Surprise . . . Maybe Not!

(Note: It is Spring, so a baseball post is appropriate, one of the two I tend to allow myself. S)

Last year, everyone picked the Dodgers to win the NL West, with the Giants coming in a distant third or fourth. At the end of the season, the Dodgers had 106 wins . . . and the Giants 107.

This year, everyone picked the Dodgers to win the NL West, with the Giants coming in a distant third or fourth. Currently, the Dodgers are 12 and 5 (Ws and Ls) and the Giants are 13 and 5, the best W-L record of all of the teams in MLB.

Are the Giants the Rodney Dangerfield of MLB, in that they “don’t get no respect?” Just askin’.

Dissing Sports History

Recently, NBC Sports dropped this factoid on us: “Joel Embiid averages more points per minute than anyone who has played at least 300 games — ever. He averages 0.83 points per minute, or about five points for every six minutes he plays.” They went on to gush “Embiid had 13 games this season with at least 40 points and 10 rebounds.” And, of course, to pump up Embiid’s chances to be voted Most Valuable Player for the season, they added “For 31 games this season, Embiid averaged better than a point per minute. Think about that. It’s tied for the fourth-longest streak of its kind in the last 40 NBA seasons.”

Interesting.

In the 1961-1962 NBA season, Wilt Chamberlain scored 50.4 points per game (including 45 50+ point games, two 70-point games, and twelve 60-point games) and he played 48.4 -minutes per game. (Since there are only 48 minutes of playing time, how did he get to 48.4 minutes per game? Answer: there were seven overtime games.) Of course, he also lead the league in rebounding with 27.2 rebounds per game.)

Now, where is my calculator. Let’s see. He played in all 82 games, so 50.4 points per game divided by 48.4 minutes per game is . . . carry the one, uh, . . . 1.04 points per minute played.

So, how did NBC Sports come up with “Joel Embiid averages more points per minute than anyone who has played at least 300 games — ever.” Gosh, I guess it was just laziness, since the record book is wide open. Oh, it was Philadelphia-based NBC Sports? Maybe that explains it as Mr. Embiid plays for the Philadelphia 76^ers.

And the ironic part of this is that Mr. Chamberlain played for the Philadelphia team (Then it was the Warriors who moved to San Francisco later) in 1961-62 when he set those records.

Time Travel and the Grandfather Paradox

As a wannabe science fiction/fantasy author I read a lot and often enough encounter time travel and its glorious weirdness. Some scientists say time travel is impossible because of the paradoxes involved, the Grandfather Paradox being one of the most commonly cited. If one were to go back into the past and locate one’s grandfather, what would happen if you were to kill Grandpa? If you managed to pull it off, the paradox occurs. If your grandfather died before your parents were born, then you would never have been born, travel in time, and be able to kill your grandfather.

These complications are easily escaped by creative authors, who project that when you kill your grandfather, the timeline in which he and you existed separates off and is disconnected from the current time line (both of which toddle off nicely). You are still alive because you are a visitor from that other time line, but can no longer go back as you can time travel but not timeline travel.

Another approach is you pull the trigger and kill grandpa and you immediately disappear and history adjusts, automatically tying up all loose ends . . . except in rare cases in which and our intrepid hero can find the clues and, and. . . . And the mechanisms for these things to happen physically seem way too magical.

Other authors have time fighting back. You pull the trigger on the gun and the gun jams. You fix the gun and pull the trigger again and the bullet misfires, etc. In other words time fights back. You can’t kill Grandpa because the Universe Abhors Paradoxes, don’t you know.

I like the one where you kill Grandpa and then just disappear, with the wrinkle that you end up back in the timeline in which Grandpa lived. This can be great fun as repeated trips into the past can result in trivial actions causing our hero to spring back (remember the butterfly in Brazil, flapping its wings and causing a hurricane in Japan) over and over and over, thus creating so many time lines that the time overlords investigate and take action against him, and so on, etc., usw.

The Law of Unintended Consequences is also involved in these stories. In one, a time traveler goes back in time to find out of the Jesus story was real (guess who ended up nailed to a cross). (I think that was Behold the Man by Michael Moorcock, but I am working from memory and that was a long time ago.) Or a time traveler goes back in history and executes Hitler as a youth, only to find that someone far, far worse was waiting in the wings but who had gotten pruned out by Hitler and so was unknown to us.

Fun, isn’t it.

It is not so much fun for the scientists trying to determine the differences between possibilities and probabilities when it comes to this topic. Sadly, only a few people are actually working on such problems. More are working on real problems, one of which perplexes me. It is the case that quantum mechanics and Einstein’s General Relativity theories do not seem to be compatible, that is neither fits nicely within the other, nor is there some fusion that seems to work to combine them. Actually, I wonder why this is a problem. General relativity comes up when you study gigantic objects, like planets, starts, galaxies, etc. and quantum mechanics comes up when you investigate things smaller than atoms. Expecting the theories in those two realms to play nice is a bit like wondering why the biology of frogs in the Amazon basin doesn’t inform us about the formation of diamonds deep below the surface of South Africa. Where does the expectation that the two big physics theories should be compatible come from? I suspect it comes from a desire to see the world around us as a relatively simple machine. (I do not.) It is a bit like Rodney King’s appeal “Can’t we all just get along?” It sounds nice, but there is absolutely nothing indicating that it should or even could come about.

The Wedding

What is it about mothers? If a son gets to be in his late twenties, early thirties, they go crazy trying to find them wives; I guess before it is “too late,” whatever that means. My mother has taken to dragging me to every wedding within traveling distance in the hopes of what? That I will get infatuated or get the wedding bug? I don’t know. I know she won’t live much longer, although her relatives are fairly long-lived so I suspect she has a couple of decades left, so that is long enough that she could easily see me married and creating grandbabies for her.

Last weekend she dragged me to this wedding, of some distant relatives, whom I had never met, and the guests were a strangers to me, although my mother knew a fair number of them. Since I didn’t know many of them it was a rather boring affair. Even so, my mother complained if I spent too much time with my posse. She said that I spend too much time with them as it is and I would benefit from meeting some other people. I tried hard not to roll my eyes and I was about to go find her to suggest that it was time to go when my mother came up to me wild-eyed and agitated.

“What’s wrong?” I asked.

“Oh, this is terribly frustrating. The hosts seem to have run out of wine. The servants say the last jars have been opened.”

“Well, if they didn’t want to suffer the embarrassment of not providing for their wedding guests, they should have ordered more.”

“You have to do something!”

“Me? What am I supposed to do? Run to the nearest village with a wine shop? It would be hours before I could get there and get back. You are being silly.”

“Look, just do something!”

So, I looked around and found one of the servants in the pantry and asked them for an empty wine jar. They were puzzled but produced one straight away. I then asked them where the water cistern was. Again, they were puzzled, but showed me and I had little trouble filling the wine jar with cool water from the cistern.

Then I went up to the guests and asked “Who is ready for more wine?” I picked out a chap who seemed a bit snozzled and poured some of my “wine” into his cup. He drank deeply and sputtered, “But, that’s, that’s . . . “

“Wine,” I interrupted, “and the good stuff, too. They didn’t keep it hidden away. How about you, good sir?”

I moved through the group pouring libations for each, going through the little charade each time. The guests soon picked up what I was doing and soon the room was buzzing with comments about how good the wine was.

I went back to the servants and recommended that what little real wine remained be served to the bride and groom and that they also do as I did, fill up some empty jars with water and serve the guests their “wine,” with a wink and a nod. I think they were delighted in seemingly putting one over on their pretentious neighbors and did so willingly.

On the way home, my mother game me no credit for my little act of legerdemain. As for me, I was just glad that boring wedding could be forgotten and never mentioned again. I don’t particularly like Cana anyway.

Actors are Hired to Pretend to be People They are Not

The casting of Helen Mirren as Golda Meir (I love Helen Mirren) for the upcoming movie Golda, was criticized by actor Maureen Lipman last month because Mirren is not Jewish.

WTF?

Are not actors hired to pretend to be people they are not? Oh, but there are supposedly other considerations, other than whether they can do a good job. So, apparently, a black person cannot portray a white person. An older person cannot portray a younger person or a younger person an older person. A Canadian cannot be hired to portray a Colombian. An intellectual cannot be hired to portray a brute. A good looking person cannot pretend to be ugly. An Israeli cannot be hired to portray a Palestinian (and vice-versa). Christian actors cannot possibly portray Jews or Buddhists, or Scientologists.

People, this is the business that cast Tom Cruise, 5´7˝, 150ish pounds, to portray Jack Reacher, a character described as being 6´5˝, 250+ pounds. (And yes, there were complaints, which were ignored.) They cast Mickey Rooney to play a stereotypical Chinese man in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. And, John Wayne to Play Genghis Khan! (“Listen and listen good, Temüge, . . .”)

So, is there something an older Jewish actor could bring to a portrayal of Golda Meir that a non-Jew might not? Possibly. Is there something a spectacularly gifted actor, such as Helen Mirren, could bring to that role that a less renowned actor might? Probably.

I suggest we let the director answer those questions, because that’s his fucking job.

I Know It is Quirky . . .

I know I am quirky in that I never read just one or two books at a time. Last night I looked at my eBook reader and I noticed that I was actively reading about four dozen books. This is because I get bored, or the book is taking a direction I don’t like, or the damned thing is really, really long, or . . . whatever. I also have a half dozen paper books I am currently reading (actively).

With the advent of cheap eBooks, I bought and started and abandoned a great many books with no intention of going back to them. (The danged e-reader doesn’t allow me to delete them or file them away.) This is why I included the word “actively” in describing books in progress. Note: before eBooks, I never had more than a dozen books actively being read. An eBook reader allows me to switch books with a few taps of a finger, instead of having to rummage through a bedside stack.

Anyone out there like me? Or am I all alone in the universe?

e-motion 2.0—a Documentary Review

Jumping the Tracks and the Shark at the Same Time

I took two running starts at this documentary but neither time could I make it even one quarter of the way through. I was washed out on a wave of woo each time.

The film begins easily enough by making a few claims, through quotes, such as “The subconscious mind determines everything about us.” Well, no it doesn’t, but it is very close.

They then went on to state that “emotions control the subconscious mind” and again, no they don’t but they do impact it substantially.

Next they made the completely wild claim that “at the root of every illness is suppressed emotion.” So, their thinking is starting to be exposed: emotions control the subconscious mind combined with the subconscious mind determines everything about us (my emphasis), and they create a direct link between emotions and everything about us, including illnesses. Now, there are some truths involved here but they are extrapolated so far as to make them disconnected.

I am, for example, convinced that imagination is our super power; it is what makes us distinct from every other species. And it is not that other species do not imagine (I don’t know but suspect that some do), but we took that sucker and ran with it. And one thing we can do is imagine a stressful situation so vividly that we can get a bodily stress reaction from it. And that, if repeated a great deal, will lead to an illness. So, memories and emotion can lead to illness.

In the sport I coach, archery, we claim that our subconscious mind cannot distinguish between reality and a vivid imagining. (This is based in science. It seems that instead of interacting with “reality,” whatever that is, directly we create a simulacrum of reality in our mind and interact with that. So, imagination and reality are not at all distinct in our minds.) Where this comes into play in archery is that archers are taught to vividly imagine a perfect shot from their personal viewpoint, just before raising their bows to make each shot. I am of the opinion that this “visualization” is a set of instructions to our subconscious mind, which controls all of our physical movements, to “make it so.” All motion of our bodies, not just archery shots, is controlled subconsciously. You know this from whenever you had no training in some physical activity and had to do it consciously: driving a car, riding a bike, tying your shoes, etc. How’d that go? Clumsy, eh? We all are. We have to train our subconscious minds and then we can turn it over to them to do it effortlessly.

So, our subconscious minds control a great deal of our lives, but “everything”? (Otherwise, how do we train our subconscious minds to do things like tie our shoes?) That’s quite a stretch at best. And we still don’t know what a “mind” is, but most psychologists think we have a stack: we have our conscious minds, then our subconscious minds, then our unconscious minds, and at the bottom, our autonomic processes (heartbeat, gland secretions, etc.). Each “layer” is intermixed with the one’s next to it. Some think that the “subconscious mind” is really just an expanded mode of conscious mixed with unconscious mental activities and it is not really a separate thing. 9In archery discussions I use subconscious and unconscious interchangeably because the finer points are not needed for archery.) The mixing of “minds” (No, Spock, not now!) is evident from experiments in which the subjects exhibited mental control over things like their heart rate, blood pressure, and other “autonomic” things.

So, we don’t know exactly what a mind is, and there seem to be multiple minds with somewhat separate functions or abilities. For example, archers are taught to moderate their emotions because they do affect our subconscious behavior and archery shots are largely subconscious events. Get overly emotional and your shooting becomes erratic.

But, going from “some diseases” are caused by subconscious emotions to “all diseases” are caused by emotions, requires a bridge too far. We became much more proficient in fighting diseases when we discovered the germ theory of disease, that there are microorganisms, including viruses, that cause disease. (In the Age of COVID, does anyone argue against this any more?) So, are disease organisms manifestations of repressed memories?

Also, they jumped to “suppressed emotions” from “emotions.” They claimed that “good emotions” are expressed while “bad emotions” are suppressed. And the bad emotions build up over time and . . . disease. WTF? We obviously have memories of emotional events. Evolution has decided that there is something to learn from emotional events (like to avoid being eaten by the tiger, I don’t have to outrun it, just out run the others in my group) and those memories last longer than mundane memories.

And, we are just now starting to learn how memories are stored. If you thought little video stories are storied in this or that place in your brain, well, you guessed wrong. Memories are dissected. The visual parts are stored in the visual cortex, the audio parts, are stored elsewhere, as are the tactile parts, etc. The locations in the brain that possess the ability to process specific kinds of information are where those kinds of information are stored. When a memory is triggered, all the parts get reassembled (well, usually all of the parts do, but not always) lickety-split. The more often a memory is triggered, the easier it is to recall. So people who chew on events of the past find it oh so easy to pull up the memories of the things they cannot resist. Those who do not dwell on the past find it harder and harder to come up with those recalls.

None of these things were discussed, at least in as far as I got. The second try I stopped at the comment “Ninety percent of our energy is used to suppress energies from our past.” WTF?

I did get past the obligatory mention of vibrational energies and how they are linked to various parts of the body. Vibrational energies were the vogue in the woo-woo crowd of 100 years ago as the wave nature of light and whatnot were in open discussion because of all of the excitement surrounding Einstein and his posse of physicists. No mention of how these vibrational energies operate other than through resonance and the kind of energy is never mentioned, just “energy.”

So, as I said, a tidal wave of woo washed me out.

If anyone gets to the end I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this . . . whatever it is.

Oh, btw, we do not yet know what an emotion is. One of the most promising theories is that these things are learned!

UFO’s Really?

UFOs are real . . . surprise, surprise. The problem is and has been all along is in their interpretations.

Basically odd flying objects have been observed, for millennia if the historical record can be trusted. Also, scriptural references abount with UFOs.

Why was there ever any doubt. There was doubt because it was felt that the causes of many of these observations included interpretations that were outlandish. That a UFO could be a weather balloon, or on optical or radar artifact are all reasonable interpretations, but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of such observations that can’t be explained away through “the usual suspects.”

Could this be viewed as a documentary in the future?

It didn’t help that the US government waged several disinformation campaigns on its own citizens.

So, what about the core issue here: that so many people believe UFOs are evidence for alien spaceships.

Some claim there is concrete evidence locked up in government facilities of these ships.

Whatever, the well is being poisoned by people looking to profit off of the situation. Being interested in UFOs and aliens (at least as to how authors can use them to portray different ways to think and act) I watch a fair number of “documentaries” about UFOs. These programs are poisoning the well of their own arguments by the simple expedient of weaving simulations in with actual video recordings. Many of these simulations were created to appear as if they were actual videos: the “camera” moves as if hand held, the focus isn’t sharp, etc. If these folks wanted to be honest each of these “video presentations” should have a prominent label “Simulation” or some such. The same goes for re-enactments of alien encounters. Since actual recordings of those encounters are available, often simulations are created, or re-enactments are made, sometimes even using clips from commercial movies. All of these things are wrapped in a delivery package called a documentary” for which we have an understanding of an attempt to portray the truth about some situation.

I guess I am becoming sensitive to the quality and veracity of the information being provided to us. The tendency to blend in re-enactments into newscast without them being prominantly labeled is alarming.

We will paralyze ourselves politically if we cannot clean up our sources of information.

The Infinity War—Much Ado About Nothing

In the Marvel blockbuster series culminating in the move Avengers: Infinity War, an evil alien by the name of Thanos was collecting a set of magic stones that would allow him to kill half of the population of the universe with a snap of his fingers. The Marvel people mine mythologies to acquire names for their characters and Thanos is a shorter version of Thanatos, who was a Greek god of death who brought gentle deaths to people. Thanos also brought gentle deaths . . . to half the people in the fricking universe!

So, half of all of the aliens and humans dissolve away peacefully, including half of the Marvel characters who were fighting Thanos.

The final movie involves time travel and trying to thwart the effort of Thanos that way.

But that is not the flaw in this whole scheme.

Thanos, once his labors are complete, retires to a little tropical hut as if he has accomplished his life’s work. But all through the series Thanos rails about how overpopulation was destroying the universe. All of the ills of poverty, war, etc. could be addressed if there weren’t so many people clamoring for food, shelter, and resources.

Sounds good enough for a fantasy, except . . . do you know how many years it took for the last doubling of the population of our planet, Earth? I won’t make you look it up; it was 49 years. So, assuming that other species would be reproducing at around the same rate, fifty years after Thanos’s mass murder, the population would be right back where it was. or, if not in 50 years, then 100.

Thanos, at best, created a very short duration respite from population pressure. More specifically, he also created an immense mass of misery in those who remember their lost loved ones.

For the amount of power possessed in the infinity stones (the magical bits), a better solution could have been come up with. How about a lower birth rate across the board? How about a change of mind regarding what we owe others as well as ourselves? But, the creative team was American, so “kill them all” is a dependable solution for any problem encountered in an action-adventure movies. Which makes me wonder why “kill half of them” was so attractive.

Duh . . .

Bob Odenkirk recently lamented that: “Soon people won’t remember Breaking Bad.” Odenkirk played slimeball lawyer Saul in that TV series, which was a smash hit, certainly amongst working and retired chemistry teachers (the main protagonist was a high school chemistry teacher facing a fatal disease and looking for a way to care for his family after he dies and finds it in making crystal meth).

I am a bit surprised at Odenkirk’s lament however in that television shows have as a primary objective to make you forget the previous show you just watched. They want your full attention focused on what you are watching now and not mulling over things you watched in the previous show. Then it is “lather, rinse, repeat” and soon all is forgotten.

This is why I argued that TV was a poor medium to base school lessons upon. All teachers are taught that after a “film” (remember films?) or video is played that there be a discussion of various topics associated with what was viewed. Many providers of such “educational materials” supplied guidelines for such discussions, even in accompanying pamphlets/books. Do you remember ever having one of those Q&A sessions after such a “showing”? What I remember coming after those movies was a bell signally it was time to move to the next class.

And, yes, I am somewhat of a curmudgeon when it comes to education but this is not a “we shouldn’t be using these new fangled technologies” lament. It is, rather, we should be using them correctly. Video should only be used for educational purposes when viewing what is going on is very important and, yes, discussion is needed. Just as a reading assignment given to students that is not mentioned again or discussed in class will rapidly be forgotten as being “unimportant.”