Neal Stephenson's Anathem

I was struck by the depth of this book – both ideas and its insightful prose. Let's begin with a piece of prose:

So I looked with fascination at those people in their mobes, and tried to fathom what it would be like. Thousands of years ago, the work that people did had been broken down into jobs that were the same every day, in organizations where people were interchangeable parts. All of the story had been bled out of their lives. That was how it had to be; it was how you got a productive economy. But it would be easy to see a will at work behind this: not exactly an evil will, but a selfish will. The people who'd made the system thus were jealous, not of money and not of power but of story. If their employees came home at day's end with interesting stories to tell, it meant that something had gone wrong: a blackout, a strike, a spree killing. The Powers that Be would not suffer others to be in stories of their own unless they were fake stories that had been made up to motivate them. People who couldn't live without story had been driven into the concents or into jobs like Yul's. All others had to look somewhere outside of work for a feeling that they were part of a story, which I guessed was why Saeculars were so concerned with sports, and with religion. How else could you see yourself as part of an adventure?

[ mobes = cars

  concents = university, but cloistered with outside contact only once every ten years

  Yul = main character, his job is as a wilderness guide – think Alaska, Nepal

  Saecular = the world most people inhabit

]

Good Science Fiction is always part social commentary – by constructing another world that is often the same but subtly different, the author is allowed the freedom to make observations about the way people live and what gives life meaning. Stephenson does this by inverting some of our social institutions (the cloistered university), and changing the terms for many things which forces the reader to consider what exactly he is getting at, with the added insight he intends.

But all this is hung around the main story which is what really makes Anathem worth reading: Stephenson takes us on a romp through current theoretical physics which asks the following questions: Is ours the only universe, our could there be multiple? We can only see to the edge of our universe, which is the distance light has been able to travel since the formation – so anything beyond that boundary is invisible to us at this time. That doesn't preclude there being other 'universes' that are currently beyond that boundary...

Would other universes be the same as ours? Supporting this would be the observation that there is only a finite number of atoms (Hydrogen through Uranium, plus the few short-lived lab made ones). If there are an infinite number of universes, and finite types of atoms, then arrangements of atoms would necessarily repeat, and there would be virtual copies of the entities in this universe in other universes.

Throwing a monkey-wrench into this is the idea that the constants we observe (the charge of an electron, for example) needn't all be the same everywhere. This is where the anthropic principle comes into play: We could necessarily find ourselves only in a universe where the constants are very close to what they are – too large of deviations and 'we' wouldn't be present to observe them. But within some narrow boundaries, we, or beings very much like us, could exist and observe. Stephenson makes very good use of this last point late in the story...

Finally, would it be possible for us to experimentally determine if ours is a lone universe or if it is just one of many (or one of an infinite many)? Are there interactions that could be observed that would reveal the existence of multiple universes – of other ways of being? Part of what leads physicists down this path is the indeterminate-ness of quantum electrodynamics. Is Schrodinger's cat alive or dead? How, exactly, does the quantum field collapse into the state we observe? Is there a universe in which the cat is alive even though it is dead in this one? When world tracks come close together, could there be transfer of information?

Neal Stephenson spins a yarn of 'What If?' around all these ideas that creates a top-notch story set in an instance of top-notch world building where everything plays out as it could – somewhere. And that somewhere is Arbre which has eerie parallels to the world in which we live – and astounding differences.

The Irony of Ryan's Entrancement with Rand

I did the college thing of reading several of Ayn Rand's works. What struck me most was how much the landscape she was describing resembled nothing like the world I know. However, it seemed pretty obvious that she was working against the landscape she knew: Soviet Russia. Her descriptions of the difficulties for entrepreneurs, of mindless bureaucrats standing in the way, of the waste and inefficiency of a command economy all fit when you realize that is the world she is describing. And, like a school girl caught up in her first crush, Ms. Rand gushes blindly about the wonderfulness of the structure of her chosen country, America.

Although her creed, that acting out of selfishness results in the best outcomes, is neither a description of how we actually act and has been discredited as a proscription for how we should act, she does draw a clear and useful distinction between those who work and produce, and those whose actions are extractive. The bureaucrats of her old world produced nothing of use, worked to expand mini-empires with the command economy, and they were the ones who ended up with the summer homes, the cars, the better life-style, while many faced hardship enduring goods shortages (the images of the breadlines come readily to mind.)

These parasites, the one's who so steadfastly stood in the way of entrepreneurs like John Galt (from Atlas Shrugged), who condemned the working man or woman to a lifetime of ill-spent productivity by their miss-allocation of production (creating both vast waste and shortages as they ill-anticipated the needs and desires of the population); These mindless wasters of both the labor capital and intellectual capital of their countrymen: About them Ayn Rand heaped her derision. Galt's 50+ page speech in Atlas Shrugged is simply a condemnation of a command Economy and its flaws, interspersed with unchecked praise for an American-style Capitalist Economy.

The more we learn about the inner workings of the American Economy, however, places things in a new perspective. Reports about the influences and outcomes of the financial sector; reports about the actual results of applying Private Equity, keep enforcing the idea that we have built a purely extractive layer upon our vaunted production (ideas, manufacturing, services). What the entrepreneurs and laborers of America put in, our financial services (and corporate elite) take out for personal use, trading lobbying power for actual production.

American Capitalism has degenerated into a quasi-Command Economy: The Banking members of the Federal Reserve set the dollar and maintain it high to benefit those who lend (extracting great wealth for themselves along the way); Congress interests itself with passing laws that maintain wealth or provide easy avenues for those with wealth to build more; The massive corporations use their market position and power to squelch new ideas and new innovations (or buy them up and squelch them internally or, after the initial pay-out to the entrepreneur, hoard the future income from the idea for themselves, along with accounting control fraud to extract more from the economy than the production of the idea or product places in.)

Just as this parasitic behavior was detrimental to the well-being and expansion of old Russia, so, too, this parasitic behavior has profound negative consequences for America's future. As labor is squashed, less demand is created for the production of the entrepreneur, curtailing the advancements that can and will be realized. As the benefits of the productive classes flow more and more to the parasitic classes, the velocity of money slows, reducing the opportunities for new ideas to enter the market; as the money available to educate all decreases, the number of fertile minds (and hence the number of innovations) decreases, leaving America a second-(or worse!) class producer and member of the world stage.

The irony arises, then, because all of these self identified acolytes of Rand are members of this parasitic class: From Greenspan to Geithner, from Cantor to Bernanke, from Romney to Ryan: Each is a member of the extractive classes, producing nothing, but extracting greatly. None of them would be heroes in a Rand novel, but rather would be the derided antagonists, standing in the way (and ultimately failing) the onslaught of a true producing giant. I think that Galt would smite them with a snort!

Ireland America's Future If...

...The policies advocated by the Romney campaign are enacted, according to Paul Krugman. Ireland's 14% unemployment (30% youth unemployment) are a direct result of the austerity measures enacted by Ireland's leaders: Low corporate taxes, diminished government spending, etc.

It just seems counter-intuitive to me that high unemployment benefits anyone over the long term. But, it's short-term, "I've got mine, go get your own" thinking that underlies so many of the difficulties we face today, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

A Helping of Bullshit, Anyone?

I was reading some of the fine articles by the folks over at Language Log, and several times they indicated that such-and-such satisfied the technical definition of bullshit. Intrigued, I followed the link, and was taken to the site for Princeton Philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt's book “On Bullshit”. Amazed that such a book could be written, and that renowned philosopher Wittgenstein evoked in such writing, well, I had to read it. So, as they say, in less than a minute I had called the book from the cloud to my reader, ready for my perusal.

What I learned is that bullshit does withstand a technical definition, and that it is distinct from lying, although it is designed to deceive. Whereas the liar is still intimately concerned with the truth, for the purpose of denying their listener or reader access to it, the bullshitter reveals a blatant disregard for the truth. Instead of verifying the correctness of his or her details, the expounder of dung carries on without concern for the voracity of what they are saying, oftentimes when the exact details, hence the truth, could be easily obtained.

What separates bullshit from mere laziness, however, is the former's intent to deceive. An individual may not know the factual details, and may expound briefly on the subject, but the knowledgeable one must soon give way, knowing they do not know and cognizant of their lack (and unwilling to go look it up). Bullshit, however, is still designed to deceive: To allow the writer or speaker the ability to carry on towards some other goal without concern for the facts; to try on ideas to see how they sound, or, more often in our political world, to throw out ideas just to see if they have carrying power because they further someone's aims.

Coincidentally, while watching the TV last night I was given the perfect example: Rick Santorum, during one of his campaign speeches, expounded on the idea that “I think its seven or eight of the California System of Universities don't even teach an American History course. It's not even available to be taught.”

The details are easily verifiable, in fact numerous people have gone to the effort to look into the offerings of the CA university system, with the demonstrable gain that all except one (a medical school!) offer and require American History of their students.

Does that make Rick Santorum a liar? In all likelihood, no. It was not his intent to deny us the truth, for surely he understands how easily we could look that up. No, his was the desire to float a different idea: The meme that American Colleges and Universities (and those educated by them) are out of touch with some 'real' America and out of touch with the morals and values of said 'real' America. The presence or absence of American History at the universities provides neither proof nor disproof of his idea, but gives a useful hook into establishing the meme.

The idea he is attempting to float is surely as false as his sloppy disregard for the actual offerings by the universities, and now, thanks to professor Frankfurt, I can proclaim, without malice or prejudice, and with technical certitude:

Bullshit, Mr. Santorum!

A Century Ago...

On September 22, 1906 a mob of white people (thousands strong) stormed Atlanta, beating, and sometimes killing, every black person they came across. In his account of the Atlanta riot, David Levering Lewis writes*:

The immediate cause of the terrible Atlanta riot of 1906 had been the newspaper drumfire of alleged assaults upon white women by black men. The underlying cause was to be found in the politics of class conflict among the white people. As cities of the New South like Atlanta filled with poor whites and blacks, the planters and politicians in rural counties mobilized...to brake the power of the urban colossi. Bloodsucking railroads, flint-hearted banks, merciless factories, the loss of white men's jobs to black men, sin corruption, and race mixing -- the rural diatribe ... was shrill and long. ... As [W.E.B.] DuBois wrote in a moving essay in The World Today, the explosion had occurred inevitably after "two years of vituperation and traduction of the Negro race by the most prominent candidates for governorship, together with a bad police system"

 Brought on, one might add, by the strong xenophobia the country had towards the ex-slaves, the Negros in their midst.

Thank goodness that is all behind us: Today we don't exhibit xenophobia towards people who are racially, culturally different; We have no difficulty advancing the cause of liberty to anyone regardless of their views on life; our leaders and newscasters don't spread vituperation via senseless name calling or degrading of those whose views differ from their own; The divisive fire of class warfare is not stoked by the elite nor politicians intent on gaining office. In short, the century that separates us from the riot of 1906 has brought us tolerance and the ability to discuss our different opinions about the country in a 'cool marketplace of ideas'. We should rejoice that we have ascended so far from those events...

What? What was that you said?

Oh.

Nevermind.


* Lewis, David Levering. "W.E.B. DuBois - Biography of a Race 1868-1919" Henry Holt, New York, 1993. p334.

Jon Ronson and "Them:"

I just finished reading "Them: Adventures with Extremists" by Jon Ronson, and I have to confess that I was initially not sure what to make of it.

Immediately upon finishing, I was a little concerned that I had been hoodwinked: That what I was taking to be a book documentary was really a work of fiction. The closing two chapters had a surreal, out of place feel that didn't seem to fit. I had to look up all the principle players (and they all exist, including footage from a video documentary that Ronson shot while investigating the material.) So, the credibility of Ronson and the events portrayed restored, I returned to my ruminations about the book.

As opposed to stating a thesis and building evidence to support it, "Them:" follows much more the documentary style: The journalist attempts to fade into the background, and not project any of his views onto the raw reporting of the people and events. Through many of the chapters of the book, Ronson achieves this: Omar Bakri, Randy Weaver, Thom Robb, Ian Paisley are allowed to speak without interference.

But, the closing chapters upset this. Ronson visits the Bilderburg Group and the Bohemian Grove, both objects of the conspiracy theories held by many in the earlier chapters. It almost appears that Ronson is now going to point out how silly their theories are, or outright debunk them.

However, he just doesn't do that. Instead of hard evidence, he simply interjects his views onto the events unfolding before him, coloring his reporting. He does reveal the counterpoint view held by two "extremists" who accompany him. Who's view is correct?

And that's the problem. Throughout the book, we are invited to live with the extremists, to see them as people who maybe hold a different viewpoint, to confront their views neutrally, and perhaps learn a little about them. It could provide a good springboard for thinking about us and them, about the origins of beliefs, and the chaotic nature of all belief.

Then he tears this down. Suddenly his viewpoint appears, as if to say: You knew they were wrong all along, go ahead, let's mock them together. No supporting evidence that "we" are correct, that the viewpoint held by "them" is wrong. He closes in exasperation, as though to say there's no hope, and that we should be equally exasperated.

I am. Not with "them", but with Ronson.