"I'll stop now, I'm out of time" is too prosaic to be a quotable statement, much less a meaningful title for an essay. However, when I repeated it to the man who just said it, Oliver Pooley Ph.D, at a colloquium of the philosophy department of UCSD, he laughed with me, since I was alluding to his just completed presentation which was an expansion of these words from his Oxford University web site.
I work in the philosophy of physics and in metaphysics. Much of my research focuses on the nature of space, time and spacetime. I'm interested in the implications of physics for traditional philosophical questions, such as whether time really passes. (It doesn't.) I'm also interested in the ways in which work in general metaphysics can (and should) inform the interpretation of physics.
I dispute his assertion that time does not pass, in the sense that it is one of the thousands of allusions, metaphors, assertions in every culture and language of a reality that has been acknowledged by thinkers from "time immemorial." My objection is not that work in general metaphysics should inform theoretical physics, but something quite different. It is the way that such work impacts the deepest underpinnings of our culture, and can distort critical thinking about a most important characteristic of humanity.
Time, although grammatically a noun, is not an object, or even a process, but simply a word that is so intuitive that a child can and must comprehend it to survive. This intuitive understanding of time is the bedrock of ancient concepts such as "an ounce of prevention (earlier time) is worth a pound of cure." or more recently "we can't wait until we learn about Iraq's WMD from a mushroom cloud." Yes, both preventive medicine and preemptive war are based on a concept of time passing, steps that must be taken in anticipation of a future that will be determined by such actions.
We desperately need a new idiom for evaluating both of these actions; the first to define our individual ontological essence, whether it shall be focusing on defeating our continuously declining mortal coil; the second being whether our society shall be organized to pre-empt every organized assault, reflected in our ever expanding "war on terror." This is about "time" what should be done now to affect future events, real pressing issues that requires the precision and scope of understanding that has been the province of philosophy from its earliest times in every incarnation.
Perhaps Dr. Pooley is unaware or ignoring how his work, and that of others, is presented to the public, as I have explored in my essay, Notes on Pop Cosmology and it's consequences. In it I describe the clear message popular Nova program sponsored by an agency of the U.S. government that the future already exists based on principles only understood by theoretical physicists-- even though the star, Brian Greene Ph.D, presents it in the subjunctive, "could it be..." so he can claim he's really not endorsing it.
Yet, for those who are shaky about reality, or want to have confirmation of their particular brand of mystic Predestination, or "it's all in Gods hand." it seems to give this viewpoint the highest level of scientific endorsement. This connection between This link is the Nova Segment, The Illusion of Time, that posits that this belief that the future already exists is beyond the capacity of non physicist to understand.
For those who choose to believe that they can impact the world even minutely, meaning changing the future, perhaps as a school teacher, or by writing blogs, or by carefully explaining things to their own children, this type of intellectual distortion is ultimately demoralizing. I suggest that for some, such perversions of science leads to a rejection of the entire enterprise- evolution, relativity and all. Careless exaggeration of theoretical physics has only one defense, another metaphysical belief that rejects all of science. The religious connection that I make here is shown in the word
"providence" with this interesting Wikipedia provided etymology. "The word comes from
Latin providentia "foresight, prudence", from pro- "ahead" + videre "to see". The current meaning of the word derives from the sense "knowledge of the future" or omniscience,
which Christians believe is an attribute of God." According to
Professor Greene, it is a reality, amenable to eventually not being the exclusive province of God, but understood by those of his profession also.
I happen to know one such person where something like this happened because of an exaggeration of another scientific finding that was depicted as explaining how life began. He was a student at UCSD in the 1970s in the class of Stanley Miller, who had demonstrated that the precursor amino acids of DNA could be created out of early earth atmosphere. The student, Tom Cantor, asked him whether this truly did describe how life began. When he was told that it did not, for this and other reasons he went down a different path, that was an embrace of creationism, his current endeavors described here.
The tradition of Philosophy can be applied to the challenges of our era by asserting the ancient imperative to understand the world in a way that transcends the zeitgeist. When this is too easy, when there is no one criticizing the activities of those who claim to be working in the tradition of philosophy, they are doing something seriously wrong. They are working within the zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, and as such are making no real contribution or there would be outcries of condemnation for their disruption of commonly held values.
The very week that I went to this colloquium the philosophy department sponsored a discussion on ethics and values in education. It openly challenged some of the truisms of our day, looking at the reality that there are those who will not become functionally educated for reasons that are beyond society's control. It raised the suggestion that this period of required schooling could improve their lives nevertheless, which in other academic settings could never even be brought up. Our zeitgeist claims that we can have a system where, "No child is left behind" ignoring harsh reality for political mythology.
This education conference was not distorting reality, but facing it. Inherent to this discussion is the concept of time passing during one's years of education, a period that can never be recovered for the individual but is a future subject to being shaped by those who care enough to make the effort-and take the risk of shattering assumptions. This is in sharp contrast to Dr. Pooley's colloquium where the one senior professor who suggested that this endeavor to reconcile anthropocentric time (that which I am defending) with rare physical phenomenon is misplaced-- was simply ignored.
Incomprehensibility does not equate to profundity, only the appearance of it to some. The young graduate students who were pondering the paradoxes of time not passing for photons traveling across the galaxy at the speed of light, are not thinking about the searing problems of our day that have been reduced to partisan sound bites. When they are awarded their doctorates for their contribution to resolving the irreconcilable, they will be able to answer queries about their occupation with, "I am a philosopher."
Albert Einstein knew what this generation has forgotten, that "ignoring reality is risky business" with unforeseeable consequences that we must never allow to happen.
------------------
References:
Lee Smolin's, interview in Livescience.com looks at the consequences of the Time Illusion Delusion
Smolin and Meck discussed the consequences of his idea, including what it means for our understanding of human consciousness and free will. One implication of the idea that time is an illusion is the notion that the future is just as decided as the past.
If I think the future's already written, then the things that are most valuable about being human are illusions along with time," Smolin said. "We still aspire to make choices in life. That is a precious part of our humanity. If the real metaphysical picture is that there are just atoms moving in the void, then nothing is ever new and nothing's ever surprising — it's just the rearrangement of atoms. There's a loss of responsibility as well as a loss of human dignity."
---------------------
Stuart Kaufman in his "Edge" article. BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: REINVENTING THE SACRED while brilliantly exploring the value of God as an organizing universal myth, states that predicting future complex ecosystems is "radically impossible." In other words, "time" -as defined as that which separates the past from the future, is a reality.
But the failure to prestate the possible preadaptations is not slowing down the evolution of the biosphere where preadaptations are widely known. Thus, ever novel functionalities come to exist and proliferate in the biosphere. The fact that we cannot prestate them is essential, and an essential limitation to the way Newton taught us to do science: Prestate the relevant variables, forces acting among them, initial and boundary conditions, and calculate the future evolution of the system…say projectile. But we cannot prestate the relevant causal features of organisms in the biosphere. We do not know now the relevant variables! Thus we cannot write down a set of equations for the temporal evolution of these variables. We are profoundly precluded from the Newtonian move. In short, the evolution of the biosphere is radically unknowable, not due to quantum throws of the dice, or deterministic chaos, but because we cannot prestate the macroscopic relevant features of organisms and environments that will lead to the emergence of novel functions in the biosphere with their own causal properties that in turn alter the future evolution of the biosphere. Thus, the evolution of the biosphere is radically creative, ceaselessly creative, in way that cannot be foretold. I find this wonderful.
Lincoln, "it's only a film"- revised 6/29/13
Our local library begins it's showings with a brief presentation, and then we have a discussion afterwards. The several hundred in the full house for the film and the fifty or so who remained, provided a microcosm of the America a century and a half after the events depicted on the screen--the passage of the constitutional amendment to emancipate the slaves.
The presenter started by a litany of such as the sound of Lincoln's pocket watch being from the actual preserved watch in the Smithsonian Museum and Sally Fields having to put on twenty five pounds for the role of Mary Lincoln. While my first reaction was criticism of the moderator and the audience for focusing on these trivialities, now after more research I realize they were responding to the marketing of the film, with the sound of the watch presenting the message of absolute accuracy of historical events.
After the film was released the liberties that were taken were disclosed, specifically that the actual state count of the pivotal congressional vote was changed. This was the occasion of an outburst by the writer, Tony Kushner (see letter at bottom of this article) where he pointed out that certain liberties should be expected in historical drama. Of course most historical dramas do not have a professional historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin, as a co-writer, and are not about the central conflict of the country being represented.
For most viewers, this film will be the most vivid picture that they will ever have of not only the Civil war, but how this country is intertwined with slavery, whether viewed as chattel, investments or human beings. From the reactions to the audience and the moderator, the most interesting aspect of the films was not what the single month of the film disclosed and, more importantly, what it left unsaid, but the production values of the film, it's international gross, and awards. I finally had had enough and pointed out that what was shown, the early carnage of battle, was not Spielberg manipulating the audience, but actual events, the slaughter of black soldiers by the rebels and retribution against them for this carnage.
The passage of the Reconstruction Constitutional Amendments followed directly from the creation of our country as mutual accommodation between two different cultures and economies of the North and the South, with the later dependent on the use of chattel human slavery. From the South's view, this had been the deal, and if the North no longer could accept it, then at the least, the contract should be abrogated, with both parties going their own ways. It had never been clear whether this was allowed in the original constitution or not.
Our vaunted Constitution was a kicking of the can forward to future leaders, and the music happened to stop when this man Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office. Before Lincoln was elected by the new Republican party, he was willing to continue slavery if it would preserve the union. (not to be confused with the current party of the same name) Ironically, as described in this book introduced by my review, Lincoln and the Decision for War: The Northern Response to Secession, in the four months before the war Lincoln vacillated and only responded to events, the firing on Fort Sumter, when war was the only option.
Rather than the producer-director, Steven Spielberg, and those at this showing focusing on the trivia of the film, it should have been a window on who we are to this very day. Only a day before this library event, the Supreme Court determined that the law to eliminate the last vestiges of resistance to Reconstruction was no longer needed, and thus unconstitutional. This decision to effectively end Reconstruction, and special procedures that applied only to the confederate states to protect blacks from disenfranchisement of voting rights was decided by the vote of a single justice in a 5 to 4 decision. Thus the consequences and the antecedents of this film continue forward in time-- as alive as the next election for Congress and the President.
Those who claimed that the first scene with three soldiers reciting the Gettysburg Address to Lincoln was too evocative, or not realistic, don't understand that it was the key to the film......"that those who perished here shall not have died in vain..." Lincoln, the accommodating politician of his pre inauguration period, had become the leader of a cause that was bringing unprecedented slaughter and human tragedy --including beyond the battlefield. The scenes with his wife collapsing in sorrow were not to be examined for theatrical technique, which becomes a travesty of the actual horror of this internecine war. Mary Todd felt the loss as only a mother can feel, that her husband had been able to suppress. Lincoln somehow came to believe that such suffering must now have meaning, and that was to end slavery, or all would have been in vain.
There was one scene of Lincoln contemplating what would come afterwards if emancipation is passed, what would happen to these slaves who are now free but facing a new reality of being hated by their current masters and also by those in the north who feared the influx of cheap labor to take their jobs. His response, thoughtful yet hopeful, was that we will deal with it, do the best that we can as a country, improvise as we go along, citing that he did this by expansively defining his actions as a war leader. This was the insight of the film. Lincoln the man became great because he did what he had to do, and knew the limits of his choices.
The scene of the simple buggy ride with his wife, the amendment passed and the south having surrendered-- subtly showed the couple's hope for happiness. Knowing of his impending doom, their simple anticipation of the worst being over, conveyed a deeper message--that public life means perpetual struggle and greatness is accepting this and doing that best that can be done at the time.
I see civilization itself is a work in process, with no fixed rules to guide us to our nirvana. How different would our view of Lincoln been had he lived and had to deal with a devastated south? Reconstruction, was not to end after the appointed decade or two. A future President, Woodrow Wilson, who was a nine year old boy in Virginia when events of this film took place, premiered another historical film, Birth of a Nation, in the White House. In this film, Thad Stevens, the hero of passage of the emancipation amendment, was depicted as a rabid hater who wanted to exact revenge on the South. Wilson's heroes were the Klu Klux Klan, who were bringing forth a new nation to negate the liberation of the civil war.
We live in an era that celebrates fame and wealth. So gross profit of the film, and the details of the actors lives are more publicized than the crucial events, the searing January of 1865 that is a central moment of our national history. On the big screen at this public library, surrounding by the great history tomes, these real events seemed like just those of another world visited by the Star Ship Enterprise, or the Pandora of "Avatar" or other film block busters.
This is tragedy in that, unlike those fictional films, we in the audience are those "people", for whom Lincoln described our country as being... "of, for and by" in that speech at Gettysburg that questions whether we shall long endure. That was more than an actor on that big screen, it was Abraham Lincoln speaking to us, reminding us of our responsibilities to face the challenges that is our national heritage.
It remains an open question whether we are up to the task.
The presenter started by a litany of such as the sound of Lincoln's pocket watch being from the actual preserved watch in the Smithsonian Museum and Sally Fields having to put on twenty five pounds for the role of Mary Lincoln. While my first reaction was criticism of the moderator and the audience for focusing on these trivialities, now after more research I realize they were responding to the marketing of the film, with the sound of the watch presenting the message of absolute accuracy of historical events.
After the film was released the liberties that were taken were disclosed, specifically that the actual state count of the pivotal congressional vote was changed. This was the occasion of an outburst by the writer, Tony Kushner (see letter at bottom of this article) where he pointed out that certain liberties should be expected in historical drama. Of course most historical dramas do not have a professional historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin, as a co-writer, and are not about the central conflict of the country being represented.
For most viewers, this film will be the most vivid picture that they will ever have of not only the Civil war, but how this country is intertwined with slavery, whether viewed as chattel, investments or human beings. From the reactions to the audience and the moderator, the most interesting aspect of the films was not what the single month of the film disclosed and, more importantly, what it left unsaid, but the production values of the film, it's international gross, and awards. I finally had had enough and pointed out that what was shown, the early carnage of battle, was not Spielberg manipulating the audience, but actual events, the slaughter of black soldiers by the rebels and retribution against them for this carnage.
The passage of the Reconstruction Constitutional Amendments followed directly from the creation of our country as mutual accommodation between two different cultures and economies of the North and the South, with the later dependent on the use of chattel human slavery. From the South's view, this had been the deal, and if the North no longer could accept it, then at the least, the contract should be abrogated, with both parties going their own ways. It had never been clear whether this was allowed in the original constitution or not.
Our vaunted Constitution was a kicking of the can forward to future leaders, and the music happened to stop when this man Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office. Before Lincoln was elected by the new Republican party, he was willing to continue slavery if it would preserve the union. (not to be confused with the current party of the same name) Ironically, as described in this book introduced by my review, Lincoln and the Decision for War: The Northern Response to Secession, in the four months before the war Lincoln vacillated and only responded to events, the firing on Fort Sumter, when war was the only option.
Rather than the producer-director, Steven Spielberg, and those at this showing focusing on the trivia of the film, it should have been a window on who we are to this very day. Only a day before this library event, the Supreme Court determined that the law to eliminate the last vestiges of resistance to Reconstruction was no longer needed, and thus unconstitutional. This decision to effectively end Reconstruction, and special procedures that applied only to the confederate states to protect blacks from disenfranchisement of voting rights was decided by the vote of a single justice in a 5 to 4 decision. Thus the consequences and the antecedents of this film continue forward in time-- as alive as the next election for Congress and the President.
Those who claimed that the first scene with three soldiers reciting the Gettysburg Address to Lincoln was too evocative, or not realistic, don't understand that it was the key to the film......"that those who perished here shall not have died in vain..." Lincoln, the accommodating politician of his pre inauguration period, had become the leader of a cause that was bringing unprecedented slaughter and human tragedy --including beyond the battlefield. The scenes with his wife collapsing in sorrow were not to be examined for theatrical technique, which becomes a travesty of the actual horror of this internecine war. Mary Todd felt the loss as only a mother can feel, that her husband had been able to suppress. Lincoln somehow came to believe that such suffering must now have meaning, and that was to end slavery, or all would have been in vain.
There was one scene of Lincoln contemplating what would come afterwards if emancipation is passed, what would happen to these slaves who are now free but facing a new reality of being hated by their current masters and also by those in the north who feared the influx of cheap labor to take their jobs. His response, thoughtful yet hopeful, was that we will deal with it, do the best that we can as a country, improvise as we go along, citing that he did this by expansively defining his actions as a war leader. This was the insight of the film. Lincoln the man became great because he did what he had to do, and knew the limits of his choices.
The scene of the simple buggy ride with his wife, the amendment passed and the south having surrendered-- subtly showed the couple's hope for happiness. Knowing of his impending doom, their simple anticipation of the worst being over, conveyed a deeper message--that public life means perpetual struggle and greatness is accepting this and doing that best that can be done at the time.
I see civilization itself is a work in process, with no fixed rules to guide us to our nirvana. How different would our view of Lincoln been had he lived and had to deal with a devastated south? Reconstruction, was not to end after the appointed decade or two. A future President, Woodrow Wilson, who was a nine year old boy in Virginia when events of this film took place, premiered another historical film, Birth of a Nation, in the White House. In this film, Thad Stevens, the hero of passage of the emancipation amendment, was depicted as a rabid hater who wanted to exact revenge on the South. Wilson's heroes were the Klu Klux Klan, who were bringing forth a new nation to negate the liberation of the civil war.
We live in an era that celebrates fame and wealth. So gross profit of the film, and the details of the actors lives are more publicized than the crucial events, the searing January of 1865 that is a central moment of our national history. On the big screen at this public library, surrounding by the great history tomes, these real events seemed like just those of another world visited by the Star Ship Enterprise, or the Pandora of "Avatar" or other film block busters.
This is tragedy in that, unlike those fictional films, we in the audience are those "people", for whom Lincoln described our country as being... "of, for and by" in that speech at Gettysburg that questions whether we shall long endure. That was more than an actor on that big screen, it was Abraham Lincoln speaking to us, reminding us of our responsibilities to face the challenges that is our national heritage.
It remains an open question whether we are up to the task.
Nadal- Djokovic , French Open 2013- One old guy's view
Nadal- Djokovic , French Open 2013 may still be available to watch on the Tennis Channel reruns or the Internet, but I decided to get up early to catch it live-well almost, as the time shifting DVR allowed me to sleep until seven. This is one match up where the hype, if anything, fell short of the actual event.
This is being addressed to those whom I play with, either occasionally or with some regularity. We, a bit past our prime, play at a slightly lower level then these two men,--slightly! I take comfort with the words of Ron Laver, when, as we waited our turn at the butcher counter at Stater's Supermarket a few years back, responded to my query of whether he still plays tennis with a smile, "Yes, I guess so, if you can call it that." He knew his game was a far cry from that which he so excelled at.
Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic both are more than magnificent athletes at their prime, but also consummate scholars of the game in a way that I could never imagine. For them, it's like playing chess but with additional dimensions including wind, fatigue, humidity and how much fluff is left on the ball. This time, I wasn't annoyed by John McEnroe's commentary, as he brought these additional levels into the drama of the match. I assume everyone who is interested knows the results of the game, how the lead changed several times over the course of the five sets, but never the level of play. In fact, there was an escalation of performance, as each was focusing on doing whatever was needed to win the point.
This higher strategy was illustrated in the third set when Novak was down by two breaks; and given the closeness of their games he knew he couldn't win the set without extraordinary effort. He did a calculation that it would inordinately deplete him, even if he pulled out the set, so he eased off just enough not to make it obvious. Although he lost the set 6 to 1 , he started off the fourth smoking hot;, the rest had revived him, winning the set to prepare the stage for the final no-tie breaker fifth.
As an example of the level of play, at 7 to 6 in the last set, with Novak serving at 40 to 15 for a win to keep the match going, he hit a lob over Rafael's head for a winner, that is, it would have been for any other player. Nadal returned a perfect winning lob, which he happened to pull off by running full speed and hitting it between his legs. This brought no smile from him, since he wasn't grandstanding, but making the only shot that was possible. His concentration on the game was never diverted for a second. He was the craftsman doing a difficult days work, ignoring the distraction of it being done better than anyone ever on this surface.
Since we get to look at every expression and response of these two men, I will share my own observations that I see could have made the critical difference in who won. Rafael Nadal is probably most everyone's ideal friend, brother, or son. When he loses a point, or a decision goes the wrong way, I've never seen even the hint of anger. As he says in his interviews in three languages, he feels "special" meaning honored, privileged to be where he is in life and is thankful for it.
Novak Djokovic is also a terrific guy, but he has flaws like most of us humans, that are magnified by the hi definition television that leaves nothing to the imagination. Both men want to win, but Novak somehow, seems to take losing just a bit harder, and because of this tends to locate the cause outside of himself. The first example is an out call that lost the second game of the third set. Novak responded in a way that wasn't clear to the T.V. commentators or the stadium audience, but seemed to start some animosity towards the referee that may have cost him the match. (Here's the link to research on Hawk Eye, line calls and commenter confusion-- but this is a side trip I won't make now.)
There is no tie-breaker for the last set at every grand slam event except the U.S. This means that when the score is tied at six games during the fifth set, a single break of serve can win the match. This was the case when Djokovic was down 7 to 8 and had to hold to have the match continue. Novak rarely loses his serve, so this match could have gone on for a long long time as both men had the motivation and stamina to do miraculous things to win a point.
There is a minute and a half break between games that players use to unwind, recite mantras, pray--who really knows? But this time the camera flashed to Djokovic in an intense discussion with the referee, Pascal Maria. The words were audible: "You have to make a decision. Of course, we won't always agree on everything but you're not making a decision, Pascal. You're not even looking at the court."
This was not especially hostile, as the referee responded that this could be brought up at the regular meeting where such criticisms were aired. Yet, this was not a conversation over a beer, rather at a crucial time at one of the most touted tennis games in history. If anything, Novak Djokovic, who is such a national hero in his country of Serbia, where many serious observers believe he could be elected president, was firm as well as civil in expressing his displeasure.
But when he went back to the court moments later, he had just told the person who was officiating that he was incompetent in the discharge of his responsibilities, which is a serious accusation against anyone. I won't go further in my speculations of his intra psychic landscape, except in what must be a rare event, he lost this crucial game-set-match at love, that is without winning a single point on his serve.
For me this meant something. There are those who are fortunate enough to be like Rafael Nadal - not in his tennis ability-but in his rather serene comfort in life. To him he seems always surrounded by that family that nurtured his tennis skills and would not think of saying anything hurtful to anyone. This hasn't hampered his drive to win, yet in doing so he never feels that he is harming anyone, nor does he have to.
Djokavic is not to be so lucky. An outgoing, witty, intelligent man who, when his tennis days are over will have many options in life, also has imperfections, some of the scars of living that emerged here at the wrong time. The last thing he needed was to sharpen a controversy between the official whose presence would loom over the court when he needed absolute focus on the challenge of winning the rare career grand slam, which until this "debate" he has an even chance to achieve.
Beyond the hype of who is the greatest clay court player, this match was a vignette of human interaction. It went beyond the joy of victory and the agony of defeat, to the example of the universality of human defects, whether on Roland Garros or Pointsettia Tennis Courts. Whether like Rod Lever said, the game we play is really "tennis" or only a mere shadow of the professional game, the enjoyment is there nevertheless. And like the pros, we all have our human failings that we often have no control over, whether it means losing a grand slam championship, or just leaving a public court with something less than the pleasure that is there for the taking.
This is being addressed to those whom I play with, either occasionally or with some regularity. We, a bit past our prime, play at a slightly lower level then these two men,--slightly! I take comfort with the words of Ron Laver, when, as we waited our turn at the butcher counter at Stater's Supermarket a few years back, responded to my query of whether he still plays tennis with a smile, "Yes, I guess so, if you can call it that." He knew his game was a far cry from that which he so excelled at.
Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic both are more than magnificent athletes at their prime, but also consummate scholars of the game in a way that I could never imagine. For them, it's like playing chess but with additional dimensions including wind, fatigue, humidity and how much fluff is left on the ball. This time, I wasn't annoyed by John McEnroe's commentary, as he brought these additional levels into the drama of the match. I assume everyone who is interested knows the results of the game, how the lead changed several times over the course of the five sets, but never the level of play. In fact, there was an escalation of performance, as each was focusing on doing whatever was needed to win the point.
This higher strategy was illustrated in the third set when Novak was down by two breaks; and given the closeness of their games he knew he couldn't win the set without extraordinary effort. He did a calculation that it would inordinately deplete him, even if he pulled out the set, so he eased off just enough not to make it obvious. Although he lost the set 6 to 1 , he started off the fourth smoking hot;, the rest had revived him, winning the set to prepare the stage for the final no-tie breaker fifth.
As an example of the level of play, at 7 to 6 in the last set, with Novak serving at 40 to 15 for a win to keep the match going, he hit a lob over Rafael's head for a winner, that is, it would have been for any other player. Nadal returned a perfect winning lob, which he happened to pull off by running full speed and hitting it between his legs. This brought no smile from him, since he wasn't grandstanding, but making the only shot that was possible. His concentration on the game was never diverted for a second. He was the craftsman doing a difficult days work, ignoring the distraction of it being done better than anyone ever on this surface.
Since we get to look at every expression and response of these two men, I will share my own observations that I see could have made the critical difference in who won. Rafael Nadal is probably most everyone's ideal friend, brother, or son. When he loses a point, or a decision goes the wrong way, I've never seen even the hint of anger. As he says in his interviews in three languages, he feels "special" meaning honored, privileged to be where he is in life and is thankful for it.
Novak Djokovic is also a terrific guy, but he has flaws like most of us humans, that are magnified by the hi definition television that leaves nothing to the imagination. Both men want to win, but Novak somehow, seems to take losing just a bit harder, and because of this tends to locate the cause outside of himself. The first example is an out call that lost the second game of the third set. Novak responded in a way that wasn't clear to the T.V. commentators or the stadium audience, but seemed to start some animosity towards the referee that may have cost him the match. (Here's the link to research on Hawk Eye, line calls and commenter confusion-- but this is a side trip I won't make now.)
There is no tie-breaker for the last set at every grand slam event except the U.S. This means that when the score is tied at six games during the fifth set, a single break of serve can win the match. This was the case when Djokovic was down 7 to 8 and had to hold to have the match continue. Novak rarely loses his serve, so this match could have gone on for a long long time as both men had the motivation and stamina to do miraculous things to win a point.
There is a minute and a half break between games that players use to unwind, recite mantras, pray--who really knows? But this time the camera flashed to Djokovic in an intense discussion with the referee, Pascal Maria. The words were audible: "You have to make a decision. Of course, we won't always agree on everything but you're not making a decision, Pascal. You're not even looking at the court."
This was not especially hostile, as the referee responded that this could be brought up at the regular meeting where such criticisms were aired. Yet, this was not a conversation over a beer, rather at a crucial time at one of the most touted tennis games in history. If anything, Novak Djokovic, who is such a national hero in his country of Serbia, where many serious observers believe he could be elected president, was firm as well as civil in expressing his displeasure.
But when he went back to the court moments later, he had just told the person who was officiating that he was incompetent in the discharge of his responsibilities, which is a serious accusation against anyone. I won't go further in my speculations of his intra psychic landscape, except in what must be a rare event, he lost this crucial game-set-match at love, that is without winning a single point on his serve.
For me this meant something. There are those who are fortunate enough to be like Rafael Nadal - not in his tennis ability-but in his rather serene comfort in life. To him he seems always surrounded by that family that nurtured his tennis skills and would not think of saying anything hurtful to anyone. This hasn't hampered his drive to win, yet in doing so he never feels that he is harming anyone, nor does he have to.
Djokavic is not to be so lucky. An outgoing, witty, intelligent man who, when his tennis days are over will have many options in life, also has imperfections, some of the scars of living that emerged here at the wrong time. The last thing he needed was to sharpen a controversy between the official whose presence would loom over the court when he needed absolute focus on the challenge of winning the rare career grand slam, which until this "debate" he has an even chance to achieve.
Beyond the hype of who is the greatest clay court player, this match was a vignette of human interaction. It went beyond the joy of victory and the agony of defeat, to the example of the universality of human defects, whether on Roland Garros or Pointsettia Tennis Courts. Whether like Rod Lever said, the game we play is really "tennis" or only a mere shadow of the professional game, the enjoyment is there nevertheless. And like the pros, we all have our human failings that we often have no control over, whether it means losing a grand slam championship, or just leaving a public court with something less than the pleasure that is there for the taking.
Humanism, Cosmology and the danger of awe
June 2, 2013
The speech delivered as the keynote to the 2013 Humanist conference be seen in its entirety at this web site. At this point for those who haven't seen it, I suggest they do so, as it was meaningful in many ways. I commented afterwards that I felt that he had provided me with valuable new information, inspired me to learn even more, and had dissipated any concern that he represented the danger that I described in the pre-speech section above. He clearly and unambiguously described separate levels of understanding each with their utility for addressing a given issue, and more importantly that his expertise in particle physics gives him no special knowledge in other areas of life, from climate change, to the safety of the air we breathe and even to such issues as same sex marriage. Only with my personal conversation after the speech did I see another side of its meaning.
Dr Carroll as a scholar and a human being seems so far removed from those who aspire to be elevated to god-like authority due to their special knowledge, that my criticism could seem misplaced. He gets manifest pleasure out of sharing his own understanding with those at various levels, without the slightest hint of personal aggrandizement. What he does not seem to appreciate is how his profession's endeavor, especially when expressed in the mass media by his own colleagues and friends can have serious adverse consequences. In my brief personal discussion I gave one example that he was familiar with, something that was an extension of the "LaPlace Demon" in his 1814 "Essays on Probability" that he discussed at 18 minute mark of his speech, that under certain theoretical conditions it could be possible to know the future with absolute accuracy.
I asked him about the illustration derived from this by his colleague Professor Brian Greene on a Nova Program, that with all appropriate verbiage of "it's only speculative," conveyed to the millions of viewers that such a thing is actually in the realm of possibility, along with the acknowledged "controversial" theory that the future actually exists right now the same the past once did. This belief is shared by more people than I had expected, and to my surprise, Sean Carroll told me he didn't see a problem with this Nova segment. I responded by reminding him of his own words that he had just delivered, after first saying that in the fundamental laws of physics the future and the past are on exactly equivalent grounds, "you would be crazy to use this in the macroscopic, or real world" Greene didn't display a quantum experiment in the Nova segment, but this film strip of real life, with a tacit message to the viewers designed to be disconcerting-- that among the "scientific elite" the common understanding of time is illusory.
When I first saw the Nova episode I was disturbed based on the esteemed PBS venue and on the funding by the U.S. Government, so I explored it further; and while there was no response from Dr Greene, I did correspond with several eminent academic physicists and cosmologists. They understood my point, which is available on the link in the first section. Dr. Carroll, was either oblivious to, or unconcerned about, the higher level domain of understanding of mass perception where the power of visual imagery such as Brian Greene's filmstrip had more influence on the millions of viewers than his qualifying words about it. If the term "impossible" has any meaning, it includes knowing the future and quantum teleportation, both also considered possibilities on the Nova program.
In spite of Sean Carrolls enjoyable informative talk, the social problem that I identify not only exists but is growing, abetted by his colleagues whom he chooses not to criticize. There are those of equal academic rank who express visceral anger at Carrolls approach, which I don't happen to share. My only personal argument with him is that he allows the field theory of human affiliation, that has rules almost as invariable as the quantum version, to blind him to the excesses, and societal harm, of those with whom he has a close affiliation.
Laplace's demon, the root of justification of belief that the future is theoretically knowable has been made obsolete by those such as Professor George F. R. Ellis, and even more eloquently by Nobel Laureate Erwin Schroedinger, in his brilliant monograph, "What is Life." We now know more about the ever emerging complexity of life has that has relegated this position to the historical archives, no longer to be in the working papers of theoretical physics. Not only is the future not currently existing, as Dr. Green's graphically conveyed, but it is intrinsically unknowable for human purposes.
I happen to believe that our need for supernatural comfort is a byproduct of our peculiar brain, which is unique in evolving to anticipate our own annihilation. Humanists invidiously focuses on how this is satisfied by theistic religions, yet are too ready to ignore the defects of other versions of such anodynes to existential dread. One of these protective devices is human affiliation, losing the isolated vulnerable self into the aggregation -be it tribe, religion, ideology or academic discipline. These are affiliations that in the absence of religion takes on an imperative that transcends everything else, including the search for truth-especially when in conflict with the group's consensus.
I don't know whether Dr. Carroll can see the harm that his fellow theoretical physicist Brian Green's is doing to the consciousness of our society, as I am sure that I am oblivious to the invisible affiliations that I am responsive to that shape my own thinking. It is a universal that can only be minimized by those who are willing to look at their own group consenses, whether it be with actual people or to ideas that are deeply internalized.
I close with the words of my favorite psychologist-philosopher of the late 19th century, William James, "Rationally is only a smallest of forces in human affairs"
I think he was on to something.
------------------
Here's my article, Notes on Pop Cosmology and its consequences, that covers this same subject with more links and a refutation of time travel as being conceptually possible.
http://consilienceforum.blogspot.com/2011/12/notes-on-pop-cosmology-and-its.html
Erwin Schrödinger, as described in this Wiki article, could be seen as the archetypal exceptional genius that defines an era. He is known to the public, if at all for his paradoxical "cat" that is both alive and dead until we open the box that contains him. It is misconstrued, as he meant it to illustrate the absurdity of the misinterpretation, as in "reality" an organism is either dead or alive.
His protean contributions to theoretical physics were lucid and seminal, which his Nobel Prize is too common to fully signify. He attempted to incorporate mystical Eastern religions into his scientific analyses, while living a full life true to himself, including insisting on a household with both his mistress and his wife-unacceptable to American standards of morality. He left Germany out of antipathy for the Nazi regime, but then apologized to Hitler later, something he regretted for the rest of his life.
While being one of the handful of greats in theoretical physics, with his speculations in his monograph, "What is Life" acknowledged by both Watson and Crick as being the framework for their discovery of DNA, he described the limits of physics, and it's language:
"CHAPTER 1
The Classical Physicist's Approach to the Subject
This little book arose from a course of public
lectures, delivered by a theoretical physicist to an
audience of about four hundred which did not
substantially dwindle, though warned at the
outset that the subject-matter was a difficult one
and that the lectures could not be termed popular,
even though the physicist’s most dreaded
weapon, mathematical deduction, would hardly
be utilized. The reason for this was not that the
subject was simple enough to be explained
without mathematics, but rather that it was much
too involved to be fully accessible to
mathematics."
This man who made perhaps the greatest contributions to theoretical particle physics of the 20th century, here acknowledges that natural language when used with precision and wide ranging metaphors has an explanatory capacity that equations lack. Those who feel intimidated by such collections of formulas as accurately representing reality take note.
The speech delivered as the keynote to the 2013 Humanist conference be seen in its entirety at this web site. At this point for those who haven't seen it, I suggest they do so, as it was meaningful in many ways. I commented afterwards that I felt that he had provided me with valuable new information, inspired me to learn even more, and had dissipated any concern that he represented the danger that I described in the pre-speech section above. He clearly and unambiguously described separate levels of understanding each with their utility for addressing a given issue, and more importantly that his expertise in particle physics gives him no special knowledge in other areas of life, from climate change, to the safety of the air we breathe and even to such issues as same sex marriage. Only with my personal conversation after the speech did I see another side of its meaning.
Dr Carroll as a scholar and a human being seems so far removed from those who aspire to be elevated to god-like authority due to their special knowledge, that my criticism could seem misplaced. He gets manifest pleasure out of sharing his own understanding with those at various levels, without the slightest hint of personal aggrandizement. What he does not seem to appreciate is how his profession's endeavor, especially when expressed in the mass media by his own colleagues and friends can have serious adverse consequences. In my brief personal discussion I gave one example that he was familiar with, something that was an extension of the "LaPlace Demon" in his 1814 "Essays on Probability" that he discussed at 18 minute mark of his speech, that under certain theoretical conditions it could be possible to know the future with absolute accuracy.
I asked him about the illustration derived from this by his colleague Professor Brian Greene on a Nova Program, that with all appropriate verbiage of "it's only speculative," conveyed to the millions of viewers that such a thing is actually in the realm of possibility, along with the acknowledged "controversial" theory that the future actually exists right now the same the past once did. This belief is shared by more people than I had expected, and to my surprise, Sean Carroll told me he didn't see a problem with this Nova segment. I responded by reminding him of his own words that he had just delivered, after first saying that in the fundamental laws of physics the future and the past are on exactly equivalent grounds, "you would be crazy to use this in the macroscopic, or real world" Greene didn't display a quantum experiment in the Nova segment, but this film strip of real life, with a tacit message to the viewers designed to be disconcerting-- that among the "scientific elite" the common understanding of time is illusory.
When I first saw the Nova episode I was disturbed based on the esteemed PBS venue and on the funding by the U.S. Government, so I explored it further; and while there was no response from Dr Greene, I did correspond with several eminent academic physicists and cosmologists. They understood my point, which is available on the link in the first section. Dr. Carroll, was either oblivious to, or unconcerned about, the higher level domain of understanding of mass perception where the power of visual imagery such as Brian Greene's filmstrip had more influence on the millions of viewers than his qualifying words about it. If the term "impossible" has any meaning, it includes knowing the future and quantum teleportation, both also considered possibilities on the Nova program.
In spite of Sean Carrolls enjoyable informative talk, the social problem that I identify not only exists but is growing, abetted by his colleagues whom he chooses not to criticize. There are those of equal academic rank who express visceral anger at Carrolls approach, which I don't happen to share. My only personal argument with him is that he allows the field theory of human affiliation, that has rules almost as invariable as the quantum version, to blind him to the excesses, and societal harm, of those with whom he has a close affiliation.
Laplace's demon, the root of justification of belief that the future is theoretically knowable has been made obsolete by those such as Professor George F. R. Ellis, and even more eloquently by Nobel Laureate Erwin Schroedinger, in his brilliant monograph, "What is Life." We now know more about the ever emerging complexity of life has that has relegated this position to the historical archives, no longer to be in the working papers of theoretical physics. Not only is the future not currently existing, as Dr. Green's graphically conveyed, but it is intrinsically unknowable for human purposes.
I happen to believe that our need for supernatural comfort is a byproduct of our peculiar brain, which is unique in evolving to anticipate our own annihilation. Humanists invidiously focuses on how this is satisfied by theistic religions, yet are too ready to ignore the defects of other versions of such anodynes to existential dread. One of these protective devices is human affiliation, losing the isolated vulnerable self into the aggregation -be it tribe, religion, ideology or academic discipline. These are affiliations that in the absence of religion takes on an imperative that transcends everything else, including the search for truth-especially when in conflict with the group's consensus.
I don't know whether Dr. Carroll can see the harm that his fellow theoretical physicist Brian Green's is doing to the consciousness of our society, as I am sure that I am oblivious to the invisible affiliations that I am responsive to that shape my own thinking. It is a universal that can only be minimized by those who are willing to look at their own group consenses, whether it be with actual people or to ideas that are deeply internalized.
I close with the words of my favorite psychologist-philosopher of the late 19th century, William James, "Rationally is only a smallest of forces in human affairs"
I think he was on to something.
------------------
Here's my article, Notes on Pop Cosmology and its consequences, that covers this same subject with more links and a refutation of time travel as being conceptually possible.
http://consilienceforum.blogspot.com/2011/12/notes-on-pop-cosmology-and-its.html
Erwin Schrödinger, as described in this Wiki article, could be seen as the archetypal exceptional genius that defines an era. He is known to the public, if at all for his paradoxical "cat" that is both alive and dead until we open the box that contains him. It is misconstrued, as he meant it to illustrate the absurdity of the misinterpretation, as in "reality" an organism is either dead or alive.
His protean contributions to theoretical physics were lucid and seminal, which his Nobel Prize is too common to fully signify. He attempted to incorporate mystical Eastern religions into his scientific analyses, while living a full life true to himself, including insisting on a household with both his mistress and his wife-unacceptable to American standards of morality. He left Germany out of antipathy for the Nazi regime, but then apologized to Hitler later, something he regretted for the rest of his life.
While being one of the handful of greats in theoretical physics, with his speculations in his monograph, "What is Life" acknowledged by both Watson and Crick as being the framework for their discovery of DNA, he described the limits of physics, and it's language:
"CHAPTER 1
The Classical Physicist's Approach to the Subject
This little book arose from a course of public
lectures, delivered by a theoretical physicist to an
audience of about four hundred which did not
substantially dwindle, though warned at the
outset that the subject-matter was a difficult one
and that the lectures could not be termed popular,
even though the physicist’s most dreaded
weapon, mathematical deduction, would hardly
be utilized. The reason for this was not that the
subject was simple enough to be explained
without mathematics, but rather that it was much
too involved to be fully accessible to
mathematics."
This man who made perhaps the greatest contributions to theoretical particle physics of the 20th century, here acknowledges that natural language when used with precision and wide ranging metaphors has an explanatory capacity that equations lack. Those who feel intimidated by such collections of formulas as accurately representing reality take note.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)