Quasicrystal

Quasicrystals are aperiodic structures that still have some regularities. Both the spatial and frequency domain representations of quasicrystals are quite beautiful. See also this more recent post for more quasicrystal entertainment. Here is the classic diffraction pattern from a synthesized icosahedral quasicrystal

You can create two-dimensional quasicrystals by summing together more than 3 plane waves. For example, here are some spatial domain two-dimensional quasicrystals :

4-fold :
5-fold :
7-fold :

[overflow gallery]

The picture at the beginning of this post is an x-ray diffraction pattern, which is a little bit like the Fourier transform of a quasicrystal lattice. Here is a simulated 2D Fourier spectrum from a 7-fold 2D quasicrystal :

You can create your own images like this by rendering large two-dimension quasicrystals as described here or here. The frequency domain images can be rendered using ImageJ, or your own personal 2d FFT code. In ImageJ, open an image, and then create a frequency domain image by clicking Process→FFT→FFT. If you rendered a N-fold quasicrystal, you should see 2N points arranged in a circle around the origin, corresponding to your N plane waves. If you applied some nonlinear image operation, like contrast enhancement or thresholding, to the spatial domain image, you will have created some harmonics and overtones of your original N plane waves, which should appear as a constellation of other points that themselves are arranges on a quasi-crystal lattice.

Quasicrystals can be related to more abstract mathematical concepts. For instance, this article finds that some quasicrystals are related to sorting algoritms :

Current research in abstract tiling theory examines tilings of high rotational symmetry in collaboration with Remy Mosseri and co-workers. Possibly the limit of high rotational symmetry may prove easier to analyze than specific finite symmetries (10-fold, for example) of direct physical interest. Surprisingly, rhombus tilings are related to algorithms for sorting of lists. Counting the number of distinct tilings enumerates simultaneously the number of equivalance classes of sorting algorithms, a problem previously considered by computer scientist D.E. Knuth. Our random tiling theory implies an upper bound of log(2) for the tiling entropy per vertex, consistent with a conjecture by Knuth. Click here for a preprint on this research.

The Mechanization of Man

One of the most common critiques of human enhancement is that it would lead to viewing human beings as machines or creatures (in Francis Fukuyama's words) rather than as people; that the mechanization implied by enhancement is a threat to viewing others as individuals, and therefore human rights and freedoms. As in the case of cyborg theory, I believe that Fukyama's concern is at least fifty years too late. In many cases, we are already treated as components, and in the significant power relationships of our life, human enhancement cannot further mechanize us.

There are two basic ways to view the universe, the aesthetic and the scientific. A scientific viewpoint sees the universe as a system to be understood. There are elements and relationships between them. It is objective and universal, in that any two entities using a scientific methodology should arrive at the same conclusion. The aesthetic is subjective and personal, the universe is composed of experiences, each one different for every time and every person. This is not to imply any kind of value judgment, the aesthetic and the scientific have their place.

The relevance to the enhancement debate is that for every significant power relationship in your life, between yourself and your workplace, school, the government, you are treated scientifically. Organizations have no subjectivity, no locus of "I" with which to experience the universe. They are a collection of rules, applied with varying degrees of fairness. Organizations deal with you not as a person, but as test scores, resumes, dossiers. A human being is not an individual, it is a component to be processed, improved, reformed.

The illusion that we have rights or freedoms vis a vis these organization originates in the aesthetic interactions that we have with their representatives, bosses, teachers, police, and our personal relationships. As the former are illusory, a social artifact, we can dismisses their value, and therefore the claimed threat to institutional human rights. That leaves our personal relationships, and will those change with enhancement? Clearly not, we address each other, not our belongings, or our education, or any other kind of non-technological "enhancement" that we already possess.

The mechanistic view is inherent in the system. All that human enhancement could do is make us better machines. The human essence, if such a thing exists (I enjoy Chris Beck's formulation of the soul as something non-algorithmic), remains what it is.

Science in the Media

I just got back from a PCAST briefing on K-12 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math education. As we all know STEM is totally broken, and aside from the usual platitudes, we don't have great ideas about how to fix it. There was one interesting thing: Kids these days spend 12 hours a day accessing media (guilty as charged). Only 10% of characters in media are scientists or engineers, and 70% of them are portrayed as the bad guy. We need some new positive role-models.

TV:

The Real Adventurers of Richard Feynman: Nobel prizing winning physicist and international playboy travels the world from Los Alamos to Rio de Janeiro, solving mysteries, seducing beautiful women, and stopping the evil machinations of VIPER, a sinister organization bent on destroying the world with nuclear weapons. Featuring cameos from historical figures, and the Feynman Action Science Team of Bobby Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe, and Time-Traveling Teddy Roosevelt.

The Lab: You've seen The Office, right? Like that, but with science. NBC already has two shows that are basically The Office, so one more can't hurt.

Games:

Chrome Streets: A cyberpunk action/RPG in the style of Mass Effect. The player is an underground scientist, battling megacorporations for the fate of mankind. Heavy transhumanist themes, as the game revolves around your continual human advancement. Skills are divided between Robotics/Biotech/Nanotech tracks, each one offering a different combination of powers. The game is supported by a robust crafting/research system that mimics real science. Written by Charles Stross, and with a better title.

EDIT: Apparently there's a Deus Ex 3 coming out. Dues Ex was one of the best games of all time, and pretty much exactly the above. Do it right, Eidos, or I will go to French-Canadia and go all JC Denton on you.

"Universality of the human mind is much more important than immortality"

So I had an interesting discussion with a particular someone not too long ago. Don't remember how it started exactly, but it was basically like, why are you doing this research, what does it mean to you... etc.

One of the things that came out of this very quickly was that, I realized that I really do believe that limits on the power of algorithms represent limits on what we can know, what we can do and be as people.

So then there's the issue, but that's so depressing if we are just computers. And my response, to my surprise, was along the lines of, its way worse if we really do have souls that we can't peer into or explain or simulate. Because then there's no possibility for communication, and the machines can't simulate eachother, unless the souls are basically identical and then they can simulate eachother.

I ended up arguing that, as long as we are all generic machines, then we know that our ideas can always be explained to the other robots and can live on forever. If we have souls, then this is fucked, because if the souls are computationally distinct, then it may be possible for one person's thought not to have an analogue in another person's thought, so communication is impossible, and all of the ideas this person produced that made them distinct must die because they cannot be comprehended and passed on.

Which is totally the opposite from how people usually argue this issue. They say, to live on, there must be a soul, so I would rather believe in that. Really? You'd rather believe that your most treasured thoughts and ideas can never be passed on, and instead, you will die and take them with you from this world? And, I suppose, spend the afterlife still unable to communicate them to your peers, or to receive their treasured ideas?

Universality of the human mind is much more important than immortality.