Friends are Electric

A revisit to my dislike of Toronto

To feel belonging to a place is necessary in order to like it.  Perhaps not a personal, direct belonging, but at least some form of it.  Not necessarily the feeling of `home’, but something like it.  A place here can be a physical place, such as a city, town or any other point on a map.  It can be a metaphorical place, such as the concept of home.  It can be part of society as a whole.  In order to belong you must be able to imagine yourself, your place, in it.  Without being able to do so you will not be enjoy a place.

Clearly by the above statement and past writings, I cannot imagine a place for myself within Toronto.  I am not alone.  I have a place elsewhere for myself.  The problem comes when both groups, and both groups are guilty, fail to recognize that not all of us can imagine ourselves in the same way as everyone else, and thus, as we all really know, there is no universal place.  No clear ideal which everyone must achieve, where everyone must be.  The pleasures of life are not the same for everyone, and we all must respect that.

Or: Why scientific analogies are often fitting

So, just to recap: plate tectonics is the net result of many interactions within the Earth which results in a dynamic surface which features mountain building and, due to different topography, erosion, transport and deposition.  Suffice to say, in this analogy, plate tectonics is a force which changes the topography of a region.  Any further detail is confusing things.

Now, let us pretend we have a little robot which constantly seeks the highest point it can find.  This is not an absolute highest point, but a local maximum point.  It cannot simply find the highest point now and expect that to remain the highest point forever (we will say that this robot experiences geological time, rather than human scale time).  The robot must constantly search out the new maximum point, make small adjustments on a perpetual basis.

In this analogy, the robot is our actor and the altitude is our fitness function.  For whatever reason we have decided that peaks are ideal (this is simply for visualisation purposes, the topography can be n-dimensional).   The robot acts to seek out what is the ideal attainable solution at a given point in time.  Attainable because it is a local maximum, the robot doesn’t actually know if the peak it has found is a global maximum or not.

This is an example of an evolutionary algorithm, (I suggest reading people who actually study this subject, it is very fascinating and I know very little).  Applied to populations, it produces a very nice aggregate function which is excellent for product design and creation (assuming you are knowledgeable enough to navigate it properly).  Applied to an individual, it determines what is best for a given person at a given time, again assuming that such a person is capable of applying such a method.

The most important thing to note is that such functions are highly dynamic and that it is entirely impossible to know if one solution is the best possible solution or just the best so far.

Which brings us to a nice effect of averaging: everyone acting on their own tries out a huge number of possibilities.  Any solution anyone comes up with is entirely appropriate if they determine that it is best for them.  Best for them does not mean best for everyone, or even approaching a good composite function maximum.  Another effect of averaging: the more people creating to find a maximum, the closer everyone gets to finding the average global maximum.

This explains why things go out of style, the driving force of the topography of the system has changed what is considered best.  This also explains why some people defy our understanding: they have different variables which they seek to maximize.  They might also have found some local maximum they are comfortable with and are unwilling to explore around to find another, potentially higher, maximum.

I recommend  Wikipedia on evolutionary algorithms and on complexity economics as starting points.

To those who are not familiar with the ultraviolet catastrophe, it was a problem with using classical physics to describe how a blackbody radiates energy.  As the wavelength of the light emitted approaches the ultraviolet region, classical physics has the amount of energy released rapidly approaching infinity.

Since we exist, this is obviously a flaw in the theory.  (People who adhere to certain philosophies would disagree that we exist, or at least with my certainty, but their ideology is akin to multiplying an equation by zero to solve it.)  The solution eventually became what is now known as Quantum Mechanics, and science progressed.

The real lesson from this is that no matter how much we think our theories describe reality, if reality disagrees, it is the theories which need to be changed.  Reality is. Theory just describes reality.  The physicists of the day knew and understood this, and actively searched for a solution.  They even eventually called the problem the ultraviolet catastrophe, acknowledging their error and its extreme nature.

All those applying theory ought to be wary of this.  When theory and reality diverge, it is not reality which needs to be fixed.

In days gone by, action was judged based on outcome.  The why of the action was entirely ignored.  No one thought about the why.  No one cared.  They were not thinking at that level.  This style of living is not inferior or superior, just different.

We no longer behave this way.  We, in the West especially, consider intention to be the highest truth.  Giving isn’t seen as a good since there is an intention of getting something back.  In the past, it wasn’t that this intention did not exist, it was that such behaviours were not consiously thought of.  Even in law, we consider intention to be superior to the action itself.  Intention can make or break a conviction.  But intention doesn’t change the reality of the event, just the colour of our interpretation.

In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche spoke of moving beyond intention as the judge of action.  His idea was that action, regardless of outcome or intention, was “good” if it was a conscious decision.  That the intentionality, not to be confused with intend, of an action or event determines its value.

Clearly there is some overlap between conscious action and intent.  Just as there is overlap between outcome and intent.  One can consciously act with an intended outcome.  Like much of Nietzsche’s though, such action required that those with a stronger will (will to power) should force theirs on those with less.  Like much of Nietzsche’s thought, he was at the very least incorrect, and at most outright wrong.

There is some inherent value in purposeful action.  Just as there is some value in the intent of an action.  But only the  outcome changes reality. We must not forget this last fact. What you intend does not change anything except how you justify it to yourself.  If you think you are doing what is best for people, and the outcome becomes highly negative, then you will blame some outside cause beyond your control.  Usually the complexity of people.

Know that what you intended to do does not change the nature of the world. Know that whether you consciously decided to do it or not changes things even less.  In the end, the action and the outcome are what matter.

Even Zarathustra went under sometimes.

A thought has been worrying me a lot recently.

I am a man of reason.  To me, there is nothing more fundamental.  I follow my reasoning wherever it takes me.   Since I am an engineering student, this is a rational way to be.  Science follows reason. It is natural.

What is strange to me is how we, as a society, become convinced of unreasonable things.  I speak now of creationism.  Not that some subscribe to this belief, I can understand that.  I do not wish to prevent others from believing what they wish.  What is in one’s own mind is no business of mine.  What I mean is about the conflict between creationism and evolution.

I say conflict, but this is somewhat misleading.  Reason dictates that evolution is truth.  Let us not get bogged down in any details.  Anyone needing convincing of this fact is invited to educate themselves. Biological evolution is a fact.  This, then, is at the root of what is confusing me.

Evolution is truth in terms of the origins of life.  Darwin was wrong in the same sense that Newton was wrong. Science progresses. Evolution is correct, just as gravity is correct, albeit both have been and will be modified in the future as that is the way of science.

My question is this: If evolution is so clearly true, which it is, how has society been convinced that there is even a `debate’ between creation and evolution.  This is the true triumph of creationists, since creationism is provably false.  But convincing the masses that there is descent is an impressive feat, one which deserves recognition and retaliation.

I do not call for violence.

I do call for reason.

Whenever you hear someone speak of a debate between creationism and evolution, set them straight.  Science knows the truth.

Westernism, for the sake of this discussion, is thinking like a Westerner.  This may include a belief in spreading civilisation, ethnic superiority, looking down on those who are not western in lifestyle or thinking, the pursuit of the `American Dream,’ strong belief in democracy and liberalism, personal certainty of the necessity of capitalism, love of globalisation, consumerism and, most importantly, belief that we in the West have the most ideal lifestyle imaginable.

The important question I wish to address is the source of Westernism, more specifically: is Westernism something you are born with, or is it something you learn.  Thus, can someone not born in the west truly become western, and can someone born in the west ever really escape it.

This stems from a discussion I had with a friend who’s family are not from the western world.  My parents, and their parents, and some of their parents, etc., were born in Canada.  Clearly, if Westernism is to any extent inherited then I am fully in line with this ideology.  And clearly my friend is entirely separate from this way of thinking.  Both of which are entirely false.

To hold with Westernism is a stereotype of what a person from the West might be like.  True, there are those who follow all of the stereotypes to perfection, and there are those who do not.  For instance,  I know a great many people who believe in democracy and liberalism but who reject many aspects of capitalism in its pure from: these people are generally called social democrats.  Are social democrats therefore not western?  I also know people who would consider social democrats to be antiwestern or antiAmerican.

I also know environmentalists who hold with few of the traits I described as being part of Westernism.  To them, Westernism is a tool of those who push for globalisation and further pure capitalism.  Some even go so far as to reject governments, although this is a very small minority.  Are these people Western?  Not by the above imperfect definition.  Could this ideology exist outside the west?  No.  Then they are Western and my definition is imperfect.  Let us craft a new one.

Westernism: any thought of belief that can only come into being in the west.  That is, conditions only exist for the development of this ideology in the land area we consider to be `The West.’

Included in this new definition are still all of the original definition, but it now includes any other ideology unique to the west.  Environmentalism, general equality, human rights.  Not that these are currently unique to the west, but that they were developed through the liberalism which defined the west.

Now all the example people I have talked about are thoroughly western.  My friend is as well, since they wish to use the capitalist system and Westerners’ love of luxury to her advantage.  By their own definition, they were not of the west.  But they are now, by the very structure of the argument they used to prove the converse.

Now, can someone born in the west ever become something else.  Well, I know that we can reject many aspects of Westernism, as I personally have done.  For example, consumerism and the `American Dream’ are not desirable for me, neither is capitalism to a large degree owing to my Social Democratic roots.  But can I reject liberalism, democracy and all other aspects of Westernism?  No.  If all Westernism is defined by the controversial, Globalisation, Environmentalism, cultural imperialism, etc., then yes.  We can reject Westernism.  However, westernism is much more defined by several core beliefs, mainly democracy, liberalism and capitalism.  Can anyone in the west truly reject all of these beliefs?  Not if they wish to live here.

The rejection of any of these aspects of our life would change the West in tremendous ways.  But change is not always good.  Removing any of these aspects to our lives would ruin life in the west, even capitalism, an ideology which I have never been comfortable with.

Here is the crime of westernism, then.  It is like a virus.  Yes, Westernism is imperialistic and relentless in its goals.  Its goals are to make everyone else like us.  Not in every way, of course.  We, however, are so sure of liberal democracy that we demand others use it, regardless of cultural tradition.  I am as guilty as anyone of this.  But I know that I am guilty of it, and I do not feel in the least bit mournful of this knowledge.

Then perhaps the most important aspect of Westernism is not  liberal democracy, but instead that we have the best systems and that failure to adopt these systems might mean forced adoption against your will, since it is for your own benefit.  I can think no of no other alternative ideologies which do not share this fundamental belief, even if they will not admit it to themselves.  We are all convinced of our moral superiority.

The sad fact is that by this final, and perhaps most accurate description of the motivations of Westernism, we are all westerners.  Even those who do not hold with the central tenants of Westernism.  Therefore, westernism, a more pleasant way of saying moral superiority, is something we are born with.  And the liberal democracy we are born within demands being spread everywhere, except where it is we who have the power.  And therefore it is inescapable for those who are born with it, and since I cannot escape from it, I cannot say how those from outside will behave.

Just when I thought I was free I get dragged back into it.

So I keep hearing the arguments that people `did not vote for a coalition.’  This is true.  The fact is that they did not vote for the Conservative party either.

We vote for a person, not a party.  Now, most of us do vote based on the party of our choice, however we must realise that our perceptions will not change the reality of our electoral system.  You did not vote for a coalition.  You also did not vote for the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Marxist-Leninist or the Bloc Quebecois.  You vote for a single person who is theoretically supposed to represent your ideas.

Of course, not even I do this.  But I am mature and reasonable enough to realise what my vote actually means.  Please people, stop pretending that intention colours the meaning of the vote.  No individual belief or thought changes that you vote for a person, not a party.

Now we must understand this.  Anyone saying that they did not vote for a coalition is stating a fact, yes, but it does not carry the meaning they wish it to.  They are only revealing their ignorance to our electoral system or, perhaps, merely stating the obvious.  No one voted for a coalition, no one voted for the Conservative Party, no one voted for the Liberals, just as no one voted for any party.

Its just the way our government works.

Now that Parliament has been suspended for a month, it is time to examine the entire crisis as a whole.

Rick Mercer had a number of intelligent things to say on the subject.  He is essentially saying that Harper screwed up and is now clinging to power, while Dion is hell-bent on having his revenge on the Conservative Leader.

Werner Patels is saying that the NDP and its supporters are the biggest losers in the crisis, since as a member of the coalition, no one cares what Mr. Layton has to say.

I have seen people on both sides of the debate call the opposite fascists.

And I’ve seen Americans trying to explain the crisis.

On the whole, I am glad we now have a break.  Although I wish that all parties would stop spewing lies all over the place.  I can now sit back and digest exactly what happened, and perhaps muse on the best way to solve it all.  I’m still hoping that everyone can work together, but I somehow doubt that will happen.