Reality

I just finished reading one of the most fascinating books I have come across this year. This book, “Our Mathematical Universe: My quest for the ultimate nature of reality,” by Max Tegmark, an MIT professor of physics, is full of great insights regarding our universe and the nature of reality. While I cannot do justice in a short Blog Post what he says in a four hundred-page book, I thought some of his nuggets of wisdom might provoke thoughts in your mind.

“If we assume that reality exists independently of humans, then for a description to be complete, it must be well defined according to nonhuman entities—aliens or supercomputers, say—that lack any understanding of human concepts. Put differently, such a description must be expressible in a form that is devoid of any human baggage like “particle,” or other English words.”

The first point he is making is that reality is not just some illusion created by our senses, but it exists independently of us. He calls the reality from our perspective as similar to what a frog sees/feels if living in a well. That is not what a bird will see. It will see what is equivalent to a reality that exists beyond what we sense. (He actually has a third level between the bird and the frog perspectives---one he calls interrelated consensus perspective, but let’s not go there.)

The second point he makes is that in the bird perspective (reality independent of humans) things like a particle should be expressible without using the word “particle”. In one of my earlier Blog Posts, I had discussed what would happen if we did not have a name attached to us (December 2013). This is a similar situation; here he calls the names for things---a human baggage.

“All physics theories have two components: mathematical equations and “baggage”---words that explain how the equations are connected to what we observe and intuitively understand. When we derive the consequences of a theory, we introduce new concepts and words for them, such as protons, atoms, molecules, cells and stars, because they are convenient.  However, it is we humans who create these concepts; in principle, everything could be calculated without this baggage.”

He then goes on to hypothesize that if you remove that human baggage, we are left with nothing but mathematics.

“Atoms are made of elementary particles, which are purely mathematical structures in the sense that their only properties are mathematical properties.”

“If you believe in an external reality independent of humans, then you must also believe that our physical reality is a mathematical structure. Nothing else has a baggage-free description.”

So, what he conjectures is that not only is our universe explainable by mathematics, it actually is nothing but a grand mathematical structure. 

Bizarre, eh? He expects us to feel that way.

“Evolution has endowed us with intuition only for those everyday aspects of physics that had survival value for our distant ancestors, leading to the prediction that whenever we use technology to glimpse reality beyond human scale, our evolved intuition should break down.”

Now I know why I have such a hard time understanding Theory of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics or the concept that the universe is nothing but a gigantic mathematical structure. J

Government Spending Choices

Recently Germany decided to eliminate tuition fees entirely. That is a great move, which will cause students here in the US very envious. The debt that our students carry is staggering and restricts them from accessing education. Granting free higher education will, in an ideal situation, make the nation more educated and prosperous.

Of course, while this is free to students, it will cost government lots of money to make the program viable. Germany has made a choice. According to some one who lives in Germany, this shows that “some governments believe in spending money on education while ‘others’ choose to spend money on military”. There is no doubt that he is referring to US as the “other” country in that statement promoting the superior choice by the Germans.

Yes, we in the US have chosen to spend money on defense and less so on education. It does to some extent reflect the psyche of the American people, many of who would like to take pride in the fact that we are the strongest in the world.  Then there is the good old military industrial complex, which benefits enormously from our defense spending and that of many others it supports. The whole political structure is designed to keep it that way.

However, I would argue that there are some factors that make this enormous spending on defense not just a matter of choice. We are the prime target of every wacko organization in the world. Terrorists killed more than 3000 Americans a few years ago not Germans. From ISIS to Iran to North Korea, they all consider US as their prime enemy and want to cause us harm.

Also, we end up being world’s policeman. Some may say it is because we like to take that role as doing so furthers our cause. They argue that we intervene because we benefit, say, by taking an oil producing country away from a despot, or opening up a new market for our goods. The others may say that we do it from the goodness of our heart…to promote our idealized version of the world, even if it means we have to use force.

No matter what the reason is, we are and the world expects us to be the policeman. Any crisis in the world, whether it is in Ukraine, Syria or Iraq, the country which is expected to provide leadership is US, not Germany. Probably, there is no other choice; we are the most powerful nation on earth.  However, there is also a factor that the world trusts us with exercising power more than it trusts other powerful countries. How confortable will everyone be if China takes over that role?

Coming back the full circle, Germany does not spend too much money on defense because they are restricted from doing so. Where did that restriction come from? Well, the last time they were a military power, things did not go too well for the world. They managed to cause a conflagration that cost over 50 million lives.

So, Germany can afford to spend money on education, while we cannot. To conclude that this choice somehow reflects superior values of their society as compared to ours is a bit simplistic, to say the least.

Unfair!

If you as a parent give one of your children five cookies and the other six, what is the first one going to say---“Thank you”? I don’t think so. I suspect, a more likely response is going to be “unfair!” Rationally, what difference is one cookie going to make in the scheme of things? Little. However, that is not what the child receiving less is going to feel. That brings me to my first observation: If an action or situation is deemed to be unfair, its negative effects are amplified.

Of course, the cookies become money, when the child grows up, and the situation that would cause an angry reaction may be inheritance or the expectation there of.

An obvious corollary is my second observation: The expectation of equality is the reason why an action or situation is deemed to be unfair.

The expectation of equality is not limited to the family situation, of course. The citizens of a nation expected to be treated equally by the authorities. Any hint of inequality will generate the feeling of unfairness and amplify hurt beyond what the action may have caused. Come to think of it, people expect nature to be treating all human beings equally, whether it makes sense or not. I bet a family who gets its home devastated by a tornado becomes more anguished if the neighbor’s house does not suffer the same fate. “Unfair,” they might think, even if they don’t say that.

However, even though the perpetrator of the action could be government, society or nature, it is the interactions among family members, especially parents and their children that are the most potent sources of the feeling of unfairness, as expectations of equality are high. That is my third observation.

In my earlier Blog Post, (February 2010, Siblings) I had identified three situations among parents and children that cause stress in their relationships: getting support from parents while growing up, taking care of parents when they need it, and getting inheritance. The same situations cause the feeling of unfairness because the expectations are for equality ---children expect that they will get equal support, provide equal support and get equal inheritance.

Even if there is inequality in any of these situations, the feeing of unfairness can be avoided if there is a valid reason for that situation to arise. If the parents provide more to one child growing up (which inevitably happens), a good explanation of why it was so will prevent the bad feeling. Similarly, if one sibling is unable to take care of parents because he lives in another country, the one taking on the responsibility will understand. Finally, there are situations where the inheritance cannot be equal. Parents may decide to leave more for the child who needs more. Good explanation and understanding all around will prevent ill will.

However, if that is not the case, there is a problem. So, my fourth observation is: The level of amplification of negative effects is particularly high when there is a belief that there were (are) alternative actions that, if taken, would not have caused inequality.

This is so much like dripping water from a faucet keeping you awake at night while the sound of traffic does not. You can take an action to shut off the faucet, while you cannot do anything about the traffic.

These points are combined in the diagram below.

So, what should the person who is feeling that he/she is being unfairly treated do?

Well, I can tell a story of what he/she should not do. In this instance, the wife of one of the brothers felt that they were being unfairly treated because her husband was not made partner in the father’s firm. The reason was simple, he did not have the qualifications to become one. However, that was not properly communicated, as it was assumed that the brother was well provided for even if he was not made a partner.

So, the wife, in a rage over the perceived unfairness, decided to take over the house where the parents lived as a way of equalizing the inequality. That did not go over well with the rest of the family and she lived the rest of her life ostracized. In her mind, she achieved equality and fairness, but at what price? Was shattering her family by her corrective action worth it?

That leads me to my final observation: In most instances the corrective action leads to more unhappiness than it is worth, while being ineffective.

So, if you are the person taking action that would be construed as unfair by another party, think twice about it. If there is a chance that the action has to be taken, explain and get acceptance (even grudging). If you are the victim, do not take “corrective action” without being aware of its consequances. Be magnanimous and forgive, even if it is hard to forget.

Keeps on walking...

He grows up in a dusty town in the western corner of India. As his father is struggling to make ends meet, the family cannot afford a bicycle. Leave alone a car. He learns to walk long distances relying on his thin but strong legs. There is no alternative.

His father takes him and his mother to Burma, as there is promise of a job in that far away land. He does not speak Burmese and that is fine as he is not much into making friends anyway. He finds that the solitary activity of walking is just fine under the circumstances. He keeps on walking.

Just when he is about to enter a medical college in that far away land, the Japanese come conquering with their airplanes and bombs. He, his mother and four siblings are sent back to the motherland. They come back as refuges, leaving the old life behind. Bright and ambitious, he gets enrolled in a medical college in Bombay. Penniless, there is not much he can afford to do in terms of entertainment in the big city. Walking costs nothing. Walking does not require making friends. Walking fits him fine. He keeps on walking.

He meets a fellow student, falls in love and marries her. They move back to a dusty old town close to his birthplace to raise a family. Prosperity comes, gradually. Even a car. Now, there is no need to walk, but walking is a good activity to do with the family. The fresh air---a chance to leave behind the din of the busy town. He keeps on walking.

The children fly away, one by one. They all end up in the distant land of USA. He and his wife decide to retire and move their to be with their children. Under their care.

The US is a prosperous land and children have done well. They all have cars, but driving is a problem. After trying a little bit, he gives up the idea of driving. There is not much he and his wife can do without driving in the prosperous new land. Walking does not require driving. They center their daily existence around walking. Two rounds a day.  

Time goes by. The wife dies. He grieves. The inner strength that took him through the rough parts of life returns. Walking as a couple becomes walking alone. Just like it was in the college days.

Time continues to go by. He stoops low. The strong gait becomes shuffling of feet. The steady walk becomes an unsteady meandering. He falls and is rescued by a passing neighbor. There is a medical investigation. Perhaps he has Parkinson’s. May be he has issues with his heart.

Nothing is found to be wrong with him. Just weakening muscles. He gets physical therapy. The therapist does the best he can. He is in his nineties after all. Children put restrictions on his walking. They are afraid of him breaking some bones the next time he falls.

He refuses to give up. Walking is his life. He is not about to give up on life.

He keeps on walking.

Is this a way to achieve peace?

I have Israeli friends as well as lots of Jewish ones. I also have some Muslim friends, although I do not know anyone from Palestine. I do not have any religious affiliation and consider all religions to be equal. Thus, I believe I have the credentials to be considered objective in my reaction to what is going on in Gaza at the moment.

I completely agree with Israel's claim that they have a right to defend themselves, and abhor Hamas' objective of wiping them from the face of the earth. If Hamas is trying to wipe out Israel by throwing missile that do not seem to hit anything in particular, they have a thing or two to learn. Obviously, they are not that stupid. They are trying to get the attention of the world to the grievances of people they govern---specifically, to get Israel remove blockade of Gaza. They have tried this before and it did not work. Repeating the same tactic is a sign of desperation. Didn’t they know what Israeli response would be? Perhaps they think there is no other alternative.

I am angry at Hamas for using an ineffective tactic that disrupts the lives of Israelis, occasionally kills a few, and makes them retaliate in a predictable way.

However, if I am angry at Hamas, I am outraged at Israel. I find their tactics revolting and strategy hard to understand.

Their current tactic is to kill all the Hamas fighters, and destroy their infrastructure through bombs and shells. We all know what a carnage that has produced. I am speechless and feel sick when I see pictures of innocent children dead or dying.

The reasoning put forward by Israelis is that they are dying because they are being used as human shield by Hamas. That may be true in some cases based on what I have heard. In those cases, I think of the situation as similar to the one that evolves when a school is taken over by a mad gunman, a scenario all too familiar with us living in US. The SWAT team can find a way to negotiate with the gunman or take him out with a precision shot. Alternately, they can flatten the entire school with a bomb and blame the resulting carnage on the mad gunman. How will public react to that?

Suppose, later on, it is found out that the mad gunman took the student hostages because he was angry at the police force and wanted to make them look bad when the images of dead children appear on the TV screens around the country. True. He may be doing that. However, would that finding exonerate the SWAT team?

Further, in many (if not most) cases, the civilians that die are not being used as a shield by Hamas. Given that there are two million people in that crammed place, with nowhere to go, innocent people always surround a Hamas fighter, no matter where he hides. Are all those people still considered to be deliberate shields?

Israel claims that they are always taking pains to spare civilians. To demonstrate, that we are shown pictures of their air force being very surgical in their strike…blowing up a building of a Hamas fighter with a precision guided bomb. But how can you be surgical when you fire a shell in a neighborhood? Add to that, we all know that errors happen and weapons malfunction. In that case, won’t a “surgical” strike become a catastrophe?

Finally, at least some of the shelling is reported to be in retribution to avenge the killing of Israeli soldiers. In one instance the Israeli army reportedly wiped out a whole neighborhood, including a family of 27 who had gathered for Ramadan dinner, as punishment for killing some of their own.

So what is the end game? Extrapolating from the current trajectory, is the plan to achieve destruction of Hamas by flattening all of Gaza?

So much for the tactics; now, about the strategy.

Has this type of response worked in the past? No. This is the third or fourth time (I have lost count) that exactly the same scenario is being played out. Why would the end result be different this time? In fact wouldn’t the situation be worse?

At the end of this round of carnage, when cease-fire is achieved, one can think of two scenarios to describe the thinking of a Palestinian who is currently not a member of Hamas. One is that he will think, "Yes Israel is right in punishing us for what Hamas has done. Hamas is the real culprit and has brought this misery on us. The next time I will not make a mistake and elect them. " Another scenario is that he will think, "I had little before, and now I have nothing. My son is killed and this family that I used to know has been blown away. All around me is utter destruction. I have no job and no prospects. I have nothing to lose. I am not going to take this lying down. I am going to sign up with Hamas and fight."

Which scenario do you think is more realistic?

Is this a sound strategy to achieve peace?