial math to ask the professor, “Yeah. But how does this get me closer to my Porsche?”
The first thing to recognize is that just about everything that you now believe is wrong, probably is wrong, in alpha terms. Murder, robbery, and the like are obviously radically alphadystropic, because alpha states that the inputs always have to be considered. (So does thermodynamics.) If this weren’t true you would have prima facie grounds for rejecting the theory. Evolution necessarily proceeds toward alpha maximization. Human beings have won many, many rounds in the alpha casino. Such universal rules as they have conceived are likely to be pretty sound by alpha standards.
These rules, however, are always prohibitions, never imperatives. This too jibes with alpha theory. Actions exist that are always alphadystropic; but no single action is always alphatropic. Here most traditional and theological thinking goes wrong. If such an action existed, we probably would have evolved to do it — constantly, and at the expense of all other actions. If alpha theory had a motto, it would be there are no universal strong solutions. You have to use that big, expensive glucose sink sitting in that thickly armored hemisphere between your ears. Isaiah Berlin’s concept of “negative liberty” fumbles toward this, and you “cash value” types ought to be able to derive a theory of the proper scope of law without too much trouble.
Still more “cash value” lies in information theory, which is an application of thermodynamics. Some say thermodynamics is an application of information theory; but this chicken-egg argument does not matter for our purposes. We care only that they are homologous. We can treat bits the same way we treat energy.
Now the fundamental problem of human action is incomplete information. The economists recognized this over a century ago but the philosophers, as usual, have lagged. To put it in alpha terms, they stopped incorporating new data into their filtration around 1850.
The alpha equation captures the nature of this problem. Its numerator is new information plus the negative entropy you generate from it; its denominator is positive entropy, what you dissipate. Numerator-oriented people are always busy with the next new thing; they consume newspapers and magazines in bulk and seem always to have forgotten what they knew the day before yesterday. This strategy can work — sometimes. Denominator-oriented people tend to stick with what has succeeded for them and rarely, if ever, modify their principles in light of new information. This strategy can also work — sometimes. The great trick is to be an alpha-oriented person. The Greeks, as so often, intuited all of this, lacking only the tools to formalize it. It’s what Empedocles is getting at when he says that life is strife, and what Aristotle is getting at when he says that right action lies in moderation.
Look around. Ask yourself why human beings go off the rails. Is it because we are perishing in an orgy of self-sacrifice, as the Objectivists would have it? Is it because we fail to love our neighbor as ourselves, as the Christians would have it? Or is it because we do our best to advance our interests and simply botch the job?
(Update: Marvin of New Sophists — a Spinal Tap joke lurks in that title — comments at length. At the risk of seeming churlish, I want to correct one small point of his generally accurate interpretation. He writes that “alpha is the negative entropy generated by a system’s behavioral strategy.” Not exactly. Alpha is the ratio between enthalpy plus negative entropy, in the numerator, and positive entropy, in the denominator. It is not measured in units of energy: it is dimensionless. That’s why I say life is a number, rather than a quantity of energy.)
Mr. Haspel;
A "sanity check" is still a standard, as is a litmus test. Attempting to use a synonym rather than the word "standard" won’t change matters.
The next few sentences after what I quoted doesn’t help matters either, because you made agreement with our intuitions a point in favor of Alpha Theory (and a prima facie disconfirmation if it had been otherwise), and then argue for the validity of our intuitions on the basis of Alpha Theory. That’s circular.
Bourbaki came close to rejecting the relevance of our intuitions by saying Alpha Theory is purely empirical, but then asks if I can see how the comparison can be helpful. Well, helpful how? If you’re using it as a point in favor of Alpha Theory, to any extent, to that extent my objection stands.
Of course, you can simply stop making such arguments and my objection will be irrelevant. My objection (so far) is trivial, since you could grant everything I’ve said and Alpha Theory could still be true. However, I see a far greater problem with Alpha Theory, at least as an ethical theory, but I’ll wait to see if you attempt to deal with it as the series continues.
Mr. A.,
Mr. Haspel’s admission that a prima facie case against alpha could be made if it did not conform to previous ethical-policy-consensus or intuition, I took only to mean that ethical norms are probably sound, being the results of a kind of evolution process themselves. As Hayek observed, humans may not always know the reasons why a norm was adopted, but adopting it, say, a respect for private property, is what gave a person, or a community of humans, an advantage over others. According to Hayek, we should not toss-out what may be the products of thousands of years of "cultural" and "moral" "evolution" before we know what we are doing… Indeed, since all of evolution is aiming at closing the alpha*/alpha gap, it is hardly surprising that previous ethical norms conform to alpha-implications, is it? Indeed, in this sense, it can serve as a (highly limited) confirmation-test for alpha, not an objection at all. (Limited by the obvious fact that many time-tested products of such cultural evolution have been dead wrong. Why ever adopt cannibalism or human sacrifice in alpha-terms? Yet such practices lasted for centuries (longer?) in many, many places.)
Of course, you are absolutely right, on your ultimate point: conforming to our intuitions cannot be the standard itself without making a logical circle. If alpha is the only objective standard, then its proponents must be prepared to bite the bullet and say so, wherever alpha leads us…
The reason Alpha defines ethics, Jim, is because Alpha is the measurement of consequential energy flux. What this means is that Alpha is the measure of all things (living). It allows for a standard in terms of energy, or, perhaps, put another way, it is the measurement of their life in terms of existing energy. It is a description of all consequential action because alpha is a description of all consequential energy.
It also explains what occurs for life. The ability of a living thing to recognize Alpha is not an act of consciousness, but simply a way of describing the living things relationship with everything else, BY EXPLAINING ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH AVAILABLE ENERGY.
Understand?
I can put it another way. Dont get focused on Aarons examples, they are being used to illustrate WHAT HE MEANS WITH HIS INDIVIDUAL POINTS. He uses examples to explain the parts. Examples are there to explain why he composed the symbols (words formulas whatever)in such a way that they constitute the universal (in terms of the universe) assessment of energy fluctuation that occurs during Thermodynamics.
He then puts this in terms of LIFE. He could just as easily put it in terms of ENERGY. All living things are composed of it. Therefore, they are subject to the laws that govern it. Therefore they are manifestations of the universal process that occurs from the universal laws that govern energy (at least in theory).
So, again, the reason Alpha defines ethics is because Alpha is THE measurement of consequential action. It does not actually say that our moral beliefs are Right. Just that they are demonstrative of our attempts at maximal alpha using the available free energy. This attempt is alpha star.
So our human actions are THE act of being alive, and things alive must operate toward alpha star or die. THIS THEORY DOES NOT SAY HOW TO ACT TOWARD ALPHA STAR. How could it. It simply says that is what you do. Or you die. If you do it well, you will live longer.
THIS IS NOT PERSONAL AND SUBJECTIVE TO ONE PERSON. Alpha and alpha star do not measure an individual. They measure everything. It would be impossible to isolate the energy signature (manifestation, energy consequence, energy available) for an individual. Im sorry. It cant speak in those terms. Alpha can only describe the entirety of a thing. The entirety of an interaction.
When Aaron describes the alpha of any given system he is doing so for the purpose of example, not the purpose of us actually being able to measure said example. It is the example to explain thermodynamic consequences in terms of alpha. That is all. Sorry.
Jim, this theory connects everything to everything else. It shows that the entirety of all action is a product of energy, and energy flux is measured by alpha.
How does this relate to ethics? Ill repeat myself a little to save my poor fingers:
This theory isnt going to tell you how to live into the future, its only going to tell you how you go about living into your future. Its not going to tell you what you SHOULD DO. Its going to say this is what happened in terms of alpha. It wont even say this is what is GOING TO HAPPEN, in terms of alpha, only that alpha will be vital to all that happens.
And since this theory measures the entire process of everything, it measures the entire process of man. It does not say man is not consciously doing something, it says that mans consciousness is somehow making choices that maximize alpha, or else it wouldnt be conscious anymore. It would be dead. But it does not do so in specifics to any one man or even to all of mankind, but rather in abundance. It does so in terms of all energy.
Therefore, this theory connects ANYTHING that is energy to EVERYTHING that is energy without the need for abstractions about physicality and actuality. This connects via consequences of observable energy. Therefore, this theory MUST BE OF the greatest assistance to real world applications of ethics, which need only be measured by (and against) the advancement of all coexistence. Ethics tell us how to think about our actions. They let us feel that an action was a good one or a bad one. This good or bad cannot be thought of in terms of Alpha but in terms of evolution, where evolution means the continued advancement of all things.
Alpha is in terms of the entirety of energy. It allows us to measure the consequences of energy interaction. Ethics tell us how a society should live together and how to continue doing so. But without Alpha how can we establish any universal code of ethics. We would still be twiddling our fingers trying to decide whether everything energy was commensurable, meaning whether everything energy dependant was the same. We would still be wondering if what was good for blacks was good for whites. We would have on universal absolute indication of connection between life the universe and everything. And now we do.
Now that we know things are connected, ethics are now a concrete thing. FOR SURE. Everyone can agree that as long as thermodynamics holds, everything energy exists. And we know why, because Alpha explains how life operates in relation to the energy of the universe.
Does this tell you whether to abort your kid? No. That you must think of in terms of societal advancement. But there can be no doubt that the advancement is real and measurable. Can we necessarily (before hand) measure that advancement. Of course not. Do we need to? Of course not. Humans are going to make mistakes. We are after all, human. But we need to know one thing right now. The thing that separates us from animals does not begin on the level of energy processions. Alpha gives us a place to start. That is all, and that is more than enough for me.
one more thing. Stop looking for this theory to tell you what to do. It only helps you start that process. That is why Aaron has said there will be other posts and blogs. Because the ground level has been built now. We know what the ground level consists of from the bottom up. But the implications won’t be obvious to you unless you see the floor for what it is, a starting point, and not for what you think its supposed to be, which i take is some kind of flexible map you can consult and KNOW WHAT TO DO SO YOU DONT MAKE A MISTAKE.
DAMN!
I don’t want to dominate the space of this post but I think i can help Jim and A. Armitage out.
If alpha is the only objective standard
Alpha cannot be the objective standard. Alpha is the objective measurement of available energy as it fluctuates. You are confusing the issue here Jimmy boy. And why the hell would anyone who understands Alpha want it to be the ONLY OBJECTIVE STANDARD? That seems counterintuitive and circular to me, seeing as how we can use Alpha to begin observing more objective processes that occur.
Wherever alpha leads us…
What? Alpha wont lead you anywhere. How are you going to follow a measurement? Why, Jim, would you want to follow one. Alpha isnt a suggestion. Its an algebraic description of available energy as it fluctuates. Again, Im sorry.
Because you made agreement with our intuitions a point in favor of Alpha Theory.
Hrmm. Sorry but intuition isnt a point in favor of Alpha theory. Alpha theory is a point in favor of intuition. Alpha theory describes intuition to-a-degree by illustrating that intuition occurs when our bodies observe Alpha. That is why Bourbaki noted that Intuition is likely our bodies attempt at maximizing alpha star. To follow his line of reasoning, intuition is our bodies way of communicating the registration of alpha in such a way as to suggest surety. Intuition is something you just know (right?). Some bodies are better equipped to process Alpha than others, but BY NO MEANS, and IN NO WAY, can intuition be a point in favor of Alpha theory.
Ill tell you what is though. Energy fluctuations. The thermodynamic fact that energy goes through a process is a point in favor of Alpha. Know why? Because Alpha is a description of that process.
Tommy,
I regard ethics, by definition, as something to give me normative guidance. If a theory gives no normative advice, then, by definition, it is not "an ethics." You could have spared yourself all of the effort above. But you did put it very well: "alpha is a description of consequential energy." Tidy and succinct. It is a physical explanation of ethics, not ethics, if what you say is true. On this level, let me repeat: I have no objection to alpha, nor have I ever. But ethics tells me what I SHOULD DO. If Aaron’s exercise is meant to prove that no such discipline is possible or necessary, then let’s hear that case made. It is asserrted, but not shown, that there are no universal strong solutions–period. There certainly are none within the four-corners of alpha, but there are in lots of other, very-real-world situations. No, it seems that Mr. Haspel is arguing that alpha gives us guidance, at least, "weak solutions." Even our host, I think, would concede that in the absence of "cash value," this ain’t ethics. Notice, too, how Bourbaki has started giving us legislative advice, no less!
oops i cut and pasted that from word without the final point i meant to make. Sorry. Here it is.
Bourbaki came close to rejecting the relevance of our intuitions by saying Alpha Theory is purely empirical
That is not true. He might have been trying to undermine the relevance of intuition when one uses it to understand Alpha Theory. Alpha theory IS an empirical theory, the product of applying algebra to the measurement of thermodynamic energy.
but then asks if I can see how the comparison can be helpful. Well, helpful how? If you’re using it as a point in favor of Alpha Theory…
Dont assume Bourbaki was being expressly (read perfectly) analogous. I am not talking for him. He can do that himself. However:
But I imagine you can see that comparing alpha theory to other ethical systems, both past and present, can be helpful?
I tend to disagree with this. It can be, but it strikes me as almost excess baggage until the theory is fully explicated and validated, due to the implications of the ethical systems, and due to the sometimes troublesome connotations that any objective theory will tend to generate.
I regard ethics, by definition, as something to give me normative guidance
to what end?
I have repeatedly declined invitations to present my view of ethics in this limited space. I have been simply (and irrelevantly) ridiculed when I gave a reading list. In my view, it would be a distraction from the theory being presented here. Let me just say here that life is the only objective standard of value, that my self-interest is the ultimate purpose of my own action, and that the survival, health and happiness of the choosing agent should be the ultimate goals of all of his lesser values.
Jim, the only possibly distracting thing you are doing is saying that Alpha theory is not ethics after people have already rescinded and said a new type of definition was either in order, or a new word entirely would be chosen. I dont see Alpha theory as an ethical system, I see Alpha theory as an empirical system that might show us a new way of viewing human ethics.
^.^
and happiness of the choosing agent should be the ultimate goals…
I say this simply because happiness should not be a goal of all lesser values. Some of the greatest human achievements and realizations have been born of suffering. Maybe don’t preclude such in your battle for self interest that you admittedly wage with all actions. But this still seems to be skirting the issue of alpha.
Your view of ethical conduct sounds isolationist and subjective. The alpha theory is a thing of energetic interconnection and is objective.
I am not ridiculing you my nigga.
"life is the only objective standard of value"
To whom? For what? I don’t understand. Are you saying life is the only objective actuality of consequence? Because it seems to me life is only "valuable" because our consciousness says so. That doesn’t mean im not saying its valuable, of course it is, but only to the living possessive of the distinctions necessary to create a hierarchical system of evaluation/value. I thought we were discussing the implications of energy transference and matter. Aren’t we?
Life is the objective standard of value to all living things,
sounds a lot like life is living, i am living, I am valuable, therefore life is valuable.
self-interest, right or wrong, without regard to alpha–
ethics is the uniquely human aspect of alpha.
i thought alpha was a description of ethics, as it is a description of all, but that alpha star "is" the ethics. and alpha star isn’t perfect, only the attempt to be.
see my point?
oops, meant to say "the attempt to be alpha."
Value-pursuit is simply a fact, whether it is rooted in alpha or not. I don’t know from "perfect," but alpha* is the equivalent of value-pursuit in the context of living organisms. For human beings, this becomes true "ethics" since humans alone need to consciously choose their values.
Tommy,
Real quick: A "value" is the object of action, an end which is pursued. One pursues some things to get others, but there can be no infinite regress of values, goals, or ends sought. Life is the only "end in itself." It is it’s own goal, and it is the source, in fact, of all other goals. It is the thing that gives rise to the fact and the concept of "value" itself. If there were no living things, there would be no "value-pursuit," no "goals" "sought" at all. Life is a process of self-generated, self-sustaining activity. It is the very process of "pursuing ends." The life of any organism is conditional: to remain alive a specific course of action is required.
Thus, there is no higher goal or value than life itself. Life is the objective standard of value to all living things, the end which all of their innate natures are geared to achieve, but only humans can and need to consciously choose their means to that end. We alone need a science of ethics.
Or, from the perspective of thermodynamics, ethics is the uniquely human aspect of alpha.
Most people will continue to act in their perceived self-interest, right or wrong, without regard to alpha–whether or not alpha alone gets at the physical source and best description of what they are doing!
Aaron,
I am still waiting for alpha’s position on the concept of "rights." And "hard solutions" in more definite circumstances–even some that can be generalized about…
has anyone tested this by taking the process backwards, ala, a reverse universe of our own.
and will either Aaron or Bourbaki talk shit about my reasoning where it seems to have gone wrong, if so, i get the feeling I may be failing to understand some of the implications of alpha as a quantity.
"For human beings, this becomes true "ethics" since"
Jim are you saying alpha is ethics now?
No, all ethics is "doing alpha," but not all alpha is "doing ethics." Remember that this is MY position, not Mr. Haspel’s; he does regard alpha and ethics as the same thing.
If ethics are an alpha equation: alpha describes life, and All alpha is(exists), ethics are always alpha, and alpha is always every consequential nonstatic universal occurence. Including, I think, ethics.
someone say right or wrong here :)
Alpha describes many things. It’s simply dazzling in its attempt to integrate so much so completely. In the process, however, it is important to retain vital distinctions within the class of things it describes, where necessary. It is only "necessary," in my context, as I believe "ethics" to be something specific–and much narrower than alpha.
From my understanding so far–I will say it again–alpha appears to be the physics of ethics, the physics of all teleology, and even, as you put it, every consequential event. Properly conceived, it does not eliminate any of the other sciences, including ethics, it helps to explain them. To call something "ethics," Tommy, when you say it gives no normative advice, is like calling a theory that denies the existence of life "biology."
it does give normative advice in abundance, not in specific.
Also, a charachteristic of life is the appearance of teleology. I reccomend reading Animate and Inanimate by William Sidis. After I thought I had figured ALpha out i went on a googling spree and googled for "the smartest man ever". William’s name appeared. He knew 200 languages, perfect photo recall, etc. Animate and inanimate. Check it out.
Lots of sciences give normative advice, in fact, most do. Ethics addresses itself to the subject of human conduct and responsibility. Alpha has the potential to give more than specific advice. It could have the power to inform much of ethics, and metaethics (e.g., the fundamental nature of values), substantially. This does not make it "ethics."
I’ll give Sidis a look.
Aaron,
"No path, only the Way, as the Buddhists say."
As the Taoist would hate to hear, it appears to me that you’ve stumbled across "The way that can be described that is the true way."
This discussion provides an excellent companion to my rereading of the objectivist and utilitarian canons.
And taking a note from the objectivists, let’s say that the functions are "the facts", and a supremely useful basis for making decisions in the self interest, and making them jive with those larger eustaces out there.
meta ethics are simple. Humans are sesquisocial. We need others to live. Thus our selfpreservative insticts mixed with our "nature" to reproduce and feed ourselves informed all our conduct. As human societys grew in collective intelligence so to did their societies evolve new ethics. Those ethics which served the greatest purpose and informed the most alpha star actions kept that society going, those with worse ethics did not. That is until warfare. Warfare is, whether you admit it or not, a human attempt at ethics.
Tommy,
A failed attempt, I think we can now safely say.
Oddly enough I was doing some research on the conceptual theory of language I’ve been developing and its relationship to how we form opinions of the universe when I discovered that someone had beat me to it and done most of my work for me. Christoper Langan theory CTMU. Anyone interested in Alpha will be better off in my mind. I am currently reading Wolfram and Sidis and Langan, but also i reccomend anyone curious to go look at the links bourbaki listed at the end of the comments on the previous post. (currently 199 posts)
Tommy,
If I may offer some advice which you are, of course, free to ignore: don’t try to corroborate an outlandish idea like alpha theory with other outlandish theories.
Any scientific theory is judged on the basis of what new capabilities it offers. But before we can determine if these capabilities are new, we need to learn what capabilities we already possess.
You should be extremely skeptical of any theories that lack corroborative citations or violate well-established principles. Why throw out these experimentally validated principles unless they stand in the way of some new capability? And if there is a new capability offered, you should expect clear evidence of it.
Take a page from the Greeks:
Some, like Gorgias, asserted that it was not necessary to have any knowledge of a subject to give satisfactory replies as regards it. Thus, Gorgias ostentatiously answered any question on any subject instantly and without consideration. To attain these ends mere quibbling, and the scoring of verbal points were employed. In this way, the sophists tried to entangle, entrap, and confuse their opponents, and even, if this were not possible, to beat them down by mere violence and noise. They sought also to dazzle by means of strange or flowery metaphors, by unusual figures of speech, by epigrams and paradoxes, and in general by being clever and smart, rather than earnest and truthful.
Mathematical and physical relationships may be unambiguously challenged. And the tools needed to challenge them are universal so learning them is useful irrespective of the outcome. It’s not as easy to challenge language–particularly specialized language that’s not clear and simple.
For anyone to responsibly promote intelligent design, they should first demonstrate that they know their shit about all the alternatives because they’re effectively arguing that every other possible explanation won’t do. If they haven’t exhausted alternatives, they’re basically admitting that they’re too impatient or too lazy to find more plausible explanations.
It remains only to note that while explaining the inherent complexity of such a material designer would launch an explanatory regress that could end only with some sort of Prime Mover, thus coming down to something very much like teleology after all, ID theory has thus far committed itself only to design inference. That is, it currently proposes only to explain complex biological phenomena in terms of design, not to explain the designer itself. With regard to deeper levels of explanation, the field remains open.
What need is there for a "prime mover"? We know that energy is conserved == energy is eternal. We also know that energy is cause. Langan’s theory, like all ID theories, vanishes down a rabbit hole.
Consider a snowflake–it’s an ordered, complicated structure. After it melts, can you take the water and work backwards to create that original snowflake? Should we reasonably conclude that gods or angels or aliens are making snowflakes?
I have no idea what Langan is talking about here:
Because neo-Darwinism is held forth as a "synthesis" of Darwinian natural selection and post-Mendelian genetics, it is sometimes referred to as the "Modern Synthesis". However, it appears to fall somewhat short of this title, for not only is its basic approach to evolutionary biology no longer especially modern, but despite the fact that it is a minority viewpoint counterbalanced by cogent and far more popular alternatives including theistic evolution and ID theory, it actively resists meaningful extension.
The MegaFoundation offers no facts, no citations and no external references.
I try to avoid anyone who spends as much time as Wolfram telling you how smart he is. Intelligence is not a vocation. Wolfram is very smart. We all figured that out when he graduated Caltech with a PhD at age 20. If you didn’t know that, don’t worry, he’ll remind you and make certain that you never forget.
Wolfram proposes automata. If you look back through the history of science, you’ll see that the advanced technology of the day was often used as a model to explain everything. For the Greeks, it was fire. In the era of electricity, we were charged with current and perhaps even able to re-animate ourselves with the appropriate amount of lightning. In the era of steam, we were all tiny valves and pumps. In modern times, we are all computational engines.
After 1200 pages, Wolfram’s inability to reconcile a gas cloud with a human being makes me question the soundness of his approach, Occam’s razor notwithstanding.
Bourbaki, if you read the conclusion to animate and inanimate, you would see that Sidis embodies a type of presentation that I admire very much. He admits that his theory does not hold universally, and gives numerous arguements to the contrary of his point, all the while showing that certain things he demonstrated along the way hold true and remain counter to the majority of popular understanding. He wrote to further the conversation, that is all.
That is why I like the way this site proceeds, even though people are still demanding too much from alpha theory in my opinion. When something is enough, for most, it never is (feels that way).
Bourbaki, do not forget one thing. I am not smart. I am if anything the greek sophist.
Tommy, you are without a doubt, excepting Bourbaki, the smartest person posting here. You are also nothing like a sophist. The sophists were interested not at all in discovery, in knowledge or in truth. They sought only the gratification of their own egos and to appear to win, no matter what they were saying.
You have made an honest attempt to understand something that is very difficult to understand and for no reason other than your curiosity and intellectual hunger. Simply put, there is nothing more noble and nothing more impressive. You are to be applauded.
Who effing cares what you did in college or if you went or what degree you "earned" or any of that lovely bullshit. You are a bright guy by any standard; the fact that you do it for no reason other than your interest also makes you a good one.
CT, thank you. I was unclear I guess. And while I am not sure that you have acurately measured the collective intelligence of those of us posting, I am sure of one thing: I would not find myself at all intelligent if I let what I accomplished be my goal (or criteria for self worth). The process is where all the fun is.
I was listing my maths (heh) to demonstrate my lack of apptitude for it as compared with the people I am now reading about. Also, the classroom comment was trying to describe my feelings about college exactly as you put it. Who cares what you did in that setting in relation to another’s approval or standard (where it regards apptitude and attitude). Certainly there are college professors who are not myopic egotists full of effusive self inflation, but I did not encounter them often enough to like my experience there. The fact that I could bullshit my way into their approval solidified it for me. I was sixteen and angry at the world then, as I was when i first started posting on this site.
Enough biography sheesh. Bourbaki certainly wasn’t saying I was stupid, I was being coy and silly. No one reading this site and looking to understand it can by my account be stupid. What I meant was that I am very uneducated/ in the process of rectifying that.
Bourbaki, astrobiology and a couple other magazines have been posting findings that are currently favoring the ideas of William Sidis, who I think has a lot to say about Alpha Theory. Christopher Langan as best as I can tell from my (very) brief reading is like Hegel and Descartes only more expressive with his language. I brought him up because it seemed he was trying to configure a theory of benefit along the lines of (the hopeful results to) alpha theory. I want to know what you think of Sidis’ idea of reversibility. Am I wrong in seeing how it provides new context to Alpha.
CT: where are your posts! Too few. Bill and Jim also, I would like to know what you think of Sidis and Aaron’s Alpha theory. Am I clutching at straws. This time I provide an email if you want to engage in private correspondence for whatever reasons.
Aaron, holla back nia!
"You’ll see that the advanced technology of the day was often a model to explain everything"
There is a difference, then, of using it to describe everything, and to explain it. One might fail while the other succeeds. It might be interesting to note that using it to explain everything would on some levels succeed at description (via context), even were it to fail at designating the truthful consequences of whatever is being (improperly) explained.
The mega foundation offers no facts, no citations and no external references. Certainly, after reading their manifesto, you realize this is not strictly true. I take it you mean "to my prying eye" offers no etc. Which is not me being condescending and "you only can see this and not this because you lack", but rather, it seems that you went looking for something instead of seeing what the site showed you. I may be wrong, but this seems to be my very problem with the majority of posted opinions about alpha. Certainly you just haven’t spent the time with it that you spent on alpha, so your appreciation has appreciably wavered. I understand, I think.
Unlike what Wolfram wrote, however, which kind of strangely seems to describe (from my cursory looks) the kind of reactions Sidis describes as psuedo-living organisms, what he calls the automata. But man I really didn’t spend much time with that and can’t properly correlate it. (so to me this line of reasoning offers no fact. Thouigh, I’m sure, being a student of probability, you certainly would agree that it might). Just a thought.
Weee, we get to go back and forth some now, while I play catch up on Theromodynamics (still :*(, but I’m getting there).
I guess the point you made that I struggle with is that we should not throw out old experimentally corroborated theories etc. unless it stands in the way of new capabilities. Let me just say this, a vast majority of the theories on Theromdynamics biology and everything in science are peoples opinions that come from their observations. Put another way, I am not disputing the experimentally corroborated results, but I am to a large part disputing the theories people have concerning their origin or implications, simply because it has been my experience that all people, smart and stupid, are usually wrong about much more than they are right. It seems that we operate under a system of priveleged indulgence, by which we inflate ourselves with the ideas we know and tend towards the idea that we know much. Einstein said it better than me, even paraphrased, when he said the more I know the more I know I don’t know. So these people, smarter than me, smarter than you maybe, are smart enough to look at the examples and see them, which is more than most of us, but that doesn’t mean I’m buying their exposition. I need only go to the science section of a bookstore to see that massive room for most of these people to pick at the side-skin of each other’s theories, without any of them ever satisfactorily accounting for the biggest picture (everything.) The very reason the outlandish Alpha theory has appeal is the same that Langan and Sidis do, namely, that they take cross sections of disciplines and combine them into a theory attempting to account for everything. Now I realize I marginalized your argument somewhat to make my point, but you have to at least grant me the small position I have carved out here as being at least as theoreticly plausible as the one saying "these guys are right". Because to site history, as you so succinctly (dare I say poeticlly) do in your assessment of modern technology being grounds for perfect descriptions and contextual verity of everything universal, you can clearly see that throughout history most of the smartest of us were still wrong. This is a trend I am positive will continue. We need only view the way society has ostracised the civil and intelligent among us in favor of sexist barbarism and glutonous and gratuitious overcompensation for percieved inadequacies and personal insecurites (but I AM fogging my point here by giving to many and to large examples, so pardons please)
come on, someone say something :)
My saying "I understand, I think," is my way of saying that I realize I may be criticised for doing the same thing to alpha theory as those I myself criticise by NOT allowing for alpha to mean as much as it actually does (while they want it to mean so much more, perhaps I want it to mean to little).
damn sorry about the multiple posts, but I don’t know hot to use a Mac to cut and paste and therefore did not edit my last post in word. When I say, "most of the smartest… were still wrong," let me also say, or at least merely partly right. Or not wholly factually consistent (with the universe) via their presented interconnections. Last one I swear.
Tommy,
I will only say what has helped me or not, because I as of now lack the bulk knowledge to say what is truthful.
You don’t need bulk knowledge to point out what is not true.
Or not wholly factually consistent (with the universe) via their presented interconnections.
It’s easy to recognize that they were wrong than to understand why they were wrong and why they believed. It’s even easier to lampoon their mistakes to avoid the trouble of learning their work altogether. Scientists make a lot of guesses and many of them are wrong. Maxwell’s equations are considered some of the greatest in all of science but they didn’t pop fully formed into his head.
Experimental data reduces the number and types of guesses you can make by eliminating models that won’t fit the evidence. It’s very tempting to throw away inconvenient empirical laws or to create tortured exceptions to them.
That’s why I recommended that you read recently published books that account for more evidence. There is so much to read and so much more on the periphery that I find it impossible to get through a tiny fraction of what’s available.
Don’t treat mainstream science as inviolate but don’t toss it out altogether because of bad teachers and jaded professors. That’s the worst possible consequence of that bad experience. The ideas of people like Mendeleev, Avery, Pauling, and Maxwell have survived many challenges and yielded benefits we see everyday. They were mavericks once.
you can clearly see that throughout history most of the smartest of us were still wrong.
We are no less susceptible of being led astray today. But today we do need to account for more evidence. I don’t see where Langan is doing that–perhaps you can point it out for me? Any self-proclaimed "Theory of Everything" like Langan’s is going to have to be consistent with all the well-established "theories of something".
What a neat idea! A kind of genealogy of morals to the nth degree.
My instinctive response is to ask about the difference between quantity and quality. Does the strategy for maximum human sustainability produce a life I’d actually want to live? To paraphrase Bill Hicks: Yul Brenner smoked, drank, and got laid every day of his life; Jim Fixx spent his mornings running around dewey tracks at dawn. Brenner’s dead. Fixx is dead. Shit." Maybe Fixx just should have spent more time drinking, smoking, and getting laid…there are no universal strong solutions, right?
There’s also the question of scope. An individual is part of many things that can be called systems. There’s your body, your immediate family, your neighborhood, your extended family or your kin group, your city, your province, your nation, your species, the local ecosystem, the global ecosystem…I think we can stop there for now. How do we decide the system that most deserves to be sustained in a given instance? Jim Valliant says above that there is no conflict between individual and collective good, but I have trouble believing that’s always the case. Exhibit A, my grandfather who died in WW2. I have trouble imagining a plausible scenario in which his personal sacrifice and many others weren’t necessary for the collective good. Perhaps if everyone else in the world behaved properly…but they won’t.
I’m looking forward to hearing more.
Marvin,
One point should be clarified. The statement
There are no universal strong solutions.
is meant to imply that there is no single, filtration-independent way to generate alpha. The optimal path depends on the filtration and the filtration (Universe) is always changing.
Despite new playing fields, new players and different conditions, the rules of the game have never changed.
The question of scope comes up often but keep in mind that the process is recursive. If you sacrifice the alpha of one system for the benefit of another, you’ll need to account for both.
A thermodynamic system is simply the part of the Universe in which we are interested. The system can be a room, a beaker or an individual cell. We are free to select the system as we choose–but it is very important that we specify our choice so that someone can point out consequences that we’ve overlooked.
We can still make qualitative assessments based on the underlying principles: destructive or heavily restricted despotic paths won’t be as alphatropic as conciliatory and cooperative ones.
Yul Brenner smoked, drank, and got laid every day of his life; Jim Fixx spent his mornings running around dewey tracks at dawn. Brenner’s dead. Fixx is dead. Shit.
In the long run we are all dead.
–John Maynard Keynes
There’s a difference between exploring new and different things and losing one’s freedom to them.
Aristotle is getting at when he says that right action lies in moderation.
As Mr. Haspel pointed out via Aristotle, it’s all about balance.
I have trouble imagining a plausible scenario in which his personal sacrifice and many others weren’t necessary for the collective good.
It wasn’t your grandfather’s life that was needed but his abilities.
Be careful about evaluating events based on what you know after the fact i.e. use the filtration of the agent(s) involved when the decision was made. Alpha theory doesn’t prohibit us from taking risks–we can never escape them. If the cause is great and the risks are necessary, we should do our best to ensure our safety knowing well that we can never guarantee it.
We can’t always predict the best actionable path–we can only try to stack the odds in our favor. And we do know that its implication on alpha will determine if we’re around to learn from our mistakes.
Marvin,
Bourbaki beat me to it, but I will add to this:
Yul Brenner smoked, drank, and got laid every day of his life; Jim Fixx spent his mornings running around dewey tracks at dawn. Brenner’s dead. Fixx is dead. Shit.
Mr. Brenner and Mr. Fixx had their own F. You have yours, I mine.
And yes, …"Be careful about evaluating events based on what you know after the fact i.e. use the filtration of the agent(s) involved when the decision was made."
F@t-1.
Filtration is phenonmenologic. It happens at some time t. Then comes a new F at a different t.
This, perhaps, is what is known as "Monday morning quarterbacking."
Or not.
A digression.
Lost in the many posts above is a comment on abortion (made by Bourbaki). I haven’t had the time to fully consider it or reply, but at first reading I thought it was incomplete.
I still do, even more so. Again, from Bourbaki,
"If you sacrifice the alpha of one system for the benefit of another, you’ll need to account for both."
This is tricky.
More later.
read phenomenologic
Spellcheck.is.my.Friend.
MeTooThen,
The comments in that post were intended as quick illustrations of how we might apply alpha considering the limitations of the law’s ability to reflect the filtration. They weren’t meant to be complete expositions but rather teasers since we’ve spent so much time and worn out so much patience deriving the foundations of the theory.
I did not mean to imply that a quick blurb could put the matter to rest. A much more detailed explanation (requiring its own post) is needed.
Bourbaki,
Yes, and thank you.
As I said, I thought the comment was incomplete.
You are a gentleman, sir.
It’s even easier to lampoon their mistakes than to learn their work etc. Are you accusing me of this, or pointing out what occurs for you.
Everyone does that to some degree, as you said, with the wealth of available information, but raw accumulation of incidents are typical products of the monthly science periodicals (in my very limited experience) and massive laticeworks of cross referencing interconnections are not. Synthesis is what I look for first, before I explore the many many man pieces that are evidence of it’s accuracy. This occurs because an idea can be (at times) merely as strong as it’s weakest instance.
William Sidis and his thermodynamic ideas are strange and old, from well before 1925, and yet, a vast majoirty of recent findings in science magazines recently are only just now (because of the observations we are now capable of making using technological advances) being given universal context.
I do not disgredard the others because I regard his. I am saying it seems he has a lot to say about Alpha, and then I asked your opinion about it.
Hopefully it is forthcoming. I cannot just start bringing everything he says up in post after post, that is bulky and awkward. I can tell you that, unlike Langan, whose system defines the universeral relationship of the universe to the universe as a language, and then describes our relationship to language as well.
Bad professors didn’t stop me from seeking/liking/beliving-in knowledge, my cynicism did.
Besides, I said analyzing Langan’s approach had much to say about the presentation (and limitations–boundaries– of presentations) of alpha theory. If you really want my opinion on it, because "perhaps" I can explain it I think. But wouldn’t you rather read it too?
You obviously understand much of what I do not about thermodynamics, so my proposal to you of Sidis’ ideas were to show you something you very likely had not and would not be considering. Just as your links were to the same effect for me. Certainly I wasn’t saying one was better or more correct, and I cannot tell whether you are implying this about what you say or not because, really, I can’t tell what you thought of Sidis, beyond the waryness one would expcet of being recomended a scientific work that emerged before the advances that have occurd post 1924.
Anyway, I haven’t slept in many many hours, 18 hours before those posts. So much more later. G’night
Tommy,
It’s even easier to lampoon their mistakes than to learn their work etc. Are you accusing me of this, or pointing out what occurs for you.
Not at all. I have no basis to accuse you anything. I have also had the misfortune of dealing with sterile, overbearing teachers and professors myself. Fortunately, I’ve also had occasion to spend some time with very good ones.
I was only commenting on what appeared to be an anti-mainstream bias. I’m not trying to discourage you from reading Sidis, Langan or Wolfram but only suggesting that you balance them with some mainstream sources.
Marvin,
I think I clearly don’t yet understand how alpha theory will be applied in practice.
Before you can consider how to use it, you first need to understand what it says, how it is justified and if it is valid.
1. Alpha theory identifies a physical, dimensionless quantity that defines life. In other words, it defines how the game is scored.
2. We establish a utility function for all living systems (Part 6).
3. Any outcome that maximizes this utility function is to be preferred. Sustainability is a necessary but not terminal criteria in the utility function.
You’re not alone in wanting to apply it immediately but I don’t see how that’s possible for a mathematical/physical theory without first taking the time to understand its derivation. You can’t treat it like a black box. If you find a critical flaw in the foundation, we can throw the whole thing away.
Or perhaps this is all waffle; if the best response is "read the rest of the comments," please don’t hesitate to issue it. I will soon take up where my eyes last glazed over in any event.
Just stick with the posts on your first pass–skip the comments. If there is anything that is not clear, someone on this board will try to assist you. I know you would like to post a series of questions on how to apply the theory. That’s why we now have 100-200 posts per thread.
This is in no way meant to discourage you from posting more questions. However, I believe you’ll be able to better apply the theory for yourself once you’re confident that you’re standing on solid ground.
Looking back over the comments there seems to be a recurring though understandable tendency to set up hypothetical situations and push through their conclusions in search of recipes. The problem is that we then tend to take our conclusions and treat them independently of the hypothetical situation (read hypothetical filtration). Alpha theory states that it is impossible to do this.
I’m wary of using analogies because there’s a tendency to take them too far.
With that caveat, if you’re planning to enjoy a playoff game this weekend, take a moment to put yourself in the coach’s position. He is constantly working through hypotheticals and trying to match them with what he sees on the field.
For example, he never considers the situations that call for a blitz separately from calling a blitz.
"If a blitz works in this hypothetical case, I should blitz all the time."
He doesn’t send a player in to get injured even though a career ending injury is possible on any play. And it’s not prima facie in opposition to a player’s own interest to take a chance for the benefit of the team.
The underlying objective is to score points. But there is no closed set of recipes that will ensure his team will win everytime–otherwise all teams would use this strategy. The other teams respond to his actions and also adjust their hypotheticals to adapt their responses.
We’re dealing with a much more complicated game.
Imagine an aspiring coach who shows up at training camp saying that he doesn’t want to learn the rules of the game–he just wants to learn how to win. This proclivity is all but beaten out of you in science but the hunt for closed-form ideal recipes seems to be de rigueur in philosophy.
Besides, not knowing the rules makes any game inscrutable and boring.
Living systems are open systems. You can’t consider them independently of their surroundings. There is a constant exchange of energy. The unpredictable nature of this flux and a system’s ability to adapt to it determine how long it can continue to play the game.
Alpha theory doesn’t state that meager sustainability is the final goal–only that sustainability of a system is a necessary one. There’s no slippery slope to a strong solution consisting of boring ascetism. Any system barely on the edge of sustainability is less able to adapt to changes in the environment.
Thanks again. I don’t find myself questioning the foundation itself so much as what the foundation is for. Which I realize may be tantamount to treating the foundation as a black box, which I shouldn’t do, but because I can’t help myself I’ll ask two more questions.
Any outcome that maximizes this utility function is to be preferred.
I can’t help but think that this statement isn’t part of the derivation but is instead, when applied normatively, an assumption about the consequences of the derivation. If one were to say, "We should expect natural selection to favor systems that maximize the utility function," then that would be one thing. But "Any outcome that maximizes this utility function is to be preferred" sounds as though one has already solved all possible problems of system-scope and application in advance. Or am I loading too much into the word "preferred?" What am I missing?
Sustainability is a necessary but not terminal criteria in the utility function.
I don’t understand "not terminal" here. (I think I understand "necessary.") I suspect this marks me as a mathematically illiterate (which in many respects I’m sure I am). Does "not terminal" just mean that sustainability is not the only criterion in defining an ethical value? Or just not the trump criterion?
Mr. Haspel, thank you for the correction. I’ve altered my blog to reflect it. Bourbaki & MeTooThen: thank you for your comments.
I think I clearly don’t yet understand how alpha theory will be applied in practice; I shall try to read more and kvetch less…well, with some exceptions.
Does Aristotle’s or alpha-theory’s moderation include a knowledge of when not to be moderate about it, that is, when to go balls-out (or not at all)? I’ve been inclined to think that the difference between too much courage and just enough has nothing to do with courage and everything to do with judgement. When the action in question requires courage, one wants to go balls-out (c.f. Henry V). The response that too much judgment might make one a coward seems to me backwards: cowards excercise judgement to postpone exhibiting courage. (Or something.) I say this as a self-confessed coward in many respects.
And I don’t understand the warning, "Be careful about evaluating events based on what you know after the fact i.e. use the filtration of the agent(s) involved when the decision was made." It seems to me that this only matters when assessing motive, e.g. "They did the best they could at the time according to the filtration they were able to consult." I thought I read at some point that motive was irrelevant to ethics as alpha theory plans to understand it. Surely if we’re going to improve our future filtrations we must evaluate past filtrations and decisions based on the consequences?
And I’m not sure I agree with this: "It wasn’t your grandfather’s life that was needed but his abilities." A person’s abilities cannot be had apart from his life — either a small portion of his life (some time and energy) as the US Army intended, or all of his life (i.e. death) as the US Army knew would befall many of the men it sent into action. No filtration existed that plausibly would have spared all the lives of the men whose abilities were needed, therefore some lives were required for all practical purposes, though perhaps not any particular individual’s lives as such — just the ones in the wrong place at the wrong time. (But what if being in the wrong place at the wrong time means you were sacrificed knowingly in order to gain a future position, as in the case of Bataan?)
This is not to argue that individual self-interest and common self-interest must conflict a priori, though that’s a tempting tragic point of view; I’m just not sure a filtration has been or can ever be both invented and disseminated such that the conflict can be avoided in practice.
One more ramble: talk of filtrations reminds me of karma in Buddhism. Not "bad things that happen are payback for past deeds" karma, but the more conservative "all events are subject to laws of cause and effect" karma. I’m guessing the application of Buddhism to alpha theory might be that all the meditation and observation one does improves one’s filtration skills. It’s not so much that one divines moral laws of any kind; it’s just that one perceives all the more clearly the likely consequences of actions, making wise (alphatrophic?) actions more likely in general.
Or perhaps this is all waffle; if the best response is "read the rest of the comments," please don’t hesitate to issue it. I will soon take up where my eyes last glazed over in any event.
Marvin,
But "Any outcome that maximizes this utility function is to be preferred" sounds as though one has already solved all possible problems of system-scope and application in advance. Or am I loading too much into the word "preferred?"
There is a theoretical max alpha for any flux of free energy. However, there is no way to know that all possible paths have been considered–this would require complete information at all times. The imperative and commensurabilty don’t change with less information–only the set, small or large, of available paths.
I suspect this marks me as a mathematically illiterate (which in many respects I’m sure I am). Does "not terminal" just mean that sustainability is not the only criterion in defining an ethical value? Or just not the trump criterion?
A business’s prospects are not so hot if it operates simply to watch its expenses to pay its bills. However, no business can be successful if it doesn’t meet its obligations to its creditors.
More alpha is better than sufficient alpha. In other words, there is no such thing as too much alpha.
As far as I know, that’s not true for any other physically measurable quantity in living systems.
I don’t find myself questioning the foundation itself so much as what the foundation is for.
It’s hard to answer questions about one without assuming knowledge of the other. I’m told that the math isn’t particularly hard although I found it rather difficult at first–nevertheless, the derivation is subtle. Resist the temptation to jump ahead. I did many times and found myself lost. Take some time to work through the posts, click through the references, and focus on each of the pieces individually. Once they make sense, put them together.
If someone else has a better approach, perhaps they’ll share it but this was the only way I could get my head around the whole idea.
Then I shall reread and reread again. Thanks!
Marvin,
A bit OT, but here:
You invoke the Buddha in your comments, as have I.
Meditating on this today I thought of the Buddha, and his teachings of the raft.
I paraphrase:
If one needs to cross a dangerous torrent, he could gather sticks and vines and build a raft. After successfully crossing the river, the thankful man carries his raft on his shoulders as he walks about the dry land on the other side.
Better for him to leave the raft at the waters’ edge, as it is of no use to him anymore.
The Buddha said, "It is important to let go of true teachings, even more so non-true teachings."
A wise man the Buddha. He understood F and the need for adaptation.
Or to quote Einstein (NB: I haven’t verified the authenticity of the quotation)
"The belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science. Since, however, sense perception only gives information of this external world or of "physical reality" indirectly, we can only grasp the latter by speculative means. It follows from this that our notions of physical reality can never be final. We must always be ready to change these notions so that is to say, the axiomatic basis of physics in order to do justice to perceived facts in the most perfect way logically."