Earlier this evening Eleen and I were in bed together, and talking. It’s been a while since we had the chance to do that or, well, much of anything else but sleep in the same bed. She’s been working with Tashel Ban day after day on the computer, as often as not from first light to late in the evening. The rest of us finally sat the two of them down two days ago and told them that it wasn’t going to do anybody any good if they worked themselves to death, and they agreed to take it a little easier.
Well, to be a little more precise, we made them take a couple of days off. Berry, who’s been learning how to run the computer from Tashel Ban, promised that he’d keep an eye on it in case anything happened, and the rest of us bullied the two of them into going to bed. I don’t know how long Tashel Ban slept, since he wasn’t the one I was supposed to bully, but I can say for a fact that Eleen didn’t do much yesterday but eat and sleep, and she slept pretty late today, too. During the day, since Berry was still standing guard over the computer, she spent some time with me in the room where all the alien-books are. Her idea, which I should have come up with myself but didn’t, was to go through all the books at once, and sort out the alien-books from anything else we found.
I figured it wouldn’t do her any harm to sit and read a bit, so I hauled books and we sorted them, and by the time dinner came around we had one really big pile of alien-books and another, much smaller pile that was mostly stories, with a few other things we couldn’t figure out. I put the books from the small pile on the top shelf, and all the alien-books on the ones below, so I’d be able to pick something different to spray and bundle up when the thought of leafing through one more book about Roswell and people being kidnapped and how the government was going to have to ‘fess up any day now was just that little bit more than I could take.
At dinner Tashel Ban and Thu swapped stories about Jinya pirates they’d tangled with, and everyone else ate and drank and hoped that we wouldn’t find anything that would force the two of them to take care of their argument the old hard way, knife in hand, in a chalk circle four meedas across. Afterwards we lounged around for a while, talking about nothing in particular, and then Eleen and I went to the room we share and things pretty much followed from there.
Afterwards we lay curled up around each other, feeling warm and comfortable and not saying much for a while. I was hoping Eleen would fall asleep, because I was pretty sure she still needed more rest, but instead she shifted and said, "All those books about flying saucers."
"What about them?"
"I can’t help thinking about the people who spent their lives waiting for the aliens to land, back in the old world. There were millions of them, you know."
I didn’t, not until then. "The government had that many people fooled?"
"It was more than that." She moved, settled on her back. "There’s a thing called the Big Bang effect."
"That sounds fun," I said, and kissed the nearer of her breasts. She laughed and said, "Not that kind . In the old world, right up until a few years before it ended, scholars believed that the whole universe started out with a big explosion: the Big Bang."
I gave her a puzzled look. "How could that be the beginning? If there’s an explosion, you have to have something to explode first."
"I know. That’s what they thought, though, and they had reasons for it. Did you ever hear something go by you fast, making noise?" She moved a hand past my head and whistled, and the whistle dropped from high to low as the hand went by.
"Sure."
"That’s called the Doppler effect—the way the sound is higher in pitch when it’s coming toward you, and lower when it’s moving away. The same thing happens with light, and when scholars studied the stars, they found that the light from the stars is redder—lower in pitch—than it would be if they were still. So they figured all the stars are flying apart, like bits of stuff from an explosion. Do you see?"
I nodded. "But..."
"There’s more. There was also a theory about the way the universe was put together, written by one of the most famous scholars back then, a man named Einstein. There were many ways to make the math in the theory work out, but the simplest way only works if the universe is getting bigger." I gave her a baffled look, and she went on: "Again, think of an explosion. Something small gets much bigger."
"But.." I tried again.
She put a hand over my mouth. "And some scholars figured out that outer space had just a bit of heat in it, more than they thought it should have, and they decided that the heat was left over from the explosion. So everyone thought, well, the stars are moving away from us, and the theory of relativity works best in an exploding universe, and here’s the heat from the explosion—it’s got to be true."
She took her hand off my mouth, and I said, "But none of those proves that."
"Of course not." Then, smiling: "Why not?"
"Because something else could have caused each of those things."
"Exactly." She kissed me, then said: "If A causes B, and B shows up, that doesn’t prove that A must have happened—not unless you know for certain that A’s the only thing that can cause B. People forget that. They forget it all the faster if A can cause B, and C, and D, and all three of those things show up—it’s easy to think that A’s got to be the cause. If things come up that don’t fit the model,people don’t weigh things evenly; they don’t say, B and C and D suggest that A happened, but E and F and G and H suggest that it didn’t. They take each piece of contrary evidence one at a time: here’s E, but E by itself doesn’t outweigh B and C and D, and neither does F by itself, and so on. So you can end up with far more evidence against a theory than for it, but nobody notices, because they’re taking the evidence for the theory all together, and the evidence against the theory as though each piece stands all by itself. That’s what scholars nowadays call the Big Bang effect."
"So how did they figure out that the Big Bang didn’t happen?"
"Somebody figured out that there’s another effect that makes starlight look redder when it comes from further away. It wasn’t the Doppler effect after all. Then somebody else took a second look at Einstein’s theory, and it turned out that some puzzles that nobody had been able to solve were easy to work out once you realized the universe wasn’t getting bigger. The heat had other explanations, too, but nobody had time to figure out which was right, because that’s as far as they got when the old world ended."
"There must have been a mother of a lot of embarrassed scholars."
"It was much worse than that." Her face went somber. "The Big Bang was the foundation of most of what had been worked out in half a dozen sciences. People spent their entire lives working on theories that depended on it—and suddenly there they were. I don’t think any of them killed themselves, but there were scholars who kept on insisting that it was all wrong and the Big Bang was real until they went back into Mam Gaia’s belly. It was that or admit that they’d wasted their lives."
I’d realized a while earlier where she was going with all this. "And the people who believed in the aliens, they made the same kind of mistake."
"Yes, but there was even more reason for them to make it. I was taught that the people who believed in flying saucers thought the aliens were about to land and solve all our problems for us. When the old world was ending, most people hoped that something like that would happen—that somebody would somehow fix everything, so that the old world didn’t have to end. So every light in the sky, and every story about—what was that place in the desert?"
"Roswell."
"Yes. Every story about Roswell, every faked picture and faked sighting the government put into circulation, and everything else, had to add up to aliens visiting Mam Gaia, or the last scrap of hope they had was gone." She shook her head. "So they waited, and waited, and waited, and the flying saucers never landed. For all I know some of them are still waiting, the way the Old Believers wait for their god to come back."
I thought I could name at least one who was still waiting for the aliens, but right then Eleen turned to face me and reached for me. "Waiting?" she asked.
"Not any more," I told her, and I didn’t, either.
Afterwards, we curled up again, and a little after that she fell asleep. I waited until I was sure she was good and deep, then slipped out of bed and got some clothes back on.
The hallway outside the room we share was as hushed as it must have been in the years between when Anna’s people left it and when we arrived. I closed the door as quietly as I could and went down to the room where the alien-books were. It was dark and empty. I turned on the light, and noticed that there was a gap in one of the shelves where I’d put the alien-books earlier that day. It was just about wide enough for one large book. I looked at the gap for a moment, and wondered who else was reading about aliens—Anna, or one of the others?
After a bit, I pulled down one of the stories from the top shelf and tried to read it. It was another of those make-believe stories set on other worlds, like the one with the worms I mentioned a while back; this one was about someone who figured out how to predict the future, and the future he saw coming was the fall of an empire like Meyco’s, except this one covered the whole galaxy. It was a good story, too, and I’ll go back and read it tomorrow, but just then my mind kept on wandering off and I finally put the book down and just sat there on the floor with my chin in one hand.
I was thinking about Eleen—about how we met, which I’ve already written about, and how we met again in Sisnaddi after I’d come back from the Lannic shore where I’d found the one thing I needed to know to find Star’s Reach and watched the Spire fall and run for my life from the wave that came after it. I’d come back along the same road through the mountains, past Cumlun and Pisba and then down the Hiyo to Sisnaddi, every step of the way on foot because all the money I had in the world just then was barely enough to keep me fed, never mind pay my fare on a riverboat.
The ruinmen’s hall in Sisnaddi isn’t part of Sisnaddi Core, of course. It’s a bunch of big shapes like mushrooms that rise up out of the tumble of buildings west of Core where the chemists, the burners, and the other guilds nobody lets inside the city walls live and do their work. What that meant is that I walked all the way around Core to get to the ruinmen’s hall, signed myself in, put up with the pitying looks from the old ruinmen there who were sure I was wasting my life chasing Star’s Reach, and went to the big west doors of Core just as soon as I’d washed up and gotten something to eat. Not three hours later I was back out the west doors of Core with a scrap of paper in my pocket that told me where Star’s Reach was and how I was going to get there.
I could have gone back to the ruinmen’s hall and showed it to the old men there, but I knew they wouldn’t believe I’d found anything that mattered, so I went to the big tavern right outside the west door with every intention of spending the last of my money getting thoroughly drunk. They probably would have had to carry me back to the ruinmen’s hall that night, too, except that I walked in the door and nodded to the barmaid and found myself staring straight at Eleen, who was sitting over by the side of the room at a little table with a glass of cheap whiskey in front of her and a look on her face that told me everything I needed to know right away.
After I got over the surprise of seeing her, I went over and stood in front of the table until she noticed me and looked up. She didn’t say anything at all, not at first, just looked at me.
"Mind if I join you?" I asked.
That got me a smile. "Not at all." She waved at the chair across the table from her.
She was still wearing a scholar’s gray robe, but the only reason a scholar from Melumi would be in a cheap tavern in Sisnaddi was if she’d failed and been sent away. I knew that, and she knew I knew it, and so neither of us had to say anything about it at first, which was probably for the best. "Did you have any luck finding Star’s Reach?" she asked.
"Not yet." I wasn’t ready to tell her about what I’d just learned. "Both the places you found for me turned up empty—not that that’s your fault."
"Thank you for saying that." She tilted her head, considering me. "Are you still looking for it?"
"Not bright enough to quit," I told her.
That got a laugh, and she reached past her drink with both hands, and took hold of mine. "Good."
So I got a glass of whiskey to match hers; I got a little drunk and she got a little more drunk, and talked about nothing in particular, and the end of it all was that I didn’t get back to the ruinmen’s hall that night. We stumbled up the stairs to the sleeping room she’d hired with the last of the money they’d given her when she left Melumi, and spent that evening pretty much the same way we spent this one.
The next morning, I told her about what I’d learned in drowned Deesee and what I’d found in the archives, and said, "I’m going to need a scholar to come there with me, and I’d like it to be you."
She thought about that for a moment. Then, bitterly: "I’m a failed scholar."
"That’s what ruinmen always hire."
She blinked, and then straightened a little. "I didn’t know that."
"It’s not like scholars who are still in the Versty will camp with us in the ruins, you know."
She blinked again, and I could just about see her thinking through what it meant to have a place in the world again, not to mention work that could pay her keep and maybe a lot more. "I suppose not." Then: "Trey, if you’re willing to take me, I’ll go. I’ll go anywhere." She put her arms around me. "Among other things, you’re good to spend time with, you know."
Of course I kissed her then, and since she wasn’t wearing anything and neither was I, things went pretty much the way you’d expect from there.
We’ve been together ever since then, all through the months of negotiating with Jennel Cobey, getting in touch with the others in our party, traveling west, getting here, surviving those last horrible moments out in front of the door, and then doing what we came here to do. Even now, though, I’m not sure whether we love each other or whether we were just two lonely people who needed each other for more reasons than one. I can point to B and C and D, that’s for sure, but is A what’s behind them all, or something else? The priestesses say that behind the things we see there’s another world we can’t see, and everything here is like a shadow or a reflection of something there. Maybe they’re right, but sometimes I wonder whether there can be anything in that other world that’s harder to see than the inside of another person’s heart.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
37 comments:
I am liking this more and more. Being a failed scholar myself, I think that the way your describe science today is bang on. It would be interesting to imagine a conversation between you and Karl Popper.
Another interesting bit about the ruinmen of Troy
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/opinion/dismantling-detroit.html?_r=3
I notice that you forgot to number this particular chapter in the title.
Degringolade, I'd have enjoyed that conversation -- I've read quite a bit of Popper's work, and learned from it. Eleen's comments on science, though, are mostly based on classical logic -- the fallacy of affirming the consequent is the basis for, as Trey would say, one mother of a lot of current scientific thought.
Mister R., thanks for catching that! I've corrected it.
"Affirming the consequent.."
Reminds me of the time my wife and I were so enchanted with the fact that our little (university) town was getting an Indian restaurant that we went the first week and had to wait in line to get a table.
I started a conversation with the man next to me in line, and when I learned that he was an astronomer, I had a bunch of questions for him. The first was, given that we have only one point of reference in a very large space, how do we know how far away things are, red-shift or not. It seems to me that the Doppler effect only makes sense in this instance if you can know how distant objects are, and we have no way to triangulate. He said that there is a certain type of supernova where all instances are identical, and therefore given the relative intensities, etc, of the radiation that reaches us, we can know how far they are. I was, and remain deeply suspicious of that purported identicality, whether or not there are other ways to know the same information. Thought you might enjoy that story.
I too am liking the story more and more. It makes sense that the government would encourage UFO cargo cults in a time of collapse, people waiting for aliens to come will be more passive and less likely to revolt.
I'm interested in your comments on the big bang. I've always been a bit skeptical of it, but haven't studied the issue enough to have a formed opinion on the matter. Is there a particular alternative theory that you consider a better fit? Or are all Eileen's comments referring to hypothetical discoveries made at a future time in your timeline?
Eric, yes, I've heard about the stars in question -- I haven't followed up on the details, but all the calculations involved in stellar distances involve very faint signals that have to be extracted from a great deal of noise, so I have my suspicions -- when I did statistics and experimental design classes in college, one thing I learned is just how easy it is to find what you're looking for in any set of data.
Ozark, my take on the UFO thing is not so much that the government is encouraging cargo cults, as it is that the entire UFO phenomenon was invented by the Air Force as cover for a variety of now-declassified aerospace technologies -- rather along the lines of the inflatable tanks that were used to distract the Germans from the real location of the D-Day landings. My book The UFO Phenomenon discusses that theory in some detail, on the off chance that you're interested.
As for problems with the big bang theory, the one that keeps catching me is the amount of special pleading that goes into dealing with red shift figures that imply speeds faster than light. Wikipedia's article on "superluminal motion" is a good introduction to one end of that debate; the section labeled "problems" is worth a careful read.
My mistake -- the section to read is labeled "some contrary evidence."
This is a very good story, but it doesn't match my understanding of how scientists respond to a paradigm shift at all. It reads more as wish-fulfillment than realism, which is OK in this genre of course, but still rings hollow.
For one thing, a new paradigm tends to engage with many of the same phenomena as the one it supersedes, and so the great majority of raw data and even much of the effort done to find patterns in it are still valid.
For another, the old paradigm stays exactly as useful as it always had been, in practical terms. Sure, Newtonian physics has been shown to be false, but it's still good enough for most engineering tasks. Cosmologists tend to be driven by the feelings they get when facing or constructing enormous, beautiful ideas and images, rather than by ideas of practical consequences of their work. A paradigm shift wouldn't convince them that their lives had been wasted any more than impressionists were so convinced when cubism came along.
Joel, not so. I'd encourage you to look up what happened. for example, when continental drift, which had been rejected as pseudoscience for decades, ended up being unexpectedly proven true in the late 1960s. A huge amount of work in geology that had gone into trying to figure out how mountains and continents were formed had to be chucked into the dumpster, and there were bitter quarrels in the geological literature. The transition from Newtonian to relativistic physics was an unusually easy one; many others are much more traumatic, and there are indeed situations in which many decades of work are decisively repudiated. If the Big Bang theory were to be discarded as I've suggested here, there's every reason to think that would happen.
I have read your UFO book and thought it was very good. I guess I misread you in the story and thought they were saying the government aided the UFO cults. I don't think they're doing that right now or in the past, but I do wonder if in the future if things are bad enough that the government is facing the possibility of revolt, and people aren't buying the idea of progress returning through any ordinary means anymore, if some people within the government might get the idea of encouraging certain sorts of apocalyptic ideas, namely ones that result in people passively waiting for the apocalypse, and also have no set date predicted for their occurrence, just "some time in the near future". Space Brothers type stuff would be one that would fit that description.
I doubt they're doing anything like that right now as it's a lot more risky than just proclaiming the train of progress will start running again shortly through more ordinary means, but when most people stop believing that, I do wonder what sorts of propaganda will come next.
As an aside, I have found something else that helps confirm some of your other ideas about the UFO phenomenon. The herbalist Matthew Wood has treated several people who were having "alien abduction" experiences with an herb, wood betony, which has ended their experiences. Wood betony was know in the middle ages for warding off "wicked spirits". More evidence that that aspect of the UFO phenomenon is a new manifestation of an old phenomenon.
My understanding of Kuhn is that during many paradigm shifts, it can't always be decisively shown what has stayed and what got chucked. Equations that worked may stay but what they're thought to model may be quite different.
Also, I think part of what made the shift from Newtonian to relativistic physics so easy was that Newtonian physics already contained a key component of Einstein's theory — relativity of motion — that almost nobody noticed because they assumed there was an absolute frame of reference that made it irrelevant. Newtonian physics could have worked with or without the ether; it just happened to be the case that relativistic physics only works without it.
Even in physics, though, you have the continuing problem of how to reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics, because QM works more neatly without gravity and relativity more neatly without the nuclear forces and quantum effects.
About the "Big Bang Effect"... for the purpose of the story and the point being made, it matters not one bit whether or not there is actually any contrary evidence, nor whether our author actually believes any of it. The point is that science officially is NOT supposed to fall for the fallacy of "A implies B, we observe B, therefore we conclude A." Scientific "truths" are supposed to always be viewed as generally accepted working hypotheses, always subject to revision or falsification by new information. "A implies B, we observe B, this is consistent with A." However, in fact, a very large number of working scientist forget all this and believe that many things that have not been or cannot be directly observed have been nonetheless "proven" to exist. Any science fiction author can quite fairly conjecture a world in which any scientific "truth" has been overthrown by stunning new discoveries. To directly observe the Big Bang you would have to have been there at the time; to directly observe the expanding universe you need a way to measure the distances between galaxies directly (not by inference) and see it changing over time. Both are extremely impossible at the present. As an interesting contrast, the direct measurements of continental drift have been made, and the process of sea floor spreading with the formation of new crust at mid-ocean rifts has been directly observed as it happens.
The official name for this phenomenon is "confirmation bias," and it is a well-documented and near universal feature of the human mind. It applies to just about everything, not just science, including personal relationships.
You may have learned much from Poppers work, but your decription of what happened to the Big Bang Theory is disticntly Kuhnian - hooray for that!
Contrary to some of you other readers, I have no doubt whatsoever that the Big Bang Theory is true.*
Nor do I have any doubt that, in time, it will be superseded by an even better truth.
*for 'true', of course, read 'the theory that, at this point in time, best balances coherence and data inclusion'.
... What else could you read for 'true', anyway?
@Thijs Goverde:
As long as philosophicalish, I should point out that there is a long-standing tradition in philosophy — one that, wouldn't you know it, I agree with — that in the basic case "true" doesn't mean anything but "true," because the concept of truth isn't reducible to any other concept (since all other concepts depend on the concept of truth).
But in practice, "X is true" means a lot of things, your definition included.
*shrugs* Then again, I'm the sort of weirdo who suspects that neoplatonism and neopragmatism are reconcilable, mutually attractive positions.
@ shiningwhiffle: 'true' means 'true', eh?
Well, that explains how... why... it explains... erm...
I'm sorry, but I am a proud member of the longstanding philosophical tradition that tautologies don't explain very much, or are indeed helpful in any way at all.
which, in itself is pretty much a tautological statement, so...(shrugs also)
Anyway, did I already mention I really like the story?
Wonder what Trey will make of the Foundation books!
@Thijs Goverde:
Well, I don't mean that you define "true" in terms of "true," just that you don't define it, period. It's a conceptual primitive.
If you try to define truth, you end up with a problem. Say person A says, "Truth is correspondence to reality," and person B says, "Truth is perfect coherence," and person C says, "Truth is the best explanation so far."
Which one of these is true? And more importantly, which definition of truth are you going to use to answer that question?
Anyhoo… I love this story. This and the Report are the two blogs I make sure I make time to fully read every month and week, respectively.
Oh dear. SIWOTI grips me. Mr. Greer, please excuse my veering off topic.
@shiningwhiffle:
Well, not defining 'true' doesn't actually solve anything, does it? Calling it a 'concepual primitive' quite literally glosses over the fundamental problem: how does one distinguish truth from its opposite?
Creationists and scientists both claim their ideas about reality are true. How can anyone decide which of them is right if no one knows what makes a true statement true? To be able to know that, surely one would need to define 'true'. Or is there something I'm missing?
@Thijs Goverde:
What makes a true statement true and how we know whether a statement is true or false are two different issues. You don't need a definition of "true" or "false" to know that the sky is blue but not made of coconuts. In fact, if we couldn't know things without defining truth, we couldn't know enough about truth to define it.
What needs to be explained is how truth and knowledge link up, but that can be explained without ever defining truth. Personally, I'm a coherentist a la Donald Davidson and Roderick T. Long. That is, I don't define truth in terms of coherence, but I define warrant in terms of coherence.
It's interesting that the discussion went to the transition from Euclidian to Relativistic paradigms, without moving on to the subsequent, more painful transition to Quantum Mechanics.
The encounter between Einstein and Bohr at Solvang, in 1927, is said to have been anything but smooth, and resulted in the famous (perhaps apocryphal) quote, "My god does not play dice with the universe."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#Relativity_and_quantum_mechanics
@shiningwhiffle:
I'm not terribly convinced, I have to say. Can we say we know the sky is blue without assuming the statement 'The sky is blue' to be true, or can we at most experience the sky's blueness (or, as the case may be, grueness)?
Also, your example of knowledge was suspiciously more innocent than mine. Few would deny knowing that the sky is blue, whereas knowing that man and ape share ancestors is by no means intuitive (my guess would be that this has to do with the fact that the qualium of blueness can be experienced directly). In a discussion of evolution, the relation between truth and knowledge is likely to be pivotal.
I quite agree with your statement that if we couldn't know things without defining truth, we couldn't know enough about truth to define it. However, to me that mostly means we can't, so we don't.
I'm quite a coherentist as well, from the 'never mind mind, matter doesn't matter and essence isn't essential' school of thinking.
Kudos to you, for making it all the way to Davidson! I fell in love with the ideas of Goodman and, well, I just never felt the need to look further. So I stopped doing philosophy - if you don't really need to do it, you're not doing it right.
I'm intrigued by the bold step JMG took here -- fiction is an ideal ground to discuss the problems of confirmation bias and "affirming the consequent" in a more detached manner than actual real-life scientific debate... (where, as JMG notes, people often react based on how much of their career is invested in a particular theory).
From a reader's perspective, I'd love to hear more about what (in JMG's universe) replaced the big bang theory... (presumably some kind of variant of Steady-State)... but that's not an absolute requirement.
I wonder if more of this discussion of scientific groupthink might spill over into JMG's regular blog, (where some of it has appeared already).
Specifically, for a long time, I was considering asking JMG to comment on health and nutrition issues associated with modern, processed food... (and there are only a few ways that are faster to ignite a flame war on a blog than to talk about weight loss, so to date I haven't asked.)
For example, I found Gary Taubes' book "Why We Get Fat" to be very persuasive. Taubes is not a nutritionist and he admits up-front that he doesn't have the entire story. But he collates a lot of evidence from different sources which indicates the prevailing medical advice is wrong: that the balance between calorie intake in food vs. calorie output in exercise is not the primary thing that governs weight gain or loss.
Post simply that on a blog or in a comments section and it's amazing how quickly many dozens of people will log on to expound in great detail on the previously unheard, radical, 'revolutionary' notion that fat people are lazy and need to eat less.
I hope that isn't too much of a comment hijack, and I'm hoping JMG's usual audience doesn't include too many of the usual reactionary Internet commenters who take great glee in lambasting fat people for their assumed vices. But the current consensus on diet and weight loss leaps readily to my mind when discussing confirmation bias.
For decades doctors and nutritionists have noted that people who exercise and play sports a lot ("A") tend to be thin ("B"), so we've just assumed that exercise promotes weight loss ("B follows from A"). To my mind, this MIGHT be a gigantic correlation/causation problem, or maybe more properly selection bias: people who are thin tend to be agile, and thus have more success, and get more enjoyment and reward out of, sports and exercise. Thin people do more exercise because they enjoy it more than fat people -- rather than exercise makes fat people into thin people.
See, for some examples:
Scientific American
NY Times 1
NY Times 2
Time Magazine
If we're fat because we don't exercise enough, then why are so many human-associated animals also gaining weight over time? Do the dogs, squirrels and possums need to do more pullups and situps every day?
I'd love to hear JMG's comments on the modern science of nutrition and weight loss...
It's also not lost on me that in the same paragraph as Eleen says the Big Bang has been rendered obsolete as a theory, it also says that Einstein's work has been rendered obsolete. Which might mean, in JMG's fictional universe at least, there may be heretofore unknown methods to travel faster than light... (or even travel through time)... so perhaps we may eventually have a more personal encounter with the Cetans, or some other advanced species. Of course, given JMG's other writings, one would have to assume that supra-luminal travel (or time travel) was a gigantic energy expense, that no civilization could afford to make a habit of; nevertheless, some possibilities are open.
@ Thomas Daulton
Einstein obsolete? Actually, I'm not certain that's what the story says. It says certain puzzles were easier to solve once you let go of the Big Bang theory. That theory is not part the theory of relativity, iirc.
If the Big Bang is let go, and the puzzles in Einstein's theory are now easier to solve... wouldn't that mean the theory of relatuivity is even more embedded now?
True, Thijs, my comment was speculation. (Of course this entire genre is "speculative" fiction!)
JMG, through Eleen, is positing that relativistic math does, quote, "work best in an exploding universe". The math is "simplest", she says. I am positing that with more complicated math, there _might_ be more loopholes and exceptions to the rule that nothing can go faster than light.
Or then again, there may not be. But for purposes of exciting, dramatic fiction... it seems to me preferable to imagine there _are_ intriguing exceptions to physical laws, than to imagine there simply aren't any!
In other words you're expecting Mr. Greer to bring in some alien space bats?
Ozark, that bit about Matthew Wood is fascinating. It makes sense, too.
Bill, nicely stated. Thank you.
Thijs, I've read Kuhn closely -- there's a copy of The Structure of Scientific Religions not ten feet from the computer where I'm typing this, and it's seen some heavy use. To my mind, his insights and Popper's mesh usefully together.
Jose, as far as I know, nobody in Trey's time except a few scholars in Melumi knows a thing about quantum physics. It's not of great interest to them -- for that matter, I think the only reason a lot of scholars know a little about relativity is the big controversy about the Big Bang theory Eleen discusses.
Thomas, what's replaced the Big Bang theory in Trey's time is "well, nobody knows how the cosmos is put together on the grand scale." The research that would be necessary to create a new theory is a low priority just then.
As for diet and weight, nearly everyone in the US is barking mad about that subject, and then there's the remarkable degree of official dishonesty -- did you know, for example, that the "obesity epidemic" was quite simply manufactured by changing the definition of obesity? (They did the same thing with the definitions of diabetes and high blood pressure, which did wonders for the sale of medications for those conditions, too.)
Finally, no, the story didn't say that Einstein's work was made obsolete. Those with more of a background in physics may correct me here, but my understanding is that an expanding universe is merely the simplest case in relativistic physics, and you can adjust general relativity fairly easily to a nonexpanding universe given some factor equivalent to Einstein's original "cosmological constant" in the equations.
More generally -- no, there are no alien space bats in this story. Aside from my own sense that travel from one star system to another requires energy supplies on a scale that no intelligent species will ever have available, such a gimmick would be utterly out of place in the story I'm writing here. Over the months to come, I think you'll be able to see where it's all heading.
Thomas Daulton, you might be interested in the Weston A Pric Foundation, in case you aren't already familiar. It's true that as a group "on the outs" with conventional nutritional wisdom, they are a magnet for a certain amount of conspiracy thinking, so I go in with a
few hands full of minimally-processed sea salt.
But there is a baby in all that bathwater, namely that people have been living for many generations on diets rich in animal fats, fermented foods, whole foods, among other things, and the burden of proof lies with those who promote modern alternatives that are sterilized, low in fat, and/or highly processed.
In other words, maybe the conventional wisdom of 100 years ago was more accurate. Please pass the butter!
This also ties in with peak oil and particularly the topic of this weeks ADR in that it promotes localized diversified small-scale low-tech farming, which should prove resilient to de-industrialization whereas most conventional food production is the epitome of machine-based I-it relationships, right down to the way animals, plants and the soil are treated
as objects.
Most of today's conventional nutritional wisdom is based on a 50 year
old understanding of biochemistry and physiology. There is an artificial inertia based on political and economic factors.
The fact is today's conventional nutritional wisdom lines up well with
the marketing goals of the food industry, the same industry that is
always at the table when government guidelines are drawn up. Selling
highly processed food based on corn and soy is more profitable than just about anything today. Of course peak oil is likely to change all that.
As far as diet, exercise, and weight, I still think there is a causal relationship, but it is much more complex than conventional wisdom
implies. A 50 year-old understanding doesn't take into account the dynamic interactions between our metabolism and different nutrients, and interactions among nutrients. Also missing from this understanding is the role of food enzymes and the living bacteria in our digestive tract.
For example, medium-chain saturated fatty acids, most common in coconut oil and dairy (more butter please!) actually speed metabolism while giving a feeling of satiation. Polyunsaturated fats have the opposite effect. And then there is the insulin reaction to carbohydrates. Low-carb diets do lead to weight-loss, but Atkins puts too much emphasis on lean protein, which will not satisfy the way animal fats do, and will lead to imbalances because protein and mineral assimilation relies on fat-soluble vitamins. And these vitamins are not nearly as safe and effective in pill form as they are, lo and behold, dissolved in fat (more butter please).
A very simple thing to try is just reduce portion size, but make sure every portion counts (don't skimp on the butter). That's the everyday traditional way except during times of feast and famine. Having so much easy access to so much food throughout the year is another byproduct of cheap abundant energy.
So it's no wonder people try to lose weight and fail, based on what they're taught. It's also probably not healthy for most adults to try to look like teen athletes. But if everyone exercises to feel better, they will probably look better even if they're still carrying some extra fat. Besides when central heating is a thing of the past, and food supplies less consistent, we will once again appreciate the insulation and reserves!
Thanks everybody, Thijs, Jim B., and JMG, for the dialogue!
Yes, Thijs, I guess the direction I was heading in was alien space bats... ;) ...and JMG isn't going to accompany me on that flight of fantasy. Well, I'm a dyed-in-the-wool sci-fi geek, and old habits die hard. Sorry!
I must protest, though, that inventive writers can postulate all kinds of other intriguing plot devices if given the freedom to skirt Relativity just a little. Near real-time communication with the distant Cetans, for example, due to a loophole in the physical laws, might be a stunning plot twist all by itself. But of course, JMG is right, that's not really appropriate for the story he is currently telling.
As for the diet issue -- thanks again, JMG and Jim for answering -- everyone in the US is loopy about it, just as you say. And I have actually watched them push the disease threshold down -- in 2006, I had a government job that required regular physicals, and my doctor expressed shock and fear that my blood pressure had "gone up sharply" in the past six months... when actually, I showed her the proof: the reading she herself took six months ago was exactly the same as the more recent one, but 'they' had lowered the "optimal" blood pressure by five points in that time, pushing me from the "nag about exercise" category into the "treat with pills immediately" category. When I showed her the paperwork, she gave me a sour look and grumbled, but she refused to admit that the changing definitions were any problem.
Virtually everything Jim says jibes well with that Taubes guy I am touting... I was going to post more details about Taubes' theories, but it seemed like a tangent, and I hit the comment word-count limit. Yes, according to Taubes, the reaction between insulin and carbohydrates is a key (not the only one, but a huge one). You still have to exercise and spend energy in order to lose weight, but if the mainstay of your diet is processed carbohydrates, apparently it sends a biochemical/insulin "signal" to your fat cells to cling desperately to their contents instead of giving them up. This signal can utterly overwhelm the weight loss effect of exercise, in his view.
And then once you start watching out for that, you walk down the non-produce aisles of any food store, and all you see is carbs carbs processed carbs and more carbs. Carbs aren't deadly poisin or anything, but if you aim to cut down, the standard American diet and typical modern food supply available is absolutely appalling.
I bring all this up because Taubes has a fascinating section in his book where he documents the scientific hijack re: diet of the past 50 years, as you are saying. 80 years ago it was common knowledge and accepted medical doctrine that overindulging in certain specific foods -- bread, potatoes, beer -- makes you fat. Then a few doctors came along with the opinion that the type of food makes no difference; all that matters is calories in vs. calories out. And Taubes documents just how resistent that replacement theory has been to stacks and stacks of counter-evidence. A good example of scientific group-think.
I hope that you don't mind, but I have you down on my blog as one of the blogs that I love. This is part of the Leibster Blog award day.
http://mightaswellliebackandenjoyit.blogspot.com/
I really appreciate what you do here. Thank you
JMG -- Haven't you heard? The cosmological constant is already back! I figured this must have been one of the reasons you chucked the Big Bang on the heap of defunct theories! Those same "standard candle" supernovae have indicated that the apparent rate of expansion (measured by redshift) has been "increasing* since the Big Bang, not decreasing as is predicted by relativity with no cosmological constant. So... Einstein's "greatest blunder" has been resurrected in the form of "dark energy" (not the same as "dark matter," which is has somewhat more sound empirical backing) -- a repulsive force throughout the cosmos that causes the space-time metric itself to expand at an accelerating rate. Mathematically it takes the same form as the old cosmological constant. Of course the only possible explanation for the redshift discrepancies is an accelerating expansion of the universe (nothing else is on the table), even though it single-handedly undoes all the math that made the original Big Bang seem like such an elegant solution to the original problems posed by relativity.
To quote Charles Schulz, "I wonder how a potato chip got all the way up here from Brazil?" (google it)
Bill, my take on "dark matter" et al. is that it's the precise modern equivalent of the epicycles of late Ptolemaic astronomy -- part of the creaking tower of assumptions needed to make a fundamentally flawed theory fit a disobedient universe. Postulate some other cause for the red shift, and a lot of problems go away in a hurry. Still, I'm not an astrophysicist, and I don't even play one on TV.
Actually, the most amazing bit of epicyclic thinking in Big Bang cosmology is the inflationary universe, concocted... er I mean hypothesized to explain the large-scale isotropy of the universe. I am not making this up: An entirely unknown field associated with a gage particle that has never otherwise even remotely been suggested to exist (but still would permeate all of creation to this very day) caused the universe to inflate by a factor 10 to the 78th power in the first 10 to the minus-32nd power seconds after the big bang, at hypersuperluminal apparent speeds. These numbers are derived by the PIOOMA method being what is necessary to make the theory work; there is absolutely no independent empirical reason to pick these values. And yet most mainstream cosmologists now seem to believe this theory.
All this stuff may well be approximations honing in on actual facts about the cosmos... but they are getting smellier and smellier with each added wheel-within-the-wheels.
Here's an idea.. maybe some process that only is detectable over huge time and distance scales causes photons to lose energy, hence they become detectably redshifted after traveling for billions of years. Maybe some related process fills the universe with an isotropic microwave radiation. Maybe it is one of these lovely symmetries in mathematics and nature and conservation of energy that causes the apparent "age of the universe" calculated from the redshifts to be exactly consistent with the "temperature" of the microwave background? Maybe the potato chip really did not flap all the way here from Brazil?
Or maybe the inflationary universe with dark energy is exactly correct, bizzarely contrived though it may seem? The really interesting parts of science are the areas where scientists disagree. "Settled science" is boring.
Boy, am I glad I wandered back over here. You folk are awesome.
I don't intend to lay out more rope for myself on cosmology, but regarding fat and diet -- you know America is completely foam-at-the-mouth crackers about weight and diet when the fact that somebody _refuses_ to diet constitutes a news article: http://www.larknews.com/archives/4114
"[Pastor] Jones says he’s grown tired of people sizing him up and asking for updates.
“When you announce that you’re on a diet, people take ownership of it,” he says. “They email me, ‘How much did you lose this week, pastor? I haven’t seen you at the gym.’“
He also gets dirty looks from church members at the local barbecue pit.
“They glare at me like I’ve fallen into gross sin when I’m having a plate of spare ribs,” he says. “I guess I should only be seen at Yogurtland.”
Just in case anyone is still interested in discussing food and diet... I just sent someone to read the public campaign and book by former FDA commissioner Dr. David Kessler today. His big point is that most commercially prepared food (from fast food, to prepared pre-packaged food in stores, to restaurant food) has been very carefully designed to appeal to the same brain sectors and neurons as addictive drugs. This hasn't been done scientifically, but through trial-and-error by the companies over a century or more. The common ingredients like fat, salt, and sugar might keep you coming back for more all by themselves, but what our culture has done to almost all commerically prepared food is to heighten the extraordinary sensations associated with it: pleasure sensations which were rare but rewarding in the primitive diet. According to Dr. Kessler, the particular aromas, the crunch in the mouth and the crinkle of the bag of potato chips, or the gooey melting of ice cream, etc., are specifically tested and designed to set off the pleasure centers of the brain as well as heighten the gastronomic feeling of reward that goes with the fat, salt, and sugar (which were generally rare prizes in primitive man's diet).
So it suddenly struck me that if Dr. Kessler is right, this is a prime example, and easily demonstrated, of what JMG refers to as "thaumaturgy" on his other blog: intentional manipulation by others of one's own gut reactions and unconscious systems of reward, which the manipulator is taking advantage of for his own gain but is dis-aligned with one's own best interests.
Many of JMG's readers presumably cook most of their food for themselves, so (thankfully) you might not realize just how firm the grip of food addiction can be. Of course the whole obesity equation is dependent on all kinds of things, from genetics to lifestyle and activity to upgringing. But when we speak of people who eat when they're not hungry and crave foods that are bad for them, it strikes me as an example of thaumaturgy. Like the political/social thaumaturgy JMG discussed on his other blog, America has an apparently intractable problem with obesity because we are not fighting it with thaumaturgic defenses... some people have the willpower, partly from an upbringing of good habits, to turn away foods that are bad for us. But for those who don't, we aren't generally giving them the mental tools to resist this thaumaturgy. And the diet plans and dieters who have the most success are generally those that set some higher goal against the specific moment-to-moment cravings. Defending yourself from junk food and its advertising by means of cultivating good reflex habits (refusing unhealthy food) and higher goals (health, longevity, athletic performance, body image etc.) strikes me as a thaumaturgic defense -- it's a low, basic level, but it's an illustration I think most people can identify with.
Thomas, now factor in the role of thaumaturgy in convincing millions of Americans that they're obese, and therefore have to spend billions of dollars a year on diets and drugs and surgery that in most cases do no good at all. Does anyone even remember that Marilyn Monroe, during the zenith of the sex-kitten stage of her career, wore a size 12 dress? It's important to keep in mind that thaumaturgy these days typically works both sides of any given binary -- the social panic over obesity that's driven most Americans barking mad about their weight is just as much a product of thaumaturgy as the manipulations of the junk food merchants -- and, by the way, the social construction of the concept of addiction also begs for a magical analysis. Still, this story isn't about that, and I think it's time to draw a line under the diet thing here.
I agree with all of the above and thanks for indulging me thus far!
Post a Comment