Monday, March 5, 2012

Let’s set our own goals

by Quinn O'Neill

In a recent advertisement for Nike athletic shoes, basketballer Kobe Bryant gives us some pointers on how to achieve new extremes of success. He reveals his system for over-the-top success before an elite audience, including rapper Kanye West and billionaire Richard Branson, at an event that's like a hybrid of a Masonic ritual and a TED Talk. “How do you know when you're in the Kobe System?” Bryant asks. “Look at your feet.” Naturally, they’re all wearing Nike shoes.

So you’ve got prestigious awards, you’re a Chinese megastar, and maybe you own outer space – certainly, that means you’re successful. But perhaps we should keep in mind that success depends on accomplishing whatever goal we set for ourselves and not whether the goal is worthy or not. Some of the most brutal dictators in history could be considered successful in the sense that they were effective leaders, but they’d hardly deserve to be placed on a pedestal. The pinnacle of success, I think, is achieving the worthiest goal, not the most elusive.

If owning outer space isn’t the worthiest goal, then what is? I think it might be health, in a very broad sense, like that suggested by the World Health Organization: “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” I think this is really the best any of us can hope for.

Read more »

Friday, March 2, 2012

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Hamza Tzortzis and Pervez Hoodbhoy Debate Religion & Rationality

Pervez Hoodbhoy explains the background of these videos in an email thus:

Tzortzis (Greek, lives in London) converted to Islam and is now hugely popular among young people brimming with faith…The man is a real entertainer. I had no idea who he was…some students at LUMS [Paksitan's Lahore University of Management Sciences] asked me to debate him. I agreed. The Islamic society here flew him in at a few hours notice.

Unfortunately, the debate ended badly. This was the only challenge Tzortzis received at a Pakistani university.

The second video is Pervez commenting on what happens at the end of the first video.

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Friday, February 24, 2012

Mind-bending consequences of quantum mechanics?

Sean Carroll in Cosmic Variance:

They do things differently over in Britain. For one thing, their idea of a fun and entertaining night out includes going to listen to a lecture/demonstration on quantum mechanics and the laws of physics. Of course, it helps when the lecture is given by someone as charismatic as Brian Cox, and the front row seats are filled with celebrities. (And yes I know, there are people here in the US who would find that entertaining as well — I’m one of them.) In particular, this snippet about harmonics and QM has gotten a lot of well-deserved play on the intertubes.

More recently, though, another excerpt from this lecture has been passed around, this one about ramifications of the Pauli Exclusion Principle. (Headline at io9: “Brian Cox explains the interconnectedness of the universe, explodes your brain.”)

The problem is that, in this video, the proffered mind-bending consequences of quantum mechanics aren’t actually correct. Some people pointed this out, including Tom Swanson in a somewhat intemperately-worded blog post, to which I pointed in a tweet. Which led to some tiresome sniping on Twitter, which you can dig up if you’re really fascinated. Much more interesting to me is getting the physics right.

One thing should be clear: getting the physics right isn’t easy. For one thing, going from simple quantum problems of a single particle in a textbook to the messy real world is often a complicated and confusing process. For another, the measurement process in quantum mechanics is famously confusing and not completely settled, even among professional physicists.

And finally, when one translates from the relative clarity of the equations to a natural-language description in order to reach a broad audience, it’s always possible to quibble about the best way to translate. It’s completely unfair in these situations to declare a certain popular exposition “wrong” just because it isn’t the way you would have done it, or even because it assumes certain technical details that the presenter did not fully footnote. It’s a popular lecture, not a scholarly tome. In this kind of format, there are two relevant questions: (1) is there an interpretation of what’s being said that matches the informal description onto a correct formal statement within the mathematical formulation of the theory?; and (2) has the formalism been translated in such a way that a non-expert listener will come away with an understanding that is reasonably close to reality? We should be charitable interpreters, in other words.

More here.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Monday, February 20, 2012

Learning Urdu

by Hannah Green

Everything starts to look like Urdu if you spend enough time staring at Urdu words trying to get them into your head. The script is fluid. Some letters can squiggle tightly or stretch long, sometimes letters stack on top of one another and sometimes they go side by side. It is this fluidity that makes Urdu so enthralling to look at, but also very difficult to learn to read. I’ll find myself squinting at a word in one of the more artistic fonts, wondering if a dot should attach to the loop on its right or the notch on its left.

Of course, the reason that I have these difficulties is that, for me, the language learning process is backward. Someone whose mother tongue is Urdu would have learned the vocabulary before trying to learn to read it, so they’ll know which interpretation of a dot makes a real word and which makes one that doesn’t exist or doesn’t make sense. Urdu writing also only includes about half of vowel sounds, and I ache for the native speaker’s instinct to know what these missing sounds are just by looking at the text.

At the same time, Urdu’s capacity for multiple interpretations, visually as well as semantically, makes it all the more compelling to me. I sometimes wonder at my motivation for learning this language. I had been interested in Urdu since I started to learn about the history of Islam in South Asia, and I also started to learn Hindi while studying abroad in India. (In everyday speech, Hindi and Urdu are nearly the same. The main difference is the script.) However, I don’t think I picked up an Urdu textbook until I saw the movie Dil Se and heard the following lines in a song. I would try to translate them, but I couldn’t do it succinctly and keep the ambiguity that they contain about an unidentified beloved.

Yaar hai jo khushbu ki taruh
Jis kii zubaan Urdu ki taruh
Meri shaamraat, meri kaynaat
Voh yaar hai mera sayyaa sayyaa

The song is Chaiyyaa Chaiyyaa, with lyrics by Gulzar and music by A.R. Rahman. It was a career maker for both artists, and is one of the most popular songs ever written, although I didn’t know this when I first saw the video. The video is a dance sequence shot on top of a real moving train in Tamil Nadu, India. The rhythm of the train gives a soulfulness to the dancers’ movements like nothing I’d ever seen. I still love this song and associate it with Urdu, but I sometimes think that I’m over-romanticizing the language.

Read more »

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Friday, February 17, 2012