The (American) Center of the Universe, part 2

crimson

On October 5, 2020, I wrote a post talking about how, for me, the United States of America (USA) has a great deal of influence over my day-to-day life, despite my desire for this not to be the case. In that post, I suggested that my feelings about Donald Trump are mostly irrelevant to the state of affairs of the world, and especially the USA, as I am not an American citizen. As I said in that post “the American people will do what they think is best,” especially with regard to whom they select to represent them in the international arena. This past week has been particularly interesting and so I have decided to follow up my previous post.

For those of you who may not be aware (I am envious if you are such a person), on Wednesday, January 6, 2021 there was a riot at the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. This riot resulted in the breaching of the building by rioters, which has resulted in several deaths and what some regard as an attack on American democracy. As the current president of the USA (Donald Trump) essentially goaded the rioters on to perform this act, it has been suggested this is an attempted coup. Essentially, the incident could be a failed attempt by Trump to overthrow the existing government and install his own, of which he would be the supreme power in this new government. This is my interpretation of the incident. There are certainly others who would suggest different interpretations.

However this incident is viewed and interpreted, what I wish to focus on is something a little different. Yesterday, I happened upon an interesting comment on Reddit, suggesting that there should be a filter created to filter out all the USA focused news items from Reddit. Ironically, a quick search in Google suggests this isn’t the first time people have asked this sort of question. I’d like to briefly consider this simple request.

For me, especially in that I happen to live in the country which shares the longest border with the USA, it seems unlikely that I will ever be able to live my life without having to keep myself informed regarding the goings-on of the USA. Whether I like it or not, I kind of need to know what the president of the USA is doing, what sorts of decisions he is making, and what sort of leader he is. If nothing more, those around me will talk about “those crazy Americans” and educate me. I am also well aware that many Americans frequently seek asylum in the country I am in, particularly as affairs in the USA become more and more unpredictable. All things considered, to consciously attempt to ignore the sleeping giant next door would likely be taking a huge risk on my part. I need to keep on top of American affairs.

However, the country I am in represents less than one percent of the total world population. That is, collectively, all the people in this country who are in the same sort of situation as I find myself in, make up less than one percent of the total population of the world. Furthermore, the population of the USA itself makes up approximately four percent of the total population of the world. Combined, these two countries together make up less than five percent of all currently living humans on this planet. That is, less than one in every twenty human beings currently alive, lives in either the USA or Canada. This is a simple statistic, but what is its significance? Perhaps it would help if we had something to compare it to.

The population of China is currently about eighteen and a half percent of the total population, and is the largest country in the world in this regard. India’s population comes in second with just shy of eighteen percent of the total humans currently living. That is, just these two countries (who are also neighbors ironically) make up more than a third of the total world’s population. That is, more than a third (about thirty-six percent) of all currently living human beings are on pretty well the opposite side of the globe from the USA. What I find astonishing is how little I know about the affairs of China and India, when compared to the affairs of the USA, or even Canada.

The first reasonable argument that springs to mind as to why I would be more familiar with the affairs of the USA and Canada are their proximity to me. I live within Canada, and the USA is Canada’s closest neighbor. For this reason alone, it makes sense I should be much more familiar with the affairs of these two countries. It isn’t a question of size or percentage of the world’s population; it is simply a question of the human beings who are closest to me. It makes sense for me to need to know what is going on in these two countries, as opposed to China and India. However, this cannot be said for everyone.

The Internet (and all the various communications mediums that exist on it, including all the various social media channels) spans the whole world. Media channels, such as Reddit or Twitter, exist in Canada and the USA and China and India. So, one might expect that the percentage of material and data and news found on the Internet which is concerned with each of these countries might be proportional to the number of people who exist in each of these countries. One might anticipate that approximately five percent of all news items might be concerned with Canada and the USA, while approximately thirty-six percent would be concerned with China and India. But this clearly is not the case. Why not?

One reason I can think of is that my access to the Internet is not “unmediated.” That is, when I select my source for news, I tend to receive news that is more “relevant” to me. Putting this another way, the news I receive is focused on what is going on closer to where I am. As I am in Canada, I tend to get information and news about the goings-on in Canada. As the USA is Canada’s closest neighbor, I should expect that a significant amount of my information will be about the USA as well. And unfortunately, as China and India are pretty well on the opposite side of the globe from me, practically as far away as possible, their day-to-day goings-on will be less likely to make headlines for me. Thus, proximity seems a significant part of my experience.

But what about for others? What about people who do not live in Canada or the USA, or perhaps not even on the North American continent? Does an Internet user in China receive mostly Chinese news? And Indian mostly Indian news? Honestly, I do not know; I do not reside in those areas. I would like to think so, but seeing posts on Reddit where people are asking for filters to filter out USA news would seem to suggest this is not the case. That perhaps there is a disproportionately larger focus on the USA on media channels on the Internet.

Another possibility, especially with news media, is that more significant events tend to usurp more attention than less significant events. For example, this latest possible coup attempt by Donald Trump likely hit headlines the world over, simply because there was a potential overthrowing of a government in one of the larger countries in the world. One might expect there to be much more attention given in such a spectacular incident like the storming of one of the significant governmental buildings in such a country. Not so much because it is the USA, but simply because a country seems to be in turmoil. However, as the quick Google search suggested, people have been requesting a filter to filter out USA content for some time.

I suggest there is another possibility. Perhaps the issue isn’t with regard to the proportion of human beings in various areas of the world. Perhaps the issue is where the headquarters of the various media channels reside has more to do with the situation. For example, Reddit is “an American social news aggregation, web content rating, and discussion website,” with a headquarters in San Francisco, California, USA. Similarly, Twitter is “an American microblogging and social networking service” with headquarters in San Francisco as well. In fact, Google is “an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products” with headquarters in Mountain View, California. Even Wikipedia (which I clearly seem to favor) is “hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, an American non-profit organization” which lists it’s location as being in San Francisco, California once again. All of these media channels are clearly focused not only in the USA, but in a very particular area of the USA, which might suggest something of a bias regarding how those products are delivered.

Another possibility to consider is the sorts of people who have access to the Internet and who are able to present information on the Internet. What I mean by this is what I was suggesting earlier, when I suggest the Chinese might be receiving predominantly Chinese news and the Indians might be receiving predominantly Indian news. Just because there are more humans in China does not automatically suggest that all of those Chinese people have Internet access and are adding material to the Internet. In fact, something that I often have to remind people in my own community is that not everyone in Canada has Internet access either. There are a lot of people in this country who cannot afford Internet access, or who live in locations where Internet access is challenging to offer.

What I am suggesting in this last point is something like a self-selection bias. Those who contribute to the content available on the Internet clearly must have access to the Internet in the first place. Thus, the knowledge and information that is shared on the Internet is already biased toward those who have Internet access. The opinions and ideas of people who do not have Internet access is going to be underrepresented on the Internet.

It reminds me of an old discussion I had with people many years ago regarding which Operating System (OS) on a computer was most user-friendly. That is, which OS was easiest for people to use, and which was more challenging. We were arguing between Microsoft Windows, Apple MacOS, and various distributions of linux. It was generally believed that Windows was the most user-friendly, with MacOS being still pretty friendly but not as friendly as Windows, and linux being entirely unfriendly. What was often dismissed was that all the people we were considering were people who both used computers somewhat regularly, and who had generally been brought up on Microsoft Windows based computers. The significant point is this: if an individual has spent most of their lives using Microsoft Windows, but very little time using either MacOS or linux, we would expect they would be quite familiar with how to use Microsoft Windows products, as they will generally operate in similar ways. A person who used Windows 95 is likely to find Windows 98 to be fairly easy to use, similtarly with Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 10. Yes, there have certainly be significant changes throughout the years, but one can generally still expect there to be a little graphic in the lower-left corner of the screen that they can click to present themselves with a menu to select applications to launch.

A similar argument applies if the individual had been brought up using an Apple Macintosh computer. For them, they’d expect to click on the top-left of their screen, instead of the bottom-left. Those who had been brought up in linux tended to be much more versatile in this regard, as linux does tend to be quite flexible and versatile in this regard, with their menu potentially being wherever they want to put it. The point here is not to focus too hard on some sort of absolute trait of “user-friendliness” without first recognizing that an individual’s past history with computers will play a significant role in what they find to be “easy” and what they find to be “challenging.” Or, to formalize this a little, it is all about what Simone de Beauvoir referred to as “situation.”

Bringing this back to the discussion of what sort of content to expect to find on the Internet, if most of the people on the Internet have been brought up with certain tools and data, they are likely to continue to preference those same tools and data as time progresses. Furthermore, if people are constantly bombarded with certain cultural choices constantly, then they are likely to slowly fall into those same choices as time progresses. As the most simple example of this that I myself am guilty of right now, this blog is written in English. (I honestly do apologize to all those out there who speak other languages for forcing you to read this blog in this dreadful language. The fact that it is the only language I happen to speak fluently is not a good excuse either.)

So where does this leave us? Many (perhaps most) of the media channels being used by many people on the Internet are “living” in the USA. These mediums are USA based, were likely predominantly used by Americans in their infancy, and are to this day predominantly controlled by USA interests. As a non-American, I have sometimes found reading the end-user agreements somewhat amusing when they have made reference to American laws, rules, and other regulations which do not apply in the country I reside. There is no “First Amendment” to protect my “Freedom of Speech” in this country, though we do happen to have a “Freedom of Expression” to fall back on. Certainly similar, but not quite the same. And also worth note is that not all countries have such rules.

This all brings us back to the original point. The USA is not the center of the universe. It never has been, nor will it ever be. It is incredibly frustrating for many people (arguably most people in the world) when it is even hinted that such things are true. For me personally, I have to acknowledge a fair bit of prejudice and privilege to the USA as a result of my particular situation, but my situation is not everybody’s situation. I recognize that for someone in China or India, for example, the affairs of the USA may be the furthest thing from significance for them.

One last thing I feel it important to mention in all of this, that I hear being screamed in the back of my head by a familiar audience member: but the USA has “the nukes.” This argument suggests that the reason the Americans hold so much sway and influence over so much of our world is directly related to the fact they happen to have weapons of mass destruction, and arguably more than any other country on this planet. This is an argument of oppression; the USA is somehow justified in oppressing the rest of the world because the rest of the world could be harmed if they do not let the USA do as it pleases. While this may be true (that the USA could deliver great harm upon a great many people if it decided to utilize its weapons of mass destruction), this amounts to bullying. And as even the Americans know very, very well, one of the first strategies of dealing with bullies is to stand up to them.

“My” Wife

crimson

There are always so many things to talk about. Some topics I consider to be critically important and significant, and yet somehow I forget to talk about them. This will be one of those topics.

In our heteronormative world, when I talk to people about my partner in life, I refer to her as “my wife.” Those two words come preloaded with a plethora of meanings and ideas, most of which I do not intend. Today, I will talk about the first word, and why it is so problematic, especially for me.

The word “my” is an English word that is frequently used to elicit an understanding of ownership, possession, and even dominance. For something (or someone) to be “mine,” I am expected to have some sort of control over it. Unfortunately for me, this is the furthest thing from my intent. This fact is an issue with me that I struggle with, as I instinctively drop the word “my” frequently for many purposes. I will share with you why I have so much trouble with this word.

Let us first consider possession. To possess something means that I have some sort of control over that something. For example, at this moment, I possess this keyboard, in that I control it’s position in space and time. I grasp the keyboard and can move it around. And at this moment, I have placed it upon my lap in order to press on the keys, which is how I am typing this post. I possess this keyboard. It is my keyboard in this sense.

Possession, it seems to me, is a state, like being happy or angry. The keyboard is in the state of being possessed by me. This suggests that it can very easily cease to be possessed as well. If I place it on the table in front of me, and I walk away, I no longer possess the keyboard. The keyboard is no longer in my control. I can return, grasp the keyboard, and again I will possess it. But while I leave it unattended on the table, I do no possess it. It could certainly be argued that I still possess the keyboard, as it would be very difficult for others to come to possess it while it remains inside “my” home. Thus, in some sense, I still have some control over the keyboard, and so perhaps I still possess it even when it is unattended.

However, when the keyboard is unattended on the table, the idea (I think) most have regarding the keyboard’s state is not possession, but something else that is related: ownership. I own the keyboard, even when it is unattended. In this way, they keyboard is “mine” once again. Ownership, unlike possession, is much more difficult to clarify. With possession, an object (or person) can easily be taken away from me, such that I will no longer possess it. Someone could come into the room presently and take the keyboard off my lap and hold it outside my reach. In that case, I no longer possess that keyboard. But I may still own the keyboard.

Ownership, it seems to me, is more of an agreement than a state of affairs. An agreement between myself and others. To say that I own the keyboard, it is not necessarily I who makes the claim, but others. If those around me agree that the keyboard belongs to me, then I own the keyboard. However, if those around me decide that the keyboard does not belong to me, they will not agree with me that I own the keyboard. In fact, if others decide that the keyboard does not belong to me, they are likely to decide to take the keyboard away from me entirely. I would no longer possess nor own the keyboard in that situation.

Then there is dominance. Dominance, as I see it, is the idea of enforcement. To dominate an object is to force upon that object my possession, and possibly my ownership, over it. If I grasp the keyboard tightly and try to prevent others from taking it away from me, I am expressing a dominance over the keyboard. Whether I am successful with my dominance or not will be revealed with time, whether I continue to possess the keyboard or not. Dominance can lead to or strengthen ownership and possession. I can take actions that ensure that the object in question will remain under my control, despite the attempts of others to remove the object from my possession. This is, in some sense, where the idea that “ownership is nine tenths of the law” comes from. If I practice dominance over an object, and others are unable (or unwilling) to contradict my dominance over the object, then its remaining in my possession is a sort of acknowledgement of ownership. That is, others are forced to agree (on some level) that the object belongs to me, as they are unable to remove it from my possession.

All this talk sounds pretty elementary when applied to objects, but the ideas become much more pronounced when applied to conscious entities, especially people. I have a pet rabbit. I am considered the owner of the rabbit, in that I have some sort of control over it. If the rabbit does something inappropriate, I am the one held responsible for his actions. It would make no sense to hold me responsible for the actions of the rabbit, unless I had some sort of control over the rabbit. However, in order for me to convince the rabbit to submit to my desires, I would need to express a dominance over the rabbit. My dominance may take on any number of forms, so long as the end result is that the rabbit does as I desire it to do.

This way of seeing the relationship applies just as well with people. I can own a person, so long as those around me agree that I am the owner of the person. Furthermore, I am going to have to express some sort of dominance over the person in order to convince them to submit to my desires. I have to have some control over them, in order to be considered the owner of them. This, if it is not obvious, is a description of slavery. While I would like to think that we have, in our modern times, abolished slavery, I know through observation that this is most certainly not the case.

I have a partner in this world. Another person whom I hold dear. Another person whose projects I value and attempt to assist in finding successful completion of. This other person is one of the people in this world that I consider to be a full conscious entity, full of freedom just as I also possess. While at times I know that I could dominate her and try to control her, I spend the better part of my time trying very hard not to control her in any way. I admit I have varying degrees of success with this, but I do try. Part of the challenges I encounter in my attempts come from those around me in society. You see, as part of our relationship, we decided to marry.

I would argue that even were we not to marry, those around us would still consider our relationship in the same way as I am about to describe. However, in that we are married, I suggest that it reinforces the perceived nature of our relationship. In a heteronormative relationship, where a man is with a woman, it is considered to be the case that the man (in some way) owns the woman. As ownership is decided upon not by the owner or the thing owned, but by those around the owner, it is decided by society that I own my wife, in some way. Try as I might, it is not entirely up to me whether I have control over her. I can choose not to express a dominance, I can choose not to force her to submit to my desires; however, as I support her freedom and her projects, I sometimes end up supporting her submission to me regardless. It is a very complicated scenario, having been developed and reinforced for centuries through various traditions that came about long before I was ever conceived. The term often given to this complicated system of traditions and rules is patriarchy.

This all brings us back to the term “my.” To call her “my” wife is to, in some way, acknowledge that I have some level of dominance over her. In fact, my use of “my” is probably an expression of dominance itself. As much as I would prefer to believe that I only call her “my” wife to distinguish her from the other women out there who are committed to other heteronormative relationships with men, the truth is that those words are still conveying an idea, whether I like it or not. In truth, my only recourse to correct the situation is to not ever refer to her as “my” anything, and simply call her by her name at all times.

Tenet and Flowing Upstream

crimson

Before I begin, I must warn my reader that I will be discussing specific details of the film Tenet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenet_(film)). Thus, if you have not seen this film yet, you may want to avert your eyes and wait to read this blog post until after you have. Or, if you are like me, you can proceed; but then you will have to deal with the consequences that some aspects of this film will no longer be a pleasant surprise for you.

!!! SPOILER WARNING !!!

Do you feel sufficiently warned yet? Good. Let’s proceed with the post.

Tenet is a time travel movie, sort of. It is a time travel movie, however, it does not deal with time travel in the manner that most will be familiar with. Most stories about time travel have characters that travel instantaneously from one point in time to another point in time. At the beginning of their journey, the character ceases to exist at the particular place and at the particular time they were, and instantaneously come into existence at the new particular place and particular time of their destination. This is something of a hard break typically, where I generally expect a sonic boom as their atoms are removed from one place, causing a vacuum whereby the surrounding air quickly seeps in to fill the voided space. Furthermore, there ought to be something like a sonic boom at the destination as the atoms that were in the place where the character arrives must be pushed out of the way quickly in order to make room for the character to arrive successfully. Ironically, I would expect something similar to this in the cases of teleportation, as is utilized in stories such as Star Trek.

Of course, all of this “sonic boom” business can be alleviated if one suggests that instead of the process only occurring in one direction, it instead occurred in two. That is, the object (or character) that is travelling in time is actually swapping places with a similar object at the destination. The character might move back in time to occupy a space that was previously occupied by a volume of air, and that air may be moved forward in time to occupy the space that the character formerly occupied. A swapping of atoms. While this process would clearly be asymmetric (that is, the mass of the character is clearly much greater than the mass of the air; similarly with the number of atoms), it would at least account for the lack of vacuum found on the beginning side, and the excess of atoms on the destination side. No need for a sonic boom now.

I dwell on this issue for a reason; in Tenet, instead of instantaneous travel, the travelers are simply shifting direction of flow. That is, while under normal circumstances an object will flow “forward” in time, other objects (that the story refers to as “inverted” objects) are flowing “backward.” This is presented simply through the reversal of the film reel. That is, the film scene is played in reverse. It is a trick of the medium, and nothing terribly new or innovative. If most objects in our universe are sliding through time in one direction, what if other objects in our universe happened to be sliding in the opposite direction? It would raise big questions regarding what it means for an object (or person) to age. Instead of a rock wearing down over time through erosion, that same rock, if inverted, would somehow be slowly gaining size and mass through the ages from the very same process. It is an incredibly compelling question to ask.

If that isn’t enough to confuse the audience, there is one more thing to consider. As not all objects are sliding through time in the same direction, what happens when two objects conflict? That is, if one object is sliding forward and another backward, what if they both intend to occupy the same space at the same time, through their respective journey’s through time? The film has an answer to this, sort of. It is suggested that “the world” is sliding in the forward direction, hence why we are all familiar with the forward flow of time (one might suggest that is why we consider it the “forward” direction as well). Objects that are sliding in the opposite direction than the world are “swimming upstream,” that is, they are fighting against the “normal” flow of time against the bulk of the objects they will encounter. If all this is true, then one would expect that the forward sliding objects would overtake the backward sliding objects.

Unfortunately, this isn’t really good enough. You see, if most objects are moving with the world, flowing through time in the forward direction, then that will include all the air and other atoms that we may often take for granted. The film does touch on some of these less often considered objects by emphasizing that inverted people need to breath inverted air, but the reason given has to do with the permeability of the lungs’ membranes to absorb air that is flowing through time in the “wrong” direction. In order for the lungs to operate correctly, they must absorb air that is flowing through time in the same direction. This is touching on the idea that those objects sliding through time in the opposite direction will not behave as expected.

There is further discussion on this point as the film suggests that inverted fire is incredibly cold, instead of being incredibly hot. That the wind that would normally be at your face will instead be at your back. That friction itself will “feel weird,” especially when trying to drive an inverted car. It seems that the nature of the universe itself is operating in the opposite way we might expect while we are inverted. It would require me to spend a lot of time on each individual characteristic to discuss what makes the most sense in this circumstance, so I will leave this exercise to the reader to pursue, if they so desire. For now, I will focus on one aspect, which I’ve already been alluding to: the occupation of space.

I return to the question of objects moving through time in opposite directions. To help with this, I will talk about objects that are moving in opposite directions in space, but in the same direction in time. This is a situation that I have a lot of experience with. Anyone who has taken a high school level physics class should be familiar with the many experiments with billiard balls bouncing off each other. If one ball is moving while the other is stationary, and if they hit each other at just the right angle, the energy from the moving ball is transferred to the stationary ball completely. That is, the moving ball becomes stationary, while the stationary ball starts moving. In essence, the balls swap their motions and energies. The ball that was moving gives its energy and motion to the other ball, while the stationary ball gives its lack of motion and energy to the formerly moving ball.

Taking this example further, if both balls are moving in opposite directions, and assuming they collide with each other just right, they will again swap their respective energies and motions. It is worth noting here that the transfer is not complete in any of these cases, as there is a loss due to friction and heat and other generally ignored effects. So the two balls will bounce and then move away from each other at roughly the same speeds as we might expect. This is how objects moving in opposite directions in space, but the same direction in time, behave.

Now for a much more controversial analysis. Let us consider objects moving in the opposite directions in space and the opposite directions in time. If the two objects are moving at the same rate, both in space and in time, then we would expect them not to ever touch. That is, as they are moving in opposite directions, both in space and in time, then they are in fact moving in the same direction at the same rate relative to a single observer, in whatever direction the observer happens to be travelling through time. This example is not terribly helpful to the answering of my initial question, but helps me orient myself. I have to keep in mind that objects sliding through time in the opposite direction are in fact moving in the opposite direction than I might initially expect.

So then, the example I need to consider is of two objects moving in the SAME direction in space but opposite directions in time. These two objects are now on a collision course due to how they end up operating through their flow through time. And once again, we are struck with how they will resolve such a collision. The first, simple possibility is that the two objects are in fact the same object, simply viewed in two very different ways. If that were the case, then there would not be a collision, as the object is itself the same, and can certainly occupy the same space as itself at the same time, regardless of the direction of the flow of time. If this were the case, then problem solved. However, the issue at hand is that the two objects are not identical with each other.

Our situation, put simply, is the fluid of our world (the air in our atmosphere) flowing in the forward direction of time (as it is with and part of the world), colliding with the solid inverted objects of the film, which include the characters themselves. The characters, quite literally, are fighting against the current in order simply to occupy the space that the air has already claimed. As the movie demonstrates to us, the characters succeed in occupying the space, and thus the air must have failed in that battle. The air was either pushed out of the way, or is annihilated. Of course, in the wake of the inverted characters’ movement, there is no sonic boom, and so air must also be generated on the other side if the air that loses the former battle is annihilated. It would seem that the air has likely behaved in the fashion we might normally expect, assuming it was encountering an object that was flowing through time in the same direction as we are used to. The air, was pushed out of the way, flowing through time in its usual forward direction, but redirected through space around the inverted object. At least, this is what the film tells us.

Ultimately, the problem the audience has in the entire story, is how to understand the boundary between the normal objects and the inverted objects. When normal objects make contact with normal objects, everything behaves as we expect. And when inverted objects make contact with inverted objects, again, we understand what must happen. However, when normal and inverted objects make contact, it is not entirely clear what to expect. An inverted fire draws the heat energy out of the surrounding normal objects, while radiating energy upon the surrounding inverted objects. Inverted wind is simply air moving in the opposite direction, thus you feel it at your back if it might normally be in your face, assuming you are normally oriented and not inverted yourself. This point about wind is possibly the most telling.

Perhaps the intent is that the inertia of objects remains the same, regardless of the flow of time of the object. That is, air is air, whether it is normal or inverted. My solid body pushes air out of the way, whether the air is flowing in the same direction through time as I am, or whether the air is flowing through time in the opposite direction. In both cases, the air is displaced by myself. Of course, solid objects colliding with other solid objects becomes a bit more complicated again. When the protagonist ends up fighting his inverted self, the precise manner in which each blow is landed seems counter intuitive. The inverted fighter is not throwing punches, but is instead catching them, healing injuries that they seem to have no intention of creating. This might be true of the inverted protagonist, not actually wanting to cause harm to himself, but what about the characters in the battlefield during the film’s climax?

Tenet is a very interesting story. It raises a lot of questions regarding how time might operate by pressing our current flow of forward moving time against several objects moving through time in the opposite direction. This, of course, is where the great apocalyptic event that is foreshadowed at the beginning takes its shape from. However, if one takes all these things seriously, the story reveals its end at its beginning. After all, there is a world beyond when the final battle takes place, therefore the mission to prevent the apocalypse will definitely succeed. If it had failed, then there would be none of the future events that take place throughout most of the movie.

Finally, there is one other rather significant detail that is revealed in the story that does not seem to weigh on many people’s minds: free will. According to this story, it does not exist. At least not the sort of free will that many would have you believe makes humans unpredictable. Everything in the film that will happen, has already happened. Events are tied together in a complicated Möbius strip. The world is purely and completely deterministic. And if our world really is that way, then either Stephen Hawking is correct, and there is no time travel, or time travelers in the future are simply not interested in what we consider to be one of the most brilliant minds of our time.

Fun Stuff

crimson

This past week I have spent a fair bit of time on “research” into my topic. By “research,” I am referring to viewing a lot of related material on YouTube and in fiction. More specifically, I watched the recent film “Tenet,” while also reading and reviewing material to help me better understand the film. I want to discuss the film in detail, but I think I will save that for the next blog post. In this one, I would like to share some of the material that I enjoy that helps me to understand the topics I write so much about.

In this post, I am going to share with you some of my favorite YouTube channels. The content creators of these channels do, what I consider to be, fairly good research into the topics they discuss. But more importantly, these creators raise very important questions and get me thinking about ideas I might not previously had thought about. The first on this list must be CGP Grey. His channel can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/greymatter/about

I admit I do not know a lot about the person behind this channel personally, but clearly by the sorts of topics he chooses, and by the way he tackles those topics, he is the sort of individual I tend to gravitate towards. My favorite video of all time, both on YouTube and probably on the Internet as a whole is his video entitled “The Trouble with Transporters” (https://youtu.be/nQHBAdShgYI). He begins by discussing the fictional technology of teleporters from the Star Trek series of stories, but that discussion quickly leads into very profound questions regarding the mind, the soul, and consciousness itself. Ultimately, it is his possible conclusion at the end of the video that best describes my belief regarding how consciousness might actually work. Of all the videos I try to encourage people to watch, this is always at the top of my list.

Also by CGP Grey is a video entitled “You Are Two” (https://youtu.be/wfYbgdo8e-8), where he discusses the discoveries made during the now very controversial, and even unethical, split brain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain) experiments from the 1950s and 1960s. I would emphasize here that what is considered ethically appropriate is a bit of a moving target, so those who performed these experiments were (during their time) not necessarily doing anything wrong; they were in many cases simply trying to help their patients live better lives. However, in the present day, in the part of the world where I live, it is considered very unethical to perform experiments upon humans, let alone human brains. Unfortunately, this sort of limitation presents key problems for the sort of research I might like to perform, as (it is my belief that) only through the experimentation on human beings can we ever truly hope to understand how something like consciousness actually works. This video is often the second video I encourage people to view.

CGP Grey has presented on many interesting topics, including some more recent videos about tumble weeds (much more interesting than you might think), but there is another creator that I need to shift to now: Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell (https://www.youtube.com/c/inanutshell/about). Ironically, they too created a video related directly to CGP Grey’s split brain video, entitled “What Are You?” (https://youtu.be/JQVmkDUkZT4), where they continue the discussion. This video is definitely worth watching, especially if you watched CGP Grey’s part of the discussion. However, Kurzgesagt’s library of videos dwarf’s CGP Grey’s. I suspect this is because Kurzgesagt may have a much larger team of people working on these videos.

The first Kurzgesagt video I usually recommend to people is their video entitled “Optimistic Nihilism” (https://youtu.be/MBRqu0YOH14), probably because it expresses the world view that I happen to hold. Specifically, the video is presenting the idea that there is no inherent meaning or value in the world, and so we (as conscious entities) are responsible for creating meaning and value in this world; that this responsibility is something to rejoice about. I would argue that the title of the video is a bit misleading, as nihilism is the viewpoint that there is no meaning or value, period, whether intrinsic or otherwise. For a nihilist, I cannot assign meaning, because my attempting to do so fails at the outset. There simply is no meaning in anything, period. The video might better be entitled “Optimistic Existentialism,” as the Existentialists probably more closely presented a viewpoint consistent with the ideas the video is proposing. For an Existentialist, such as Simone de Beauvoir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_de_Beauvoir), what makes humans unique in the world is their ability to generate meaning and value in a world that would otherwise be void these things; that the world has no intrinsic meaning, and our freedom (or free will) is precisely what makes the generation of meaning and value possible. For Beauvoir, this idea leads into ethics, suggesting that how humans ought to behave is in such a manner as to support the freedom of those around themselves, allowing for everyone an opportunity at meaning and value generation. This, I admit, is my interpretation of Beauvoir’s ideas, especially from her work “The Ethics of Ambiguity” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ethics_of_Ambiguity).

Other videos by Kurzgesagt, that I consider noteworthy, include: “The Origin of Consciousness – How Unaware Things Became Aware” (https://youtu.be/H6u0VBqNBQ8), a discussion on consciousness itself; “Emergence – How Stupid Things Become Smart Together” (https://youtu.be/16W7c0mb-rE), a discussion on how consciousness might possibly come about; and “What Happens If We Throw an Elephant From a Skyscraper? Life & Size 1” (https://youtu.be/f7KSfjv4Oq0), the first part of a series that gives serious thought to the significance of the size of things (what I have often referred to as “scope”). These videos are the sort I enjoy, but Kurzgesagt does plenty of videos about virtually anything, including Universal Basic Income (https://youtu.be/kl39KHS07Xc), ants (https://youtu.be/cqECNYmM23A), and even Dyson Spheres (https://youtu.be/pP44EPBMb8A).

I have to admit, aside from the rather deep topics these channels choose to discuss, I am also smitten with their animation styles. As one who is frequently minimalist in nature, their generally simplistic animations (I believe) really allow for their discussions to shine through without being impeded by fancy special effects in order to attempt to convey the sometimes challenging ideas. This leads me to the latest channel that I have recently discovered that I will now share with you: minutephysics (https://www.youtube.com/user/minutephysics/about).

Honestly, it is strange to me not to have stumbled upon minutephysics sooner, as they have created videos about many of the things I’ve been discussing in this blog for a while. For example, my lengthy discussion regarding how time is an inconsistent measure, synchronized to the irregular idea of a day is presented much more succinctly in just over three minutes in his video entitled “Why Some Days Aren’t 24 Hours” (https://youtu.be/Vxz6nNqpDCk). I’ve only just discovered this channel, but I expect there are plenty more interesting videos for me to watch, and I will view them in the coming days, weeks, months, etc.

The first video that I watched by minutephysics was “Solution to the Grandfather Paradox” (https://youtu.be/XayNKY944lY), which is an honest to god solution to a paradox. (Actually, as he suggests, it is a proof suggesting that the Grandfather Paradox is not a paradox at all, as there is a reasonable solution to the problem, so long as you have some familiarity with Quantum Superposition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition). While I expect some might want to dispute this claim, I find his solution both elegant and thought provoking. Essentially, he is thinking outside the box, using quantum physics in order to try and resolve issues that may otherwise be considered unresolvable. In truth, until we are able to time travel, in order to test out such theories, this is all speculative at best. However, this is clearly an excellent attempt at resolving a very complicated problem, without simply throwing one’s arms into the air and giving up. Another interesting solution to another paradox is “Complete Solution To The Twins Paradox” (https://youtu.be/0iJZ_QGMLD0), where he suggests the answer lies in understanding the rotation of time.

It is in this last video that we come full circle. Toward the end of the video, he briefly discusses the relativistic effects behind flying a plane around the Earth, moving in the direction of rotation, while carrying an atomic clock. This, is clearly a reference to the Hafele–Keating experiment from 1971 that I discussed in my previous two posts. Realizing this, I simply had to continue investigating this YouTube channel, and why I am presently sharing this all with you today. Put simply, I am clearly not the only person who has had these thoughts that I have, and people much smarter than I am have been considering these questions for a very long time. I am not alone.

The results of these various discoveries has led me to the realization that in order to coherently speak on the topic of time, I will require much, much more education. In fact, I honestly believe that if I am to have any hope of answering my initial question, I will need to enter into the field of quantum physics proper. Coupling my understanding of philosophy and computers with quantum physics just might make it possible to really answer these sorts of questions. On the other hand, I may simply find a more creative solution to a paradoxical problem, but I’d be okay with that too.

In my next blog post, I plan to discuss the film Tenet in more detail. I will consider what the film is suggesting about time and space, and show how the film suggests there is no such a thing as freedom at all. And, as I will reiterate in that post, there will be spoilers for those who have not yet seen the film.

Admitting my Weakness

crimson

Before I begin, I need to address an issue with my blog. I’ve essentially turned off comments to my posts. It is not because I don’t take criticism well. It is due to the ongoing frustrations I have been having regarding unsolicited bulk messages. It really does astonish me the sorts of bots people program in order to perpetrate various agendas. Actually, I really should not be surprised at all, seeing as given the opportunity and incentive, I too might be inclined to write similar bots. That all said, in order to combat this issue, my audience will no longer be able to comment directly to my posts. So I am offering an alternative.

I will let my audience know that they can reach me if they send an Email message to an address that is constructed by taking the name I used for these posts (also known as the “author”), and combining it with the domain of this blog (this does NOT include the “www.” portion, simply the “crimsoncyb.org” portion), placing the “at” symbol in the appropriate location to form a well formed Email address. Confused? I apologize, but I’m not going to make it any clearer, lest another bot will be able to form the address successfully.

Thus, having successfully generated the appropriate address, you may feel free to send me an Email message and comment all you want. Actually, there is the added bonus that you can simply communicate with me in any manner you like, beyond simply commenting on a post. I will be at your disposal, in a sense. If you like. It is up to you. I don’t receive a lot of actual feedback on this site, so I figure this is safe. Now, on with the blog.

In my last post, I indicated I would read about the Hafele–Keating experiment from 1971 in order to try and elucidate anything about time in itself. Unfortunately, after reading through the information (at least briefly), I realized that in order to properly address the experiment and its results would require me to first earn a degree in relativistic physics. I have merely a lay understanding of Einstein’s theories, and so I am less than qualified to really critique what is going on and how accurate the results may or may not be. And I refuse to simply refer vaguely to the argument that “because science” is the answer.

Instead, I will very briefly review what I do know happened in this experiment, and comment to the implications of the results. Very briefly, atomic clocks were placed on a couple of aircraft. Those aircraft were flown at a specific known altitude above the Earth’s surface in opposite directions, one flying in the direction the Earth is rotating, and the other against the direction of rotation. A third atomic clock is left on the surface of the Earth, as a reference. The clocks are synchronized at the beginning of the experiment. At the end of the experiment, the times are compared. It is found that the times on these three atomic clocks differ by amounts that (within a margin of error) suggest a confirmation with Einstein’s Theories of Relativity, or to be more accurate, with the theory of general relativity as combined with the theory of special relativity. I leave it up to the reader to pursue their own education into these rather heady topics if they so desire.

In layman’s terms, the idea is that the plane flying in the direction that the Earth is rotating is moving faster than an object that is “stationary” on the Earth’s surface (because that “stationary” object is moving the same speed as the Earth is rotating, because it is stuck to the surface). The other plane, flying in the opposite direction is moving more slowly than an object that is “stationary” on the Earth’s surface. The significance (according to Einstein) is that those objects that are moving more quickly will experience a slowing down of time, as compared to the slower moving object. That is, if we stand as an outside observer, and suggest that our experience of time is some sort of absolute reference, then we will find that the faster an object is moving, the less time it will experience as compared to us. For example, if I am “stationary” and you are moving at a very high speed (perhaps because you are travelling to another star), where I might experience ten years of time passing for me, you might only experience one year of time passing for you. Even in layman’s terms, this is still pretty heady stuff.

Einstein suggested that as one approached the speed of light, their experience of time would slow to virtual stopping. Essentially, if one could actually achieve the speed of light, time for that person would stop altogether. Hence why he considered it a barrier to the speed of objects. Furthermore, there was another element of this theory that suggested that objects also gained in mass as they approached the speed of light, achieving an infinite mass at the speed of light. Physics would suggest that this also causes problems as the energy required to accelerate an object is directly proportional to that objects mass. Thus, if the object keeps getting more massive, the amount of required energy also increases. Essentially, one would need an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an infinite mass, which itself is an absurd sort of enterprise. Ironically, Kurzgesagt just posted a video talking about detonating a nuclear weapon on the surface of the moon, and it is for the reasons I’ve just described that such an endeavor would not (significantly) alter the trajectory of the moon; in short, the moon is just too big, even at a mere fraction of the mass of the Earth, which is in turn a mere fraction of the mass of the Sun, etc. In other words, it is very difficult to move very large objects, and very fast moving objects become very large objects.

So let us return now to the question of what this all tells us about time. If I simply assume that the experiment was a confirmation of Einstein’s theories, and time dilation is a real thing, does that help me establish (or refute) the existence of time as a thing in itself? Does time need to exist for these sorts of effects to take place, or can the theories of relativity exist and time still not exist as a thing in itself? Thinking about this, and I might suggest that there still need not be time in itself in this case. Consider the following ridiculous experiment performed by many people all the time: watching a pot of water boil.

As is often the case, people will suggest that if you watch a pot of water boil, it will seem as though it is taking forever. Of course, if those same people instead distract themselves with some other activity, the time it seems to take to boil seems much less. This is all well and good, but the seeming passage of time is not the same as the “actual” passage of time. At least, that is what anyone reading this is probably thinking already. After all, when I work hard at my job, and the end of the day arrives unexpectedly, eight actual hours still passed. But how do I know this is the case?

As I have been repeating through all my posts, time is simply a descriptive idea to help us determine what came before and what came after. Those things that come long after are simply long after because there are more events that I can count between that event and the now. Thus, in the case of the pot of water boiling or the time flying at work, it is a function of how many events I counted between the event that came before (the beginning of watching the water boil, or when I started my shift at work), and the now. The more events I counted, the longer the time has passed. When I distract myself from watching the water boil, and then return at the moment it takes place, I have not counted so many events. I was distracted. Similarly with working my job. On the other hand, when I watch the water, I am also particularly aware that “time is passing” as I compare my expectation of the future event against the second hand of my watch, or other reference events. In other words, I’m counting.

This is why time still does not need to exist as a thing in itself. Every time I am comparing every event to every other event, I am using the count of other events to provide a reference to the change in “time” between the events of interest. The more events in-between that I can count, the more of a difference I will have discovered. The less in-between events I can count, the less of a difference I uncover. To put this more succinctly, the problem is the clock itself, as an event generating object.

What is a clock? It is an object that generates reference events we can use to count. Clocks are expected to be reliable and regular. The second hand on an analog clock moves with regularity, sweeping the face fully in one minute exactly. On that same analog clock, the minute hand sweeps fully around each hour, and the hour hand sweeps fully each half day. Oh, wait, I hear you say. What about a digital clock? Even simpler. The display, if it shows the seconds, will change each second. If the display does not have seconds, then it will change each minute. Of course, you might have one of those digital clocks where the colon (“:”) between the hours and minutes flashes; then your display changes each second, but the resultant count is not presented so easily. In such a case, you would need to do the counting yourself.

In the end, the problem is the same. It is the clock itself that is generating events for you to count. And those same clocks are performing their event generation by counting other, much more frequent events, such as the oscillations of a quartz crystal, or the changing of energy levels of an electron. Events upon events upon events. Counting upon counting upon counting. Time never has to be a thing in itself. All we need to know is that something came before and something came after (and occasionally, something happened instantaneously with another event).

What this tells us about the atomic clocks on the planes is that after the experiment concluded, the atomic clock on the plane moving with the rotation of the Earth counted less events, and the clock on the plane going in the opposite direction counted more events. That is all that can be concluded in such an experiment. Why such things happened may possibly be predicted and calculated using relativistic mathematics, however, time still need not be a thing in itself for the results to occur.

It seems even such an article is of no help to me in answering my question. It is entirely possible that I will be unable to answer my question. Time, if it is a thing in itself, may simply be beyond my reach. I will ponder more on this, and see what I can come up with in my next post.

Back to Time

crimsonLeave a comment

Before I get to my topic today, I would like to refer back to my previous post. It has been a week since that post, and I continue to receive unsolicited comments from various sources that are clearly not related to the posts they are purported to be about. Despite my continuing to delete those comments upon moderation, more comments keep being sent. Thus, as per my last argument, I have proved that those sources are not human. And thus, if you are such a source, and if you insist you are human, I challenge you to prove it.

That said, it is about time I return to my discussion on time. Recently, I attended a small discussion group regarding the possibility of time travel. As often happens in these discussions, no firm answers were suggested. It was simply a discussion of the puzzles associated with a limited set of particular views of time travel. For example, the infamous Grandfather Paradox. For those not familiar, this is the problem of whether it would be possible for an individual to go back in time to kill their own grandfather, specifically before their grandfather is able to set events into motion that would result in the killers origination. That is, if I kill my grandfather before he procreates to generate my father, then how could I have been born in order to go back to kill my grandfather? It is a very puzzling puzzle, and as no one has (to my knowledge) performed any sort of time travel, we do not know how this sort of puzzle could be resolved. In fact, some believe that the existence of such a paradox precludes time travel altogether. Some others believe that this paradox is not an issue because if one tried to kill their grandfather in this way, the universe would simply prevent the event’s occurrence through “ordinary, everyday reasons.”

It is my firm belief that all this discussion is poorly grounded. Before we could possibly consider time travel (in reality), we would first need to know what time itself is, in order for us to somehow traverse it. It is all fine and good to discuss a fictional fantasy, calling it a hypothetical situation, with a goal to practice logical structures and follow them through to seemingly reasonable conclusions. However, an argument with false premises tells us nothing about its conclusion. If I suggest that “Socrates is a man,” and that “all men are mortal,” I cannot suggest that “Socrates is mortal,” if I cannot first establish that “all men are mortal.” It seems reasonable to conclude such an argument at the present time, as many men I have known have demonstrated their mortality by dying. But there are also many men in existence presently who are still very much alive. How can I be certain that they will all one day die? With technology and medicine as they are presently, it has even been suggested that there may be men in our present generation who will be able to escape that finality. Only time will tell.

This leads me directly to the heart of the issue, as I see it: time. As I had begun discussing near when I had started this blog, time may be merely a literary and descriptive thing, helping us to delineate in what order events took place. In many fantastical works of fiction, time may also be used as a plot device in order to bring about something in the story being told. But none of this tells us anything about what time might be in itself. To traverse time, we first need to have something to traverse.

During my last discussion of time, I had established that the use of time to describe sequences of events is itself incredibly problematic. For you (assuming you are a human living on Earth), time has a foundation based upon events related back to the rotation of the Earth about its axis. In fact, time for you will be more accurately based upon the counting of various events you consider to be “sufficiently regular and reliable.” You likely either will be referring to a count of how many times the sun has been at the highest point in the sky, or you will be referring to a count of how many oscillations of a quartz crystal have occurred within your favorite timepiece. Actually, in our modern age of computers, you will probably be trusting the time presented on your favorite technical gadget, be it your personal computer or smart phone, both of which will be synchronizing their time information through a chain of servers that ultimately refer to an atomic clock located somewhere secure, and that atomic clock will be counting the change in energy levels of an electron in some subatomic particle. In the end, some sort of recurring event that is considered to be reliable and regular is being counted, and the result of that count is translated into the everyday description of time we are using. And because you and I are both living on Earth, and because on some level you and I have agreed to this structure, you and I will be able to agree as to what time it is.

This is all well and good, but it says nothing about time itself. It doesn’t even say anything about conscious beings who have not agreed to our structure of counting events. Try talking to a young child about time, and see what sort of responses you get. A young child that has not yet learned about this agreed upon standard of counting will not understand in the least about the passage of time. Tell that child that you will give them their meal in 10 minutes, and they will come back to you in much less time. Or if they ask how much time will it take for Christmas to arrive, your response of 2 weeks will be meaningless to them. They must learn this agreed upon standard. They must be taught how to read the clocks and other signs in order to understand that we are just counting events. How many sleeps until Christmas day arrives?

Once again, as with my previous post about time, we have still not learned anything about time in itself. I may even have alluded to answering this question. However, in truth, I doubt I will be able to. You see, I do not believe it exists at all. There is no time in itself to speak of. For me, there is only now. All that is in the past is simply memories. All that is in the future is simply possibilities. I do not exist in the future nor in the past. I exist in the now. Everything that occurs is occurring now.

If the past is just my memories, then they are subject to change with the reliability of my mind in remembering. How reliable is my mind? Science suggests it is not very reliable at all. I find this is likely to be true. I cannot tell you what I ate a week ago. I could look up evidence, or ask my partner, or some other reference, but then I am relying upon testimony of an alternative source. They can tell me that I ate pizza a week ago, and I might agree that I did indeed eat pizza, but then I am simply deferring to their judgement or memory of the event. I do not remember the event myself, which is why I have had to ask. I trust my partner, and so I believe that is the correct information. And I will continue to live my life based on that information. However, what I ate a week ago is actually shrouded in mystery. In fact, it is entirely possible that I did not eat anything a week ago. Perhaps I did not even exist a week ago.

Similarly with the future. The future is simply possibilities and hopes. I can try to predict what I think may occur in the future, but until the future becomes the now, I will never know. Tomorrow never arrives, it is simply transformed into today. Sometimes I may be correct about events that occur, but other times I am incorrect. It is a gamble every time. And as is suggested in the gamblers fallacy, there is no guarantee of an outcome. Even a minuscule possibility can occur, just as something considered almost certain may not occur. People do win the lottery jackpot occasionally. I can, and will, continue to live my life following those probabilities, but that doesn’t make them guarantees. The sun has risen in the sky for every day I have existed, so I expect it will continue to rise each day in the future. It will be a very dark day when that expectation is dashed.

I continue to be talking in circles; dancing around the question I have asked. None of these things are discussing time in itself. It seems like there is nothing to talk about. Or perhaps it is simply beyond my capability to speak of it. Perhaps I do not have the words to describe it. But I admit that I do not know what I would be describing either. It is not simply a case of having an idea in my mind and lacking the language to describe that idea. In this case, I don’t even have an idea to begin with. Is there something out there that I can consider that anchors all the events that occur? Where occurrences are imprinted like footsteps in dirt. The best I can do is consider time (if it even exists) as a sort of ground. Like a thread that I walk along. More like a thread that I slide along, regardless of my desires. Because I am always sliding, and I am unable to stop. The passage of time continues unimpeded for me, though I cannot say whether it speeds up or slows down. After all, I can only ever refer back to the counting I have been doing.

If time is like a thread, and if I am sliding along that thread, then to travel in time would simply be to alter the movement along the thread. To slow, stop, or even reverse the sliding. It is my hope that this is what the recent movie Tenet is about. I have yet to watch this film, so I cannot confirm this as yet. However, even if I could do such a thing, how would it affect the world around me as I did slow, stop, or even reverse the sliding? Einstein suggested that if I travel through space quickly enough, I would slow the passage of time for myself, while the world around me would continue unimpeded. That I would age more slowly. Is this true? It has been suggested to me that experiments have been conducted with astronauts on just this idea. Unfortunately, the first article I found seems to side-step this question. The second article discusses the sending of an atomic clock into orbit, but seems to dismiss the time dilation issue.

This is the article I think we need to discuss: the Hafele–Keating experiment from 1971. I will take some time to read this article and discuss it in my next post.

Automation

crimsonLeave a comment

It has been a while. I have no good excuse, other than to say I’ve been busy. If you really want to know more, you should contact me. You’d think that some people have already contacted me to ask this very question. The fact is, I do receive quite a few messages through this website each day. Unfortunately, the number of them that are legitimate communications are quite limited. So far, by my estimation, only one person has contacted me who was an actual person. You can check the comments to see who that one person was.

While in school, a discussion was once raised regarding a strange situation. In this hypothetical situation, you have an organisation who’s purpose is to create robots that mine planets for various ores and materials. These robots then use the materials they’ve mined to create more robots who’s purpose is the same as the original robots. Through generations of this process, the design of the robots evolves and becomes highly efficient in serving their purpose. The organisation is quite successful, as they corner the market in mining and robot production. The question that is raised in this hypothetical example is, to what end is the organisation aimed?

It seems like there is no reasonable answer. To create robots who’s only real purpose is to create more robots is to ultimately aim at turning the entire universe into robots. Once the goal is accomplished, then what? And having more robots doesn’t seem to provide any other significance in the universe than their existence as such. They just are. Whether they are deemed good or not seems only to make sense if considering them from an instrumental viewpoint. That is, do they do their job well. If the robots are efficient at mining materials and making more robots, then they are good. If they fail to accomplish this task, then they are bad. Ideas of good and evil don’t seem to enter into it. At least not within the groundwork of the organisation itself.

As you likely already guessed, this hypothetical example is a commentary on human beings. We are those robots, and our existence seems pretty pointless. Our aims are directed at the efficient generation (and maintenance) of more human beings. The basic unit of social structure, the family, is considered good if it serves this purpose well. A family that does not generate children is frequently not even considered a family at all, and if it is at least considered a family, it is somehow a lesser one. Also consider the frequent claim made by many that “children are the future,” suggesting that our focus and energy ought to be aimed at the development and preservation of the future generations. However, as in the case of the robots, I ask: to what end?

During the course of my own life, I have often asked myself what I want to do or what I want to be. What career choice is the best career for me. I find myself unable to answer this question for the reasons above. I cannot think of any particular career or job who’s purpose seems concerned with something I might consider progressive or enlightening. All careers, as far as I can tell, are aimed directly or indirectly with the original goal of producing or maintaining human beings. Sometimes, the careers are so indirectly related to this goal that their pointlessness is hidden in layers of obfuscation. However, if you follow the trail long enough, eventually you are able to find that it is concerned simply with this one goal.

It is for all these reasons that I preference Existentialist philosophy. I find solace in the idea that I am personally responsible for the creation of meaning and purpose in the world. Not that there is any inherent meaning or purpose out there. Or if there is, there is no way for me to determine what those inherent meanings or purposes are. Thus, I am tasked with generating it myself. In fact, if I were to select an aim for humanity, it seems that this might be it. It might be our purpose to find our purpose. It might be our aim to decide what things ought to be valuable. Ultimately, this amounts to an acknowledgement (at least in principle) of the existence of freedom (or free will). Without freedom, without the possibility of deviation from a deterministic chain of events, there does not seem to be a point to anything.

So what has brought this all out of me presently? I return now to all those messages I receive daily through this blog. It seems to me that the bulk of these messages are generated automatically by programs on the Internet. These programs, I would have to guess, are created by individuals who are trying to aim at some purpose which requires them to spread propaganda of some sort, perhaps trying to harvest Email accounts, or even perhaps to simply misinform. The strangest thing for me is that they persist despite my deleting those messages. That is, the messages are sent to me, and I have configured this blog to not post anything unless I approve it. Clearly, I have not approved any of these messages. So why do these parties persist?

If the source of these messages were human, some sort of conscious entity with something resembling freedom, they might realize that I actually will not approve these messages being posted to my blog. That because I have configured my blog to require approval to post comments, none of their comments will ever be posted. A human is likely to recognize this and decide (perhaps in the name of efficiency and progress) to cease their pointless activity and move on. But they do not. More messages are received each day. Thus, I must conclude that they are not human. The source of these messages must be some sort of automated system, like a bot, that is programmed to simply try and try and try again, endlessly. Like the robots from the hypothetical situation I described, they will simply continue to attempt to harvest my blog for their own nefarious purposes.

On a more personal note

crimsonLeave a comment

I know that my posts are generally pretty reflective, but this time, I’m really going to speak from the heart. You may already notice this post is occurring at a very unusual time. I even missed my last “scheduled” post. With the pandemic raging, and especially with the looming presidential election in the United States of America (USA), frankly, I’m exhausted and a bit depressed.

It’s really hard staying at home so much. It isn’t even just that I’m staying at home either. Most people seem to be. There isn’t as much socializing. There isn’t as much getting out and doing stuff. I leave the house and avoid people, like the plague. That saying holds substantially more meaning presently. “Like the plague” is precisely what it is. We are treating the pandemic “like the plague,” being all paranoid and critical of nearness. I was never that fond of simple handshaking. Other people’s grimy hands “infecting” my own. I often would seek out a nearby washroom to wash my hands after hand shakes if I could. But now, I miss that simple act. I miss contact.

I am very privileged and lucky. I have a partner and she takes really good care of me. I try my hardest not to be a burden on her, but sometimes I think she wishes I would be more of a burden. I support her projects; I want her to truly express her freedom; I want her to be able to demonstrate full personhood. However, I think she believes I am doing all of this at my own expense. I try to tell her I am not, but she doesn’t really believe me.

I am an Earth sign. I don’t really hold much weight in astrological stuff, but in this case it really does fit. I am slow and patient. As I get older, I get even slower and even more patient even. During this pandemic, I’ve been looking for a job, and while it is always disappointing when my calls are not returned, I am still very patient for the opportunities that eventually do come. I am not unhappy presently. Perhaps a bit melancholy, and possibly a little depressed, but I’m not unhappy. I’ve been unhappy in the past; this is definitely not that.

My life, like so many other people’s lives, has been turned on its head. I am treading in unfamiliar territory. And this experience has been more enlightening than I’d ever have expected. I stay at home most days, cleaning the house and tidying up. I do dishes. I do laundry (a little, I’m not trusted with the delicates yet). I even cook a little too, though I worry my meals will not be as well received as hers are. I am very much domestic now. And I’m starting to realize the primary issue with women’s lot.

To be clear, I am not regarded as a woman. I never lived a woman’s or a girl’s life. I am unfamiliar with all those details and experiences. But I feel like my present experience is giving me a taste of it. The stereotypical duties of the housewife. Spend your time at home doing all those duties at home. There is plenty to do. It is always surprising to me how much work there is to do around the house. There is just so much. So much to do that I am barely able to do the things I want/need to do. That is, as a man, I have often thought that certain tasks and activities were important. And, of course, when I have completed those tasks, I felt like my work was done, and I had earned a break to watch television or play a video game. But I am realizing how wrong I was.

The work is never done. Tasks are endless. You can clean some dishes, but there are more five minutes later. Clean the clothes, and there are more clothes already in need of washing. Vacuum, and collect some of the dust and debris, but miss so much more. It doesn’t matter what I do, I can never do enough. I can never complete a task. All I can do is abate the inevitable. But it is still more than that. Because all these sorts of tasks take me away from other tasks I often think are more important, like applying for jobs, or socializing with friends, or writing blog posts. Are these things really more important? I wonder sometimes. I wonder more and more these days.

I think on all this, and I realize something. This is slavery. This is an inability to express freedom; an inability to pursue one’s projects fully. I am performing all these duties at the expense of those duties I may want to perform. My choice is getting lost. At first, it made me angry and upset. But I realize now that it is simply another revealing of a truth. When my wife takes care of me, performing all these functions and so much more, so that I can sit on the couch and write a blog post like this, she is accepting her own slavery. She is giving up her own freedom in order to allow me mine.

It reminds me of something Aristotle wrote, which at the moment I cannot find. I believe it was part of his discussion in his Politics. He suggested that for philosophers to be able to do philosophy, others had to do the other work that needed to be done. That one needed to be free from the duties of every day life, like cooking and cleaning, in order to be able to contemplate and think on things. I believe this was part of his conclusions related to natural slavery; that some people are simply born or destined to be slaves, perhaps by their very genetics (though Aristotle was clearly not thinking about genetics at the time, as genetics is a very recent field of study). When I first read this, I immediately connected it with patriarchy.

I’ve only had the most minute taste of what it is like. I know I am still a man, and so I will never truly experience the life of a woman. In fact, I have a wife and my wife will always insist on taking care of me and attending to my needs. In fact, if I don’t let her, she actually takes insult to my reluctance. I’ve experienced this same situation in other settings too, where a guy I worked with insisted he had to pay for our lunches because he was older than the rest of us. Like some weird tradition I was not familiar with, he felt a duty to take care of us younger workers by buying our lunches all the time. If we discretely paid the bill ourselves, he would get incredibly upset, like we had punched him in the face or called him a bad name. In all these cases, the people seem to feel a duty to take care of me in some way, and if I deny them in this duty, they get very upset. I’ve since learned to accept it when people want to take care of me, at least somewhat. I care for them, and I don’t want to insult them or make them feel bad. I always feel I don’t deserve their appreciation, but my feelings regarding the situation are not important.

With all this background, I return to my own current experiences, trying to take care of my wife the way she always takes care of me. I don’t feel angry or upset or even sad about doing all this work. I feel the workload is unaccomplishable, but necessary. I say to myself, “it doesn’t have to be perfect; it just needs to be better than it was.” And I’ve become more understanding of the importance of the various duties and tasks I have. I’ve reevaluated. I’ve re-valued those tasks. Those I had thought were important are no longer as important as I remember, while others have become more so. My priorities have changed.

I am not unhappy. Quite the contrary. Okay, perhaps this is saying too much. If being unhappy is to not be in a state of happiness, then perhaps I am not happy. But I am also not the opposite of happy either. I am not upset or angry or sad. Maybe a little depressed, because the seemingly hopeless tasks can never be completed. Like Sisyphus, always pushing the boulder up the slope, only to watch it roll back down, over and over again. This is the life before me. This is the life that, I think, so many experience. The life of slavery.

I think that one is only upset about being a slave when one thinks they ought to have more freedom. And perhaps we all ought to have more freedom than we have. If democracy is the highest, best form of politics, and if the Americans are right to value freedom as much as they do, then perhaps slavery needs to be abolished more completely than it has (supposedly) been. Those aristocratic individuals who use their power to manipulate the world of those around them, in order to leverage their own projects and express their own freedom, ought to instead use their power to support the projects of those around them. Instead of using their power to support their own desires, perhaps they ought to use their power to support the desires of others. Perhaps the model many of us are familiar with, where the manager has subordinates below them, should instead be the subordinates with the manager below. Perhaps who is accountable to whom should be flipped. Perhaps the president of the USA ought to be accountable to his people, rather than his people being accountable to him.

I have this “thing” I call consciousness

crimsonLeave a comment

Today, I want to talk about something that I honestly don’t really know how to talk about. When I think about who and what I am, I often strip myself down to this “thing” that I call consciousness. However, the use of the term consciousness confounds precisely what the thing is I’m trying to describe. I will attempt to clarify what I’m talking about here.

What makes me “me?” If I grant that the world is at least partially deterministic—that the world, much of the time, follows a chain of events where one event will generally be responsible for the coming about of another event—then I would expect a part of who I am to be a result of various events that came before me. My parents got together and produced offspring, of which I was the first. My genetic material came from them, so I am in some way a part of my parents physically. Furthermore, during my early years, my parents taught me many things about the world, attempting to prepare me for a time when they would no longer be around. That training is also a part of who I am; through habituation and experience I view the world a particular way and understand the world a particular way. They were a significant part of the outside influences that affected me growing up, and so I am in some way a part of my parents psychologically as well.

Further to all this, my time spent alive has given me opportunity to encounter much more of the world than what my parents might have liked. I’ve encountered many other people beyond my parents. I’ve encountered many non-human entities, such as the pets I had growing up, or other animals encountered in travels. I’ve also interacted with countless non-living entities, from pencils to cars to buildings. All of these things I’ve encountered have left their mark on me as well, in various ways. The impact of seeing the majestic beauty of a mountain, or even simply stubbing my toe on the coffee table in my living room.

All of these interactions, at least in part, make up who I am. Those that view all of these as the ONLY things that make up who and what I am would likely be called Empiricists, as the Empiricists believe that all knowledge ONLY comes from my sensible experiences. In a purely deterministic world, one that is entirely governed by chains of causes and effects, it would make much sense that I am only as much as I have thus far described. That I am akin to a very complex, biological machine that follows a very predictable pattern of actions and choices. Given enough information, anyone could determine what I would say and do at any time.

But there is something more. It is hard for me to describe, but there is something else (perhaps) within me that is beyond simply these genetic and environmental aspects. Stuff happens in my mind. Even as I type these words, within me I am thinking about what I what to write, reasoning out the order of the words as well as why I want to use these words. It might be argued that this is still deterministic in nature, but it seems to be beyond simple sensible experience. Within me, I have done something with the experiences I have received and turned them into something else. If I consider that part of me that is processing all this information from my experiences to be “me,” then I might be considered following the Rationalists, who suggested that true knowledge comes from reason and reason alone. If this were true, then who and what I am would likely more closely align with my mind, and could be conceived with the absence of my body. After all, I am simply the processing part of this experience machine.

When I consider these views, I think to myself that there is still something about me that is not captured in either viewpoint. At least not entirely. There does seem to be a part of me that experiences the world, providing me with a lot of raw information that I can use. And there does seem to be a part of me that reasons, taking all this raw information and turning it into decisions and choices. But there is something else within me that I have an even harder time explaining.

Here and now, I “see” the world, like from a “first person perspective.” Sort of like the video games that have become so popular. I use the term “see,” but it is so much more. I hear the world, taste the world, feel the world. But more than that, I reflect on the world and on myself. I talk to myself, from within. Others cannot hear it, but I have an inner voice, that only I can hear. In addition to that voice, I also hear music as well. Patterns of sounds and feelings. I generally refer to this thing as being my consciousness. However, the term “consciousness” seems to be incomplete. For one, it seems caught up in the idea that I am awake. If I restrict its meaning to when I am awake, then I am no longer a conscious being when I am asleep. If that were to be a requirement of consciousness, then when I am asleep, I am no longer a conscious being; during that time, I am something less.

It is possible that I am hoping for there to be more to it. It is possible that there is not. Perhaps when I am asleep, there really is no me to speak of. And then, when I wake up in the morning, I come to exist once again. Or perhaps, as CGP Grey suggests, “every night’s slip into unconsciousness, the warm embrace of the Reaper, and every morning the first and only day of a new creature’s conscious life,” here suggesting that my consciousness ends each night, and the consciousness that comes about each morning is simply a unique consciousness that perhaps resembles the previous consciousness, but is in fact something altogether different. His “The Trouble with Transporters” YouTube video is, in my opinion, the best discussion of this topic ever, and I highly recommend taking a moment to watch it (https://youtu.be/nQHBAdShgYI).

Taking all this seriously, I have come to the conclusion (for now) that this thing within me, that I generally call consciousness, is something akin to fire. I talked about this briefly in my previous post entitled “I am not solid.” That my consciousness is not a monolithic, nor static, thing but something fluid and dynamic. I do not think it is a coincidence that many ancient philosophers, such as Heraclitus, held that fire was a fundamental element involved with much of what we are. If I am correct, then the consciousness I now presently possess is the equivalent to a raging bonfire, made up of a massive amount of these smaller atomic consciousness elements, while when I am asleep, it is equivalent to the glowing embers of coals, made up of a very small amount of smaller elements. Furthermore, this would suggest that consciousness could present itself in larger and smaller forms, such as perhaps a lesser consciousness within a non-human animal like a dog or a cat. That these “lesser” beings have a consciousness comparable to our own, yet not the raging bonfire, but perhaps more like the ample campfire used to cook marshmallows on.

This seems (to me) to be consistent with my interpretation of how my dreams have operated. That while dreaming, where I may not be aware I am dreaming, the world and my faculties seem to be diminished. The best example of this occurred when I was quite young, when I had a very strange nightmare. In the dream, I had no sensory input; I did not see anything, hear anything, taste, smell, or feel anything. Furthermore, I could not remember anything from moment to moment, my memory lasting all of a second perhaps. The entire dream was me saying to myself (using my inner voice), “who am I,” followed by “where am I.” Unfortunately, after saying one phrase, I would forget having said the other phrase, so I would repeat the other. The entire dream was simply me saying “who am I,” then “where am I,” then “who am I,” then “where am I,” over and over again. Only once I awoke did I remember everything that had taken place. I could not tell you for how long I was in this insane loop, but it was for quite a time. This happened before I was 5 years old; it probably illuminates a lot about how I have come to be as I am today.

In other dreams, while dreaming, I would not know or understand certain things, but upon waking up, I would recognize that I had been dreaming and would suddenly understand the things I could not understand in the dream. It seemed to me that I was able to understand things in a downward fashion, into the dreams, but not in an upward fashion, out of the dreams. Upon reading René Descartes and his discussions about greater and lesser realities (in his argument to how God must have imprinted his stamp on us for us to have a concept of infinity), it seemed to me that perhaps that is how dreams also work. That the dream is the lesser reality, and from the dream I can only understand the world of the dream and any other lesser realities than the dream. However, from a greater reality, such as when I am awake, I can understand the waking world, and any lesser realities such as the reality of the dream. If this were all true, then it is conceivable that there are greater realities than this one, where I in some way awake from this dream, into a greater world. It puts an interesting spin on the idea of an afterlife.

These perspectives given to me by my dreams and by my other experiences leads me back to this first person viewpoint that I have, from within my consciousness. I considered the possibility that it could be like a passive observer, like a pilot flying an airplane on autopilot, simply watching the plane fly. However, without any interaction at all, how would my conscious mind have any idea that the passive observer existed, after all there is no interaction in the passive situation. Thus, the observer must be at least in some small way active. There has to be an interaction between the observer and the consciousness for the consciousness to have an understanding of the observer. At least this holds in a world that is deterministic, where the nature of the interaction follows from cause to effect. If there was another method of interaction that allowed for the observer to be detected, then perhaps it is this other method of interaction that is taking place.

Unfortunately, I presently cannot imagine another way of interacting than through cause and effect. That event A has some impact on bringing about event B is to say that events A and B interact in a way. If event A does not contribute to the bringing about of event B, or the other way around, this is to say that events A and B do not interact. However, in the case of a passive observer, there is still an interaction. While the passive observer does not necessarily cause events to occur, the events from the world (through the body in some way) do bring about something for the observer to observe. Perhaps the issue isn’t whether there is or is not an interaction, but in which directions the interactions occur or do not occur. Both the passive and the active observer are in some way affected by what happens, as they observe what happens. The difference is then that the passive observer does not induce a reaction back in the opposite direction. And as my conscious mind is somehow aware that there is something like an observer, then the observer has induced something of an effect on my conscious mind. Therefore, it cannot be a passive observer.

I have made a lot of progress here, but I have also barely scratched the surface. The best I can suggest at this point is that this thing I have been calling a consciousness, this thing that is me, is some sort of an active observer. The question I might pose next, is how much does this active observer contribute to my conscious mind.

The (American) Center of the Universe

crimsonLeave a comment

I start with an apology. If you exist in a location where the going-ons in the United States of America (USA) do not significantly influence your day-to-day life, or if you do not even know what is going on in the USA, then what I will be writing about today may be of little interest to you. Furthermore, I am jealous if that is the case. You see, where I live in the world, the things that go on in the USA significantly affect my day-to-day life. To the point that it seems like the USA is the center of the universe. I know it is not actually the center of all things, but for me it seems to be much of the time.

I do not live in the USA; I live in Canada. I grew up in Alberta, to be precise. Anyone who knows the stereotype of Alberta may now believe that I am a redneck, right wing conservative. Of course, if you’ve been reading my blog posts up to this point, you should also realize that this couldn’t be farther from the truth. Perhaps it is because of my upbringing and environment that I rebelled later in life, likely falling much more on the left side of the political spectrum. If you’ve been reading my posts, you will know that I value freedom pretty highly. It is ironic, I suppose, that the USA considers freedom to be particularly important as well.

A lot is going on in the USA presently. Aside from a raging pandemic, there is widespread racism, violence, and an impending presidential election about to happen. Actually, technically, the election has already begun as many have already submitted their early ballots for the election. This, of course, makes all that is going on all the more controversial. However, I will not begin here. I will begin about four years ago, with the previous election, which resulted in Donald Trump placed into the office of the president of the USA.

I remember when it was announced. I was in a university pub, surrounded by philosophy and political science students. If you are not familiar, there is another stereotype related to university students, that they are all liberals. The group of people I found myself surrounded by expressed a strong, sort of liberalism with the announcement. Being all intelligent, critically thinking university students, they could not imagine the travesty that had occurred that resulted in Trump’s success. Something must clearly be wrong in the USA if he got elected as their president.

For the next couple hours, discussions ensued regarding how best to prevent this tragedy from ever occurring again. It culminated in the suggestion that all Americans should be forced to take a political science/elections class in high school, so that they would know how to critically assess potential candidates and would then only elect those actually worthy of office. If it is not clear, the very discussion belays a subtle opinion that the students overlooked: they had already prejudged the situation and decided that Trump was unfit for office.

Now, four years later, I’m sure that many people would suggest that their greatest fears have been affirmed. Trump’s management of the pandemic, alone, raises grave doubts as to his political fitness. The controversy that suggests he knew that COVID-19 was a lethal disease, but chose to play it down in order not to incite panic within the population. And there’s the issue of how he has chosen to deal with the Black Lives Matter movement, recently sparked by the killing of George Floyd by police in May. There are plenty of examples of issues Trump has chosen to deal with in unconventional and controversial ways. However, there is still an issue that seems to have escaped the entire discussion.

I am considered a Canadian. I live in Canada. My life revolves around Canadian affairs in my Canadian environment. So why am I spending so much time paying attention to and worrying about the USA and what goes on there? Is the USA the center of my universe? Should I be doing more to prevent the re-election of Donald Trump as president of the USA? Is there to be a call to arms, or a rally to protest, or some other movement that needs to be raised?

No.

While I can sit here and think about and discuss what is happening in the USA, ultimately that is the limit to what I can do. I can talk. I can listen. I can express my opinions. It is easy for me to criticize events in the USA and suggest that were I their president, I would behave differently. However, I am not an American. I was not elected by the population of the USA into the office of presidency. And, admittedly, I am not very familiar with the American political system, how it works, nor how I might navigate it in order to get elected.

I am not an American. I do not live in the USA. I do not actually know what the majority of people in the USA think about their president, nor why they may have elected him. Yes, there is talk about election fraud, both in the current and previous election. Yes, it is possible Trump has been playing the system in order to keep himself in office much longer than I may believe he deserves. However, this may simply be an example of a man who, unlike me, really does understand the American political system. He certainly has figured out how to milk the American economy for all he could. While these actions may be morally reprehensible, following the morality that I tend to support, this is far from suggesting he weaseled his way into office without the support of the American people.

I am not an American. I have enough trouble dissecting the Canadian political system, trying to understand how it can even be called “democracy” with all the representation going on. But my lack of understanding does not automatically suggest that the Canadian political engine is about to break down and fall apart. Similarly, the American political system may be functioning precisely as it was intended. The American dream seemed to suggest that anyone could make it in that country; all it takes is for one to buckle down and work hard, and they can be successful. Perhaps it is the precise understanding of “buckle down and work hard” that might need to be reexamined, similar to how Darwin’s survival of the fittest does not suggest that the fittest are those who are physically the strongest.

I say today what I said four years ago: the American people will do what they think is best. Four years ago, they elected Donald Trump as their president, regardless of how I or my peers in Canada may have felt about it. Right away, they will make their decision known again. If there is a problem with election fraud, as Trump himself is suggesting, then those same American people will react as they feel is appropriate. There could possibly be a bloody civil war or other large rebellion, if it turns out that Trump does not have significant support by the American people. Or, it may simply turn out that Americans really do want a guy like Donald Trump as their president. Who are we, as non-Americans, to criticize the democratic choices of the American citizens?