numbers

by

“It’s just the kind of day to leave myself behind”

Well, it’s Tuesday, isn’t it.

Note that I ended that sentence with a period, despite the fact that it seems to be in the form of a question.  That’s because I didn’t really mean it as a question; I had no desire to imply that I wasn’t sure what day of the week it was.  I’m reasonably certain that today is Tuesday.

I’m not absolutely certain, of course, because outside the realms of self-contained systems of mathematical or logical axioms and rigorously defined and applied operations, there can be no true certainty, only higher or lower credence.  Real-world probabilities never reach zero or one.

Mind you, some things are so likely as to be practically certain, and there’s not much point in worrying about whether they are true unless and until some completely new evidence and/or argument makes itself known.  Such is my conviction that today is Tuesday*.

No, I was expressing a sort of resignation about the fact that today is Tuesday.  I would have said it in a sardonic tone had I been speaking aloud.  It’s not that Tuesday is an especially bad day of the week necessarily, notwithstanding the Beatles telling us that Tuesday afternoon is never-ending.  No, it’s just that Tuesday is still practically the beginning of the week, but I am already tired from Monday, and it’s a long way until the weekend, especially if one works on Saturday, which I am going to do, as far as I know.

That last statement has a lower credence than I give to the fact that today is Tuesday, but it’s still well above a 50% chance.

I know, I know, why am I writing this inane nonsense?

It’s just stream of consciousness.  I’m not planning it out, except to the extent that something I’ve written already makes me think of something else I want to write next.  But I have no particular chosen topic today, obviously.  Not that this is atypical.  I almost never have any plan when I start writing blog posts; I just start writing.  Sometimes I’ll just start with an inane phrase, like I did today, and see where that takes me.

Oddly enough, I think when I do have a particular topic in mind—such as in my short-lived series My Heroes Have Always Been Villains—people don’t seem to enjoy my posts as much.  Or, at least, I don’t get as many “likes” or views.  Maybe some people read and “like” them via social media or something, but if so, whatever they’re doing doesn’t reach me as feedback.  I don’t really see comments or responses that aren’t done here on my page.

Of course, as you may already know, the initial purpose for this blog—in this incarnation—was to try to promote my fiction by interacting with potential readers.  Boy was that a dud of an idea!  [No question mark ==> rhetorical, but not really a question].

More people read and have read this blog than ever read any of my books, unfortunately.  It’s rather discouraging, and it’s a large part of why I haven’t been writing fiction for a while, and the last thing I wrote, Extra Body, I just published here.

While I always write the stories I want to write and that I will enjoy (or whatever one might call the process) there really is a rapidly diminishing marginal return as one writes books that almost no one is even aware of, let alone purchases, let alone reads.  And as you know, I have no stomach for self-promotion.  Sometimes I envy narcissists, at least for an instant; then I remember that I tend to find them disgusting (though just a smidge of narcissism can be endearing in the right circumstances).

I also am not very good at interacting with people who might help promote my work, let alone at asking for that help.  I’m pretty good at the creative stuff, or at least I’m tolerably good at it.  I can write, I can draw, I can do music (playing and singing) and other similar stuff.

I’m also pretty good at science and math, and not just in a rote learning sense; I’m pretty creative there, too.  I once invented my own “number” which I call a “gleeb”, the symbol for which was a combined cursive g and b:

The nature of a gleeb is that, if you multiply it by zero, you get one (in other words, a gleeb is the “forbidden” or “undefined” result of 1/0).  That may not seem to make sense, but while I was “up the road” I even worked out some of the algebra and properties of such a number, and it turned out—to my inexpert analysis—to be logically consistent, at least.

I’m not saying it’s useful.  As far as I can tell, it’s not.  But it was a bit of mental fun and exercise, perhaps the intellectual analogue of playing hacky sack.

I’ve also occasionally thought of ideas in physics and in medicine that I thought were interesting, and which later I discovered had actually become areas of research or therapy (the therapy bit is in medicine, not in physics…as far as I know, there are no therapies in physics, despite the fact that there is such a thing as physical therapy**).

But I am not good at putting myself forward or putting myself out there or calling attention to myself.

Okay, well, I guess that’s enough meandering nonsense for the moment, though such nonsense can sometimes be fun.  Hopefully, Tuesday afternoon will not become some bizarre event horizon in which we are stuck forever.

Of course, the person going through the event horizon doesn’t experience the process as eternal; only the distant observers “see****” them slowing and slowing and coming finally, asymptotically, to a complete standstill.  The person who goes through, if they are looking backward, might see the whole history of the universe playing out before them—at least until tidal forces spaghettify them—but they will not experience time stopping.  Think about it:  how could one experience time stopping?  The passage of time is inherent in the process of experience, certainly as we know it.

I hope you have a good day.

*And even if it weren’t, I could just call it Tuesday and say that I have my own way of naming the days of the week, and it would be no more arbitrary than the one in use here in the US and elsewhere.

**This is as opposed to psychotherapy, of course, but it also can lead one to imagine such things as ethereal therapy or conceptual therapy or metaphysical therapy.  What would that last one be***?

***See, I ended that sentence with a question mark; it really was a question, though mainly a rhetorical one.

****I put that in scare quotes because as a person (or whatever) gets closer and closer to an event horizon, any light or other signal leaving them, heading outward, gets red-shifted to longer and longer wavelengths, so it becomes harder and harder actually to see them.  In the end, we cannot truly observe them stuck there forever, because the wavelength of the light leaving them approaches infinity.

by

O heavy lightness, serious vanity, misshapen chaos of well-seeming blogs

Hello and good morning.  It’s Thursday, of course‒thus the “traditional” opening salutation‒and here I am again, writing another in a line of hundreds of Thursday blog posts.

Have I said all that I could say, already?  Probably not.  The number of possible 800+ word strings of English writing is surely unfathomably vast.  If I were going to try to give some kind of upper boundary, we would consider that there are a few million words in the English language, and I could just try to solve for a few million to the 800th power.  That’s a huge number (104800). But most of those combinations‒all of them, effectively‒would be nonsense.

By “all of them” I mean that, if one applies the constraints of grammar, or even just of making tolerable sense to a potential reader, the number of strings of 800 coherent words is so much smaller than the number of possible strings of 800 words without care for sensibility that, if one were looking at some shape or field that represented the latter, the former would probably be too small to see, given the constraints on the resolving power of visible light.

It’s a bit like the possibilities implicit in DNA.  The human genome is on the order of a billion or so base pairs* long, if memory serves, and each “site” on the genome has 4 possible “letters”.  So, the potential number of sequences of DNA in that genome is on the order of 4 to the billionth power, which would be 2 to the 2 billionth power, which is about 10 to the 600 millionth power (10600,000,000).

That’s a huge number. Remember, a googol is merely 10100, and it is already a number that far exceeds the number of baryons in the (visible) universe (which is on the order of 1080).  And remember how exponentials work:  every time you add 1 to the exponent you multiply by the base number, in this case 10.  So, 10101 is ten times larger than 10100.

As you can see, the number of possible DNA sequences is beyond astronomical, at least unless we get into, say, the measures of entropy represented by an event horizon, as an indicator of the number of possible quantum states it could have “within”.  But distances and times and numbers of particles in the accessible universe are unnoticeably small compared to the number of possible sequences of DNA**.

However, the vast majority of those base-pair combinations would certainly not code for anything that we would consider human, or indeed any other living creature that’s ever existed on Earth.  Most are the analogue of throwing random words together to make a blog post.  They wouldn’t come close to coding for anything that would be a living creature.

Nevertheless, even ruling out all the nonsense, the number of possible viable human genomes is vast.  It may still be larger than the number of particles in the visible universe, but don’t quote me on that‒I haven’t checked those numbers.  In any case, it’s much larger than the number of humans who have ever lived, and probably larger than the number of humans who will ever live even if the species goes on to become cosmically significant.

What this all comes down to, I guess, is that I haven’t come close to writing all the possible blog posts I could write, even ruling out ones that wouldn’t make any sense and even ruling out ones that differ from others only by a word or two.  I guess this blog itself constitutes a case in point.

But boy, it can be a lot of work trying to write something new every day, and even more work trying to write something interesting.  That’s why I don’t bother with the latter criterion; I just write whatever comes out, which is usually something at least mildly interesting to me, and I figure it’ll reach kindred spirits if they happen upon it‒and if such people even exist.

Speaking of kindred spirits, I hope you all have a lovely day.  At least I hope it will be as good as it can possibly be‒which it will, since once it’s happened, it can’t have been otherwise than it was.

TTFN

*In case you don’t recall, DNA is a long chain molecule of polymerized “nitrogenous bases”, adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine.  Because each DNA base can pair up only with its complementary base (A with T, G with C) this allows for high fidelity copying, and thus reproduction.

**Now, if the universe is spatially infinite‒which it looks like it is, but may not be‒then of course the number of particles or quantum states or even planets with life would be infinite, and thus larger than any possible finite number, no matter how big you might choose.  Fun things happen when one deals with infinities.

by

“People have this power–the numbers don’t decide”

It’s Saturday again, as I warned everyone would happen if we didn’t do something to stop it.  Unfortunately, no one appears to have listened, so, well…here we are again.

Of course, as I also warned you all, I am working today, and so, here I am writing another blog post, just like all the others.

Except it’s not quite exactly the same as all the others.  And, given the 1000 or so words per blog post, and the number of possible words there are available, even avoiding random jumbles of characters, the number of possible blog posts that I could write is probably far greater than the number of potential days I have left in any plausible human lifetime…or any plausible universal lifetime short of infinity, probably.

Let’s do some quick and dirty math.

I’m going to estimate very roughly, because I only have vague (but educated) intuitions, but let’s assume I start any given blog post with a choice from a list of maybe twenty words.  That seems like a decent ballpark figure.  After that, there are only a limited number of potential next words that would make any sense and that I might be inclined to use.  I’m going to cull that down to 10 options per each next word, and I’m going to ignore individual word probabilities and predominances relative to other words.  I’m also going to ignore the fact that I often write more than 1000 words per post.  We’re just being quick and dirty here.

So, with 20 first words, then ten to choose from for each next word, if we assumed more or less random sorting among those, we’d have a potential number of blog posts of roughly 20 x 10 to the 999th power, or 2 x 101000 possible blog posts.  That’s a staggering number of possible posts, each just a thousand words long.

How staggering is it?  Well, the famous number “googol”, is 10100 (ten to the hundredth power, or 10 times 10 times 10…repeated a hundred times).  It can be written as a 1 followed by 100 zeroes.  That number itself is roughly 10 to the 19th times as large as the number of baryons in the entire visible universe.  In other words, that’s ten billion billion times as many.  That’s more than a billion times the number of people alive on Earth now times the number of baryons in the universe.

But that’s just a googol.  A googol is so small compared to 2 x 101000 that if you subtracted a googol from 2 x 101000 the change would be so unnoticeably small that to notice it, one would require a precision far beyond the most precise measurement humans have ever made.  We’re talking about one part in about 10 to the 900th power.  That’s rounding off!

The best we’ve done as far as comparing experiment and theory goes is the magnetic moment of an electron‒or maybe it’s the fine structure constant, I’ll have to check on that (no, it’s the electron one).  That has been measured to agree with theory out to about the 12th decimal place, if I remember correctly.  As Feynman has said, that’s like measuring the distance between NYC and LA to the precision of the width of a human hair (which is far more precise than would in any case be useful or even applicable for such a distance measurement).

Anyway, the point I’m making is that the number of possible blog posts that can be a thousand words long with a few‒admittedly somewhat overgenerous‒constraints is staggering.  If I could write a blog post every Planck time for the rest of the life of the sun* I wouldn’t even make a dent, not a noticeable scratch or scuff in that number.  And you can’t really do more than one quantum event in any given Planck time, if I understand correctly, anyway.

So, I’m not going to run out of possible blog posts any time soon.  Even though I’ve probably overestimated the number of words I’m likely to use following any given previous word‒and I haven’t weighted the odds as would some GPT-like language model that creates text without thinking, based on huge numbers of things other people have written‒it’s still such a huge number that it’s too large really even to contemplate seriously.

And yet, time after weary time, I write blog posts about very similar things, such as my pain and my depression and the fact that I could really use some help from someone.  It’s very boring, I guess.  I apologize.  If you’re looking to diverge very much, I guess my blog might not be the ideal place for you.  But, of course, the huge majority of all possible blogs that would fit my above-listed criteria would be gibberish**, so we don’t want to get too caught up in those numbers.

It’s a bit like thinking about the human genome.  There are, I think, on the order of a billion base pairs in the human genome, and each “slot” has 4 potential nucleotide “letters” (adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine) so the number of possible genomes is about 4 to the billionth power, or 2 to the 2 billionth power…and every 210 is roughly 103 (210 being 1024),and 21000 is about 10300 so 2 to the billionth is about…1027,000,000, if my calculations are correct.  I’m not sure they are, but you get the idea.  It’s a big f*cking number!

Most of these orders of base pairs would not designate a human, nor even anything that could live at all.  So let’s whittle things down in truly draconian fashion and say only 10 to the 90th are potentially viable***.  That’s still far more potential humans than the number of baryons in the visible universe.

I think you can see that we’re never actually going to instantiate that number of humans, since each human is made of a substantial number of baryons…it’s something like 1027, but that’s just a ballpark figure****.  So, unless we find a way to generate a lot of new baryons, and fit them into the visible universe without causing the whole thing to collapse upon itself due to gravitational effects, the whole of actual humanity will always be a sea of unimaginably untapped potential.

I think we all kind of knew that, anyway, didn’t we?

Likewise, the number of actual blog posts I‒or anyone else‒will ever write before the heat death of the universe (assuming that’s the way things end) is embarrassingly negligible.  But we work with what we have.

And speaking of that, I guess I’d better mentally prepare myself for work, since I am already on the train.  I hope you all have a good weekend.  Whatever you do, it will probably be more interesting than anything I’m going to do.  Believe it or not, I find some consolation in that fact.

*It’s about 1060 Planck times:  1043 Planck times per second times 60 seconds per minute times 60 minutes per hour times 24 hours per day times 365.25 days per year times about 5 billion years.

**I mean even more so than my actual blog posts are.

***Don’t make the mistake of thinking that’s a reduction by 26,999,910/27,000,000. It’s way more of a reduction than that.  Don’t be fooled by the comparatively small numbers in exponents.  We’re taking a number that was 27 million digits long and making it only ninety digits long.  If you subtracted the second number from the first, it would be such a small change you’d have to look out well past the 26 millionth digit even to see a difference.

****Again, don’t be confused by the relative closeness of the exponents and worry that we’ll run out of baryons soon.  10 to the 27th is vanishingly small compared to 10 to the 81st.  In fact, curiously, 1027 x 1027 x 1027 = 1081.  Every single gram of hydrogen contains 6 x 1022 atoms, and obviously the number of grams of hydrogen in the universe is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay bigger than that!

by

Lovers and madmen have such seething blogs…that apprehend more than cool reason ever comprehends.

I'm not in the street you fairy

 

Okay, so…hello and good morning.  It’s Thursday again, and I’m not flagrantly ill*, so that must mean that it’s time for another blog post.  Huzzah!

It’s hard to think of much that’s new with me since last Thursday.  I did get one very nice comment on this blog about my song, Like and Share, and of course, family and friends on Facebook and elsewhere had some very kind words about it.  Since then, regarding music: I’ve been practicing regularly, and I’m working on two projects, neither of which is as “serious” as Like and Share was.  First, I’m working on recording a “bad cover” of the Beatles song, Something, which I’ve been practicing/learning for the guitar for a while now**.  I’m hoping to make something that’s not too embarrassing to have other people hear.

I’ve also been finally arranging a tune I made up a loooong time ago for the Joker’s song from the graphic novel The Killing Joke, written by the justly legendary Alan Moore and illustrated by the absolutely brilliant Brian Bolland.  The melody just came to me when I read the story from early on, but I never wrote it down or anything; like so many of these things, it’s just been bouncing around in my head ever since.  Well, now I have written it, and I’ve worked out the chord structure and everything—for the piano mainly.  If I get to the point where I can play my own frigging composition at speed without missing notes all over the place, I may record it.

I know they made an animated film version of the story in recent years, and apparently someone must have written their own version of the tune for the Joker’s song, but I’ve neither seen nor listened to it, nor will I before I finish putting my own together.  I don’t want to taint my own thoughts, nor get too depressed about the movie version being either better or worse than my version.

Those are just frivolous little playthings, though… “fairy toys”, as Theseus in A Midsummer Night’s Dream might say.  Not that everything isn’t frivolous from the right perspective, but these are frivolous even from my own point of view***.  My most important work, to me, is my writing, and most particularly my fiction, but for some time now, and still for a bit of time to go, that work has been and will be comprised solely of the editing/tweaking of Unanimity, since it’s such a long story (I still like it a lot, though; don’t get me wrong).

Quite some time ago—but not nearly long ago enough—I decided that I wouldn’t begin any new story until I finished the previous one.  This is because one of the main things that derailed me from finishing many (or any) books earlier in life was my tendency to become distracted and start some new project before ever having finished previous ones.  And so, many things were begun but few were finished…and enterprises of great pith and moment with this disrespect their courses turned awry and lost the name of action.

It’s a common enough lament, I suppose, but it’s terribly annoying for me to look back and realize how many balls I dropped because I kept trying to juggle instead of giving just one of them at a time a good, solid fling into the distance.  Such is the metaphorical nature of regret.

On a lighter note, I just realized that it’s 02/20/2020 today, or in the European form, 20/02/2020.  That’s not as cool as 02/02/2020 was, but it’s still fun for numberphiles like me.  Of course, all dates and dating systems are arbitrary (though the length of a day and of a year do refer to real, physical cycles).  Even most serious Christian scholars (including former pope Benedict, aka Darth Ratzinger) estimate that Jesus was probably born sometime between what we would call 6 B.C. and 4 B.C.  None put his birth at year zero…for there is no year zero in that dating system!  (And almost no one really believes that Jesus was born three or four days after the winter solstice in whatever year.)  The counts of years and of months and of days are just arbitrary.  But the numbers can still be fun.

That’s about that, I guess.  Not much more to talk about.  Or, to put it another way, there’s way too much stuff to talk about (or, rather, “about which to talk”) to get started on it here in my weekly blog post.  Perhaps I’ll try, yet again, to touch upon it in audio posts or to write about it, either on Iterations of Zero, or here.  More likely, I’ll just keep having the conversation with myself in my head—and sometimes out loud—until I can finally shut the stupid soliloquy up for good.

TTFN

*Physically, anyway.  By which I mean outside the brain…though that’s certainly a physical organ.  But I’ll try not to split hairs.

**Not as long as I’ve been working on mastering the lead guitar part from Knives Out, by Radiohead, but that’s difficult mainly because it’s just got a lot going on and has no real slow spots.  It reminds me of some of Bach’s Two-part Inventions, which is part of why I like it.

***Actually, to be fair, pretty much everything is frivolous from my point of view, since I’m fairly unconvinced even of the possibility of any external, intrinsic meaning to anything at all.