A scepticistic-optimistic approach for humanism

Gran Turismo 6 Racing Seat TERS-1

May I introduce you to the Tero Eero Racing Seat #1

This post should honor the inspirational source for this construction and inspire others to build even better ones then this creation.

It was a pure joy to plan and build this piece of furniture. Especially because the result really met my expectations. I wanted a rigid and durable construction with almost no shaking or loosening of screws or so. On the other hand I wanted a construction that is suitable for kids and grownups. And I mean also the tall fraction. So some basic function must be adjustable.

Furthermore I wanted a relatively (ahem..) slick construction that can be put into place within minutes. That is why I am so thankful to Tero and Eero, since their racing seat gave me the important clue on how to approach the seat.

So I started by learning SketchUp in order to get a feeling about dimensions, proportions, parts and so on:

After having figured it out on a virtual level, it was time to order pieces. That was the day the puzzle started:

At first I tried to get the rough picture and made a “dry training” with the bottom part.

The check was good – so no more hesitation – let’s do it.

A lways good if a friend gives you a hand – thanks Malte!

And finally at home 😉

General mechanics of the optimization process

Even though still incomplete (and probably it will stay in an ongoing iteration process), I want to share this piece. So far it helped me to sort my thoughts. Furthermore this model might contain an answer to the question of Nick Nielsen: “What is it that makes us think?”. Hopefully I will soon make it to wrap my approach into words.

Click to enlarge picture.

The Ptolemaic system and some wild speculations about upcoming cosmological discoveries

New Physics on the rise?

The recent news regarding cosmology and astronomy triggered a certain feeling. Our standard model of the universe will dramatically change. It seems as if in the next 10 to 20 years we will have a totally new insight on the development of the universe as well as a complete new understanding of space, time and matter (including the known and yet unknown forces).

Let’s start with the actually most thrilling news at first: The discovery of a so called dark flow. As a teenager I learned that something like a big bang happened and as a result we have a expanding universe (e.g. Redshift-Phenomena). But obviously the flow of space is not evenly distributed, as new examined Planck Data revelas.

Actually a gigantic space of billions of lightyears is moving “into the wrong/unexpected” direction. For the moment the only applicable explanation for this kind of force is NOT a blackhole. Even this super strong forces could not move these masses through space. So the idea is: it could be another universe, which “pulls” the sector. Imagine that: we live in a multiverse. And EVERYTHING is much bigger than anyone has ever dreamed of.

And Planck revealed more unexpected results – our universe is a bit older than we thought (13,8 not 13,7 bn yrs). Furthermore the data suggests that the observable universe is way bigger then we thought. On the other hand the data proofed with a very high resolution the current standard model.

But still there are these little findings that disturb the model. Take for instance the “Methuselah Star“. The measurements suggest, that this object must be older than the universe. Maybe our anthropo-centristic understanding of time (length, linearity) are the biggest obstacles to crack the paradoxons we are experiencing.

Paradox as the new default state of mind

In astronomy it is a habit to include to unknown phenomena the term “dark”. For a couple of years astronomers try to understand, what is called dark energy and dark matter. If we would understand these phenomenas, we should be able to answer fundamental questions like: What is the origin of the universe (or multiverse)? What is time?

IMHO an interesting approach to solve this mystery might be the idea to see dark matter and dark energy as the outcome of the same source. The dark fluid. It just depends on the perspective, if these forces appears to be energy or matter.

If you combine the aboved mentioned aspects with the most promising candidate to solve the contradiction between Relativity Theory and Quantum Physics, the so called Loop Quantum Gravity*, it is obvious to me that it is really just a matter of a few decades till we reach a new level of physics.

Maybe these new physics also help to explain, why these enormous voids in space exist – regions of thousands of lightyears, which seem to be “empty”. Or another unexpected recent find through the Kepler system: A “dead” star, floating alone in space without a sun. And then there is the assumption, that statistically every fifth planet is in a habitable zone.

The Ptolemaic System, technological civilization

I like to use the idea of the Ptolemaic System as a general reminder. It should remind me of the relativity of knowledge. The model itself made sense, but unfortunately new discoveries (data) and new technologies (engineering) proofed the model was wrong. Not to mention Gallileos struggle with the vatican.

So these new physics will dramatically have an social impact on our civilization. It will not be necessarily a quick “zapp” moment. It will probably be a slow simmering process – because it will take some time, till these new physics are kind of a “common sense”. But then there is maybe a generation on this planet, that may be able to intertwine different assets of this basic research to new technologies. Hopefully I will witness the day, when the current state of 3D-Printing will appear to me as a pre-historic sweet try.

Further more I expect, that sooner or later the Fermi Paradox will we solved – what ever the answer will be. It would fit into the history of discoveries, when mankind would make contact with ETIs by accident. Typically it would be something more sustainable as the WOW-Signal 😉

But this is another story for another post.

* = Loop Quantum Gravity in short: Combine Time, Space and Matter on a quantum level to a “Quantum Fractals of space-time”-Reality model. One important insight in this context – space itself consists of “space atoms” – which means, that the the spacial density/compression is limited.

Dubrovnik – Or what the history of a small city could tell us about strategic wisdom

Imagine that our planet would actually be a galaxy (in a galactocentric-sense: the milkyway). So every state on earth would be comparable to a solar system in this galaxy. You would have different kinds of civilizations with different characteristics.

Some could be described as imperialistic, many would seem to be on the “victim” side, even though the circumference of the land mass would imply more possibilities (fairly developed, but no actual power = political, military, intellectual culture, science, etc.). Others would maybe follow a pacifistic path (no matter if this approach is induced by common insight/social development or a lack of military opportunities).

Now imagine that this galactic “family” is not playing its’ game of conquer, trade and cultural exchange in a far future, but about 600 to 700 years ago.

Furthermore we discover in our galactic-historian trip a quite small republic (about 50.000 people), whose total time of existence lasted almost 450 years. A further examination reveals some interesting facts about this city state:

– medical service was introduced in 1301.
– the first pharmacy (still working!) was opened in 1317
– a refuge for old people was opened in 1347
– the first quarantine hospital (Lazarette) was opened in 1377
– slave trading was abolished in 1418
– an orphanage was opened in 1432
– the water supply system (20 kilometers) was constructed in 1436

The government was organized by “the rector” for a long period of time (ca. 650 years). His ruling time lasted for one month – in this time he was allowed to live in the rectors palace. A reelection was possible after a waiting time of two years.

Two central governmental mottos were:

Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
Liberty is not sold for all the gold in the world

Obliti privatorum – publica curate
Forget private affairs, take care of public ones

We can observe albeit their progressivity a typical social structure:

– nobility (in the end 33 families)
– citizens (like craftsmen, educated folks, …)
– peasants (Well, …)

And of course, only the nobility was allowed to get into the rectors position. But still the noble families understood very fast, that cooperation and sharing were the most important principles in order to protect and develop their quite small republic.

Humanity alone would have been not enough to construct a republic that would have lasted that long (ca. 450 years is quite something, if you compare it to the 800 years of the roman empire).

The people of Ragusa (the old name for Dubrovnik) were clever enough to strengthen other important aspects:

– Ragusa had a widespread network of diplomatic contacts and representatives (peak: in 80 cities!). This enabled Ragusa to foresee the next best possible move in greater politics and necessary strategies. This diplomatic network was also useful to staying updated in terms of relevant developments in science or culture. The Ragusa republic was also among the first to accept the independence of the USA.

– They relinquished from building up an army. They concentrated their energy on the fortification of their city. In their entire history they were actually never conquered (in terms of: taken over the city walls) by any rivaling force. BTW: That is a strategy that I also love to play in the games of the Civilization Series: Instead of building up a huge army I focus on a good defense, while I develop my folks (science and as soon as possible a democratic system).

– The real “weapon” of the Ragusians was their merchant fleet. Even though they were a quite small city they had a remarkable amount of ships in their fleet: 180 to 200. They travelled up to England and Germany in the north and were active in the ports of Northern Africa. But besides these sailing skills, they were one of the best ship builders of their time – they were famous for their speed and reliable vessels. Venice, the main competitor in the Mediterranean Sea, actually envied them (how Venice solved this problem – by standardization or Lean Management – is another story).

There is a nice anecdote about the strongest enemy they ever encountered – the Ottoman Empire. The turkish army was simply too strong in force and in size. So the Ragusians made a deal:

You do not invade us, therefore we will pay you a yearly tribute. And furthermore you let us do business in the Ottoman territories – for a special tax of just 2%.

Unfortunately I do not have any sources that prove my assumption (I am not a historian): They made better profits then before – and the tribute was some kind of a “entry fee” for a greater market.

Beside their fortune in mercantile issues and the organization of their community (and providing very early public services) another aspect helped to sustain the republic: Ragusa had the luck to have ore sources close to the city. As every real estate agent would confirm it is of course all about location, location and location. Dubrovnik was perfectly situated in the middle of the Mediterranean trade routes. This instance was definitely an accelerating momentum.

At the end of this post I would like to take a closer look at what brought the end of the republic.

One dramatic event was the earthquake in 1667. Almost all the buildings in the city were destroyed except the REALLY thick city walls. Many members of the noble families died, so it was necessary to call “normal” citizens into the city council in order to keep the governmental system alive. After this incident the city never really fully recovered.

Another major event was the relocation of the important trade routes, away from the Mediterranean sea towards the Atlantic (the new world).

But the nail in the coffin were the confusing times of the restauration. Between 1800 and 1807, thanks to the Napoleon and some other players in these euro-strategic games, the nobility was disunited and in the end an era of 450 years came to an end. Even though the Austro-Hungarian empire granted a special status for Dubrovnik, the old republic never recovered and it ceased to exist.

What can we learn from Ragusa?

Small units/assets are easier to govern – prevent over complex systems and stay united

Do not waste your money for an army (attacking forces) – have a good defense

Be a smart merchant and know how to find good deals for both sides

Have the knowledge to build pretty good vessels – today: Self driving cars 😉

Have an constantly up-to-date information network, in order to be able to anticipate moves, to be prepared “when the shit hits the fan”. And participate in recent developments in science and culture

Create a communal spirit and preserve the utmost important value – freedom AND fairness within the society

Kierkegaard, Goethe and the ontological tertium non datur

Again a blog post of Nick Nielsen triggered me spontaneously. In order to give the reader the chance to follow the development and following thougts, I am so free and copy’n’paste the short discussion from Facebook.

CIVILIZATION IS A ROPE STRETCHED OVER AN ABYSS…

Mark Lambertz: I experience the imperfection as perfection. The non-stopping transition as a ever-evolving chance. What a joy one could experience to accept his incompleteness, while balancing over this very thin rope in order to approach a/”the” complete state. y=1/x.

Geopolicraticus Strategist: Then you are in the good company of Kierkegaard (Lessing has said: “If God held all truth enclosed in his right hand, and in his left hand the one and only ever-striving drive for truth, even with the corollary of erring forever and ever, and if he were to say to me: Choose! — I would humbly fall down to him at his left hand and say: Father, give! Pure truth is indeed only for you alone!”) and Goethe (Wer immer strebend sich bemüht, Den können wir erlösen.).

Mark Lambertz: Oh man, you give me really each time new ‘thought nuts’ For the moment I will say: My answer is a clear ‘Jain’ – the combo of Ja (yes) and Nein (no). Will get back to you – there is also still your question open ‘What is it that makes us think?’ But now I will walk on a Croation mountain with Renata – maybe this will help in sorting my thoughts.

Before I try to break down my (transitional ;-)) answer to the shortest possible amount of words, I want to explain my personal background/self-education, since I believe that it would help to put my answer into context. Or to describe it in a satirical way: I have the black belt in complicated intros! 🙂 Also I want to apologize if the following text sounds too much like a soul strip – but since it is a personal question I have to be personal.

At first: I have never read a complete book of any philosopher. My philosophical knowledge is a wild mix of magazine articles, essays, fragments of blog posts that I have read and discussions with friends who *really* studied (BTW: I was once officially subscribed in an university, and I think I saw the faculty building almost 12 times from the inside – including the registration and de-registration).

I spent almost 18 years in building and co-leading a digital agency in Germany. My whole “career” was/is characterized by transitions. I started as a network administrator and 3D artist/3D modelling. After ca. six months I started to “program” HTML (non-linear storytelling). About three years later I switched towards the primary role of project management (by then my company had already a small programming unit). Then I changed my role again and focused on concepts and consultation. And in the last couple of years my focus was infilled with pure strategic work and new business development (and still to much project management – that is the problem when you acquire new clients – they do not want to let you go, once you convinced them…). Of course there also some very personal changes/transitions I have experienced, but for the moment I will not to mention them, because I hope that the basic point has already evolved: I am not the greatest “linearist”. >Even though I secretly wish it would have been that easy – I have made a consistent experience of non-linearity. Life told my this story.

So … why do I wrote “Jain”? Because on the one hand I feel as if my whole life was and is a continuous balancing act. On the other hand I do not trust zero/one – black/white-patterns. There is IMHO no perfection – and if one day “a god” would appear in front of me, I would challenge this “star maker”. Because deep down to the bone I am a scepticist – enriched by a certain flavor of optimism and hidden idealism. Therefore the Kierkegaard example fits to me only up to a certain extend. It fits, since I do not “believe” in absolute perfection (believe in terms of: proven by my subjective life experience). One could say that I am a “relativistic relativist”. But yes: for sure I would like to know the “essence” – and I would no hesitate a nanosecond to get “Gods answer”. Actually somebody must hold me back, not to give God a 360°-Chuck Norris-round kick in order to get the “final” solution.

But after I would have smashed him down (in a sports man style, not like a aggro kiddie nowadays), I would be VERY skeptic if this appearance is really God. So some tests would be obligatory:

Make him prove that this is God (e.g. by creating a new universe or healing my *fucked up* varicose leg veins)
Making jokes about himself (because one can not be God if “it” is not able to make jokes about himself)
And some other ideas, which I might publish another day 😉

Probably still, after all these tests, I would doubt that this is really God. I do not know why, but this positive-skepticism seems to be somehow deeply imprinted inside of me.

Regarding Goethe: Yes, that is a stance that I can agree with. I think it is worth to “optimize” ourself = our civilization by at least trying harder, in order to get closer to something that could be named “absoluteness” (not in a calvinistic diligence-context/manner).

But this absoluteness is to me nothing but a ever changing/transitional momentum of existence. We as a civilization may have a common, higher meaning/use (e.g. survive, develop, explore), but we are judged for our current decisions (inequality, super basic existential needs for the critical mass on this planet, funding of important scientific questions). Therefore I always ask myself: is “it” good enough (no matter which existential subject is concerned) ? Is it sustainable? Will it “really” pay off the “higher” goals? Must it always be a decision between A and B? Is it really (in the ontologically sense) a tertium non datur? I guess I am aware, that we as humans have probably an evolutionary need to break down questions into yes/no-patterns. But this pattern seems to me to be too comfortable. Too easy. Paracelsus once said (freely quoted): Poison is a matter of the dosis.

So … I am honestly interested, which philosopher might be close to what I have written.

PS: Sorry for closing the comments, but I am sick of fighting spam. But I will add your reply to this post, in order to complete this sequence (if it is worth to you to answer).