Whither Teela Brown?


Whither Teela Brown?

via George Station

Originally shared by David Amerland

Consequences

When we look at the world, each of us, has a deep, almost intuitive understanding of the fact that nothing happens without a reason (https://goo.gl/qkM6hi). That allows us to sense that there is no real random factor in the universe (https://goo.gl/8cx3E5).

This seemingly simple notion has deep personal, philosophical and scientific impact. If the universe is not random (https://goo.gl/8cx3E5) then chance plays no role in it. Everything has a cause and everything is intentional which might even mean (some hope) that the universe has a design upon us (https://goo.gl/oFy8bW) and that everything has meaning.

Yet randomness, as an effect (and at times a cause) seems to be baked-in: https://goo.gl/jpm2ft. If randomness truly exists, goes the argument, then chance is universal, our best-laid plans are capable of being overturned by truly unpredictable factors and life is a sequence of steps that are taken upon a parabolic curve of probabilities, governed by possibilities.

Physicists (and physics enthusiasts) explore randomness at a physical level (https://goo.gl/XvqKcf) to determine the conceptual probabilities. There are deep implications here that affect the perceived nature of time itself and, even, any sense of personal responsibility that we might harbor.

Historically we have viewed randomness as something generated by the “gods” and fate has been the outcome of their actions: https://goo.gl/feVK36. In everyday life, randomness plays a pivotal role in cryptography (https://goo.gl/kuvYp9). It was the perceived lack of randomness that enabled Alan Turing to crack the Enigma Code (https://goo.gl/iX3iwB) and lay the foundation for general computing and AI, today.

It is the perception that randomness is something that can be safeguarded against and even defeated that allows us to build complex systems that are robust (https://goo.gl/j6Yq4B). Because mathematics plays an inevitable role in our understanding of randomness it is worth going a little deeper into the history of martingales in its study: https://goo.gl/8NBnaN.

In our search of the world, whether that is done through complex mathematical concepts or the power of a mind thinking the simple thought “Could I have done things differently in my life?” we seek to understand, just like the ancients, our place under the stars. Are we the product of events that can never be controlled? Blown this way and that by circumstances and reacting to their stimuli or are we the direct result of accumulated choices, most of them less than good, which bring us to a particular moment in time? Any particular moment in any time.

Classical Physics rested upon the notion of determinism (https://goo.gl/o2AyC) which implied that there is no true sense of free will (something we are still struggling to successfully define: https://goo.gl/d8hgrV). Isaac Newton’s idea that everything could be somehow calculated if we only had sufficient calculating capacity has been put to the test time and again only to reveal that randomness still happens: https://goo.gl/Hth2Lm. And, of course, in a Quantum universe we ‘know’ that randomness is an inescapable attribute of the underlying fabric of reality: https://goo.gl/yTrSwA.

So, to simplify things a little, the question becomes: “Are we truly responsible for our actions?” In The Matrix scene where Neo meets The Oracle the fate of the vase suggests otherwise: https://goo.gl/nQtLFi.
The essayist Anaïs Nin (https://goo.gl/dok6Wm) considered destiny to be our character, which could be altered: https://goo.gl/fbbeAF. Between these two points of view rests the question of responsibility (which is really one of blame) – who do we blame for who we become? - https://goo.gl/97xJbr.

This exact question, approached from a lateral perspective is something I tackle in my latest book The Sniper Mind (https://goo.gl/UJHE2f) suggesting that we are capable of drawing the line ourselves. Where the buck stops (https://goo.gl/T6okOW) can be determined by the conscious application of our own actions. Deepak Shukla suggests that randomness is not to be feared when encountered and it is, indeed, our strength: https://goo.gl/JUwosb and Benjamin de Bivort suggests that the ubiquitous nature of random makes us unpredictable: https://goo.gl/R8uA7k.

At a more theoretical level our analysis of causality in physics affects time and time-travel: https://goo.gl/n562KY. Those looking to supersede the limitations of Classical Physics expect that Quantum Mechanics (of course) will throw the door wide open to other possibilities: https://goo.gl/LY21w7.

Without realizing it the stakes we are playing for are pretty high: If causality holds true everywhere, then the universe is not random, nothing happens without a reason and we are (or can become) truly responsible for everything. The perceived causes of the effects we observe then are never the true causes of what we see which makes the nature of reality different to what can be revealed to just our senses.

If causality fails (even at Quantum level) and the universe is truly random. What I am (and, by implication, you also) are the direct result of many different chance events just happening to happen. There is no real, deep meaning to anything and since everything is the result of chance which we cannot control. We’re off the hook which also means that whatever we do, for whatever reason, really doesn’t matter. All choices and actions (good and bad) are equally valid. In a truly unpredictable universe there can be no trust. Without trust everything we do is a coin-toss into the future where what happens next is not something we can ever hope to affect.

Now, serendipity (a chance occurrence) can be engineered (at least in search) - https://goo.gl/WnUmcD which means that randomness is mostly a perception filter created by our inability to sufficiently understand causality. Never mind the fact that the future may be influencing the past (https://goo.gl/zYzb7r)!

Both causality and randomness are now subject to meta-analysis which shows that what we see as two separate issues may be united in their structure. Causality may have a unified theory: https://goo.gl/weNzHL as indeed does randomness: https://goo.gl/T1qD9y. True, we may never quite control events the way you and I, say, choose to drink a cup of coffee and render it empty of content, but just like in engineered serendipity we may be able to do enough to engineer our own luck, our own brand of chance, our own path in the world. In that distinction lies the difference between those who accept and give up and those who, no matter what, rail against the gods of randomness and strive to become what they want to be, get where they want to get to, no matter the odds. Indirectly that was the implication of my latest teaser video on The Sniper Mind - https://goo.gl/XevdzR.

So, if I’ve stacked things in the right direction you already have made your choices. Coffee is within easy reach, aplenty. You have supplied yourselves with donuts and croissants, cookies, ice-cream and chocolate cake and this journey, deep as it is, is also one which you are more than prepared for. Have an awesome Sunday, wherever you are.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Entremet

Entremet Originally shared by Kam-Yung Soh "“Like most people in the US, I grew up knowing the words to this carol and even (shudder) singing them occasionally (singing is not a strong point of mine), but never really thought about what they meant, how the carol originated, or what birds were involved”, says Dr Rasmussen in email. So she decided to figure it out. Dr Rasmussen, who’s tied for third for the most bird discoveries in the world, is probably also the world’s foremost avian sleuth, due to her meticulous detective work a few years ago that uncovered the many ornithological thefts and records frauds in museums that were committed by eminent British ornithologist, Richard Meinertzhagen. But who would ever have thought that an old Christmas carol might also hold an avian mystery? “After all, it’s just a Christmas carol!” Dr Rasmussen points out." https://medium.com/@GrrlScientist/meet-the-real-birds-of-the-twelve-days-of-christmas-fame-grrlscientist-5a8bc09350c9
Read more

Flushbunkingly Gloriumptious

Flushbunkingly Gloriumptious Originally shared by Kam-Yung Soh "Renowned children's author and occasional spy, Roald Dahl spent the last years of his life in a home located in the small English village of Great Missenden, and now his beloved village is home to an attractive museum devoted to his life and works.  [...] Today the museum holds all of Dahl's original manuscripts, as well as his "Idea Books" where he would jot down his nascent creations. In addition to celebrating his writing career, there are also displays covering his service in the RAF. However, the crown jewel of the museum is the recreation of Dahl's purpose built "Writing Hut," complete with the arm chair he had customized to write in." http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/the-roald-dahl-museum
Read more

Originally shared by Kam-Yung Soh

Originally shared by Kam-Yung Soh So Labradors tend to overeat. Now it has been traced to genetic differences. "Dr Eleanor Raffan, a veterinary surgeon and geneticist who studies how genes influence metabolism at the Institute of Metabolic Science at the University of Cambridge recently published a study that examines the genetics that underlie food motivation and obesity in Labrador retrievers. [...] When Dr Raffan and her team carefully examined this POMC gene variant, they found that a small 14-basepair section a little more than halfway down the gene’s length was missing. This deletion creates a frameshift mutation that results in the production of an abnormal protein where the last half is scrambled into a blob of nonsense [...]. Normally, the POMC is translated into the POMC pro-peptide, which is cleaved at precise sites to give rise to number of smaller peptides, including the appetite suppressing neuropeptides, ß-MSH & ß-endorphin, but the abnormal POMC pro-peptide do...
Read more