Societal Collapse, or do I just need to get laid?

Sigh, it is 4 am on a Saturday morning, and I realized that I can't get back to sleep until I get some thoughts out of my head.

Over the last few months, I have had the opportunity to develop very meaningful relationships with women from all around the country; women I have known for most of my life, and women I have just met. Deep conversations, questions about life and death, very heavy things - talking for hours on the phone, well past the time either of us should be logically asleep. But at the risk of offending these wonderful women, I am beginning to feel like I am being used. There is a pattern I have recognized. We all know the cliche phrase where a woman complains, "he just wants me for my body". I feel like I am being used for my intellect. But I am thinking that maybe it isn't just me, but our entire society that is going through this.

For a very short time, I got on Match.com. My great friend told me about how he met some really nice women and I should try it, too. I was newly divorced, and he convinced me to try it. It didn't take long for me to realize that it was a very shallow and unhealthy thing for me - I was being treated like a pair of shoes from Zappo's. Try it on and send it back, and try on another pair. I went on two dates and I was really disappointed that the women I had gone out with were liars. They lied about their age (significantly), they lied about their weight (significantly). I closed my account because I felt dirty - almost like a commodity.

But my point is that on the match.com page in little Monterey, there are hundreds of single women - and I am sure that there are hundreds of single men as well. I see the profiles, I know they are here...but when I look around me, it is like a desert.

I look around me everyday, and see women who are obviously single - filling their single woman shopping carts, reading their single woman books, drinking their single woman coffees, doing their single woman workouts on the elliptical machines; just doing their single woman daily routines. But invariably I recognize that they have their faces glued to a phone or a computer, or earplugs in, interacting with someone not present.

It is frustrating to me, because I prefer real women to electrons. The conversations I have had with several of my female friends - had they taken place curled up on the couch or cuddled up in bed - would be cement in a real relationship. Hell, if they had occurred in a restaurant or bar, they would have ended up cuddled in bed. I know I am not alone in that realization. But instead of growing close to a living person, it ends with a goodnight and the phone is hung up. Then I don't hear from them again for days or weeks. I am pretty sure that is not how it is intended for humans to interact.

It seems that our society is becoming plugged in to the point of dysfunction.  I can have these wonderful conversations with women in different time zones, but I can't even get a hello from the woman sitting next to me at Starbucks. It's not like we are just shy, or that we don't have anything in common; it's not that either of us are unattractive. It is that her face is glued to a screen to the point that she isn't even aware that there is someone sitting right next to her.

If we can have these wonderful relationships with people in different time zones, isn't it possible that we should start looking for the same people in our hometowns, our neighborhoods, our communities? Shouldn't we open up ourselves to the possibility that a real person is preferable to an electron?

OK, that is it for me. No person in his right mind should be up at 5:15 writing a blog post. Let me close my computer and cuddle up with my nice warm imagination...

By the Numbers

I have studied many languages, and tried so many different methods I have lost count. Some worked well, but to be honest - most were utterly useless. I have learned that, if the program wants you to repeat the name for utensils, or “Where is the taxi stand?”, then it isn’t worth my time to read any further. That isn’t learning a language; it is simply learning how to parrot a specific phrase. And with a lack to any substantive purpose, it is meaningless - you will forget how to parrot it almost immediately. Other programs are OK, but again, if you can’t find a reason to use the language, you will lose the ability sooner than later. Some had potential, but the books were complex, or didn’t have a common thread to allow deeper understanding. There was no connection to what I knew to what I was trying to learn. 

Then one day, I picked up an original copy of the Irish Bible, signed by the translator and given as a gift on the day it was released. A huge tome, with beautiful gilded pages, artwork and rare craftsmanship. It is a treasure to be handed down from generation to generation. But when I opened it...I was overwhelmed with the text. It was so much more complex than any “Teach Yourself X” book from Barnes and Noble had ever been. How was I possibly going to understand any of it?

It sat on my bookshelf for many years, and I would often pick it up to admire the work, then give up when I simply couldn’t comprehend any passage. But one day, I realized - I had the translation for every word sitting on the bookshelf right next to it! How about if I tried to have both books - the Irish and the NIV - both open to the same text and see if I could see anything; a pattern, perhaps. It was like figuring out the Rubik’s Cube. Suddenly, I was able to pick up more and more. After a few weeks, I was able to read and understand the opening of Genesis without the translation!

But the Bible is a huge work - written by scores of authors over hundreds of years - and I realized I had to find an efficient method or I would never progress. I tried the Psalms, but they are full of poetry and “high falutin’” words. Wasn’t there anything more down to Earth?

For some reason, one day, I opened up the Bible to the Gospel of John. It was so beautiful in English, yet very comprehensible. I found my method - I would only focus on the four Gospels, and make that my goal. Furthermore, I picked the Gospel of John, because of its raw beauty.

A lot of people have asked me why did I pick the New Testament to learn Irish? Am I some religious nut? I have had others tell me that they don’t believe in the Bible, so they would never use it to learn a language. I always ask if they believe Lord of the Rings. Did their disbelief cause them to not want to read the book, regardless of what enjoyment they could gain? I have others tell me that the Bible is the reason for all the violence in the world, and they couldn’t help perpetuate the division. I ask them if they have ever read the New Testament, and if not, how can they tell me what it says or doesn’t say? To me, it seems downright ridiculous to purposefully remain ignorant of one of the most important historical pieces of literature in the world. I didn’t have to be a Muslim to read the Qur’an in Arabic. And from a linguistic perspective, it is absolutely beautiful. If I didn’t read it, how can I possibly know what it says?

The beauty of using the New Testament to learn Irish - or any language you may want to learn, ancient or modern - is that it is the most translated book in the world. It has been exhaustively researched, each word considered, every translation done by the greatest speakers of each language. When you are reading the New Testament in any language, you can be absolutely certain you are reading a work of art that matches FLAWLESSLY with a version written in your own language. Nearly every sentence is numbered, so that you never have to wonder if you are looking at the right passage - it is already done for you.

Another beautiful thing about the New Testament is that incredible research has be already done on word frequency. It is fascinating to consider, but according to Zipf Theory, about 80% of the frequency of words in any text are comprised of about 20% of the actual words. That means, if you learn just 20% of the words in any given text, you can understand 80% of it! But how do you know what 20% to learn??? Well, for the New Testament, the hard work has been already done for you. Usually, the frequency count is done on the original Greek translation. But, that shouldn’t be a problem. And unlike other programs, you don’t have to buy anything to learn!

For example, let’s say that you are learning Welsh (Cymraeg). The internet is brimming with support. Want to translate the top 20% into Welsh? There’s a site for that. Want to read the Welsh Bible? It’s on the Web. Want to hear the Welsh Bible while you read it? You can do that, too.

The New Testament has a surprisingly recurrent vocabulary; so, when you master a word, or concept, it repeats...over and over. There is nothing as empowering as looking at a text that when you began, looked like gobbledygook, but slowly, it takes on form and you recognize patterns. Your self-confidence increases, as does your understanding. Learning - really LEARNING - another language is the most powerful thing you can do. It opens up another world that monolinguals just can’t comprehend. Literally. If you really want to be multicultural, not in the political sense, but the cultural sense, then take a stab at it.

You will never, ever regret choosing the New Testament as your guide. The positivity and uplifting words you will learn can only make you a better person. I have told people that you don’t have to be a Christian to use the New Testament as your learning tool. But I can’t promise that you won’t find profound learning and maybe even change your life while you are expanding your mind. How can that be bad?

Without further ado, I present Chapter 2 of the beautiful Gospel of John - An Soiscéal de réir Eoin - Caibidil a Dó!

     You can read along in Irish by accessing this pdf document:

Eoin 2

Parleying with my Progeny

     Anyone who really knows me, knows that I am a language geek. And of all the languages I have studied and experienced, there is none that equals Irish, called Gaeilge in the native tongue. Genetically speaking, I am 75% Irish, and 87.5% Celtic. I have studied Irish since I was a little boy, and though it was very difficult to do, I have reached a point in my life where I believe I am adequate in my ability to read and understand the language.

     But one of the biggest hurdles to Irish, is that it is definitely NOT a language that you can easily speak based on what you read. In Croatian, every letter makes a certain sound, and if you see it, you say it. It is very simple to read and understand. Gaeilge, however, has a complex set of rules, and true to the Irish nature, is very uncertain. Just like English, there are what seems like an infinite number of exceptions to rules; the only way to really understand how to listen to, and speak, Gaeilge is to model native speakers.

      That has always been a problem, even in this day and age where the internet is brimming with literally billions of files. Unfortunately, the very people who should be speaking and teaching the language - the Irish themselves - seem to be willing to let the language die from neglect. This isn't a problem unique to Gaeilge, certainly, but it is the situation.

      This leads me to my other favorite obsession. My favorite book to read is Cosslett Ó Cuinn's translation of the New Testament, called "An Tiomna Nua (ár dTiarna agus ár Slánaitheora Íosa Chríost). The language in this translation is magical; it is based on spoken Irish of 1950's Donegal. The way he uses the language to make the New Testament come alive is unbelievable. I have spoken with his son on several occasions, and he told me that many people tell him that. His father also spoke Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek, so his use of terms and translations is also fantastic.

        I have searched and searched for the existence of a native speaker reading an Tiomna Nua so that I could learn to pronounce exactly like a native. But that type of support doesn't exist, to my knowledge. So I decided, do I really have to speak Gaeilge like a native, or should I speak Gaeilge like an American - speaking a second language? My son's mother, who is Croatian, used to tell me that I spoke Croatian with an American accent, like it was something about which to be ashamed. I have heard that from Egyptians and Iraqis when I spoke Arabic, Parisians when I spoke French, Darmstadters when I spoke German, and hispanic friends when I speak Spanish. But for me, that is a compliment, not a criticism. I am not a native, so why should I have to speak like someone I am not? To me, there is nothing sexier than a pretty woman speaking English with a foreign accent - it adds to the allure; maybe somewhere out there is a beautiful native Irish speaker who will find my reading to be irresistible - I can only hope!

        So, I decided to take matters in my own hands. I have begun to record myself reading an Tiomna Nua, with the goal of creating a work that can be shared by anyone who has the book in their possession - they can hear what Cosslett Ó Cuinn wrote, learn Irish and follow the word of God as well. The best thing is that you don't actually have to own the Tiomna Nua; I also took part in a transcription project with the website bible.com - which makes the bible accessible in hundreds of endangered languages. We have transcribed all the Gospels in Ó Cuinn's Tiomna Nua; and though only Luke is now posted, within a few weeks, we hope that all four Gospels will be available. Ó Cuinn's Tiomna Nua is based on the New Revised Version, so you can easily follow along. I am starting with my favorite, The Gospel of John. Even in English, it is very powerful, and in Irish, it is even more so. My short-term goal is to record all four Gospels, which to me are the most important, because they contain the actual teachings and words of Jesus - or Íosa, as you will have to learn. Eventually, I want to record all the books of an Tiomna Nua.

       Another side benefit, as I can see it, is that someday, my sons, or their children, or maybe even their children will maybe be interested in hearing their ancestor actually speak from the grave. And to do so, they may be encouraged to learn WHAT I am saying - and then I can hope that I will be able to share my love of the language and the words I am speaking with my descendents!

         So, without further ado, here is Chapter 1, the Gospel according to John - An Soiscéal de réir Eoin - Caibidil a hAon!

You can read along in Irish by accessing this pdf document:

Eoin 1 pdf

On the Probability of Life

Imagine throwing a dart at a unit square (i.e. a square with area 1) wherein the dart will impact exactly one point, and imagine that this square is the only thing in the universe besides the dart and the thrower. There is physically nowhere else for the dart to land. Then, the event that "the dart hits the square" is a sure event. No other alternative is imaginable.

Now, notice that since the square has area 1, the probability that the dart will hit any particular sub-region of the square equals the area of that sub-region. For example, the probability that the dart will hit the right half of the square is 0.5, since the right half has area 0.5.

Next, consider the event that "the dart hits the diagonal of the unit square exactly". Since the area of the diagonal of the square is zero, the probability that the dart lands exactly on the diagonal is zero. So, the dart will almost never land on the diagonal (i.e. it will almost surely not land on the diagonal). Nonetheless the set of points on the diagonal is not empty and a point on the diagonal is no less possible than any other point, therefore theoretically it is possible that the dart actually hits the diagonal.

The same may be said of any point on the square. Any such point P will contain zero area and so will have zero probability of being hit by the dart. However, the dart clearly must hit the square somewhere. Therefore, in this case, it is not only possible or imaginable that an event with zero probability will occur; one must occur. Thus, we would not want to say we were certain that a given event would not occur, but rather almost certain.

Getting to third base in one swing...

We can write dates in numerical shorthand; for example, January 1st, 1955 can be written as 01-01-55.  November 24th, 2323 can be written as 11-24-23.

Knowing this rule, then, what mathematical significance do the following dates have in common?

March 4th, 2005

June 8th, 2010

May 12th, 1613

September 12th, 1915

August 15th, 1817

December 16th, 2320

July 24th, 1725

October 24th, 1926

Hint: The significance is geometry-related...and here is the man responsible!

Dimensions

     One of the basic concepts of Geometry is the existence of the point. A point is not a thing; but a location. Each point has no length nor width - it is literally dimension-less. And moreover, there are an infinity of points, no matter how you limit the space in which you look. Inside a proton, or the entire Universe...you will find an infinity of points. In essence, a Universe of points.

     Each point, though dimension-less, is an entity entirely separate from all other points. Therefore, each point lies some measurable distance from all other points. This distance is most easily measured by a straight line. I can take any two points and create a line. Thus, I now can define this line by its length - and describe the first dimension. And thus, since there is a Universe of points, we can say there is a linear, one-dimension Universe as well.

     

     Now, I can take any three points and create a plane - a completely flat, limitless surface. It has no height (or thickness, if you wish), which is important. A creature who existed on such a plane would be able define his (or her) existence by two dimensions - length, and width. There theoretically exists an entire Universe of only length and width, comprised of a Linear and point Universes.

     Think back to Algebra; we learned how to locate any point on a piece of paper, which is as close as we can approximate a plane. On a plane every point has a location (x,y). That just means go over x, and up y. If you asked me how to get to the store, I would give you some variation of these directions. 

     But the second dimension is too limited for our existence. Everything in our Universe is defined by three dimensions - length, width and height. And our Universe is again comprised of a planar Universe, a linear Universe, and a point Universe. 

     Now consider this: any creature who existed on the point dimension would have no ability to conceive of the existence - or even the possibility of - a life on the line which connects his point to another creature living on a separate point. 

     Furthermore, a creature on the line world could not be equipped intellectually to understand that there is a completely different world outside of his one-dimension world. 

    Continuing in that vein, a creature living on the two-dimensional surface world could not comprehend life here in the third-dimension. To him, as we pass through his second dimension, he could only recognize that a point appeared from nowhere, grew in size, diminished in size and finally disappears - with no notice. To his conception, we were created, existed, and then suddenly "died". Which of course isn't true; our existence in the third dimension is independent of - and higher than - a two-dimensional creature's ability to grasp. But that doesn't change his perception - we died in his world.

      A creature on the first dimension could create a shadow, which could darken the point Universe along its entire length, though the point creatures would have no concept of why their existence has mysteriously darkened. And a creature on a plane would cast a shadow as he moved through the linear Universe - again, leaving the linear creatures baffled by the sudden appearance/disappearance in their existence. 

     On a sunny day, you can stand outside and create a shadows on a piece of paper. Any planar creatures would be terrified and in awe. Yet, they couldn't explain it no matter how hard they tried - they simply aren't capable.

    Which brings me to this point - what reason do we have to think that our Universe is the final in this series? Science has tried so hard to explain our existence by using three dimensional facts, yet really, most of what we take as scientific fact studiously tries to discount any possibility of some One greater than ourselves, that we simply can't comprehend. And it must be said that theology has a history of silencing any considerations that take corrupt worldly power from the equation. See Copernicus...

     Yet, without a doubt in my mind there simply is more; it is actually silly to think otherwise. Look at what science tells us; our 3D Universe simply popped into existence - like the 3D creature passing through a plane. We are born, become aware that we exist, then suddenly and inexplicably disappear. Where to? And why?  I would think that science would be excited to inquire about such a possibility.

     Is it possible that we are only shadows of another higher life - a Being on a higher dimension? And if so, what is wrong with acknowledging that life as God? 

    My wife lost a friend today; and though we can be sad that she has popped out of existence here, I myself am comforted by the fact that there is a Universe, possibly an Infinity of Universes, that I can't conceive. And in which all we see as temporal is, in fact, eternal. 

     Ma salama, Doli!

Time

        Monday, July 22, 2013 at 2330...I got to school this morning at 6:45, and for some reason, things were really dragging.  I taught two classes, and thought that lunch time was closing in. But I looked down at my watch and it was only 9:30! Has that ever happened to you? I said to myself that time was standing still. But what does that mean?

         Well, I started thinking about what it would mean for time to actually stand still, and how to do it. So I came home and looked into it.

         I found that time actually isn't a concrete concept. Time depends on speed. Not like meth, but velocity. If I was standing still in my class watching the clock and someone else passed by me, we would be seeing a different time. And the faster he went, the slower he would be experiencing time as compared to me. Eventually, as he reached the speed of light, he would literally stand still in a time sense. He'd never get lunch.

         Of course, the problem is that velocity requires energy. For him to walk past me, will require him to eat something to give him the energy to do so. And for him to increase his speed past his own ability to walk, it will require more energy to increase his speed. And energy requires more weight. And the more weight, the more propulsion required to move that weight. And the more weight, the more energy...and so on and so forth.

         What happens is that at the very speed of light, he would require an infinite amount of propulsion. And to get an infinite amount of propulsion, he would require an infinite amount of energy. And energy, being derived from an object, would weigh an infinite amount.

         What is infinity? Infinity is not what we normally think of - no matter what I think of you, I can't love you infinity times 7. Because infinity is not a number - it is a concept. It implies limitlessness. This can be on a grand scale, like the universe; or on a impossibly minute scale, like in an atom. You can't add or subtract or multiply or divide infinity, yet it exists.  But at the same time, it is beyond our ability to comprehend.

         So, next time, I will just wait for my lunch. It may seem like it's taking forever, but I can be assured it isn't. Ciao!