home
on exploration, introspection and creation

Archive for the ‘clever’ Category

Communicating with an Alien Race

Wednesday, November 16th, 2011

Let’s assume that there exists other intelligent life somewhere in the Universe. I like to consider the various parameters of the properties of such a life, which would define commonalities between us and them (it), which would help define how we could communicate.

Unsurprisingly, as any topic that tickles our (I’m argue evolutionary!) desire to explore, there has been a lot of thought put into this problem. I’ll do what I do best — start with some of the context I’ve acquired over the years (the Pioneer message, the Arecibo message, a much longer one, or Carl Sagan’s Contact) to see where I can take the idea (a good test of how I’m thinking about it, and possibly a way to think outside the box), and would love to hear from those who know more, or have thought about it, especially if you have differing opinions.

Let’s start with a relatively simple model. An alien race that is based on similar biological mechanisms, thus consisting of individuals that have become intelligent through evolution, that have acquired inter-generational (institutional) memory and thus civilization through some method of communication between individuals. Note that I’m not necessarily assuming many of the aspects of such a life — language (imagine a species that can communicate through some form of telepathy), physical attributes (such a life may be non-carbon based and interact with the environment in wildly different ways than we — for example, be entirely gaseous and receive and generate arbitrary signals along a specific range of electromagnetic spectrum), motivations. Let’s assume, however, that the Universe behaves the same way locally to this alien life form as it does in our environment.

The most interesting aspect in such a case is the mode of communication. What can we assume is common? Nothing physical, for sure. For species that travel in the electromagnetic spectrum (just like light does), our highways and staircases and in general attraction to solid state objects would make very little sense. Instead of trying to start with something most concrete to us, it makes sense to start as broadly as possible. We need a medium and a message.

For the medium, we could use the electromagnetic spectrum. Really, anything we can generate that can travel far, fast, and be distinguishable from everything around us. Don’t be fooled by visible light! — although it’s possible that there is some cosmic law that makes visible light frequencies be a local maximum along some dimension — the energy required to receive it relative to its usefulness in the surrounding environment (seeing X-rays instead of “visible” light would not be all that helpful to early humans) — this is highly dependent on the initial conditions of life. Or maybe it’s a fluke. More generally, anything that generates a force field, though it’s harder to generate ripples in the gravitational field as easily as it is to blast electromagnetic messages. Quantum effects are likely too small to be noticed, although I don’t really know anymore, given all these spooky things happening.

The message? Non-random (non-chaotic), but not too regular (pulsars send out regular messages out in the space). Taking both together, it’s a pretty natural thing to mimic the universe around us — assuming that what we observe of distant stars from Earth, the aliens can also observe from their vantage point — but provide patterns whose complexity is a tad higher than the complexity of similar messages generated by the Universe itself. Prime numbers are good candidates — and in general, anything that is really fundamental and to do with mathematics, because it’s very likely that an alien race knows mathematics (as the study of patterns, totally abstracted from the source of these patterns). Unitless quantities are better than something with an intrinsic measure, because the fewer assumptions, the better.

Can an alien race be sophisticated enough to be able to receive our communication, and interesting enough to talk to, but not understand at least some form of mathematics? Could an alien special have developed (not been born with!) interstellar travel and not understood binary systems. Science fiction scenarios aside (an alien species is decimated along with its cultural heritage and ends up traveling across solar systems without the knowledge of how its machines take it thus far), I think there is universal consensus that the answer is no. And in fact, an ability to think abstractly is very likely a sign of intelligence. But this does not hold the other way — I can imagine a race that is either so sophisticated as to think of mathematics the same way we think about the pulses of Nature and simply ignore any such signal, or so intuitive that they don’t identify mathematics as a discipline. For the former, introducing some obvious and non-obvious error in the message might be a great solution. A race that can enumerate prime numbers is intelligent, but a race that makes a mistake early on must be much more street smart!

But even assuming an alien race does understand the concept of binary arithmetic, it may not be able to understand its encoding. Would a series of dots and dashes in a column corresponding to the numerals necessarily be informational? Not if the aliens don’t have spacial awareness. Would a series of beeps be a good encoding? Not if the aliens can’t hear or — more interestingly — don’t have a notion of time (or cause-and-effect).

Math aside, the fundamental laws of the Universe would probably be a common base, although one can imagine a less curious (or much more sophisticated and thus thinking of the laws of the Universe as irrelevant) life form, or a more precise one where our crude approximations of the Universe map to something incomprehensible to them. We can ask astronomy what quantities are pervasive and communicate their ratios. This is what Pioneer and the Arecibo messages were, and it is a great way to communicate our relative knowledge of the universe with the above assumptions in mind.

There are alternatives to this model that would work similarly in some aspects. Consider a species that is a single individual (instead of many individuals that communicate with one another and thus pass the knowledge). Such an individual may not comprehend the notion of individuality, but may still be able to communicate with us the same way, definitely remotely, where we can approximate mankind as a single individual, at least in the beginning of the dialogue. If their Universe doesn’t behave the same way as ours does (say, the speed of light, due to some quirkiness, is infinite in some valley of the Universe), if the alien race can perceive the different laws elsewhere, they can still compare our crazy patterns of high entropy to the surrounding comparative dead silence. Though such an alien race may not be particularly useful to talk with (if they have no insight that can be understood by us).

The concept of communicating with an alien race is a fascinating one. Clearly, there is no way to think about it in the most abstract way — there are always assumptions that we must accept. Let’s hope that we’ll get to tackle this problem at some point in the near future, and let’s hope that we get some of our assumptions right — we wouldn’t want to miss an alien race that happens to be intelligent in a different way. Or be trampled by one in search of intelligent life.

Drugs of the Future

Tuesday, November 1st, 2011

I had a vision that in thirty years, people people won’t bother buying drugs from some sketchy guy on the streets and fumbling with these analog devices to administer them. In my vision, people print their own drugs, synthesized from basic compounds. Different drugs would have a different recipe — which would simply be a few lines of code.

Let’s face it, that’s probably the future of drugs. Our children will have access to such equipment (likely, the innovations that some of us come up with will aid in the creation of such equipment) capable of synthesizing any molecule.

There is an interesting enforcement question here — how can such a thing, if possible, be controlled? Would it become illegal to own the source code for the drugs? (is this freedom of expression? or intellectual property?) Would it become illegal to own the synthesizer? (why would it be? It’s not illegal to own the vaporizer.) Would it become illegal to own some specific “source compounds” which happen to be a part of the finished products? (although, if the synthesizer technology is advanced, it will probably be possible to start with really generic compounds, i.e. push the burden of the process onto code).

Does anyone ever do [fill in the blank]?

Thursday, September 22nd, 2011

There are a multitude of everyday opportunities to engage with people or institutions, but it’s very likely that nobody really does anymore. Here are some, with a suggestion for a miniproject for each.

  • “How is my driving? Call such and such number with compliments or complaints”. I doubt people actually call to complain, but they certainly don’t call to compliment. If you see a sticker like this, and the driver does something worth complimenting, call the number.
  • The inspection certificate for this elevator is located at the front desk. I bet nobody actually asks to see these. Do it next time you see a note like this in the elevator.
  • An “A” grade given to a New York City restaurant means that the restaurant had at most 13 sanitary violations. Which means it could have 13 sanitary violations! Call the NYC Department of Health and ask what these violations were for a restaurant of your choice.
  • Read an End User License Agreement. In its entirety. Of a single app. I dare you.
  • Movie credits always state that no animals were harmed in the production of the movie. Verify it (how does one even go about doing it?).

How to Measure Intelligence?

Tuesday, September 20th, 2011

How should we measure intelligence? Or, in general, how should we measure a quality that doesn’t really have a good definition (the ability to apply knowledge to deal with new or trying situations?)? If the quality has the property that those that possess it are capable of judging who possesses it better than those who don’t, and if there is a lot of subjects in our environment, we could try an iterative algorithm.

Ask every subject to assess everyone they know in some way. Extract the first iteration of the measure of the quality for everyone. Then extract the second iteration by computing the weighed average of the assessments, weighed by the quality itself. Continue until convergence is achieved.

For example, we could ask everyone to provide the IQ of everyone else. No definition necessary — just provide a number. The resulting IQ of everyone would be, at first, the average of everyone’s rating of them. Now that we have the initial IQ, we use it to weigh the calculations of a more accurate IQ. We keep doing it until a subsequent iteration doesn’t alter the IQ calculations in a meaningful way.

It’s a wonderful way to come up with a tangible rating for something that’s undefinable, based simply on the easy to accept assumptions that a large number of people will together come up with the right answer, and that people who have been judged more highly should have more to say.

What’s more interesting, though, are the specifics around how exactly to do the assessment.

  • Asking everyone for a number suffers from the problem of unclear scale — one person’s 100 will not be the same as another person’s 100. A clever variation on the above is to ask people to compare others as opposed to rating them, because while we have a hard time quantifying things, we find it rather easy to compare options (an evolutionary ability?). In fact, if a measure doesn’t have any other meaning other than comparative, it probably should remain comparative only rather than quantitative (i.e. if a score of 100 doesn’t mean anything, why should we use scores). So, I will provide a ranked list of people, without much consideration for how much better the fifth person is from the sixth (they may even be just as good). We can then combine all such rankings into one global ranking with a simple rule: if person A is consistently above person B in individual rankings, person A should be above person B in the resulting ranking. In other words, for every pair of people, determine whether (A>B) occurs more often than (B>A) and place A above or below B, appropriately. There will no doubt be conflicts (e.g. A>B, B>C, C>A) which should be resolved in a way that violates the fewest individual inequalities. In such a case, the weighing can still be done by assigning some score to the resulting order, and maybe by taking into account how many conflicts I am contributing to (if many, my weight should be lower).
  • Asking everyone for one number suffers from the problem of confidence. I may be highly confident of one assessment and not at all confident of the other. Including a confidence rating (e.g. provide a score that you think is most likely to be true, but also scores on either side that you think are as likely as they are not to be true) may provide more information.

Maps Facing North, Part II

Friday, August 19th, 2011

Some time ago I wrote about why I think having navigation maps face north is superior to having them face in the direction of travel. Admittedly, one difficulty in such an arrangement is turning: it’s not always clear whether to turn left or right if the map is not facing the direction of your travel. Here is a good hack that can help you overcome this difficulty.

Suppose you arrive at a turning point:

Your navigation system (facing north) may show this, for example.

It’s not immediately obvious that you’re supposed to turn left, sharply. Here is what you can do: draw an imaginary line that specifies your current direction on the map, and place an imaginary steering wheel at the intersection. Now grab the real steering wheel at the point where the extended line meets an imaginary steering wheel, and turn towards the direction in which you’re heading, like this:

This is how you know which direction to turn in (and how much to turn!)

All you need to do is imagine overlaying the map onto your steering wheel, to know where to grab the steering wheel and how to turn it. The above method has the added benefit of letting you know how much to turn — the sharper the turn, the more you’ll have to rotate the steering wheel!

If you don’t care about the magnitude of the turn, just the direction, a simpler method is simply to turn the wheel in the direction defined by the arc drawn from the final direction to the original one, like this:

A simple way to figure out the direction of turn

In other words, simply imagine placing the map on the steering wheel, grab the wheel at a point where the final direction of travel intersects the steering wheel, and turn it towards the point of intersection of the original direction of travel and the steering wheel.

Try it, it’s really easy, and I know you’ve been antsy to switch the map to be displayed facing north!

Mac OS X Names

Monday, January 10th, 2011

It’s very likely that Apple knew that 10.6 would be a refactoring update before they came up with a name for 10.5 because Snow Leopard is a very natural choice for a refactoring of Leopard (and – though that’s a little less likely – they had to know way in advance since Leopard is a really nice name for an OS but Apple decided to wait until 10.5). So are they just naming them late in the game or do they have a good roadmap for their OS editions?

Side View Mirrors

Monday, January 3rd, 2011

There are a couple of things I’ve always done my own way (mostly because I had the luxury of not having anyone tell me the standard way to do it) that ended up being a better way of doing things. My favorite example is how I arranged my car’s side view mirrors. I would turn them outwards as much as possible to minimize (or in most cases eliminate) the blind spot. That way as soon as the car disappeared from my periphery, it appeared in my side-view mirror. As soon as it disappeared from the mirror, it appeared in the rear view mirror. This was particularly useful in what I considered to be the primary purpose of the side view mirrors — to help you switch lanes.

Only a couple of years after I started driving my friends told me that people set their mirrors to show the side of the car to have a sense of perspective (a reference frame) and to make parking easier. I didn’t feel that I needed to see the side of my car in the side view mirror — parking is not a common use case and the frame isn’t necessary once you get used to the setting.

Apparently a couple of years ago the DOT began recommending the way to set up the side view mirrors the way I’ve been setting them all along. It felt good…

Democracy

Tuesday, December 7th, 2010

Democracy is an ingenious way of giving the masses an impression of power.

Great Ideas

Friday, December 3rd, 2010

Every so often I come across what I think is a brilliant idea. Here are several.

  • Light dimmer. Why settle on a binary mode of illumination? In the world where everything around us can be gradually adjusted, so should the light. A revolutionary extension of this idea is one of a light the changes its illumination automatically depending on ambient lighting to ensure a stable illumination (likewise, the monitor can change the color temperature to adjust for a changing ambient color temperature)
  • Gas tank indicator (a sign next to the fuel gauge that tells you if the tank is on the left or on the right of the car)
  • A bidet. Seriously. Why do you wash your hands and not settle instead on just brushing your hands against a dry sheet of paper towel?

Elevenseconds: The Exploration of Meaning

Wednesday, December 1st, 2010

This is how I was thinking of elevenseconds about a year ago:

Elevenseconds is devoted to the exploration of meaning: its mechanics (mankind’s purpose) and dynamics (creativity), but also to the occasional trifle.

I decided to juxtapose the lofty “exploration of meaning” with “the occasional trifle” to show that I’ll be all over the place. What is “exploration of meaning” exactly? I’m not sure; I might iterate over this several times but it seems to me that meaning is pretty important to understand (it’s a very high level concept that may be somehow linked with what makes mankind special).

Going further, I borrowed (but probably botched up) a technique from physics that analyzes forces by considering their mechanics (the rules that govern the forces) and dynamics (the consequences of the forces changing): the mechanics of meaning then are the rules governing it and connecting it to its signifieds (the objects that have meaning) and its signifiers (mankind that gives objects meaning) — in a way, then, understanding meaning means understanding mankind. On the other hand, the concept behind the appearance and disappearance (i.e. the change) of meaning is creativity.
Hence the full tagline.