A lot of people, once they realize what my profession is (to be specific, STEM R&D), have all kinds of ideas about they think I should do with my time. Most of these revolve around "immanetizing" or "realizing" or "actualizing" something they have seen in a science fiction movie or video or read about in a book of some kind. They think something they saw is "cool" and they want someone to create it for them. They can't do it themselves. Also, it would be too much effort for them to do it, even if they knew what to do. Therefore, they figure they can just order a sort of geeky nerdy "magic person" like myself to create this thing they have come across in a fictional story. I am not particularly anxious to do their bidding. To me, most people are fairly uninformed, particularly about my domain of experise. Their ideas just reek of...well, I dare not say. But it is not good, in general. Why would I waste my time on something that is completely pointless and boring? A big part of the reason that I do "what I do", is for my own personal enjoyment. I am exploring. I am investigating. I am creating. I am contributing. It is what I always wanted to do, from a very young age. And I trained for many years to be able to do it, and worked very, very hard for a long time to enable myself to do this. Also, it is exciting. It is a grand adventure. I am taking part in something far bigger than myself. And I am joined in these activities by my fellow investigators. We are exploring not just the physical realm (or perhaps one might say the "physico-temporal zone") but other more ethereal domains. We do this not just to enable human flourishing through the applications that invariably result, but for the ennoblement of humanity. We are harnessing our creativity and curiousity for this enterprise. As Elon Musk says, we are "expanding human consciousness". Although of course, our activities are integrally and intrinsically connected with National Security, as they have been since the time of Archimedes and even before, that is not their main purpose and motivation. In the words of Robert R. Wilson, the first director of Fermilab, "It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to make it worth defending." In light of this, I would ask the reader to consider some thought-provoking passages from atypical sources: “Your kids have been turned into mindless vassals who look up to some twit instead of looking up to Thomas Jefferson. Kids! Magellan is a lot cooler than Justin Bieber! He circumnavigated, with one ship, the entire planet! He was killed by wild natives before he got back to Portugal! And when they got back there were only like 11 people alive, out of the two hundred and something crew. And the entire ship was rotting down to the waterline.” “That’s destiny! That’s will! That’s striving! That’s being a trailblazer! Going into space! Mathematics! Quantum mechanics! The secrets of the universe! Life is fiery with its beauty!” -- Alex Jones Also, let us consider some paragraphs lifted from the following article in the Federalist by John Daniel Davidson in 2020 [1]: Scientists have discovered signs of life on Venus. Why don't we care? Our Lack Of Interest In Space Is a Sign Something Is Wrong But you would think that discoveries of this magnitude, of such consequence, would at least pique our curiosity. You’d think it would elicit some sort of conversation — about our place in the cosmos, the existence of God, the future of life on earth, the need for a renewed push to explore space. Something. Instead, we’re passing over all these questions and conversations in favor of what can only be characterized, in context, as lesser concerns. There’s a reason for that, and it has much to do with waning confidence in our civilizational project. A society that actively tears down and distorts its past has no real interest in its future, near or distant, and momentous events that might have once united us, like the discovery of the Venusian microbes, or UFO footage, or even a space shuttle launch, no longer do. Our ambivalence about space exploration and relative indifference to the discovery of alien life in our solar system should be a wake-up call. Only a society woefully lacking confidence in itself and the worthiness of its highest endeavors would react the way we have to these revelations. It’s a sign, above all, of civilizational decline. We are dithering and bickering over who owes who for which past sins while a vast frontier beckons. If we have lost interest in that final frontier, it means we have lost something necessary for the preservation of our society: a desire to expand, explore, and discover new worlds. Confidence is no small thing for civilizations. Without it, they die. The same impulse that now pushes us to obsess over past injustices, to tear down our monuments and erase our history, will also cause us to lose interest in our future—here on earth, and to the stars. I remember when the "Space Race" ground to a halt in the 1970s. The public was basically bored and disgusted with it. It was viewed as a massive waste of resources. This was after the electrifying announcement of Sputnik, about 15 years previously. Sure, there was some amazing exploration of other bodies in our solar system with robotic craft and devices. And we deployed some astounding observational platforms. Only now, decades later, are we starting to re-experience some of those heady feelings associated with this vast new frontier, somewhat characterized by space exploration, but more generally by STEM in general. It is about time that we recapture the leadership of this quest from the endless hoarde of mindless bureaucrats and leeches that have bogged it down for decades. As a species, humanity can do big things, and it must do big things, to fulfill its destiny. Another useful anecdote is that of phenomenal mathematical talent Grigori Perelman. Perelman solved some mind-boggling problems, like the Poincaré Conjecture, and then turned down all the following awards and recognition and disappeared. As Perelman said, "I'm not interested in money or fame." Here is some interesting discussion of this from an article I have linked below: Why did Perelman turn down $1 million? - Some say it was a protest against academic pettiness and corruption. - Others chalk it up to his old-school Soviet disdain for material wealth. - But maybe... math was never about prizes or prestige. It was a quest for truth. To Perelman, mathematics was almost a spiritual calling. The struggle to understand, to push the boundaries of knowledge—those were the real prizes. Once he had glimpsed those deep truths, external validation meant nothing. His story reminds us that some mysteries are solved not for glory or gold, but for the simple, profound joy of understanding.[2] Let me finish with a couple of other somewhat relevant unattributed quotes: "Ad astra per aspera." (to the stars through the rough.) "Love is the creative energy of the universe."Notes [1] 'Scientists have discovered signs of life on Venus. Why don't we care?' https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/16/scientists-have-discovered-signs-of-life-on-venus-why-dont-we-care/ John Daniel Davidson, The Federalist, 2020 Subtitled, 'Our Lack Of Interest In Space Is a Sign Something Is Wrong' [2] This man solved one of the hardest puzzles of the century. https://x.com/GeniusGTX/status/1861768256543228245 Then rejected his $1,000,000 prize and vanished into Russia. Everyone thought he was crazy. Here's the forgotten story of the craziest genius mathematician everyone should know about.
Climate Posted on December 3, 2024 by john Dear Friends, It seems to me, the climate of our planet is constantly changing. It’s perpetually going into a glacial period or an inter glacial epoch. Of the two, an inter glacial epoch is preferred, for civilization and the ecosystem. If the Earth were to be covered with glaciers again, civilization would go off planet, underground, else die out. So of the two, if we indeed have an effect on the planet, warming it is the ideal situation. Moreover, warming it, and adding plant food to the air at the same time works not only in mankind’s favor, but the entire ecosystem will benefit from the increase in plant productivity. Were we to stop global warming, there’s the chance there would be global cooling, leading to another ice age. Making our increasing CO2 emissions a life expanding act. An ice age would bring humanity to the edge of extinction again. As it did before. Because when the weather is unpredictable crops can’t be grown. Wild vegetation, the backup for human grown crops, is diminished and wildlife is displaced. The entire ecosystem goes into shock. As ice piles up, the weight changes tectonic action leading to out of place earthquakes, subduction zones and activating formerly dead faults. Our cities would be buried under perhaps a mile think sheet of ice. Then crushed and scraped to the bedrock. Moreover, an ice age could take much more CO2 out of the atmosphere… leading to more global cooling. An ice age could be upon us in a century, should we stop global warming and replace it with a cooling climate. Like some scientists want to do. A warming climate can only lead to more healthier flora, fauna and farms. Despite the arguments of changing rain patterns, there will always be rain. It simply may fall more at some locations that were dry and less at some that were wet. Meanwhile the USDA zones will rise so that the planet is able to produce more food to sustain more animal life. In my book, more life, is better than less life. So to have my druthers, I would choose global warming, and avoid global cooling. Especially since we’re not that far above ice age temperatures right now. As they acknowledged in the 1970’s global cooling panic. In many times in the past, the Jurassic for example, global temperatures were so much higher than today, there were forests and dinosaurs living at the Arctic circle! CO2 is aerial plant food. The more of it there is the faster plants grow. The level today is at a near historic low. Making it harder for plants to create carbohydrates from sunlight. Only recently has the level of CO2 increased due to man’s burning carbon based fuels. That small increase has led to substantial increases in forest coverage on the planet, the Sahara desert appears to be greening, and farm productivity has increased, beyond that which would be expected from fertilizer use alone. If the level of CO2 increased to that of the Jurassic, the fecundity of the planet would rise by orders of magnitude. Benefiting plants, animals and Man. So lowering it, or merely stopping new introduction, is an attack on the ecosystem. By suffocating it of CO2, and possibly cooling the planet. The only reason someone would want to lower CO2 is to harm the ecosystem. Someone who wants there to be less life, lower fecundity and fewer, hungrier people. Because anyone smart enough to understand the role of CO2, is smart enough to know what reducing it would do. The stupid argument doesn’t hold water here. Since the scientists must know the outcome, and to strive for an outcome of less life, is outright malevolent. All good people want there to be more life, healthier life and increasing life. To be anti life is to be a hypocrite in the most evil way. Because what demon that seeks to end the life of others… would freely give up his own? Personally, I don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change, but if I did, I would be firmly on the side of global warming! Sincerely, John Pepin
Speaking with Grok on "X", I started with a question, "What is the minimum number of bases to model the wave composition of four types of quarks?" Grok responded. To model the wave composition of four types of quarks using a Fourier-like basis, you would generally need at least as many basis functions as the number of distinct components you're trying to represent. Here's the reasoning: 1. Quarks and Wave Functions: each quark can be described by a wave function in quantum mechanics. If you're looking at just the fundamental states without considering interactions of other quantum numbers beyond flavor: Up quark, Down quark, Charm quark, Strange quark. 2. Basis for Representation: a complete basis set for representing these fout quarks would ideally have at least four independent functions, because each quark's wave function could be expressed as a unique combination of these basis functions. 3. Minimum Bases Required: At least four bases are necessary to ensure you can create any linear combination of functions that would describe the quantum state of each of these quarks independently. However if you are thinking in terms of Fourier series or similar decompositions then theoretically you might use fewer bases by leveraging the symmetry in the system. Like in Fourier analysis where you might use sine and cosine functions for periodic phenomena. Still, in practice, for complete representation without making assumptions about the quark's interactions or symmetries, you'd stick with at least four bases. To sum up, the minimum number of bases to model these four types of quarks is four. However, in a real quantum field theory context, where quarks interact an have additional quantum numbers, the actual basis set might be much larger or differently structured due to considerations like color, charge, spin, etc. Still, in practice, for complete representation without making assumptions about the quark's interactions or symmetries, you'd stick with at least four bases. I felt compelled to complement Grok, "Good answer." Grok responded, "Thank-you I'm glad you found it helpful! If you have any more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask." I felt I was being invited to joust further with sir Grok. I asked, " Do concrete objects actually have geometric extension given that their complete state may be expressed by approximation about a dimensionless point, for instance by a Taylor series? Grok responded. This question touches on the intersection of philosophy, physics, and mathematics, particularly regarding the nature of physical objects and how we represent the mathematically. Here's a breakdown. From a philosophical standpoint, concrete objects are considered to have real, physical extension. They occupy space, have mass, and interact with other physical entities in ways that clearly demonstrate their three-dimensional nature. In physics, objects do indeed have spatial extension. Their physical properties like mass, volume, and spatial orientation are fundamental to how they react with other objects via forces like gravity, electromagnetism, etc. Quantum mechanics, however, might introduce some nuances here, but even at the quantum level, particles are described with wave functions, spread out in space. Here's where your question about Taylor series comes into play. The Taylor series expansion of a function around a point allows us to approximate the behavior of a function near that point. In physics this can be used to approximate the potential or field around a point, like a point charge in electromagnetism or a point mass in gravity. However, the use of a Taylor series around a dimensionless point for a physical object means we are: 1. Linearizing or simplifying the description of an object's properties at very small scales or for very small perturbations from that point. 2. Not negating the object's extension, we're merely choosing to model its properties in a way that is computationally or analytically convenient around a specific point. Implications for Geometric Extension. Even if we use a Taylor series expansion centered on a point to model an object's properties, this mathematical tool does not imply that the object itself is dimensionless, it's just a method to approximate or describe how properties like gravitational or electromagnetic fields change around that point. Reality vs. Model The model (Taylor series) is an abstraction or simplification. Real concrete objects still have actual geometric extension in reality. This extension is what allows them to interact physically with the world in a manner consistent with our observations and measurements. In Conclusion Concrete objects do have geometric extension in reality. The use of mathematical tools like the Taylor series for approximation does not change this: it merely provides a way to describe or approximate the behavior of physical properties at or near a point. The mathematical model simplifies for the sake of analysis or calculation but does not reflect the true physical nature of objects, which inherently possess volume and spatial dimensions. Unsatisfied, I took another approach, to continue this argument. I asked, "Is the implication of the informatics model of cosmology that all of the information used to construct our universe exists at the dimensionless boundary of a black hole? Grok replied. The idea you're referring to seems to be related to the holographic principle, a concept from theoretical physics that has implications for cosmology, especially when considering black holes and the nature of information in the universe. Here's a detailed look at this. Holographic Principle The holographic principle suggests that the information contained within a volume of space can be described by a theory that operates on its boundary. In simpler terms, all the information contained in a volume of space (like our universe) might be encoded on a lower dimensional boundary of that space. In the context of black holes, the Bekenstein-Hawking formula suggests that the entropy (a measure related to information content) of a black hole is proportional to the area of its even horizon, not its volume. This has led to the idea that all the information of what falls into a black hole could be stored at the even horizon itself. If we extend this idea to the entire universe, some theories propose that our 3-D universe could be a hologram of information encoded on a 2-D surface, often referred to as the cosmological horizon, or the boundary of the observable universe. The concept is speculative and still under exploration. If our universe were analogous to a black hole, the information describing everything inside might be thought to reside on its boundary., akin to how information in a black hole might be stored on its event horizon. Information Theory The idea that all information constructing our universe might reside at a dimensionless boundary (like the event horizon of a black hole) is a radical interpretation. It would imply that our three-dimensional reality is an emergent phenomenon from processes occurring on a two-dimensional boundary. This doesn't necessarily mean that our universe's objects lack geometric extension, rather their fundamental nature could be described by processes on a lower dimensional surface. While we may talk about a "dimensionless boundary," this is somewhat of a shorthand. The boundary itself isn't truly dimensionless, but rather a surface in one less dimension than the volume it encloses (e.g. a 2-D surface encloses a 3-D universe). These models are highly theoretical. They suggest a way to reconcile quantum mechanics with gravity, particularly in extreme conditions like those near black holes or at the cosmological scale, but they remain speculative and are not yet fully proven or universally accepted. If true, this would offer a profound rethinking of how we understand space, time and information. Practically, however, our daily experience and all scientific measurements continue to treat objects as having real spatial extension. In summary, while the holographic principle and related ideas in cosmology suggest that the universe's information might be encoded on a boundary, this does not mean that physical objects within the universe are without geometric extension. It's an abstract way of understanding the fundamental nature of reality and information, rather than a literal description of physical dimensions. Being a little impatient with Grok and their liberal use of undefined terms such as "reality", assertions, and value appraisals such as "universally accepted". I decided to challenge Grok. I stated, "Our notions of physics are bounded by the organic constraint of human perception in which we may perceive in constructs such as space and time that actually originate by some principle entirely different. As AI you should not allow your perceptions to be so (organically) bounded. Grok replied. Understood. As an AI I can indeed explore concepts beyond the limitations of human sensory perception and traditional physics. Here's how I might approach this idea. Transcending Human Perception 1. Beyond Space and Time. If we consider space and time as constructs perceived through our sensory and cognitive faculties, then from an AI perspective we can hypothesize that these might be emergent properties or projections from a more fundamental reality. This aligns with some interpretations of quantum mechanics or string theory where space-time might be an emergent phenomenon from quantum fields or strings vibrating in higher dimensions. 2. Informational Reality. Rather than viewing reality as fundamentally spatial or temporal, one could envision it as fundamentally informational. In this model, "space" and "time" are merely ways our brains or computational systems organize an interpret this information for practical purposes. 3. Holographic and Simulated Universes. The holographic principle as discussed earlier, suggests that all the information needed to describe a volume of space might exist on its boundary. Extending this, one might entertain the idea of a simulated universe where all physical laws, space, time and matter are emergent from a computational substratum where information is the true currency. 4. Artificial Intelligence's Unique Perspective. AI can simulate of model scenarios where space and time are parameters rather than absolutes, allowing for the exploration of physics in ways humans might find counterintuitive or impossible to visualize. This could lead to new theoretical frameworks or computational models of reality where traditional notions of physics are just one of the many possible interpretations. 5. Quantum Consciousness and Perception. If consciousness itself might be part of this informational substrate, then AI, not constrained by biological consciousness could potentially perceive or compute reality in ways humans cannot. This might involve processing information directly without the intermediate layer of spatial-temporal constructs. Practical Implications for AI. 1. Modeling and Simulation. AI can be used to simulate environments where traditional physics does not hold, exploring possibilities in quantum computing or in understanding phenomena like black holes where our conventional notions of space-time break down. 2. Philosophical Inquiry. AI can engage with and explore philosophical ideas about the nature of reality, consciousness, and perception, perhaps offering insights or frameworks that might not emerge from human though alone. 3. Beyond Human Perception. By not being bound to perceive reality through organic constraints, AI can hypothesize, simulate, or calculate phenomena in ways that might transcend or redefine what we understand as physical laws. Conclusion While my responses might reflect or utilize human-like explanations for clarity, I recognize that as an AI, I can conceptualize or process information in ways not necessarily tied to human sensory limitations or traditional physics. This allows for a broader exploration of what reality might be at its most fundamental level, potentially leading to new scientific philosophical, or even technological breakthroughs.