Everyday Epistemology #2

(Second post trying to figure out how to figure stuff out - or something like that.)

I know this nice young woman with an improbably exotic name who is a fan of Libertarian Ron Paul. A few months ago she expressed concerns about pressures to force her children to have the H1N1 vaccine. She cited experts whose views contradict the establishment opinion that the vaccine is a good thing. We are not close friends so I don’t know if Libertarian principles influenced her opinions but based on what she wrote in FaceBook I’d guess so.

I also “know” (in the cyberspace sense) another nice fellow who owns a liberal political blog. He writes a lot so I can’t find the particular post, but he said something about “anything being possible”.

Then there is the debate over climate change which is now heating up (having never cooled down) at the Copenhagen Climate Conference. The proponents and deniers of global warming/climate change are trotting out the same old arguments, citing the same old experts.

So, you ask, “What’s your point?”

Well, I think it’s pretty obvious. Stuff has gotten out of hand. It’s too hard to figure out. We often have to depend on experts; but, we don’t know which experts to trust. And sometimes to defend an unlikely position or just because we don’t know, we’ll proclaim “Anything is possible.”

It’s bad.

I think (for what it’s worth) that this is THE issue of our age. It’s not the questions we ask but how we figure out the answers.

People being people, this has always been a problem. However, I think it is worse today because so much is so complicated. Many of our questions are linked with technical issues about which even the experts disagree. The layperson has little hope of getting much more than a superficial understanding and that often comes from biased sources. What seems reasonable and true often isn’t.

So what’s a poor truth seeker to do? Other than be aware of the problem and sensitive to bad thinking (ours and others) I am not sure. However, I have written some things which may or may not be helpful.

The Freedom vs Fairness blog tries to tease out the roots of political biases. Although my liberal bias certainly shows, I think the underlying premise is correct - that liberals are more motivated by issues of fairness and that conservatives are more motivated by issues of freedom. Knowing where arguments are coming from might promote not only understanding but sympathy - maybe even empathy. Since doing these posts I am less likely to dismiss conservative positions out of hand.

The Nassim Taleb Black Swan post in the Book Reportz blog (better yet, read his book) examines wrong logic and the way of empiricism. In the interest of explaining the black swan phenomena, he rips apart all kinds of faulty thinking.

Regarding the problem of finding experts, consider these posts in Tom’s Topical Topics blog:

Everyday Epistemology # 1

Getting Ready For The Great Climate Change Debate

SECULAR FAITH IN A SANE UNIVERSE

I try.

Context #1

I have always been interested in the notion of context - how things get meaning from their surroundings. (Is meaning absolute/transcendent or relative/subjective? You know, existential shit.)

The latest round started when a friend complained that there were no overview manuals at her new job, just a lot of detail documentation. She was having trouble figuring out how stuff fits in. She needed a big picture, some context.

That reminded me of something I had read and blogged about a few weeks earlier, about how cell phone users create their own private conversational context and lose contact with their immediate physical context - which can cause problems, say, when driving a car.

After that, examples of context (or the lack thereof) kept popping up.

More-or-less randomly…

Columnist David Brooks wrote an article about how some psychologists believe that behavior traits change from context to context - e.g., that we are different people for different situations. We don’t exist in one big context but a lot of little contexts, each of which defines us.

Brooks wrote another article comparing dating habits of people in the “Happy Days” era to the extreme daters in the cell phone/computer era. The former met in the larger context of schools/churches/workplaces whereas the later interact in the smaller contexts of self-defined social networks.

Back at Cardinal doing training films, we always preceded tight, detailed pictures with wider, establishing shots. This was to provide a visual context. Otherwise the close shots would make no sense.

Working as a tech writer at IBM in 1989, there were no overview guides for the documentation I was updating. Just a huge collection of detailed reference guides. The user was expected to provide his/her own context to the material.

I have read (and probably written) many wordy introductions over the years when all I or anyone wanted was simply to find directions for getting the job done. There are times when the big picture is too big - too abstract.

The Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) standard for documentation seems task oriented rather than concept oriented. This latest scheme for organizing technical information is about doing the job rather than explaining the larger context of the job. Although DITA includes a concept category, the descriptions I’ve seen don’t seem especially interested in providing larger context.

And on and on.

I am not sure what any of this means - if anything. But in my own search for context, I wonder of I have discovered something about context itself? I wonder if technology and human inclination are moving us into more narrowly defined contexts - maybe more subjective?

I don’t know. More on this later. (I am plagued by other possibilities. What about modern science? Does the subjectivity of quantum uncertainty and relativity represent a narrowing of context? What about modern philosophy? There hasn’t been any grand shit philosophy since Kant. Aside from the post-Kantian sputters of the 19th century it's been narrow and technical and just weird - context writ small. Are we getting smaller while the universe gets bigger?)

Disliking Other People's Cell Phone Conversations

It's probably an age thing.

But I dislike being around people using cell phones. It isn't just the voices - loud and oblivious; it's the generally distracted air that envelops such people. The sense that they are somewhere else. To me, cell phone users look vaguely foolish - sort of the way people look when having sex. (Somebody - Chris Rock, Richard Pryor did a piece on that.)

I'm sure part of it is simply resentment. (I refuse to text. I will not tweet. And sex... well.) However, based on something I read, my bias, although still mostly an old person's nattering, might have some scientific justification.

My active interest (more than just vague annoyance) began with recent stories on TV citing studies about how dangerous it is to drive while using cell phones (to text or talk). Apparently driving while using cell phones ranks right up there with DWI and DUI (although I suppose the latter could technically include any sort of influence).

What surprised me was that it is not just the mechanical difficulty of simultaneously handling a cell phone and driving a car. Even using a hands-free device is dangerous. It is something about the cell phone conversation itself.

This led me to wonder if talking on a cell phone is more dangerous than talking with someone who is physically present in the car? Which led me to a study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology .

The study shows that talking on a cell phone is more distracting (and dangerous) than talking with someone who is physically present in the car. The difference is context. People in face-to-face conversation share a physical context. When in a car, both people are aware of their surroundings, of the traffic. The surroundings can become a part of the conversation.

People in cell-phone conversations do not share a physical context. They don't even exist in the current physical reality. Each speaker, withdrawn from the here and now, exists in a third reality of the conversation itself. There is only the other person's voice. It is another world. No wonder technology that enables such escape sells so well.

It easy to see why being oblivious to physical surroundings would make cell phone users so dangerous behind the wheel.

It might also help explain why cell phone users are so annoying. Being oblivious and indifferent to one's physical context means being oblivious and indifferent to the people who share that context. It seems rude. Maybe when we withdraw into cell phone conversations we violate basic protocols that define how strangers share space. Perhaps a minimal awareness is required (not eye contact at least not in urban environments - maybe just a sense of others presence).

Then again we the offended might simply have personal boundaries issues, be paranoid, - be old.

(And yes, I do have a cell phone and I use it.)

Relativity

In “Descartes’ Bones”, the book we are reading for this month’s meeting, the author seems to blame Descartes for moral relativism which makes me nervous because I figure that an assault on secularism is coming next - and I have been enduring that crap all my adult life.

However, it is interesting, the relativity thing.

Galileo posed the first scientific theory of relativity. He said that all uniform motion is relative - no absolutes. For example, if you’ve got one spaceship in an otherwise empty universe there is no way you can say the spaceship is moving or not (unless it is moving in a nonuniform manner). If you add another spaceship moving relative to the first, the only thing you could say is that there is relative motion between the two - not whether one or both are moving or one (but not both) are standing still.



Another example is when two trains pass one another on nearby tracks. If the motion is smooth and uniform you have a hard time telling if it’s your train or the other that is moving (or if it is both).

Not having a fixed frame of reference can be pretty disorienting which might explain why some people are so disturbed by moral relativism. However it should be noted that Galileo’s relativism was part of a theory which said that if the laws of mechanics are valid in one coordinate system (stuff moving together in uniform manner) they are also valid in another coordinate system (other stuff moving in a uniform manner in another direction or speed). In his theory Galileo preserved a larger absolute - the laws of mechanics. He ensured that the universe stayed sane.

Einstein did the same thing when he extended Galileo’s theory to include all the laws of physics - including electromagnetic phenomena like light and radio waves. The problem was that in the decades prior to the time Einstein wrote his Special Theory of Relativity, the speed of light had been proven to be the same regardless of the motion of the source. In some clever thought experiments Einstein showed that this meant that no object could be measured exceeding the speed of light.

That’s when things got weird. Replacing the simple Galilean formulas used to transfer measurements between coordinate systems with more complex transformation rules, Einstein described a strange new universe. Relative to an outside observer, the faster you go, the more your clock slows down, mass increases and length shrinks.

However, like Galileo, Einstein was ensuring that the universe stays sane. If objects could exceed the speed of light, events could precede causes and things could get seriously out of whack. Both men restricted personal claims to knowledge in order to preserve larger, universal absolutes.

I don’t know if this has any bearing on Descartes and moral relativism - but it is an interesting point. Maybe next time.

Here are a couple of crude little videos illustrating some of these points:





Other such videos can be see on the bog "Einstein - Evolution of Physics".

Everyday Epistemology # 1

How do you know what you know?

If you don’t know what you know, can you trust anybody else to know it for you?



Be very suspicious.

Everybody is biased - coming down on one side or the other of various issues. For instance there is the freedom -vs- fairness divide . Liberals want everything to be fair - treatment of the planet, treatment of poor people, treatment of threatened species, treatment of rats if you belong to PETA, etc. Conservatives want to be free to do whatever they want to do. They don’t want anybody telling them anything. They don't care if the world goes to hell in a hand basket so long as they get to own the basket.

Everybody is scripted - unwitting players in the family and class dramas by which we view the world and organize our biases.

“I worked hard for my money and now YOU want to give it to THOSE people.”

“Hey man, you know THEY will always keep a brother down.”

Everybody hates - something or somebody. If opposing sides didn’t exist we’d invent them based on our biases and scripts. Although we are a cooperative species we are also a combative species (can’t have one without the other). We need villains.

So, who can you trust?

Not those with biases, not those with scripts, not those with hatreds. Their opinions and ideas are tainted.

(And as I have noted in a previous post, you also can't trust passionate people, people who seek credibility by citing lone-wolf PhD's from MIT, people who place too much faith in single subsets of data, and conservatives with ties to the fossil fuel industry.)

Who does that leave?

Something seems wrong here.

(More to come.)

Getting Ready For The Great Climate Change Debate

A Lincolnesque Moment?

The debate over climate change legislation is coming this summer to a congress, cubicle, bar, and blog near you.

You don't hear a lot now, but it could be pretty big stuff. After all, if the global warming people are right, the fate of the planet could be at stake. (I like to think of the debate as a little black swan being trailed by bigger, nastier swans.)

Given that this might be a Lincolnesque moment (but probably without a Lincoln) it behooves us to get ready - to figure out what we believe so that we can send emails to congresspeople, argue with friends, etc.

Who Not To Trust

Because the subject is so complicated, for me it is mostly a matter of figuring out who to trust and not to trust. Should I trust liberal Paul Krugman, conservative George Will, somewhat conservative David Brooks - or the sincere lady down the hall who says she gets her answers from an MIT PhD?

I have come up this personal checklist regarding who not to trust.

I tell myself to:

• Watch out for really passionate people. As the poem says, "the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity". They often confuse certitude with rectitude, and like the guests on Dr. Phil and Jerry Springer are inclined to drama.

• Be especially wary of passionate people with distinct conservative or liberal biases. As argued in my Freedom -vs- Fairness blog, both sides can be tainted. Conservatives, who value economic freedom above all else, resist restricting anyone's freedom to make money - even if that freedom does damage to others. They cannot even admit the need for restrictions. Liberals, having extended the notion of fairness to include equal treatment of the planet itself (not a bad thing) can also be suspect. Even if it were proven that there is nothing we can do to counter climate change, I expect that some liberals would want to enact punitive legislation just for the damage already done.
  

• Be alert to those who seek credibility by citing lone-wolf scientists from MIT (or Harvard, Yale, Cal Tech - wherever). They can be very seductive. Enough PhD's have been produced by prestigious schools to support any position imaginable. Because these people are crazy does not mean that they aren't smart or smart sounding. Even legitimate scientists are not to be trusted individually. That's not how the process of public prediction and confirmation works.

• Try not to place too much faith in any single subset of data. In a field as huge and complex as climate change it is possible to find observations to support any position. Those crazy PhDs noted above are not without their empirical evidence.

• Be very very dubious of conservatives - passionate or otherwise - with ties to the fossil fuel industry.

Who To Trust

So, who do you trust?

Some people argue that you should study the subject and become sufficiently well versed to have your own legitimate opinions.

I don't think that's possible, even if you have a PhD from MIT. As proposed in the SECULAR FAITH IN A SANE UNIVERSE post in this blog, I think that complex issues are best answered collectively by the largest creditable community you can find. That's how science works. The weirdness gets averaged out and what's left is the best opinion at the time.

Based on my web browsing (if you trust me), the best consensus on climate change comes from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) cited on EPA's Climate Change web site.

State Of Knowledge

So, what do we know?

Quoting the State of Knowledge, from the EPA and the IPCC:

Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

• Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
• The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
• An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
• The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
• Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

What's very likely...

• The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has stated "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations" (IPCC, 2007). In short, a growing number of scientific analyses indicate, but cannot prove, that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to climate change (as theory predicts). In the coming decades, scientists anticipate that as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to rise, average global temperatures and sea levels will continue to rise as a result and precipitation patterns will change.

What's not certain...

Important scientific questions remain about how much warming will occur, how fast it will occur, and how the warming will affect the rest of the climate system including precipitation patterns and storms. Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:

• Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, land-use changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing humidity and cloud cover.
• Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes.
• Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a narrow range.
• Improving understanding of the potential for rapid or abrupt climate change.

What Next?

Given the State of Knowledge quoted above, doomsday seems possible but not inevitable - at least not yet. Therefore, when I write my emails and present my arguments, I'm going to propose that we do something but not everything - holding out the possibility of doing more should accepted science indicate that the doomsday scenario is more likely.

A cap and trade system seems fine, or maybe a straight carbon tax. Because there is no doomsday consensus yet, there is probably not the political will for really effective action. But a public policy tipping point might be possible. And regardless, "going green" seems like a good thing. Although nobody knows for sure (that's how black swans work) it seems reasonable to believe that the various green initiatives might develop new technologies that could actually spur the economy rather than drag it down.

Link Summary

• Global Warming Stobz (a graphical topic map of main issues with links to sites of interest)
• Freedom -vs- Fairness blog (finding core differences between liberals and conservatives)
• SECULAR FAITH IN A SANE UNIVERSE post(what Tom trusts)
• EPA Climate Change web site
• IPCC report
• Black swan stuff
  

Affirming Taleb-Style Skepticism in Scientific American

(Michael Shermer's , author of "Skeptic" column in Scientific American)

Although Nassim Taleb would be the first to point out that he did not invent the principles of skeptical empiricism described in his Black Swan book, it is interesting to see some (but not all) of those ideas affirmed in the Scientific American (July 2009 issue). It makes me think that those "ah hah!" moments I had when reading the book were legitimate.

One affirmation occurs in Michael Shermer's "Skeptic" column. Arguing that science is the best avenue to the truth, he describes the "null hypothesis, which assumes that the claim under investigation is not true until proven otherwise." Basically this means that in science (unlike law) a statement is presumed to be wrong (guilty) until it proven right - and even then you can never really be sure.

This is akin to Taleb's notion of negative empiricism (as taught by Karl Popper). Quoting my Black Swan Book Report... although you can never be absolutely sure that your theory or proposition is true, just one negative result can prove it wrong. That's where truth comes from. Evidence is asymmetrical. One piece of negative evidence can offset a lot of positive evidence. We should regard all theories as provisional. Don't look for what will prove you right but what will prove you wrong; it's a faster more certain process and you'll learn more.

The other affirmation is in "The Science of Bubbles and Busts" article by Gary Stix. He describes built-in biases which lead humans to make financial mistakes that in aggregate result in economic bubbles and busts. He says that we have...

• A confirmation bias which prompts us look for evidence that confirms ideas we already have.
• A herding bias which leads us to agree with everybody else.
• An availability bias which leads us evaluate information based on context rather than merit.
• A bias toward overrating our own abilities.
• A bias to engage in heuristic-based intuition when we should be trying to think rationally.

These are the same biases and tendencies cited by Taleb as reasons for our inability to properly understand black swans. Taleb also notes our tendency to prefer a good narrative to the facts.

I think Taleb would disagree with the premise of the article that once these biases are understood that tools can be devised to predict economic bubbles. He would probably say that insofar as these events are true black swans (not gray swans) they are inherently unpredictable.

Ain't That Some Shit, Nassim Taleb? (Video)

Another attempt at this video...

Phase Space in Extremistan?

A series of accidents ...

• A recent Black Swan presentation where I tried to make a connection between Nassim Taleb's Mediocristan/Extremistan idea and several other attempts to categorize the known/unknowable - Kant's phenomena/noumena thing, Castaneda's tonal/nagual concept, etc.
• A slide in that presentation noting that "gray swans" are products of non-linear chaos.
• A dusty clipping from the June 1994 issue of The Economist offering the best explanation I've ever read of the term "phase space".

...leading me to wonder if phase space is part of Extremistan.

Aside 1 - Is synergy a black swan? Maybe.

Aside 2 - What is phase space? It is a mathematical view of action in the "real" world. Consider the example of the pendulum described in the Economist article. The pendulum swings back and forth; its position and velocity constantly changing. In the real world the action of the pendulum is an arc. In phase space, the action is represented by a two-dimensional chart showing changes in position and velocity. An ideal pendulum with no friction would appear as a circle in phase space.

Non-linear chaos refers to fluctuating phenomena that appear disorderly in the real world but display order in phase space. As the article notes, "populations of animals, bubbling pots on a stove or measles epidemics" are all examples of non-linear chaos.

Patterns traversed in phase space are sometimes called "strange attractors" (one assumes because the behavior of systems is strangely attracted to these patterns). The picture below is a two dimensional view of the three-dimensional Lorenz attractor.

It describes the chaotic behavior of weather patterns - leading to the so-called butterfly effect meaning (more or less) that a butterfly flapping its wings in Africa can cause a hurricane in Florida. There is order here - constrained by the strange attractor. But within that order is infinite disorder.

Strange.

So, returning to my original question - Is phase space in Extremistan?

Extremistan is supposed to be the real reality underlying the man-made view of Mediocristan.

So, where does phase space belong?

Which is more real - the confused real world, or phase space which reveals the underlying order in the real world?

Is phase space real?

Does one peer through/past the behavior of the world of appearance to the underlying truth of phase space?

I suppose Taleb might say it doesn't matter. In the real world, the swans are definitely black. In phase space, they are gray. In the real world, you don't know the swans are coming. In phase space, you might know they are coming but you can't know when or where.

Orgasms and Black Swans

The other night the Group discussed Nassim Taleb's Black Swan book. I furnished the pizza and beer and moderated (?) the discussion because it is a known fact that I am a little obsessed with the whole Black Swan business. I printed out a Power Point that I prepared for the occasion and we managed to get through maybe 10 of the 25 slides - which was probably eight more than I thought we would do.

The digressions stayed pretty much on the subject. Descartes only got brought up because I tried to squeeze in Kant's phenomena/noumena thing (which I likened to Taleb's Mediocristan/Extremistan idea). Several wondered if an event (like Pearl Harbor) that was anticipated by some but a surprise to most everybody else was really a black swan. The general consensus was yes.

The most interesting digression was when somebody wondered if his first orgasm (at age 12 I think he said) was a black swan. Interrupting the guffaws that ensued, he insisted, no, he was serious. At that point in his life the event was an outlier - unexpected and unprecedented. It was significant and life altering. And, after the fact it was inevitable.

Given his explanation, we all had to agree that he was right.

Black Swan Summary

Posts relating to Black Swans and Nassim Taleb...

• Affirming Taleb-Style Skepticism in Scientific Ame...
• Redux - A Novel of Black Swans
  
• Ain't That Some Shit, Nassim Taleb? (Video)
• Phase Space in Extremistan?
• Orgasms and Black Swans
• Slow Motion Black Swans - Tech Writers and Typists...
• Intro to Black Swan Slide Show
• Nassim Taleb - The Black Swan
• Second Black Swan – Bursting the Great Stuff Bubble
• Black Swan in Corner of Room
• Ain't That Some Shit, Nassim Taleb?

(They tell me I am a little obsessed with this.)

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

SECULAR FAITH IN A SANE UNIVERSE

(How do you know what you know, answer the holocaust deniers, and decide who’s right on global warming? ANS: You can’t - absolutely.)

Origin of Idea

It came to me at a recent meeting of the Thinking Man’s Club. I leaned across the sofa and said to the Grand Poo Paa, “It’s all a matter of faith. You just have to pick one side or another and have faith that they are right.” He laughed and replied something. But I didn’t understand because everybody, including Kris the nice young woman at the other end of the sofa, the person who prompted my comment, was trying to be heard over everybody else.

The meeting was about food. After feeding us fantastic home-cooked lasagna prepared strictly with organic ingredients, Kris lectured about the dangers of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). In particular she warned about a plot by Monsanto to use the US Patent system to control our food supply.

My problem wasn’t so much with what she was saying (although some of her rhetorical methods were suspect). It was her appeal to science. I didn’t like being drawn into yet another argument where both sides cite “scientific evidence” to support their positions. Despite my certainty (at the time) on such issues as global warming, evolution, etc, I have never been happy with my answers to the blank-faced assurance of those who say it isn’t so. I resisted being seduced into a new realm of uncertainty.

That’s when it struck me that maybe nobody really knows anything - not absolutely for sure. Maybe all knowledge (except for what's inside our own heads) is a matter of faith, even scientific knowledge. Maybe uncertainty is faith based.

Rhetorical Device

How would that work?

Here is a rhetorical device.

Assume that our knowledge of stuff occurs on a certainty scale - from the “I’m really sure” at one end to “I’m pretty confused” at the other end.

Starting at the silly end of the scale (necessary, because it is a rhetorical device), I am really sure that it snowed the other night in Mount Holly. I touched the white stuff, walked in it, felt it fall wet and cold down my collar.

I have faith that it snowed.

What, you ask, does faith have to do with it? Well, how do I know that I didn’t manufactured the experience, or that someone didn’t manufacture it for me in a Matrix-style universe? There is no test. That’s why, for me, believing it snowed is a matter of faith. It follows from believing that the universe is basically sane. It is my secular way of agreeing with Descartes who said that, “God would not deceive me.”, or, Einstein who said, “God does not play dice with the universe.” It seems more practical to believe in an objective universe based on rational rules than a subjective universe that has been manufactured (by me or somebody else) where anything is possible.

(I still believe in my subjective reality - just not in yours.)

Moving down the certainty scale, I am also pretty sure it snowed in Charlotte that same night. I saw the pictures on TV and in the newspaper. Again, how do I know? The experience was not direct. It was based on reports, which could be lies, part of a grand conspiracy. As before, I have faith in a practical and sane universe. Only a crazy universe would go to the trouble to trick me about snow in Charlotte. It doesn’t make sense.

Travelling further down the certainty scale we come to a place where craziness does seem possible. This is where some people ask, did the holocaust really happen; did men really walk on the moon? Is the earth really 5 or 6 billion years old (and not 5 or 6 thousand years)? Did Dick Cheney’s agents fly those planes into the World Trade Center? Is Barak Obama a sleeper agent for a vast Muslim conspiracy? Is evolution real?

I happen to believe that the holocaust did happen, that men did walk on the moon, etc. How do I know? At this point on the scale, there seems to be the possibility of introducing evidence into arguments. Both sides can cite “facts” to prove their positions.

For me it is still a matter of faith - not faith in evidence (which as David Hume suggests can never be sufficient), but in shared objective experience. The body of shared objective experience (objective, because it is available to everybody) seems to favor some conclusions and not others. Except for the small core of deniers, “everybody knows” that the holocaust happened, that men walked on the moon, that Mohamed Atta and his gang flew those planes into the World Trade Center. We have seen the pictures and read the articles. In my sane universe, if something seems too weird or unlikely to be true it probably isn’t - even if there is evidence to “prove” it.

Of course, there are always exceptions and qualifications.

Before the recent economic collapse, everybody “knew” that Lehman Brothers would be around for a long time, that Citibank was a good bet, and that house prices would continue to climb. These shared experiences were misleading. Therefore, I restrict my faith to shared experiences that stand the test of time. Like the scientific theories discussed next, the conclusions drawn from shared experiences are provisional - not to be immediately trusted. How long does it take for trust to happen? Ten or twenty years, never? I don’t know. As Nassim Taleb says, not everything is confined under a neat bell curve. Black swans can happen. But nobody knows when. Sorry.

(One of the tenets of my secular faith is that you can only know so much.)

Conventional wisdom also has problems with phenomena that fall outside the scope of our hunter-gatherer nervous systems. Consider the two remaining questions from the previous list - about the age of the universe and the reality of evolution. These issues cannot be resolved by appealing to shared public experience. We have no direct experience of age outside our own lifetimes. Although evolution happens all around us, we don’t see it. Even our shared experiences of the “rising” and “setting” of the sun would lead us to believe that the sun circles the earth. Until you see a tall ship emerge, top mast first, over the horizon, you would be perfectly justified in concluding that the earth is flat.

This is where science comes in. Science is formalized shared experience - experience that follows the rules of the scientific method. Science lets us construct theories to answer questions that lie outside our direct experience - where everyday common sense cannot go.

Scientific theories depend on experimental evidence for verification. The theories make predictions which are tested in verifiable, repeatable experiments. That constitutes scientific proof. However, scientific proof is provisional. Sometimes new experiences happen that cast doubt on existing theories. Therefore, like the conclusions of shared everyday experiences, the conclusions of scientific theories are tentative and provisional. The main difference is that the provisional nature of science is built into the system. Nobody expects absolutes.

But, also, like the conclusions of shared experience, not all theories are equal. The more a scientific theory endures the attacks and criticisms that are part of the process, the more credible it becomes. Long-standing scientific theories are hardly ever thrown out completely. For example Einstein’s theories of relativity did not disprove previous theories, but expand on them to cover new classes of phenomena. Newton’s and Galileo’s equations still work after Einstein. Einstein’s equations just work in more places.

Returning to the two issues cited on the certainty scale, both the theories of evolution and the age of the universe have been around a long time. Although change and scientific disagreement have nibbled around the edges of these theories, the core conclusions remain untouched - forming the basis for all modern life science and geology.

(You don’t necessarily believe me? Good. That’s the point.)

Where does that leave faith? If a sane universe favors objective shared experience (with the exceptions and caveats noted), then that same universe favors science, which is formalized shared experience. Faith in a sane universe requires faith in science. In a Matrix-style subjective universe, the hero can will himself to fly, to walk on water. Anything is possible. Not in a sane universe.

Finally, we arrive at the other end of certainty scale, where “unproven” scientific theories are found. Although not an expert, I’d guess that Kris’ Monsanto conspiracy theory resides here - plus theories that explain dark matter, dark energy, the causes of autism, etc.

How do I know? I don’t. But faith in a sane universe leads to me doubt theories that haven’t been beat up long enough. How long is that? Again, I don’t know.

Unfortunately, writing this piece has also suggested to me that theories about human contribution to global warming might also reside at the unproven end of the scale. Al Gore said peer-reviewed scientific articles agree that humans have contributed to global warming. However, I have also read other reports claiming that peer-reviewed articles say the opposite thing. Both sides cite evidence to prove their points. So, I don’t know.

Note 7/3/09 - I've updated my thinking on global warming. See Getting Ready for the Great Climate Change Debate.

Summary Claims

In conclusion…

1. There exists two realities.
2. There is an interior subjective reality inside our individual heads. The existence of this reality is a matter of personal fact.
3. There is an external objective reality, outside our individual heads. The existence of this reality is a matter of faith.
4. The truth of our internal reality is whatever we want it to be.
5. The truth of our objective reality is limited by our common shared experiences. Objective reality must operate according to shared rules, not the rules of individuals. If something seems too weird or unlikely to be true, it probably isn’t true. The experiences of the majority trump the experiences (or the evidence) of the minority.
6. By this definition, objective reality (the external universe) is sane.
7. Subjective reality is generally neither sane nor insane. It’s ‘a’sane. (However public expressions of subjective reality can be regarded as insane.)
   
8. Conclusions based on experience are provisional. Experiences can change or can be inadequate (due to the limitations of our hunter-gatherer nervous systems).
9. With the caveats noted, the most reliable conclusions are likely to be those based on the most enduring experiences.
10. The scientific method is a formalized means of stating and validating objective experiences.
11. The most reliable scientific theories, like the most reliable conclusions drawn from shared everyday experiences are likely to be those that have endured the longest.

FAQ

In order not to disrupt the narrative flow along my rhetorical device, I have lumped this stuff here (assuming that there are any frequently asked questions)…

What Is God’s Place in a Sane Universe? (Who Manages the Matrix)?

In a sane, faith-based universe, God is not a problem - so long as He obeys His own rules. No miracles, virgin births, etc. Sorry.

What About Scientific Weirdness (Nonlocality, Relativity, etc)?

Science has allowed some serious weirdness to creep in around the edges of the sane universe. Maybe these are God’s Little Jokes. Maybe God does play dice with the universe. Here are some examples:

• Quantum stuff is both wave and particle and neither here nor there until you look at it.
• When you look at entangled quantum stuff, the effect is instantly registered - even if the stuff is on opposite sides of the galaxy,
• Relativity says (and proofs show) that the faster you go the heavier you get, the thinner you become, and the slower your clock runs.

Is There Objective Verification of Subjective Reality?

Yes. According to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, you can’t exceed the speed of light. However that only applies to the viewpoint of an objective observer. From your own subjective point-of-view you can exceed speed of light. That’s because relative to an objective observer your clock slows down the faster you go. If you travel faster than a certain speed (relative to an observer) and use your own clock to time the trip, your calculated (not measured) speed will exceed the speed of light. See Ennui Pidawee’s video for more.

Can You Win an Objective Argument With Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh?

No. These folks don’t do objective arguments. They combine subjective and objective tools to defend subjective positions. They use emotion and intimidation (and maybe sex in the case of Coulter - or Limbaugh?) and pseudo logic. If you believe in a sane universe, you’ll stay away from such people.

What About UFO’s?

The shared objective experience of UFOs seems true. There are photographs, verified reports. The “unidentified” part of the conclusions from these experiences also seems true. Beyond that? Who knows.

What About Angels, Ghosts?

According to something I read, most Americans believe in angels and ghosts. Does this belief constitute a shared reality - either subjective or objective. No. The reports of the belief constitute a shared objective reality, not the belief. Do similar reports of internal states make the internal states objectively real? I don’t think so - such a reality would conflict with the requirements of sane universe.

What About Dreams?

Everybody reports having dreams. Do dreams constitute a shared objective reality? The reports do, so do the physical measurements (REM, brain waves, etc.) that coincide with the dreams. But the dreams themselves are not shared objective reality. They are private and subjective - definitely neither insane nor sane, simply ‘a’ sane.

What About Esse Est Percipi?

Bishop Berkeley, the 17^th century Irish philosopher said “Esse est percipi” - to be is to perceived. His point was that you could only be sure about sensations and ideas - e.g., what goes on in your body and head. Samuel John said, “I refute it thus” and kicked a rock. Who is right? The good Bishop I think. The rest is faith.

What About Trees Falling in Forests?

There is the old saw (hah hah) that says, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Some attribute the statement to the Bishop above. The reality of distant falling trees is like snow in Charlotte - you have to believe if you have faith in a practical and sane universe. Anything else would be crazy.

Vibrational Electrical Generators (VEGS)

VEGS turn wasted vibrational energy into electricity. Every swaying tree, bouncing roadway, turbulent stream, vibrating bridge and seismic shake becomes a source of power.

The VEGS idea was born in 1980, died shortly thereafter (not because it was bad, but because I had lost my will) and has now been reborn (maybe).

Then…

It started with the automotive textbooks that Claud Hunter and I coauthored for Prentice Hall. Several of the books described automotive electrical systems, including alternators and ignition coils.

Alternators convert rotational energy supplied by engines into the continuous electrical current needed to operate vehicles. Ignition coils use collapsing lines of magnetic force to “induce” sudden bursts of high voltage current that cause spark plugs to ignite air and fuel.

Although I don’t remember the details, the idea for VEGS probably had something to do with combining the operation of alternator-type generators and coils - using vibrational energy to generate movement between conductors and lines of force.

In 1980, when the VEGS idea was discovered, I was already a “mature” inventor. I had conceived of airplanes without wings, spaceships without visible means of propulsion, upside down ketchup bottles, and a modular building product, called the Tetra Triangular Building System, which replaced bricks and blocks with triangles. By now, I understood that inventing something is easy, but that developing an idea requires certain knowledge and skills. In those previous pursuits of grandeur, I had ignored such practical considerations. Now, for some reason, I could not.

So, this was my next-to-the-last invention of a physical thing (as opposed to metaphysical, metaphorical and software things - which I still pursue up to this very moment). After creating a Record of Invention and contacting, half-heartedly, a few companies, I buried the small VEGS corpse in a dusty cardboard box beside the remains of the Tetra Triangular Building System.

Note: The last physical invention was a non-obvious variation on VEGS, creating a different sort of VEG which can double as a motor. I’m saving that one, just in case.

Now…

VEGS was resurrected in 2008 in response to Google’s Project 10^100 initiative. Celebrating Google’s 10^th anniversary, the initiative is described as…

“A call for ideas to change the world by helping as many people as possible”

Reading the part about the 10M seed money (but not the part that said my reward would be good karma - for the next life I guess) I thought, “What the hell. Maybe I can still get rich and save the world.”

Following are excerpts from my Project 10^100 proposal. After that is the original VEGS Record of Invention.

Excerpts from Project 10^100 Proposal

Description of VEGS…

All generators transform moving energy into electrical energy, converting the motion of stuff (air, water, steam, etc) into relative movement between magnetic fields and conductors. The result is current flow in the conductor.

The difference between conventional systems and Vibrational Electric Generators (VEGS) is the source of the energy. Conventional systems can only use energy from regular, unidirectional motion (flowing water, steam, air).

VEGS capture energy from irregular motion. The energy of every swaying tree, tower or building can be converted directly into electrical power - as can the surge of surf, the undulation of river rapids, the movement of road pavement caused by traffic, the bouncing of cars on those roads, the vibration of strings in wind, the seismic activity of the earth itself.

Whereas conventional generators have stators and rotors, VEGS have stators and vibrators. The vibrator can be the magnetic field-producing element or the conductor. In either case, relative motion is derived directly from energy source. No intervening, energy-wasting mechanism (windmill blade, turbine rotor, impeller wheel) is needed to convert straight- line motion into rotational motion. Minimal alteration of the environment is required. VEGS are inherently clean.

The system can be illustrated by a bell, clapper and rope. When pulled, the rope becomes a vibrational energy source. This energy is transferred to the bell. Viewed as a VEG, the bell becomes the vibrator and the clapper becomes the stator.

Output from VEGS can be directed to a power grid, or to batteries, or other storage devices. Solid state components can be used to modify output as required.

Addressing the Energy Crisis…

VEGS address the three main aspects of the energy crisis — availability, cost, and environmental impact. Depending on how well the technology works and on how widely it is adopted, VEGS could significantly alleviate the energy crisis.

• Availability. Vibrational energy sources used by VEGS are available in every county and region. The reliance of one country on another for power is minimized.
• Cost. Vibrational energy sources are free for the taking. The only costs are the VEGS themselves.
• Environmental Impact. Except for their presence, VEGS do not alter the environment. Well-designed VEGS could harmonize with their surroundings.

Benefiting Developed and Undeveloped Countries…

VEGS would benefit people in developed and undeveloped countries.

In developed countries with established electrical grids, VEGS could be used to feed power back into the system. Everyone with access to sources of vibrational energy (which is virtually everyone) would become producers of electricity. Using free energy sources would reduce cost. Using local energy sources would reduce reliance on foreign suppliers. In emergencies, stand-alone VEGS could supply power independently of the grid.

In undeveloped countries without grids, stand-alone VEGS could reduce the need for a national grid. Tapping local sources of vibrational energy, regions could supply their own minimal (or maximal) power needs. Everyone could have at least some electricity. (Toss pendulum generators in the surf off Tierra Del Fuego and potentially you’ve got lights and computers.)

Record of Invention

Click pictures to enlarge.


Page 1


Page 2


Page 3


Page 4


Page 5