Adinkra and Gnomon: The Necessary Bipartite Graph by Michael Jeub

Dear Michael,

It seems that you are leading us along a route that led to your own development as an M theorist, recalling introductions to mathematical and physics ideas. It is a somewhat historical but also autobiographical journey.I do not know if it is a non fiction or fabrication that makes an interesting collection of ideas brought together.

As the mathematics and physics referred to is largely obscure to the uninitiated it is bewildering unknown territory. Though the first half seems to be a developmental journey, the middle and end seems to be a celebration of M theory. Including outrageous optimism about its ability.Though if it keeps governments truthful and terrorists away how can we do without it!If as you say numerical topology is the only tool we have I am definitely without a paddle.

I can not agree when you say "I am a machine and so my reality is a machine." I do not think you refer to AI, since you mention the sympathetic and parasympathetic- which is the endocrine system, through which we have emotional responses. Though that may be your personal, subjective perspective. I think something mathematical may be rubbing off. I wrote numerous when I meant to say humorous in a previous post.It also occurs to me that if you are American you may mean foreign or outsider rather than extra terrestrial.

Whatever your intention, the diagrammatic representation of information does override the linguistic decoding requirement that can be a barrier to effective communication.The visual presentation of ideas does seem to be improving and multimedia presentaion is far more common than 30 years ago.Though I do not think we should shout our existence and ignorance to extraterrestrial intelligence I do remember seeing and admiring the diagramatic representaions sent into space, as a child.

Are you there watching us drown , like untrained rats in a water filled maze? Aware that we must keep swimming until the last note on the clavichord sounds, because there is no escape without a map. A diagrammatic representation to salvation from the icy glue ball. I might learn that maze as well as any rat that has gone before but expect to be drowned before I begin. Pushed down by the crowd or carried in the wrong direction.Are you a silent watcher? or just oblivious in creative bliss? in another part of the M theoretical multiverse entirely. Like an omnipresent but inaccessible God of this own Creation. Any body there? I want to see the sketches , please...

Georgina,

I'm afraid you've been duped. As a physics outsider, it is understandable. Mr. Jeub's essay is a work of art and not science. Taken as art it can be considered beautiful, with humor, with anger, or with a number of different emotions by those who view it. As art, in particular, as modern art often does, it represents the artist's commentary on the certain aspect of society, in this case, the physics community's continued academic and financial support of a field or fields that Mr. Jeub undoubtably considers dubious. He has a way with words, his vocabulary quite extensive, and his use of metaphor is thoroughly amazing, but his meaning, I can assure you, is one of ridicule rather than sincerity. I cannot doubt Mr. Jeub possesses a sincere distaste for the adoration that many in the physics community have endowed upon the String/M Theories, the multiverses, the time machines, the proclivity for mathematics over meaning; and perhaps academia in general, for it comes through with complete clarity to those of us who have read between the lines and looked past the vernacular and metaphor. I, for one, found his essay quite humorous, as much of his commentary, I was in agreement. For those who take serious the objects of Mr. Jeub's ridicule, they probably are in agreement with Lawrence's comment above, in the very least. Don't feel bad. It could have happened to anyone unfamiliar with the territory and it really is beautifully written. Mr. Jeub is unquestionably well educated to make all of the references he has made. Many of his comments are classic, such as:

"In an essay contest not unlike the present one, Euler describes monadists versus those who espouse divisibility in infinity. [1]"

or

"The thought experiment continues to dominate everyfield of progress except that of education. The philosophical attempts to elucidate theory are tortuous.[20]"

These are quite clever and completely hilarious when taken in Mr. Jeub's true tongue-in-cheek style of mockery and sarcasm. To those of us who got, and agreed with his humor, it really was hard to stop laughing.

Anonymous,

It is such as pity that you chose to be Anonymous here. Like most of the other respondents. Hedging your bets perhaps. I am guessing this is TH Ray since he not only replied to me but told me there was a reply here.

If you had actually read what I had written you would have seen that I was responding to MR Jeub's work as an artistic expression. I have commented on the poetry in the style of writing. Highlighted some of the more literary expressions that are unusual to find in a piece of science writing and the humour within it. Perhaps I did not see the same jokes as you but I still found parts amusing. I certainly was not laughing aloud and uncontrollably as you describe. As a work of art it is fascinating. As you seem to also agree. It also appeals to my analytical mind. It appears to be written in a language that I understand. It is English in a flowing poetic style. I am rather like a baby who has limited vocabulary but is "programmed" to learn and decode. Though it would take too long with dictionary and search engine to unravel it completely.

You are right It is not clear to me whether Mr Jeub is an M theorist or is fabricating a fiction full of obscure ideas. As someone with a background in science writing you have the advantage. I have said above "I do not know if it is a non fiction or fabrication that makes an interesting collection of ideas brought together."

Mr Jeub has unfortunately not responded so has not explained the intention of this work himself.I have tried to reach out to him using both direct conversation and poetry.I have tried to ascertain Michael Jeub's intention by questioning what he is. I have said "Are you watching us drown like untrained rats in a water filled maze"... Perhaps that slipped you by . Meaning are you cruelly torturing the uninitiated with something very complex that they will not decipher. I also said "an omnipresent but inaccessible God of his own creation"...Meaning an academic who is completely detached from non specialists and is not available for communication with them.

I do hope that Michael Jeub's work is more than an anti establishment satire. I hope it is trying to say something about communication of ideas. At university I was told of the necessity of using appropriate scientific language. It divides "us from them". One particular word is still an annoyance to me. That is heterosis. We were told repeatedly to use it in preference to hybrid vigour. To my mind hybrid vigour is the superior expression because it does explain a concept rather than just being a mere label. Other words such as diakinesis have to be just labels because, describing a particular phase of a continuous process, it is like a place name. If it looks like that, it has this name. To describe what it is would take too long so a short hand is required. Too often scientist deliberately put up barriers to effective communication rather than trying to explain their work as lucidly as possible. Of course some technical language is require to avoid overly long simple English descriptions.

I find Michael Jeub's work to be at the other end of the spectrum to Michael Christian's competition entry. Called "Reality". While Mr Jeubs is extremely complex both in what it discusses and its presentation , Mr Christian's very simple.I really like both. That is not to say that I think they should score highly in the competition. I do not think they were entered with that intention.

As I said to Ray Monroe I think modeling in physics is rather like "Eternity 2", a board full of linked pieces looks good- but so does the empty board. Einstein said "Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler" where science is concerned it is perhaps the empty board and the simple poem that is the better.As in Eternity2 just because the pieces fit does not mean it is the correct solution.

I do not know if it was only intended as a satire. It is a pity if it is that alone, because it has been done before and so is unoriginal. I am making a real effort to read and appreciate to the best of my ability what other contributor's are saying in their competition entries. The only thing I feel bad out is your Anonymous patronizing comments.

Anonymous,

That should have said --The only thing I feel bad about is your Anonymous patronizing comments.

Georgina,

This is not T H Ray and you misinterpret my intentions. I never meant to patronize you. I must admit that, with so many essays to read, I did not carefully read all of your responses to Mr. Jeub, only enough to believe that you took him seriously. Sadly, it is my belief that he had three intentions in writing this essay; to mock and ridicule those whom he despises, to display his cleverness to those who empathize with him, and to dupe the uninitiated. His refusal to comment in this forum, IMO means that his essay was all the commentary he needed. I chose to remain anonymous because it seemed a rather awkward and embarrassing situation. I have obviously offended you, so I apologize.

You wrote: "Too often scientist deliberately put up barriers to effective communication rather than trying to explain their work as lucidly as possible. Of course some technical language is require to avoid overly long simple English descriptions."

I couldn't agree more. I am not a professional, only somebody who aspires to be taken seriously. I believe I have unique and creative ideas and a passion to understand the world, yet find it difficult to communicate in general, particularly a field that chooses mathematics over meaning and a penchant for unnecessary formality. Unfortunately, these are the hurdles we must face to have our ideas seriously considered.

There are many things that I envy about Mr. Jeub. He is obviously a genius, has many talents, and is much more educated than I. I greatly appreciated his humor, because I also identified with his frustration. But I also pity him, for IMO he has given up on the system or the system has failed him. I do not know the journey which has lead him to produce a farce rather than an authentic essay, but it seems like a huge waste of talent. I, for one, have not given up.

Anonymous,

Thank you for that clarification, and letting T H Ray off the hook. Apology accepted. If the intention was, as you say, 3 fold that alone is remarkable. Even without considering the literary style or any other facet of the work. Most mere mortals would consider 2 birds with 1 stone a worthy accomplishment.

Hi Georgina,

I have not previously commented here. Since the cat about the hoax-like nature of this paper is out of the bag, I'll share my opinion: I strongly suspect that this paper was written by a random paper generator. Here is one you can try out for yourself: http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/

My interpretation of the purpose of this paper is more benign than that of anonymous: I have already seen other entries in this contest which clearly demonstrate that when a paper looks like it was professionally written and throws around a lot of physics buzzwords, it tends to garner approving comments by anyone who does not read it carefully, and this can apply whether they have the credentials to know better or not. I see this paper as a humorous attempt to prod people to read the papers submitted to this contest more carefully and really try to understand what they assert, rather than just imbibe the prose without further reflection of its content. And I am all for that! After all, the primary purpose of this contest, as I understand it, is to open a venue for new useful ideas to be introduced into mainstream science from authors who are not necessarily in the mainstream. And I don't see how regarding a work like the essay by 'Michael Jeub' as a piece of art serves this purpose.

Amusingly, one of the papers entered in this contest quotes a book by the Bogdanovs (google if you haven't heard about them) as a reference, and its author seems to have learned his lessons from them very well.

Armin

Armin,

Thanks, for your input. I had no idea these random paper generators existed. Your interpretation is more likely than mine. For someone to have both the vocabulary and the writing ability as "Mr. Jeub" in retrospect doesn't seem as plausible now. It sure did read like an attack on the establishment and M Theory in particular. I know a lot of people who hold contempt for it. Maybe my interpretation says more about me than the possibly fictional author.

Fortunately, I stayed,

Anonymous

I did not find or write such article. In fact this is the first article or essay for publication I've ever written. I've flagged your post as inappropriate.

It's great to be able to access papers and ideas of real researchers, even if the topic is "over your head" if you are interested, just keep on reading and you will find opportunity to begin the great task remaining before you. One must learn things from multiple angles and laterally.

Thankyou for the feedback. It is encouraging to get some response like this because of the difficulties I have had in getting feedback. My friends and family did not say too much if anything about the essay, so when I read your post It made me happy in getting or aspiring to write things. I love math and physics, but have no demonstrated abilities in them. I desire to write a textbook on the various nodes and modes of dealing with math and physics. For me, math and physics are the same thing, except that the numbers have been abused and misplaced where various representations may serve as building blocks. Physics is that art of approximation, like cartography or other sciences of relativity. You noticed that I am disappointed with the public education I received in my early years. In sixth grade I was ready to learn complicated things and wanted to know about mitochondria. I did not care that they were the powerhouses of the cell, I wanted a tour of the plant! The textbooks and the learning I had was dumbed down at the time I needed to be cultivated in mathematics. My essay reflects the fact of this late start into these endeavors. As I practice, I will get better at not only appreciating the sciences, but also transmission of the learning.

I had waited as long as possible to get some feedback from family and friends about my essay, but none was forthcoming. You have made up for this void. Indeed I was drowned and found it very slow in coming back to the surface. My favorite classic paper is one by Bernoulli on the vibration of strings, and I am only beginning to get the shadow of the idea of its implications. I used it as a base to conceptualize string theory into one that can handle other objects besides the vibration of physical strings, other things with a frequency (that is the reciprocal of wavelength) such as pendulums. It was interesting to find things out about the seconds pendulum and how it was able to become a gnomon of the gravitational force in its local frame. The degree of arc, the state space it starts in has a strict dependency at 90 degrees and 45 degrees intervals and I made these kinds of comparisons. It was interesting. Some of this would mean that there is a way of measuring the degree of gross chaos using string theory. There is at the heart of these subjects a quintessence in the calculus of the variations. I'm going to be reading up on all these things to refine my understanding. As to the sketches, I will need to borrow someones computer as I have an incompatible scanner situation. If you would like to see my cartoons, I'll try to attach them in another post in the coming weeks.

I am glad to have the criticism. I will have to look up IMO, but I think it means in my humble opinion. I am your most humble and obedient servant. I did include some humor in the essay but I only sprinkled. I did not want the whole thing to be a joke or a farce. I am serious, and I want to write a better textbook for young people that will empower them to take engineering and large data sets to new heights. I also want to make theory the object of learning and how to manipulate it an create it so that everyone can model rather than use givens of someone else.

Is this post made by an "agent provocateur"? If so, excellent job!

When Leonardo DaVinci wrote in his notebooks, let no man read these unless he is a mathematician, I think I can catch his drift. I think it is improper to call my paper a hoax and accuse me of not writing it. I had been thinking about this stuff for years now, and had no little difficulty of days in writing it. I believe int the bipartite nature of reality and tried to generalize it in terms of two kinds of maps that would have an equivalence. I have read some professional papers, and thought that this was what was a good quality for the essay in the rules. If we are thinking seriously about this stuff, we will naturally use the terms the leaders in the fields use. I used to resent those terms of art, but then I found myself using them to help me describe to myself what I was after. I see no harm in the pursuit of theory with its implications to the art of maths. Is my essay not "real" enough? Every theory should incorporate fakes, like the phenotype in game theory. Is my essay just a phenotype?

Armin, I have worked very hard at trying to understand stuff. I don't see how you can think of my contribution to this contest as an attack. I love M-theory, and am a fan of Ed Witten. I was hoping that my essay would have some value as promoting a degree of agreeableness. My essay I would hope fits with string theoretical approches to open up modeling and the power of this theory in developing the most robust of sciences.

I forgot to answer the clavichord bit. My first clavichord was made from a kit and that one is still on the net as the Burton. That was really not so good of a design, but the kit was there and it was a learning experience. Then I made some other kits and rebuilt a harpsichord which I later dismantled to rebuild again some day. The clavichord I made from a museum drawing is one that is in the Yale collection, a small triple fretted instrument. The tangents in the middle of each fretted note need to bend or spread a certain amount, diverging from each middle tone key, with this in mind it was much easier to tune it after the strings were tensioned and tuned. I found this procedure much easier than trying to follow all the tangent placements that were on the drawing, and made sense to me mathematically finally after living with the instrument for years, learning or appreciating the aspects of its design. Tuning every note adjacent to the tuned string worked better than I thought it would. Each note was like a wavelet contributing to a scalogram of the whole instrument. The tuning and bending of the tangents is not as strange or mysterious or "frettful" of an experience. If I were to place the tangents again I would not follow the drawing at all and place each one in the center of the key, and then diverge them systematically as needed to sound the adjacent half step notes. My next project is to build a dulce melos based on a drawing by Arno. De Zwolle. The clavichord is not as simple of a physical object, and its structure is the device for making the sounds rather than just a base or a platform for the device to reside inside of.

Georgina,

I never saw this site before today. I have never written an anonymous post on FQXi (in fact, I don't recall ever writing an anonymous post anywhere). If you think I directed you here, be assured that it was an imposter, not I.

But so far as Michael Jeub goes -- ROTFL!

Tom

Michael

Brilliant - ranks alongside Tommy Gilbertson as an enjoyable respite. But I particularly warmed to your;

"This led to the most complex notion of "length" as being quite useless unless it is first normalized, and then re-normalized."

I hope a mind like yours might like mine, where I've hidden a real toroid black hole, in plain view, with photographic evidence, and am now announcing a prize to the first who spots it and doesn't get sucked in.

I hope you can read it and comment. http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

Stay cool

Peter

Well I am sure they are all beautiful instruments. My piano restoration project is an ugly, thumping brute by comparison. I admire the function of its mechanism but also despise it, having spent so much time tending to and adjusting it. It would take quite some time for me to forget the tedium. I now better understand why old pianos are frequently discarded rather than restored. Perhaps I chose the wrong instrument. Though the naked hammer and damper mechanism did look pretty cool sitting on the table and is fun to play with. It reminds me a bit of a Theo jansen's walking machines.link:www.youtube.com/watch?v=b694exl_oZo]Walking sculpture.[/link]