Bakula

Duncan Leave a comment

Since the development of quantum theory in the early twentieth century, those outside the scientific community have furiously grappled with the spiritual, corporeal and moral ramifications of its counterintuitive nature. Because mathematicians and physicists are solitary, eccentric individuals, they concern themselves only with producing sound theory, not the bothersome implications. But for the rest of us sociable, emotionally-stable beings, we can’t help but ponder the fate of Schrödinger’s cat.

By preying on our curiosity and misunderstanding of quantum mechanics, many authors and cultists, both well-meaning and deceitful, have greatly profited. The 2004 film What the Bleep Do We Know!? is a recent example of an attempt to bridge the gap between quantum physics and human experience by oversimplifying and distorting portions of quantum theory. The film falsely asserts that our perception influences the world around us, that we can bend reality to our will through the power of conviction. This idea stems from Thomas Young’s infamous double-slit experiment, which revealed that by observing an individual particle as it passed through the double-slit apparatus, the behavior of the particle would change. The theory is that the unobserved particle actually passes through both slits and interferes with itself in what is known as quantum masturbation. By observing the particle, the wave of potentials is collapsed into a single outcome.

Another recent interpretation of quantum theory is the idea of a quantum conscience. The concept is based on the adventures of Dr. Sam Beckett, who after prematurely entering the project accelerator, was transported beyond the scope of his own consciousness. Quantum conscience proponents believe that, like Dr. Beckett, all of us have the ability to access consciousness outside our own, specifically the consciousness of our alternate selves residing in parallel universes. Those behind the quantum conscience movement also claim that after death our consciousness transcends the boundaries of the universe, and that our afterlife is actually a continued existence in a new dimension. Learning about the possibility of alternate dimensions and the power to manipulate reality sparks the flames of our imagination, but what does quantum physics really mean for our everyday lives?

Nothing.

A newborn child has no understanding of how the universe is supposed to work, yet it is bound by the laws of physics in the same way as the rest of us. The universe operates in a consistent manner, regardless of what we believe about it. Take, for example, a strongman who attempts to lift a heavy object, but fails. It is neither his knowledge of the limitations of his strength, nor his belief about the weight of the object that limits him, for if the weight was incorrectly labelled, his attempt would yield the same result. Another example would be of a person who, upon entering a dark room, flicks the light switch to illuminate its contents. The bulb may be burnt out and fail to light, ignoring the desire and expectation of the one flicking the switch. These examples are based on the fundamental observation that reality is greater than perception.

Regarding the quantum conscience, if it were possible to tap into otherworldly knowledge by accessing dimensions where every possibility has happened, wouldn’t there be a universe where we have already discovered how to communicate with these other worlds? If there are infinite parallel universes and none of them have figured out how to talk to each other, then why would we arrogantly assume that we are the ones to figure it out?

While quantum theory may have shaken our faith in a traditional understanding of reality, it has not justified the claims of quantum mystics who swear that the only thing standing between us and perfect existence is positive thinking.

You don’t understand quantum physics. Physicists don’t even understand quantum physics. So don’t tell us what it means and how it can change our lives.

The Levels of Conviction

Duncan 1 Comment

We all have beliefs that dictate what we say, think and do. These convictions are a part of our identity. We define ourselves and others, and the world defines us, based on professions of belief.

We hold beliefs regarding a diverse array of subjects, for it is our nature to form an opinion when we encounter anything that seems abhorrent, praiseworthy or peculiar – we just can’t help it. Even if we were to take the position that we have no belief about a given topic, that position reflects the belief that a conclusion on the matter is either unattainable or unimportant.

Our beliefs reach across history, language and culture, to every event, ritual and habit. Common subjects of belief include religion, war, sexuality, drugs, politics, health, eating animals, economics and toilet paper orientation. Though our convictions can apply to anything, unirregardless of relevance or proximity, the level of our conviction can vary greatly. These are the four levels of conviction:

Disposition Frequency of Practice Summary of Belief
Level 1: Casual Participant Relaxed Sporadic All beliefs on the subject are equally valid. It’s okay for others to believe whatever they want, if it makes them happy.
Level 2: Earnest Zealot Aggressive Constant Other beliefs on the subject are distorted or fabricated. Unbelievers must be converted.
Level 3: Docile Apostle Tranquil Regular Other beliefs aren’t entirely accurate. Unbelievers shouldn’t be forced to convert.
Level 4: Disenchanted Cynic Apathetic Sparse or Nonexistent All beliefs are equally invalid. No one should believe too strongly about anything and just be happy.

Many of us are familiar with the image of the derelict doomsday prophet shouting from the street corner, or the hypocritical churchgoer who, upon exiting the doors of the cathedral, immediately reverts to their deceitful and indulgent self. Though it’s possible that both of these stereotypes could profess similar beliefs, there is an obvious disparity in conviction. In fact, it’s a disparity of exactly two levels.

The four levels are not ranked according to effectiveness, popularity or validity, but according to chronology. Of course, it is possible to descend down a rank or skip levels entirely, and each individual is inclined to progress at a different rate, but the order does reflect a general trend of familiarity, zeal, devotion and, finally, indifference. Not everyone will reach the fourth level; some will never make it past the first. Again, a higher rank does not imply superiority, but merely a point further down the path.

Each position has its own advantages and complications, but determining the correct level of conviction is something that you have already begun to work out.

Dice

Duncan Leave a comment

There is an explanation for everything. Our world is comprised of matter and energy that behaves in predictable ways, allowing us a degree of certainty when imagining hypothetical situations. Yet, despite the massive leaps forward in science, we occasionally find ourselves in the midst of events so absurd, so seemingly unpredictable, that we can only respond with the words, “well, that was random.”

It wasn’t.

Although we may not have been able to predict such scenarios, they weren’t random; they only seemed random because we didn’t know why it occurred. There’s likely a perfectly legitimate explanation for the any situation we find ourselves in, no matter how strange. Before we continue, let us make some important declarations and distinctions about how the universe operates:

  1. Nothing is random, because everything has a cause.
  2. Some things are pseudo-random, having a nearly incomprehensible cause.
  3. Some things only seem random, but actually maintain a comprehensible cause.

Although no occurrence can be truly random, by categorizing all measurable events as either pseudo-random or seemingly random, we may better understand what is meant when something is characterized as random. First, let’s deal with those things that we might consider random, but which are actually just unpredictable.

Random number generation has been used throughout history for many purposes, most notably gambling. By creating devices that use high speeds and complex vectors, such as dice or roulette wheels, we can produce outcomes which cannot be predicted, at least not with the human eye. More recently, we have used computers to generate pseudo-random numbers using algorithms and seed values. Though much more elaborate than physical random number generation, the results are still derived from a concrete source, so they cannot be truly random.

A popular example of perceived randomness, often used to prove some point about the universe, is the idea that an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters will produce the complete works of Shakespeare. The premise being that the typing pattern of monkeys is random and, therefore, it will eventually produce every outcome. This is not true.

Monkeys will never produce the works of Shakespeare, and we don’t need to lock a monkey in a room with a typewriter to find that out. If we were to simply imagine the result of such an experiment, we would likely conclude that the monkey had been hitting keys randomly, but this is not the case. The mind and motions of a monkey are not random, they follow a pattern. Much like the roll of a dice, we might not be able to predict the outcome, but there is most certainly a pattern, and it is most certainly different from the pattern found in Shakespeare. If we were so inclined, we could observe and record the results of monkey typing on a massive scale and eventually produce some algorithm which would describe the most commonly used keys, key combinations and punctuation. For all we know, it’s possible that monkeys might detest pressing the Q key and avoid touching it at all costs, or maybe they would continuously press the Home key in a depressing attempt to communicate their longing for freedom.

Now let’s discuss the second type of event, which includes those things that might seem random, but are actually quite predictable. It is possible that rolling dice might belong in this category, for if we were watch the roll in slow-motion or merely increase the size of the dice, the outcome would be much more predictable. Also, rolling a dice on a smooth surface makes the process less complex and, thus, further from the unattainable state of randomness.

Benford’s law is another example of finding a predictable pattern where we would typically expect randomness. In 1881, Simon Newcomb, a bearded man, observed a peculiar statistical phenomenon. While spending a relaxing evening beside the fire, sipping a glass of wine and thumbing through logarithm books (as all of us do), Newcomb noticed that the pages which contained numbers that started with the number 1 were more worn than other pages. He then analyzed a variety of different data sources and found the same anomaly, but his discovery was largely ignored until it was verified years later by similar examinations of data.

Basically, Benford’s law says that if we examine data from almost any source, we will find a definitive pattern in the value of the first digit of those numbers. The most frequent number is 1, which is found to be the left-most digit in a staggering 30.1% of data values. The frequency of each number decreases as we approach 9, which appears as the first digit a mere 4.6% of the time. Benford’s law can be used to detect tax fraud, since forged numbers contain a more even distribution in first-digit frequency.

Unusual behavior is much easier to predict than a dice roll, for it can often be traced back to previous experiences, trends and habits. In fact, these events are not at all difficult to predict; they are merely unexpected. If we were to attempt to prove the existence of randomness by, for example, saying a random word, the word would be inevitably predictable. The process of choosing that word would merely be a brief expedition into the subconscious – nothing more. After blurting out the unchosen word, one would likely need only to probe recent memory to find its inception.

Go ahead, try to say something random.

Solitaria Verba

Duncan Leave a comment

Language is tamed noise. Locked inside a calcium cage, our tongues, like wild beasts, are subjugated and conditioned to perform from a repertoire of acoustic tricks. As the grotesque, red muscle contorts and undulates, vibrations from within cavernous depths are molded into distinct tones. When pushed up against one another, these tones meld into creatures known as a words. Words seldom appear alone, preferring to gather in small groups called sentences. The shape and size of words will differ from region to region, each vocal species, or language, employing its own unique variations. Together, all the words roaming the plains of our mind form a vocabulary.

Words offer a means to meaning, and every word is unique. Some words are docile and benevolent, some are cunning and devious, while others are ruthless and threatening. By calling forth words, we can invoke their nature to create sentences which have the the power to exalt or shame, create or destroy. However, there are some sentences which have a meaning distinct from the sum of their words; these are known as idioms. 

Often puzzling to outsiders, an idiom employs familiar words in unfamiliar ways by borrowing meaning from culture and legend. But beyond the realm of the idiom, there remains an even more rare and mysterious form of verbal expression. Though they could technically be classified as idioms, this special variety contains solitaria verba (isolated words). This means that inside each phrase there is a word which is not used in normal speech, instead appearing only in combination with select words. Let’s look at some examples:

  • Aided and abetted
  • Happy belated birthday
  • Coursing through its veins
  • Pent up anger
  • Clean slate
  • Jog your memory
  • Growth spurt
  • Rail against authority
  • Off kilter
  • Vehemently disagree
  • Let bygones be bygones
  • Stave off hunger
  • Eastern seaboard
  • Gale-force winds
  • Star-spangled banner
  • Bubonic plague
  • Hellacious beating
  • Self-deprecating humor
  • Drunken stupor
  • Abject poverty
  • Wreak havoc
  • Stunt your growth
  • Stoop to their level
  • Doesn’t bode well
  • Pare it down
  • Vested interest
  • Rue the day
  • Torrential rain
  • A moot point
  • Biding your time
  • Morbidly obese
  • Sweltering heat
  • Full-fledged professional
  • Snide remark
  • Good riddance
  • Rifled through
  • Privy to the information
  • That was riveting
  • Batten down the hatches
  • Figment of the imagination
  • Tide you over
  • Run amok
  • Keel over
  • Fell swoop
  • New-fangled contraption
  • Rickety ladder
  • Scantily clad
  • Brunt of the impact
  • Staunch atheist
  • Gyrating hips
  • Brandishing a weapon
  • Beck and call
  • Frenetic pace
  • Abominable snowman

These words are used by many, but could be defined by few. We don’t think about the definition of each individual word because we know the meaning of the phrase, but that means we are saying words that we don’t even understand. Perhaps, if put on the spot we could come up with a vague, clumsy definition, but we don’t really know what these words mean because they aren’t a part of our vocabulary. Let’s think for a moment: what things are abominable, other than snowmen? Have escaped zoo animals ever walked amok? When did we ever rue the night or wish someone bad riddance? Did we ever bide anything other than time or play with something that was just plain fangled?

Don’t use words you don’t understand.

No Price Is Right

Duncan Leave a comment

The price of oil has a significant effect in the global economy. As fuel prices have risen over the years, so has the cost of doing business, since nearly all industries rely on some form of mechanized transportation. When the price of oil reached an all-time high in 2008, many companies felt suffocated under the weight of the dramatic increase in costs.

For the transportation industry – airlines in particular – the soaring cost of oil directly and drastically affected their operating costs. Under such intense pressure, a company would have only two options: raise prices in an attempt to maintain profit and risk losing market share, or maintain prices in order to keep market share, resulting in reduced profit. Neither of these options seemed particularly attractive, then lightning struck.

To counteract the ever-escalating price of oil, transportation companies introduced the fuel surcharge. The idea is simple: in order to avoid raising prices, a separate charge is billed to the customer which offsets the increased cost of fuel. By doing this, the company can maintain consistent prices while shifting the blame for the additional charge to an external entity. At first glance this would seem like a reasonable and transparent business practice, but there are some serious problems here.

First, companies that use fuel surcharges are not telling us the entire fuel cost for our purchase; they are only telling us the cost in addition to some undefined amount already hidden in the bill. This assumes that there is a baseline for how much fuel should cost, but there is no correct price of fuel or any other commodity, for that matter. Prices constantly fluctuate based on economic and political factors far too complex and numerous for any network news analyst to predict. Also, what would happen if the price of fuel were to descend below the established correct amount, as it did in 2009? It would have been quite naive to expect a fuel rebate on our bill.

Another serious problem with fuel surcharges is consistency. If companies are going to start treating fuel costs as a separate expense, why not do the same with labor, taxes, raw materials or electricity? Some restaurants automatically add the tip to the bill in order to excuse customers from the senseless dance of determining an appropriate reward for carrying out what is expected, but there are many other charges that also affected the cost of the meal. Though it’s true that oil prices have proven particularly volatile, costs are always on the rise, so why not show us all of them? Perhaps we would be better off if our receipts revealed every cost involved in generating the purchase price, but that isn’t going to happen any time soon.

Aside from being inconsistent, fuel surcharges can also be used to raise prices without absorbing condemnation. Couriers, for example, are known to list fuel surcharges on deliveries that do not require a deviation from previously scheduled routes, which means that they are billing a fuel surcharge when there is no additional fuel cost involved. Far from clarifying the billing process to the customer, fuel surcharges have created a more convoluted, inconsistent and arbitrary pricing protocol.

There is no correct price.