Get Grubby

The dangers of purity are both physical and psychological.  Although we think we value being clean, a more subtle medical or moral rational shows that filth, or at least a little down-to-earth grubbiness, is frequently preferable.

From a physical perspective, it has been in the news for years now that super-clean households have higher instances of asthma than dirtier (especially farm) homes.  Exposure to bacteria and allergens early in life develops the immune system.

From a psychological perspective, the urge for cleanliness can easily and quickly lead to the cleaner-(holier)-than-thou attitude that allows us to dehumanize people who look different or are from a lower social class.  It is our aversion to dirt and disease that makes some of us shudder to share the same public spaces as homosexuals, untouchables, minorities, homeless, and foreigners.  A refined sense of cleanliness caries with it a narrow sense of what is acceptable.... which, from my narrow point of view, is dirty.

So, get dirty.  It's good for you and could be fun.

"Good" and the Structure of Reality

Here is a thought experiment idea on how God is reality and good is the structure of reality.  The basics of the idea can be lumped into two parts.

A) As I've discussed before, one can say that consciousness creates reality in the same way that time-space changes 3d objects, or that the bending of a 2d shape creates a 3d shape, the bending of a line creates a 2d shape, the stretching, or changing of a point creates a line...

Another way of saying this, which may not seem related at all, is that a point (which is 0D) without another point is meaningless, but the second point creates a line (which is 1D).  A line only has significance if it interacts with something else - a point, another line, whatever - but by doing so, it creates a plane (2D). The same logic applies to reality - a reality without something outside of the reality to appreciate it, is meaningless, but the interaction between the reality and the "something" adds a new dimension.  This logic could be continued on to infinity.  In the end, the infinity is self-contained - "infinite oneness". 

[As an aside, two boxes (3d) do not create a new dimension, it is only through their interaction that time-space (4d) is created.  At the very least, they interact through gravitational attraction.  Gravity is an observed phenomena, but I do not know if the interaction of the boxes is due to the necessity of the two boxes to interact in order to create a reality in which there are two boxes, or something else.  But in any case, I would be interested to know if a particle that pops into existence immediately interacts with all other particles, or if there is a speed of gravity...  I guess this could be answered by the rate at which a loss of mass causes a reduction in gravitational attraction... if this could be measured.  If there is a "speed of gravity", then there is a limit to the rate of change of reality.  I think this is equivalent to the 180 (or 90) degree limit to the bending (or changing the relative direction) of a line from 1D to 2D.]

[Another aside - if a particle pops in and out of existence, it could transmit a gravitational effect that carries on long after it is gone.  If a large number of particles pop in and out, then a large gravitational effect could be created.  The measure of the effect could predict the probability of a particle popping into existence. ]

[A third aside - what is a force?  Gravity, electro-magnetism, weak nuclear, strong nuclear - they all seem to be probability troughs.]

[A fourth aside... Gravity acts continuously, it does not have a wave behavior, except with respect to the relative position and distance of the masses, which are determined by electromagnetic waves... If an electron is partially in one part of a cloud and partially in another part of the cloud, can it interact gravitationally with its self?]

B) A reality without a consciousness to appreciate it is meaningless.  But consciousness is a product of a very specific reality.

It is well established by others that there are at least 40 physical constants that could not be different and still allow for life to exist.  There are many more variables, parameters, and strokes of luck that are required for intelligent life to exist.  One parameter is a sense of social mechanics that is at least partially made of moral values of good and evil.  Our sense of good is partially cultural, but also largely innate, or evolved.  Our evolved sense of good has provided a guideline for making choices that allow humans to continue to exist.  Without a sense of good, consciousness would fail to exist and therefore the reality that does not contain a sense of good would not exist. 

There are many requirements for reality and a sense of good is one of them... although it could be said that it is special only in it's vagueness, the act of contemplating and clarifying goodness enhances our appreciation of others and of ourselves and thus is more significant that any of the other variables in creating non-mechanical consciousness.

How does the innovation economy mesh with the postmodern mindset?

The postmodern mindset seems to be at odds with the innovation economy. Why? Because, in my humble opinion, economic growth can be broken into at least four roots.

Growth 1: more goods and services

Growth 2: more people

Growth 3: greater productivity

Growth 4: creative destruction (the disruptive process of transformation that accompanies radical innovation)

It is this last, Growth 4, that I find particularly interesting.

"This new global economy is more than just another layer of economic activity on top of the existing production process. Rather, it restructures all economic activities based on goals and values introduced by the aggressive exploitation of new productivity potentials of advanced information technology."
[source http://www.indiana.edu/~tisj/readers/full-text/14-4%20Stalder.html]

Postmodernism is a cultural value change in comfortable economic circles (such as Northern Europe, most of the US and Canada) away from Survival and Traditional values toward Democratic and Secular values. These people value immaterial life goals such as the pursuit of self-realization, meaning in life, justice in society, and harmony with the natural world above material security.

How does the Innovation Economy mesh with this Postmodern mindset?

Won't there be a crash between the constant retraining and entrepreneurship (needed in the first world, innovation economy) and the laid-back, lackadaisical postmodern culture (values created by the first world economy)?

What is the effect of near c speeds on electron cloud probabilities?

Thinking about the cross sectional interactions of particles traveling near c... If, in the direction of travel, the relative rate of interactions between particles slows down as the particles approach the speed of light, then does the rate of interactions between particles perpendicular to the direction of travel also slow down? I don't think so... So that would mean that chemistry, or particle physics, would get really weird, flattened out, -- kind of pancaked probability clouds...

Is ADHD really just low conscientiousness?

Conscientiousness is a fairly stable personality trait for how much care and deliberation is taken to do something "right". People who are very conscientious tend to be hardworking, neat, and meticulous, while people who are not very conscientious tend to be impulsive, scattered, and unmotivated. Similarly, people with ADHD tend to be impulsive, restless, disorganized, and have difficulty completing tasks.

I am ignorant, but it seems to me that there is an ADHD continuum that is simply the left tail of the conscientiousness continuum (normal distribution).

Are teenage girls the key to the future?

I believe that if you want to see the future, look at the young girls of today. If you want to understand the present, look at the young girls of five to ten years ago. Young people striving to impress each other - the interests, behaviors, and tendencies of these adolescent, confused individuals, define what is taking place and will take form in the future.

Women, or females, are the choosers, the selectors, the filters of our society's norms and mores. Young men try to impress, seduce, and otherwise win the favor of young women...

I should say that this is a general tendencies, in my ignorant estimation. I do not mean to claim that it is alway the young women making the decisions, nor that it is always the young men trying to woo the women. I think it is probably closer to the truth that a slight majority of the mate selection is decided on by the female. Overall, however, this slight majority steers the course of society. The preferences of young women today tend to influence the mentalities of other young women and of young men. As these youth grow into adults, these peer determined mores become societal norms.

The self image I formed as a child and adolescent was heavily influenced by my peers and by the young girls in the social environment of my youth. This is not to say that I blindly conformed to their preferences, but they were a major factor in the social environment to which I adapted. They were my immediate cultural influences. The music they liked, the clothes they wore, the way they talked - influenced everything from the language I speak to the way I comb my hair.

Young women, as far as I understand, are more concerned about what other young women think than about what their underdeveloped peer-boys think. Girls develop mentally at an early age than boys, and therefore set the tone and direction of the peer groups. The role of boys is largely trying to win at the games created by the girls.

As the boys and girls grow up, the games they play become more "serious", but are essentially just a mix of older and more recent generational games. The "real world" is just a decompression of the tight peer group-games played in adolescence. Boys find themselves competing with men who have had more time to play and seem to be winning. Girls find themselves in a similar situation, but most quickly realize that they are the prize. The quality of the contenders seems to increase dramatically as the young girls enter the adult arena, only to find that men, just like boys, are playing by rules set by women.

Why do we think men dominate western culture? Men produce the most works of art, writing, businesses, scientific discoveries, and are leaders in politics, business, religion, advanced education, etc, etc. It seems rediculous to state that men are actually just puppets to the preferences of women. Aren't men in control?

I argue that men are not in control of society; men are instinctively and aggressively trying to win a culture game where the sexual interest of young, fertile women is the grand prize. If women want men to be military heros, sports starts, scientists, wealthy business executives, cowboys, writers, or couch potatoes, then men want to be these things too.

All this instinctual effort to impress steers the direction of society and creates the future. The values and concerns that stay with us throughout most of our lives are formulated during our adolescence when teenage girls rule the roost. These young girls set their own courses and the courses of young boys and thereby create the future in their mysterious, indeciferable ways.

Is a reality without consciousness meaningful?

"If a tree falls in a forest when no one is around, does it make any noise?"

-- Ancient Chinese Thinker?

I take the position that a reality without consciousness is meaningless, but this begs the question of what is so significant about consciousness.

I believe that the interaction of two things, events, points in space, events in time, etc -- that interaction is the key to reality. For instance, a point all by itself is dimensionless. A point is a zero dimension mathematical concept. Another point, however, adds dimension to the first point. In the process, however, a new dimension is created: two points define the mathematical concept of a line. A third point, outside of the line, creates yet another dimension: a plane -- a two dimensional concept.

In each case, a dimension exists in an independent universe until it is connected to another dimension -- even a zero dimensional point -- and, in the process, creates a new dimension.

Extrapolating this concept out, a universe does not exist until it connects to another universe.

Now let's make a wide leap and state that each consciousness is an independent universe. From my perspective, nothing exists that does not affect me. Everything that affect me, exists. I am the center of my universe. I am the center of my reality. Nothing is real except that which affects me. Atoms may move a billion light years away, but until some effect from these movements reaches me, they do not affect me. A person next door may be plotting a bank heist, but until that information reaches me, or some related event touches me, it does not exist and it did not happen.

The interaction of individuals in a social society is the very heart of what is meaningful to humans. Without interaction, babies die, people go insane, or, at the very least, we become depressed. It is extremely rare that a person voluntarily lives as a hermit.

Emotionally there is a strong metaphorical analogy between the idea of interpersonal interaction creating a meaningful existence and two universes interacting to create a greater reality.

When something interacts with a consciousness, whatever that something is, it becomes real to the degree to which it affects the consciousness. If it barely affects the consciousness, then it is lost in the statistical background noise - the probability cloud of non-reality.

The descriptions of events on subatomic levels are dominated by probabilities and uncertainties. Electrons are best understood to exist in probability clouds. The location and momentum of a particle such as an electron is limited by the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. And, moreover, electrons actually behave like a probability wave as well as like a particle, depending on how it interacts with other particles. At the subatomic level, the reality of a "thing" is restricted to a probability cloud or wave until it interacts with something else.

Before the subatomic "thing" interacts with something, it's reality is vague, it does not really exist except as a potential or as a probability.

Yet when something interacts, energy is lost and entropy is created. The act of creating a "reality" has lowered the energy state of the universe.

Extrapolating wildly, we can state that with each "reality" we are one step closer to "heat death", the ultimate total entropy, zero energy state universe. Total entrophy is the ultimate reality.

At this point, each probability wave, each potential, each universe has interacted