November 13, 2007

Leonid Meteor Shower Coming Up

Mark your calendars, fellow nerds. The Leonid meteor shower is peaking Saturday night through Sunday morning, November 17 through 18. Best viewing will be 9:00pm-5:00am.

Note that they'll also be visible for a few days before and after. Oh, and the constellation Leo (for which the Leonid shower is named, and where the shower will be appearing) should be toward the North, which means that if you want to get away from the D.C. city lights, your only option is to travel West, since any other direction means that either D.C. or Baltimore will still be brightening the sky toward the shower.

Posted by Barzelay at 3:49 AM | Comments (3)

January 17, 2007

Freedom in a Deterministic World

A physicist has published a new theory of the deterministic forces that underlie the apparent uncertainty of quantum mechanics. The problem of determinacy vs. free will is one of the oldest problems of metahumanity, and it spans philosophy, psychology, physics, and mathematics. In this case, the physicist has proposed that there are tiny, deterministic "energy states" that frequently coalesce into something large enough to be thought of as a wave or particle. At the quantum level, those waves and particles appear indeterminate because we cannot measure the underlying energy states and are left only with the coalesced results. But he is theorizing that at the sub-quantum level things are actually determinate.

It seems to me that this debate (the scientific one) will continue forever, renewing itself each time we manage to model a smaller world underlying the smallest one of which we previously knew. This new deterministic world of "energy states" will eventually be superseded by some apparently indeterministic state underlying it, which will in turn be replaced by some other deterministic state underlying that, and so on. For me, it just highlights the fact that in our subjective experience (and given our lack of omniscience, and the empirical facts of our having continuously updated our ideas of the physical building blocks of our world) there is ample evidence for both determinacy and indeterminacy.

But I often wonder why any sort of physical uncertainty, or uncertainty of future states, would support the existence of free will. I understand why determinacy would seem to refute free will, but I don't understand why indeterminacy supports it. It seems that we are presuming the existence of free will (likely due to the Christian orthodoxy's rejection of Calvinist doctrines a couple centuries ago), and then celebrating any theory that doesn't outright disprove it. But the whole thing seems to me to miss the point.

The reason we're so obsessed with free will is that it staves off thoughts about the futility of our existence; we like free will because it indicates that there could be meaning in the way we choose to live our lives. But if that is the ultimate goal--the way we live our lives, or even finding meaning in the way we live our lives--why should anything other than our subjective experience matter? Why shouldn't we assume that if we think we are making meaningful decisions, and we think we have a choice, then we are, and we did--even if those decisions were, given omniscience about the past, determined?

The common arguments for the meaninglessness of existence in a deterministic world are that the choices we think we are making "have been made for us," or that we "had no say in it." Also, there are always people who look at the idea of people going about their lives acting as if they had control over them when in fact they supposedly do not as being an example of ignorance--maybe even willful ignorance when it comes to those scientifically or philosophically enlightened. They trot out the old admonition, "Ignorance is bliss." But I think it's very simplistic and even, if I may say so, wilfully ignorant to equate determinism with the lack of free will, and with lack of meaning, and then stop the inquiry.

In my view, determinism is wholly consistent with how I view free will. Determinism may have made you who you are, and your choices may be predictable (but only if given total access to every bit of unmeasurable data in the world), but you are still you, and they are still your choices. You got to choose, and you made your choice. Does it really make it any less your preference just because some fictional omniscience could have guessed beforehand what your preference would have been? You still got what you thought you wanted.

Posted by Barzelay at 10:37 AM | Comments (27)

April 3, 2006

Daylight Savings Time, and day itself, is stupid

Partially because of our recent spring forward, it feels like it's about five hours earlier than it is. Aren't I supposed to be tired right now? Anyway, daylight savings time has pros and cons.

On the good side, I love eating dinner while it's still light out. It reminds me of childhood summers when we'd eat dinner on the porch and then go for a walk around the pond, or a bike round to Hickory Hills. Winter affords me no parallel advantage, because I'm never up early enough to enjoy the sun rising, with or without the fall back. And yes, I'm glad daylight can blanket young childrens' commute to school in an illusion of safety. But there are obvious detriments as well. For starters, it's a big hassle for everyone to change their clocks. Inevitably, some people will forget to do so, and as a result, will be late to work and school, thereby creating a significant drop in the day's productivity.

But there is another unfortunate consequence of daylight savings time. It perpetuates the fiction of day and night.

Yep, the fiction of day and night. No, I don't believe light and dark are illusions, or that they are part of some elaborate conspiracy. I fully acknowledge the cycles of rotation and revolution that create alternating periods of relative brightness and darkness. But I think our adherence to those cycles to guide our life's routine is arbitrary at best. In fact, I think night and day are obsolete.

For thousands of years, we've possessed the technology to function at night. Our physiology dictates that we have an easier time of it during the light period, but ever since Bob the Caveman discovered that fire gave off light, we've been able to make due at night. Then around one hundred years ago, we came up with a much more efficient way of lighting the dark period. Electric lighting paved the way for what is now a much more lively night time than it used to be. Chemical, nuclear, and other forms of lighting may be employed in the future. Either way, we will get increasingly efficient at lighting the night.

Hence, there is no remaining reason why we should allow the cycle of light and dark to control the structure of our lives. Nearly everything traditionally reserved for the daytime can now be done at night, and vice versa. In fact, I can only think of two reasons (both valid) to adhere to our current system:

1. We would all look terrible if we never got outside. And it isn't just looks. Our bodies supposedly get certain nutrients from the sun somehow. Don't ask me how, but it apparently happens.
2. Lighting the night takes energy. This is a valid concern. But with more efficient lighting, as well as solar energy collection and such, this will hopefully cease to be as big a deal.

In any case, I'm not suggesting we reverse the cycles. The opposite cycle would be just as arbitrary. On the contrary, I think we need to recognize the full twenty-four hours of each day as possessing nearly equal potential for enjoyment and productivity. Why not schedule a business meeting at 3:00am? A softball game at midnight? Sex in the afternoon? Sleep in the morning? We already do some of those things, at least when we can.

In addition, not everyone's body seems naturally inclined toward a twenty-four hour schedule. Personally, if left without responsibilities for a couple weeks, I default to a cycle of around twenty-eight hours, staying up for around eighteen hours at a time, and then sleeping for around ten. That's just what feels best to me. Why should I be constrained by nature's haphazard occurrence that Earth rotates for twenty-four hours instead of twenty-eight? Well, one answer is that over millions of years, we have adapted to a twenty-four cycle, and are therefore evolutionarily suited for such a cycle. But I, and many others with different sleeping rhythms provide what are at least anomalies if not strong evidence that such and adaptation is not very strong if it has indeed occurred.

So what do you think? Besides, "But I like the sunshine!! LOL!!!!" what do you think about humanity's ability to transcend the twenty-four hour cycle nature has imposed? Why not embrace our flexibility and make more complete use of our nights? Or at the very least, why not accomodate those of us who may still be up at 7:50am writing a blog post, even though daytime dictates that they have class in a little over three hours?

Posted by Barzelay at 7:54 AM | Comments (10)

December 23, 2005

Oh My God!

I keep hearing myself saying, "Oh my God!"

And then I pause, and think to myself, "Wait a minute. I'm an atheist. "Oh my God" is completely meaningless." Today it occurred to me that maybe I should stop saying it. I kind of feel like saying "Oh my God" perpetuates the breathtaking inanity of the fairy tale that is religion. I don't believe in God.

But I'm conflicted.

On one hand, I really like the fact that saying "Oh my God" is more or less explicitly prohibited by the Ten fictional Commandments, and that saying it therefore is very disrespectful to religious people, and amounts to flaunting my own freedom from being afraid of such superstitions. I derive great pleasure from occasional blasphemy.

But at the same time, I dislike that in saying "Oh my God," I am explicitly claiming this "God" as my own, even if I don't mean it. And I dislike it because it promotes the normality of a belief in the existence of God, even if it doesn't actually promote the belief that he does exist. I think I have perhaps been misguided in my indulgence in blasphemy. Not because it rude, but rather because practicing blasphemy is an acknowledgement of the belief that God exists, and I'm not sure that belief deserves acknowledgement.

If some group started worshipping the Easter Bunny and claimed that nothing made Him madder than when people say, "The Easter Bunny" in vain, would we acknowledge such a group with even the small amount of respect implicit in mocking them? Perhaps not. We'd probably lock them away.

In any case, I think I would like to stop saying, "Oh my God." If not for the reasons listed above, simply because it is an idiom so mired in cliche and so misused and meaningless that everyone who actually believes in the efficacy of the phrase feels uncomfortable saying it (or should). So, if you catch me saying it, please call me on it.

In lieu of "Oh my God," I propose to make use of any of the following phrases:

• "Oh my Reason!"
• "Oh my Santa Claus!"
• "Oh my blog!"
• "Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster!"
• "Oh my humanity!"
• "Oh my cock!"

Posted by Barzelay at 6:32 AM | Comments (7)

October 16, 2005

Petals Around The Rose

Petals Around The Rose is a puzzle game. The way the game works is that one rolls five six-sided dice, and then one is supposed to figure out the numerical answer to that roll based on the outcome of the dice roll.

The game master, in this case me, may only tell you three things:

1. The name of the game is Petals Around The Rose, and that name is important.
   
2. The answer will always be an even number.
   
3. I (or anyone who has solved it) can give you the answer to any roll, almost instantly (within a couple seconds).

For instance, the answer on the following roll is 8.

On this roll, the answer is 4.

This answer is 6.

This answer is 8.

Any of these three links will allow you to see more rolls and their answers, and to check your theories.

See if you can figure it out. As the story goes, the smarter you are, the longer it will take you to figure it out. Then read this story about what happened when Bill Gates was introduced to the game in 1977.

Posted by Barzelay at 10:06 PM | Comments (4)

September 27, 2005

The Ocean is not a safe place

A giant squid has been photographed alive and in its natural environment for the first time. It was a relatively small one, as giant squids go. Only 26 feet long.

And it's a good thing we finally got their picture. Who knows how long it'll be till they're extinct, what with armed homicidal dolphins on the loose.

This is so cool. What geek can look at this and not smile a little bit recalling his or her Verne and Benchley forays as a precocious young shut-in? Speaking of which, this comment on the Slashdot story is pretty funny.

Posted by Barzelay at 10:24 PM | Comments (0)

September 13, 2005

If Links Were Nickels, I'd Have $0.55

• Have these people never seen Dr. Strangelove? New Pentagon doctrine gives President the power to order a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
• Could we perhaps control hurricanes, or at least limit their power? These particular ideas don't seem all that do-able, but the possibility of large-scale intentional influence on the weather is intriguing.
• Read about some guy's assessment of The Ten Stupidest Utopias.
• Gay activists are creating a website listing the names and addresses of all the people who signed the petition calling for a Massachusetts ballot initiative to ban gay marriage. I think this is very legitimate and fair: actions or statements whose intent is to influence the public law should be made publicly.
• Attempts by FEMA and the White House to block media coverage of the dead have ended, after a courageous (though profit-seeking) effort by CNN to fight those attempts. Why should the government be able to restrict media coverage of the dead in this, or in Iraq? Utterly against our principle of a free press.
• Some interesting laser photos.
• Does disaster always lead to increased assertion of authority, and decreased civil liberties?
• I've never liked Coheed And Cambria before, but their absurdly titled new album, "Good Apollo, I'm Burning Star IV, Volume One: From Fear Through The Eyes Of Madness," sounds like a cross between The Nixons, Ted Leo, and Rush. It sounds completely different from their older stuff, and I really like it, and recommend it (minus a couple tracks that are missteps).

Posted by Barzelay at 1:24 AM | Comments (4)

July 18, 2005

"Hack The Planet"

"Ecohacker Michael Markels claims he has a fix for global warming:" dump a bunch of iron filings into the ocean, which will spur a plankton boom, drastically increasing photosynthesis.

TheHackers (which has a surprisingly low IMDB rating) tagline, "Hack the planet!" seems very applicable. This idea sounds feasible, though it seems like it would have a very damaging effect on ocean life other than plankton. Also, the guy seems to be in it just for the potential profits. I find it very interesting that we've actually reached a point where we can conceive of intentionally altering climate.

For all the global warming panic, panic which I certainly share, at the same time I can't help but think that we'll figure something out to stop it. I definitely feel that in the meantime we should do what we can to stop it, and make drastic cuts, etc (says the guy who owns an SUV, albeit a relatively fuel efficient one). Ratify Kyoto, require all new cars to be hybrids, cut back industrial air pollution, and so on... but I can't help but have some degree of faith in human ingenuity to solve the problem before it gets too bad (though some would say it already is getting quite bad, with the increased storm levels and such).

The funniest thing about the article, in my opinion, is the use of the term "ecohacker." Just because the article is printed in Wired doesn't mean it has to be about hacking. It's just funny that "hacker" has now become mainstream enough, and with neutral enough connotations, that it can now be bandied about in new situations. The other day, my Dad and I killed a coral snake with a shovel in our yard. Does that make us snakehackers? And I know a fat guy, who I will now refer to as a hamburgerhacker. The guy who works at the zoo shoveling shit is a feceshacker. It's really a pretty versatile construction. Me like.

Posted by Barzelay at 3:56 AM | Comments (7)

July 14, 2005

Insane clouds

These clouds look really crazy. I didn't know clouds could actually look like that. Some of the shots look like something out of Ghostbusters, when Gozer comes down to the top of that building and there's an otherwordly storm overhead. Or in War Of The Worlds when the aliens are coming down in the lightning. I mean, these clouds are seriously strange and awesome.

If you went outside one day and saw these outside your house, you'd probably freak out, yell at the neighbors, and then start praying to Zuul to save you.

Apparently this type of cloud formation is called "mammatus" and is very rare. Here's another time mammatus clouds made an appearance, and there are some good shots in Google image search. So these things are to meteorologists what a corpse plant bloom is to botanists.

The photos were taken by Jorn Olsen in Nebraska. Colin, why weren't you on that? I got linked via Boing Boing.

UPDATE: Amanda Lucas sent me a couple other cool weather pics from recent FL hurricanes.

Posted by Barzelay at 5:44 PM | Comments (3)

July 13, 2005

Mario Teaches Physics

Someone ripped the sprites from Super Mario World and captured some of the animations, then edited them together into an instructional video about wave motion.

It's pretty funny and very cool. I'm skeptical about its effectiveness in teaching physics, but then who cares about that. Made me laugh. Via Boing Boing.

Posted by Barzelay at 8:16 PM | Comments (1)

Hair Compare

Why is it that things are darker when they are wet? I've been wondering about this lately. Hair is darker when it's wet. When fabric gets wet, it generally gets darker. Paint usually dries lighter than when it's wet. Why is this?

I know it has something to do with the water molecules in between the object's own material. Perhaps something to do with refraction? But I just really have no idea what the actual cause of the discoloration would be. Especially the darkening. It would seem more logical that there would a shift of some sort as the water refracted some wavelengths differently and thus changed the color, but that doesn't happen. Why does it get darker?

I was hoping some of the physics nerds would be able to provide an explanation (Jonathan especially, but also perhaps Sarah or Daniel... any ideas?).

Posted by Barzelay at 7:47 PM | Comments (5)

They're coming

Stock up on gallons of water now, and prepare for emergency shutdown of the power grid. The machines are coming. It's only a matter of time before disembodied heads are riding atop massive artificial bodies that function as weapons. Unenhanced humans ("normies") are doomed!

Posted by Barzelay at 5:36 AM | Comments (0)

June 27, 2005

MIT Survey of Bloggers

Posted by Barzelay at 4:17 AM | Comments (0)

April 28, 2005

Cold Fusion?

Cold fusion? Perhaps Bush's energy proposal won't be necessary after all?

Posted by Barzelay at 3:36 PM | Comments (0)

Bush's Energy Proposal

Bush's energy proposal sounds pretty damn good, based on that and one other article I've read. I don't know about the biases of the sources, though. I just google newsed it. Yay for nuclear power!

Posted by Barzelay at 3:56 AM | Comments (0)