Gill Eapen's Blog, page 83

Experimental error

In most scientific disciplines, the prevailing process is to first create a hypothesis and then attempt to prove the implications of that hypothesis through experiments. This has been working in the past and most accept this as an effective process. For example, in Physics many point out that the many implications of Einstein's theory of relativity – such as black holes, gravitational lensing and the expansion of the universe itself – have been proved later by experiments. Thus, they argue that any theory that does not have experimental proof today cannot be rejected as proof could come later. Further, they argue that any theory with implications that do not show the possibility of designing a suitable experiment in the status quo framework cannot be rejected as the framework itself could shift in the future allowing hitherto unknown types of experiments.



In this context, science is a lot closer to philosophy and religion (most scientists hate to admit this), in that neither experimental proof nor the possibility of experimental proof are necessary for proposing a hypothesis. M theory, for example, stipulates the collision of membranes and the associated quantum disturbance as the cause of the origination of the present universe and many others. Sting theory has created such magical concoctions as parallel universes. The fact that experiments cannot be designed within the context of the status quo framework to prove or disprove their hypotheses, never deterred the imagination of modern scientists. Experimentalists, not to be overdone by the theorists, have taken the course of building bigger and bigger machines and feeding themselves with data, till they simply could not take any more. As they look at other branches of investigation such as religion and philosophy with immense contempt, scientists may want to step back and ask themselves if they are any different.



Mathematics has been helpful for those who had practical notions of theory such as Einstein. For contemporary physicists, it is a crutch as they plough forward with theories of no practical value. Incentives in the educational system for increasing the number of publications have created an orgy for mathematical manipulations of irrelevance. We have arrived at the doorstep of the next dark ages – where the "sophisticated," will destroy value by intellectualization.

Brain flexibility

Recent revelation that professionals involved in a board game show distinct brain patterns compared to amateurs, reinforces the general idea that brain specialization accompanies repetition and practice. It has also been speculated that such specialization is correlated with Alzheimer's disease. This poses an intriguing question whether brain specialization or lack of brain flexibility foretells Alzheimer's or similar diseases.

Exercise has been conclusively shown to be beneficial to cardio-vascular systems, evolved from the era of homo-sapiens hunting for food and water. During the same time, the use of the brain must have been more diverse than modern times – with danger hiding in every nook and corner – requiring creative interventions. Just as modern humans lack physical exercise they also lack mental exercise. This may be counter intuitive to some, who have asserted that the latest batch of humans hold more brain power than our ancestors. However, it is not the brain power that is at issue here – it is brain flexibility. In some sense, the "smarter" one is – high scores in exams, beneficial specialization and well laid out career track – the less flexible her brain is likely to be. Higher the specialization, the lower the ability to deviate from expected norms.

The best example of this deficiency can be seen in scientists and engineers – both generally consider themselves to be "brainy," and more importantly able to analyze and think rationally. However, such a process is too prescribed and thus it also locks them up in the prison of established notions – with their brains growing from specialization to specialization. Flexibility, is not the ability to think outside the box – it is the ability to recognize that the box may not exist. For many creative thinkers of today, the box has to exist and thus any "blue sky thinking" they may do is always in the context of the box.

Brain flexibility – a property that humans may have lost long time ago – may define their ability to transcend space and time. Incentives in today's world are structured for a higher specialization of the brain – a trait that may also limit us in many ways.

Lonely

A recent study demonstrates that loneliness is hazardous to health – with the cardiovascular, central nervous and immune systems affected. The study appears to have used the traditional definition of loneliness – lack of physical social contact. It is an interesting finding – one that most humans intuitively knew about. Humans, after all, have suffered much and the only thing that may have sustained them through such horrific pain is the social structure around them. Selection would have preferred those with social skills and here we are.

Many technology changes have played havoc with the slow moving selection process. Computers, for example, have redefined who is successful in a brutally competitive world – it is not the ability to run long distances or brutal strength anymore. Language and literature added another wrinkle with some able to literally "talk" their way through adversity. Later, religion and science will provide platforms to lift the inept and compensate for their lack of social skills. In this context, loneliness, may have to be fundamentally redefined. Many who are unable to seek and achieve physical social contact have created more efficient ways to do the same.

Evolution, however, is notoriously slow – it is simply unable to incorporate technology and philosophical changes into the human psyche. Most of such changes are purely software related but if the hardware designs cannot support them, it would not matter. This, indeed, appears to be the case. Humans, still, seek physical social contact and in spite of all the electronic gadgetry around them that technically give them infinite scope – remain lonely unless they can see and touch, the most primitive of communication systems. Till humans figure out how to tinker with the apparatus of evolution, technology cannot effect fundamental changes to primitive emotions. More importantly, the increasing gap between software and hardware is problematic for humans in the long run.

Options policy

In economics, an option is the right but not an obligation to do something in the future. Options, thus, provide flexibility to the owner and such flexibility enhances value. The scale and scope of available options, thus, is a measure of value for any system, individual or society. Optionality is a holistic metric that may substitute for a plethora of metrics currently used to measure individual happiness and societal utility.

For an individual, stress is fundamentally caused by lack of options. In any situation, an individual with options (i.e. with the ability to make a choice on her own) will be happier than somebody without options (i.e. outcomes imposed without choice). Societal designs without consideration of this basic fact are unlikely to be dominant. In other words, policy makers, even with complete information, may be unable to craft policies that maximizes societal utility.

It is highly unlikely that policy makers have complete information to make policy that will force each individual to make the best choice. Even if this is true, the incremental benefit to society from such a policy has to be compensated by the dis-benefit to the individual due to loss of options. Market based policies with maximum optionality provided to the individual are likely dominant in most cases.

Ref: Decision Options (http://tinyurl.com/dobook)

Ref: Flexibility (http://tinyurl.com/flexibilitybook)

Autoimmune crime

Eradication of diseases – the ones caused by external organisms – has been the primary focus of medicine in the first part of last century. However, in the last several decades the battlefield has significantly shifted to autoimmune diseases – the body attacking itself. In a curious way, this is analogous to the cold war regime shifting over to fragmented terrorism. In the cold war, the enemy was well defined and the "cure" was systematically designed. In the later case, it is a force within and conventional warfare simply does not work. The similarities are many fold – just as an incorrect immune response of the the biological system resulting in avoidable disease,  irrational crime and terrorism are seeded by blind policies. Medicine and foreign policy, indeed, are strange bed fellows. However, if they can get over the initial awkwardness, they can learn much from each other. Both are dealing with complex systems shifting from precisely defined enemies to attacks from within. Traditional processes and knowledge are going to be insufficient to deal with the new phenomenon.

One interesting question is whether complex systems are by definition, self destructive. If so, can such a phenomena be stopped or reprogrammed. Identification of the gene implicated in aging provided temporary excitement of the possibility of arresting the aging process. But if the tendency to self destruct is a property of complex systems – biological and societal – then such an approach that attempts to change the drivers of the process will not work. Aging in this case is an outcome and not a cause. Similarly, suboptimal immune response is an outcome and not a fundamental cause of disease. In the societal realm, thus, changing policies will not in itself alleviate the crime. A holistic understanding of what is driving the need for complex systems to self destruct is needed to effect a beneficial change.

One attribute of complex systems that need to be studied is how uncertainty affects behavior. Since most therapies and policy responses are conceived with deterministic assumptions, they are unable to consider the effect of uncertainty. Under uncertainty, complex systems may make incorrect decisions and this may appear self destructive. Increasing the flexibility of complex systems may be a way to fundamentally address this problem.

Ref: Decision Options : The Art and Science of Making Decisions   http://tinyurl.com/dobook

The curse of statistics

Statistics, incorrectly classified often as a branch of Mathematics, was born in the 17th century, matured in the 18th and raised hell in the 19th. It took firm hold in economics, engineering, policy and medicine in the last century and it single handedly ushered in an era of experimentalism and empiricism. Its influence on science and technology has been so high that it has successfully delegated abstract thinking to non-scientific status. Its influence on the scientific intelligentsia is so complete that for the past several decades, not a single theory or insight has emerged without the heavy use of statistics.

Hypothesis testing has become synonymous with the scientific process and education systems around the world are designed to inculcate the next generation with the basic belief that it is the fountain of knowledge – the more one imbibes, the smarter one will be. The more data one collects, analyzes, interprets and presents – the more likely that new insights will be created. Better and faster data collection machines are being built across all fields – from high energy physics to business management – based on the singular belief that the tamed dragon, statistics, has a growing appetite for data. Academics have whole heartedly accepted this as papers are manufactured by simply collecting data and feeding it to the statistics machine in the basement. The advent of computers exponentially increased the size and scope of data collection mechanisms, providing further boost to the statistical processes of discovery and invention.

At the heart of statistics is the beautiful bell curve – the shape of which is incredibly intoxicating to contemporary scientists. Granted, it has nice mathematical properties – but more importantly, it provides significant flexibility to prove hypotheses. It has remained remarkably loyal to anybody who wants to use it – to prove or disprove something. It has been the workhorse in the labs, factory floors, trading floors, atom smashers – any where a hypothesis can be created. Its use is so prevalent that even TV pundits cannot put two sentences together without sighting it. Policy makers everywhere are literally consumed by it as they cut, dice and stuff data to every accessible part of the remarkably well digesting bell curve, in an attempt to make the world a better place. It is truly the entity that drove humanity out of the dark ages and today, it is indeed the first required course in most pursuits of knowledge.

Where would humanity be today without statistics? Would we have failed to invent all the technological and medical gadgets that made life easier for some? Would we have remarkably reduced the number of academic publications of irrelevance?  Or would we have advanced humanity to a different level of understanding?

Beautiful mind

Ronald Coase's theory of the firm, now nearly 80 years old, is a great example of how timeless insights are generated by beautiful minds. Since then, in Economics, such leaps have happened only a few times. For nearly four decades, just as in many other scientific disciplines, no major insights have been forthcoming in this field. The ideas proposed by Coase have been so compelling that they serve as the only properties of the framework available today to probe the structure of firms.

Contemporary firms provide a vast array of experiments to test these ideas. The basic premise that firms exist to reduce transaction costs can be clearly seen in the industrial behemoths – where contracts among a multiplicity of participants are an important part of the firm. By entering into long term contracts, firms can reduce transaction costs and this perpetuates the formation and the growth of firms. The tradeoff – inefficiencies due to bureaucracy and incompetence – was insignificant compared to the scale based advantages early on. The advent of technologies such as the internet and the close integration of world economies have shifted this equation dramatically – smaller and innovative firms hold advantages that surpass the benefits from the reduction in transaction costs in larger firms. Ironically, large firms of today are clinging to this presumed advantages from many decades ago –  like a frog in a pot of water that is being slowly heated until it cooks the frog that never considers jumping out of it.

But, there are a few macro effects at work for larger firms today. In a regime of constant or declining demand, large and established firms can corner monopolistic power – aided by regulations and policies set by the governments that are lobbied by these firms. This is rampant even in economies that claim to be market based. The recent pronouncement that firms are people and should be afforded an equal access to the government is indicative of the importance of this in the US. In those countries, making the transition from planned and socialistic systems to market based systems, low level corruption plays an equally important role. For example, the large industrial behemoths in the BRIC countries grow larger and more profitable – not because of the internal structural advantages but their ability to influence policy at all levels of the government bureaucracy. The structure of the firms, thus, also reflects the characteristics of the policy bureaucracy that envelops them. Firms that lost the internal structural advantages but protected by government policies still make up a large percentage of the economy in both market oriented and non-market based economies.

These observations further reinforce the importance of fundamental and robust frameworks. Coase has provided a unique tool that has stood the test of time and it continues to be relevant for firms of all sizes and shapes across all policy regimes. In a world embroiled in complexity and mountains of data, it demonstrates the power of insights emanating from pure and beautiful thoughts.

The last system standing

Philosophers of all kinds have been generally skeptical of knowledge all through human history. The dominance of science in the last century seems to have dampened this philosophical inertia as the criteria of knowledge was weakened by acquisition processes such as empiricism and experimentalism. At the same time, the stratification of scientific knowledge was not only accepted but also preferred by those seeking it. The definition, acquisition and stratification of knowledge separate science from other avenues of knowledge exploration such as philosophy and religion that are still operating under holism.



The practical question is whether these approaches to knowledge seeking are mutually exclusive. If this is the case, it is possible that humanity may need to pick one and discard the others. If not, are there ways to combine them to move faster to higher levels of knowledge? Increasing complexity may have led all knowledge seekers to fall into the trap of a narrow and absolute definition of knowledge. In such a situation, science is at a disadvantage because of the lack of holism and the high level of existing fragmentation. On the other hand, alternative avenues such as religion have deteriorated to a point that knowledge seeking is not part of the status-quo regime.



Science may be ill-equipped to seek further knowledge as increasing complexity will force further fragmentation and specialization – leading to the level of knowledge showing an inverted U relationship with time on the X-axis. It is unclear where we are on this function but it is possible that we are close to the top and further exploration in this dimension will lead us down the knowledge curve rapidly.



Religion – adrift in confusion with knowledge seeking removed from its goals – is in no shape to be restarted. Although the holistic framework has been an advantage in its formulation, its contemporary practice has no semblance of it. Here again knowledge may show an inverted U relationship with time but we reached the peak many 1000s of years ago and are now rapidly falling.



Philosophy with a holistic but rational framework may be the only system that may get us further in knowledge. It has been languishing for many decades – not able to cope with the scientific and religious elite – both locked into their own worlds. This is perhaps the last system standing.

Resurrecting science education

The remarkable achievement of Aaron O'Connell in the first ever induction and measurement of the quantum effect at human scale brings to fore what is wrong with today's science – it is the systematization of science and engineering education by traditionalists. O'Connell's background, primarily in liberal arts and humanities helped him escape the exactness of scientific education – the one that produces mediocrity across the globe routinely. They start with Newtonian systems, and then graduate into the theory of relativity. Then they are taught to contrast their knowledge with the spooky world of quantum mechanics – as if this is the only way to learn. They specialize in one world or the other – some heading out to explain Physics through experiments and the other by exploration. They neatly segment observations into the micro and the macro – as if there is no need to connect them together. It is a lot easier to publish papers this way but that is not advancement of knowledge.



Systematization of education is the primary culprit in the decline of this generation and the next. Ironically, this problem is the highest in countries that proudly hold the raw statistics – number of graduates and the scores in standardized exams. What is ironic is that scores in standardized exams are not correlated with anything except the ability to take exams and the aptitude to excel in well structured education systems. The number of manufactured graduates does not mean anything – what is important is the creativity and the ability to think.



Graduate education in the US continues to lead the way for the rest of the world on this score. This is the only proven model and undergraduate and secondary education systems across the world (including the US) may want to rethink the status quo.

Don't blow your mind, yet

A recent article suggests that – alpha – a "fundamental constant" of the universe that pins down the strength of the electromagnetic field in contemporary theory – is not a constant.  Measurements in different directions appear to result in different values for alpha.This opens up a philosophical avenue of thought. If the findings are proven to be correct, it means that the laws of physics can only be known if the space-time coordinate of measurement is known. In other words – every constellation, every star system, every planet and every biological system has a different set of laws of Physics. On Earth you can take it one step further – every human, every brain and every brain cell – has its own set of laws of Physics.

For me, this is immensely satisfying. As the machine operators of particle accelerators fine tune their experiments to find members of the concocted particle zoo, as the theoreticians fine tune their equations by adding dark factors that escape physical explanations and as famous scientists declare everything that is worth knowing has been found, it appears that the rug has been pulled right out of their feet. We have an infinite number of "laws of Physics," – not one. It appears that the sheer human arrogance of theorizing based on local observations has taken yet another blow. More importantly, rigid scientific thinking and elitism that reject anything that does not fit into the current framework may need to be reevaluated. Ignorance is fundamentally superior to assumed knowledge and imagination is more valuable than prescriptive rules.

Don't blow your mind, yet even if you internalize that every cell in your brain has a different set of laws of Physics. I suspect, there is more to come – especially if the scientific aristocracy shun the well trodden path.