The macro and the micro; boundaries of possibilities

 

     There is a well-known meandering about "see this piece of dust, what if it were a world for very small people living inside it ... and what if we are that piece of dust to some place so vast we cannot comprehend it." The Ant-Man movies kind of echo this type of suggested microworlds though not the macroworlds (not yet, at least). (For that matter, Dr. Seuss' "whoville" is in the same category.) 

     Is such a microworld really possible? Not from the science that we accept at present. We have experimental evidence in support of a hierarchy of matter and energy. From a wooden table to a quark, from matter via relativity to energy and back.

     But the nature of science is to create multiple questions every time we decide upon a tentative answer (all are susceptible to replacement, or enhancement, upon new discoveries). As Arthur C. Clarke said in his "third law" -- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". This can be inverted to indicate that "what appears to be magic, may be explained at some future time by use of technology advanced beyond the current status".

     The word "magic" bothers some people -- so it is fine, as far as I am concerned, to call it "future science" but that would be cumbersome, so I will continue to call it magic.

     If one considers the things around us, how many would have been considered magic 500 years ago? Sure, one thinks of computers and smartphones but even a sewing machine would have aroused amazement (hopefully not burning at the stake). Washing machines, microwaves, refrigerators, electric bulbs, asphalt, and so on and so on.

     Arthur C. Clarke also has a less famous "first law" which indicates "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, they are almost certainly right. When they state that something is impossible, they are very probably wrong".

     Turning around and facing the future, the only thing that I can be certain of is that it will be different. Hopefully better for more people -- but definitely different. Assuming that the Jenga stack of technological society survives and continues, imagination is literally our only limit.

     I am most fascinated at the "hows". How does the mind really work? Just how do microbacterial colonies within our digestive system adjust our bodies, our moods, even how long we live? In structured medical studies, the "placebo" (perhaps sugar water or tablets) group often still improves -- how? Science recognizes a relationship between matter and energy. Is there a relationship between mind and how matter and energy are perceived (and, perhaps, manipulated)?

     During periods of introspection (I don't allow myself to linger long as I have to live in the world that most recognize), I will think of that table and break it down to molecules and bonds and then down to atoms and particles and I get lost in amazement that my hand is able to hold a baseball. How does all this interact to make it possible? How is one set of organized atoms and particles able to interact with another set of organized atoms and particles? Most of it is "empty" space. How does one grouping act as a solid -- and interact with other solids?

     I'm not a physicist and have only somewhat more knowledge about it than most educated laypeople. I am sure that, on a mathematical basis with formulas and theorems, there are approaches to answers to these questions -- possibly involving valences and the way bonding energies interact. But, for my "money", all of this is still in the region of magic. It is something that happens every day and few think twice about it but it still ends up in that area of magic (or "future science").

    To quote Buzz Lightyear -- "to infinity and beyond".

True consensus and the power of the micro-minority

     Many people use the word "consensus" as meaning a general agreement -- but that is not the original, or primary, definition. The primary definition includes the UNANIMITY of opinion. In other words, everyone must agree. Within the Religious Society of Friends (Quaker), consensus does still mean that -- everyone must agree -- but there is also the concept of "standing aside" such that a person who is not convinced that the majority is correct but is also not convinced that they are NOT correct can allow movement. They "stand aside" so that some decision, or action, can be made.
     But, if they feel strongly that the decision, or action, is the wrong one, then they can stop the action -- true consensus must happen. Throughout history, this situation has stopped Quakers from taking action on some items for a period of years or even decades. Sometimes, the final action is the opposite of what was originally expected -- the minority disappears as it is absorbed within the majority.
     Although the basis for this practice within Quakers is religious, the principle of the majority not always being correct applies throughout society. This is parallel to the stereotypical parent asking their child "if everyone decided to jump off a bridge, would that mean it was right for you to do it?"
     In fact, looking through history and science, this is the "normal" process. One person decides that slavery is wrong but the rest do not. Then a group shifts their viewpoint (and starts becoming vocal about their view) and more and more people change their view and -- at the end of the process -- almost all think that slavery is wrong. One person examines the solar system and skies and applies mathematics to the movements and decides that the Earth really isn't the center of everything -- starting with a minority of one and now almost (rarely ever everyone) everyone understanding that view.
     It isn't easy to be that beginning minority of one. Even in situations where such is explicitly allowed and encouraged, it takes a firm grasp on an individual position to stay there. This applies to scientific, business, and social situations. Failure may sometimes be considered a path to learn how to succeed but most people would rather be part of a supporting group than being the dissenting opinion.
     Those ultra-minority opinions are often suppressed -- sometimes with legal mechanisms -- more often with disparagement and attacks against the person and ideas. This can be done with the best of motives -- and it may be that the "majority opinion" proves to be the "correct" one such that that ultra-minority opinion SHOULD be removed. Various tricks and movements may be made to suppress the minority, or ultra-minority, opinion. Of course, it can also be done with malicious intent -- such as, within the Harry Potter series, Harry Potter's trial's time and location being changed and Dumbledore is "accidentally" overlooked to be informed.
     We often think of people being of majority/minority voices. If 5% believe X, then we think that 95% believe non-X. It seems to make sense, but it is more likely that 5% believe X, 15% believe non-X and 80% follow along with the perceived greater voice. This situation can be looked at as a silver lining or as a forecast of doom. Is it a matter of 80% being "sheep" and unable to make their own decision or is it a situation where 5% only have to convince another 6% in order to move the fulcrum to change the balance? Perhaps both are true. It is even possible that the 5% can shift part of the 80% and change the balance in that manner.
     Within a large group, a single individual can always have the potential to see things the most clearly.

Hocus Pocus: The Distance Between Magic to Science

    Arthur C. Clarke, famous science fiction and science fact writer, once said that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
     Although stories told about witches primarily exist from what is, in the West, often called "the Dark Ages", the underlying problem continues to exist. Someone -- especially a social loner who is doing something not considered "normal" -- has knowledge and experience beyond that of others. If it is useful, they may be allowed to exist to be used by others. That is, they allow it to be used until something bad happens and they use the target of their fear and ignorance as a scapegoat and attack them.
     Hanging on my waist, I have a device that has computational power much greater that that of a 1951/52 UNIVAC that occupied an entire room 65 years ago. If you took that same smartphone and presented it in the town of Salem, Massachusetts 325 years ago, you could look forward to being on the non-preferred side of the Witch Trials.  However, if you took the smartphone back to 1952, most of the technology would be totally unexplainable. Depending on your audience, they would declare it to be an amazing fake, a stage device, or -- yes, magic. Very few would believe that it was real but you most likely would not be subject to being burned at a stake.
      Science consists of building upon previously discovered knowledge. Any jump in knowledge is typically met with suspicion. Einstein's theory of general relativity was a jump in understanding. It took years to be accepted and the "in-between" steps are still being proven even unto this day (2017 Nobel Prize being given for detection of "gravitational waves"). Leonardo Da Vinci was sufficiently wise to keep most of his ideas and discoveries isolated within his journals. His public face was largely concerned with his works of art for the Church and the rich. Since it didn't happen, we cannot know for certain, but I suspect that if he had succeeded in building, and demonstrating, a functional flying machine it would have had, at best, very mixed reactions from the Church and public.
     The split in perception between science and magic works both directions. Something that would be considered "commonplace" within current society (even if really understood by only a small subsection of the people) would be considered "magic" in the past. When people envision things in the future, it is often classified into "science fiction" UNLESS it is some ability or behavior that does not have an obvious basis in current science. Flying cars are science fiction. Functional "spells" are magic.
     Current, scientifically acceptable, spells are called algorithms. They piece together various simple instructions into logical frameworks and decision networks and come out with a "game App" or a "streaming video App" or a "communal workspace App". All of these would have been considered magic in the past. I will make the guess that there are a lot of things, about which we speculate as magic, that will also become commonplace in the future. In order for applications (Apps) to work, however, the convenient microcomputer/smartphone must also be present. Will it be true that, in order for Harry Potter's spells to become valid that some other foundation device must be created?
     What ideas of the future would you classify as magic? Do you see scientific paths to have them realized? What ideas would be the most inexplicable if sent to the past?

The Science and Economics of Nutrition, Summary

We've seen that nutrition involves bringing into the body a full set of "building blocks" such that the body can build, repair, and maintain itself.

Starvation occurs when the body does not have enough calories to maintain its "operational needs" -- not enough fuel to keep going. When the body does not have enough calories, it first burns stored fats and then starts burning proteins -- which include muscles and organs (such as the heart) and eventually causes death.

Malnutrition occurs when the body does not have enough of all of the different "building blocks" to create, repair, and maintain the various components of the body. This is particularly devastating to the young when they are initially forming the body -- it can cause long-term effects. (In adults, temporary malnutrition can be recovered from unless it lasts too long.). Illness and inability to perform daily tasks well are often the outcome of malnutrition.

In the U.S., we are fortunate that private charitable food banks and government programs make starvation almost non-existent. However, malnutrition exists to a considerable degree with a greater concentration among the poor.

There are four components of achieving good nutrition. These are knowledge of good nutritional needs, action taken based on that knowledge, time, and money. Most of the focus is on knowledge -- but many educational programs in school attempt to avoid science and rely on "rote" formulas. This lack of foundational understanding of nutrition makes the task of achieving good nutritional balance difficult in an atmosphere of mass media marketing. False, or misleading, claims are easily accepted. Sometimes it causes rote formulas to be followed such as "red meat is bad" without understanding WHY read meat CAN be "bad".

Money directly enters into nutritional decisions. Good nutrition is more expensive than poor nutritive, high calorie choices. Given a sufficient budget, however, it is possible to provide good nutritional meals but it requires time to plan, choose, and prepare good meals.

I have never encountered a "30 minute meal" that I can prepare in 30 minutes. A parent who is working two (or three) part-time minimum wage jobs does not want to allocate the time -- there is homework to work with, houses to clean, medical appointments and soccer games to juggle. Well balanced restaurant meals are expensive but fast food alternatives are widely, and energetically, marketed and sold to the public.

Frozen vegetables are more nutritious but take more time to prepare than canned. Given a choice between a $1 apple and a $1 candy bar -- which do you think most children would choose?

Many books and even television series have been produced about good nutrition. In order for it to be applied, however, the underlying principles need to be understood in order to map that information to good choices that can be applied each day.