Gill Eapen's Blog, page 79

Noisy

Fermilab has made significant contributions to Physics and knowledge. It is unfortunate that its final gasp had to end with contests and mudslinging. This is a familiar pattern in contemporary Physics that produced the last real insight, nearly a century ago. Since then, almost any doctoral student in high energy Physics seems to be able to concoct a theory or at the very least add a new member to the ever expanding particle zoo. The ability to produce data (or more appropriately, noise) has been increasing exponentially and that has provided many avenues of "discovery."



Discovering new things in noise is not new – even economists and financial alchemists (some of them are Physicists) are able to do it. Robust patterns evolve from mountains of noise – helping scientists to discover particles, money managers to create alpha, economists to increase employment and statisticians to find drug effects. Noise is the most powerful attribute of modern world, full of data hunters and gatherers. Every hardware and software company has something to offer in this area – they will round up terabytes, cut, slice, dice and serve them on electronic platters before one could say, "trend." They will provide tools to analyze and conclude, regardless of the hypotheses. They will provide fire hoses to pump data at incredulous rates to store in warehouses of unimaginable depth. They will parallel process massively, string together supercomputers and even provide glimpses of quantum computing - to process noise at ever increasing rates.



A generation, who understands noise, but nothing else, has arrived – and they are nourished by every academic and scientific institution across the globe. In the process, they have killed the last remaining brain cell that was capable of conceptualizing without noise.

Flexible engineering

A recent article in Science 1 describes the creation of responsive materials, able to sense the environment and self-repair in the case of impending damage. This is an important notion for engineering, based currently largely on prescriptive designs and risk management by factors of safety. From nuclear power plants to solar cells and from toy cars to aircrafts, engineering design philosophy has been forecasting adverse future effects and counteracting them many times over, i.e. by applying large factors of safety. This has been a thoroughly inelegant approach, leading to inefficient designs in most cases and catastrophic failures during events that are not forecasted at design time.

The recent failure of the nuclear power plant infrastructure in Japan is a good example. The failure was not due to any component in the plant not being designed according to code – most had factors of safety many orders of magnitude than needed. It was due to a lack of flexibility – back-up systems requiring common inputs and showing similar design characteristics. The basic idea of forecasting events and counteracting them, always lead to designs that  likely fail under events not forecasted or when combination of events happen in a sequence that is not forecasted. Prescriptive engineering has been with us for so long that both the education systems and practicing engineers find it extremely difficult to shed the status-quo principles.

One attribute that will help revolutionize engineering design and make it relevant for the present is a new generation of materials that behave differently. If the function of the material is not to defend forecasted events but rather adapt to the environment in the case of future (and not forecasted) events, then flexibility (not prescription) will become the fundamental tenant in design. The basic principle of engineering design should not be assuring that failure does not occur in forecasted events but rather allowing sufficient flexibility to limit catastrophic failure by the presence of  redundant and uncorrelated systems and materials. Such a design, albeit being more redundant, will be substantially cheaper and lighter, as each component will be designed not to avoid failure but to adapt to uncertain adverse situations in an uncorrelated fashion.

The slumbering material scientists have left the design engineers holding tools from the last century. It is a mutual responsibility – they have to both wake up and smell the future.

1. Potential Solutions for Creating Responsive Materials, Karl Sieradzki

2. Flexibility : Flexible Companies for the Uncertain World http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781439816325

Regretful WIMP and the the dark wars

Just as it was becoming boring to swift through the data generated by the massive gun at CERN, looking for particles of all color, shape and hue, scientists at Chicago seem to have confirmed the existence of the ever elusive WIMP, in a deep corner in Minnesota. The WIMP, after all, is famous as it single-handedly advance the proposed dark theories – band-aids to fix observations that do not agree with the status-quo framework. The recent discovery that yet another dark cousin – dark flow – is needed to sufficiently explain the "tilt" of the universe, has only added to the prestige of such theories.

Not to be left behind, competitors have forcefully rejected such nonsense, based on the basic idea that any WIMP, not caught in their "net," cannot be a WIMP, at all. That is logic enough – after all physicists are mere humans – and catching a WIMP gives them immense pride and letting somebody catch it when they have been waiting for it, cannot be tolerated. It appears to be outright dark war – a race to prove or disprove the catching of the WIMP. Much energy is and will be spent on this and it will inspire the younger physicists to take on the sword and march proudly into the battlefields of experimentalism and shouting matches. In the process, not too many will ask the need for the WIMP to exist or what happens if yet another WIMP like entity shows up in somebody else's net.

The sluggish WIMP may already be regretting the path it has taken to Minnesota.

Forget and invent

Most studies in brain cognition and age focus on memory retention and  the ability to identify familiar objects and redo past activities. Although this is an important avenue of research, there may also be other areas of consideration. For example, brain plasticity – habits, knowledge and biases included – is a major hindrance to innovation. One of the primary reason innovation does not correlate with education is that higher levels of education constrains the brain significantly and reduces the degrees of freedom in thought. If the brain is able to shed some of the memories and habits, then it may be in a better position to innovate. Age, considered to be an encumbrance to innovation, could also provide a framework in which innovation can be jump started, if the brain can be shaken up a bit. So, memory retention and the ability to repeat activities, cannot be shown to be good in all cases.

There appears to be an inverted U relationship between time and the ability to innovate. Early on, the youth, sporting an elastic brain, find it difficult to innovate as they do not have sufficient information to do so. As they mature, there appears to be a critical juncture in which the brain plasticity has not yet set in and the individual has garnered sufficient information to extend and innovate. As they get older, plasticity dominates and they quickly lose the ability to further innovate. However, if the brain can be rendered elastic again – by selectively erasing habits and preferred corridors of thought, then there is a possibility that innovation can continue. In some cases, this can be much more effective as the older individual likely has a much more complex framework.

The stigma society attaches to the loss of memory results in huge investments targeted at reversing the phenomenon. Perhaps, it is useful to look into the beneficial effects of such loss of memory.

It's time

Time – a concept, most animals instinctively internalize but fail to comprehend – is likely the most abstract of notions, served up by Physics. At human scale, it points only in one direction but not so in other scales. At very large scale, it is involved in creating the mysteries of space-time and at very small, it is directionless. Time, thus, is a convenience afforded by systems of human scale but it is utterly irrelevant in any other. This is disappointing for humans could have had some fun with directionless time – journeying back and forth between the past and the future – just as quarks at quantum scale.



Time is a cost that humans pay – tick by tick – as they journey toward exhaustion, with no possibility of replenishment. Time is the backdrop of memories collected by humans as they move from the beginning to the end. Time brings pain and joy, erases feelings and creates history. Time, thus, is what is fundamental to human – as each is endowed with a pre-determined quantity with strictly controlled drainage rates. Time is a great equalizer as it has been shown to bring the kings to the fields and elevate the peasants to the heaven. Time is measureable but not changeable and it drives every system in the human body and the environment that surrounds it. Time is continuous with no undulations – it does not stop and it will not stop.



Time is a dream and it is not real for most of the universe.

Seeking guest bloggers

The blog – Ideas, Opinions & Speculation – is dedicated to the analysis of contemporary issues in science, economics, philosophy, humanities and policy. The readership is only about 100 per day but growing. It is followed by people in over 25 countries currently and thus has a universal appeal. I would like to open this up to a larger audience and the best way to do that is to allow a wider perspective provided by many different content providers. If you are interested in guest blogging here, please follow the guidelines below.

Register at www.decisionoptions.com  (registration link is on top/left). Then go to the "contact" section and provide your content in the email form. Include your email and full name. In the subject area, provide the title of your blog and in the message area, provide the content. The decision to publish the blog will depend strictly on the validity and the uniqueness of the content provided. Additionally, all content should adhere to the following principles:

(a) The subject matter is in the general area of science, economics, philosophy, humanities or policy.

(b) The analysis is objective and does not show political, cultural, country, religious, age, gender or language biases.

(c) No name of any person or company is mentioned, except in references, with clear attributions provided.

(d) The following format is used:

- The first paragraph provides the background of the subject matter including any references used

- The next 1, 2 or 3 paragraphs provide analysis and intermediate conclusions

- The last (short) paragraph summarizes the conclusion

- The length of the piece is less than 1000 words and 5000 characters.

If a decision is made to publish the content, the author will receive an email at his/her registered email account with a request of release for publication. The decision will only be to publish the content in its entirety or not. No modifications will be made to the original content. Only the email will be used to identify the author and so it is suggested that the author use a clear email – such as

Standardized diversity

A recent article in Science 1 celebrates human diversity across countries and cultures. It also showcases the need to understand deeply held and sacred beliefs to avoid misunderstanding behavioral differences. This makes sense. However, one could also think about diversity as a noise that is not fundamental to the human psyche. Modern humans arrived 30,000 years ago with clean and simple objective functions – maximization of food, shelter and reproduction, not significantly different from most other animals. That was a very short time ago in the scheme of evolution and the basic architecture of humans had very little time to change. Although the large brains sported by humans allow them to create complex behavior patterns that mask the basic objective function that drives them, it does not mean that humans have fundamentally changed. It is just the opposite – they are remarkably the same.

Diversity, thus, has to be put in the context. The observable diversity across the 7 billion human samples across the planet is skin deep. From a hardware perspective, the human genome is remarkably non-diverse, thanks to a bottleneck humans had to endure early on, that restricted homo-sapien population to a few thousands. They ballooned from a singular origin and a very small base. Most of the hardware diversity seen today by humans  – color of the skin, hair and eyes - takes so little a change in the genome, it is virtually undetectable to science. It should be noted that a large percentage of the world's GDP is wasted today on "protecting," and "nourishing" differences that are not detectable under a microscope.

On the software side, the diversity question is more complex. For example, languages currently show significant diversity from a linguistics perspective – but they all serve a singular purpose. Clothing and food show differences, but these are cosmetic. Religions and ceremonies show such small differences, it is amazing that people see them as different. Finally, belief systems, that most argue are different are based on common templates that are familiar to everybody. Humans are sophisticated animals clinging to the same ideas, that drive Carbon based life – from the mighty bacteria to the lowly worm.

There is little diversity among humans today – they are fundamentally driven by the same needs and they generally act the same way given the same initial conditions.

 

 

1. Explaining Human Behavioral Diversity, Ara Norenzayan

Death and renewal

Many cultures and religions celebrate death as a renewal process. Most use constructs that are highly precise – such as reincarnation and heaven. These may be useful to give meaning to a more abstract idea of renewal. At one level, renewal happens when the person's ideas and life improve the life of others, posthumously. There have been many instances in history in which only the passing of the individual brought a sharper focus on what he or she stood for. At another, it amalgamates and completes the individual's contribution – something akin to the completion of a book – something she has been working on for many decades. Contributions are unique to every individual and these include the memories she helped create, the associations she made happen and the institutions she helped develop. The documentation of these memories, catalyzed by the individual's passing, provides a valuable tool to teach and learn.

For most, the idea that the allocation of time is limited is a harsh truth to learn. As the minutes tick by, as one nears the exhaustion of the allocated quota of time, when a clear mind becomes a burden, one has to fall back on abstraction to close the final chapter. For, it is what one believes she has done that is more important than the noise that envelops the end. This belief is also unique to each individual – created and abetted by the environment – some by chance and others by design. Being true to a belief system helps make the eventual abstraction easier – as history unfolds with less noise. At the end, it is the individual herself, who defines what she stood for and how she nourished the people around her and how she utilized the tools given to her to impart happiness to those she cared for the most. As some strive for legacy, as if leaving an inerasable mark on humanity is somehow important, others simply fade away, measuring their actions against more tangible aspects. Neither is superior to the other.

Life is short but not shorter. The meaning of it is within the full control of those who are living.

The shocking truth

It has been clear for many that the best way to earn publicity and possibly wealth is by coming up with something utterly shocking. From the days of Nostradamus to those of Greenspan, shocking predictions held high value amid an unsuspecting public. Financial druids have been cooking up shocking predictions  for many decades now – infinite prices for oil, gold and even coal have been forecasted, coupled with an infinitesimally small value for paper assets that make up the stock market. Unfortunately, for this crowd, the limits of forecasts have been reached – infinite and zero -  many times over – and asset prices have shown no tendency to move to such extremes, to the disappointment of the forecasters and their followers. Modern Nostradami have been busy predicting wars, diseases, regime collapses and hyper-inflation in addition to the ever popular last drop of the black gold. Fortunately for the world (and for themselves), they never put their predictions into action.

Now, a retired engineer, who made "calculation mistakes," in the past, has topped them all. The prediction is nothing less than the end of the world and on a precise day, that is round the corner. You could almost hear a collective groan from the Mayan psyche, who had a slightly delayed prediction for the ending to the madness. What makes the current prediction a little different from the rest is that it is remarkably accurate – you could expect nothing less from an engineer. Nostradamus could be emulated, and has been by economists and hedge fund managers – as the predictions always lacked clarity and precision. Not so, for the predictions by engineers – who are almost always precise. Additionally, the "specification," has detail – it is clearly shown who will come to end it all and how He will save some and leave the rest. Such precision takes courage and that should cast doubt for the "non-believers," for the window to save themselves is narrowing as we approach the final days.

Those who take pride in the advancement of the human mind over the centuries, should pause and reflect. Are we moving forward or just sitting forward in a train that is moving backward?

Consciousness

A recent article in Science 1 describes how a conscious brain can be differentiated from another in a vegetated state using a neural signal. This moves the brain closer to artifacts familiar to humans such as the conventional computer chip. The response from a functioning chip to a predefined stimulus can be fully characterized and measured. If the expected response is not forthcoming or impaired, then the chip can be assumed to be non functional. This fits with the status quo but questions remain on a more fundamental issue – Do humans really understand or are they even capable of understanding, their own brains?

There have been many false starts in medicine, psychology and even in engineering in fully describing the functioning of the human brain. The problem appears to be the lack of a framework – that deviates from prescriptive expectations of a limited and known choice set. Status quo science is comfortable with hypothesis formulation and testing but this invariably means only a formulated hypothesis can be tested. Further, at any moment there are only a finite number of plausible hypotheses in any framework. This also means that most of the scientific energy is directed at incremental refinements of known hypotheses. This is an unavoidable problem in a stagnant framework.

There is yet another complication in the assertion of consciousness by prescriptive testing. If one argues that consciousness is a physical construct and can be broken down into components using status quo methods, that necessarily mean that the testing to prove its existence is at a component level. On the other hand, if consciousness is a holistic entity, that cannot be broken down into finite elements using status quo mathematics, then testing at that level is not useful. For example, if a computer chip produced unexpected or incorrect answers to a known stimulus, will that be sufficient to conclude that the chip is "bad?" Alternately, If the chip produced no response and a response was expected, will that be sufficient to conclude that the chip is dead?'

Humans, seem to have reached a plateau – that is sufficiently constraining. It is unclear we possess tools to make conclusions on phenomena that do not fit the norms – this include the brain's hardware and its software – including consciousness.

 

 

 

1. Preserved Feed forward But Impaired Top-Down Processes in the Vegetative State Science 13 May 2011: 858-862.