Can I Get a Witness?

This evening I was at Locals Only with a few friends. Upon arriving, one of them immediately noticed the collection of art displayed on the wall that was for sale. He commented that he really liked them and appreciated their cartoony quirks. I agreed that they were pretty cool. He mentioned the one that he liked the most, coincidentally the biggest one of the bunch.

He spent the evening debating with himself about whether he should buy a piece. He questioned aloud what we thought the prices would be for original art. I said I had no idea. He asked if they would take card or cash. I said I have no idea. He asked if he bought it, if we thought he could just take it home tonight. I said I have no idea. He did a brief survey of the area and reported back on some of the prices. He declared that the one he wanted was $100; he thought that was a bit too steep.

A bit later he informed me that a smaller piece that resembled it but was in no way as cool was only $50. He said he thought he'd just get that one. He disappeared and returned in a bit with a piece of paper declaring him the proud new owner, and he said that he was supposed to just take it with him when he left.

I asked him why he didn't buy the one he wanted. He said the price was just too much. I told him that he's buying a piece of original, hand-made art that he won't find anywhere else; and he's going to settle for one other than the one that he wanted? He repeated that $100 was just too much for him. I said that he is doing just fine money-wise (he is gainfully employed, more than I can say for myself), and that for him spending $50 or $100 on this art was not a drastic difference when it came to pleasing his aesthetic sense. I said that days, weeks, months, years from now, he won't regret spending the money. He'll be happy that he bought the art that he wanted. I urged him to do exactly what his heart was tellling him; he knew which piece he wanted, but he was going to deny himself of it entirely. I told him that a very powerful thing I had learned over the past year or so was to follow your god damn heart when you should, and to do what you know is right without questioning it. He wanted that art the moment he saw it, and it should not be otherwise.

This went on for several minutes. He said he didn't know if he could since he had already bought the one. I told him there's no way he can't just walk up and say "here's more money, please and thank you". His will was cracking. He was beginning to listen to the voice inside him telling him what he wanted. He begrudgingly agreed to go try, saying "if it'll make you happy." I shouted "no, it will make you happy! That's the whole point!"

He disappeared and came back a few minutes later with a grin on his face and a piece of paper declaring him the proud new owner of the one he fell in love with at first sight. I could tell that he was secretly and very truly, somewhere deep down beyond the reaches of the rational and intellectual recesses of his brain, happy. And those of us who were with him were happy to see him happy! He thanked me for helping him to realize what he should do. I'm glad I did. And I'm glad he did. It was awesome getting him to the point at which he would allow himself to pursue that which would bring him such great happiness.

Bake Sale Bomber

I saw this yesterday on a bumper sticker:

It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.

Now, I am by no means a pro-war kind of person. I don't drive a Hummer around with American flags draped across the windows, drinking PBR, shouting at the top of my lungs about kicking ass and so forth. I'm a pretty peaceful guy, and I believe that the first resort should always be open dialog, not open war.

Still, I think this is an incredibly narrow-minded and naïve thing to say. The person who proudly displays this on his or her bumper apparently doesn't realize that if the Air Force really did have to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber, our entire country would likely be invaded or destroyed. No more schools.

I understand that there is a very real problem with funding for education in America. And I also understand that many people don't always support the militaristic endeavors of the country. But opposing one idea by vehemently and irrationally supporting its logical opposite is not constructive. It's like saying on a blazing hot summer day that you can't stand the heat and wish it were below freezing instead. When it's actually that cold, you'll say you wish it were hot as hell again. Now you've gotten nowhere.

The real solution is somewhere in between. That's the difficult part. But people with bumper stickers like these don't help at all.

Okay, I have to admit that the bumper sticker could mean that this so-called great day comes when the entire notion that a country without a military defense would be invaded or destroyed no longer exists, that some kind of Utopian peace has prevailed. If that's the gist of it, then okay, yeah, that would be a great day. If the bumper sticker is knowingly referencing a completely farcical and highly unlikely situation, then I could almost live with it. It's like saying "hey, wouldn't solid gold toilets for everyone just be great?" Yes, that would be great.

The problem now is that we're touching on a deeper topic, and we start to address things like the necessity of evil. Consider that for all the multitude of kindness and altruism, there will likely always be an element of ill will present in human nature, and it manifests itself in a variety of ways, from someone telling you that you're ugly to armed forces invading countries and purging an entire people. That's evil. For every good soul in a coffee shop who bequeaths fifty of his most beloved books, there is another still who wants to steal them. This evil is prevalent. Without it, how will you know what is truly good?

You can't define or know anything without being cognizant of its logical opposite. What is warm water? It's water that is not cold. What is on? It's the opposite of off. It's the way you understand how delicious an apple tastes or how fun it is to drive a fast car or why sex feels great. You understand these values because you are also aware of their absence. If you were constantly eating apples or driving fast or having sex, you would likely tire of them all.

If there were ever to come a day in which the civilizations of this planet are not engaged in disagreement and war of some kind, it will be far enough in the future that we will have made contact with an alien species (or vice versa) and our entire planet will be united in war against them instead. The reason I can safely make this assumption is based solely on the necessity of evil. There will always be a bad guy, and it will only cease to be us when another option presents itself.

So the Air Force not arming itself makes about as much sense as not locking your doors at night, or leaving your valuables on the front lawn while you're away, or tattooing your Social Security and bank account numbers on your forehead, or leaving your children with complete strangers while you're out in public. Trust in humanity resolutely? Willing to take these risks? Do you think the person with the bumper sticker would?

The solution is somewhere in the middle, and that's the difficult part.

This is an April Fools' Day joke

This entire post is a joke; it is being written in observation of April Fools' Day. Do not believe anything contained within.

Today is April 1, the day of merry pranks and jokes. To that end, I am posting this in the hopes of catching some of you unawares. A portion of you will read this and know that it is all a prank; you will have likely also read pranks and jokes on other websites. But chances are high that a majority of you will read through this entire post and not realize the irony or humor contained within, and you may even tell a few friends about it before you realize the error of your ways. At that point, you may feel slightly embarrassed. Don't worry, it's all in the nature of the joke.

I can't take all the credit for catching you unawares. I had ample help preparing for this deception. Several of my closest friends were indispensable in the labyrinthine planning stages of this elaborate spoof. We spent hours going over the details, and now that you have been sufficiently taken for a ride, I can safely admit their involvement. If some of you feel cheated or deceived, please take your frustrations out on me and not them, as they were kept mostly in the dark about the eventual purpose of their machinations.

To those who may suppose that posting such a farcical tale of whimsy as this would perhaps discredit future writings of a more serious nature, you need not worry. I assure you that this preposterous and comedic anecdote is the only one of its kind.

Inertia

People of all walks of life, but mostly scientists, love to discuss inertia. Okay, probably no one actually loves to discuss it, but I imagine it comes up from time to time. It usually comes up in the context of a moving object, as it is the tendency of that object to resist any change to its motion.

Think of a bullet; as it's careening through atmosphere and ozone, it doesn't really want to slow down and most of nature is obliged to comply.¹ You are inclined to kindly step out of the path of the bullet and the bullet is inclined to tip its hat at you as it screams by faster than the speed of sound. The sound of the bullet, meanwhile, is struggling to catch up, trillions upon billions of bumbling air molecules bumping into each other as fast as they can. They give you a cursory glance as they stumble past and your ears pop.

Some people, like the moving bullet, might be said to have a high level of inertia. Figuratively. That is to say, they like to stay moving, and once they start, it's hard to stop them. These people seem to always be moving, doing, talking, walking, saying, playing, starting, finishing. They may tip their hats at you as they fly by faster than sound.

But the bullet wasn't just always tearing across the embankment or zipping down an alleyway. It was, at an earlier point, comfortably at rest inside the chamber of a gun. In fact, the bullet was so comfortable and so at rest there that, had it not been for an exorbitant explosion, it probably would be sitting there comfortably at rest forever. Rather than kindly stepping out of its path and rubbing your ears as the sound of it (trailing behind considerably) dawdles past, you would be sipping tea somewhere across town with no knowledge that there even is a bullet. This is another property of inertia, that of a stationary object that is inclined to remain stationary.

And just like moving persons, there are stationary persons. They are comfortably at rest inside their chambers. In fact, they are so comfortable there that, if not for an exciting explosion, they probably will be sitting comfortably at rest forever. You won't have to kindly step out of their paths, because they are on no path whatsoever.

Both types of bullets (the lethal, faster-than-sound kind and the harmless, comfortably-at-rest kind) are said to have inertia. Two contradictory states and one word to describe them both. It almost seems to invalidate use of the word entirely. What is the point in using a word to describe something if it can also be used to describe the very opposite?

And what about people? The always-moving-doing-talking-walking-saying-playing-starting-finishing person has inertia, just as the stationary, on-no-path-whatsoever person has inertia. You and I both have inertia. It all comes down to what that inertia means. It's the tendency of any object, moving or stationary, to resist any change to its motion or lack thereof. People waiting around comfortably for an extraordinary explosion to set them on their course may find themselves waiting an awfully long time.

¹ We're ignoring drag and friction.

A practical application of mutual incurred loss in a spatial, finite distribution

If two bodies are separated by a distance X, let X be divided into any number of finite segments such that X = A + B + C + ... + N, for which all values are positive, rational numbers. If X > 0, both parties suffer the mutual incurred loss of the 'Equal but Opposite Bodies' theorem, as outlined here by the author on 15 February 2005. Furthermore, let T = time of separation between bodies. The mutual incurred loss will be proportional to (X + T)².

Philosophical musings, II

This is the cause of that unfortunate envy which so many people feel for the lives of others. Looking at them from the outside, one imparts to them a coherence and a unity which in reality they cannot have, but which appears obvious to the observer. The latter sees only the framework of these lives, ignoring the worms which gnaw it away. Thus we turn the lives of others into a work of art. We turn them into a romance.

-Albert Camus, L'homme révolté

'Equal But Opposite Bodies' Theorem

If two equal but opposite bodies do not engage in mutual activity, the sum of their incurred losses is equal. Furthermore, if one body attempts to engage in mutual activity with an equal and opposite body and is denied, the sum of loss for both bodies will be incurred by the first body exclusively.

See also 'Law of Rejection Conservation'.

Philosophical musings, I

Scribbled in my philosophy 100 notebook...

Sartre calls anguish the weight of man's decision making. I extend this to say that anguish is man's overestimation of his importance in the grand scheme of things (i.e. eternity). Anguish is the necessary element to motivate man to make decisions. If 10 men die, it is insignificant; but if 10 men die as a result of man's decision, or if man's decision could have prevented these deaths, or if man's decision caused the deaths, and so on, then he believes his choices to be significant. This illusion is anguish.

---

"A whole train of passengers (individually brave enough), will be looted by a few highwaymen, simply because the latter can count on one another, while each passenger fears that if he makes a movement of resistance, he will be shot before anyone else backs him up."

-William James, The Will to Believe

I'm just an ordinary guy with nothing to lose

Are you Kevin Spacey? On one hand that could be cool, cuz you'd be Kevin Spacey. On the other hand that wouldn't be cool cuz then who would be you? Would there even be a you, would you still be as cool as you, and would I even know you? If we're assuming you're Kevin Spacey, can we not also assume that you live Kevin Spacey's life, and not the other way around? If you were Kevin Spacey living your life, then the Kevin Spaceyness that makes him Kevin Spacey would be lost. Of course, we are assuming that determinism is nonexistent and that our two personas are not predetermined to come into contact in any form and that it's purely coincidental. That leaves the possibility open that I could one day meet Kevin Spacey and think back to this conversation and wonder if I would have still met you, had you actually been Kevin Spacey, since I would be talking to Kevin Spacey himself at the time. And that could have been you, and I never would have known.