Faster Than Light With the Point-Of-View Drive


Einstein's prohibition in his Special Theory of Relativity is not exactly against exceeding the speed of light, but being measured exceeding the speed of light - or, more specifically, against conveying information at faster than light speeds. As explained in this video narrated by Professor Ennui Pidawee, it's possible to exceed the speed of light so long as you use your own clock and your own subjective point-of-view.

Aside 1 (First Law of Universal Sanity) - Having a fixed speed of light keeps our universe sane. For example, if a spaceship approaching Earth at a speed faster than light sent a message, the spaceship would arrive before the message. Effect could precede cause. From the perspective of our hunter gatherer-derived nervous system, it seems weird that yardsticks shrink and clocks slow down the faster a thing goes. From the perspective of the universe, it is the price we pay for preserving causality. It is as if Einstein really discovered The First Law Of Universal Sanity - e.g., that the messenger shall not precede the message.

Aside 2 (other faster-than-light examples) - There are other examples of exceeding the speed of light. For instance, beyond the observable horizon of our ever expanding universe, bodies recede from each other at faster-than-light speeds. Here on Earth we are moving faster than light relative to unseen planets in distant parts of the universe. However, that's OK. Not only are those planets unseen, they are unseeable. Because the universe is expanding faster than light there is no possibility of messages being exchanged.

Another example of "superluminal" speed happens when "entangled" quantum particles, such as the particles produced when when radioative elements decay, are separated. These particles remain connected in some weird way, no matter how far apart they are. Measuring the property (say spin) of one particle instantly (and opositely) affects the corresponding property of the other particle according to the Heisenberg Uncertainy Principle. The distance between the particles has no affect. However, Special Relativity (and the sanity of the universe) is supposed to be preserved because (it is claimed) that no information can be conveyed in this manner.

Aside 2a (EPR Paradox) - The entanglement phenomenon prompted Einstein to join with scientists Podolsky and Rosen to propose the EPR Paradox. They said that because faster-than-light speeds were involved, the underlying Heisenberg Uncertainy Theory was wrong. This is in keeping with Einstein's statement "God does not play dice with the universe." Unfortunately, tests have demonstrated that the entanglement phenomenon is real. I don't know what this says about God - maybe that He has a mean sense of humor.

1 - Is order necessary?


Seems to be necessary - on personal and universal levels.

We’ve always needed order to make sense of stuff. Where does the tiger hide? Which berries are edible? What causes this and that? Because information never stops, we’ve had to organize it into manageable chunks - to reduce it to categories, collections, rules, laws, theories, algorithms, etc.. We had to invent the forest to avoid being overwhelmed by the trees.

As creatures who contemplate death, we also try to make sense out of that.

At the universal level, the constituent stuff of the external world (assuming a sane world exists outside of our heads) requires rules in order to get along. Unregulated stuff would bump into other stuff and make a mess. It would be chaotic, whimsical stuff.

Assumptions
Some question whether order is real, or an artifact, imposed on physical reality by human need. This series (although perhaps an example of imposed order) assumes that order is a necessary quality of a sane universe existing outside our heads. Others ask the opposite question - is order something more real than physical reality? (It’s the question asked by Plato when he talked about perfect forms - the “trees” vs “treeness” thing.) This article doesn’t truck with such semantic nonsense - but the notion of system-level order might come close.

2 - Where does order come from - from inside stuff or outside?


That is the question.

Does order come from the outside or the inside? Do rules emerge from the bottom or pour/trickle down from the top. Conservatives say one thing, liberals another. Capitalists and socialists are conflicted. So are popes and mystics. Scientists have issues. Philosophers and pundits argue endlessly.

The question has started wars, including the one that founded this country and the one that four score and seven years later threatened to tear the country apart. In 1917, the question did tear Russia apart. In 1546 Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on the door of the Wittenburg church because he really disagreed with the pope about whose rules were right.

In the movie Braveheart, Mel Gibson, full of righteous defiance, shouts, “Freedom!”. In To Kill A Mockingbird, Gregory Peck, full of passionate reasonableness argues, “All men are created equal.” These are two views of order.

The list could go on and on but we won’t do that.

3 - Stuff-level order


The properties of subatomic particles determine the behavior of atoms which determines the behavior of molecules which determines the behavior of mixtures, aggregates, etc. Order seems to come from within, except for the weird extremes.

At the quantum extreme, looking at stuff makes it a wave or a particle. Measuring one property (say, spin) precludes an observer’s ability to know other properties (say, position). Does that mean the order comes from the observer or the observed?

At the cosmic extreme (and the middle too), there are fields - gravitational, magnetic, electrical. Although existing because of stuff, fields affect stuff. Do the fields cause order?

4 - System-level order (emergence)


Complex collections of stuff become organized into systems - weather systems, climate systems, geological systems, ecological systems, evolutionary systems, etc.. The stock market is a system. So is the economy.

Systems exhibit order (otherwise, they wouldn’t be systems). Where does this order come from - from the stuff which make up a system or from the system itself?

The organized behavior of local weather patterns can be traced to atmospheric conditions which can be traced to the properties of gaseous stuff. This order seems to come from within. The behavior of global weather patterns is trickier - seeming to be controlled by semi-random, Mandelbrotian chaos (a butterfly in Africa causes a windstorm in Kansas). Do these rules of non-linear dynamics derive from the gaseous stuff or the system?

The science of complex systems (of which my understanding is not complex) says that some system-level order comes from the system itself. The system is self-organizing. It makes its own rules. From the standpoint of the stuff which makes up the system the order comes from the outside.

A characteristic of these complex systems is “emergence”. Among other things, this is defined as order that arises spontaneously from a system. It is unexpected, novel.

Evolutionary Aside
In particular cases, the validity of the order might be questioned. Is it real or imagined? Is a system really present? Is emergence real?

For example, evolution produces changes in animals and plants in response to changes in the environment. The result is an ordered system of life, neatly divisible in various taxonomies and categories. Is this order the product of an external evolutionary system (maybe even a Higher Power), or is it an ordered inner response to random external changes?

Some say that the general thrust of evolution is from the simple to the complex, from lower order creatures (like bugs) to higher order beings (like us). It is a progression of order. This suggests that a system (or Higher Power) imposes rules from the outside.

Some, like Jay Gould (evolutionary biologist, author of Full House), say that such a progression is illusory. Gould says it is a statistical artifact based on the fact that the only direction available for evolution to proceed is from the simple to the complex.

Some say that the orderly nature of the living products of evolution could not be due to random processes. Religious people claim this is the result of a Higher Power (upper case). Scientists of complex systems also say it is a result of a higher power - but this one is lower case. These scientists say that evolution is a complex system whose inner rules dictate the occurrence of non-incremental changes (new species, types of organs - the emergence of life itself).

5 - Social order (animal)


Some animals exist primarily as individuals, never interacting with other individuals except maybe for reproduction or food. Other animals exist not only as individuals but as members of social groups.

Individual behavior is managed by internal controls, instinctual and/or learned.

Group behavior is managed by internal controls operating within the individuals doing the behavior, and by external controls imposed by other individuals (leaders) - or by the group itself (when the group is a complex system).

In invertebrate groups (insect colonies, etc) individuals relate to other individuals according to built-in rules. No leader directs the activities. The group itself does not exercise control over individuals.

Lower-order vertebrate groups also operate according to built-in rules. A school of fish swims this way or that, a flock of birds flies one way or another in response to internal controls possessed by all members of the group. There is no head fish or head bird.

Control is imposed from the outside when relationships between individuals become more complex. Typically in animal groups this control is exercised by a dominant individual. The leader might determine who has sex, who eats when, who grooms whom, etc.

Even a herd/pack/mob/tribe of higher order vertebrates might respond collectively to individual impulses under certain circumstances (wildebeests flee when the lion is spotted; humans run when someone yells, “fire!” )

It does not appear that animal societies rise to level of complex systems, where order emerges from the system itself.

6 - Social order (human)


Human social order begins where animal social order leaves off. The difference is complexity.

Large complex groups whose members interact in complex ways cannot always be controlled by a single leader. Some control must be delegated (which some animals also do). Power must be shared.

Various arrangements exist…
  • Rigid leadership hierarchies are imposed (for example by the Catholic Church and the military).
  • Teams tried
  • Committees coerced
  • Congresses convened
  • Collectives conceived
  • Councils elected
  • Matrix-style organizations attempted
  • Democracies born
  • Republics seized
  • Constitutional monarchies grudgingly allowed
And so on.

Sometimes the power sharing arrangements are reduced to formal rules. These rules are called laws, bylaws, regulations, constitutions, covenants, protocols, contracts, etc. The constituent parts of the society (individuals) establish an order which exists independently of individuals. There is a rule of law, not of men.

The arrival of formal rules might signal the existence of a complex system in the sense defined previously. The society, through its rules, has a life of its own. However, it is not clear whether such rules are “emergent” - arriving spontaneously out of the system. The Declaration of Independence might be emergent, but probably not Roberts Rules of Order.

7 - Political order


Politics is the art and practice of power sharing in (human?) social groups.

Progression
At the tribal level, human societies tend toward the strong leader model (although a hunter gatherer group might have both a hunting leader and a religious leader). As societies become larger and more complex, groups arise within groups - each subgroup with its own leader. Collections of groups become systems. The strong leader (king, queen, emperor, etc) can longer manage everything. Power sharing arrangements emerge.

In recent centuries, there has been a progression toward representative democracies of elected leaders. Power is pushed further down in the system, moving closer to the individuals. Does this progression represent an emergent response to increasing complexity? Did the United States come into being because its people demanded to be free? Or was it because a self-governing federation of states could manage things better?

Which Power Sharing System Is Best?
Most modern political systems (other than strictly authoritarian regimes) try to strike a balance between the need for control at the upper levels and the need for autonomy and flexibility at the lower levels. Lower levels need freedom to act - but their actions must be balanced against the needs and actions of other groups.

Politicians ask where does (or should) control come from - from the top, or from somewhere lower down? Who tells whom what to do? Who knows best, the government or the citizen?

Answers come from the liberal-left and the conservative-right with infinite shades of opinion in the middle.

There are several ways to categorize these groups. Some of the categories seem to work better than other - all might be examples of bogus order invented by humans looking for organization.

Notes: In the following, I present differences and positions as being obvious and self-evident - in keeping with the approach mentioned at the first of this series. But, maybe I’m wrong. Also, I thought I invented the freedom-vs-fairness thing mentioned below. But now I remember how the conservative columnist George Will sneers at liberal’s love of fairness. And I found this piece on the web by libertarian Charles Barr - http://libertyunbound.com/article.php?id=100.

Big Government -vs- Little Government
Government size is often used to categorize the liberal-left and the conservative-right. According to conventional wisdom, the liberal-left favors centralized control, the conservative-right decentralized control. However, when examined more closely, this division yields inconsistent and confusing results. For example:
  • The liberal-left favors a stronger central government for managing public policy (finance, health, commerce, business) but weaker authority when dealing with private policy (religion, morality, reproduction).
  • The conservative-right favors a weaker central government for managing public policy and stronger authority for managing private policy.
  • The liberal-left distrusts power wielded by groups within the system (by business, local government, military, religious political structures, etc.).
  • The conservative-right protects the power wielded by groups within the system.
Freedom -vs- Fairness
Another way to characterize the differences between the liberal-left and the conservative-right is how they view power sharing at the individual level. One side seems to emphasize freedom, the other fairness:

Freedom
The conservative-right believes everybody should be free to pursue power (money, fame, etc.) with as little interference as possible from big government. How power is ultimately distributed depends on the individuals. Some will always end up with more power (money, fame, etc) than others. Inequities happen. The subgroups distrusted by the liberal-left will always be controlled by the richest, the smarted, the most aggressive, the strongest. For the conservative-right, this is a natural process, not to be messed with.

Fairness
The liberal-left believes not only in fairness of opportunity (like the conservative-right), but in fairness of results. No one individual should be allowed to have undue power over another individual. Inequities should be minimized. The power of central government shall be used to restrict the power of some to protect the power of others. Although not always acknowledged, the liberal-left believes that strong individuals, if left alone, will always get an unfair advantage over everybody else.

Freedom -vs- Fairness Corollaries
The freedom-vs-fairness division yields some interesting fall-out:

Correctness
There are correct expressions, utterances, views. Both the liberal-left and the conservative-right have notions of correctness that arise (or not) from their core positions. For the conservative-right, religion is often viewed as correct because it stems from individuals in the pursuit of freedom. Gun ownership is correct for the same reason. The liberal-left is concerned with speech; it should be fair and correct. Unfair speech is incorrect. Certain community esthetics are also subject to correctness (public art, landscapes).

Unfairness and Loss of Freedom
In the pursuit of fairness for all, the liberal-left is unfair to some (graduated taxes, business regulations, trade rules, etc). In the pursuit of freedom for all, the conservative-right allows individuals at the bottom of the heap to be dominated by those at the top. Only freedom of opportunity is equal.

Both sides impose order (and sacrifice freedom and fairness) in the name of correctness. For example, the conservative-right might censor speech and freedom in order to preserve a particular hierarchical structure (resulting from some individual’s exercise of freedom). The liberal-left might censor speech in order to ensure that one group does not speak unfairly about another group (this is “political correctness”).

At the extremes, both the liberal-left and the conservative-right can result (and have resulted) in totalitarianism. The unfettered liberal-left tends toward communism. The unfettered conservative-right tends toward dictatorship.

Hubris of the Left
When devising rules of fairness for the operation of a political system, the liberal-left must presume to understand the operation of the system. Those devising the rules of the liberal-left must assume they know better than those for whom the rules are being devised. When exercising power in the name of a public esthetic the liberal-left must assume that its esthetic is correct.

Free-Will and Responsibility
To the conservative-right, being free means having free-will. Individuals are free to choose between right and wrong. They are presumed to know the difference. They are responsibility for their acts. The liberal-left might acknowledge the free-will of others, but not their correctness. According to the liberal-left individuals don’t necessarily know their own best interests. They need to be helped, guided (or managed) - in the name of fairness and correctness. Free-will for some is limited - illusory. Such people might be held accountable for their acts, but not responsible.

Celebrations of the Right
The conservative-right with its emphasis on individual power favors hierarchical organizations. It celebrates the strong man, the tribe, the team. The conservative-right loves competition, aggression, dominance.

Symbols of the Right
  • Mel Gibson shouting “Freedom” in Braveheart.
  • Charlton Heston holding a musket in front of the NRA giving his “cold dead hands” speech.
  • A flag (especially the Confederate battle flag).
  • Patrick Henry shouting “Give me liberty or give me death.”
  • A lion.
Symbols of the Left
  • Gregory Peck arguing, “All men are created equal.” in To Kill a Mocking Bird
  • Martin Luther King saying “I’ve got a dream”.
  • Abraham Lincoln saying “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
  • A bonobo mokney.
Religious Orientation
The religious orientation of the conservative-right is toward Jehovah and Allah. The religious orientation of the liberal-left is toward Jesus and Buddha.

Economics
Positions on economic issues can also be grouped along fairness -vs- freedom lines.

The conservative-right believes in the freedom of individuals to pursue wealth without interference from central authority. The inequalities that result when stronger, smarter, more aggressive people rise to the top of the economic heap are to be tolerated. Unfettered capitalism - without external controls is the most efficient system for managing goods and services.

The liberal-left believes that unfettered capitalism will result in an unfair concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. It also believes that in a managed economy where everyone gains wealth, the total wealth in the system increases. Even if the slices of the pie remain unequally divided, the total size of the pie gets bigger.

Capitalism, even when somewhat managed, seems to be a system of emergent rules - where the order springs from the system itself.

8 - Religious order


Religion seems concerned with three categories of order:
  • Cosmological - explaining how we got here, where we are going.
  • Pedagogical - instructing us in proper behavior (morality)
  • Political - regulating the business of the church
In a religious context, the final (or first) authority always comes from the top - from God. The question is how does God make His will known - from within or without?

To the unaffiliated mystic, the experience of God (or Higher Power - whatever) is completely personal, completely subjective. God reveals his rules, wisdom, insights, love, etc. from within. The experience of God is not subject to external interpretation.

To the scientist who believes in an impersonal, objective God, the experience of God is impersonal and objective. God’s rules are the laws of nature.

To those who belong to religious groups, some level of authority always resides outside, in the group.

At the minimum, a religious group has a teaching. It might be a sacred text or myth. The sacred teaching is usually said to be God’s Word as related by somebody inspired by (or in conversation with) God. Depending on the religion, the text might be taken literally or symbolically.

Teachings are usually interpreted by teachers - e.g., priests, preachers, rabbis, ministers, shamans, mullahs, gurus, etc. Some teachers are conduits for God’s word - Catholic priests for example. Some teachers are facilitators for subjective religious experience - shamans, Zen masters and evangelical protestant preachers who lead their followers to the salvation experience. (Quakers and others believe in silence.)

The Protestant Reformation was a conflict about whether the power to interpret God’s will comes from within or without.

9 - Artistic order


Art is a more-or-less orderly representation of experience - showing the order in experience or imposing order on experience.

Some art is an expression of intellectual order, some art is an expression of emotional, psychological, and religious order. (Some art comes from the head, some from the gut and crotch.)

The order of some artists seems external and obvious …
  • Normal Rockwell
  • Jackie Collins
  • The Monkees
The order of other artists seems internal and barely there…
  • Jackson Pollack
  • William Faulkner
  • Thelonius Monk