March 2014 – Page 2 – Auxiliary Memory

The Theological Implications of the Multiverse

Because of recent research in gravity waves and inflation, the theory of the multiverse moves further toward reality. While creationists are still fighting for equal time to oppose the 1859 theory of evolution, science has gone on to discover endless other aspects of reality that counter the Biblical view. I don’t know why creationists focus so exclusively on evolution when millions of other scientific discoveries are also thorns in their theological sides.

When humanity thought the Earth was the center of everything, contained within the celestial spheres, it was possible to imagine our reality being constructed by a super being, especially if you believed the whole thing was only 6,000 years old. Even then it was an extremely far out idea to buy. After the sun was moved to the center of the universe, and Earth was just the third planet, it became a lot harder to imagine a God that could create the solar system with some kind of magic spell. For a long while after that, we assumed all of reality was the Milky Way galaxy.

As reality got bigger, it got harder to imagine a single being creating it. But still, reality was manageable with just a billion stars. Then Edwin Hubble came along and showed us reality is composed of billions of galaxies. How can any theology handle a reality that big?

If we live in a multiverse, it might not be billions of universes, but an infinity of them. Or there might be another layer, so there are billions of multiverses in a megaverse. It seems science can’t find any end to large or small, nor a beginning of time. This has got to wipe out all ancient theological theories. It’s time to start over. Reality is too big for any kind of God, and we’re too small for any kind of special consideration.

Humanity needs to start over and throw out all theology and come up with a new working hypothesis about our place in reality. Instead of thinking of ourselves as the crown of creation, we need see ourselves closer to an intelligent virus that accidently came about through random evolution with no higher being watching. Seen from orbiting telescopes, humans are little smudges that have infected this planet. We’re quite deadly, killing off most of the other life forms on Earth.

We have a decision to make. Shall we take responsibility for our actions? There is no God judging us. We only judge ourselves. And it might not even be possible for our species to become fully conscious of its actions and act. We might breed ourselves out of existence. It should be pretty obvious to all by now that no God will intercede. We will not be punished if we don’t act, nor will we be rewarded if we do. We merely can choose to act. We can preserve ourselves, other species, and the planet Earth – for a while.

Nothing last forever in the multiverse.

Please read.

JWH – 3/24/14

Google Chromecast–Practically Useless

When I saw the ads on TV for the Chromecast I got the impression that anything you could see on your smartphone, tablet or laptop could be sent to your big screen TV. Cool. Well, it doesn’t work that way. I ordered a Chromecast from Amazon for one purpose only, to see Watch TCM from one of my tablets to my big screen TV. My wife works out of town, and since she loves TV far more than I do, I let her have the cable TV. However, she’s let me have the streaming apps for HBOGO and Watch TCM. HBOGO however has a Roku channel, so I watch it through my Roku. I love TCM, but watching TV on an iPad is no fun for me, so I didn’t watch TCM. Then I saw the Chromecast and thought, wow, I can now watch TCM! Quick review: No such luck.

It turns out the Chromecast is designed to work with only a handful of optimized apps. Of the twelve apps listed, I only like three, and all three are available on my Roku. So the Chromecast ends up being useless for me. I went on the net to see if I could hack it for some other fun use, and discovered some people casting from the Chrome browser – but evidently that’s only from laptops. I can’t cast from Chrome on my iPad or Nexus 7.

From Googling around I discovered other people trying to do the same thing I’m doing, buying a Chromecast in hopes of seeing TCM on their TV from their laptop. Through this research I discovered Watch TCM is online and I can now watch TCM on my big screen TV via the computer that’s attached. So I really don’t need to Chromecast at all. However, since I don’t like sending things back I started looking around for other fun things to do with a Chromecast. I hoped there might be a way to put Android on my TV using the Chromecast, but couldn’t find anyone that had done that. About the only thing I found even slightly useful was to play YouTube on an older flat screen TV that doesn’t have a Roku. And even this works very flaky.

I started a one hour lecture on speeding up Python, but I couldn’t shut it off. Once the film began it appears the Chromecast might not be getting the film from the iPad, but off the net. I haven’t tested this thoroughly, but closing the YouTube app doesn’t stop the film. Neither did shutting off the iPad screen. I didn’t try shutting off the iPad. I did shut off the TV. Then turned it back on and the film was still playing. I then started the iPad back up, launched YouTube app, and found I could then shut off the film.

The Chromecast is a nicely made product, that comes in packaging that reminds me of something from Apple. The trouble is, Chromecast is so limited in what it can do, especially if you have a smart TV or Roku, that it’s practically useless. My guess is its useful to people that have a TV with a HDMI port, but no other connected devices or smarts. If Chromecast had merely mirrored my Nexus 5 or iPad screen to my TV it would have been wonderful to me. And such a feature might be forthcoming in future updates. So I don’t know if I should keep the Chromecast or send it back. I was hugely disappointed.

Evidently, there’s a lot of us old baby boomers that love old movies that don’t want to buy a zillion cable channels we don’t want to watch. Our alternatives to TCM are improving.

Note #1. To TCM: Put Watch TCM on the Roku and charge $7.99 a month like Netflix and Hulu Plus. TCM is the gold standard for old movie watching, but not worth buying cable just to watch old movies.

Note #2. For you old movie fans, try Warner Archive Instant on the Roku. At first it looks like it has a very limited selection, but poke around. Plus new films are cycled in each month. I find plenty to watch, except that in the past few weeks net traffic keeps it from working during prime time hours. Warner Archive focuses on the 1920s through the 1980s.

Note #3. If you live in one of these cities, Sony is now broadcasting old movies over the air for something called getTV that appears to be capitalizing on the TCM craze for old movies.

Note #4. Try Classic Flix. It’s a disc rental service like Netflix, but focuses on old movies. Unfortunately, it has only one mailing location – California, so it takes 3-4 days for me to send back a movie. I get about 4 movies watched a month for $10.99.

[Translation. By old movies I mean movies from the 1920s to the 1950s. I keep meeting young people that translate old movies to mean movies from the 1980s and 1990s.]

JWH – 3/23/14

Don’t We All Have Personality Traits in the Autism Spectrum?

I just finished listening to House Rules by Jodi Picoult, about a boy with Asperger’s who is accused of murder. It was a compelling story that I couldn’t turn off, not just because of the plot, but because of the details about autism. My wife and I have a niece with autism, and I’ve met people with Asperger’s, so the topic is not new to me, but this book went deeper into the subject than any I’ve read before. Since this book was written, Asperger syndrome has been removed from the new edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) to be replace by the general term autism using a severity scale.

This is interesting in and of itself, to think that a classification of behavior belongs on a scale. From reading the book I’d say personality is composed of many scales, and low settings on a number of scales would add up in combination to the general diagnosis of autism. Let’s say our personalities could be composed of 100 different traits, my theory would be the autism scale would start with low scoring on 20 or more of them. I’m not a scientist though, just a reader. But it seems to me there are some traits always attributed to people with autism that if singled out are sometimes seen in normal people.

The cover of House Rules is very deceptive, since the main focus of the story is Jacob Hunt, and he’s 18, weighs 180 pounds and is over six feet tall. Jacob is normal in many respects, except his obsessions. He’s obsessed with crime scene investigation (CSI), but cannot fathom other people. He won’t look other people in the eye, can’t understand their body language, takes everything people say to him absolutely literally, lives his daily life compulsively around patterns – such wearing yellow and only eating yellow foods on Tuesdays, and will have full blown tantrums and disassociates from reality if he can’t get his way.

Like I said, I’m not trained as a psychologist, but I find it hard to believe that autism is one spectrum. I know perfectly normal people who won’t look you in the eye. I know perfectly normal people that always takes things literally. I know perfectly normal people who are obsessed with single subjects. I know perfectly normal people who dominate conversations and won’t let others talk. I know people who can’t make friends. The lists goes on and on. Jacob unfortunately has all of these traits and more, so that the cumulative effect is he’s different from normal.

This book begs the reader to ask: What is normal? I can’t believe autism is a binary – black and white – diagnostic. It’s why they use the phrase autism spectrum, but that’s psychologists just saying all the various forms of autism fit on a spectrum, as if you could catch that spectrum, or have a gene that gives you the autism spectrum. My guess is personality is a spectrum of spectrum – like a rainbow, and very wide, and autism is just one piece of the whole personality spectrum. I also think we all could have individual traits that function low that could fall within the autism spectrum.

While reading House Rules I noticed a lot of my own quirks that if taken to extreme would make me weirder, but still not autistic. But if I had enough of these low functioning traits I would be labeled autistic. So, I’m wondering if it takes X number of traits to create the autistic spectrum. That if autism was a readout on a spectrum, that autism number would be a composite number generated by settings on many other spectrums. Picture a mixing board with 100 sliders with settings from 0 to 100. My guess, and this is analogy, not science, that autism would be 20 of those sliders falling to the low side of things – say under 25. So a profoundly autistic person, one who is very low functioning, might register 10 or lower on 60 of those scales. Whereas a high functioning autistic might just register 20 or lower on 30 of those scales.

But by this theory, it might might be possible for normal people to register a 20 on one or two scales and still be considered normal. In other words, when you read a book like House Rules, you might see something in yourself that helps you empathize with Jacob. I know I did. I’m a guy who loves his rut. I’m nowhere near as compulsive as Jacob, but if my routines get sidetrack I feel annoyed – just not as much as Jacob. I can handle it, but I can also sense if my slider was slid down a few numbers I’d be a lot more like him.

My point is autism might not be as far away as some people think. In House Rules most of Jacob’s peers at school shut him out, but some of them act so badly, so lacking in empathy, that they reveal personality traits with low slider settings too. It’s that whole cast the first stone thing. Or maybe those little bullies belong on another scale, the psychopathic spectrum. Right now we divide people into just a very few groups: normal, autistic, schizophrenic, psychopathic, bi-polar, etc., but what if personality is far more complex than those simple labels. What if autism was settings on 35 of our sliders, and each of the other general personality types were similar combinations. Wouldn’t it be possible that normal or bi-polar people might have a few settings that relate to autism? And maybe we all might share a trait with a psychopath?

What if personality was even more complex than 100 traits? Imagine a 1,000. Have we even begun to understand ourselves? I wonder if general labels are good at all? The concept of spectrums is a step forward. But is that even good enough? What if personality is an array of spectrums? Or even arrays of personality trait constellations? Imagine personality as the main() loop in a computer program that contains thousands of subprograms. Each with a power scale from 0-100. Something as unique as sarcasm could be personality trait. Imagine being a guy with a 10 on the sarcasm scale going out to lunch with four catty women who have 95 or higher on their sarcasm scales.

Reading House Rules makes me think autism is not one spectrum but many. I have no idea if that’s true scientifically, but the book gave me a lot to think about.

JWH – 3/21/14

More Science, Less Fiction

As a lifelong science fiction reader I’ve always had an on again, off again relationship with science, but now that I’m retired I’m thinking about a deeper commitment. Science fiction inspires a kind of love for science that’s not very realistic. Science fiction is a marijuana high of smoking science, and is about as scientific as two dopers discussing theories of reality. Science fiction is a good gateway drug to science, but sooner or later you have to move on to the harder stuff – physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics.

Most folks today have little knowledge of science, and most of those who do, have a Newtonian model of reality in their heads. The hard to intuit relativity of space-time, and the bizarre quantum world is beyond all but a few to incorporate into their seeing of how things work. We truly live in a science fictional world, where a little bit of science creates a lot of fiction.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s when I was growing up, science fiction was about the future, but our lives in the 21st century present are very science fictional. We live in times described by Arthur C. Clarke’s third law, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Growing up reading science fiction gave me a view of the future that’s turned out to be wrong. Before I die, I’d like to assemble another view of the future, to imagine what things will be like after I die. But this time, hopefully, I want to install a more realistic science. We can’t predict the future, but we can shoot down a lot of crap ideas. I’d like to die with a reasonable idea of what my brief visit to reality was all about.

I read about 52 books a year, or on average, one a week. I’d like to be more systematic about reading science books, but I don’t want to give up reading other kinds of books. Actually, I don’t want to create any rigid rules to live by at all – anything I feel obligated to do, I won’t. But lately, I’ve been reading a lot of great popular science books and I realize to better understand what I’m reading will require some applied effort.

For example, I’m currently listening to Time Reborn by Lee Smolin, and he mentions reading Einstein’s original papers from 1905 as a young student. Smolin says they are quite easy to understand, far better than most science papers, and they set the standard for science papers in their clarity of thought. I’ve always assumed they could only be read by genius level scientists. It just so happens I have a copy of Einstein’s Miraculous Year: Five Papers That Changed the Face of Physics. Now, I’m torn. Should I stop reading Time Reborn and read Einstein?

Smolin makes it sound like reading Einstein’s original work is the foundation of all his scientific thinking. This makes me think instead of reading the latest popular science books I should instead be reading older ones. I’ve always dismissed science books older than a few years as being past their expiration date. Maybe this is a false assumption.

When I bought Our Mathematical Universe, I read an interesting reader review at Amazon where Michael Birman said:

Years of reading science books have produced a personal pantheon of the finest I’ve ever come across. There are several aspects of Tegmark’s book that have placed it amongst the three finest popular science books I’ve ever read. The other two books are Albert Einstein and Leopold Infield’s The Evolution of Physics and Kip Thorne’s Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy (Commonwealth Fund Book Program). The first book, The Evolution of Physics, is still the clearest exposition of classical and (relatively) modern physics ever written, despite its age. It remains the most authoritative, concise and profound discussion of the source of Einstein’s world-shattering ideas, and has never been surpassed as a book written by a great scientist for a popular audience. Kip Thorne’s book combines personal reminiscence and scientific exposition with an elegance and depth that makes it my choice as the finest modern popularized science book. Thorne proved that you can write about science in an engaging manner without sacrificing either intelligence or necessary relevant technical detail.

You guessed it, I ordered those two books too. So just starting two new books has gotten me to buy three old books. The trouble with reading current physics books is they are often so ethereal that I don’t know if I’m learning science or reading science fiction. For the last many years, I’ve been constantly drawn back to the 19th century in literature and history, so I’m thinking I might need to return to that century to study science. I need to learn the physics that led up to Einstein.

Then there’s the whole gnarly issue of math. My math abilities are slight. How far can I really understand science without math? I’ve bought a bunch of math history books, and a Great Course on the history of mathematics. Part of my retirement benefits is getting to take two free courses a semester, and there are many online math courses. If I wanted to, I could study math again. And I might. Although I wonder at making such an effort in my retirement years when I seem to be forgetting faster than I’m remembering.

Reading Einstein (I’ve already started) does make you think about the physical world differently. To understand time in the way Smolin is talking about it in Time Reborn will take a lot of contemplation. More and more I realize the value of Einstein’s thought experiments.

In the modern world we’re easily fooled by pre-digested knowledge we get from television. The new Cosmos might look dazzling, but to understand it requires ignoring the frenetic CGI dazzle and returning to a slow Amish like simplicity of thought. Just doing the math to model 13.8 billion years on a generic 365 day calendar is enlightening.

I’ve read lately, but I’ve forgotten where, that if the most complex science can’t be explained to the average person without mathematics then that science isn’t really understood by the scientists either. I’d like to believe that. I’d like to believe I can understand science even if I can’t prove it mathematically. But I shouldn’t give up on studying math either. What I need to do is go back to the beginning and learn math historically, and progress forward through time. Start with the Babylonians, and then the Greeks, and see if learning math in the order it was discovered will help me see a mathematical reality.

Growing up in a gee-whiz era of science and technology makes it hard to tell science from fiction. Even the science books I read, and the science documentaries I watch, are full of fiction, even though they are factual in intent. If I don’t comprehend what they say correctly, then I create mental fictions to explain what I think I see. Science fiction novels that I’ve always loved to read, took science concepts and intentionally made wild fiction out of science. Such hopeful expectations from science fiction has corrupted my mind about science. I now need to rethink both science and science fiction.

I’ve been a life-long atheist, and been skeptical of religion, mysticism, the metaphysical and paranormal, thinking instead that science is the only valid course to understanding reality. But the more I study science, the more I feel the need to be skeptical of my own knowledge of science. It’s very easy to fool oneself. Eye witnesses are notorious unreliable, and we tend to feel that other people can be tricked and not us – that what we see is real. But isn’t that another fiction?

How much do you know could you prove? Can you really prove the Earth orbits the Sun? Humanity has discovered a lot of scientific knowledge in the last four hundred years, but how much could you prove yourself? Being told something is true doesn’t mean you understand why its true.

Even if science fiction didn’t exist, we still live in a science fictional world, not because of rocketships and robots, but because we fictionalize science, we fictionalize what we’re told is true, we fictionalize everything we don’t know, and even the things we do.

JWH 3/14/14

Pono? Just What Did They Hear in Neal Young’s Car?

Neal Young, is promoting a new portable sound system, called Pono, that plays uncompressed digital music files, promising sound quality equal to the 24-bit master recording files. Young claims music consumers are only hearing a fraction of sonic fidelity that goes into producing a song when playing MP3 files on the mobile devices, or even CDs on their home stereos. Visit the Pono Music site for the full press marketing campaign.

http://vimeo.com/88705147

Watch this video. Just what are those people hearing when they are in Neal Young’s car? Their glowing comments sounds like it’s 1967 and they weren’t talking about music. These guys are used to working in studies, recording songs with master 24-bit files, playing them back on the absolute best studio equipment. They are also used to playing music live. Why would they claim this is the best sound they’ve ever heard? Sure, some clarify, the best in a car, but others are saying anywhere.

I can understand the complaints against MP3, but against CD too? What the hell am I missing?

I’m not going to pledge to buy a Pono at Kickstarter, but when they come out I’m willing to drive over to Best Buy and try one out. But even if I bring my V-Moda headphones, will it sound as good as Neal Young’s car? I doubt it. I can’t help but believe that buying a Pono also means buying a deluxe sound system to support it.

And what about the music? Once again, I’ll have to go buy my favorite albums all over again. I’ve bought some albums already on LP, CD, MP3 and SACD, and now I’ll need to go buy them again as 24-bit FLAC files? See, this is where I wonder about the success of Pono. I’ve switched to streaming subscription music. I’ve given up on owning music. Buying a Pono means going back to owning music again, and I’m not sure I want to do that. If I hear what those people getting our of Neal’s car claim to hear, maybe I will. But it’s going to have to be a Hubble telescope leap in high fidelity!

Let’s say I have to buy my favorite 100 albums again. That’s $2500-3,000, assuming the prices are like current 24-bit files. Pono could make things cheaper, but only if millions buy it. Pono appears to be like any other high-end DAC player, but scaled for portability. If you look at the other products at the Ayre.com site, the company that will be making the Pono player, you’ll see what I mean.

There is nothing technically stopping Rdio or Spotify from streaming 24-bit 192kHz FLAC. We’d need 24-bit DACs to play such music, but that’s not far-fetched either. People are streaming HD video, so why not HD sound?

I wish Neal Young all the success in the world for his Pono device because I hope it brings about a new high fidelity revolution. Two years from now I might not own a Pono, but I might be listening to 24-bit 192 kHz music.

JWH – 3/14/14