I can be a bit of a stickler about language sometimes. We use language to convey thoughts and feelings, opinions and meanings, and I tend to feel that if we want to express ourselves through language and also want the language we use to adequately convey what we mean, then it is best for us to use language correctly or at least appropriately in order to accomplish this.
One of my pet peeves about language use revolves around 'caring' and centres on whether we 'could' or 'couldn't' care less with a specific focus on what we intend to mean when we use a string of language containing some combination of these words. It seems to me that there are those who want to say one thing, but instead use language to say another. When I see people write, or hear people say, "I could care less," my immediate typical response to the meaning of this string of words is twofold. I wonder how much the person actually cares and want to ask, "well, why don't you care less?"
An example of this might be someone who is entirely uninterested in a particular subject, let's say baseball (because I find baseball extremely boring and uninteresting, heh). The wrong way to express this disinterest is to write or say something like, "I could care less about baseball." If you don't care at all about baseball, then what you want to say is "I couldn't care less about baseball." The latter implies that the language user has absolutely no care whatsoever about baseball--that he or she is at the very bottom of the scale that registers one's degree of caring towards, in this instance, baseball. The former implies that it is entirely possible that the language user could have less care on the scale of caring, which actually means there is some degree of caring about baseball.
So, if we want to convey our particular and absolute disinterest in baseball--or anything else--we don't want to say or write that we "could care less," rather, we want to say or write that we "couldn't care less." In other words, if a particular language user wants to be understood as having no care at all for a particular thing--that he or she is at the very bottom of the scale when it comes to his or her amount of caring--then he or she want's to negate all possibility of caring; thus, the language user needs to include the negation in his or her language use, namely, "could not."
Omitting the negation implies that some caring is present, but not to what degree. So, if we "could care less" about a specific thing, then we could actually care quite a lot about this specific thing. Indeed, of all the things we care about, we can always say that we "could care less" about these things and be uttering something true relative to our particular set of cares: it is entirely possible that we could care less about the things we care about the most.
Given this bit of analysis, it might be understandable why I've become accustomed to having my teeth set on edge when I see people use the phrase "could care less" in their employment of language. It has become for me habitual to experience some small amount of annoyance as soon as my eyes scan any text that include the phrase "could care less." So, I was quite surprised and delighted the other day when someone used "could care less" in a way that actually conveyed what he or she meant--that there was absolutely no caring present at all--and it made me do a double take of the sentence and brought a grin to my face. The language user wrote:
No one could care less.
In my entire reading history I am quite sure this is the only occasion I have ever seen someone use the phrase 'could care less' in conjunction with other parts of language to convey what he or she actually meant: there is no amount of caring at all--there is precisely zero caring.
As for the rest of the language users that have no care at all about something, but write or say that they actually do have some degree of care--regardless of how large or small the amount of caring: smarten up. If you don't care at all about something and also desire to accurately convey this to other language users, then, please, use language in a way that actually means what you intend otherwise you might find that people couldn't care less about what it is you are trying to say.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Friday, December 13, 2013
"Holographic" Universe?
There's a recent article that I've seen circulating around Google+, namely:
Simulations back up the theory that Universe is a hologram, Published on Nature.com, Dec. 10, 2013.
This is a bit of a synchronicity for me in some ways as I've been revisiting some ideas regarding notions of a "holographic" universe and, indeed, have been planning on doing some review/analysis here on Drifting Labyrinths of a few YouTube videos on the subject, which I have watched this past week. But this is an aside--now let's get to the matter at hand.
I've seen some comments regarding this article, and I think that some people misunderstand what the article is actually saying. It does not say that we are living in a hologram and it certainly does not say we are living in something that is similar to The Matrix. What it does say is that certain interpretations of string theory--ones which use nine spatial dimensions with one dimension of time (for a total of ten dimensions)--can be seen as a projection, or "hologram," of a specific sort of one dimensional model of quantum mechanics. From the article:
The mathematically intricate world of strings...would be merely a hologram: the real action would play out in a simpler, flatter cosmos where there is no gravity.
and the article later says of this "simpler flatter universe":
The lower-dimensional, gravity-free [universe] has but a single dimension and its menagerie of quantum particles resembles a group of idealized springs, or harmonic oscillators, attached to one another.
What some people seem to miss in the article is where theoretical physicist Juan Maldacena is paraphrased as saying:
Neither of these model universes...resembles our own.
What the article is actually reporting on is the fact that there are problems/solutions which are translatable from the more complicated and thus, mathematically more difficult, ten dimensional model of superstrings to this simpler one dimensional model. In the article, these problems and solutions concern properties of certain kinds of black holes.
Now, the fact that a specific one dimensional model has some sort of equivalency with a ten dimensional model does not seem particularly surprising in this instance: in string theory the strings themselves are seen to be one dimensional objects and these one dimensional objects are "vibrating" in the ten dimensions. It seems at least intuitively possible that a simplified model of the ten dimensions of certain formulations of string theory would be able to be expressed in a single dimension--perhaps not much differently from how we can think of and express four dimensional "light cones" in two dimensions, how we can explore four dimensional geometry by the projection of four dimensional objects onto a two dimensional surface, or how we create a three dimensional visual experience from the two dimensional representation of images on our retinas. What I am getting at here is that it seems there are several instances of translating phenomena from such and such a dimensional configuration to another, and so, it's not like such translations are something new.
Moreover, it's not like the discoveries reported in this article are conclusive that certain ten dimensional string theories are entirely translatable into this specific one dimensional model. As the article itself says the research being reported upon is not a proof but provides "...compelling evidence that Maldacena's conjecture is true."
What was this conjecture? It's not that we are living in a hologram or The Matrix that's for sure; rather, the conjecture is that there exists a model of the universe such that a "...model of the Universe in which gravity arises from infinitesimally thin vibrating strings [i.e., in the context of the content of the research reported on in the article, specific models of ten dimensional string theory] could be reinterpreted in terms of well-established physics [and this would be, apparently, the physics of the one dimensional model reported on in the article]". In other words, the "compelling" evidence is in regards to the fact that there is a simplified model of a more complex model.
And that's the so-called "rub" here: we are talking about models of the universe and not the universe itself. Pretty much by definition all models are going to be simplified versions of whatever it is the model is modeling. Further, since all these models in current physics are essentially mathematical in nature, I can't help but think that any model is going to run up against some problematic manifestation similar to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, by which I mean that, for any given model of the universe, it will be impossible for it to be both complete and consistent. Put differently, it seems likely that there will always be truths of the universe that are unable to be fully represented within a physical model of the universe.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Simulations back up the theory that Universe is a hologram, Published on Nature.com, Dec. 10, 2013.
This is a bit of a synchronicity for me in some ways as I've been revisiting some ideas regarding notions of a "holographic" universe and, indeed, have been planning on doing some review/analysis here on Drifting Labyrinths of a few YouTube videos on the subject, which I have watched this past week. But this is an aside--now let's get to the matter at hand.
I've seen some comments regarding this article, and I think that some people misunderstand what the article is actually saying. It does not say that we are living in a hologram and it certainly does not say we are living in something that is similar to The Matrix. What it does say is that certain interpretations of string theory--ones which use nine spatial dimensions with one dimension of time (for a total of ten dimensions)--can be seen as a projection, or "hologram," of a specific sort of one dimensional model of quantum mechanics. From the article:
The mathematically intricate world of strings...would be merely a hologram: the real action would play out in a simpler, flatter cosmos where there is no gravity.
and the article later says of this "simpler flatter universe":
The lower-dimensional, gravity-free [universe] has but a single dimension and its menagerie of quantum particles resembles a group of idealized springs, or harmonic oscillators, attached to one another.
What some people seem to miss in the article is where theoretical physicist Juan Maldacena is paraphrased as saying:
Neither of these model universes...resembles our own.
What the article is actually reporting on is the fact that there are problems/solutions which are translatable from the more complicated and thus, mathematically more difficult, ten dimensional model of superstrings to this simpler one dimensional model. In the article, these problems and solutions concern properties of certain kinds of black holes.
Now, the fact that a specific one dimensional model has some sort of equivalency with a ten dimensional model does not seem particularly surprising in this instance: in string theory the strings themselves are seen to be one dimensional objects and these one dimensional objects are "vibrating" in the ten dimensions. It seems at least intuitively possible that a simplified model of the ten dimensions of certain formulations of string theory would be able to be expressed in a single dimension--perhaps not much differently from how we can think of and express four dimensional "light cones" in two dimensions, how we can explore four dimensional geometry by the projection of four dimensional objects onto a two dimensional surface, or how we create a three dimensional visual experience from the two dimensional representation of images on our retinas. What I am getting at here is that it seems there are several instances of translating phenomena from such and such a dimensional configuration to another, and so, it's not like such translations are something new.
Moreover, it's not like the discoveries reported in this article are conclusive that certain ten dimensional string theories are entirely translatable into this specific one dimensional model. As the article itself says the research being reported upon is not a proof but provides "...compelling evidence that Maldacena's conjecture is true."
What was this conjecture? It's not that we are living in a hologram or The Matrix that's for sure; rather, the conjecture is that there exists a model of the universe such that a "...model of the Universe in which gravity arises from infinitesimally thin vibrating strings [i.e., in the context of the content of the research reported on in the article, specific models of ten dimensional string theory] could be reinterpreted in terms of well-established physics [and this would be, apparently, the physics of the one dimensional model reported on in the article]". In other words, the "compelling" evidence is in regards to the fact that there is a simplified model of a more complex model.
And that's the so-called "rub" here: we are talking about models of the universe and not the universe itself. Pretty much by definition all models are going to be simplified versions of whatever it is the model is modeling. Further, since all these models in current physics are essentially mathematical in nature, I can't help but think that any model is going to run up against some problematic manifestation similar to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, by which I mean that, for any given model of the universe, it will be impossible for it to be both complete and consistent. Put differently, it seems likely that there will always be truths of the universe that are unable to be fully represented within a physical model of the universe.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
The "Monkey Wrench" Variations on a Neuroscientific Experiment
A continuation on the previous post.
Upon further thought, here are a couple of "Monkey Wrench" (as in "throwing a monkey wrench into") versions:
Variation Three:
Take Variation Two. So, here we have our chain of subjects (again, let's make it ten people) with their monitoring equipment and Right or Left selection devices. To be clear, the situation, if the theory is correct and the experiment works as the theory implies, looks like this:
Person A is going to choose to pick either Right or Left. According to the original experiment, Person B, who has access to the real time brain scan will know which direction Person A will click about six seconds before Person A actually "consciously" choses to click a given direction. Person B is instructed to click the direction Person A is going to click the moment he or she sees the information on the screen; that is, Person B will chose to click the direction Person A is going to click in a few moments.
Now, given the results of the initial experiment, Person B's brain scan will show which direction he or she is going to click about six seconds before he or she actually clicks it; therefore, Person C, who is monitoring the activity of person B, should be able to click the direction Person B is going to click before Person B clicks the direction.
This chain forms, given our ten people, to the final person, J, who ought to be able to click the direction that Person A is going to click about a minute before Person A actually clicks that direction.
Now, here's the Monkey Wrench:
Once we are half way through the chain, say, after Person F has clicked his or her direction, but before the remainder of the chain (from Person E to Person A--remember that the last person in the chain will actually be clicking the direction first) clicks this same direction, we tell Person A to click the opposite direction.
So, what now, brown cow?
Does someone's head explode à la Scanners (extreme graphic content: do not watch if you are squeamish or sensitive to such things):
Variation Four:
Given that it might be difficult to set up a chain of people in such monitoring conditions, and since we currently do not know for sure if such a chain would produce the suggested theoretical results, let's do it like this:
Perform the original experiment, but give the Subject being monitored a set of head phones and give the person doing the monitoring a microphone that is connected to those headphones.
Now, when the Monitor sees that the subject is about to select, say, Right, six seconds before he or she is actually going to consciously choose to select Right, have the Monitor tell the subject to select the opposite direction, so, in this instance, Left.
Given the six second differential, this should be plenty of time for the Monitor to send the signal to the Subject and give the Subject plenty of time to select the direction the Monitor suggests.
Again, I wonder what would occur? Would the person still select Right and be unable to do otherwise? Or would he or she be able to select Left, but, if so, what does that mean about the initial brain scan data that suggests he or she was going to "choose" Right? Or, once again, does someone's head explode à la Scanners (go ahead and watch the above clip again, you know you want to)?
If nothing else, this particular Monkey Wrench version really needs to be tested.
Upon further thought, here are a couple of "Monkey Wrench" (as in "throwing a monkey wrench into") versions:
Variation Three:
Take Variation Two. So, here we have our chain of subjects (again, let's make it ten people) with their monitoring equipment and Right or Left selection devices. To be clear, the situation, if the theory is correct and the experiment works as the theory implies, looks like this:
Person A is going to choose to pick either Right or Left. According to the original experiment, Person B, who has access to the real time brain scan will know which direction Person A will click about six seconds before Person A actually "consciously" choses to click a given direction. Person B is instructed to click the direction Person A is going to click the moment he or she sees the information on the screen; that is, Person B will chose to click the direction Person A is going to click in a few moments.
Now, given the results of the initial experiment, Person B's brain scan will show which direction he or she is going to click about six seconds before he or she actually clicks it; therefore, Person C, who is monitoring the activity of person B, should be able to click the direction Person B is going to click before Person B clicks the direction.
This chain forms, given our ten people, to the final person, J, who ought to be able to click the direction that Person A is going to click about a minute before Person A actually clicks that direction.
Now, here's the Monkey Wrench:
Once we are half way through the chain, say, after Person F has clicked his or her direction, but before the remainder of the chain (from Person E to Person A--remember that the last person in the chain will actually be clicking the direction first) clicks this same direction, we tell Person A to click the opposite direction.
So, what now, brown cow?
Does someone's head explode à la Scanners (extreme graphic content: do not watch if you are squeamish or sensitive to such things):
or what?
Variation Four:
Given that it might be difficult to set up a chain of people in such monitoring conditions, and since we currently do not know for sure if such a chain would produce the suggested theoretical results, let's do it like this:
Perform the original experiment, but give the Subject being monitored a set of head phones and give the person doing the monitoring a microphone that is connected to those headphones.
Now, when the Monitor sees that the subject is about to select, say, Right, six seconds before he or she is actually going to consciously choose to select Right, have the Monitor tell the subject to select the opposite direction, so, in this instance, Left.
Given the six second differential, this should be plenty of time for the Monitor to send the signal to the Subject and give the Subject plenty of time to select the direction the Monitor suggests.
Again, I wonder what would occur? Would the person still select Right and be unable to do otherwise? Or would he or she be able to select Left, but, if so, what does that mean about the initial brain scan data that suggests he or she was going to "choose" Right? Or, once again, does someone's head explode à la Scanners (go ahead and watch the above clip again, you know you want to)?
If nothing else, this particular Monkey Wrench version really needs to be tested.
Variations On a Neuroscientific Experiment I'd Like to See
An interesting experiment with possibly profound results! While this does lead to questions about our notions of Free Will vs. Determinism, that's not necessarily what I wanted to talk about here at this time. Instead, I'd like to mention a couple of possible variations on this experiment that I think would be interesting to create, perform, and see what the resultant outcomes are.
Variation One:
Place two people into two separate scanning devices. Each person is equipped with the Left & Right clicker boxes. Each person also can see a screen which shows images of the other person's brain activity in real time and each of them has been trained to read the images so that he or she can recognize what the images of the scan mean; that is, each person would be able to recognize and understand when the other person was going to click left or right before the other person consciously decides to do so.
Now, give each of them the following instruction:
The moment you see on the screen that the other person is going to click right or left you will click the same.
I wonder what the outcome of this would be?
This would bring in a feedback dynamic whereby each one ought to know what the other is going to do before the other person actually clicks either button. Person A would be watching a screen prepared to click either left or right dependent upon which direction Person B was about to click in a few a seconds--so Person A ought to be able to click the same direction before Person B; however, Person B would be watching a screen which would tell him or her which direction Person A was about to click, and thus, be able to click the same direction a few seconds before Person A actually clicks the direction. In other words, each one of them ought to be able to click the direction the other is going to pick before the other consciously decides to do so.
Under ideal conditions--conditions where we can assure that both people would make their choices at the same time--I wonder how this would play out?
Variation Two:
Daisy chain a series of devices together--let's say ten for now--so that each person in the chain is able to see a monitor that displays the brain activity of the person previous to him or her. Again, make sure each individual can read the monitor and understand the information it displays--i.e., each person could read the information and know which button the person previous to him or her is about to click a few seconds before he or she would click it.
Again, give each individual, except the first one, of course, an instruction to click the same button the person previous to him or her is about to click.
Run the experiment.
Theoretically, the last person in the chain, in this instance the 10th person, ought to be able to click the same direction that the 1st person in the chain will click about a full minute before the first person actually clicks his or her button. As stunning as the results of the actual experiment in the video above are, I think this would be even more amazing.
In theory, we could set this up with any number of people, with the result being that the last person in the chain would click the button that the first person in the chain will click long before he or she clicks it: with one hundred people in the chain, for example, the last person could click the same button that the first person will click about an hour before he or she will actually make the choice to click right or left. Theoretically, this would work every time for each click the person at the beginning of the chain will "choose".
So, would this be called "precognition" or something else?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)