C e l e b r a t i n g   i d e a s   b o t h   b e a u t i f u l   a n d   r e v o l u t i o n a r y .

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Modern Mathematics Tells Us to Go Green

In the old days, we lived at the center of the Universe. We had dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, and every other living thing that moved on Earth.

These living, moving things, however, were not docile or subservient subjects. As likely as not they were dragons or vicious three-headed dogs, to be valiantly slain. The seas were infested with monsters and booby-trapped with whirlpools, and if we did not fight, they would rend our ships to splinters. Paradoxically, we were at once lords and victims of the universe.

Over the ensuing centuries, Earth was shaken loose from its secure spot at the cosmos’s heart. First the usurper was the Sun, once a planet revolving around us, now grown in stature to a star marshalling the planets. Then even the Sun was forced to bow to the Milky Way Galaxy, where far bigger and brighter stars shone by the score. And still the dizzying descent did not stop: the Milky Way was only one very average spiral galaxy, clustered with countless others.

Domestically, however, matters seemed to improve. Despite the ballooning foreign policy disaster and concomitant loss of stature, we managed to drive the giants and minotaurs to extinction. Our cosmological demotion went hand in hand with increased understanding and mastery of the elements, and over time the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution became inevitabilities.

Now, living on an obscure outpost of rock circling a mediocre star, we are finally the masters of creation. Scylla and Charybdis are gone, choked or buried by the oil from our ships, which sail the seas unmolested. Perhaps emboldened by the consciousness of our triviality, we lay waste with abandon.

Have we not drawn the correct conclusion from the knowledge of our smallness? In the greater scheme of things, we surely cannot have any real or lasting effect. The temperatures may rise a little here, or the storms worsen there, but these effects are temporary. It has all happened before, and what we do cannot seriously change or damage the Earth.

This is fallacious reasoning. From the state of the art in the 19th century, one might have concluded such a thing, but among the most important discoveries of 20th century mathematics has been the sometimes crucial effect even of tiny variations. Popularly known as “the butterfly effect,” this phenomenon is studied in the branch of mathematics called “chaos theory.”

Consider that every process mathematics can describe – physical, biological, or economic – is encoded in an equation involving rates of change over time. Like a riddle, this equation tells us something about how the quantity we are interested in changes. The value of that quantity itself at any given time must be teased out by solving the riddle. Such an equation describing rates of change is known as a “differential equation.”

However, a differential equation alone is not sufficient for complete knowledge of the quantity in question. The world’s most famous differential equation describes the motion of an object in free-fall, and is so simple it can be stated in words: the acceleration of an object in free-fall is 32 feet per second, per second. This means that with each passing second, the object’s downward velocity will increase by another 32 feet per second.

But as it stands, this riddle has no solution. How fast was the object moving to begin with? Was it a baseball thrown high in the air? A champagne cork spurting from a bottle? To know the current velocity, we need to know not only how velocity changed, but also where it started. We need an “initial condition.”

How crucially does the trajectory of an object depend on initial condition? This is the question which leads to chaos theory. For many systems, the dependence is not crucial. If you slightly change the angle of your billiard cue, you will only cause a correspondingly slight change in the ball’s trajectory.

This, at least, is how ordinary billiards works. In 1898, however, the French mathematician Jacques Hadamard invented his own version of billiards, and with it chaos theory.

Picture a billiard table shaped like the inside of a perfectly hemispherical bowl. The billiard table is made of a metal so highly polished that we can assume it has no friction. Since gravity would spoil the game by clumping all the balls at the bottom of the bowl, Hadamard billiards should be played by astronauts in outer space, using magnetic balls which cling to the surface of the billiard table.

Imagine the frustration of the astronauts when they discover just how difficult Hadamard billiards is to play! Every possible trajectory of a Hadamard billiard ball differs exponentially from every other. Adjusting the cue or the position of the ball by even a hair’s breadth results in the ball’s taking a radically different path.

With the invention of this bizarre game, Hadamard opened the sluice-gates for study of systems highly sensitive to initial conditions. As it turns out, these are not limited to annoying astronaut pastimes.

In 1961, American meteorologist and mathematician Edward Lorenz ran a computer simulation using differential equations for the behavior of weather systems. Compared with the complexity of real-world weather, Lorenz’s model was quite basic, using only three quantities to characterize the convection of air-currents. Roughly, these quantities were the strength of the convection currents, the temperature difference between rising and falling air, and a measure of temperature variation. The rate of change for each quantity over time obeyed a differential equation, relating it to a simple combination of all three quantities. Having constructed a solution, the computer printed its results in a chart: for each time-step was a list of the three values of interest.

Noticing an intriguing effect in one solution, Lorenz wished to run the simulation again from the same initial condition. However, only the latter half of the solution was of importance, and to save time he did not start the simulation from its beginning but from a later time, using his printed chart to enter the three values at that time-step as initial conditions.

To the astonishment of Lorenz, the computer printed a solution radically diverging from the one he had wished to reproduce. What could be the difference of starting in the middle rather than at the beginning? Given an initial condition, there is only one solution to a differential equation. Lorenz had copied a number from the previous solution, so the simulation should simply have resumed from that point as before.

The answer lay in round-off error. Though the computer performed its calculations using six decimal places, the print-out was rounded to three decimals. When Lorenz had entered the figures from the print-out as initial conditions, they were in fact not the numbers the computer had used in the first calculation, but very slightly altered values: decimals of .506 rather than .506127, to be precise. Lorenz wrote, “One flap of a seagull's wings could change the course of weather forever.”

Chaos had moved much closer to home. The artificial and idealized game of billiards envisioned by Hadamard was replaced by a pragmatic and basic model of convection currents, exhibiting similar complex behavior. At once the dream of long-term accurate weather forecasting was shattered, while the study of chaos theory burgeoned in magnitude and importance. Today, everything is chaotic, from brainwave frequency to exchange rates in the East European black market.

If a seagull can flap its wings once and change the course of weather forever, surely the 80,987 airline flights taking off worldwide each day can do as much, too? ‘Perhaps,’ the skeptic might reply, ‘but if this system is so fantastically sensitive to initial conditions, how can we predict what effect we will have? How then can we frame any reasonable ground rules? How could we be sure they would work?’

The answer lies in the difference between weather and climate. While weather refers to the immediate conditions of temperature, humidity, etc, climate is determined by averages of these quantities over some appropriate window of time, and region of space. For this reason, small random disturbances to the weather are averaged out when one passes to the level of climate. Butterflies and seagulls can be considered random in their motions; therefore while capable of changing the weather, they have little effect on climate, which appears to be non-chaotic in nature.

Our motions, however, are not random. Unlike the turbulence of butterflies, our effects do not average out in the calculation of climate, because we have uniformly raised weather temperatures by our carbon emissions.

It seems that our position is reversed from that of the Middle Ages: rather than important but impotent, we are now trivial but powerful. Or, in more familiar (and more flattering) words – small but mighty.

The Earth is no longer a hostile barbarian to be ruled with an iron fist. The dragons have left their caves, and the serpents their briny deep. It is time for a new narrative of our position in the world. Perhaps it could begin with the words of the 20th century mathematician and physicist Paul Dirac, “Pick a flower here on Earth, and you move the farthest star.”

| Printer-friendly version | Email this post |

Links

Low-cost ways to green your lifestyle, from The Good Human


Read More...

Trotsky and the Wild Orchids

"To hold reality and justice in a single vision..."

These are the words of the poet W.B. Yeats which inspired philosopher Richard Rorty to seek a reconciliation of his two passions: that for social justice (symbolized for him by Leon Trotsky), and that for the wild orchids growing in the woods of his New Jersey home.

In an autobiographical essay, "Trotsky and the Wild Orchids," Rorty describes his personal journey into philosophy as the hoped-for means of uniting reality and justice. He recalls his hunger for overarching truths and first principles, even for a set of axioms which could rigorously distinguish the rightness of democracy from the evil of Nazism. In the vision encompassed by these first principles, there must surely be a place for pure and rare beauty, such as Rorty saw in the orchids.

Rorty traces the evolution of his thinking through the story of this question, and his various attempts to answer it. Rejecting religion and absolutist philosophy as candidates for an overarching vision, he arrives at the position that it is simply not the job of philosophy to endorse or justify ideologies at all. In his words,

"[P]hilosophy professors are people who have a certain familiarity with a certain intellectual tradition, as chemists have a certain familiarity with what happens when you mix various substances together. We can offer some advice about what will happen when you try to combine or to separate certain ideas, on the basis of our knowledge of the results of past experiments...But we are not the people to come to if you want confirmation that the things you love with all your heart are central to the structure of the universe..."

As for holding reality and justice in a single vision, Rorty eventually decides that it is a mistake - even a folly - to try.

In reading the essay, it is hard not to feel at first a sense of disappointment in this answer to a query so compellingly phrased and so familiar, in one form or another, to everyone. What hope does Rorty leave us? Must any enjoyment of orchids be relegated to a private, guilty pleasure? Must the furtherance of justice be a Puritanically bleak pursuit?

Maybe searching for overarching absolutes which induce a one-to-one correspondence between abstract ideologies and political philosophies really is a mistake. But maybe it is also unnecessary, because there is no shortage of beautiful ideas with the power to change the world. As Rorty acknowledges,

"Had there been no Kant, the nineteenth century would have had a harder time reconciling Christian ethics with Darwin's story about the descent of man. Had there been no Darwin, it would have been harder for Whitman and Dewey to detach the Americans from their belief that they were God's chosen people...Ideas do, indeed, have consequences."

Moments of epiphany are often more like the discovery of an orchid on a walk through the forest, rather than like a helicopter ride affording a broad vision of that same woodland. In the paths and byways of the forest of thought, we can still trace the trails linking luminous ideas to world-changing plans. From "The Art of Travel," here is Alain de Botton's map of the terrain, charting

"...chains of small questions extending outwards, sometimes over huge distances, from a central hub composed of a few blunt, large questions. In childhood we ask, 'Why is there good and evil?' 'How does nature work?' 'Why am I me?'...The blunt large questions become connected to smaller, apparently esoteric ones. We end up wondering about flies on the sides of mountains or about a particular fresco on the wall of a sixteenth-century palace. We start to care about the foreign policy of a long-dead Iberian monarch or about the role of peat in the Thirty Years' War."

This blog is here to follow some of the paths in this network, to celebrate concepts both beautiful and revolutionary. Not only do ideas have consequences, but practical movements have ideas: there are stories behind the science of greenhouse gases, and numinous ideas tied to development economics. This blog is here to tell these stories, to elaborate the ideas, and to admire the many orchids already growing in Trotsky's own backyard.

Trostomaten


'Trostomaten' is the Dutch word for a special cultivar of clustered tomatoes available in The Netherlands. Trostomaten are bred for flavor rather than size. They are intensely fire-engine red, and have a smell and taste which is the epitome of tomato-ness. At this blog, we love poems in something of the same way we love trostomaten: because they are both delicious and nourishing.

As a disclaimer, this blog has no party political affiliations, and in particular is not Trotskyite. The name is for Rorty's essay, and for my dear friend Rebecca, who introduced me to it.








Read More...