LUDOVICI: Superiority of Art over Science

Something I totally agree with.

The Great Conversation

Science has bestowed many benefits on mankind; and therefore, there are a large number of people who revere and glorify it. An article posted on science.ie in June of 2014 expresses the sentiments of these admirers of Science. “Science empowers us to shape every aspect of our world. Thanks to the power of science we can improve our health and wellbeing, explore new worlds, and make our world a better place; the only limits are those we imagine!”

View original post 540 more words

Ebola And The Most Deadliest Enemy

When one thinks of a deadly enemy, one usually thinks of something big, strong, fast, maybe something like a dinosaur or a huge monster. Or one might think of aliens with sophisticated technology invading the Earth. I remembering reading such a thing like this in the science fiction novel War of the Worlds, where Martians with their superior intelligence and technology sweep in to invade the Earth. Humans, with their primitive canons and artillery, proved to be no match for these aliens, and were destroyed quickly city by city. All hope seemed to be lost for humanity, then suddenly the aliens started dying mysteriously and soon, the Martians retreated back to Mars.

What was it that was killing off these superior aliens? Was it that humans had suddenly innovated a superior weapon? No. Rather, the book tells us that “All over the world, their machines began to stop and fall. After all that men could do had failed, the Martians were destroyed and humanity was saved by the littlest things, which God, in His wisdom, had put upon this Earth.” Yes, what eventually stopped these aliens was not any super duper awesome gun, but rather bacteria. 

Or you can add viruses to the mix. Which in the end proves that in this survival of the fittest between two intelligent species, bacteria and viruses came out to be the most powerful. Although that may be fiction, even right now in the real world are we seeing viruses beating the crap out of supposedly the most dominant species on the planet. Just look at West Africa, with the Ebola virus.

Now here’s how viruses basically work. A virus enters the body. It sorta tricks a cell into letting it into the cell because of matching receptors. Once in the cell, it can either be dormant and not do anything for a while, just letting the cell help reproduce its viral RNA/DNA, or it can use the cell to produce more viruses, then breaks apart the cell so that these new viruses can affect other cells. And then the process starts all over again.  Now here’s how the Ebola virus works- same process, but deadlier results. First, it just seems like a fever. Then, you start getting pain in the neck and the abdomen, you start getting headaches, you start throwing up. The real pain comes when you start bleeding like hell- not just externally, but internally. And then in around a week, you can expect yourself to die.

To make this virus sound even more deadly, there is no cure and the survival rate is low. And in West Africa, more than 1,200 people have died, with the virus having spread to three countries already, and possibly more. Now, what exactly makes this virus deadly?

1) It’s small. We think that bigger is stronger, but when your enemy is as small as a virus, you can’t tell where the hell it is, but it’s still all around you. Because it’s small, studying your enemy (or the virus) is not just difficult, but even dangerous, given you can be the next victim.

2) It’s contagious and spreads fast. Like I said, in around one week, one can easily die of the virus. This Ebola virus spreads much quicker and more efficiently inside a body than any typical virus. Not just inside the body, but outside the body as well. Bodily contact, direct and indirect, are all means for the virus to spread. There have been even cases where nurses and doctors under full protective body suit are still infected.

Ebola Virus

Fortunately, two American doctors who were infected have been successfully treated due to an experimental medicine. This has raised hopes that this might eventually be a cure for Ebola. But stopping this virus will take more than medicine, because

3) Fear. Because Ebola is small and not much is known about it, myths have been surrounding this virus in Africa. People who have been infected and cured have been stigmatized when they return home. Many think that it’s the doctors that introduced the virus, and thus this hinders the ability to effectively carry out treatments. Take for instance last week, where rioters frightened by Ebola rampaged a healthcare facility treating Ebola, forcing many Ebola-infected people to flee to other places, further spreading the virus. This and many other nonsense myths about the virus underscore the fear and superstition underlying this virus, and this is perhaps the number one reason why the virus outbreak has not been stopped and is still spreading. Yes, ironically, humans- not the virus itself- are worsening this Ebola disaster. The only cure for this is increased public education about the disease.

And so I will end here. But to me, reason number three brings up a good point. Perhaps the most deadliest enemy is not any creature, whether that be an alien or a virus. Maybe, the most deadliest enemy is perhaps ourselves.

Your Refrigerator Can Be Hacked

I apologize for the lack of blogging this past month, and I will talk about this in the next post or so. Meanwhile, enjoy this interesting article from LA Times:

Simple Internet-connected devices can end up in complex online crimes

To keep an eye on his child via his smartphone, Marc Gilbert installed Internet-connected video baby monitors in his home in Houston.

One evening, Gilbert heard a stranger’s voice bellowing obscenities from the monitor. He disconnected the device after realizing that it had been hacked.

“I’m a pretty technical guy, and I thought I knew how all this stuff should be hooked up,” said Gilbert, who has written several letters to his congressman and other elected officials, trying to bring the security issue to their attention.

For decades, hackers have used the Internet to break into network routers, personal computers and advanced industrial devices.

But now, a whole new generation of often mundane, household devices is being connected to the Internet — and hackers are having a field day.

Thanks to smaller, cheaper processors, speedier wireless connections and the explosion of smartphones and tablets, it’s becoming easier and more affordable to digitally link just about any object — sports equipment, watches, light bulbs, washing machines, thermostats.

If you can think of it, someone has probably stuck a sensor on it and connected it to the Internet.

Like a PC, the devices have operating systems and processors. And when they are connected to the Internet, hackers can break in and seize control.

Manufacturers and consumers haven’t taken the same security precautions as they would with a PC, however, enabling hackers to turn seemingly innocuous gadgets into drones that can be used to spread malicious spam or launch a massive cyberattack — disrupting services or shutting down entire networks.

Even more frightening for many security experts is the prospect that the hackers could cause physical harm to people by shutting off thermostats, cars or even medical devices.

Such fears led doctors to turn off the wireless functionality of a heart implant in former Vice President Dick Cheney, out of concern that someone might hack it and attempt to kill him.

“It’s the Wild West out there again,” said Tommy Stiansen, co-founder of Norse Corp., a San Mateo, Calif., cybersecurity firm whose threat-detection team has discovered a wide range of devices being hacked. “The number of devices that have been compromised is staggering.”

Such attacks are expected to multiply with the proliferation of Internet-connected devices. By 2050, analysts project, there will be 50 billion Internet-connected devices, or five such gadgets for every man, woman and child on the planet.

Consumers for the most part are helpless because they usually have no idea their gadgets have been commandeered.

A home wireless router can be configured to provide some rudimentary protections, but most users typically turn on the firewall or anti-virus software on their PCs, thinking that would be enough. And as such the wireless router becomes an unlocked door of sorts for hackers to gain access to the household devices.

This year, Proofpoint Inc., a Sunnyvale, Calif., cybersecurity company, tracked a global attack that sent 750,000 malicious emails from more than 100,000 gadgets — including home Wi-Fi routers, TVs, DVRs and even a refrigerator.

“How do you update the software on your refrigerator?” Proofpoint Chief Executive Gary Steele said. “I don’t even know how you do that.” ….

These attacks aren’t limited to individuals: Businesses and large organizations also are getting slammed.

Norse and Sans Institute, an Internet security research and training firm, released a report last month that found Internet-connected devices in places such as hospitals, insurance firms and pharmaceutical companies had been infiltrated.

In addition to getting access to patient files and information, the attackers managed to invade radiology imaging software, conferencing systems, printers, firewalls, Web cameras and mail servers.

“What’s concerning to us is the sheer lack of basic blocking and tackling within these organizations,” said Sam Glines, CEO of Norse. “Firewalls were on default settings. They used very simple passwords for devices. In some cases, an organization used the same password for everything.”

In such instances, companies such as Norse will contact large organizations and try to alert them to the breaches. Some companies take action; others prefer not to deal with it. Although some breaches are also reported to law enforcement agencies, most lack the resources to deal with what they perceive as a relatively trivial crime.

As bad as things are now, security experts fear that these attacks may cross over into the physical world. Hackers could access an Internet-connected smart lock and open the front door to burglars or tap into a smart meter and turn off the heat in a home during the winter, causing pipes to freeze and burst.

U.S. regulators are starting to take notice. In September, the Federal Trade Commission announced its first settlement in an “Internet of things” security case. The FTC complaint said Trendnet Inc. had falsely advertised its security cameras and video baby monitors as being, well, secure.

According to the FTC, a hacker exploited a flaw in the cameras’ software, and that led to other hackers posting links to the live feeds of 700 cameras. These feeds showed babies sleeping as well as kids playing and adults just wandering around.

“I’m sure it’s slowly going to be addressed,” said Johan Sys, managing principal of identity and access management for Verizon Enterprise Solutions. “The same thing happened in the mid-90s when everyone was joining the Internet. They had the same security problems. Now we’re in that cycle again, and there’s going to be some pain.”

The “Physics” of History

Imagine building a house. Initially, all you have is wood, nails, glass panes, and a whole bunch of other materials just lying in random places. The first step is to somehow make a design to fit all those pieces together. Then, the builder actually starts working, by first building a base, and from the base he works bottom up. Through various techniques, a lot of work, and a lot of adjustments, the end product is one full house where a person can live in.

Scientists call this a reversal of entropy. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the natural order of things is to go from order to disorder. For example, the reason why every process generates heat is because the heat is the most disorderly of the energy forms for which other more orderly energy forms (i.e. electricity) can convert to. Or you can take a glass of wine. It’s easy to drop a glass of wine and watch all of it spill out and the glass shatter- that’s natural. But it’s near impossible to do the reverse of that.

However, in this case with the house, we see it going from disorder (a bunch of shit materials lying around) to order (one functioning house). Pretty much the reverse of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. And as all physicists know, to go from disorder to order, it requires an input of energy- as seen with the energy and effort exerted by the builder.

This analogy of the house is just like human history itself. We started off as a bunch of roaming primitives, but later came together to form one single unit- say a village. That right there was the first spark of the reversal of entropy- in other words, the first spark of history.

That was the first event. And each and every event that came after was another step towards a reversal of entropy. The formation of cities. The rise of a centralized government. The initialization of trade and commerce. A developing system of written laws. The Industrial Revolution, in its more efficient and unified way of manufacturing. The rise of the Internet. All these events helped in creating a more unified and less disorderly world. And all these events make up what we call now as history. It’s sort of like an arrow moving into a direction of orderliness- this is like history itself.

As mentioned, this direction towards orderliness requires input of energy. Where do this input of energy come from in terms of history? By the many individuals and groups that changed history. The kings, tyrants, inventors all were part of this input of energy. A anti-entropy reaction can only work because of an input of energy; similarly, history could only exist because of the many people that can allow it to happen.

World War 2 actually resulted in more order, such as the creation of what is now United Nations

Of course, people might point out to war events- how could these cause society to be more orderly? Wouldn’t it cause it to be more chaotic? The thing is, no. In fact, you could say that wars and bad events are like catalysts of this progression towards orderliness. A catalyst is an enzyme or anything that speeds up a reaction. This “reaction” here- history and its progression towards orderliness- has been sped up many times by bad events. Take the many conquerors throughout human history- they waged so many wars, but in the end, not only do they create a unified empire, but they also spread their own culture to other cultures and intake new cultures into their own.  Therefore, not only is it more orderly literally in terms of land controlled, but more importantly it is more orderly in terms of the exchange of ideas, money, etc. And all of this could be just from one big war.

Another way bad events serve as catalysts is because they force people to confront their problems which are making their lives disorderly and thus fix it, becoming more orderly. Another step into the direction of the arrow of history.

Pretty much, I am redefining history into this- history is the continual movement of the reversal of entropy. There may be some times in which disorder seems to dominate, but in the end, it all speeds up the general trend into orderliness.

Confessions of a Speciesist

For my first post of 2014, I’m gonna share this opinion article that I read from Scientific American by Michael Shermer. It’s a problem with humans that really bugs me.

Where do nonhuman mammals fit in our moral hierarchy?

The case for exploiting animals for food, clothing and entertainment often relies on our superior intelligence, language and self-awareness: the rights of the superior being trump those of the inferior. A poignant counterargument is Mark Devries’s Speciesism: The Movie, which I saw at the premiere in September 2013. The animal advocates who filled the Los Angeles theater cheered wildly for Princeton University ethicist Peter Singer. In the film, Singer and Devries argue that some animals have the mental upper hand over certain humans, such as infants, people in comas, and the severely mentally handicapped. The argument for our moral superiority thus breaks down, Devries told me: “The presumption that nonhuman animals’ interests are less important than human interests could be

merely a prejudice—similar in kind to prejudices against groups of humans such as racism—termed speciesism.”

I guess I am a speciesist. I find few foods more pleasurable than a lean cut of meat. I relish the feel of leather. And I laughed out loud at the joke about the farmer who castrates his horses with two bricks: “Does it hurt?” “Not if you keep your thumbs out of the way.” I am also troubled by an analogy made by rights activists that animals are undergoing a “holocaust.” Historian Charles Patterson draws the analogy in his 2002 book Eternal Treblinka, and Devries makes visual reference to it by comparing the layout of factory-farm buildings with that of prisoner barracks at Auschwitz. The flaw in the analogy is in the motivation of the perpetrators. As someone who has written a book on the Holocaust (Denying History, University of California Press, revised edition, 2009), I see a vast moral gulf between farmers and Nazis. Even factory-farm corporate suits motivated by profits are still far down the ladder of evil from Adolf Eichmann and Heinrich Himmler. There are no signs at factory farms reading “Arbeit Macht Frei.”

Yet I cannot fully rebuke those who equate factory farms with concentration camps. While working as a graduate student in an experimental psychology animal laboratory in 1978 at California State University, Fullerton, it was my job to dispose of lab rats that had outlived our experiments. I was instructed to euthanize them with chloroform, but I hesitated. I wanted to take them up into the local hills and let them go, figuring that death by predation or starvation was better than gassing. But releasing lab animals was illegal. So I exterminated them … with gas. It was one of the most dreadful things I ever had to do.

Just writing those words saddens me, but nothing like a video clip posted at freefromharm.org. Appropriately described as the “saddest slaughterhouse footage ever,” the clip shows a bull waiting in line to die. He hears his mates in front of him being killed, backs up into the rear wall of the metal chute, and turns his head around, seeking an escape. He looks scared. A worker then zaps him with a cattle prod. The bull shuffles forward far enough for the final death wall to come down behind him. His rear legs try one last time to exit the trap and then … Thug! … down he goes in a heap. Dead. Am I projecting human emotions into a head of cattle? Maybe, but as one meat plant worker told an undercover usda inspector who inquired about the waste stench: “They’re scared. They don’t want to die.”

Mammals are sentient beings that want to live and are afraid to die. Evolution vouchsafed us all with an instinct to survive, reproduce and flourish. Our genealogical connectedness, demonstrated through evolutionary biology, provides a scientific foundation from which to expand the moral sphere to include not just all humans—as rights revolutions of the past two centuries have done—but all nonhuman sentient beings as well.

And here was an interesting comment I saw: The “vast moral gulf” you see between a genocide like the Holocaust and that perpetrated against 60 billion land animals intentionally and annually in animal agriculture is in the vast perceived difference we see as a speciesist culture who believes, without any rational basis, that simply being a member of a different species is grounds for exploitation. The victims are indeed different but the methodologies, strategies, ideologies and propaganda used by the perpetrators of oppression are always consistent in both of these cases and indeed in all cases of genocide. The same “otherization” is perpetrated against those based on race, religion, color, sex, etc. It’s all part of the same “naturalization” of violence and hierarchy by those in a position of power against those who have little or no power.

“There is a vast mythology surrounding meat, but all the myths are in one way or another related to what I refer to as the Three Ns of Justification: eating meat is normal, natural, and necessary. The Three Ns have been invoked to justify all exploitative systems, from African slavery to the Nazi Holocaust. When an ideology is in its prime, these myths rarely come under scrutiny. However, when the system finally collapses, the Three Ns are recognized as ludicrous.” ~ Melanie Joy, author of Why We Loves Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism.

Intro To The 4th Spatial Dimension Part 2

Continuing from Part 1, today I will discuss the godliness of 4-dimensional beings. Remember again that we will use analogy to attempt to understand how a 4-d person would interact with a 3-d world. Note: by 4-d I mean the 4th spatial dimension, not the dimension of time.

Stickman in Jail

Now suppose there is a plane, called Flatland, and a 2-d guy named Stickman is living on it. One day in Flatland he commits a crime. The police, deeming him a danger, puts him in prison by drawing a circle around him. Now, Stickman can’t escape. Whether he moves right, left, up, or down in his 2-d  world, he cannot escape this circle “jail” (see right). But, he has left out one direction, one that he cannot visualize- height, or the z-axis-dimension. The problem is, since he can’t visualize it, he can’t use that dimension to escape his jail. But suppose one day you, a 3-d being, came to visit Flatland and noticed poor Stickman in jail. What do you do? Why you simply peel him off Flatland from the jail and place him back in Flatland outside of the jail. In a sense, you helped Stickman escape through the z-axis-dimension, and you are able to do so because you’re a 3-d being. To us 3-d beings, this is nothing special. It’s just like stepping out of a circle. But to the citizens of Flatland, it is a miracle. It almost seems as if Stickman had magically transported from his jail to another place outside of jail. Again, keep in mind that these 2-d beings cannot view the 3rd dimension, and so during the time when Stickman is peeled out of Flatland, to the 2-d beings Stickman doesn’t exist on Flatland anymore.  But once he was placed back in Flatland, to the 2-ders, it is as if he suddenly reappeared out of nowhere at a different location.

Again, we are using analogy. So what does all this imply for us? Well, think about it: if a 4-d guy (let’s call him Upper) visited our 3-d world, could he not also do the same things as what a 3-d person could do to the 2-d world? First off,  Upper could free criminals from jail. All he has to do is to peel them off our 3-d world through the 4-d dimension and peel them back onto Earth. Again, this would seem like to us as if the criminal magically transported from inside of jail to outside of jail.  So not only does Upper have the power of freeing people in jail, he also has the god-like power of transporting people. But again, who ever said it had to be a person in jail? Think about it- suppose you throw a coin into a water bottle, and then you close the cap tightly. Nobody in the 3-dimensional world can take out the coin without opening the cap. (Magicians can appear as to be able to do this, but in reality it’s because they’re so deft that their opening of the cap escapes the audience’s notice.) But everybody in the 4-d world can do that. Again, the bottle is like the jail, and the cap is like the prisoner. They can peel the cap off the 3-d world and peel it back on outside of the bottle. In essence, 4-dimensional beings can take anything out of a container without opening it. Almost god-like, isn’t it?

Here’s another magic trick that Upper can do. I want you to get two solid metal rings, and I want you to have them interlock each other without cutting the rings. You say, that’s impossible. But for a 4-d guy it anything but impossible. He can do that in no time. Why? Again, we shall use analogy. In Flatland, Stickman and his 2-d friend Paperboy are pushing two circles against each other. They want the circles to overlap as seen below:

It’s like you trying to push two metal rings together so they can interlock like above. For a 2-d guy, getting two circles to overlap each other is an impossible thing unless they cut the circles. For a 3-d guy, it’s no big deal. Why? Because we, unlike Stickman and Paperboy, can use the z-axis dimension. We can lift one circle up out of Flatland, and then put it back on Flatland overlapping the other circle. In essence, we have more room to maneuver these circles than do the 2-d people. Similarly, a 4-d duy is able to lift one of the rings out of the 3-d world into their 4-d world and then place it back into the 4-d world interlocked with the other ring. The same logic also goes with knots; in fact, knots don’t exist in the 4th dimensional world at all.

Hopefully you can see the godliness of 4-d beings. But again, to them, this is not godliness, but everyday common sense, just like to what 2-d people view as godliness from us, we view as everyday common sense. In my next and final part of hyperdimensions, I will show one more trick that 4-d people can do, and go a little off topic but still related to hyperdimensions.

Intro To The 4th Spatial Dimension Part 1

Hello, readers. I am back from my blogging break. In today’s post, as I said I would in the last post, I am going to touch upon hyperdimensions. Hyperdimensions are basically dimensions above the dimensions that we experience in everyday life- 1-D, 2-D, 3-D, and the temporal dimension. (Note: Although many people count the dimension of time as the fourth dimension, here in my post, I will just call it the temporal dimension- as many theoretical physicists do- so by fourth dimension I actually mean the fourth spatial dimension, not the time one.) There is no way in which we can see and experience hyperdimensions, given that we are not evolved to do so. So please- don’t be like the foolish amateur trying to construct a 5-d graph- you can’t. However, although we cannot view the hyperdimensions physically, we can view it mathematically and analogically. In this post, I will introduce to you the most basic of the hyperdimensions- the fourth spatial dimension- and have you see it analogically.

The zeroth dimension is a point. The first dimension is an infinite set of points put together in one dimension- say the x-axis dimension- a line. The second dimension is an infinite set of lines put together in a second dimension (the y-axis dimension)- a plane. The third dimension is an infinite set of planes put together in a third dimension (the z-axis dimension)- a cube. If we continue on, the fourth dimension should be an infinite set of cubes put together in the w-dimension. See below.

A note: that picture above of the fourth dimension is WRONG. Why? Because first off, thats basically just two cubes connected with lines by their vertices. Second off, there is no way you can draw a four-dimensional object, because humans can’t visualize it. Humans can’t visualize the w-dimension. I mean, try creating another line (w-axis) that is perpendicular to the x, y, and z axises. You simply can’t, whether on paper or in real life.

Now, before I continue on, what do I mean by “analogically”? Well, it has the word “analogy” in it, so there must be some comparing involved, which is rightly so. By analyzing how a second-dimensional person views the third dimension, we can gain insight on how we, a third-dimensional being, would view the fourth dimension.

So back to the picture. I noted that the 4-d picture was wrong. So what does it actually look like? Again, we can’t see it. But… can we not see a 3-d projection of it? Just think analogically now- suppose you are a 2-d person living on a plane. There is no way you can ever see what a cube actually is, because given you are 2-d, you can only see up to two dimensions. But, however, suppose one day the cube was unfolded and projected onto a 2-d surface, or in other words, we took the net of the cube. (see below left) Then you could see the cube, just not in its 3-d form. Similarly, if we were to “unfold” a 4-d cube, we could perhaps get a 3-d net of it. This 3-d net shown below right is that of a hypercube (4-d cube).

Cube Net (left) Hypercube Net (right)

So, looking at the tesseract, if we can somehow fold up the cubes in the fourth dimension, it would form a hypercube- or a fourth-dimensional cube. Of course, can you visualize a possible way to fold up these cubes? No, because once again, we cannot visualize the fourth spatial dimension. We can only see the 3-d form of a 4-d cube.

The orange is like a sphere. The slices are like the 2-d circles that consist of the orange sphere. Notice how the “circles” are different sizes.

So far, we have covered possible ways to view the fourth dimension. What is even more interesting, however, is not the dimension itself, but how the fourth and third dimension would interact with each other. Again, we will use analogy. Pretend there is a 2-d person named  Flat who is living in a plane. One day, a 3-d guy named Sphere (he’s actually a sphere) decided to visit the plane. Now, remember that Flat can’t view Sphere as an actual sphere because Flat can only see up to two dimensions, just like we can only see up to three spatial dimensions. So what will Flat see if Sphere decides to come into this 2-d world? Well, as I have stated already, “The third dimension is an infinite set of planes…” so Sphere, a 3-d sphere, actually consists of an infinite amount of 2-d circles of different sizes, all stacked up on each other (see left). Thus, when Sphere enters the plane, Flat will only be able to see these 2-d circles that make up the entire sphere. But note again, the circles are not all the same size. For instance, the circles on the uppermost top and bottom of the sphere are small (e.g. the furthest orange slice in the picture) and the circle whose circumference is the equator of the sphere (the middle) is the largest. Now examine the picture at the right. The top picture represents the first scenario, in which Sphere is entering the plane. What will Flat see at that moment? Just a small circle. However, as Sphere is entering the plane more (or pretty much moving down), the circle in which Flat will see gets larger and larger. It will continue to get larger until Sphere is halfway through the plane (the middle picture at right), where the circle Flat sees now is the equatorial circle. Then, as Sphere decides to leave the plane, the last glimpse Flat will see of Sphere is the small circle again (the bottom picture at right). Pretty much, the only way Flat (2-d) can view Sphere (3-d) is the intersections between Sphere and the plane, or in other words, the 2-d components- the different shaped circles- of Sphere.

Again, this is an analogy, so how can we apply this to how we 3-d beings can view 4-d beings if they ever visit our world? Well, just as how Flat viewed Sphere, we are only able to see the 3-d components of the 4-d beings. In other words, we can only view their intersections with our 3-d world. In the case of Sphere and Flat, the intersection came in the form of planes. In our case, the intersection will come in the form of 3-d objects. So if a 4-d guy ever came to our 3-d world, we will be seeing three dimensional blobs. Let me add that these are changing blobs, because look at Sphere- the circles first were small, then big, and small again. The intersections did stay the same throughout did it? No, it changed. Now assume that instead of Sphere, it was you visiting the world. You put your hand through the plane, and what will Flat see? He will see continuously changing 2-d complex shapes as you move your hand through the 2-d plane, because the intersections between your hand and plane will continuously change as you move your hand through the plane. Similarly, we can also expect the same of a 4-d guy- we will see continously changing 3-d blobs, because the intersections between the 4-d guy and our 3-d world not all the same just as the interesections between Sphere/your hand and the plane were not all the same.

I will stop here for now and continue on in my next post, where I will be doing more (more interesting) analogies. Through these analogies in my next post, I will show that if a 4-d person ever visited our world, we would view him as God. Again, I am being very brief on this subject, given that this subject is much more complex than just two or three posts. So I would also advise you to research this on your own. Perhaps one good place to start is Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions by Edwin Abbott. Some documentaries on Youtube are also great. I’m afraid that so far I have made this interesting subject appear really boring, but let me tell you that this is a really amazing subject. Hopefully in my next few posts, you will see the true beauty behind hyperdimensions.

Michio Kaku Short Bio

Michio Kaku

*A NOTE: I WILL BE TAKING A BREAK FROM BLOGGING…….

One of my most favorite scientists that I would like to talk about….

Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist, was born in San Jose, California to Japanese immigrants. His parents immigrated to the US to help out during the San Francisco Earthquake. During World War II, however, his parents were sent to the Tule Lake War Relocation Center, an internment camp. It was probably because of this that I think Kaku grew up in a relatively poor family, given most Japanese internees came out poor. He was soon born after his parents were released, and at the age of eight, he heard of Einstein, who he instantly became a fan of and became his inspiration and most important influence to strive for science. This scientific drive appeared in his high school career, which I envy very much. What I envy is his scientific ambition during high school, in where for a national science project, he assembled a particle accelerator in his parent’s garage. First off, I would have been too lazy to ever do something like that given the enormous amount of time required, and secondly, his parents actually supported him in buying him the materials, perhaps showing how influential his parents were to Kaku. My parents would have never done that. Now, as I had inferred, he was poor. How did he get into college, and not just any college, but Harvard University? Well, it happened that professor Dr. Edward Teller, saw Kaku’s project, liked it, and awarded him the Hertz Engineering Scholarship, allowing him to go full ride into Harvard. With hard work and a little bit of luck, Kaku had just gone into a university, which was rare for a poor person like Kaku.

Now, today, at this very moment, Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist and professor at the City University of New York. As implied, he is most well-known in the field of theoretical physics, given his work in popularizing it, such as appearing in radio shows, documentaries, and television shows and writing books to generate interest in theoretical physics. However, that is nothing; that is like dirt compared to the diamond of his career– he cofounded string theory. String theory explains that the universe is made up of strings which resonate with a specific frequency on their own. It is able to combine the theory of relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics, something Einstein tried but failed doing, based on the assumption there are multiple dimensions and universes. Today, it is a widely popular theory among many theoretical physicists for understanding the universe, although Kaku hasn’t finished yet. He is currently searching for the missing link to his string theory- the theory of everything, something Einstein also tried but failed doing. It almost seems as if Einstein is Kaku’s role model, in where Kaku is doing things that Einstein was doing. Hopefully, however, Kaku doesn’t fail in finding the theory of everything like Einstein.

One of his books

Kaku’s works have received varying criticisms from the scientific community and the world. His string theory, as I have just mentioned, is widely accepted by many scientists, although there are a few dissenting scientists now and then. He has won at least two New York Times Best Sellers for two of his physics books, and holds the title of Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in New York City College. However, he has been also notably criticized by the scientific community (and became extremely popular among the world at large) for his popularization of theoretical physics, or in other words, his work of making advanced physics understandable to the general community. I don’t know why he’s being criticized for this- maybe the scientific community wants to feel smarter than the rest- but I think what he’s doing is right. If he hadn’t popularized theoretical physics, my life would have gone on a different course. I would have first of all never known theoretical physics even existed. I would have never had the dream of being a theoretical physicist and helping create the Theory of Everything. Basically, his work affects me to this day because it made me realize what I wanted to be when I grow up- a theoretical physicist.

In my next post, I will talk about a popular theory in theoretical physics: hyperdimensions.

Can We Really Control Sexual Preference?

Homosexuality is a serious issue for Christians, especially since America and other nations around the world have become more accepting of gays and lesbians. They worry of this because they believe that homosexuality is a sin (by the way, I’m a Christian, too, and I actually advocate for sexual equality, so I am referring to Christians in general). But what defines a sin? God wants us to get rid of sin, so if he is asking us to do this, then it must be reasonable to assume that sin is something that we can control and get rid of. For instance, sexual lust is a sin, because it is something that we know not only is bad, but also can control. But what about gayness? Say it is morally bad. But can you control it?

Nobody knows the answer for sure, but recent experiments have been pointing to the fact that maybe it can’t be controlled. In China and Korea, scientists have identified a gene-related chemical called serotonin that are commonly found in many animals. It is thought to be related to the mood of happiness. But things have been indicating otherwise.

In the lab, scientists took a group of lab mice. When females were put with males, the females mated with the males. When females were put with only females, the females still preferred to mate with the males and thus, didn’t mate at all. Overall, this was how a normal female mouse was supposed to react.

Then, scientists genetically engineered the female mice’s gene by taking the serotonin gene out, and put the mice once again in the same conditions. When the female mice were grouped with only the female mice, they started and attempted to sexually mount other females- mice of the same gender. Even when put with males, too, the female mice simply ignored the males and tried to mount the females.

Two male fruit flies

We see this not only with mice, but also fruit flies. In this case, it is not serotonin that seemingly controls sexual preference, but a master sex gene known as fru. A normal male fly will act like this when beginning to mate: It pursues a waiting virgin female. It gently taps the girl with its leg, played her a song (using wings as instruments) and, only then, dared to lick her – all part of standard fruit fly seduction. Yet, scientists were surprised when they saw a female fly doing this to another female fly- after giving the female suitor a male-type fru. Similarly, when males were given a female-type fru, they became more passive in their sexual behavior.

Overall, we see that genes is the cause of sexual preference for two animals- fruit flies and mice. But could we not extend this possibility to humans? Perhaps there is a gene, not identified yet, that is linked to human sexual preference? In other words, the only reason why gays and lesbians are homosexual is maybe because they were born with it- they lacked the gene necessary for heterosexuality.

If this is the case, then this is big controversy, scientifically and morally. You can’t now blame a gay for being gay, because it wasn’t his choice. And if homosexuality is just an inherited gene thing, then it must not be a sin, for in order for it to be a sin, they have to be able to control it. But they cannot. It’s just like a boy not being able to control the fact he is a boy or a human not being able to control the fact he’s human. They were born with it.

Again, this is only if humans do have a gene for sexual preference. If we do,  then I think it is time for the church to embrace them- heterosexual people should not superimpose their own values on homosexual people. We should embrace this difference, just like we embrace differences in race, gender, and ethnicity. Pretty much, if sexual preference is determined by genes, then homosexuality is not a sin.

You Don’t Own Your Body

The human body. A miraculous structure of cells working together. So complex, yet so beautifully fitted together. Each cell, organ, tissue, or organ system does not act alone. Cellular respiration, on the small cellular level, is also tied to our respiratory system, on the organ system level. At the same time this is happening, other functions are also being processed in other parts of our body. All of this in one body. To me, this seems like a truly unified thing- complex processes all beautifully tied together into one human body.

As unified as the body seems, there are two things that don’t seem to be that unified: the person himself and his body. Perhaps more clearer is one’s mind and one’s body. For instance, have you ever sat in a quiet room full of people, just minding your own business? Then suddenly, because it’s almost lunch time, your stomach starts growling? And you’re even not that hungry? You tell your stomach to shut up, but it keeps on growling, and by then, everybody is looking at you weird.

Your stomach growling is an involuntary action; you have no say in the matter. Then who does? Your body. Because your body senses no food coming in, it starts giving off these growling messages. Wait, hold on then. Isn’t your body also you? As you can see, times such as this seem to suggest that no, your body is not you.

In a sense, your body seems like another organism- maybe just like a jumble of cells deciding to work together. If you were your body, then you would be aware of all the chemical reactions in your body, you would be able to make your stomach never growl, you would be able to consciously breathe while you are sleeping. But do you? No.

Portuguese-man-of-war

So I noticed this, and I was thinking, maybe our body is  another organism. For instance, take the Portuguese-man-of-war. Its sort of like this jellyfish that floats on water. This species is actually not an animal (even if it looks like it), but rather a collection of animals. Its just a group of  individual organisms who decided to attach together and soon became dependent on each other, thus forming a new species.

I would say all multicellular organisms are just like that. In the pre-ancient past, there were these primitive cells roaming around, similar to bacteria. Through endosymbiosis, a few cells swallowed other cells, and those cells swallowed became organelles. Thus, eukaryotic cells came into being. Now, this is where my hypothesis kicks in: soon, bands of eukaryotic cells decided to join together, probably because it made life easier for them, or because of safety in numbers. After a long long time, cell specialization occurred, (just like in the Portuguese-man-of-war, where the organisms became specialized), where liver cells, muscle cells, etc. developed to perform a certain function. Soon enough, these cells became dependent on each other (sorta like a symbiosis) and formed a new species.

Overall, the body you think you own now is actually not yours. Rather, they are organisms themselves, separate from you, and you don’t control them. The only reason why these cells decide not to just escape from your body and live their own life is because they’ve become dependent on the other cells in your body.

Now, this is where animals like humans differ from the Portuguese-man-of-war. Whereas this jellyfish creature did not evolve consciousness, somehow humans did. You could think of consciousness as an accidental byproduct of cells coming together to form a species. Or perhaps it was an intentional byproduct- the brain cells maybe were just cells evolved to make sure all the cells were doing their thing for the benefit of the body as a whole.

watch out…..

Let me clarify this: suppose a tiger comes chasing after you. What does your brain aka consciousness tell you to do? Scram! But why is it doing this? Is it really to make sure you’re safe? Heck no, your cells don’t care about you. Rather, your brain cells are telling the muscle cells to move, so that in the end, if the muscle cells can make you outlast the tiger, the rest of the cells are safe. Again, they’re not doing it for you; the muscle cells and brain cells are doing it for the other cells that they have become dependent upon. So all the cells are safe as a whole. Its like a symbiosis between the cells.

Basic message: cells came together not to create you, but just as a beneficial symbiosis for each of themselves. Just like two smart students coming together to make a group project; they’re not doing it for the group itself, but rather for each of them individually so each can have a higher chance of getting a good grade. The students are like the cells and the group is like the body. In a sense, cells are a little bit selfish.

However, although consciousness has seemed to occur just so all the cells in your body are safe, our conciousness has evolved, such that we feel that we were meant to be made. We feel that we are a single organism, a human, rather than just a collection of organisms. And then from there we become creative and do things that are not necessary for the survival of your cells, but for our consciousness. That is perhaps the true beauty of humanity- we made our consciousness human.