Infinity isn’t Real

Watching a great Numberphile video about how the number –1/12 keeps showing up in calculations that involve infinite series. To recap, a modern mathematician (Terrance Tao) figured out that this number shows up because it’s buried within the very fabric of how math deals with simplifying infinities.

I’m a lover of numbers, and of math in general. Triangles are a turn on. Despite the sharp points.

However, I’ve dedicated my life to understanding behavior. Not just about people. Animals. Bugs. Trees. Bacteria. Even Gaia – the whole Earth.

And looking at math from the perspective of a bacterium has opened my eyes.

Strangely enough. It wasn’t my idea to look at math from a bugs eye point of view. A guy named John Conway gave me the idea. And another guy named Knuth wrote about it in a way that I could *almost* understand.

Here’s one of my older posts about Conway and how his new numbers may in fact be old numbers.

Anyway, the discussion about infinity was something I didn’t think about, until now.

Infinity really isn’t real. It can’t be.

We know the universe is finite. We know that the resolution of the universe is finite. We know that light only travels a certain speed. We know that the universe can be only so many years old. And that time, and energy, can only be so small before they simply don’t exist anymore.

Each of those things is a limit. Can’t be too big. Can’t be too small. Can’t live too long.

So where’s infinity?

In our minds. It’s a make believe concept that has proven valuable for figuring out problems. But it’s not real. And that’s why math runs into problems. And physics, too.

Does the number pi go on forever? Absolutely. The ratio is something that we looked for, and we define it in terms of our made-up numbers.

Can we prove it goes on forever?

Absolutely NOT. We can’t because there isn’t enough time, enough space, enough energy.

So it’s not infinite.

Same for every other “irrational” number that exists. We made it up. And we have to live with the consequences.

What does this mean for those of us forced to live in “reality?”

Until a math genius comes along and turns the math world inside out, we have to wrestle with these imaginary problems.

Until we think of “surreal” numbers and “irrational” numbers as real as “natural” numbers, we’re going to have problems.

And this is where behavior comes in.

Because the problems aren’t math. The problems are us. In our minds.

Think about it. But not for long! We don’t have infinite time. LOL

Theodore “Teddy” Roosevelt, Poet

As death draws near, my appreciation for the power of poetry grows. It’s more than enjoyment of the rythm, or the message, or the play of words. Much more.

My appreciation grows from my learning more languages. My appreciation grows from what I know of computers and artificial intelligence. My appreciation grows because of how little I understand of quantum mechanics. Indeed, how little anyone understands the quantum world.

Poetry may be the only true way to represent concepts that are beyond language, beyond numbers, beyond our ability to comprehend. Invoking images that transcend today’s textbooks may be the only way the next generation can break free of the old generation’s ruts.

Invoking images that are rooted in our deep genetic history, in the lives and memories of our very genes, is possibly the only way anyone can truly appreciate where our species has come from. Where it is going.

All that said, the reason for these musings is that I came across a Teddy Roosevelt speech that he made in Paris a century ago. It’s inspiring. And it’s timeless. And it’s poetry.

Absolutely brilliant. I hope you enjoy it as much as I. And I hope you don’t mind the way I’ve broken the lines so that it’s poetic element becomes more evident.

Peace to all.

Teddy’s Poem Starts Here

It is not the critic who counts;
not the man who points out
how the strong man stumbles,
or where the doer of deeds
could have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man
who is actually in the arena,
whose face is marred
by dust and sweat and blood;
who strives valiantly;
who errs,
who comes short again and again,
because there is no effort
without error and shortcoming;
but who does actually strive to do the deeds;
who knows great enthusiasms,
the great devotions;
who spends himself in a worthy cause;
who at the best knows in the end
the triumph of high achievement,
and who at the worst,
if he fails,
at least fails while daring greatly,
so that his place shall never be
with those cold and timid souls
who neither know victory nor defeat.

PS – This video from one of my favorite philosophic duos is what led my to the speech in the first place.

Turing Test for Philosophers

A review of Daniel Dennet’s latest book appears in Science magazine.

I’m not a fan of modern philosophers. I find their thinking hard to follow.

Most important is that I can’t measure their quality.

By quality, I mean either the effectiveness or efficiency of their thoughts.

Dr. Dennet is famous. Many famous people consider him impressive.

As a skeptical scientist, is there an objective way to measure this?

Dr. Dennet may have discovered the answer.

I found it in the third to last paragraph of the review. Here it is.

Dennett is … deeply concerned … (of an AI version of himself) … that even his closest colleagues could not consistently distinguish between statements written by him and those produced by the synthetic philosopher.

The Turing Test is all about using a machine to fool a person into thinking the machine is a person. It appears that the work of Dennet fails this most specialized form of the Turing Test.

All philosophers should submit to this test. Let’s see how many are human and innovative beyond digital duplication.

Solving Humanity’s Biggest Problem

I’m an Inventor. I’m an Artist. I’m a Scientist.

I’m good at solving problems.

I’m good at knowing how to solve a problem, even if I can’t solve the problem itself.

I’m good enough to know when I can’t solve a problem.

There is one problem that I can’t solve.

I’m confident that solving it is possible. And I know how.

It’s going to take lots of hard work.

Lots of persistence.

Lots of creativity.

Lots of scientific rigor.

Many things must be invented.

This problem is the biggest problem in the history of the world.

The problem is the future of humanity.

Things aren’t looking good at the moment.

However:

Humans have an incredible capacity to persevere against the odds.

Humans have shown incredible bursts of insight and creativity when needed.

So I’m optimistic.

There is one thing that comes first.

Solving this problem means thinking outside the box.

Yes, the person solving this problem is going to have to ignore many facts.

This person must create new facts.

With these new facts, they will create and use new tools to help humanity into the future.

Here’s an example of thinking outside the box.

Einstein redefined Physics by imagining traveling at the speed of light.

It sounded silly at first.

Today, no one is laughing.

The same is true for the future of humanity.

To solve big problems it’s important to think outside the box.

Far far away from the box.

Things like hate, and war, and hunger, are pretty big problems.

Here’s an example of thinking outside of today’s box.

How do bacteria count?

Science knows they can count.

They know how many friendly neighbors they have.

Then they start specializing.

They settle down and start a permanent home. A family.

They even build a shield around their neighborhood. A biofilm.

Does a bacterium start counting at one? Do they know one plus one is two?

Let’s assume that, to a bacterium, the number “e” is equal to our one.

In math, “e” is an important number.

It’s a number where lots of things balance, naturally.

Mathematicians call it irrational.

What if “one” is irrational, and “e” is natural?

To think outside the box, let “e” be equal to one.

Then it may be possible to solve humanity’s biggest problem.

Young Women by any other name

I’m a sensitive sort of guy, in an awkward, macho way.

I now appreciate how much society suppresses, even hates, women. Especially young women.

For this I have to thank the #MeToo movement and Jane Austen.

Proof? Exhibit One. Our language has many names for young women. Not so many for young men.

There must be something that frightens men about a young woman.

Her sexual power over men? The fact that she’s able to create life?

There’s a hint of this hate in the very structure of our language.

In a news article there’s a story of rich men who hire “escorts” and “prostitutes” for selfish reasons.

The reporter might let it slip that these escorts and prostitutes range in age from 16 to 20.

Why aren’t they reported as young women?

I don’t know.

I present this list to you as evidence.

And until our society treats all these young women with respect, I fear for the future.

And here we go: (alphabetized)

• arm candy
• au pair
• ballerina
• bitch
• bride
• cheerleader
• chick
• co-ed
• damsel
• delicate flower
• doll (and all its variants: doll baby, baby doll, et cetera.)
• escort
• eye candy
• flirt
• floozy
• gold digger
• hostess
• jail bait
• lady of the night
• maid (cleaning)
• maid (not cleaning)
• maiden
• missy
• mistress
• moll (old term referring to a gangster’s girl)
• muse
• playboy+ (model, centerfold)
• princess
• prostitute
• sex kitten
• side piece (or “piece on the side”)
• slut
• swimsuit+ (model)
• temptress
• virago (not necessarily young)
• virgin
• whore
• witch

There are more, and I look forward to your comments and suggestions for everything I’ve missed. I’ll update this list as I do so. Thanks. 2023-November-13
Updated 2023-11-14. Granted, many of these can be applied to older women as well, but I’m including those that are ambiguous as to age. Words like “crone” that are specific to older women I’m leaving alone, for now.
Updated 2023-11-15 Few more. Some can be considered more neutral (cheerleader) except that the typical imagery is of a young woman. And words containing “doll” can come in so many variations I’m including only the root. There’s 32 items today.
Updated 2023-11-16 Few new ones. Candy as a root may have more than eye- and arm- but I’ll stop there. I’m also excluding words that are overwhelmingly negative. Bitch used to be such a word, but has acquired a more “tough” aspect in the last few decades.
240117 – added “moll”