Euclid’s Window by Leonard Mlodinow

“From causes which appear similar we expect similar effects. This is the sum of all our experimental conclusions”. Thus spoke Scottish philosopher David Hume. Profound stuff or a prosaic observation depending on your view, but in the domain of Math is it tenable? Where is the cause and where is effect to be observed in Math? It is abstracted as equations and concepts all over - Math is one domain (or discipline) rest of sciences use all the time as a base and in some cases engulfed by it.

This book is very narrowly but well positioned – not a coffee table book but also not meant for an expert in Math either. Surprisingly, it cannot fit into the popular science category since the topics covered are way too deep and one can only simplify so much without losing the main theme.  For example, 5^th dimension or ten dimensions is very difficult to articulate in words and even with figures: explaining such concepts is more like climbing a very greasy pole. For sure, author has worked with some of the finest minds and has done a comprehensive job of going through old records to cite stories or episodes to make them more authentic.

Author takes us on a nice tour all the way from Plato to Euclid to Gauss, Newton, Descartes, Einstein, to the latest string theory experts like Witten.

Let me cite some nuggets.

1: The theorem of logic states that, if any false theorem is allowed into logical system, irrespective of what it pertains to, you will be able to prove 1 equals 2. He quotes a legend, where one skeptic asked Bertrand Russell, “If I allow one is equal to two, then prove that you are the pope”. Russell gave a quick response thus: “The Pope and I are two; therefore Pope and I are one”.

2:  Science in the past was a deadly mix of ancient knowledge, religion, and superstition and hence belief in miracles and astrology are common. Funding of science was based on the ruler’s whim. Frederick II founded University of Naples way back 1224 and for his love science he indulged in some weird experiments – for example, he fed two prisoners the same huge lavish meal. He sent one happy man to bed and another to a grueling hunt. Afterwards, he cut them both open to see who has digested the meal better (couch potatoes will be pleased to learn that it was the man who slept).

3: Story of Rene Descartes was really fascinating. Circa 1618, in the small town of Breda in Holland he a saw a crowd trying to figure out a public notice that had a math challenge - in those days it was common. Descartes considered the problem and remarked offhand that is was easy. His translator, one of the greatest Dutch Mathematician of his time, Isaac Beckman, was irked and called stranger’s bluff challenging him to solve it. Descartes did solve it and they became very good friends. Later, Beckman became his mentor and helped him a lot.

Towards the end the book it deals with string theory that obviously flirts with extra dimensions.  As if it is not complicated enough, it introduces an idea that, at a fundamental level, space and time may not even exist.

What really grabs your attention is the extent to which chance events result in major breakthroughs eventually.

In the end, this book is all about mankind’s quest for truth and concomitant attempts to understand the world – it is through the eyes of some selected set geniuses (surely, far from exhaustive) who experienced the joy of discovery and for the rest of us it is the joy of partial (or for a rare few, full) understanding!

Thanks for reading this far.

Regards,

madhu

Infinite in ALL directions by Freeman J Dyson

Freeman J Dyson is an eminent physicist and this book is a collection of lectures he gave as a part of Gifford lectures series which has been happening for more than a century based on Gifford’s will. The prime focus of the lecture series is to “promote and diffuse the study of Natural Theology”. If someone is a Gifford lectures speaker, that in itself indicates where that person stands in his scholarly achievements. Dyson has worked with some of the world’s most respected scientists. When you work with the best minds as well as work hard for about seven decades in the same or related area, the output is bound to be astonishing.

While the scope of the book is technically unlimited, the core message can be summed up not even in a sentence but in a word: DIVERSITY. The range he covers is also really wide – akin to catching the lighting in a bottle!

Like E.O.Wilson, Dyson is a serious proponent of diversity. A sample snap shot:  “God loves diversity. Prevalence of evil is the price we pay for diversity”. Let us see some nuggets which are picked up randomly from the book.

Everything in the universe seems to be related to everything else in some way – if it doesn't appears to be, perhaps we have not thought long and hard about it. {Please see the photo taken by P.Varadarajan on his trip to Alaska which conveys this message. Since photo cannot be included in comments,I attached it in the main post after reference } Dyson relates super strings and the butterflies. (FYI: Super-string is something that would form the basis for electrons, protons and other fundamental particles). He reasons (1) everybody has seen the butterflies – no one has seen super-string (2) from the scientific point both are poorly understood (3) butterflies are at the extreme end of concreteness and superstrings are at the extreme end of abstractness. He goes on in detail about both.

Life is an evasive thing to define. Dyson manages to define it as two logically separate activities: Metabolism and Replication. To quote him: “Cells can reproduce, but molecules can only replicate”. Hardware he says has to exist before software(!) and gives an example of pocket calculator which was there before software. Hardware processes info and software embodies it. Hardware is the host and its survival is a precondition for the survival of parasites. His view is not too different from biology’s view that sees life in two skills (1) ability to create an order (2) ability to replicate and then goes on to DNA /RNA driven explanations.

He strongly believes it is a question of time humans would start migrating to other planets. When life starts spreading to other planets, comets, asteroids we would face the same question as our ancestors who left forests of chimps in order to evolve. Shall we externally retain our common bodily shape or diversify into various intelligent species based on where we migrate? Only difference I see, from forests of chimps to man, our evolution was not planned and conscious whereas here, it may be. It may knock out the surprise element. But if it is well thought out and carried out as carefully controlled experiment, then why not? I think by the time caste, religion and other differences in earth are well settled and peace is about to rein in, this kind diversification may start. Then, we would embark on next generation of fighting. On the other hand, I could visualize the software services manager who has to handle a request from one of this team members, something like “Hello, I am fed up with earth. I need an onsite assignment at Jupiter, else I would like to quit.” J By the way, at that time on-site would imply outside of earth, just as it is now outside of the country. I surmise, this manager has to find something at least in one of the many moons of Jupiter – well, the search area is going to be huge.

This book has so many fundamental concepts thrown in including anthropic principle, super strings, Oort cloud and a host of such things. If you try to fathom all of that, it may prove daunting. Euclid had such a difficulty about 2000 years back. He wanted to convey the idea of “geometrical point” and ended up with neat definition as “A point is one which has no parts and has no magnitude”. It is not at all helpful for someone who is totally ignorant of geometry and wanted to understand what “point” is all about. It is helpful only when you go past the definition and start relating to how points are related in space, circles, planes etc. It is a “math abstraction” that exists only in the world of Euclid’s geometry! So, it is better to pose a question “How points fit the overall logical system?”  Same approach is advised to avoid the long detours. Just ask yourself “How these concepts fit the overall message?” – and you will be fine. For people who are innately depth intensive or deep dive category, a dilettante feeling is inevitable.

I used to think sci-fi and such genre of books are so much into future it has no immediate relevance to be useful. After reading a few works of Dyson, I am now tempted to think it is well worth the effort due to the mental liberation it afforded me. It would be really helpful if you read such a book before going to an off-site meeting where you would discuss the next 3 years plan.

I would say, Dyson followed the Neil Bohr advice: “One should never write more clearly than one can think”.

Thanks for reading so far.

Regards

madhu

References:

1.       http://www.giffordlectures.org/

2.       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson

3.       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_cloud

4.       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_strings

Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell

Outliers: The Story of Success by Malcolm Gladwell.

Nobel Physicist Richard Feynman used to say there are two kinds of physicists - the Babylonians and the Greeks. The Babylonians made great strides in understanding numbers, equations and geometry. Yet, it was Greeks, in particular, Thales, Pythagoras and Euclid whom we credit with inventing Mathematics. It is because Babylonians cared if the method of calculation worked and if it adequately represents the real physical world – and not whether it is a fit to a greater logical system. On the other hand, Thales and others invented the system of “Theorem” and “Proofs”. In order for a statement to be considered true, it had to be exact logical consequence of explicitly stated assumptions or axioms. To put it simply, Babylonians focused on phenomena where as Greeks focused on the underlying order.

Welcome to Gladwell’s Greek treatment of “success”.

We would have read many success stories (who want to read failure stories anyway?). But from there extracting the factors that drove success would be discouragingly elusive. Now Gladwell comes up with certain underlying orders which would help us to understand the “success perspectives”.
Here are his key findings.
1. Successful people are those who have been given opportunities either by chance or by concerted cultivation.
2. To excel in any field of endeavor, you would have to clock a minimum of 10,000 hours in that area. Earlier you can do the better you are at. He asserts none of the studies could find any “naturals” who floated at the top while practicing a fraction of what their peers did. Hence practice is absolutely non-negotiable.
3. Intellect and achievement are far from perfectly correlated.
4. When you are “born” has an impact on achievements (call it “demographic luck”).
5.Matthew effect: In systems terminology, it is “increasing returns”, that is more success because of previous success – an accumulative advantage.

Perhaps, my gleaning may not be exhaustive, but the above five points struck me well due to solid examples.

When you are basically capable and opportunities are given, then you can rise to the occasion and become successful. He takes up the case of Oppenheimer, who without exaggeration was given one of the most important jobs of the 20th century. Tracing his background, it is clear he was systematically groomed to take up big ticket assignments. Be it Bill Gates of Microsoft or Bill Joy of Sun they got exposure very early in their life to intense programming expertise before they made it big in software. Same is true for Beetles in music.

His view point on time of birth is instructive – not that, it is configurable. He gives an excellent example of Canadian ice hockey team where overwhelming majority of the top players are born in the months of January, Feb and March. The cutoff date is first of January every year and hence if you are born in the first 3 months of the year you get additional months to practice than a person who was born say in December or November. In an arena where competition is intense and brutal, a few months of extra slogging would bring in enormous advantage. Similarly, when a new wave of opportunities arises, if you are too old or young, you cannot take advantage of the wave. He gives examples where most of the billionaires after great depression are born between 1931-39 and similarly 1951-58 for computing wave.

As to intellect and success correlation, his story of Chris Langan, possibly with the highest IQ in America is very instructive. If you compare it with Oppenheimer, the contrast would be even more.

He dispels the notion that the best and brightest are self made. He says, “We look at young Bill Gates and marvel that our world allowed a 13 year old to become fabulously successful – but that is a wrong lesson. If million teenagers have been given an opportunity of unlimited computer usage, we would have had many Microsoft.” Similarly, he says if Canada has a second league which focuses on people who are born in the second half of the year, it would have two great leagues!

Outliers are products of history and community. Their success is not exceptional or even mysterious. It is grounded on the web of advantages and inheritances, some deserved, some not, some earned, some plain lucky – but all critical to making them who they are. In the end, Gladwell philosophically concludes “outlier is not an outlier at all”.

The same Matthew (22:14) in bible says, “Many are called, but few are chosen”. The daunting question still remains. How one can manage to be in the group of “chosen few” – it is still to be solved. But in terms of actionable insight, the “10,000 Hours” rule is the best one to take as serious example. Plan to clock that as early as possible in life to get the accumulative advantage.
If one visualizes the bell curve, area of the outliers is indeed small. So, in spite of every effort, only a “selected few” would still experience the Matthew’s effect. So, it may be worthwhile to remember the view of another Nobel Laureate, Albert Schweitzer: “Of all the will, only a small part manifest in public action. All the rest must be content with small and obscure deeds. The sum of these however is 1000 times stronger than the acts of people who receive public recognition. The latter compared to former is foam of waves of a deep ocean”.

So, focus on “foaming” but be prepared to be a part of the “ocean”.

Thanks for reading this far….
Regards
madhu

Ref:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan
3. http://www.gladwell.com/archive.html
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Schweitzer