Metascience: the nature of the laws governing the universe

January 22nd, 2006

Given what we know about the laws of the universe so far, I suspect that there are not too many of them - i.e. that when we finally figure out how to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity, the resulting "theory of everything" will be conceptually quite simple - perhaps just a few lines of equations when written down in their simplest form (although they might be rather difficult to do actual calculations with).

But what if there are exceptions to these laws of physics? What if there are a finite number of points in spacetime where these equations do not hold, and events happen that are not predicted by these laws? We couldn't do science with these directly - as each of them would only happen once, any experiments around them could not be repeated. There is a great deal of evidence pointing to the existence of one such point - the one the exact moment of the big bang at the beginning of the universe.

I got this idea from thinking about the classification of the finite simple groups. I won't go into great detail about what that actually means, but a very simple introduction follows in the next paragraph for the curious.

A group is just a mathematical object consisting of a set of things and an operation (e.g. addition or multiplication, call it "*") which takes any two of these things (e.g. a and b) and generates a third thing, a*b = c. This operation must also have certain special properties: (a*b)*c = a*(b*c), an "identity" element I such that a*I = I*a = a and an inverse element a-1 for every element a such that a*a-1 = a-1*a = I. The simple groups are just groups with particular properties - kind of like the equivalent of prime numbers for groups, or the chemical elements in chemistry - they can't be broken down into smaller simple groups.

Mathematicians wished to classify the finite simple groups, to find the equivalent of the "periodic table" for them. It turned out to be a rather big job - the result is the biggest theorem in mathematics (so far), consisting of some 15,000 pages in 500 articles by 100 mathematicians over a period of 28 years. It turns out that the simple groups can be classified into 18 different families (each of which is infinitely large). However, strangely there are 26 solitary finite simple groups (called the "sporadic groups") which don't fit into any of these 18 families! The largest of these has 808,017,424,794,512,875,886,459,904,961,710,757,005,754,368,000,000,000 elements, which can be thought of as a group of rotations of some object in a space with 196,883 dimensions.

I wonder if the universe works the same way. If it does, perhaps a theory of everything could be made much simpler by including such "sporadic events". By adding a finite number of sporadic events, it might be possible to change the theory of everything from an analog of the "18 families" form to a form analogous to the definition of a finite simple group. In so doing, one could predict when and where these sporadic events occurred (or would occur). We could seek out evidence for the sporadic events predicted to have occurred in the past. For sporadic events in the future, we could go to the place they were predicted to occur at the time that they were predicted to occur and perform experiments to observe them directly and gain evidence for the simplified version of the grand unified theory. Presumably if that were to occur, any alien species who had also achieved our level of scientific knowledge would be there too. I hope that by then we would be mature enough not to go to war with them over who gets to observe it. It would be kind of like the physics version of a pilgrimage to Mecca.

This might make a rather good science fiction short story.

What science is not

January 21st, 2006

I have recently been conversing via email with a bona fide crackpot. He initially wanted me to clear up some of his misconceptions about relativity (which I am always quite happy to do). However, this somehow lead to me agreeing to read his book in which he talks at great length about his theory which purports to unite "Western Physics" with "Eastern Metaphysics". I got to about halfway through the second chapter (which seems to consist of a number of anecdotal examples of paranormal phenomena) before I gave up due to all the inaccuracies, misunderstandings, fallacious arguments, outright lies and attacks on "the standard theory of physics". I hope my latest reply to him wasn't too rude - despite his dull book he seems to be a nice guy and I suspect there may be some interesting ideas in there if I had the patience to wade through all the pseudo-scientific rubbish.

However, this experience did get me thinking about the nature of science. Many of these crackpots seem to be under the impression that there is some kind of "scientific establishment" who spend their days in ivory towers, who have a kind of stranglehold on science, who deliberately mislead (and withhold things from) people outside "the scientific establishment", who are very closed-minded to ideas which challenge "established theory" and who often apparently have some sort of personal vendetta against the crackpots.

In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Science is not some closed-off world inaccessible to those without a degree in it. Science is simply the process of thinking up theories, performing experiments to test those theories and then throwing away the theories that are disproved by experiment. That's all there is to it. According to this definition, we all practice science every day without even thinking about it. Whenever you think to yourself "gee, it's cold in here, I wonder if the heating's switched off" and then go and check the thermostat, you are performing science. Whenever you try the handle of your car's door after locking it to make sure it's really locked, you are performing science. That's all there is to it - no degree required and no panel of "experts" judging the worth of your theories.

Is science correct? Well, it depends what you mean by "correct". If by correct you mean "a complete and perfect theory of absolutely everything that happens in the universe", then no, it is not correct, and never can be - the results of the next experiment could always falsify the previous theories. But if by "correct" you mean "useful", then the correctness of science is undeniable - just look at all the technology we have developed as a result of the science we have done. If science wasn't a useful way of finding out about the universe and modelling it, we would never have developed these technologies and I would not be able to communicate with you like this.

So what about the phenomena that have been documented but are not explained by science, just as the power of prayer in healing, or extra-sensory perception? The trouble with these phenomena is that they are very difficult to do experiments on. Partly because of the huge number of fakers purporting to do such things for profit (in which cases the effects tend to disappear in carefully controlled, double blind experiments), and partly because such phenomena tend to require people to be involved in an active role, which makes the experiments time consuming and expensive to repeat a large number of times. You can't just set up a machine one time and then leave it running a million times to examine the effects of "the power of prayer" or "astrology", nor can you do these experiments on animals as we do for biological experiments.

This means that science applied to human beings proceeds much more slowly (and is much further behind) science applied to quarks, polymer chains or lab rats. So, when effects such as the placebo effect or the power of prayer in healing are observed, we don't have any working theories to explain such things. In time, as more experiments are done, I believe that we will have theories to explain any repeatable experimental result, but where human beings are concerned we must be patient - we can't just give up on science and say that these phenomena are unexplainable or can only be explained by invoking your preferred brand of God or aliens or flying spaghetti monsters. Of course, maybe one of those is the explanation, in which case science will determine this once all simpler theories (of which there are a lot) have been proved wrong by experiment. Thinking up theories isn't the bottleneck here, it's the experiments that are the bottleneck. A good experiment is hard to do right.

Also, scientists tend to be some of the people most open minded to new ideas. Most scientists would, I think, like nothing more than for something to be discovered that completely overturns the known laws of physics - it would make for some very exciting times and provide lots of opportunities for interesting new research.

Photographs - 2006

January 21st, 2006

Various walks in the arboretum, autumn 2005


Christmas decorations


A fairy that Gennie made

Gennie's birthday party - 31st December 2005


Rebecca


I'm just sayin'...


Meighan poses for the camera


Sometime after midnight



Strange soap creature I found in the shower.

Snakes on a plane on a plane

January 19th, 2006

So I hear there is this movie coming out sometime later this year Snakes on a Plane, which I am sure is destined to become a cult classic. Gennie squealed earlier when she thought she saw a trailer for it on TV (it turned out to be another Samuel L. Jackson vehicle). Then she started talking about Snakes on a Plane and how we need to see it as soon as it comes out.

I said that what would be ever better still would be to wait a bit and then go on a trip somewhere far enough away that they show movies on a plane. I think you see where this is going - wouldn't it be awesome to watch Snakes on a Plane ON A PLANE!

No, I have not been drinking.

A watch that can't tell time

December 8th, 2005

Remember that old joke about a watch that had so many functions, they couldn't squeeze in the ability for it to tell time as well? Well, little did I know that such a watch has in all seriousness been made. Wow.

Opening Night

December 2nd, 2005

Last night, the wife and I (I never tire of writing that) went to see a play - Next Step Theater's production of Opening Night at Theater 4 in Seattle Center. It was brilliant - terrific acting, a beautiful set and lots of laughs despite a small audience. This show runs until Saturday week (the 10th) and I highly recommend you go and see it if you are in the Seattle area.

Debauchery and snogging

December 1st, 2005

I've just been looking at my website usage statistics. Damn those wedding and honeymoon pictures generated a lot of traffic - almost 1600 hits for the wedding pictures and almost 800 for the honeymoon ones!

One of my largest referrers is Yahoo Image search and a very large fraction of those are from people searching for "debauchery" or "snogging". Should I be worried about this trend?

Spam

November 30th, 2005

Current laws designed to prevent spam haven't really helped - the international nature of the internet simply means that spammers route spam (and, on the other end of things, "generated leads") via countries without anti-spam laws so that they cannot be traced by law enforcement.

To eliminate spam, it is not necessary to be able to identify every single spam email. Catching 99% or even as low as 90% would probably do the trick. By reducing the income of spammers by a factor of 10-100, sending spam quickly ceases to be economically feasible.

Catching 90-99% of spam or more is quite possible with today's spam filters. The problem is that because the focus is on eliminating the damage done by spam (the expense of the bandwidth it uses) these spam filters are generally implemented on email servers rather than at the client end. This means that there is no easy way for users to give feedback when the spam filter makes an incorrect choice (no access to the emails marked as spam, and no easy way to report a missed spam as such). This means that people are inclined to turn the filters off (so that they don't miss any email) and also means that the filters are never "trained" to recognize the newest spam-detector-foiling techniques.

The first thing we need to do is have the most popular email clients contain Bayesian spam filters. Emails detected as spam are downloaded but put into a separate folder and users are not notified when new spam is downloaded as they are when new non-spam ("ham") is downloaded. This means that users never need to worry about false positives - they can always check back through their spam folders for a missed message. As the amount of spam decreases, it eventually becomes possible to look at every spam during slow periods, to make sure there were no false positives. These clients will have two extra buttons "delete as spam" and "false positive" that they can use to help train the spam filters.

Whenever the email client is connected to the internet, it uploads its latest changes to its filter data to a trusted central server. This server collates all the information from the clients and produces new filter data which is sent back to the clients. In this way, all spam filters can quickly be updated to recognize the latest spam keywords and filter-avoidance techniques.

How do we prevent the spammers from polluting the filters by sending a large amount of bad data to the servers? All clients are authenticated to the servers and a trust metric is set up. If the data sent by the client tends to agree with data sent from all the other clients, that client's trust rating goes up. If it tends to disagree, the trust rating goes down. That way, the damage that can be done by a particular client is very limited (the filter should be designed to be able to cope with a small amount of incorrect data).

The final change that can be made (and, I think, the one that would make the most difference) is educating end-users that responding to spam is a bad idea. If a large red flashing message saying something like "Warning! The message below is likely to be fraudulent in nature. Exercise extreme caution in giving any money or information to this person or organization" appeared above any email detected as spam, it would probably put off most of the potential clients of the spammers. This method also minimizes the negative consequences of false positives.

These methods work even if not everybody adopts them and for the most part they are most helpful for those who do adopt them (thus providing an incentive for adoption).

Please feel free to evaluate my spam solution against the spam solution evaluator:

Your post advocates a

( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatibility with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

(I started doing so myself, but realised I could not be objective.)

Foggy night driving

November 29th, 2005

On our way back from Port Townsend the other weekend it was delightfully foggy out. Not so foggy that you can't see the front of the car (I've tried to drive in such conditions, and it's scary) but foggy enough that there were some really cool lighting effects in the stretches where there weren't any other cars. Streetlights, for example, start as a faint glow far in the distance. As you get closer, the blob of light resolves into a conical shape. As you pass through it it is like being on stage under a spotlight - bright underneath but blackness everywhere else. It reminded me of some the surrealism in the old Looney Tunes cartoons. Then a moment later all is black again apart from the stretch of road illuminated by the headlights and the receding/fading cone of light in the rear view mirror.

Overtaken by shadows

November 28th, 2005

My favorite bit of cycling back from work is freewheeling down the hill on 32nd Ave E. It's quite steep so you can go pretty fast but not so dangerous that you have to use the brakes. If its dark out then there is also an interesting lighting effect - as you pass under the streetlights your shadows seem to sneak up behind you and then zoom past before fading in the glow of the next light. It freaked me out a little when I first noticed it and didn't realize what it was.