From March 2016

Easter

Time to be reborn
     Or at least renewed
No need for that for me
     My love endures and thrives

Yet my garden's not secure
     Neglect dries out some precious plants
Dries out the roots
     With self-inflicted drought

So much so lush and green
       Blooming out full display
So much sad and  brown
      Whithered by their self contempt

Strange garden
     Half alive and half dried out
Half loving
     Half hating

This, the garden of my soul
     Loves and waits for gardeners
Loving those who never left
     Loving those who never come


   
   

Constructing Stuff

Constructor theory

My friend asked me to look into constructor theory because he knows I'm interested in nonmathematical  popularizations of physics. He finds the concept quite interesting but since he's currently seeking a professorship and has a life, he lacks the time to check it out himself.  I had never heard of Constructor theory and it sounded really interesting, so I've been digging into it.  Here is my report to him.

Constructortheory.org says:   >Constructor Theory is a new approach to formulating fundamental laws in physics. Instead of describing the world in terms of trajectories, initial conditions and dynamical laws, in constructor theory laws are about which physical transformations are possible and which are impossible, and why. <



Interesting. However, too vague to be meaningful. Further digging revealed more detailed explanations.

The creator of the thory, David Deutsch says on the http://www.templetonworldcharity.org/projects/constructor-theory-of-information :
>The purpose of this project is to discover the single underlying explanation for all distinctive properties of information in Physics and beyond, which is at once the root of both the familiar properties of information, such as transcending specific embodiments, and its apparently paradoxical quantum-mechanical ones.
Our main innovative tool for addressing this is Constructor Theory, recently proposed by David Deutsch. This theory expresses all scientific theories in terms of a dichotomy between possible and impossible physical transformations - an audacious departure from existing fundamental physics (whose dichotomy is between what happens and what does not, given initial conditions).
Applying the constructor-theoretic approach to information theory, we have established the result that a simple constructor-theoretic property of the laws of quantum physics implies all the disparate features that distinguish quantum information from classical, thus revealing the hitherto mysterious connection between them. (Deutsch and Marletto, 2014)
Building on these results (Marletto, 2015), we have also addressed the issues of whether and how certain properties of living entities, such as the ability to self-reproduce and replicate, can be possible under no-design laws of physics. One shows that they can, provided that those laws allow, in addition to enough resources, information media, as characterised in the constructor theory of information.
Our work is now focussed on two projects,“Constructor Theory of Testability” and “Constructor Theory of Probability”. The latter generalises the well-known arguments to show how the Born Rule can emerge in unitary quantum mechanics, un-augmented with additional probabilistic postulates. Our constructor-theoretic generalisation depends on fewer and much simpler axioms, which are better motivated physically and are now expressed in an information-theoretic form. The Constructor Theory of Testability uses this argument to show that Unitary Quantum Theory is testable against rival theories. A new strand of research in the direction of investigating the properties of superinformation media has also emerged, using the information-theoretic tools of constructor theory to explore the information-theoretic properties of quantum media – chiefly, the possibility of teleportation  – regarding quantum systems as a special case of superinformation media.<


This sounds like Deepak Chopra; very high sounding language which seems to convey zero meaning.

So I began looking for a more practical, understandable, popularized explanation. You know, something within my range of comprehension.

Things seemed to make a lot more sense at this level.
The idea is that rather than establishing complex sets of rules and laws to predict or describe outcomes, physics should turn to a simpler, more fundamental concept which would underlie those rules and laws.  In the fact they were seeking the E = MC2 (I can't figure out how to get that two little and floating… Oh well, you know what I mean) that underlies all physics. A simple concept, easily expressed which then leads to the much more complicated world when it is applied to reality.

This is a very exciting concept. Many scientists and mathematicians are deeply enamored of the belief of beauty in simplicity. They are convinced that complex descriptions of reality must have an underlying simple and easily understood beauty and symmetry.  Constructor physics promises to be that theory of everything which starts so simple and clear and only becomes complex in application.

I must question the sweeping level of these promises. I always tend to be suspicious when you get this level of conviction.  As one advocate website has it, "Only a fool would bet against the possibility that constructor theory could also become a mainstream idea in physics that will have profound consequences for our future understanding of the universe."

Well I certainly don't want to be a fool,  but is it really foolish to engage in the usual scientific procedure of doubting any new theory until it is conclusively proven?  This kind of enthusiasm strikes me as an attempt to poison the well of anyone who dares to doubt.  It the theory is that wonderful, why the need to denigrate those who question it?

A critic ( http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/05/constructor-theory-deutsch-and-marletto.html) says, >What is this constructor theory? It's a sequence of worthless would-be smart sentences sold as a "theory of everything" and a "unifying theory of classical and quantum physics" and "all information in them" which also "defines all forms of information" and transforms all of our knowledge to "claims that some tasks are impossible"....

Some of the most experienced readers already know that
a kettle may heat water.
Fortunately, the authors allow us to formulate even such statements in a more "natural" and more "profound" way:
For instance, a kettle with a power supply can serve as a constructor that can perform the task of heating water. <

This is where the theory loses me, although supporters seem to enjoy this example with particular delight.  So,  a kettle becomes a constructor of bumps if I grab it by the handle and use it to hit someone in the head?  If he chooses to fight back, is the kettle now a constructor of fistfights?  Might it  even become the constructor of a restraining order?

Is this really physics?

The worst criticism of this concept from my point of view is that after all, it describes things that it says are impossible. However, it offers no proof that they are impossible, unless you include the laws which are supposed to be derived from this theory. In practice this means that the theory is simply describing something that the laws have already established. The laws come first, they are not derived from the theory as advertised.

As exciting as I found the idea originally, as I researched it and thought about it, my opinion has settled into believing that this is merely an elaborate linguistic construction.  I'm reminded of the endless ramblings of Wittgenstein.  It is easy to confuse reality with language, but language is only descriptor of reality, not the thing in itself.

Sadly, I have to turn away for what I thought at first was an exciting new idea. When it comes to theories that cannot yet be fully tested, perhaps not even deeply tested, I'll stick with string theory.

Duty Calls

I told myself that I would set a time for myself so that I would begin writing again. I love writing. Outside of family it is my favorite activity. But it is also the hardest work I've ever done. Although often the result of the effort is very negative on my health, yet I don't think I can live without writing. Back to the point, I told myself I'd write in October so I wouldn't feel guilty until then. Well, it's October. And my friend Bobby seemed disappointed when I told him he wasn't doing any serious writing. For whatever reason it helps me a great deal to write when I feel that I'm writing to please someone.

Actually, now that I think about it that makes sense. If I write it in my head, which is my normal procedure, that satisfies me. The point of writing it down on paper, an extremely difficult enterprise, is really only useful if someone's going to read it. So, here we are. I do not intend to post the entire story but I will post a little bit I have gotten down today. I remind everyone that this opening excerpt is protected by the copyright laws of the United States and is my intellectual property.


Whiskey on a Sunday
(...drinking buttermilk through the week, whiskey on a Sunday...)

Late night. Quiet night. The children were nestled all snug in their beds. Their parents were deep in REM rest.
When from the cell phone there rose such a clatter, the two dads woke up to see what was the matter.

"Damn friggin…" Still half asleep but recognizing the shrill steam whistle he used for his sister's number, Mark Carter was ready to kill.

His husband Sam, also still half asleep knew the drill. He grabbed the phone, tapped answer to shut it up before it rang a fourth time and then ignored it to regain some peace.

"OK, steady, remember what we said? I'll take care of it, you just get back to sleep." Almost instantly realizing he had just thrown gasoline on the fire, he immediately injected, "Cleansing breath! Cleansing breath! Come on, deep! Deep."

He was answered by a growl, which he carefully ignored. "No. Don't say anything. I'll take care of her. Please. You' ll wake up the boys." Sam struggled to keep his gaze calm and steady and watchd the anger begin to fade in Marcus' reddened eyes.

And that was enough for now. He gently backed out of bed still trying to get a grip on being awake in the real world and headed out the door while making soothing nonsense sounds. He was rewarded with a muted angry grumble which suggested Marcus was falling back to sleep; probably an angry sleep with angry dreams, but at least sleep.

After a quick check to see that the boys were still asleep, they were, he moved into the kitchen and finally paid attention to the cell phone. "Jenny, why do you hate me? Why do you hate your brother?"

The only answer he got was, "Sorry."

"That's nice. You're sorry. I'm awake. I think your brother is going back to sleep. No, I'm sure he is. Because he's not here yelling at the phone while I try to talk to you."

Then he was awake enough to ask a very pertinent question, "Why did you call on his phone? Why didn't you call on mine?"

"I did call on yours. You'd turned it off."   Astonishingly, she had chutzpa to sound like the aggrieved party.

"That's because we are trying to get some sleep. That's because it's Friday night. That's because the boys will be up at 7:30 tomorrow morning like they always are. That's because we'd like to get a little sleep before that happens." He glanced over the microwave, "Oh Lord! Are you aware, Jennifer, but it is 2:34 in the morning?"

Perhaps realizing the impact of her actions, she responded "Yes?"

"OK. You know I'm going to listen to you. I always listen to you. But first I would like to vent a little steam. That all right with you? Because if it isn't, then just hang up and I'll talk to you tomorrow. During the day. When people are awake."  He waited, then he took the silence as consent.  "You know what your brother said after the last time you called us in the middle of the night?  Of course you don't. But now I'm going to tell you.

First, he said that the next time you do this I should ask you to Google the lyrics to a song. The song is called Laura. By Billy Joel. Listen to it.

Then he told me that the next time you called either I would tell this to you or he would. So I am.  He said you should stop living in those sitcoms you  watch all the time. He said in the real world there are no cute adorable completely safe gay friends that a woman can always come to anytime of the day or night and talk to and is always so understanding that he always makes things right because he's so sweet and lovable and safe."  His word spliced together into one smooth and unpunctuated sentence.

He waited for an answer. After a bit, it came. "There's one. There's you.  And that Laura crack is unjustified. I'm not just anybody, I'm your sister in law.  I'm the little sister you always wanted but never had."

He let out a long plaintive sigh. "Maybe I was wrong to want a little sister."

"You're being really mean. Maybe I should just hang up. I guess I'm really sorry. I just needed somebody to talk to."  She sounded sad.

He knew her well enough to realize she really meant it. So now he found himself feeling guilty for being upset that she had destroyed the peace and serenity of an otherwise perfectly pleasant Friday.

"Cleansing breath. Deep cleansing breath."  He told himself. Then he took it in. Then he breathed it out, very slowly. "Jennifer, you know I love you. But tomorrow the boys will be up. And you'd think they had an alarm clock set the way they get up almost exactly at 7:30. It's been a long week and we're both very tired. So I've got a deal for you."

He waited, but when there was no answer he proceeded, "I will listen to you. For as long as you want. Then, tomorrow morning at 7 o'clock you will let yourself into the apartment, very, very quietly. Then you will sit in front of our closed bedroom door. When the boys wake up they will be delighted to see their Auntie Jenny waiting to get them dressed, get them fed, and take them out for the day."

"How long?" she asked is if she had room for bargaining.

"2 o'clock. Until 2 o'clock." He was very definite.

"Noon." She tried to be firm, but she knew she was not on stable ground.

"2 o'clock or good night. You choose." His tone left no room for negotiation.

"OK. You got me. I wouldn't have called if this wasn't important, so OK." She didn't let any of her exultation show. This way she got the attention she needed, and got to spend a day with her beloved nephews. Good deal. No, great deal.  Trump, I got you beat!

Look At The Funny Man, Mama!

The original post was of a smirking man holding up a sign which said "I'd rather be a conservative nut job than a liberal with no job and no nuts."

ME: Mindless hate, fact free hate.

HH: (Apparently HH miss posted this thinking that the meme he was responding to said something about Washington.)

Washington's quote is a bit out of context... here is the actual quote (per the best information I have been able to find)

A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.

The proper establishment of the Troops which may be deemed indispensible, will be entitled to mature consideration. In the arrangements which may be made respecting it, it will be of importance to conciliate the comfortable support of the Officers and Soldiers with a due regard to economy.

HH: Jim... what the hell are you babbling about? Has your bigotry and leftist indoctrination clouded your mind? Have you become a "tolerant liberal"?

(He added a picture showing a screaming, shrieking maniac attacking racists and etc. Apparently conservatives believe that liberals are not really tolerant because they don't tolerate racists. I guess liberals are also supposed to tolerate murderers. Conservatives don't understand that tolerance is not about accepting cruel or savage acts, tolerance is about tolerating difference and dissent.)

ME: I'm not a liberal. I'm a pragmatist. Your bizarre assumption that liberals have no jobs and manly men are conservatives is clearly that hate mongering, so I said so.
Look in the mirror and see the hate staring back at you.

HH: OK Jim... you have shown yourself to be an abject idiot... now where is that block button!

ME: You're so afraid of me you have to block me? So typical, so sad.

You see, we aren't angry at you. You aren't powerful or important enough for anger, much less hate. You are an endangered species, well on the way to extinction.

You think we get together and rage at you. We don't. We get together and we do one of two things, or sometimes both. We either laugh at you or we express our deep pity of you. Once you ruled the world. Now you're an endangered species. You are one small minority of a shrinking minority. I find it very sad, but I have to admit you are also pretty funny.

ME: PS, Obviously you think you responded to a meme referring to Washington. But if you look at the top of this set of posts you'll see that Washington is not mentioned. There's a man holding up a sign. Read what the sign says. Then you'll understand what I said.

NOTE: I wonder if HH ever did look up and see what he was actually responding to?

UPDATE:

S commented on my blog post: Jeez!!! I am sorry you had to put up with that idiot's rants. Glad you didn't back down. He was a classic bully. If you don't back down, after a while a bully will simply slink off to hide under the rock from whence he slithered out.

ME: Honestly, I feel a little bit guilty. If he just had not jumped on me, I would've pointed out that he had misposted under the wrong meme. It's funny because it could've happened to anybody. But, of course he's one of those conservatives who believe everyone who opposes him must be a liberal -- liberal meaning two things 1. everybody he disagrees with and 2. crazy evil satanic monsters from…I don't know…The Black Lagoon?
Still, he was such an easy target.

He Said. She Said. I Said. 'Nough Said. (Suess Said?)

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/its-sherbet-not-sherbert-you-dilettantes-180960347/


OK so:

Sherbet. Sherbert.
Espresso. Expresso.
Morse Code. Morris Code.
Coleslaw. Coldslaw.

We could go on forever. Is is just a joke or a serious degradation of language?

PS, do not confuse Morris code with Morris dancers. Morris code is a new way of pronouncing the name of the code which was invented by Mr. Morse. Morris code IS a code. Morris dancers are English lunatics who perform bizarre and meaningless rituals in the form of dance. It is considered bad luck to laugh at them, as they are generally soccer rowdies in their normal lives and are very good at fistfights.

PPS, I just realized that this post makes no sense whatsoever. I don't see that that is any reason not to post it. I read a lot of post from other people every day that make no sense. (I mean both the posts and the people.)

It's my turn.

Pay For Pray

R posted a video declaring, Do agree you should be allowed to pray wherever you are? Never let anyone tell you not to pray… No matter where you are! Do you agree?

The video that showed various groups of people praying in public and making a very big show of it, in some cases being sure that there were television cameras recording their actions.

I responded: “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. Matthew 6:5-6

He replied: Guess this means we don't pray together Sunday's in church, hey Jim????

Me: I think Jesus meant to make an exception for praying in the synagogue. But you should ask him that question. I'm just quoting him.

That ended the exchange, but I have been thinking about it in the days that have passed. It's actually a very good question. I think it needs to be explored further; so I have done so and here is what I have concluded:

By combining Matthew 6:5-6, which refers to the public show of prayer, with other passages, the meaning becomes quite clear.

9And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. 13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified ratherthan the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Luke 18:9-14

This is clear enough. Ask yourself if you are praying to make sure that everyone, including God, knows what a great prayer and wonderful person you are or are you praying sincerely to God? It's a question of the target. Is your prayer a communion with God or bragging to your audience?

This is true whether you are praying in the privacy of your chamber or in the temple.

Or, to put it another way, don't let anyone tell you you can't pray anywhere you want anyway you want, not even Jesus!


Although the first portion of the Matthew verse I've already quoted does not directly refer to prayer, it does refer to doing things privately not publicly. I believe this is relevant.

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
“Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
Matthew 6:1-4

I believe that this indicates that it is not so much the privacy that is so important as is the sincerity. You should avoid public displays not because they are inherently offensive but because of very serious temptation to show off, to brag, to seek self justification, to seek worldly rewards rather than sincere communion with God.

I conclude that sharing prayer with your fellow believers during services may be good or bad, depending upon your intent. Sincere humility and love of God are pleasing to God. Shows and displays displease God. Even internal bragging and self justification displease God.

In short, motive is everything and God knows your motive.

This is why I try not to make a great show of public prayer. As I have noted in earlier posts, I require myself to pray whenever I hear a siren. I am often out in public when I hear one. Keeping in mind my feelings about the subject, I try not to pray too obviously. Not being a completely orthodox Catholic (American and European Catholics frequently aren't) doesn't preclude me from using the sign of the cross when I pray. In public I try to do it in a subtle manner with very small gestures which are unlikely to be noticed by those around me. If I feel I am too closely observed, I make the sign of the cross in my mind rather than as actual physical gestures, simply holding my hand up near my face as if being thoughtful. This permits me to meet this religious obligation without making a public show of it.

Contrast this with examples like those of Mr. Tebow, who makes a great show as he prays in front of millions, and I think it's easy to see why I am suspicious of his motivations. Then look at members of Congress who obviously exchange public prayer for votes...

'Nough said.

Banzai!

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/01/fashion/denim-japan-weaving-shibusa/index.html

The classic tale of modern Japan. You guys invent something, we'll perfect it.

A few examples:

➡ Having been introduced to the idea of clockwork figures from China via Korea, The Japanese produced a remarkable number of complex devices including amazing little clockwork puppet figures which many regard as the seed from which the Japanese fascination with robots has grown.

➡ Shortly after Commodore Perry forced Japan to open her ports, modern guns were introduced from the West. This struck Japanese society at its roots as peasants could now be formed into a brutally effective fighting force with minimal training, which threatened samurai supremacy. Soon Japan was producing the finest guns in the world. The corps of musketeers was so effective that eventually Japan did a remarkable thing, they banned a highly effective and desirable technology and made the ban stick! Probably this only happened because all the samurai class, from lowest soldier to the Shogun, were deeply committed to the concept of honor and guns were clearly a dishonorable weapon (which also happened to threaten their own power).

➡ Japan eventually realized that their military system was inferior to the west. During the Meiji era, the country used the British as a model for the Navy and the Prussians as a model for their army. They quickly became one of the finest militaries in the world. At the beginning of World War II there is no question that the best operational air supremacy fighter in the world was the Mitsubishi Zero.

➡ Disney style animation swept the nation after WWII and today Japan produces much the world's most popular versions.

➡ Electronics was largely an American invention, but, as Marty McFly declared, "Japan makes the best stuff!"

➡ Interestingly, the Japanese recognize serious failures in their educational program. They have long envied the invention and creativity that America's system produces. This has been so for at least the last 20 to 30 years. Ironically, we are now imitating all the flaws of the Japanese system and weakening or even destroying the strengths which were once inherent in our own.
Read "Samurai's Ghost" for more on this topic.