A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Archives for October 2009

The Future Strikes Back?

by 14 Comments

This map showing the location of the Large Had...
Image via Wikipedia

While watching the Colbert Report, I learned that two physicists have put forth the theory that the hypothetical Higgs boson particle might be so abhorrent to nature that creating it would cause a temporal backlash that would prevent such a vile spawning. This was put forth as an explanation why the Large Hadron Collider suffered a mechanical failure that put it out of operation for about a year.

Interestingly enough, these two physicists are well established in the field. They are Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan.

They have written papers on the topic such as “Test of Effect From Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal” and “Search for Future Influence From LHC,” Of course, the idea that time is not a one way street is nothing new and some physicists claim that such time events are quite possible. Obviously enough, the idea that the discovery of an abhorrent particle would cause such a backlash is something new (at least outside of science fiction).

Interestingly enough, Nielsen predicts that all machines intended to produce the Higgs boson will suffer from bad luck.  He even asserted that “well, one could even almost say that we have a model for God” and “that He rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to avoid them.” This prediction provides an empirical way to test their claim. After all, if all machines intended to do this suffer from “bad luck” at a rate that differs in a statistically significant manner from the norm, then there would be grounds to suspect that there is some unusual causal factor at work. Of course, “bad luck” would need to be properly defined and a proper baseline would need to be set for determining what would be a statistically significant deviation.

In terms of the evidence for this claim, the Hadron machine suffered that rather serious failure and the United States Superconducting Supercollider (also intended to search for the Higgs boson) was canceled in 1993 after a fortune had been spent on it. More recently, a scientist who works on a collider experiment was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy with Al Qaeda.

Of course, it is rather common for things to go wrong with large projects and large machines and these failures can be explained without some sort of odd temporal backlash. For example, human attempts at space exploration have been marked with some very serious disasters, yet these can all be explained in perfectly mundane ways. Likewise, the problem with the Hadron seems to be explainable in mundane terms and there seems to be no compelling reason yet to go beyond the mundane.

Naturally enough, if all machines intended to to produce the Higgs boson fail, then there would be good grounds for believing a causal factor is in play that is well worth considering. However, the notion that there is some sort of temporal backlash would be but one possible explanation and the mere repeated failures of such machines would not conclusively show that this specific hypothesis is correct. After all, alternative explanations could be given. To use a science fiction one, perhaps benevolent aliens are sabotaging such projects because they know that producing a Higgs boson would destroy the world. Or perhaps the aliens are doing it to keep us from advancing. Or any other of a number of odd explanations.

Of course, sitting around and waiting for more failures will take time. So, Dr. Nielsen and Dr. Ninomiya have suggested a test that can be conducted now. This is, oddly enough, a luck test in which the folks at CERN would play a game of chance to check for bad luck radiating back from the future. They claim that if the outcome of the game was adequately unlikely, then this would indicate that machine would not work or, if it did work, not function well enough to produce the Higgs boson.

Obviously enough, luck and bad luck are not exactly scientific concepts. However, they could no doubt be properly defined in terms of statistics (something I have written on elsewhere). In this case, bad luck would be negative events happening that consistently exceed what would be statistically expected.

However, even if “bad luck” is properly defined, there is the obvious question of whether this bad luck affects anything related to the collider or just the operation of the collider. To be specific, it seems reasonable to wonder whether the alleged bad luck would affect such a game of chance. Suppose, for example, people decided to play Monopoly on the site-would everyone roll really badly? Or would people lose at cards if they happened to be thinking about making a Higgs boson detecting machine? It is, of course, not clear how all this would work. Finally, even if the game went badly, there is still a probability that things can happen against probability (that is, the possible is still possible even it is incredibly unlikely).

When I first heard of this hypothesis, I assumed that it was a clever joke. After all, it seemed to involve attributing to nature a purpose that smacks of Aristotelian teleology-something that has been out of fashion in science since the Renaissance. At the very least it does propose some sort of intent and seeming intelligence to the universe-that it takes action against certain events and has the capability to target specific things like magnets and also to influence human decision making. I suppose that a suitable tale could be told trying to show how nature could do all this with no real purpose or intent-perhaps by drawing an analogy to how a body’s immune system destroys invading disease agents without any conscious intent. Of course, in this case nature is said to be ridding itself of a contaminate before it even exists, which is a heck of a trick.

I’m still sort of waiting for these two clever fellows to say “just kidding.” But, I’ve seen enough bizarre stuff in philosophy and science to suspect that this is no joke at all.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Birthers, Again

by 8 Comments

In yet another act of the theater of the absurd, the birthers brought a case  to the federal court claiming that Obama is not eligible to be president .

The judge, David Carter, issued a 30 page ruling that can be summed up in a single sentence: his court lacks the jurisdiction to rule on such a case. This seems to be quite accurate-the constitution specifies the legal procedures for the removal of a president from office and a U.S. District Court lacks the legal power to do this.

 

Carter is not the first judge to have dismiss the claim presented by the birthers. In response, the birthers have “have attacked the judiciary, including every prior court that has dismissed their claim, as unpatriotic and even treasonous for refusing to grant their requests and for adhering to the terms of the Constitution.”

The  birthers do have a right to express their views and even a legal right to bring up spurious law suits that waste time and resources. However, the fact that they can bring up such wasteful suits does not mean that they should be doing so. While they clearly do not agree with Obama, their lawsuits have no basis whatsoever. As such, they are merely wasting valuable court time and hence taxpayer money and this is hardly patriotic.

Now, if Obama was truly not eligible to be president or had committed some act worthy of removal, then proper action should be taken. However, he is clearly a natural born American citizen and has done nothing that would provide a legitimate basis for his removal. While people do disagree with his views and actions, doing things that some folks disagree with is not grounds for removal.

Finally, the attacks made by the birthers upon the judiciary are indeed ironic. The birthers are basing the attack on a legal point about citizenship and yet they call the judiciary unpatriotic and treasonous for following what is specified in the Constitution. In short, the birthers are calling on the judiciary to break the law so as to rule that Obama broke the law. Obviously, the birthers seem to lack a clear grasp of the notion of consistency (or irony).

While there are good grounds on which to be critical of Obama, the birthers’ nonsense merely provides ammunition with which to dismiss critics as suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome. The birthers would better serve their cause by dropping their absurd claims and focusing on presenting legitimate criticism and getting ready for 2012. Then again, perhaps they could join up with the Flat-Earthers, Hollow-Earthers, 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists, and other such folks and start their own political party.

H1N1 Shots & Prisoners

by 13 Comments

Jail cell in the Brecksville Police Department...
Image via Wikipedia

As most folks know, people are supposed to get the H1N1 shots. As folks also probably know, the vaccine is in very short supply (despite promises to the contrary). One thing that has stirred up controversy is that some folks in prison will be getting their shots before some other people who are in need.

On one hand, the furor over this does seem to be justified. After all, the people who are in prison would tend to be bad people who have harmed society. As such, to use society’s limited resources to protect them from H1N1 at the expense of protecting people who have not harmed society seems to be morally incorrect.

On the other hand, the distribution of vaccines is based on risk-those more at risk get moved up towards the front of the line. Since prisoners are in highly confined spaces and exposed to large numbers of people, they can be at much higher risk of H1N1 than the general population. While it might be tempting to say that they deserve to suffer because of their crimes, their punishment is to be in prison and not to become infected with a disease. As such, a case can be made as to why the prisoners would get the shots ahead of certain non-prisoners.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Plato’s Werewolf

by 2 Comments

An 18th century engraving, conveying that weap...
Image via Wikipedia

Put rather simply, a werewolf is a person who has the ability to transform from human form into wolf form (or a hybrid wolf-human form). The werewolf is typically cast as a monster whose taste for human flesh is exceeded only by the amount of fur that he (or she) sheds.

Throughout the years, folks have offered various explanations for the werewolf myths and legends. Some of the scientific ones point to mental illnesses. Those based in the supernatural tend to point towards vague curses. However, my objective is not to hash through these various theories. Rather, I am going to present a completely made up account of the werewolf using Plato‘s theory of forms. This is, of course, not intended to be “serious” philosophy but rather a little Halloween fun.

While there are different interpretations of Plato’s theory of Forms, the general idea is that the Forms are supposed to be eternal, perfect entities that exist outside of space and time. Most importantly, all the particular things in the imperfect realm (that is where we hang out, at least while we are alive) are what they are in virtue of a mysterious participation in the Forms. For example, take a particular being, namely me. On Plato’s view, I would be a man because I participate in the Form of man. Likewise, I am a runner because I participate in that Form as well. And so on, for all my properties.

As is rather evident, the particular things here in this realm lack perfection. For example, while I am obviously damn manly, I am not a perfect Man. Likewise, while I am, according to my mother, a handsome fellow, I obviously do not possess perfect Beauty. Plato explains this lack of perfection, at least in part, by the fact that particulars participate in the Forms in various degrees. He also seems to indicate that a particular entity might participate in “contrasting” Forms. For example, a particular person would participate in both Beauty and Ugliness (assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that ugliness would be a Form). Thus, the person’s beauty (or ugliness) is a “mix” of Beauty and Ugliness. Since people can look more or less beautiful (or ugly) over the course of time, this mix can presumably shift or the degree of participation can change.

At this point, you might be wondering what this has to do with the werewolf. Not to worry, grab some candy because I am getting to that bit right now.

So, if we assume that a thing is what it is because of its participation in Forms and that the Forms can be “mixed” in a thing (or rather, their instantiations), the werewolves are easy to explain. Plato’s werewolf would be a being that participated in the Form of Man but also the Form of wolf. As such, the being (let us call him “Lon”) would be literally part man and part wolf. When Lon is participating most in the Form of Man, then he would appear (and act) human. However, when the Form of Wolf became dominant, his form and behavior would shift towards that of the wolf.

Since Plato mentions the Sun in the Allegory of the Cave, it seems appropriate that the moon (which reflects the light of the sun) is credited with triggering the transformation from man to wolf. Naturally, I have no idea how this would work; but I also have no real idea how participation was supposed to work either. So, let it be assumed that both work and thus Plato’s werewolf is free this Halloween. Naturally, this werewolf would hunger for wisdom and not human flesh, so be sure to keep some philosophy books on hand, should you run into one of this furry philosophers.

 

 

 

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Simple Pumpkin Seed Recipe

by Leave a Comment

I’m rather fond of Halloween and carve a pumpkin every year. While Halloween is mostly about the candy, part of my Halloween traditions is the cooking of pumpkin seeds. The recipe I use is very simple, but works for me.

Step 1: Carve the pumpkin and get the seeds. Since I am not squeamish, I find that the best way to get the seeds is to cut an opening in the top of the pumpkin and then just pull out all the seeds and “guts” with my hand. I then scrape the sides to clear out the gunk and round up any stray seeds.

Step 2: Clean the seeds. While some of the seeds will be free of the “guts”, you will most likely have a fair amount of orange strings and gunk mixed up with the seeds. I deal with that by putting the seeds in a colander and then manually removing the gunk. I then wash the seeds with water (just stick the colander in the sink).

Step 3: Oil and flavor. I usually move the seeds to a Tupperware container and add a little olive oil plus some steak seasoning salt. You can, of course, use any flavoring you’d like, from the old standby of table salt to some elaborate mixes of spices and herbs. Some folks even make sweet mixes, but I find that the Halloween candy gives me plenty of sweet. I use the Tupperware container because I can seal it and then mix up the seeds with the oil and flavoring by shaking it.

Step 4: Bake. I spread the seeds over a cookie sheet (the oil on them should minimize sticking, but you can use parchment paper) and bake them for 30-40 minutes at 300 degrees. I stir them every 10 minutes or so (if I remember). When they appear to be slightly browned  and are crisp, they are ready to eat. If they are black and on fire, then it is time to get a new set of pumpkin seeds.

Step 5: Eat.

Government & Talk Radio

by Leave a Comment

In 1949 the FFC introduced the Fairness Doctrine that required those with broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a way that was fair and balanced. This doctrine came to an end during the presidency of Ronald Reagen. Not surprisingly, there have been attempts to revive it.

As mentioned in the previous blog, conservatives dominate talk radio and this has lead some folks to think that the government should step in using something like the Fairness Doctrine to force more balance on the airwaves.

If there was evidence that the conservative dominance was the result of questionable means, then it would make sense for the government to get involved. However, it seems likely that existing laws would serve this purpose well enough. Liberal paranoia aside, the mere fact that talk radio is dominated by conservatives is no evidence of misdeeds-no more than the liberal dominance of other media is a clear sign of misdeeds.  Rather, much of it seems to be a matter of consumer choice and this is not something that the state should interfere with, unless this choice is somehow being tampered with in illegal ways.

To use an analogy, if the iPod is outselling its competitors, the government has no obligation or right to step in and try to balance things out-as long as Apple is playing fair. However, if a company is coercing customers or abusing a near monopoly, then intervention would be appropriate.

So, if conservatives dominate the airwaves because that is what people want to hear, then the government should do nothing about that. Of course, if there are some sort of shady or illegal reasons behind this dominance, then action would be appropriate.

My guess is that much of the conservative dominance is due to the hosts giving people what they want and they are doing this in a legitimate way-by outdoing their almost nonexistent competition. But, people should not be punished for winning-just for cheating.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
%d bloggers like this: