Theory of a Theory

This is supposed to be a blog on the theory of everything.  Not being a physicist, or having any more background knowledge on the subject than someone who's read the introduction to a confusing Wikipedia article on the subject, I apologize in advance if I misrepresent a theory or my understanding of some material is incomplete.



The theory of everything, or ToE, is at its most basic a theory to unite all other fundamental theories of physics.  The necessity comes about from the competition of two leading theories: General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.  General Relativity, based on Einstein's Theory of Relativity, is without going into detail able to explain the physics of all things large or with great mass.  By contrast, Quantum Mechanics explains all things at their particle levels - tiny things with small mass.  These two theories have been overwhelmingly supported by evidence in their respective realms of applicability, however when the two are both applicable (for example, with a black hole, which is miniscule in volume but has incomprehensibly great mass) that evidence has also proven that the two are incompatible - they cannot both be true. So, it's been theorized by physicists that there must exist some theory (the elusive ToE) to unite the other two.  This theory, once discovered, could then be used to explain all of known physics, not just the extremely big or extremely small.  There are several candidate theories and explanatory frameworks being thrown around, of which modern string theory is the most widely supported, that are aiming to become this ultimate theory of the universe, but research is still being done on them.  At the same time, there are several opponents to the ToE, saying that to discover such a theory would be impossible.  These physicists and mathematicians, including Stephen Hawking, cite mathematical theorems, ideas of infinity, and the impossibility of calculation (or actually proving the theory) as reasons that it cannot be found and likely does not exist.

  The Theory of Everything, as this comic suggests, would only help to explain things we already know exist.  So the question that this search for knowledge begs is: What's the point?  What would it matter if a Theory of Everything exists or not?  There are several ways of handling this question, but I'd like to take this opportunity to address it in the terms of this class, specifically in relation to human society and our place in the world.  See, an ultimate theory, were one to be found, would provide evidence that everything in our universe, every force and ultimately every atom, is at some fundamental level connected.  Which would mean that we, at some level, must be connected with everything else in the universe.  Scary, huh?  Such a discovery would suggest that we as a society aren't quite as removed as some might like to believe.  What we do effects the rest of the universe, and what happens in the rest of the universe effects us.  Armed with such a theory, Aldo Leopold's Land Ethic doesn't seem so crazy; if we are, in fact, at some fundamental level made from the same forces as the soil we stand on, we ought to factor respect to that soil into our daily ethics in the same way we factor respect to other people or institutions into our decisions.  It's possible that the only difference between us and our dirt is the frequency of vibrations in a few electrons... But then again, it's only a theory.

Only Real When Shared

The tragedy of Chris McCandless (AKA Alex Supertramp) is now omnipresent on my mind.  I at first found it hard to relate to him, due to the extreme example he sets, but the more I think about it the more I see myself in him.  I've felt that need to get away, to just run and never look back because sitting at home on my butt staring blankly at a computer screen while life goes on around me won't help me find myself, and it certainly won't give me the chance to apply myself to the world and see what I really can do.  I full-heartedly agree with the sentiment that people are meant to move, and are born with nomadic inclinations.  Even the thought of living in one place my entire life makes me queasy... maybe I have commitment issues or something.  But what I know I don't have is the willingness to let life pass on around me, while I casually fade in to society, my individual self getting lost as I become one more mindless machine droning on.  Chris and I share that sentiment, at least; finding oneself must be ones first priority.

Chris and I share another sentiment too.  Chris once wrote in his journal, soon before his untimely death, that "happiness is only real when shared."  This is something I've found to be true, possibly even the most true thing to my life that I've ever heard.  I've spent the last year or so figuring out who I am, and who I want to be.  The one thing I've learned beyond a doubt about myself is that I'm happier with an open heart.  I know now that talking and verbalizing emotions, even with people I don't know as well as I'd like, is the most healthy thing to do when I feel something strongly.  Some might say I'm too trusting, but I've learned that keeping things, negative or positive, to oneself results in nothing but internalized regret and, for me, in the need to physically escape.  Maybe this is why Chris ran away.  Maybe the fact that he kept so much to himself is the reason he felt the need to find himself; if he'd discovered this essential element of happiness sooner, I am almost certain that Chris would be alive now.  As Aristotle once pointed out, each person must find happiness for his or herself.  That is what Chris had been doing when he set out on his journey, and this single quote, which I only remembered after hearing Chris's mom mention it in an interview, would have changed Chris's life forever had he lived long enough to act on his words.

This is really the tragedy of Chris McCandless, for not only did he die while people loved him and missed him, he died with the realization that he needed them in his life.  He went on an extreme journey across the country, and at the end of it he finally found what he was looking for; a spiritual awakening.  The tragedy is that what he discovered was he couldn't be happy without the people he'd left behind.  Chris was going to change his life when  he died though.  This video of an interview with the man who's cabin Chris is accused of destroying introduces new evidence (by way of a secret wallet filled with cash and ID found in a hidden pocket of Chris's backpack) suggesting that Chris had no will to die out in the wild, but he fully intended to return alive and in good health to the people he cared about, and had planned to even before his spiritual awakening.

Chris is sorely missed by nearly all who knew him, yet even his mom and dad (see dad's interview below) understand that Chris's legacy lives on despite his death through his life story, which is still being taught today (for example, in select high school English classes).  Chris McCandless serves as a good role model for me, and in a way for all confused people trying to find themselves in a world they don't feel they fit into.  Chris's life shows us that escape is possible, and that with determination no societal rules can control one's life.  More importantly though, Chris's life shows us that escape isn't always necessary.  True happiness can be found in people, a retreat into nature will only help one find oneself while one is scared of facing things out in the open, with other people.  Chris teaches us all to be a little bit more open, honest, and trusting; to share our happiness so that it can be real for all of us, and so that we can find ourselves with each other as a community.

Escape Into Nature -- a Triptych

See The Nature

Hear The Nature

Part of Nature?


This triptych represents the questions I have about my life and how much I can truly say I live within nature.  In the first video, I'm looking at "nature" (two squirrels running in the top of an oak tree).  This is the same scene I've seen dozens of times walking in woods, and it brings with it a sense of escape, and a feeling of wild freedom outside of the reaches of society.  The second video is the same, but relies on sounds - as it scans the treetops, it focuses on the sounds of nature (specifically the unique bird calls).  These noises also have the effect of making me feel as though I'm free of culture and society.  But the third video brings it into perspective.  As it tracks a squirrels path across a street, it betrays that all three videos were taken on the same block (my block) in residential Saint Paul.  So it begs the question I ask myself on occasion, how close am I really to nature?  And, at the same time, when it feels so easy to escape into nature even on my own street corner, how close is my relationship with society?

A Manipulation of the Mind and Spirit

Daniel Quinn's novel Ishmael does some interesting things, including use stories to raise awareness about climate change and provide a revisionist theory about the Bible that shows a new perspective on the interpretation of the Old Testament, and particularly Genesis.  The way that Quinn creates interest in his readers is so unethical, however, that once noticed it destroys the legitimacy of all of his arguments.

Aristotle had a system for ranking arguments known as Ethos (ethical), Logos (logical), and Pathos (emotional).  This is not to say that Aristotle didn't think arguments with emotional appeals were strong arguments, but rather his point was that any argument based on an emotional appeal can be outweighed by logic, which can in turn be outweighed by ethics and common morals.  By extending this rule, it becomes apparent that any emotionally based argument must be logically and ethically sound, or else the inherent flaws will cause it to render itself invalid.  Similar thinking shows that a logical argument may undermine itself emotionally, however if it holds up morally it will retain its validity.  And this thinking is where Daniel Quinn runs into trouble.

Ishmael is, predominantly, an emotional appeal, and a strong one at that.  Quinn is smart, and his story is meant to connect personally to every reader and invoke strong reactions.  However, once these strong emotional arguments are realized, it's critical to analyze how they create their connections.  Several of Quinn's points are based on such immoral manipulation of emotion that they render his argument almost, if not entirely, invalid.

There are several examples of these throughout the book, but I'm going to focus on the most drastic of them.  Daniel Quinn at first creates interest by introducing a talking and seemingly all-knowing gorilla, but he knows that this is a very artificial type of interest and so only 26 pages into the book he switches tactics completely and draws an emotional response from a Nazi reference.  This connection he creates early on in the novel between Hitler and the expansion of culture is something he rides all the way through to the end.  By instilling this image early, Quinn manipulates his readers purposefully by relating culture to a regime many consider pure evil, without allowing his readers the chance to view it in any positive light.  Not dies basing an argument off of manipulated and created emotions make it fairly weak, it forms an unethical basis.  The strong emotions are not a result of readers' new disapproval of modern culture, rather they are artificially formed out of the strong emotions people have against the genocides committed under Hitler's regime.

Frankly, it's disturbing how fast people are to relate political figures, issues, and movements to infamous dictators like Adolf Hitler and their ideals.  Trying to create an emotional response off of a false pretense is morally wrong in all instances.  This is true when people accuse Barack Obama of being like Hitler because his foreign policy isn't always favorable to Jews, however Obama's policy clearly is not to eliminate the Jewish race, nor does it involve any violence towards it.  Similarly, Quinn accuses society of being like Hitler and trying to reach a an era of human dominance the way Hitler tried to create a Thousand Year Reich.  This of course disregards the fact that while Hitler targeted other races with the express goal of annihilation, while society simply moves forward and expands without prejudice.  It also doesn't create an oppressive regime for the people within it the way Hitler did.  The constant references to the Nazi party from Daniel Quinn are ill founded.  They are a cheap way of gaining subconscious emotional sympathy for his arguments, and that emotional manipulation is inexcusably immoral.

I'll Text You

The effects of technology on memory and the brain are scientifically proven.  We can all come up with examples of things we could remember more easily before we had smart phones, and we all can attest to the ever increasing amount of screen time we rely on in our daily lives.  But the effects on the attitude and everyday actions of people are less clear cut.

Technology has had a very definite and negative effect on the majority of my relationships.   Some might argue that texting, instant messaging, and social media have brought people together by increasing the amount of communication one can have with others and the amount of people one can communicate with at a time, and they would be correct.  However, it’s important to note the quality of those communications and the relationships that develop through them. 

My family is probably the easiest area of my daily life for me to observe such negative impacts.  When I have the ability to communicate with friends over texts or facebook, it seems to make it unnecessary for me to actually talk to my family at home.  I’ve often found myself pretending to listen to my mom’s work stories, and even laughing or offering encouragement, without actually having any idea what she’s said because I’m too engrossed in discreetly making a face to send in a five second snap chat.  And even without the communication with my friends, technology provides the perfect way out of talking to my family.  A book can’t be read easily over dinner, but a family TV show can certainly take the place of a meaningful dinner conversation.

It goes even farther than that though.  The ability to communicate without actually hearing or seeing my parents detracts from my connection to them.  I now can have an entire conversation with my dad over text without any greeting, without my asking him about his day, and without any conclusion.  I don’t know if this is a direct side effect of the cell phone or if I just changed in that way as I grew older, but what I do know is before I had a cell phone I would tell my dad I love him at the end of every conversation.

                I see these affects with outside of my family as well.  Maybe I have more friends now than I would if I couldn’t talk to them easily outside of school, but that doesn’t mean I’m any closer to them than I would be.  Sometimes, it’s because it’s just easier to talk to people without seeing them.  I definitely went through a stage in middle school where I only talked to girls over facebook message, even if I saw them every day.  I can't count the number of times I've needlessly ended a conversation and told the other person I'd just text him or her later.  Even today, there are people I talk to more over text than in school, and it's something I've been working very hard to change.

                I recently started trying to redefine several of my relationships.  It started when one of my closest friends confided in me that he wanted to go off grid, so that he could only talk to people in person.  Since then, I’ve been especially wary of any relationship that relies too heavily on technology, and there are many people whom I’ve annoyed by telling them there are things I will only talk to them about in person.  This isn’t the result of some strange paranoia I have about people seeing my texts, as they might think, but rather a part of the epiphany I had early this year that if there is something truly worth talking about, a text won’t do it justice.

If you have time and are interested, here is an interesting interview with psychiatrist Donna Maragani (possibly completely misspelled) about how effects of technology on relationships:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb0EVoOYFWE