Accepting Reality

For most of the history of mankind, gods or God, explained reality.  God made us, the plants and animals.  Any event in nature, whether good or bad, was caused by gods or God.  Then science came along and explained rain, thunderstorms, earthquakes, eclipses, droughts, stars, planets, and so on.  When science explained the origin of animals and people, some religious people rebelled.

We now have people that reject science because they want to keep God.  They feel science is explaining away God.  I’m afraid they are right.  But instead of accepting reality and letting God fade away, like the gods before monotheism, they are rejecting reality.  When I was very young I rejected God and accepted science mainly because of the size of reality.  Reality seemed too immense to have been created by one being, especially one in our image.  Take a look at this video to see what I mean.

God was a great concept when our awareness of reality was small but once you realize the size of reality, age and scope, even at the limits of what we know now, that knowledge changes everything philosophically.  Humans can’t be the crown of creation.  We can’t be the center of the universe and the focus of God’s attention.  We can’t be special if we’re so small and insignificant.

So what is our place in the reality?  Years ago I would have asked, what is our place in the universe, but it appears our universe might be one of an infinity of universes, and this round of 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang, only a single bubble in a foam of universes.  Science now talk of the multiverse, but I prefer the term reality to encompass it all.

Humans are here in this vast reality by an accident of randomness.  We won’t always be here.  Reality existed before us, and it will exist after us.  Being here is the biggest miracle we’ve yet discovered.  It’s a miracle that outshines any miracle ever recorded in all of the religions of the world.

I think its time we reject the theory of God and start accepting reality for what it is.  Start asking questions about what existing in this vast reality means.  Becoming self-aware in this immense reality is a great opportunity.  Instead of destroying the Earth and committing species suicide we need to think about what we could become.  Don’t ask what is our purpose.  Under religion our purpose was to obey God.  Reality doesn’t work that way.  We each have to find our own purpose if we want one, but reality expects nothing of us.  We can’t have a personal relationship with reality.  Each of us is an awareness of reality, but most of us pretend we’re not here.

Erase all the past thoughts of religion and philosophy.  You just woke up in an unknown place.  Take stock in your surroundings.  You know that old saying, think global but act local – do the same for reality.  Our philosophy should be based on our best picture of reality.  Start with cosmology and work your way down.  Most people define reality by their very small personal delusions.  I say, any philosophy that doesn’t account for the size of reality dooms itself to a cockroach mentality.  A cockroach scurries about satisfying its personal urges unaware of its environment.  A cockroach does not know it’s in your kitchen because it doesn’t see the big picture.

There is only one human endeavor that tells us about reality, and that’s science.  I suggest starting at the top, and work down.  NOVA presented a wonderful four part series called The Fabric of the Cosmos hosted by Brian Greene based on his book of the same name.

Fabric of the Cosmos 1: What is Space?

Fabric of the Cosmos 2: The Illusion of Time

Fabric of the Cosmos 3: Quantum Leap

Fabric of the Cosmos 4:  University or Multiverse

Maybe there’s still room for religion in reality, I don’t know.  But any religion that ignores what we know about reality is delusional.

JWH – 2/11/12

The Quest for the Highest Fidelity

Neil Young wants us to go beyond MP3.  In this video interview he tells us that MP3 only has 5% of the music data of a master tape, and that CD’s only have 15%.  Which makes me wonder what percentage of the master tape is presented in vinyl.  I also wondered how Neil came up with those numbers.  Well, I found Fidelity Potential Index (see the graph).  By this chart, the vinyl records processes 415,000-625,000 bits per second, whereas a CD is 705,600, and a SACD does 3,500,000 and 24 bit Dolby True HD reaches 4,608,000, but I’m not sure how to compare this to a MP3 file, which have different rates of compression.  But I found “16 Bit vs. 24 Bit Audio” with a number of interesting tables.

That article says a 24 bit master recording at 96kHz sample rates produces a 99 megabyte file for a 3 minute song, and 128kbps MP3 takes up 2.82 megabytes of space.  So if Neil was using a better sample rate that creates a 5 megabytes file, it would be about 5% of the master.  And that’s for a 24/96kHz master, what about a 24/192kHz master recording – the MP3 becomes 2.5%.  But a CD would still have 30-33%, not 15%, unless he was comparing CDs to 24/192 masters, which would be about 15%.  And I still don’t know what vinyl would have.

I’m listening to streaming music right now, “Rudy” by Supertramp, which might be 256 kbps MP3, so I’m getting that 5% of the original musical data, at least according to Neil.  If I spent a bunch of money on audiophile equipment and found a 24 bit master file of this song, if it’s available, would I experience 20 times as much music?

I tried SACD years ago, buying a reasonable amount of equipment just to see what it’s like.  If I sat in my recliner, closed my eyes, and concentrated, I could tell the difference.  Sometimes it was dramatic.  But if I started doing stuff while the music was playing it no longer mattered if I was listening to a CD or SACD.

Listening to music on Rdio while I write my blogs, streaming is good enough.  If I go sit in the den and crank up my stereo, and kick back in my recliner and concentrate on the music like I concentrate on a movie, breaking out the CDs is worth the trouble.  But not if my thoughts drift.  I like to use music to pump up my thinking.  For that, streaming is good enough.

Every once in awhile I’ll listen to music on my iPod touch – like when I have insomnia – but I find music through earphones tiny and thin.  It’s okay for emergencies, but I can’t believe that’s most people’s first choice in listening conditions.

I could go over to HDtracks and buy Fleetwood Mac by Fleetwood Mac in 192kHz/24bit FLAC for $25.98 and find out if Neil is right.  But can my HTPC actually play the file in 192kHz resolution?  Is it even worth it?   Read this thread, “24-bit/192kHz is pointless?”  Or read “Coding High Quality Digital Audio” by J. Robert Stuart.  These people have explored the territory Neil Young pines for us all to live in and they aren’t so sure it’s the promised land.

Let’s think of it another way.  Neil can’t even get people to listen to CDs which have three times the music data, so how can he expect people to demand a technology that delivers 20 times as much data?  I got into SACD years ago just as SACD was failing in the marketplace.  I think Neil is hoping that Apple will come out with iPhones/iPods that have 24/192 technology, and iTunes and Amazon will start selling is 100mb songs that download and store just as easily as 5mb songs.  This could happen.  But music fans aren’t asking for it, so will it happen?  How many people rushed out to buy HD Radio receivers?

I loved listening to SACDs where I felt the musical instruments had so much more texture, and singers sounded like they were live in the room, but I only noticed those details when I paid attention.  How many people really pay attention to music?

And I still can’t find out why people cling to vinyl – the scientific numbers just don’t justify it.  Is there a chance that people love vinyl for its warmth because it has less music data?  If that’s the case, one day when Neil gets his way and Apple presents HD digital music, the young people will all cling to MP3 files for their warmth – all that extra music data will sound too harsh.

JWH 2/9/12

Who Are the Abolitionists of Our Times?

What peculiar institutions do we embrace today that modern abolitionists see as evil?

Humans are an evolving social species and in every era some people see further than others.  They understand that common assumptions are wrong.  19th century abolitionists could see that slavery was a vile institution where most were blind to its cruelty.  They wanted to abolish a long held practice that other people embraced dearly.  This brought about the war of America against itself that was so violent that no other enemy has ever come close to hurting us so much.  And even though the war came to an end in 1865 some people are still fighting it today.  It’s very hard for people to change.

What I ask:  What evil do we embrace that is invisible to the society at large that a few people rightly want to abolish today?

The list could be quite long and it might take a century or two before the issues become obvious to everyone.  Evil is not invisible.  Evil doesn’t take a century of social evolution to see.  Evil is ignored.  Everyone in the 19th century should have seen that slavery was evil.  Southern states embraced slavery because it benefitted them economically.  They had to rationalize the practice.  The framers of the Constitution had to carefully dance around the issue in words.  Our forefathers accepted a level of cruelty in life that we can’t rationalize, but instead of feeling enlighten, we have to ask:  What cruelty do we rationalize so easily?  What vile practices do we embrace because we don’t want to see its evil because it profits us?

The first thing that comes to mind are animals.  Factory farms are nightmares of animal cruelty that slaughter billions of beings each year.  We’re also destroying animal habitats worldwide and causing extinctions only slightly slower than mass extinction events.  Given our trends, we’ll start surpassing some of those events soon.

The second thing that comes to mind is how we’re destroying the environment for future generations.  A century from now the the people of the world will hate us far worse than we ever hated slavers, colonialists, Nazis, Communists, terrorists, serial killers or child molesters.  Our excesses will make us the worst of the worst.

Most people today if confronted will go, “Huh, not me, I’m not doing anything wrong.”

And you can’t claim ignorance because we do have our own abolitionists.  They are out there.  They are telling us what’s wrong.  We’re just not listening.

JWH – 2/5/12

A Practical Plan for a Lunar Colony

Newt Gingrich last week got politically slammed for proposing a Moon colony while campaigning in the Florida primary.  In an obvious bid for votes from space coast residents Newt Gingrich claimed he would build a permanent colony on the Moon by the end of his second term.  Sounds great if you’re a science fiction fan and space enthusiast, but everyone else just hears more national debt.  The other Republican candidates quickly thrashed Gingrich for being impractical.

Even if the United States was flushed with dough and out of debt would Americans really want to return to the Moon?  China is making plans to land on the Moon but will they develop a colony there when we didn’t?  Back in 1969-1972 the U.S. landed six missions on the Moon, but the public grew bored after two.  The Chinese will discover the same thing – only a geologist can love the Moon up close.

Sending humans to the Moon, or Mars or anywhere else in space just doesn’t make sense right now, and hasn’t since 1972.  Sadly, robots have turned out to be far better astronauts, but we shouldn’t feel too choked up over being replaced by machines.  The human body isn’t suited for life in outer space, at least not yet, whereas robots can thrive in the harsh climates beyond our atmosphere.

What we need to do is colonize the Moon with robots.  Have machines roam over the lunar surface high and low and make a complete survey of natural resources.  Then send robots that mine those resources and build other robots.  Eventually we’d have enough robots on the Moon that could build underground cities suitable for humans to visit or colonize.  Whether humans can live on the Moon for extended stays, reproduce, and safely raise children is still unknown.  We may yet discover that humans can’t adapt to low gravity.

My point though is robots can build a colony on the Moon far cheaper than using manpower.  And it would be a far greater scientific achievement to develop a robotic colony because most of the money and resources used for a lunar colony for humans would go just to keep people alive. 

There are few reasons to go to the Moon:

  • Scientific study of the Moon
  • Base for very large telescopes
  • Mine helium-3 when fusion reactors come online
  • Prove that humans can live permanently in space

Three of the four reasons can be handled by robots, and robots could prepare the Moon for humans for the fourth.

Building a robot civilization on the Moon would be a new accomplishment and would outclass anything the Chinese could do by just repeating the Apollo missions.

Building a robotic colony would be far cheaper and it would lay the foundation for a cheaper human colony in the future.

Finally, developing the technology for a robotic civilization on the Moon would be more valuable than the accomplishment of putting men and women on the Moon again.

JWH – 1/31/12

Z-Coil Shoes and My Spinal Stenosis

The arthritis in my L5 vertebra makes walking and standing pain inducing activities.  To avoid pain I avoid walking anywhere but short distances.

I also keep pain under control by doing daily exercises my physical therapist taught me, but as things degenerate in my back my walking and standing stamina dwindles.  I’m always trying to find things to help and this week I bought some Z-Coil shoes.  I looked at them a year ago but was afraid to spend the money on something that might not work.  Well, I’ve been avoiding meetings that require walking across campus because even short quarter mile walks can make my feet go numb for a day or two.

Because I don’t want to give up such walks I spent $189 (on sale) for some Z-Coil shoes and I was surprised by how much they helped.  My feet tonight are no more numb and tired than than days I don’t have to walk across campus.

I can’t tell you if they will help you if you have back problems, but I can say they helped me.  I tried to find testimonials on the web and didn’t find many.  So here’s mine for what it’s worth.

Got to tell you though, they are weird looking, and they might even be dangerous if you aren’t careful.  Read the warnings.

z-coil

They come in many styles for men and women, even sandals.  Newer models even try to hide the big spring, which act like a shock-absorber.  The tension in my lower back started relaxing just hours after I started wearing these shoes.  I’ve even been able to cut back on my anti-inflammation medicine.  Oh, I’m not cured.  Daily activity still wears on my lower spine but I’ve reduced that strain significantly with these shoes.

I can’t promise they will help you with your back problems.  My guess is they won’t with muscle problems at all.  I have degenerative discs that bone wear is pressing on nerves, so I have numbness, tingling and tension more than pain right now.  I think these shock absorber shoes just reduce that wear somewhat – enough so I notice.

It’s something to consider.

JWH – 1/30/12

Update – 2/4/12

Before I tried Z-coil shoes I sometimes had weird sensations when I walked.  Sometimes I’d feel like I was stepping in a hole or slipping on ice for a tiny fraction of a section.  I assumed this happened when I twinged a nerve.  After I started wearing the Z-coil shoes I haven’t had those sensations.