Sunday, August 19, 2018

Feynman on What WHY Means

Feynman on what WHY means....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA




For a comedian's take on the same question, here.

___

Speaker 1:                        If you get ahold of two magnets and you push them, you can feel this pushing between them. Turn it around the other way, and they slam together. Now, what is it, the feeling between those two magnets?
Richard Feynman:           What do you mean, what's the feeling between the two magnets when you hold them?
Speaker 1:                        Well, there's something there, isn't there? The sensation is that there's something there when you push these two magnets together.
Richard Feynman:           Listen to my question. What is the meaning when you say that there's a feeling? Of course, you feel it. Now, what do you want to know?
Speaker 1:                        What I want to know is what's going on between these two bits of metal.
Richard Feynman:           The magnets repel each other. The magnets repel each other.
Speaker 1:                        Well then, but what does that mean, or why are they doing that, or how are they doing it?
Richard Feynman:           You're asking-
Speaker 1:                         ... I think that's a perfectly reasonable question.
Richard Feynman:           Of course, it's a reasonable question. It's an excellent question, okay? But the problem that you're asking ... You see, when you ask why something happens, how does a person answer why something happens? 

For example, Aunt Mini is in the hospital. Why? Because she slipped. She went out and she slipped on the ice and broke her hip. That satisfies people. It satisfies, but it wouldn't satisfy someone who came from another planet and knew nothing about things. 

At first, you'd understand why, when you break your hip do you go to the hospital? How do you get to the hospital when the hip is broken? Well, because her husband, seeing that she had the hip was broken up, called the hospital up and sent somebody to get her. All that is understood by people.

                                           Now when you explain a why, you have to be in some framework that you allow something to be true, otherwise you're perpetually asking why. Why did the husband call up the hospital? Because husband is interested in his wife's welfare. Not always. Some husbands aren't interested in their wife's welfare when they're drunk and they're angry. 

And so you begin to get a very interesting understanding of the world and all its complications. If you try to follow anything up, you go deeper and deeper in various directions. 

For example, if you go "Why did she slip on the ice?" Well, ice is slippery. Everybody knows that. No problem. But you ask why is ice slippery? That's kind of curious. Ice is extremely slippery. It's very interesting. You say, "How does it work?" You see? So you could either say "I'm satisfied that you've answered me 'Ice is slippery, that explains it'" or you could go on and say "Why is ice slippery?" And then you're involved with something because there aren't many things as slippery as ice.

                                           It's very hard to get greasy stuff, but that's sort of wet and slimy. But a solid that's so slippery? Because it is in the case of ice, that when you're standing on it, they say, momentary the pressure melts the ice a little bit so you gotta sort of instantaneous water surface on which you're slipping. Why on ice and not on other things? Because water expands when it freezes so the pressure tries to undo the expansion and melts it, is capable of melting it. But other substances contract when they're freezing, and when you push them, they're just as satisfied to be solid. Why does water expand when it freezes and other substances don't expand when they freeze, all right? I'm not answering your question, but I'm telling you how difficult a "why" question is. 

You'll notice in this example that the more I ask why it gets interesting after a while. That's my idea, that the deeper a thing is the more interesting in it.

                                           We could even go further and say, "Why did she fall down when slipped?" That has to do with gravity, it involves in all the planets and everything else, but nevermind. It goes on and on. And when you ask for example, why two magnets repel, there are many different levels. It depends on whether you're a student of physics or an ordinary person that doesn't know anything or not. If you're somebody who doesn't know anything at all about it, all I can say is that there's a magnetic force that makes them repel and that you're feeling that force. You see, but that's very strange because I don't feel kind of force like that in other circumstances. When you turn them the other way, they attract.

                                           There's a very analogous force, electrical force, which is the same kind of a question. And you say "That's also very weird." But you're not at all disturbed by the fact that when you put your hand on the chair, it pushes you back. But we've found out by looking at it that that's the same force, as a matter of fact, the electrical force, not a magnetic exactly, in that case. But it's the same electric repulsions that are involved in keeping your finger away from the chair because everything's made out of it ... It's electrical forces in minor and microscope details. There's other forces involved, but it's connected to electrical forces. It turns out that the magnetic and the electric force, with which I wish to explain these things, this repulsion in the first place, is what ultimately is the deeper thing that we can start with to explain many other things that looked like everybody would just accept them.

                                           You know you can't put your hand through the chair. That's taken for granted, but that you can't put your hand through the chair, when looked at more closely, why, it involves these same repulsive forces that appear in magnets. The situation you then have to explain is why in magnets it goes over a bigger distance than in ordinarily, and there it has to do with the fact that in iron, all the electrons are spinning in the same direction. They all get lined up and they magnify the effect of the force until it's large enough at a distance that you can feel it.

                                           If you were a student, I could go further. I could tell you that the magnetic forces are related to the electrical forces very intimately, that our relationship between the gravity forces and electrical forces remains unknown, and so on. But I really can't do a good job, any job, of explaining magnetic force in terms of something else that you're more familiar with because I don't understand it in terms of anything else that you're more familiar with.

___

There are many books on "how to explain, explanation" but one different entry point than Feynman's is David Deutsch; see his famous Ted Talk or his more recent book "Beginning of Infinity."

Friday, August 17, 2018

Humor and The Human Drive to Problem-Solve


On Tuesday, August 14, 2018, I was in a Lyft and they were playing an interview with a book author at 9 pm on KALW, 91.7, SF local public radio.*  

It;s the broadcast and podcast series IN DEEP with Angie Coiro, and the author was Ken Jennings (Wiki here) and his new book, "Planet Funny."

He was talking about comedy, and he made an interesting point.  Most things we “like” have survival value.  We like food (biologically wired via taste, hunger), which has survival value.  We like sex (biologically wired via affection, sex drive) which has survival value.  

Why do we like humor?   Humor is seeing the incongruity between two things in a surprising way.  We like that.  But why would that evolve?  It may be an offshoot of problem solving.  To survive, human beings must solve all kinds of problems, see what’s there, what’s wrong, how to fix it, evaluate the difference.  So if we LIKE doing that, it has survival value.  Maybe this is why we like the logic, comparing, and cognitive surprises in humor.   He made a comment we are as much “homo ludens” or “homo ridens” (playing or laughing) as homo sapiens. 
 
(See also the book by Steven Johnson “Wonderland: How PlayMade the Modern World.”)

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

1953 Jack Benny Show Mentions my WeWork Office in SF

On a redeye flight yesterday from Washington to SFO, I was watching a 90 minute compilation of old Jack Benny shows on Amazon Prime Video.   The shows were from the early 1950s; one mentions Harry Truman about to leave the presidency (January 1953).    There were early appearances of Bing Crosby's brother Bob Crosby, who was to become Benny's bandleader for a decade.

In one of the show's monologs, Jack Benny mentions he is about to take a trip to San Francisco.   "I like San Francisco...I first performed in public in San Francisco.   I played the violin.  [pause]  At Market & Taylor Streets. [longer pause] ... I hear there's a theater there now. [laughter]."

The joke being he was so old he performed before the 1920s, before the Golden Gate Theater was built in 1922. 

A few years ago, the outer office building shell of the Golden Gate Theater became one of the first WeWorks locations in SF (there are now about ten.) 

This year 2018, the Golden Gate Theater is getting a top-to-bottom inside and outside remodel.  This makes my SF office a bit noisy but it will be a showpiece when finished.

Jack Benny 1953


Golden Gate Theater Today

WeWork in office building "shell"

Friday, July 6, 2018

La Maddalena, Sardinia, Italy

Villagio Piras is a housing development on the mid-eastern side of the small island "Isola La Maddalena" which is off the north tip of Sardinia.

La Maddelena is no more than 3 miles N-S or E-W.

Villagio Piras


Isle of La Maddalena (center).  Isle Caprera (right)


Northern Sardinia and Isle Maddalena


From Olbia (Aiport) to Northern Coast (Costa Smeralda)


All of Italy

Sunday, July 1, 2018

NYT Comment / Weaponizing Free Speech

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/us/politics/first-amendment-conservatives-supreme-court.html


Despite the honor bestowed on the Constitution by both the left and the right, in many ways, it is a mess. It creates what appear to be literally unbounded protections for free speech and free religion, yet also creates an elaborate system of laws and authorities and controls on us (for taxation, military conscription, and everything else). Resolving these simply means finding human ways to live among the stark contradictions, and without common sense, it's impossible. 

Supreme Court faced this in the Wedding Cake decision, stating that a ground rule is absolute freedom of religion and that the courts can't venture to question the sincerity/validity of a stated religious belief. Yet, at the same time, we all know I can't make a private religion for not paying taxes or a private religion for driving 100 mph on the wrong side of the road. Freedom of speech and religion (as stated in the Bill of Rights in absolute terms) would drive us all over the brink - without common sense.

Another aspect of the conservative/liberal weaponization is protection of minorities against mistreatment by majorities opf the democracy. We want (say) a small gay minority protected, but resist protecting a "minority" who are hostile nutcases, but also in the same sense a "minority."

And in WSJ 7/5/2018:

Use of the first amendment (which is written in absolute terms) or freedom of religion (ditto) is not really a liberal or conservative issue.   It is closer to a libertarian position.    Either free speech or free (personal) religion can be used to "stop" conservative laws from telling people what they can or can't do, just as well as to "stop" liberal laws.   


I am not an attorney, but both liberals and conservatives invariably make reference to the sacred and immortal Constitution.  Frankly, it's a bit of a mess.  It says there can be "no law" about freedom of speech or freedom of religion, and yet the whole constitution is about doing things (levying taxes on you, using those taxes for war and anything else) that could violate someone's absolute right to freedom of speech and increasingly to freedom of personal and perhaps idiosyncratic religion.  Common sense and jurisprudence usual sets the balance so society can function despite these contradictions in the Constitution.  

Monday, June 18, 2018

Freddish: The Special Language of Mr. Rogers

In June 2018, the documentary biography "Won't You Be My Neighbor?" about the life and work of Fred Rogers was released.

The "Kottke" website runs a fascinating article on how the language of the show was crafted and edited to minimize ambiguity.   While the setting here is speaking to five year olds, there are some tips and insights that apply to any communications, including business presentations and strategy.  The right word, or the simplest phrase, matters.   The order that three phrases come in, also matters.

Note especially that the point isn't to immediately produce Freddish (Step 9.)  It deliberately starts with Step 1, following its own rules and intentions, and works slowly from there to produce the result in Step 1.   Your goal is also, in a sense, the statement in Step 1. 

I've clipped the article here.

https://kottke.org/18/06/freddish-the-special-language-mister-rogers-used-when-talking-to-children




Freddish, the special language Mister Rogers used when talking to children

posted by Jason Kottke   Jun 11, 2018
Maxwell King, the former director of the Fred Rogers Center and author of the forthcoming book The Good Neighbor: The Life and Work of Fred Rogers, shared an excerpt of the book with The Atlantic about how much attention Rogers paid to how children would hear the language on the show. For instance, he changed the lyrics on Friday’s installment of the “Tomorrow” song he sang at the end of each show to reflect that the show didn’t air on Saturdays.
Rogers was so meticulous in his process for translating ideas so they could be easily understood by children that a pair of writers on the show came up with a nine-step process that he used to translate from normal English into “Freddish”, the special language he used when speaking to children.
1. “State the idea you wish to express as clearly as possible, and in terms preschoolers can understand.” Example: It is dangerous to play in the street.
2. “Rephrase in a positive manner,” as in It is good to play where it is safe.
3. “Rephrase the idea, bearing in mind that preschoolers cannot yet make subtle distinctions and need to be redirected to authorities they trust.” As in, Ask your parents where it is safe to play.
4. “Rephrase your idea to eliminate all elements that could be considered prescriptive, directive, or instructive.” In the example, that’d mean getting rid of “ask”: Your parents will tell you where it is safe to play.
5. “Rephrase any element that suggests certainty.” That’d be “will”: Your parents can tell you where it is safe to play.
6. “Rephrase your idea to eliminate any element that may not apply to all children.” Not all children know their parents, so: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play.
7. “Add a simple motivational idea that gives preschoolers a reason to follow your advice.” Perhaps: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is good to listen to them.
8. “Rephrase your new statement, repeating the first step.” “Good” represents a value judgment, so: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is important to try to listen to them.
9. “Rephrase your idea a final time, relating it to some phase of development a preschooler can understand.” Maybe: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is important to try to listen to them, and listening is an important part of growing.
These are boss-level communication skills. 
Steps 6 & 8 are particularly thoughtful. Using language like “your favorite grown-ups” instead of “your parents” is often decried these days as politically correct nonsense but Rogers knew the power of caring language to include as many people as possible in the conversation.

You can also see Rogers’ care in how he went back and fixed problematic language in old shows.
...As the years would go on, he would find things that had happened in old episodes that didn’t feel current, where maybe he used a pronoun “he” instead of “they” — or he met a woman and presumed that she was a housewife. So he would put on the same clothes and go back and shoot inserts and fix old episodes so that they felt as current as possible, so that he could stand by them 100 percent.
Fred Rogers understood more than anyone that paying attention and sweating the details is a form of love. It was never enough for him to let you know that he loved you. He made sure to tell you that he loved you “just the way you are” and that made all the difference.

Saturday, June 16, 2018

Worth Revisiting: Philip Seymour Hoffman's "Zen Master" Parable from Charlie Wilson's War

It's been ten years since the 2007 movie, CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR, in which Tom Hanks played a Texas senator who wanted to raise interest in protecting the civilians of Afghanistan in their war with Russia.    In the movie, Philip Seymour Hoffman plays a savvy yet comic foil in the role of a CIA agent, "Gus."

A couple times during the movie, Gus refers to "the story of the Zen Master" but never gets to tell it.  He does finally get to tell the story near the end of the film.   The exchange takes place at night on a balcony outside a party.   You can see it on Youtube here.

"There's a little boy.

On his 14th birthday, he gets a horse.  Everybody in the village says, How wonderful, the little boy got a horse!   The Zen Master says: We'll see.

Two years later, the boy falls off the horse and breaks his leg. Everyone in the village says, How terrible! And the Zen Master says: We'll see.

Then, the war breaks out and all the young men have to go off and fight, but the boy can't, because his leg's all messed up.  And everyone in the village says, How wonderful."

Tom Hanks:  "And the Zen Master says, We'll see."

Gus:  "So you get it."

Hanks:  "No.  [shakes head]  'Cause I'm stupid."

Gus:   You're not stupid, you're just in Congress.  Rebuild the roads, restock the schools...

Hanks (interrupts):  I'm trying...

Gus:  Well, try harder.

Hanks:  I took support from $5M to a billion.  I got a Democratic congress in lockstep behind a Republican president...

Gus:  Well, that's not good enough, because I'm gonna give you some confidential information.  The crazies are rolling into Kandar like it's a f--g bathtub drain.

Hanks:  Jesus, Gus, you could depress a bride on her wedding day.

Gus takes Hank's drink out of his hand and pours it on the balcony.

Long silence.

Gus:  Listen to what I'm telling you.

Tense silence.

Hanks leans forward and gives Gus a short hug.  "You've done a hell of a job for the son of a soda pop man."

Gus:  ..We'll see.


###
A reviewer has noted that around this time we hear a jet over the Washington night time skyline, which may be meant to symbolize the future 9/11.





There is a scene yet to come where Hanks does, in fact, talk to colleagues about post-war financing for humanitarian aid in Afghanistan but his colleagues shy away from any allocation of budget.