11.27.07
‘It’s Nice That’ had a good day.
Two most excellent finds on ‘It’s Nice That‘:
fig crumbs (blog)
animal of the month: pangolin!
Digg it ¨ del.icio.us ¨
¨ Email
¨ Google
¨ reddit
¨ StumbleUpon
Digg it ¨ del.icio.us ¨
¨ Email
¨ Google
¨ reddit
¨ StumbleUpon
11.26.07
The Logic of Relativity [draft]
How can we represent relativity in logical notation?
a is moving relative to b
Mab
b is moving relative to a
Mba
a and b are moving relative to each other
Mab & Mba
This schema is unsatisfactory because it describes the situation from an indeterminate outside perspective: a and b are moving relative to each other without regard to the observer describing the situation. Relativity applies to all the perspectives in question (with special focus on any observer perspective) and hence we need a way to include the observer.
To remedy this problem let quantifiers range over perspectives and include witness individuals to identify the specific perspectives in question:
For any perspective x, for any perspective y, there exists a perspective z and there exists a perspective u such that x is moving relative to y according to witness z, and y is moving relative to x according to witness u.
(∀x)(∀y)(∃z)(∃u)M[xyzu]
Unfortunately this formulation is insufficient because witness z is logically dependent upon both x and y (as is u as well) and we want z to only witness x and u to only witness y: as both z and u are dependent upon both x and y, both x and y must be chosen before selecting z and u. This means that perspectives x and y are selected independent of the witness perspectives defeating the purpose of having those witnesses.
Getting around this difficulty is not trivial in first order logic. There is no way in first order logic to linearly order the four quantifiers such that z only depends on x and u only depends on y (Kolak & Symons p.249 [p.40 of the pdf]). Independence Friendly logic suffices though :
(∀x)(∀y)(∃z/∀y)(∃u/∀x)M[xyzu]
This statement says that for any perspective x, for any perspective y, there exists a perspective z that does not depend on y and a perspective u that does not depend on x, such that perspective x as witnessed by z, and perspective y as witnessed by u, are moving relative to each other.
However, though this statement gets very close to describing relativity, if we consider how the witnesses witness the perspectives, how z witnesses the perspective x, there is a problem. By stating that z witnesses x and that z is independent of y, the statement ‘x is moving relative to y as witnessed by z’ is nonsense: since z is independent of y it could not be a witness to ‘x moving relative to y.’ Likewise for u.
The solution is simple enough though:
(∀x)(∀y)(∃z/∀x)(∃u/∀y)((x=z) & (y=u) & M[x,y])
By letting x=z, making z independent of x and dependent on y, z witnesses y from the perspective of x without requiring x to be chosen before z. Likewise for u: if y=u, u is logically independent of y and u is dependent on x, then u may be chosen before y, u is dependent as a witness to the choice of x and witnesses x from the perspective of y. Perhaps more prosaically: x and y move relatively to each other, as witnessed by z and u (who have the equivalent perspectives, respectively to x and y), and it is not necessary to predetermine what those perspectives were.
A time variable rounds everything out nicely:
(∀t)(∀x)(∀y)(∃z/∀x)(∃u/∀y)((x=z) & (y=u) & M[t,x,y])
So, at time t (say now) let’s let u be your (the reader’s) perspective and z be my (the author’s) perspective. Then this statement describes our current motions as relative to each other because my perspective depends upon y, which is your perspective and your perspective depends on x, which is my perspective. Success!
——————————
- Daniel Kolak and John Symons, “The Results are In: The Scope and Import of Hintikka’s Philosophy[PDF],” Quantifiers, Questions and Quantum Physics, in Daniel Kolak and John Symons, eds., Quantifiers, Questions, and Quantum Physics, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer 2004 pp. 205-268 ISBN 1-4020-3210-2
- To see a (distant) predecessor to this paper, see my “Discourse, Perspectival and Public Identifications, and Tautology“
Digg it ¨ del.icio.us ¨
¨ Email
¨ Google
¨ reddit
¨ StumbleUpon
11.22.07
Thanksgiving post
I am blatantly stealing a post from Fark Yaralar? because it is just too cool to pass up. Go To Fark’s site and support this awesomeness. And happy Thanksgiving!
————————————–
Monday, November 19, 2007
‘das kapital’ song by Lyapis Trubetskoy
Here is a song about capital & Marx by Lyapis Trubetskoy (????? ?????????) [from Belarus]
translation of lyrics:
For dinner I devour gold bars
Diamond desert, oil cream
My name is Baalzebul
Owner of the stratosphere
I am unrealistically cool
My respect is beyond measureIn my left hand is Snickers
In my right hand is Mars
My PR Manager is Karl Marx
In my left hand is Snickers
In my right hand is Mars
My PR Manager is Karl MarxCapital! Capital! Capital! Capital!
I devour the cities and wash them down with the seas.
My beard covers the sky.
Thunder and lightning, rain and fog
My boots are licked by ministers and leaders.In my left hand is Snickers
In my right hand is Mars
My PR Manager is Karl Marx
In my left hand is Snickers
In my right hand is Mars
My PR Manager is Karl MarxCapital! Capital! Capital! Capital!
In my left hand is Snickers
In my right hand is Mars
My PR Manager is Karl Marx
I am the face of Madonna
Within me are rotten apples
Everyone on your knees!
Orchestra! The flourish!Capital! Capital! Capital! Capital!
Digg it ¨ del.icio.us ¨
¨ Email
¨ Google
¨ reddit
¨ StumbleUpon
11.19.07
The creation museum…
Some really nice pictures from the Creation Museum in Kentucky. Also, their new animated commercial is pretty cool:
Play Creation Museum Commercial
Digg it ¨ del.icio.us ¨
¨ Email
¨ Google
¨ reddit
¨ StumbleUpon
11.17.07
Why Evolutionary Principles Cannot be Used to Support Racial Prejudices DRAFT
Evolutionary principles are sometimes used to justify racial prejudices. While no rigorous scientific study has yet proven one race to be inferior to any others it should be recognized that it is in principle impossible to prove racial superiority/inferiority and hence no study ever will.
Firstly a note on the meaning of ‘more evolved’ and ‘less evolved’. Every species on the face of the earth today has been evolving for the exact same amount of time. We all started at the same time. However you believe that life started, either as a single celled organism in the ancient seas of earth or by some intervention, if you believe in evolution then everything started roughly at that one point and proceeded from there. Hence we are all equally evolved, from humans to gnats. The only things that may be considered less evolved are things that are no longer around to complain about it.
Secondly, if the claim of racial superiority/inferiority is not one of being ‘more evolved’, then it is a claim about being differently evolved to have some properties that other races do not have. This roughly means that one race has some qualities that make them more fit, or, conversely, one race lacks some features that the rest of us have (even if they have made it this far) that makes them less fit. Either way the claim boils down to either having or lacking a certain characteristic or characteristics. These characteristics, by definition, were passed down through the successive generations eventually proliferating throughout a family, later a population and thence to the entire race some time later.
In order to objectively measure the fitness of an organism or species we need to be able to replicate a controlled environment and a control group. Regardless of the implications of cloning people for a control group, the concept of a controlled human environment will present us with insurmountable theoretical problems.
The environment that we place organisms in is the ‘test’ that we are judging them on. Specifically, if we want to see which of two species flourishes in a particular environment we would place both in the same environment and see what happens. However, not only is it impossible for us to replicate an environment to test people in, none of us know what the future will hold for our species. Hence, without foresight into the future, it is impossible for us to have an environment that could be used as an objective test environment.
In lieu of this impossible situation, approximations are the only possibility. To approximate requires making decisions about what will be included and what will be excluded. The decisions made will influence the results making them a function of the decisions made. Hence it is impossible to approximate without biasing the results, rendering the study useless for the purpose of establishing superiority.
Since we are all here now and none of us knows the future, there will be no study that can prove the superiority or inferiority of any race. Anyone who claims otherwise is claiming they can predict the future perfectly, is racist or both.
——-
If there are any argument structure fans (such as myself woohoo!) this argument’s in a mathematical induction style. The first paragraph argues against a base case (of a race being no more fit than any other) and then the subsequent paragraphs argue against any possible way to argue that the property (of being no more fit) could be used as an inductive hypothesis: Base case is day zero for our species, in which we are all obviously equally fit, and then the induction is on day n (today) and n+1 (tomorrow). Since we are all here now and none of us know what tomorrow holds (by way of Relativity in Evolutionary Biology we have no way objectively view the trajectory of our species), we can move from n to n+1 and the inductive step is made. Hence it is impossible to prove future fitness in our species.
If anyone cares to give me some feedback, I’d like to know if you think it is worthwhile to include some of this argument structure stuff into the body of the paper. I’ve had experiences where I’ve written arguments but people have completely missed them because they were not as familiar with argument forms.
Also would it be worth it to have some commentary on recent developments such as Watson’s gaff or the recent NYTimes article about genetics and race?
Digg it ¨ del.icio.us ¨
¨ Email
¨ Google
¨ reddit
¨ StumbleUpon
11.13.07
Evolutionary Drift, revisited yet again
With my recent paper on Measuring Fitness I realize that my previous responses to evolutionary drift, though not incorrect, may have not stated the solution particularly clearly. When fitness is defined and measured as described in the aforementioned article, evolutionary drift is irrelevant. The method of measuring the fitness of an organism or species makes no reference to any mutations whatsoever. Therefore evolutionary drift is no problem for the theory of fitness described here.
If we are trying to identify whether a certain mutation makes an organism more fit, we can of course test it against an organism without that mutation. However if we are unable to test it (say we are studying a historical period or it is just unfeasible), then I believe my previous posts are accurate. I mainly argue that you can’t tell what exactly makes an organism more fit- it’s an underdetermination thesis of sorts - based upon our limited evolutionary perspective.
I think I just failed to say how irrelevant drift was to fitness before this.
Digg it ¨ del.icio.us ¨
¨ Email
¨ Google
¨ reddit
¨ StumbleUpon
11.12.07
Design junkie
Perhaps two people know this about me but I am a design junkie. Notcot.org is my favorite blog of all time. Recently I’ve even contributed a few posts (#7106, #6974). I’m not sure what it is about design that I like so much. There is always that form/function distinction but I don’t think that is exactly what attracts me. It is more along the lines of personal engineering: with the right stuff you can do different things. You have the right tools and you can build a house (or a website); you have a spiffy outfit and you can get into an exclusive club; you have the right ideas and you can change the course of humanity.
Anyway, here’s some links (or slingks as Apartment Therapy calls them) to people with good ideas:
Check out the art galleries here in NYC with this handy printable list of the best galleries.
Running from Camera: Exactly what the title says and yet surprisingly entertaining. (via It’s Nice That)
Hi, My name is Joseph. I work in a cupcake.: Again self-explanatory. (swissmiss)
Wordcount: a visual representation of how often English words are used. ‘Pope’ is one behind ‘Logic’ and four ahead of ‘Discourse’. I couldn’t make this up if I tried. (via DamnIWishI’dThoughtofThat via Spoonbuzz) Surprisingly I found this site through my lesser infatuation with marketing (as compared to design) since it is more a work of art/design. However if you consider Search Engine Optimization choosing words lower on the list will inherently make your site more unique and hence searchable. I think I got lucky by tagging ‘relativity’ (#15559) before ‘biology’ (#6746) or ‘physics’ (#4543) and definitely before ‘philosophy’ (#2821).
Brevity is possibly wit: Overheard in NY - One Sentence
Witty and thankfully not brief comic/graphic novel (the only one I have ever liked, so this is high praise): Platinum Grit - and by the same people of wit (though not a comic): Poke the Bunny. You really should.
Who Killed Bambi? Art blog finding all those out there pushing the bounds of death and life.
Japan is good for so many things: Trends in Japan is full of products and ideas. Currently #1 on my wishlist for ridiculous things (which is my normal wishlist btw) is a Homestar Pro (no not that homestar) PERSONAL PLANETARIUM. I’m from NY. I have to drive like 4 hours to see stars otherwise.
On the topic of Japan Ping Mag is worth a look. It’s a Tokyo based design magazine.
And because you should always end with a bang, the Superest is my new favorite fun blog. It’s superhero competition with ‘The overprotective parent’ being vanquished by ‘Doug the Slacker Next Door’ who was vanquished by ‘The Charismatic Recruiter’, etc.
Digg it ¨ del.icio.us ¨
¨ Email
¨ Google
¨ reddit
¨ StumbleUpon
Measuring Fitness
The basic premise is to measure fitness in a conceptually similar way to how we measure mass. To measure mass we can use a scale to compare the effect of gravity on a test object to an object with an agreed upon mass, or we can compare the test object’s resistance to acceleration as compared to an object with an agreed upon mass. These methods measure the ‘gravitational’ mass and ‘inertial mass’ respectively.
Gravitational Mass and Selection Fitness
Measuring an object’s gravitational mass requires a uniform gravitational field, e.g. the gravitational field at the surface of the earth. The gravitational field accelerates things based upon how massive they are: the more massive an object is the greater the force that the gravitational field exerts. To measure the mass of an object it is placed on one pan of a scale and pre-calibrated masses (objects of known mass) are placed on the other pan. When the two pans are level the test object has an equivalent mass to the calibrated masses because they have equivalent forces being applied to them by the gravitational field.
To measure fitness we require a similar experimental setup. First, a uniform gravitational field: according to the General Theory of Biological Relativity ecosystems create large natural selection fields. A uniform natural selection field requires an ecosystem free from disturbances which could skew the reproductive rates of the organisms. Secondly we would need organisms with a standard fitness. A suitable organism would be easily clonable and of a fitness that we suspect our test organism to be near. That organism’s fitness would be defined as one ‘biogram’ (or what you will). Lastly we would need to see how the organisms fair in the ecosystem. Their fitness will be proportional: if both proliferate (or die off) at the same rate, then their fitness will be equivalent, if one does much better than the other then it’s fitness will be proportionally higher.
Inertial Mass and Survival Fitness
Measuring an object’s inertial mass is measuring how resistant it is to acceleration as compared to how resistant to acceleration an object of known mass is. To measure inertial mass the test mass is attached to a spring clamped horizontally to a stable structure. The mass and spring are then pulled to one side and let oscillate back and forth: the more massive the object, the slower oscillations. The number of oscillations per unit of time can be compared to the oscillations per time of a known mass and thence the inertial mass can be calculated.
As above a controlled environment and an organism whose fitness is known (even if by definition) is needed. However the organisms need to be ‘accelerated’ for this measurement. According to the General Theory of Biological Relativity environmental conditions will dictate how a species changes over time. Therefore to ‘accelerate’ a species a changing environment is needed. Simply put: measuring ‘survival fitness’ is measuring how well an organism or species fairs in a changing environment. For example a plant that can survive in a wide range of temperatures will be fitter than one that requires a narrow temperature range. If a test plant proliferates and the benchmark organism withers under a temperature swing, the test organism has a greater fitness.
Digg it ¨ del.icio.us ¨
¨ Email
¨ Google
¨ reddit
¨ StumbleUpon
11.05.07
NEWS: General Relativity in Evolutionary Biology Final Version and NYC Area Philosophy Mailing List started!!!!!
I’ve posted my final version of General Relativity in Evolutionary Biology to the articles section (and to GroundReport) and I’ve also started a mailing list/rss for philosophy events in NYC. So lots to check out.
Digg it ¨ del.icio.us ¨
¨ Email
¨ Google
¨ reddit
¨ StumbleUpon
11.01.07
GroundReport: Citizen Journalism (and some Rogue Philosophy)
GroundReport.com is a website dedicated to citizen journalism that I have co-opted. But this is not something you should hold against GroundReport. Its mission is to provide ordinary people an opportunity to report on news that the mainstream media does not pick up on. For instance you can find people reporting on the major news stories of the day, local news from just about anywhere in the world, and every so often a scoop that some ordinary chap happened to get. And they split the advertising revenue 50-50 with the reporter based on page-views. All very good bringing power to the people.
So after hearing about the site back in the days before this blog (from the founder’s proud papa: I went to high school with the founder Rachel Sterne and I ran into her father while at home) I figured it wouldn’t be too off topic of me to post some of my writing and gain some notoriety (and some cents). Long story short take a look at this:
Report Name Report Views Consequences of Relativity in Evolutionary Biology 200 Special Relativity in Evolutionary Biology 87 Relativity in Evolutionary Biology 88 On Absolute Certainty 107 On The Scientific View of the World 104 Total: 586
These are unique page views too.
With the 200th hit to ‘Consequences’ I figured I ought to give some credit where it’s due. You can check out my ‘Reporter Page‘, but I suggest just going to the homepage and poking around. You might even get inspired to report on something. See Paul Sterne’s “GroundReport’s Ten Commandments” for a good primer on how to get started (and forgive his GroundReport fanboy rhetoric: he’s the proud papa).
Digg it ¨ del.icio.us ¨
¨ Email
¨ Google
¨ reddit
¨ StumbleUpon
