Why, you may ask, the question ‘what is mathematics?’ Having finished one opus: Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy, and attempted (but failed after only chapter 4) another: Roger Penrose’s The Road to Reality, of the ideas which we have, mathematics and numbers are very mysterious.

To highlight this mysteriousness I shall ask a question: do (Euclidean) triangles exist? This is a shape which is made up of three points connected by three lines whose internal angles add up to 180 degrees. Any triangle which you draw is not a perfect triangle; there is texture and imperfections in the paper, thickness of the ink and inaccuracy in human reproduction. Even if we use lasers at nano-technology scale, our triangles are still constrained by atomic particles. If we try and ‘prove’ a triangle using other means: algebra, set theory, axiomatic logic; then we are merely changing the language with which we choose to describe it. It is this seemingly metaphysical quality of things like the triangle example which led Plato to conceive of the theory of perfect forms, which have a level of existence separate to the physical reality we can touch and the mental world where we conceive ideas. These forms exist outside of time and our ability to understand them and are only revealed as we start to unravel the Universe. The perfect triangle existed since before the beginning of the Universe and physical reality, and it is only in our attempt to grasp at it mentally that we are alerted to its existence. It may seem absurd – disembodied triangles floating around the heavens – but the following question will highlight the importance of explaining what triangles and other mathematical concepts are.

“Why does reality have the appearance of obeying rules; rules which have the appearance of obeying mathematics?”

For example, in chemistry the periodic table, valence and thus chemical reaction, is based around the number of protons that reside in the nucleus of an atom. When an atom has eight protons it is ‘complete’ and doesn’t need to attract any electrons. There are elements with eight protons and they tend to be un-reactive – the ‘noble gases’ helium, neon and argon.  If an atom has one proton, such as hydrogen, then it will tend to try and find other elements with which it can make up the magic eight, whether it is one chlorine (HCL) atom or two oxygen atoms (H₂0). Whilst valence is now seen as a simplistic way of describing atomic interaction, this example highlights how our understanding of the natural world appears to obey numbers.

The creation of complicated linguistic and mathematical explanations for things we perceive in the natural world can be explained by describing the way in which humans formulate ideas: through a continual reiterative process of experiencing and simulating the world into novel combinations. If you were to take a temporal (meaning right now) snapshot of your brains it would reveal neuronal processes which are simulating many things. As we think of a chair, and maintain as meditation attempts solely the idea of the chair and no other mental distractions or concepts, our simulation will become as close to the pure notion of a chair as our mental state can achieve. In the same way our snapshot of our brains when thinking of the number two will be neuronal processes performing a simulation. The two processes are equivalent, both are simulations which represent something else. The something else in the case of a chair and the number two are easy to understand as the relate to tangible objects which we can perceive through our senses; we can experience a chair which we can later simulate, we can experience two chairs and simulate the idea of the quantity of two.

The fact that these are just simulations and don’t prove their subjects existence is only self-evident when we use more abstract simulations, for example ‘justice’ and a ‘quadratic equation’ (ax²+bx+ab=0). Both these simulations have little perceptible existence outside of other simulations. Justice is based on notions of how we feel when interacting with other human beings, past events and current circumstances and our other notions of good, fairness, right and wrong. The quadratic equation outlined here contains letters and numbers in algebra, which themselves are based on certain axioms which in turn are based on the rules such as those which underpin the number two (read Wikipedia for an extended explanation of what algebra is). The quadratic equation can represent a graph with x and y axes on which a curve sits. This curve in turn can represent something which we perceive and simulate, such as the trajectory of a chair being defenestrated. Neither of these representations are the perfect form of the quadratic equation; just like the perfect form of justice, the perfect quadratic equation does not exist outside of our simulation.

To finish and return to the earlier example of the science of the small the indeterministic quantum mechanics may be the science which is the harbinger of the destruction of physics as we know it. Whilst we still describe quantum mechanics in mathematical terms it would seem a logical step to take, given languages acknowledged separation from reality, for us to realise that the mathematics of physics is ultimately divorced from reality as well. A good description but never the same thing.

1. Humans are omnivores. We are physiologically capable of eating meat and derive a lot of nutrition from it but the amount of meat we need to eat for nutritional value is far less than what is typical in today’s Western diets.
2. It is more resource intensive to raise an animal in terms of feed, fertiliser, antibiotics, land use and transport than the equivalent nutritional value of plants.
3. To raise enough meat for the population of the planet for our current diets requires large scale industrial farming which has negative environmental impacts and poor living conditions for the animals. If we all ate less meat it would be possible to have only free-range and organic meat raised locally and sustainably.

Talking about a low-meat diet is a good thing as I believe many people won’t have thought about it. The advantage of this particular diet (over say vegetarianism, veganism or freetarianism) is its flexibility and similarity to my current behaviour and lifestyle. A big issue with having a strict diet is when dining with other people who are either unaware or unwilling to accommodate your choices. Unless you eat what the majority of people in your country eat it requires a lot of dedication and confrontation to have a non-mainstream diet. With cutting down meat it is possible to stick to it when you have control over the menu but still be flexible enough adapt to the situation.

At this stage I am still learning. My current lifestyle in London is particularly resource intensive – I tend to eat out regularly which has a large environmental impact. There are very few farms in central London and having someone cook your meal is far more wasteful than cooking it yourself. On the plus side eating out does afford me the luxury of ordering very tasty vegetarian food. As I eat more at home, I have been increasing the stable of vegetarian recipes which I can cook.

There is unfortunately one major dietary problem with the line of argument outlined in the three points above: fish and seafood. Using the above three reasons one could argue aquaculture will be the sustainable way to continue to eat food from the oceans. Unfortunately the environmental impacts of intensive fish farming and the sheer amount of fish eaten globally mean that fish farming is unlikely to supply global demand without sustainable normal fishery.

Currently two factors (outside of issues like poverty, nationalism etcetera) are working against sustainable fisheries. The tragedy of the commons, where fish cannot be easily privatised so therefore it is not in the interest of individuals to fish them sustainably; and market forces that drive up the price of endangered fish as they become scarcer thus promoting further fishing. Without accurate global fishing quota regulation and adequate policing of both commercial and pirate fleets fish will simply disappear from the menu. So it has now disappeared from mine.

A recent editorial in the Dom Post lambasted the Wellington city council’s inability to create a coherent regional development strategy. “Though some Wellingtonians might see council concern for the cbd as laudable, it not only ignores reality [my emphasis], it also ignores the fundament of a market-driven economy – competition. If stores in downtown Wellington want to attract shoppers, they must employ the age-old tactics of holding good stock, asking affordable prices and having welcoming staff and store fronts, not rely on the council instituting a protection racket on their behalf.” The ‘reality’ that the author speaks of is given away earlier in the editorial: “…shopping is now the No 1 leisure activity for so many families…“. They imply that in a market-driven economy shopping should not only be encouraged but is reality – conveniently ignoring the fact that we don’t live in a market-driven economy, rather we live in a mixed economy. What is more notable is the lack of imagination in the solution to the problem. Wellington’s compressed geography is perfectly suited for intelligent high-density town planning and public transport along dense corridors. Instead the automobile dependent solution which the editorial suggests creates what James Kunstler terms the ‘national automobile slum’ otherwise known as suburbia.

mp3 oasis supersonic

The second talk is Bill Moyers of PBS fame speaking at the National Conference for Media Reform.

Click here to view the embedded video.

This in itself is not necessarily bad as the smallness of New Zealand’s population mean that skeletons don’t easily hide in closets. ‘Big media’ in New Zealand is not as likely or able to engage in dishonest reporting in the same way as certain outlets in the U.S. or the U.K. (unbelievably the Sun is the most read newspaper in England). Unfortunately in terms of highlighting, reporting and advocating progressive social, environmental and international issues New Zealand’s media ownership situation is a nightmare for the following reason: there aren’t enough of the rest of us to incubate and sustain the type of radical, entrepreneurial or grassroot ideas – although we are quick to celebrate our successes once it is safe to.

The Flight of the Conchords were only noticed by the mainstream here after they were well regarded overseas. The same Crowded House songs are trumpeted out over and over again. Our sporting/war heroes of yesteryear are paraded on an infinite loop. There are continuous reminders of how great a nation we are, yet these individual brilliances belie the fact that New Zealand is not a cultural or economic leader. I wrote a rallying call here about New Zealand accepting that it will never be an economic giant and instead we should promote what we are good at (Maori culture and history, our environment, egalitarianism (equality) and lifestyle.). The press in New Zealand are not very good at advancing these view points.

Three recent opinion pieces in the Press highlighted both the state of the discussion in the media and this aspect of our psyche. The first written by Reuben Hunt starts with him explaining how the world is going to an environmental hell in a hand basket and finishes with him saying “[l]et’s hope it won’t be just the meek and the poor who inherit the Earth, but there will be room for a few Kiwis, too”. The second, by David Round, speaking of aid in a time of oil and food shortages and the potential for economic refugees finished saying “[i]t is time to batten down the hatches. It is time to prepare to repel the borders.” The last was by Karl du Fresne who in the same opinion piece both endearingly lampooned suburban bores (he wants them as his neighbours rather than pierced and tattooed hippies), and railed against the “crock we’re stuck with now” that is MMP.

I cannot think of three opinions I more want to run screaming from. Selfish, frightened, insular, reactionary – and like the Dom Post editorial – unimaginative. Rather than looking at the future and dreading how it isn’t going to be like yesterday, why not think (and write) positively and actually do something about it.

It is an amazing thing if someone knows more than one language, it is unbelievable if they know three. Gilles tonight said that English was his fourth. Language is a funny thing – if we believe the French philosophers it defines our complete being. Yet some part of the whole remains missing.

If one is to live the perfect life, how would that be? Would you undertake the human genome project, taking Joe Bloggs, analysing his DNA and saying that was the blue print of humanity? Would you realise that one person does not represent the species and increase the breadth of your search? How would you know that you had isolated all of the possible gene combinations that make up the entire spectrum of human genetic stock without taking a sample of every single human?

The perfect life. A human life is the summation of our actions, which are made up of our interactions with our physical surroundings. Typically in any study of human behaviour traits have been sought on either a macro or an individual level. Traits are us, they are our personalities, our responses to situations, our unconscious actions, our us. A character trait in one person could be called a dysfunction in another, be dominant in a third and recessive in a fourth. A fifth might not even have it at all. But what is a trait? Is it too simplistic to say that ‘men are from Mars so therefore less emotional but better at spatial awareness’. Stereotypes are dangerous ‘but they represent fundamental generalised truths’ Is this true? How do we define that these traits exist. We can speak the words in language but has language predetermined our belief in them.

Language is a funny thing. Apparently Inuits have a thousand words for snow, so therefore are able to consciously experience a different relationship with snow then those without names for it. Also, Inuits add their adjectives to their nouns, so when they say icy snow they say icysnow. This isn’t a separate word, only a different grammar. I believe that precise linguistic representations of thought will be inaccessible without a thorough understanding of the language that created them -the concept of mana in Maori comes to mind. That said, the majority of concepts can either be conveyed in any language so long as that language is flexible enough to accept new concepts. Differences can be sorted via dialogue and understanding.

I am impressed when someone knows multiple languages, although I then must ask why they know so many? The majoriy of people I have met so far have a historical reason for knowing a language other than their native one. The remaider of people who choose to learn a language to proficiency for the sake of it are few and far between. I guess I am saying – not to denigrate anyone who knows multiple languages or preach anglo-saxon linguistic superiority – that learning another language is a pointless exercise from the point of view of understanding all cultures. If one has an interest in a particular culture, then by all means learn that language. If one grew up in a place where it was necessary to learn then by all means. If one likes to travel and is enthralled in knowing enough to get by then go ahead. If one knows six languages already and learning the seventh is like relearning to ride a bike it would be a shame not to.

If one wants to learn the best about as many other different points of view, then understanding the concepts that underlie the language is more important than being able to understand how to say thank you and catch the next train. This may sound belittling, but I have found that I have best experienced other cultures through someone who has a throurough grasp of English already. If I only have a rudimentary grasp of their language then I don’t really understand what is going on, the idiosyncrasies that make up their personalities. In the same way that culturally eating around the world is not a true understanding of the other experience (although gustatory experience is right up there with sense of smell), language lip service is also incomplete.

Why am I writing this? Well, I am eternally on the quest for complete understanding and the perfect life ;) But on a more down to earth note, cultural understanding doesn’t come from a lack of linguistic understanding. Rather it is a part (albeit a large one). More importantly cultural understanding is a willingness to understand other cultures [isn't that a tautology?]. So a way to be exposed to other ways to understand the perfect way to live life is to be open to understanding other cultures in whatever form that takes.

Is the difference between take and takes due to singular and plurals? In the first sentence the subject is one dog, but in the second sentence it appears there are multiple takings of the single dog?

A quick search in Google revealed the following sentences:

1. Can he take the house?
2. He will take the blame
3. My baby takes the morning train…
4. He takes the tribe…

I am starting to see a pattern. If the mood is indicative then takes should be used, but if it has a modal auxiliary verb (must, might, may, shall, should, can, could, will or would) then take should be used

1. He takes his time or Person takes his time (
2. He will take his time or Person to take his time

So I assume the decision on whether to use take or takes is a combination of the amount of the subject, the mood and type of auxiliary verb.

Update:

I think I have way over complicated this. If I substitute words in my example it makes more sense.

1. She insists that he dance.
2. He dances.

The difference can be further highlighted by:

1. She insists that he dance.
2. She insists that he dances.

The first sentence implies do it right now and once. The second sentence implies at do it at some point or multiple times. Oh dear, I still don’t really understand this :( Help!

Freeview, New Zealand’s free to air digital broadcaster, can be connected to via a set top box currently costing NZD$300. People then have to purchase an HDTV to view any difference in signal, otherwise the money for the set top box is essentially wasted. There is no choice in this matter as the analogue signal will be switched off in around 6-10 years. This decision has not being voted for, rather it is being foisted upon the New Zealand public by forces beyond our control.

Climate change also is being thrust upon us – the facts of climate change are there and something needs to be done. The only difference is in the level of what we need to do. Digital television has some very clear answers: purchase set top box and HDTV, do not adjust your lifestyle. Climate change not only has no clear answers but many vested interests against it in both business and public apathy.

Climate change resides in the realm of externalities, that economic term which means effects of trade which cannot be quantified and so aren’t factored into the cost of a good or service. This fact alone means that economics and thus the free market cannot successfully resolve matters of the environment. State intervention has to be the prime organiser of our society in most matters of the environment, just as it has been in HDTV. Currently the New Zealand government’s effort to resolve the digital television problem puts its effort to resolving our contribution to climate change to shame.

However I didn’t get the depravity of the U.S. farming system described in Omnivore’s Dilemma until the shuttle ride between L.A. and San Francisco. Along the highway a sudden stench like a pig farm hit us and the entire horizon to the right went brown. It was a feed-lot right alongside the highway, and there were the cows standing nearly shoulder to shoulder in their own excrement. I of course exclaimed ‘holy shit’ and the Americans on the bus all proceeded to ignore it, look the other way and make their excuses. I tried to take a photo but by the time I got my camera out we had passed. Never in my wildest dreams nightmares.

The reason cows are raised on corn in U.S. is because corn is heavily subsidised by the government. Thus cows are now raised cheaply in open air factories rather than in fields. I imagine it will be only a matter of time before they are raised indoors in conditions not unlike pig crates due to the discomfort that most people feel when seeing this animal concentration camps. If only abbatoirs had glass walls as well. Because of the subsidisation of corn, every product has corn in it. I bought an egg sandwich – you know: egg, milk, salt, pepper and butter - and it had corn in it! According to a conversation I had in Yosemite corn allergies and intolerance are becoming prevalent. It is in EVERYTHING. Humans didn’t evolve eating this much corn. And they wonder why they are fat.

More than happy: I once heard a funny definition of a liberal – a conservative who has gotten caught.

Christopher Estep: I’ve also heard it said that a liberal is a conservative who hasn’t gotten robbed.

Link to article