Absence as Category Error

When you switch on a lightbulb, your eyes perceive photons, and some neurons in your brain activate. If you switch off the light, then so-called ‘off’ neurons activate.

Photoreceptors include rods, which are responsible for the detection of dim light, and cones, which function in bright light and are responsible for the ability to distinguish colours based on their unique spectral sensitivities. These cells each have a ciliary process, known as an outer segment, that consists of stacks of membranous discs where the proteins involved in light sensing and signalling are located. The rods and cones connect to bipolar cells. There are also neurons responsible for modifying visual signals, such as amacrine cells, which connect rod bipolar cells to cone bipolar cells, and horizontal cells, which mediate feedback inhibition to the photoreceptors. The cone bipolar cells connect to ganglion cells, which integrate the signals from the upstream neurons. The ganglion cell axons assemble to form the optic nerve for transmission of visual signals to the brain.^[1]

You don’t actually “stop seeing” when you’re in the dark. No; the mind physically represents nothingness in a pattern of neurons. In the case of literal darkness (as opposed to cognitive dimness), photoreceptors include a special adaptation that allows us to see, even when there appears to be very little light.

Similarly, in physics, there is darkness—the void of space. But is it entirely correct to claim that it is empty? Scientists posit that it is populated with vacuum energy. Vacuum energy is a theoretical background energy throughout the universe, as modeled by the uncertainty principle.

The uncertainty principle can be visualized in this way: imagine a field where virtual particles are constantly popping in and out of existence, imperceptible to the eyes but verifiable by deduction and lab experiments. The implication of this is that the universe is, in a sense, 'charged.' This is a tenet of quantum field theory.

This theory additionally predicts a significant amount of hypothetical energy throughout the universe. But it seems to bear little cosmological consequence, as the energy density that we actually observe is much smaller than the hypothesized model.

But if we assume the standard model is correct, this knowledge gap is known as the cosmological constant problem. It is one of several ideas put forth to account for hidden (dark) states of matter and energy implied by the universe's accelerating expansion. The thing I'm pointing at here is that there's a gap--something is there, and even if it isn't "dark energy" -- then it is, at the very least, a gap in our understanding of the universe.

The point I’m trying to draw, however, is that when we attempt to observe or discuss "nothing," we inevitably encounter "something"—or we find that "nothing" itself is a direct or indirect reference to "something." I argue that it’s impossible to truly discuss "nothing." In a genuine vacuum, a place where absolutely nothing exists, there wouldn't be any fields to measure. There would be no spacetime to speculate about.

In that vein, asking "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a category error. If we were to ask, "Why is it snowing?" one could at least try to formulate an answer: "Due to cold temperatures, water in the atmosphere froze and fell to the ground as ice crystals." In this scenario, we are asking about a specific feature of the map. Alternatively, we could claim it was because a giant snowman god in the sky caused it to snow. On the other hand, the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is unknowable, because we are no longer asking about a specific abstraction of the map—instead, you're asking what created the map itself.

Similarly, the phrase “nothing exists” is a kind of inverse category error—a claim that nothing is real. However, labels like "absence" or "nothing" often function as references or pointers to other things. 

If we must say it, the phrase "nothing exists" is not a self-contradicting statement but a humorous or horrifying statement of fact. Nothing exists.

"Nothing could ruin this moment." "Nothing can dim this light." "Nothing is too great a challenge." "Nothing lasts forever."

---

• Weiss, Ellen. "Shedding Light on Dark Adaptation." PMC, 2020. ↩︎

Four Forces

It bothers me that in popular science discourse, gravity is so frequently emphasized while other forces are overlooked. Nobody even discusses the strong and weak forces anymore! OK. Maybe they do sometimes and I’m just exaggerating. Furthermore, gravity is the weakest force! However, it does affect things on an infinite scale. Behold, a list of the four physical forces:

• Strong interaction — This is the strongest force—the force that holds the nuclei of atoms together, binding protons and electrons to nuclei
• Electromagnetism — Another force stronger than gravity—electromagnetism is the force that acts on charged particles. (e.g. light, radio waves, etc.)
• Weak interaction — A force weaker than electromagnetism, involved in subatomic interactions like radioactive decay or the decay of unstable particles (e.g. like muons or nuclear reactions in the the Sun)
• Gravity — The weakest force, but with range that inevitably affects large-scale things, like objects, planets, asteroids, and so on.

Myths of Human Genetics

From Myths of Human Genetics, by John H. McDonald:

A fun way to teach the basics of genetics is to have students look at traits on themselves. Just about every biology student has, in one class or another, been asked to roll their tongue, look at their earlobes, or check their fingers for hair. Students can easily collect data on several different traits and learn about genes, dominant and recessive alleles, maybe even Hardy-Weinberg proportions. Best of all, these data don't require microscopes, petri dishes, or stinky fly food.

Unfortunately, what textbooks, lab manuals and web pages say about these human traits is mostly wrong. Most of the common, visible human traits that are used in classrooms do NOT have a simple one-locus, two-allele, dominant vs. recessive method of inheritance. Rolling your tongue is not dominant to non-rolling, unattached earlobes are not dominant to attached, straight thumbs are not dominant to hitchhiker's thumb, etc.

In some cases, the trait doesn't even fall into the two distinct categories described by the myth. For example, students are told that they either have a hitchhiker's thumb, which bends backwards at a sharp angle, or a straight thumb. In fact, the angle of the thumb ranges continuously, with most thumbs somewhere in the middle. This was clearly shown in the very first paper on the genetics of hitchhiker's thumb (Glass and Kistler 1953), yet 60 years later, teachers still ask students which of the two kinds of thumb they have.

In other cases, the trait really does fall into two categories, but it isn't determined by genetics. For example, students are asked to fold their arms, then told that the allele for having the right forearm on top is dominant. It is true that most people fall into two categories, right arm on top or left arm on top, but the very first study on the subject (Wiener 1932) clearly demonstrated that there is little or no genetic influence on this trait: pairs of right-arm parents are just about as likely to have right-arm children as are pairs of left-arm parents.

Some traits, such as tongue rolling, were originally described as fitting a simple genetic model, but later research revealed them to be more complicated. Other traits were shown from the very beginning to not fit the simple genetic model, but somehow textbook authors decided to ignore this. A quick search in the standard reference on human genetics, Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM), makes it clear that most of these traits do not fit the simple genetic model. It is an embarrassment to the field of biology education that textbooks and lab manuals continue to perpetuate these myths.

https://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mythintro.html

Einstein's Principles of Research

Einstein is perhaps most well known for his theory of relativity. But he is also known for being a scientist who broke new ground by virtue of holding close to known fundamentals and by engaging in basic research.

Savagery vs Science

Savagery is sort of the opposite of science, in that it's a kind of impulsive readiness to believe or disbelieve with absolute certainty, often followed by false religious zeal or dogma.

Clock Drift

When people think about clocks, they might know about how old analog clocks functioned and also suffered from the problem of clock drift. But even with the advent of digital clocks, we also find the same problem once more.