The prime of summer

I’m now going to cash in two weeks out of the six annually I have just alotted myself as vacation from long-form blogging on stefangeens.com. When I return, I expect the site to have been redesigned, because site design to me is a bit like gardening — hands-on but aesthetically pleasing in prearticulate ways — and that is exactly the change I need“Whatever information aesthetics conveys is prearticulate — the connotation of the color and shapes of letters, not the meanings of the words they form. Aesthetics conjures meaning in a subliminal, associational way, as our direct sensory experience reminds us of something that is absent, a memory or an idea. Those associations may be universal, the way Disney’s big-eyed animals play on the innate human attraction to babies. Or they may change from person to person, place to place, moment to moment.” Virginia Postrel, The Substance of Style..

I’ve also been thinking about making changes to the kind of content I post. I’ve figured out the short essay format now, so I was toying with the idea of forbidding it — all English-language prose, actually — as an allowable form for future postings here. Since blogging should be a learning experience, I figured, I should allow myself to write only in Swedish, Dutch, French, and in English rhyming couplets.

I soon realized that not even I would want to read such a blog, so that would probably be taking things too far. Still, I like the idea of a blog aiming to minimize its readership as a means of staying true to itself, and to that end I think I will write more quirkily in the future, and lie on occassion, and blur fact and fiction when it suits me. I think that writing to the expectations of a readership can increase visits in the short term at the expense of what the author feels might be most important, just like a political party that gravitates towards the center in a bid at popularity loses its soul in the process. So consider this realignment an attempt to avert the fate of Sweden’s Folkpartiet.

Quirkiness? Minimizing readership? Here is an example of what I mean: Over the next few weeks I want to read/reread the following books: Lee Smolin’s Three Roads to Quantum Gravity; Gödel’s Proof; a very well-reviewed book (available free in its entirety online) on the Riemann Hypothesis; and the relevant bits about Rule 30 in Wolfram’s A New Kind of Science (available online free as well). The reason? I need all four to explore the idea that there is no randomness, after all, at the quantum level in the universe, but that things are strictly determininistic, the result of unfathomably many simple processes leading to complex states for which there is no precise description shorter than actually running the universe from scratch — hence the ability of scientific equations to describe aggregate properties of systems but not predict exact statesEarlier posts about this stuff:
“Time is Discrete”
My Rule 30 Flash app
. Is there something akin to Rule 30 dictating interactions between the smallest possible units of space-time, churning out complexity in the form of particles? Is that the Theory of Everything? I need to repolish my tools for understanding at least a bastardized version of such a possible ToE if and when it is discovered in my lifetime.

pistep.gif
From an amazing online tutorial on the distribution of prime numbers.
What do Riemann and Gödel have to do with this? For me, prime numbers represent a basic graininess in mathematics — The Riemann zeta function approximates their distribution, but cannot predict precisely when they occur, in my mind providing an analogy to how rule 30 might create grainy results at the quantum level that equations can only approximate in the aggregate. Meanwhile, Gödel mapped — using prime numbers — statements about numbers to statements about logic, and showed that just as there will always be new (prime) numbers that are not the product of smaller numbers, there will always be new truthful logical statements that are not provable using more basic axioms. (At least that’s my current layman’s understanding of his proof, but I may be off, and hence the need of a reread.) If an eventual Smolin/Makropoulou-Kalamara ToE posits the universe is a huge distributed computer, then Gödel’s work, dealing as it does with number patterns, would be directly applicable! It would be a beautiful way of showing how our universe’s logic and the basic quantum structure of space-time are inseparable, one the corollary of the other.

During the next few weeks, I will still be blogging away at MemeFirst. Meanwhile, also, check out Anthony Lane’s love letter to Ingmar Bergman in The New Yorker, on the occasion of a Bergman retrospective at the Film Forum in New York. It sounds like he actually flew to Stockholm a few weeks ago just to get in the mood:

The weekend before your first Bergman movie, take a flight to Stockholm and, once there, a ferry out to the islands. This will not be hard, the capital itself being composed of fourteen islands, and the archipelago to the east offering twenty-four thousand more. Nowhere in Europe can you quit civilization and find yourself in wilderness with such speed, and that transition alone is a key to the dreams of escape in early Bergman, and to his later nightmares about what we may discover in our isolation. Think of Monika and her beau, the camera pitching slightly on the prow of their boat as it chugs through the city and out into open water; think of the two women, the silent patient and her chattering nurse, who hole up on a stony isle in “Persona”; think, finally, of Bergman, who has based himself since 1966 on that same hideaway, Fårö, a hundred miles south of Stockholm, and who chose it, two years later, as the site of “Hour of the Wolf” and of his coruscating war film “Shame.” Thanks to jet lag, you will have a chance to follow the arc of a Swedish summer evening. All the passages in Bergman, you will realize, where the characters are too hazy and restive, and the heavens too bright, for any hope of repose are not just fanciful conceits or loaded metaphors. They are weather reports, and when the girl in “Summer Interlude” recalls, “There was no time to sleep,” she is referring not only to endless sex, fine proposition though that is, but to the sacramental whiteness of the nights.

Bergman’s evocations of Swedish summers have clearly been the catalyst for many a foreigner’s fantasies about Sweden, not least Lane’s. To see what he means, catch Summer with Monika if you can.

5 thoughts on “The prime of summer

  1. Quote:
    “…I need all four to explore the idea that there is no randomness, after
    all, at the quantum level in the universe, but that things are strictly
    determininistic,…”
    Of course if this the case then that’s the way it is and it doesn’t
    matter whether we want it or not, but if things are strictly deterministic
    then the idea that you are choosing what to write or do next is an
    illusion.
    In fact, if that’s the case, wouldn’t the perception that there is
    a ‘you’ or an ‘I’ be an illusion also?

  2. Consciousness may be an illusion regardless of whether the universe is deterministic or not. I definitely think of it as an illusion, but only when I think of it, if you know what I mean. Yous and Is are a damn convenient shorthand for not bumping into things on a daily basis.

  3. While it’s true that a non-deterministic universe does not necessarily
    mean we have free will there’s still a big difference between the
    two situations even if we assume there is no free will. In a strictly
    deterministic universe every event, every moment, every ‘thought’ is
    predetermined ahead of time. For example you say “You’s and I’s are a damn
    convenient shorthand for not bumping into things on a daily basis.”
    This certainly seems like a sensible observation, but in a strictly
    deterministic universe it does not make sense. The idea that we could do
    anything to avoid bumping into things would simply be wrong. An illusion.
    Or even better an illusion of an illusion, because the word ‘illusion’
    implies that there is someone to be deceived where in a strictly
    deterministic universe there isn’t.
    Not only does this thought become nonsense in a deterministic universe,
    but pretty much all thought becomes an illusion of an illusion.
    The contrast with a universe without free will but still non-deterministic
    is strong. What would lack of free will mean in such a universe?
    It would mean that we only have the illusion of choice, that for the
    most part our ‘choices’ are determined by our circumstances.
    So how is that different from a deterministic future? The key is in that
    word “most.” A non-deterministic universe can contain deterministic
    elements, but it seems reasonable to assume that for something as large
    and complicated as a living thing there would have to be some point
    where the non-deterministic nature of the universe was reflected in
    that living being. That would mean it’s future path was not fixed, and
    it would mean that ideas like ‘you’ and ‘I’ were not nonsense but
    reasonable things to treat as if they mattered.
    In fact I have to wonder if a non-deterministic universe containing
    humans (that are also non-deterministic) implies that there might be
    the construct consciousness regardless of whether there’s free will or
    not. It seems to me that either way it would still be a useful method for
    an organism to negotiate with the non-organism. That in particular this
    would, as regards the non-deterministic elements, increase the organism’s
    odds of continuing to exist.
    The non-deterministic elements might only be a small part of what physics
    is manifesting, but if they are there at all then everything will organize
    itself around them because they are in a sense the only game in time.
    One more observation, if the universe is indeed strictly deterministic
    then it seems surpassingly strange that it has occurred in the form
    of a universe that generates so many illusions of illusions of not
    being deterministic.
    Since there’s no choosing in a deterministic universe, animate or
    inanimate, then why the world we ‘live’ in?

  4. I’m agnostic as to whether the universe is deterministic or not, and I do not think that you can guess as to the likelihood of either outcome from how “right” it would feel, or how pointless the wrong kind of setup would be. I think it will have to wait until the universe’s basic menchanism for change is discovered.
    As for consciousness, I am pretty sure that that it is an illusion, simply because of the way in which it is very much an evolutionary survival mechanism. Classifying things into us and not us, objects, colors, nouns, verbs, all lead to better survival chances, but to think that a particular “rock” exists outside our own experience of it is unjustifiable.

  5. I think that contemporary physics is based on that there is indeed a randomness on the very lowest quantum level. If you think it is deterministic even on the lowest levels (what is called ‘hidden variables’) you’d need to replace those theories with something new. But what do I know? I never really understood what it has to do with free will anyway.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *