Discovering a miracle

I have seen at least fifty "slide shows" on the Web giving the Top 100 Inventions or Top Ten New Technologies or The Best Discoveries of the 20th Century. But they always leave out a little idea that was almost stumbled on early last century; an idea which in my "humble" opinion is clearly the most important idea produced in the last 2000 years. It isn't a huge shock that it doesn't make the top-ten lists because as an idea, and a subtle one at that, it doesn't work in an e-zine slide show and thus... No ad revenue!

There are certain ideas which, once you really internalize them, create a before and after version of you. When I really grasped, on an emotional level, that authoritarianism and love were almost opposites, I created an "after" version of myself. The process of really understanding it took years, so I can't point to a certain date and say that's when the new Bruce came into being. But the way that I see, and even enter in to, all kinds of human relations is very different and I can never go back. Roles like parenting, governing, pastoring or managing look completely different to me now.

The idea I am thinking of is such an idea. At first, the subtlety of it may seem underwhelming, but when the implications of it worked their way through my conceptual framework I was taken back by how many of the foundational rules-of-thumb I regularly use to organize the World were drastically different. I'll explain the idea here and I'll try to express something about why it is so drastic and why its truth seems almost like a miracle to me and why it is so important to my journey of removing redundancy to shrink the size of my possessions and knowledge while maximizing the functionality of my stuff and my knowledge.

I first began to suspect the miracle when I took a beginning computer programming class some time ago. Before the class I had tinkered around programing in BASIC. But now I was learning C++, a "real" programming language and I thought it would give me great new powers. Then it occurred to me: I could write a BASIC program to process the C++ language, and I could also write a C++ program to process BASIC. Somehow these two languages must be exactly equivalent. It seemed I would get no new powers, but, paradoxically, the idea I had stumbled upon does give new technological powers.

Here is the idea from Wikipedia; and you'll see why it wouldn't make a good slide show:

"Every function that can be physically computed can be computed by a Turing machine."

It sounds like math. And what-the-heck is a "Turing machine?" Alan Turing, one of the people who came up with the idea of computers in the first place, defined an extremely simple computer and it is called a "Turing machine." In essence, it means that as long as no important features are missing, all computer programming languages are exactly the same as far as what programs can be written with them.

Well so what? Any program can be written in any language? Who cares! But the key lies in the realization that computers can simulate anything... anything at all. Here is a quote from that Wiki page:

"This also means that any solvable problem can therefore be reduced to previously solved problems (the Turing machine instruction set) or by definition is unsolvable."

Think about what that means! Any solvable problem can be reduced to previously solved problems. I think this fact is the key to processing knowledge and the key to unlock the secret of how to drink from the fire-hydrant of knowledge flowing at us today. It means that if we understand a few basic principles then any piece of information anyone can produce can be seen as a pattern over those principles.

It's 3:30 in the morning here so I'll leave you to think about whether there is a way to use the idea I just discussed. Click on "comments" if you have any ideas!

Bruce

We don't know how to write down a person

Have you ever been outside and seen the tee-shirt that says "It's not who you are, its what you wear?" That shirt always makes me laugh because it's so obviously a joke but I always see people with that stern "the youth of today are lost" look on their face. I just want to feel the wind in my hair and the sun on my skin and enjoy the irony of the joke. The youth aren't lost, they're just youth. Listen to this quote...

"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly disrespectful and out of control"

Here is another one

"What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?"

One of these is from Plato and the other is from Hesiod -- 2800 years ago! Why do we remember only how good we were? Why can't we somehow record what we are like or what our friends are like. Being able to write down a person's state would be amazing, and for more reasons than merely recording youth culture. If I had a template that could be filled in to record a person I would use three of them. I would fill out the first one to describe someone who knew everything I could imagine and who could do everything I could imagine. This one would be a "possibilities" document -- a sort of 'roadmap' of where I could go. The second document would be an "actuality" document. That one would let me chart where I actually am at this moment; the good, the bad, everything. Perhaps there could be little quizzes I could take that would help me to fill in the blanks. Lastly, I would create a "where I want to be" document. I would fill in the blanks to describe the 'ideal' me -- what I want to become.

Doesn't it seem like such a document would be so complex that it is impossible? It feels like a person is so complex that you could never capture everything in a document. Of course we don't have the technology to scan our brain and infer the tiniest detail about our skills, knowledge, likes and relationships. But think back to when you were really young; before you learned that there are three primary colors because there are three types of sensors in our eyes. Didn't it seem like there were so many colors that you could never really classify them all? I remember imagining that in heaven there would be colors that no one had ever seen -- it had to be so if heaven was as beautiful as I had heard. Even on Earth there could be such colors if we could create a fourth color sensor in our eyes! (I know, someone is designing custom stem-cells that will do that, right?)

When we understand that there are three primary colors for people with eyes like ours, suddenly the infinite profusion of colors on autumn leaves and in the plumage of the birds flying by seems more relaxing. Here is a pattern that I have used which really helps me to see the beauty in the universe and even in the people around me: confusing data + a good theory = relaxing into life. The theory of colors lets us "write down" any color. We don't have a perfect theory of how to "write down" a person. Plato, Aristotle, and that whole bunch had access to a theory that captures some aspects of a person. It's sort of a 'form' that you can fill in. You'll see that those Greeks certainly weren't dumb to have created it, but there is also a lot that their form misses. Let's take a quick look at it.

If the "record a color" form looks like this:

[
amount of red______;
amount of green____;
amount of blue_____;
]

then the Greek's "record a personality" form looks like this:

[
state of body____________;
contents of mind_________;
contents of spirit_______;
]

It is easy to extrapolate that the body would have sub-entries for body parts and for health, strength, agility, and so on. The mind would have entries for what things you know, what are your skills, and what habits you have for solving problems or otherwise. The Greeks didn't think of the 'spirit' as a sort of non-physical ghost. For them, the sub-parts of the spirit were your dreams or goals and desires. The spirit was what motivated you to action.

Today, people who study personality would say that we have "beliefs and desires." Essentially they've replaced "contents of the mind" with beliefs, and "contents of the spirit" with desires. I like the Greek model better because I think that the mind holds more than beliefs. There are also skills and habits. As for the spirit I think it is useful to distinguish mental desires from spiritual desires or dreams. I have a dream of building a home that produces its own energy and food. But I want money only for those dreams. I don't care about money for its own sake. So I like the Greek form with its body, mind and motivating spirit better than "beliefs and desires." Another thing, what about the body? Hello?

Still, there is a lot that seems to be missing from the Greek model. The Greek form records people who dream about a house so they use their knowledge and skills to have their body produce one. What about the fear of people who disagree with us? What about the worries that can easily paralyze us in life? And what about the joy?

Click the icon below to post a reply.

The World in my pocket!

I am drowning in stuff. Even after several prunings and garage sales. Looking into my closet I see an extra keyboard and an extra printer (two are already hooked up!) My tool box had five phillips and five regular screwdrivers of all approximately the same size -- until recently.

I began planning some changes after a strange trip I made several years ago. The trip began with me working with orphans on a farm in a remote Russian village for three weeks. We had a village shower every week but I missed the first one because they called it a "sauna." Russia was having a heat wave and since I'm not anything like a farm boy I felt it was especially hot. I told them I would skip the "sauna." There was much weeping when I found out. Immediately after Russia, I gave a presentation at the Global Grid Forum in Scotland about getting computers that don't trust one another to collaborate. After that I had some vacation in London. Can you see the connection to 'stuff?' Please post if you have ever boarded an old wooden train with enough luggage to support farming, presenting, and vacationing. I'll lead the support group.

On the flight home I began brain storming ways to reduce the amount of stuff I need to as small as possible. I have literally spent thousands of hours thinking about how to reduce my footprint; searching for small but functional products, sewing elastic bands, soldering cables together that I couldn't find on e-bay. I have had an amazing success which I shall share in the hope that others can use my ideas. But there is a deeper meaning to my project. Here we are at the brink of a new century (will it actually start in 2008?) in a World ripe with new technologies, new knowledge, and new possibilities. But it is as if we are drowning in it! Does anyone really know how stem cells work? OK, some people know how to make a few modifications in stem cells but do they also know whether string-theory (the latest theory in physics) is producing results? Does anyone really even understand string theory? And if they do, do they understand the advances in computer science that are making telephone operators obsolete? Do they know why styles are changing every few years now instead of every decade? Have they also kept up with politics, psychology, and philosophy? The evolution of religion?

These pockets of knowledge are growing fast! And they affect us. Imagine how differently one who understands the psychological effects of the authoritarian style and who can recognize traits of personality disorders would perceive American politics from one who has never heard of these things. In the 20th century, specialized knowledge was all the fashion. But I hear the wind of change and I don't feel comfortable going into the next ten years without having a very broad as well as deep knowledge base. (Confession: I am also addicted to learning and self-improvement so there may be bias!)

Here is the problem: Using Google, Wikipedia, social nets and a thousand books to do research whenever something comes up is like trying to catch a rural, wooden train with way too much luggage in tow. But it shouldn't have to be like that. I don't need five screwdrivers of the same kind and I don't need to know set-theory, category-theory, formal logic, and computer science when there is so much redundancy in each of these mathematical frameworks. It is time to clean house! Let me lay out three principles that I have been using as a guide:

Three principles for getting rid of stuff:

1. I do not want to lose functionality or sacrifice style. If I need two screwdrivers I won't go to one just to save space. And no solar-panel shirts or nylon blue jeans until they look good!
2. I want to have my convenience. If a PDA could replace my MP3 player but it takes four times as much work due to all the clicking and waiting for the hour-glass and the rebooting, forget it!
3. I want everything and I want it to go. I want maximum life-style with minimal baggage. Yes, I know you are thinking that it is impossible. I want a grand piano but I want it to fit in my pocket without weighing my pants down. I want everyone to have everything but I want a sustainable, healthy social/eco system. I want to live forever, but I want to eat lots of cheese-cake. I know that it is impossible, but it's a guideline. The idea is to lay out all the possibilities then make healthy, happy choices. It isn't possible to have everything, but it is possible to lay out all the possibilities.

Can I get all the knowledge that will affect me in the next ten years? Can I catch the bullet train with all my stuff in tow? Not in 20th Century mode. But... Well, it's going to be fun innovating a way to drink from the fire hydrant, and I hope you'll join me for the ride!

Bruce