Book Reviewlet: Logicomix

What is Logicomix about? In 3 words: Godel, Escher, Bach. Of those 3 people, only the first appears in Logicomix, but like the Hofstadtler book by the same name, Logicomix is a comic book about the connections between the fundamental incompleteness of math (Godel), how we use paradox to understand that incompleteness (Escher), and how art reflects how humans can transcend logic (Bach).

On the surface, Logicomix is about the life of Brittish mathematician Bertrand Russell, drawn in a sophisticated and nuanced version of the art seen in Tintin. But really, is is trying to use a comic book story to convey deep ideas about the nature (limits) of logic/reason/mathematics and the nature of humanity.

In much the same way, Hofstadtler's Godel, Escher, Bach used stories about the Tortoise and Achilles to illustrate many of the same ideas for his textbook, and Stephenson uses pulp thriller fiction (using many of the same characters like Leibniz and Turing) to explore the same ideas.

The comic book format doesn't allow Doxiadis and Papadimitriou's Logicomix to explore the topic as deeply, but it may make it much more successful in reaching a larger audience.

In various ways, I have been reading about these ideas for a very long time, in theoretical computer science summer courses in middle school where we learned about the foundations of arithmatic and Cantor diagonolization, reading Marvin Gardner's Aha and Gotcha around the same time, thinking about the limits of utopia reading Huxley's Brave New World in high school, learning set theory freshman year, to learning about the limits of rational choice theory (e.g. reading Scott's Seeing Like a State) in grad school.

Unlike Stephenson's novels which pressuposes a lot of this background, Logicomix tries to address the ideas to someone who perhaps never liked math, and I think ultimately succeeds. For me personally it lacked some of the depth of say Asterios Polyp which used comics to explore the nature of art and humanity. But that may just be because I haven't really thought as much about art before, and thus I am probably the wrong audience for Logicomix.

Mind Bending Art

Been thinking about art again recently. At R-'s hospital holiday party, the S.O. of one of her colleagues, was an art history grad student. Neat, cause I haven't talked art history in a while. I confirmed my personal observation that most art these days has become whimsical and accessible, whereas before, art was high minded and constructed high barriers of entry requiring lots of prior art knowledge to understand it, today to take some examples from the last Venice Bienniale I went to, artists put a video camera on a dog so you can experience what a dog feels like, or another one built a simulated subway station inside a museum, complete with hot air and vibrating floors though no subway; or recently at MOMA, a Chinese artist who put the entire contents of his mother's house in one room, so that you can literally see her life laid out on the floor. The art historian confirmed that one of the main themes of art history seminars these days is what to make of the new populism.

I think it is a good development, though I also like the idea of connoisseurship, that some things are worth the effort. Like I had recent discussions about wine, which does take a lot of effort to make worthwhile, but I thought it was worth it. Similarly, for opera, I think after seeing maybe 10 operas now, and no especially enjoying most of them, the genre is starting to make sense to me. Though I've had a hard time convincing others that the investment is worthwhile.

The recent Murakami exhibit at the Brookyln museum merged both high and low well while commenting on itself (which I suppose is so typical of modern art it is almost trite these days). Most of the art itself was fanciful, playing with anime characters, easily accessible. Though the underlying theme is a critique of commercialism, with the novelty of including a louis vuitton store selling murakami merchansise within the exhibit instead of after. A subtle shift that speaks much, building on Andy Warhol who built upon Marcel Duchamp.

Last weekend, I wound up seeing both the Tim Burton show at MOMA and Tino Seghal at Guggenheim. The Burton show I feel takes it a step too far... showing sketches and clips from his movies. It certainly generated a lot of money for MOMA (so good for them) the place was packed full, tickets sold out early, and there was barely room to move. I'm all for populism but this may have been a step too far. I'm not sure it really should be considered "Art" with the capital A and double quotes, except in the grandest most meta- sense, that the MOMA was making a statement about commercialism by wholeheartedly adopting it without irony or commentary. Still, I left dissatisfied.

Fortunately, the next day, the Guggenheim made me feel much better. It still had up an excellent piece by Anish Kapoor, which puts all previous square black canvases to shame. An exhibit years ago at MOMA did make me appreciative of monochrome paintings, by showing many different white square canvases in one exhibit (ranging from one made of fresh milk, one ripped down the middle, evoking a vagina, one made of white nails, etc. But this took the genre to a new level. It was the first "painting" where I really understood the idea of gazing into infinity, and really felt not really despair, but perhaps an echo of it.

The main exhibit was a piece by Tino Seghal, which I won't describe since it would ruin it for you. If you don't care, you can read about it at the nytimes. Self-referentially, it is called, Is this Progress, and I think it is. It echoes my favorite piece of all time, a MFA thesis at the Stanford gallery, a giant wooden ball maybe 15 feet tall, with an inviting hole just big enough to crawl into, that was unmarked, but might as well have had a sign "climb me" a la Alice in Wonderland. Crawling in brought you into a strange world of twisty wooden passages and ladders, dimly lit by lamps, and the key element is that you felt like you were transgressing. Nothing said you were allowed to climb inside, and normally this kind of behavior would break all norms and rules of museum etiquette, and it was precisely this subversiveness that brought me back to being a kid again that made it so amazing. The point of art is communicate something (and as Kirk Varnedoe said, a great artist invents a new language), and this piece did communicate something that no other medium could. I wondered how many people actually got to experience that, and how many people just walked by. The timing was perfect for me, I was in the gallery alone, and was prompted just enough by the ticket taker to look at the piece carefully, without being told it was actually the point. At the Guggenheim, we saw many people missing out too. Still, I suppose lots of people walk past the Mona Lisa without getting it (me included). A risk all art takes for the sake of Progress.

Avatar: Micro-reviewlet (warning spoilers)

Not only was the plot ridiculously cliched (e.g. Pocohantas and Dances w/ Wolves), it was obnoxious. David Brooks captures the condescension of the movie perfectly. What I would add is that it annoyingly perpetuates Rousseau's myth of the noble savage. That civilization (things like literacy, and representative rule, and division of labor) are all corrupting, and instead we were better off running around naked, bowing before unelected rulers. Another reviewer made Brooks' point a bit crassly. The movie is telling us is that the alien’s need Americans (not the dumb militaristic kind, but the real Americans, the scientists and the Sully types) which represents American can-do spirit who comes in, f***s (the reviewer's word not mine) their princess, learns their battle tactics better than they do in just a few months, mounts that flying thing that none of the natives have been smart enough to do in generations, and united all the tribes as their new dictator.

Still the visuals were breathtaking, and after I started ignoring the plot, was blown away by his achievements in technology, and it had robot suits that fought with giant knives.

Maybe irrationality's a good thing

Even before I was an economist I was a big fan of rationality. My friend from Singapore spoke with pride about how another economist friend of hers noted "it's like they've given my people (economists) a country, and they did good! I didn't hear an irrational comment all week," something I noted myself when I was there 8 years ago (wow time flies).

But now, my reaction was, well maybe a little irrationality is good.

To explain, let me just cite Wachowski (2003)

"The first matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect. It was a work of art. Flawless. Sublime. A triumph only equaled by its monumental failure. "

"As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly ninety-nine percent of the test subjects accepted the program provided they were given a choice - even if they were only aware of it at a near-unconscious level. While this solution worked, it was fundamentally flawed, creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that, if left unchecked, might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those who refused the program, while a minority, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster."

"Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden assiduously avoided, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here. "

Or consider Huxley's Brave New World for a more literary citation.

Rationality is all fine and good and probably great for 99 percent of the people. But maybe you need irrationality for beauty, or for innovation, for disruptive change, for paradigm shifts, for freedom (whatever that means; I took a class on defining freedom and still don't know what it means), and all that. For magic too.

(And I bet you thought watching that movie was a waste of your time...)

Ways of Seeing (Art)

I guess one main reason I post these publicly instead of keeping them as a private journal is that usually comments from all of you make me think about things in a new way. Recently, comments to a snobbish nytimes article I posted about art made me think about how we visit museums, and the ways of seeing (as an old art history book of mine called it).

The article laments the practice of people who jog through the Louvres, to snap their photo next to the Mona Lisa, without spending more than a few seconds in front of each work.

Nowadays, when i go to a museum, i try to go to the special exhibits, mostly because they are transient, but also because they often tell more of a story, in terms of how they were curated. (Hanging out with art historians, you realize someone puts a ton of thought on these things) I'm also actually sympathetic with the jogging (though R- didn't like the fact I made her do that for her first visit to the louvres). I guess I got that from my art history prof who did that for my first visit. Even though over the course of the 6 week course, we spent pretty much every other day in some Paris museum, we still only saw a tiny fraction, and the prof thought it would be a travesty if we didn't at least see the mona lisa, the venus de milo and the nike. You can see many reproductions, but I've learned that reproductions are always a poor substitute in terms of image fidelity, size, impact, context in terms of other paintings, but also geography, and the other people watching.

Just like watching a movie alone is different than watching it in a theater. I'm also at the end of the day, less judgmental than the article. It is true that for a lot of people, they are there because they feel it is good for them, or because it is a status symbol. saying "hey, i saw the mona lisa last weekend" is similar to driving up in a hybrid car, or giving someone a diamond ring. but maybe that's ok. Americans are more likely to go to a museum than go watch sports, and somewhere along the way, that probably leads to something good.

Breathtaking performances and thoughts on science funding

On a whim, R- and I went to see the ballet of Midsummer Night's Dream yesterday at Lincoln Center. And while all were quite good, one performer was breathtaking, even for a complete ballet novice like me. And apparently, it wasn't I alone who thought so, given the audience response to his solos and the couple in the seat next to us who came just for him. It reminded me of our recent trips to the opera, most of which were simply whelming, but one performance of La Boheme had a lead that was once again breathtaking (a view confirmed by the nytimes review we read later). And finally, our trip for the year to see the symphony, to see Joshua Bell perform a violin concerto, again breathtaking. Note, it's not like we do this a lot, these are among the handful of times we've been to Lincoln Center, but I expected in every case that these are among the world's best performers, they surely must all be at a level where a novice like me couldn't tell them apart, but there is still clearly a scarcity of true breathtaking talent.

Which again reminds me of my response to all those who constantly call for more scientists and engineers. There isn't much evidence that we need more of either. Both are good at producing new stuff for cheaper, but not at all clear I need any more stuff. (New health stuff is still genuinely useful, but there is already vast funding for health, not at all clear that more money could be efficiently spent).

Maybe what we need are more ballet teachers, and opera singers, and violin teachers. Gladwell's Outliers eloquently makes the point that genius is not born, it is made. And there are no doubt lots more out there who could achieve at such a level. And while we're at it, why not more chefs and artists and designers (I always use the example that it wasn't the iPhone's engineers that made it a hit--Apple is still paying off a patent infringement lawsuit to Creative who had the technology long before--it was its designers). Or even better, government bureaucrats shouldn't be deciding what we need, instead we should maybe let markets figure it out (of course market failures should still be addressed).

Two recent comics that amused me

This first is a mixture of romance and complete dorkiness which is exactly why I like xkcd.

The second, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, is a comic I just started reading and impressively manages to put up consistently funny usually dorky (often dark) punch lines on a daily basis.

New Tv Shows: Virtuality and Glee! (and effortless diversity)

Been taking advantage of hulu recently, given I cancelled cable. And watched two very promising pilots.

Virtuality (watch on hulu) is BSG creator Moore's latest creation, full of sci-fi tropes--a ship alone on a 10 year mission in lonely space (like that kids in space movie from ages ago whose gimmick was a starship on a decades long mission of sub-light travel, so the ship is crewed by children so that they will live long enough), mega-corporations, a creepy corporate man ala Aliens, Star Trek's holodecks, a ghost in the machine ala ghost in the machine or 2001, and Matrix questioning of what is reality, or space as hell like Solaris or more trashily Event Horizon)

I dig the effortless diversity, with blacks and a gay couple and asians, effortlessly integrated, and unmentioned, like Glee. (a huge change from just a few years ago, when West Wing was introduced, when network tv had zero non-white stars, and Dule Hill was later added as token black guy, playing the part of the dutiful servant of course, ironic that even such a liberal show had an all white cast).

The reality tv angle was cool. The conceit is that the megacorporation financing the expedition had made a reality show to help fund the trip. The intro of the show looks like the Real World, and the show is complete with a confessional room.

Given the virtual reality look of the show, gives it a cinema verite. I appreciate that it takes AI to a sophisticated new level (something I'd expect from the BSG creator). But also shows some psychological depth if only cursorily. And given the long format, may be able to explore the big questions about reality that Matrix raised, and actually do them justice.

Hopefully both of these shows will catch on. Virtuality seems to be worthy bsg replacement but currently looks unlikely. Like Whedon's move to the big leagues with Fox, that move is fraught with peril for the smart sci-fi show. Glee has a better chance, and I look forward for its post-cynical take on high school.

Michael Jackson: May he Rest in Peace

I was surprisingly affected by the King of Pop's passing the other day (usually celebrities pass, like Farrah or Ed McMahon, and I barely bat an eye). Also, I was never a huge fan--I realized I didn't even have any of his MP3's (so like everyone, I went and bought his Essentials album off iTunes). It wasn't until he died that I realized how much I had been rooting for a come back, so that his legacy would not be the tawdry stuff that I was trying hard to not believe. It seems like after his death, that it is indeed his music that he is being remembered for. (a surprised sentiment shared by the chef of Danos, one of my favorite restaurants who carpooled with us randomly yesterday)

I suppose it is because Michael Jackson, more than anyone else, (though Madonna comes close), provided the soundtrack for my childhood, and for that reason alone, I was and and am wishing him well.

Far better joke than those Old MIT t-shirts

I still have that shirt in my closet somewhere.

Star Trek Reviewlet

Saw it the other night. Sort of had to with a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes. I normally don't like movies with that time travel premise (perhaps the only exceptions are Harry Potter and 12 Monkeys) but aside from that I enjoyed it. It was a satisfying experience though the plot had much of the same campiness as the original show. The casting was pretty spot on. They are indeed trying to create a new franchise though it that might be weird having a series of movies where the actors are all doing impressions of the previous crew. This one was fine as an homage and I enjoyed the plentiful references, but not sure if they can do it again. Good special effects which is a first for star trek. Still lame a$$ fight choreography. Sulu's (played by Harold sans Kumar) allusion to fencing (see Naked Time from the original series) could have been awesome but was poorly executed.

An easily likable (hence the 98% rotten tomatoes score) but not a great movie.

Final Grade: B

On Bull Shit: When Bull Shit has meaning.

While this article is a little harsh on the rarefied obtuse language favored by the literary theorists, it's still an interesting article.

While it is true that the language of literary theory is often obfuscating and it is often hard to tell good theory from bad theory so long as the same fancy words are used, as demonstrated by the column's writer, or by the physicist (Alan Sokol) that got what he called mumbo jumbo published in a literary theory journal, that doesn't mean it is all bad, it just means that it is an inexact art.

Reading what Sokol wrote which tried to combine ideas from quantum physics with words from literary theory, I actually think it contained useful ideas despite the author's protestations, and it doesn't demonstrate that literary theory is all bull shit.

What literary theory taught us is that the meaning of a work can be disconnected from the author's intentions. And many novels, works of music, paintings, have power and meaning far beyond what the original author foresaw. And there is nothing wrong in that. There is beauty in the stars without the need for intention (unless you want to claim that the beauty of the stars is evidence for God).

Also, I recently came across the Journal of Wine Economics (I was shocked that such a thing existed) and read an article on how in randomized controlled experiments, nearly all the judges at the most prestigious US wine competition gave identical wines significantly different scores, even when tasting then from the same flight. (This was a useful antidote from having to worry too much about taking wine too seriously).

However, while this study shows that taste is inexact, it doesn't show that there's no such thing as good wine and bad wine, just that there's a lot of noise.

And so just like it may be hard to judge good vs bad literary theory, it doesn't mean that all bull shit is without meaning.

(I've been meaning to read the book On Bullshit, been carrying it around, but haven't gotten around to it yet).

An Economic Theory of Super Villains

Watching Watchmen (my Watchmen review here) recently reminded me of a theme of Batman (at least of the higher brow batman) found in Miller's Dark Knight Returns, and the more recent movie version, The Dark Knight, is that Batman "creates" his enemies. In Miller's Dark Knight Returns, it was a post-modern form of creation, a Hegelian thesis creating its antithesis (this was in the heyday of post-modernism, when people believed that the rules of literature could somehow be applied to reality). In Burton's film, it was a literal creation, Batman, dropped Jack Nicholson into a vat of chemicals, that turned him into the Joker. In the recent movie with Heath Ledger, it was somewhere in between, less literal, but also less literary, more sociological perhaps.

But I was wondering, could we have an economic theory of super villains. What would happen in our society if a super hero suddenly showed up. Can we think about this, Gary Becker Economics of Crimes and Punishments style. In some sense, a Batman, would effectively massively up the productivity of crime fighting technology, putting most crooks out of business. Essentially, by shifting up, the marginal cost of crime, Batman reduces the quantity of crime, but that also increases the marginal benefit of crime. Then, it becomes quite plausible that if the payoff to crime has gone up, the impact of Batman will cause talented people in other fields to shift professions, to take advantage of the high marginal benefits. Thus creating supervillains, villains who would have stayed out of crime before because the competition with the small time crooks kept profits in the crime industry too low.

This makes us wonder if it is possible then, that Batman actually makes crime worse. In a static world no. We are still at a low equilibrium for the quantity of crime. However, if talented people (who would otherwise have been at hedge funds or something) have now shifted to crime, and find that they are exceptionally good at it, thereby shifting the MB curve out, or the MC curve in, then maybe Batman can make things worse.

An Art Criticism Generator

So a few friends of mine have started doing this annual creativity retreat, where they get a bunch of non-artists to just spend a weekend, doing art stuff. Here was my contribution: an art criticism generator, which also can be called ante-meta-art (or anti-meta-art), since meta art is about-art, ante-meta-art is about-art as art.

Movie Reviewlet: Watchmen

I liked it, I didn't love it. It looked quite pretty, and had a good visual style. Not as good as 300 or Sin City, but a much harder subject matter, to translate the cheesy 4 colors of the original Alan Moore comic. It was a bit heavy-handed in its 80's references and its symbolism and its use of 80's music (which was a bit too obvious, a bit too loud; the nytimes was especially bemused by its use of 99 luft ballons. Even the normally background-y minimalist music it used called attention to itself given that it was a famous Philip Glass piece). I was especially amused by its blatant use putting the World Trade Center in the background of several scenes, with the express purpose of building the mood of unease that pervades the original book (albeit anachronistically, given the symbolism of the towers has changed much since 1985; also interesting contrast to spider man II which went out of its way to go back and digitally scrub all images of the World Trade Center from its movie).

As others all say, I agree, the opening montage was nice, and nice fake cameos of minor 80's celebs, like Annie Leibowitz, who serve as powerful signifiers. And as others have said, Rorsharch was especially well acted, he was the one part of the ending that moved me. And yes, the silk spectre-nite owl relationship was painful.

As for the new ending that was much talked about, it really maintained the same flavor as the original. Which is important because the ending is the heart of the movie. I also thought the ending was appropriate. a tidier way to do it, without introducing the deus ex machina of aliens. Though the ending fell flat for me. Perhaps because it is the kind of ending that once you know it, doesn't work for you anymore--you lose the oh shit-ness of it. Or perhaps because the movie dragged, or perhaps because it was the one part of the movie that didn't copy its dialogue from Alan Moore.

AO Scott called the ending juvenile, not just this movie, but the book as well. I remember being blown away by the concept when i was young. But maybe it is juvenile. I don't think so. But it forces me to reconsider. Because while it packs a helluva a bunch as narrative, it doesn't hold together upon further reflection. Human nature is not as simple or easily quelled as Moore implies.

This movie also made me appreciate the connection with Batman. Rorsharch and Nite Owl are two reflections of Batman, Nite Owl for his gadgets, Rorsharch for his Nietzchean upermensch sense of justice. This was highlighted by the use of the original 1980's burton batman theme song, and with the scene of Rorsharch enjoying the antagonism of his fellow inmates, echoing the scene in Batman Begins.

With time, my esteem of the movie has gone up. Reading the original again, I am amused at how close he stays to the original book. Probably the most faithful adaptation of any comic book. But it mostly works. Still, you walk away feeling you are missing impact, if that can be fixed, perhaps with more gore, perhaps with tighter writing, perhaps with tighter editing of the fatuous love scenes that slow the film down.

Final Grade: B+

the apotheosis of Thriller

Michael Jackson - New Music - More Music Videos

Just an odd convergence, seeing Michael Jackson's video Thriller show up in the oddest places. NPR recently compared it to Spartacus. As well as my favorite online comic strip. But most surprisingly, R- and I made it to the opera last weekend (standing room tickets for $20!) and saw one of the oldest operas still performed, Orfeo et Eurydice, which amusingly, in addition to have a Greek Chorus that included people like Mao and Gandhi, also had as Orpheus descended into Hades, he was surrounded by a troop of dancers representing the dead spirits that I swear were using choreography taken directly from the vernacular pioneered by, you guessed it, the zombies of Michael Jackson's Thriller.

(and as an aside, Neil Gaiman seems to be doing pretty well going mainstream with a win for the Newberry award, along with the new Coraline movie)

Obama Innauguration: Moved by music

Perhaps it was just me, but I was a bit disappointed by Obama's speech. Not that it was bad, but just said nothing new really, and Obama has set a high bar in past speeches.

But I was moved by the John Williams arrangement "Air and Simple Gifts" played a panoply of the pop-stars of classical music, and was touched by the mosaic of colors represented in the simple quartet of musicians, the fact that they demonstrate America still attracts talent from around the world. The theme of the song was nice, with each musician given the chance to express his/her individuality, before coming together in a resounding whole.

I've always liked Simple Gifts especially, we played the Copland arrangement in marching band, and always liked the high drama of the half-time restatement of the theme (which Williams happily stole as he always does), but also portrays a nice essential image of the American spirit, of humility, that the world can be proud of.

So sure, John Williams, blockbuster maestro, did what he is best at, tug at the heartstrings with manipulative music. But it worked for me.

NPR never too late to learn an instrument

A recent NPR story encourages people to learn a new instrument at any age, which reminds of this old interview I saw.

One of the things that sticks with me through the years is an interview with a 100 year old + woman (perhaps she was the world's oldest). The interviewer asked her if she had any regrets. She said just one. When she was 60 she thought of taking up the violin, but figured she was too old. But now, at 100, she realized she could have been playing for 40 years by now.

Just recording this to remind myself of this.

Stephenson's Anathem uses pulp fiction to explain free will

As I get 2/3 into Neal Stephenson's Anathem, I realize the central question it addresses (in a pulp fiction writing style) is consciousness and free will.

And I was reminded of a conversation I had back in college debating whether free will exists, and I was finding it hard to believe that a smart guy like the guy I was debating would disagree with my view that free will can't exist.

We had taken as a given not to consider quantum effects since they're crazy and mess up all intuition. Then in a classical world it seems obvious to me that free will is an illusion, since if there is a state vector that represents the universe, then the laws of physics will always determine definitively the next state for all eternity. Our choices are all predetermined by the state of the particles that make up our brain and its environment.

So the idea that free will is an illusion is disturbing and at the end of the night (literally as the sun was coming up) we had agreed that free will may be an illusion, but people (and any artificial intelligence we designed) must be designed to act as if free will is real.

I felt vindicated years later, listening to my Teaching Company course on philosophy where this Berkeley Prof basically said the current consensus view in philosophy is that free will is indeed an illusion because a brain is a physical system.

Years later, I partially resolved this problem by saying that maybe the future is pre-ordained, but complex (in the formal definition), in that not solvable in less than exponential time, and that it is probably provable that no machine could compute the future faster than the future could actually arrive.

Of course, underlying all this is this nagging idea that this argument depends on classical mechanics, and with quantum mechanics, these arguments fall apart.

So what Stephenson does (and I wonder if this is his own thinking, or he stole this) is reconciles these two ideas (quantum mechanics and complexity) in order to bring consciousness and free will back. Essentially, if i can summarize his 1000 page argument succinctly, is that indeed the future in unknowable because predicting the future is hard, he asserts it is essentially NP-hard. But we know that quantum computers can solve NP problems in polynomial time. And thus our brains are actually quantum computers, and we know this because since we can indeed predict the future. Moreover, given that the future is indeterminate until the quantum states collapse, our consciousness can even influence which states quantum distributions around us collapse to, altering our environment. In fact, this is the definition of consciousness and free will, because otherwise, you have to accept that free will is an illusion.

Anyway, I'm not entirely convinced, but fantastically neat ideas.

But it is especially cool because it is relatively easy reading as it is written in the style of Jurassic Park or Ender's Game or Harry Potter but develops ridiculously sophisticated ideas. So he'll stop the action for chapter long Socratic dialogues, but they're so compellingly written, like a duel, complete with formal rules like the wizard wand duels in Harry Potter, but battling all with ideas.

Avenue Q is to the 00's as Rent is to the 80's as Hair is to the 60's

On a whim, R- and I lined up at the new TKTS (with the fabulous new steps, like the Spanish ones in Italy) and saw Avenue Q last night. Can totally identify with the post-college ennui, the longing for the simplicity of meal plans and insta-friends living down the hall, where your purpose in life was simple. Though I'm also happy to be a bit older than that now and past it. Though Avenue Q does feel a tad bit dated in terms of production values and the use of porn on the internet, it mostly hits the values of our time pretty dead on, with pragmatic takes on racism (my favorite song: "Everyone's a little bit racist"), and a generally optimistic pragmatic view on life.

It's especially interesting though to compare Avenue Q with the last three musicals R- and I saw: Hair (the voice of the youth of the 60's), Rent (the voice of the youth of the 80's) and Avenue Q (the voice of the youth of the 00's).

Whereas in Hair, you have spoiled privileged kids fighting for fundamental civil rights, fighting for their lives, and in Rent, you have spoiled privileged kids fighting to rebel against something, to be like the Hair generation, but mostly just whining. Avenue Q moves past that, adopting a healthy pragmatism, where the only epic struggle these privileged kids are overcoming is to find "purpose" in life, ie a sense of Narrative or Story (as Stephenson neatly points out in Anathem) is what people look for once their basic needs are met. But seems like rather a luxury when compared to the struggled of the 60's or even the 80's.

(TAL's David Rakoff has this awesome post-it note comic/story Seasons of Love with an even more jaded view of Rent than my own.)

But I think this evolution is a good thing. That's progress. So I disagree with the disappointed tone of David Brooks' Organizational Kid which chronicled this years ago and was one of my first blog posts.

There was a great line by John Adams used in the recent HBO miniseries:

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.

Tv in 2008 Sucked

After what many were calling the best season for tv ever, we now seem to have the worst. I thought maybe it was just the shows I watch but others and magazines seem to confirm heroes has gotten off track, house has gotten tired, grey's anatomy has gotten eh, entourage as well.

New shows also. the first episode of hbo's much new touted perfect for my demographic, Trublood was awful. the new shows (half with the premise about talking to dead people) haven't really been interesting. i tried watching fringe, but it was eh. mentalist was ok, but again, just a new take on Numbers which is just a minor variation from the standard police/detective drama. all of the new stolen from UK shows seem to have flopped.

Of course, it could just be the end of the season. bsg and lost have not made an appearance.

Or it could be the aftermath of the writer's strike. or just a simple reversion to mean after a great year. or the economy?

A visit to the Museum of Modern Art: van Gogh and Miro

So I've been in New York City every week for the past 6 months or so, but haven't been to MOMA once. I guess once it is so accessible, the urgency of seeing all the sites goes away. But I had to get my car fixed, so I had a couple hours to kill in midtown, so I wandered over to see the new Van Gogh show and Miro show. It's nice, I've missed it.

It was also neat that they now have free Wifi access to their audio guide, coupling pictures to the recordings, that integrates perfectly with the iPhone. A neat tech-y addition.

Shows are nice, because they provide a nice narrative. My art history prof in Paris did his dissertation on how museums put together exhibits, and especially for shows, they really do a nice job. The Van Gogh was about the genesis of Starry Night. Interesting to see all the other styles that Van Gogh played with before developing the style (weird perspective and insane brush stroke) that museums have decided define Van Gogh. Nice to see his older work which is more traditional like Lorraine, or more standard impressionist like Monet, or more Urban like Renoir or Cassatt or graphic like Toulouse Lautrec, or the Matisse cutouts or the Nabis. And nice to see such a diverse range of styles over just a couple years. Also nice to come back to older paintings, after having been focused on more modern art. Was especially neat to see his letters, where he describes his thoughts behind the paintings. And his quest to capture starlight on canvas.

The Miro show was nice too. I've long used Miro as my answer to favorite artist, though I've mostly known his work purely only for its aesthetics and childlike whimsy. It was nice to see his work put into an (art) historical context, on his 10 year quest to destroy painting. In some ways you can dismiss Miro for just being derivative of 70's style Hallucinogenic psychedelic whimsy (like Yellow Submarine) except he predated by half a century, and it is a testament to his craft (as noted in the audio guide) that he gets such clean geometric lines and colors using the traditional oil medium, to properly capture otherworldliness. A highlight was his collection of paintings that derived from collages. He made collages from catalog diagrams (much like DuChamp) but it was neat to see how those collages inspired the weird organically abstract magical forms for which he is famous.

Heroes (somewhat) Redeemed

So Heroes, as part of the tepid Fall 08 tv season just ended its 3rd volume on an up note. Still not great, but reasonably rounded up the theme of volume 3, that there is a very fine line between good and evil, much better explored in Batman: the Dark Knight, and Frank Miller's original Batman Dark Knight Returns. Volume 4 looks to be a tepid rehash of the perennial X-men plot line of mutant registration == japanese internment / holocaust.

One upside is Ando's power is pretty cool. A meta-power. Aside from Sylar (which I've already said has a pretty genius power and perfect for the villain), Ando's is the only other power where I can't immediately name an X-men counterpart. It fits his personality, and augments in fundamental ways the power of others, like the crystals in Final Fantasy, but gives the writers a whole new set of powers to explore without needing to introduce new characters. Nifty.

(wow, I just passed my 200th post on blogger. though there were probably 50-100 more before I started using blogger and here, plus all the photoblog stuff)

Another transcendent iPhone moment: a new musical instrument

The iPhone still annoys me, it crashes all the time, and the long litany of annoyances goes on, but it still more than makes up for it with transcendent experiences. One recent one was the latest app, Smule's Ocarina, the top selling app for $0.99.

I remember the summer I spent in Paris, six weeks of glorious travel, but there was a dull emptiness, that I came to appreciate when I walked into a music store, on one of my random excursions perambulating about (flanning) Paris (or perhaps it was Reims), where I picked up a tin whistle, and realized I missed music. I had still been playing clarinet/saxophone regularly back then (something I managed to continue up until mid grad school) but had left it behind on my trip, and realized I missed it. Thereafter, I would pick up flutes (tranverse and otherwise)/recorders and other instruments whenever I traveled. That has something I've mostly left behind but now with my iPhone, I will never be without one.

The Ocarina is an ancient primitive medieval flute, that they have recreated faithfully on the iPhone a real musical instrument, not a game like guitar hero, but an instrument that replicates a classic medieval arcane fingering scheme that you play by blowing into the microphone. Like a real instrument, it responds to subtle shifts in breath and tonguing, and changes timber based on how phone is positioned.

The really magical part of it though is the interactive part of it. It uses the gps to get your location and then broadcasts whatever you are playing around the world. You can switch to a 3-d model of the world, and from points on the globe, you can see streams of music flying into into space which you can zoom into and hear, real people around the world playing their ocarina, magically broadcasting. Some are fumbling like myself, but some are playing recognizable tunes, and I'm sure with time, you will find virtuosic performances, broadcast into the ether, like Link's ocarina of time.

Reviewlet: Man of the Year

Sometimes movies surprise you.
Movies that you hate as insipid drivel somehow pull it together in the closing scenes of the last act.

I can't think of a complete list off the top of my head.

Skeleton key was definitely one. (pap. airplane fodder. drivel.) But the last 10 minutes made it all worthwhile. the first 90 were all there to lower expectations.

Deterrence is another. Which is also all the pap and drivel except for the end of the last act, which not only excuses the rest of the movie but at least partially justifies the earlier crappiness. (domino and contender and matchstick men and euro trip have this quality to a lesser extent)

Man of the year is certainly another.

I spent the first hour not just thinking it was bad (despite its impressive cast), but actively hating it, at how it glorifies the mockery of the political system, taking cheap and dumb shots. The premise--amusing given Al Franken's true story--is that a comedian in the style of Bill Mahr or Jon Steawrt, but played by Robin Williams, decides to run for president. And while commercials had led me to expect something that glorified the everyman as president (like Bullworth or Dave) and while i'm fine with that concept, this movie made the premise of Robin Williams as president both disgraceful and disgusting.

And so i was actively hating it, handling e-mails, playing with my phone, until I realized, that the disgust was intentional. That everything I hated about it was intentional. That explained how they managed to attract such a stellar cast (laura linney, christopher walken, and tons of cameos from news anchors and comedians from chris mathews to tina fey).

So at the end, still not a great movie, but I respect it.

Final Grade:
B-

Krugman and Asimov and Me

So Paul Krugman received a well deserved Nobel Prize today. Despite my political differences with his Ny Times column that I have commented on many times here, I still respect his models of international trade (I went to grad school wanting to expand on his models to understand development) and his popular books before the New York Times.

Watching him on News-Hour today, interesting that he said it was Asimov's sci-fi Foundation novels and psycho history that made him want to be an economist. I, somewhat embarrassingly, said exactly the same thing in my grad school essays. The idea that you could use mathematics to not only understand but also to shape society. In some ways, its amazing how far we've come toward achieving Asimov's vision, on the other hand, it's also notable how very far away we are as well.

The intro to my essay:

Issac Asimov, the science fiction writer, once envisioned a world where a mathematician invented a science called psychohistory that allowed him to foretell and therefore improve the course of human events. When I was younger, this fascinated me. However, it was not until I took freshman economics in college that I realized this was not all fantasy. By studying economics, I could apply my training in abstract math and theoretical computer science to something beyond the world of academia. The field of economics provides a window where my interests and abilities could be applied to research that has direct impact on the lives of so many people.

Heh, also gratuitously mentioned "such as those from Paul Krugman’s graduate International Economics class which I audited." Interesting to read these old essays, made readily available by Vista search.

Review of the non-geek geek novel: The Brief and Wonderous Life of Oscar Wao

I haven't read fiction in ages, heck, I havne't read a book for pleasure in years, but I was inspired to pick up The Brief Wonderful life of Oscar Wao by an NPR story on finding a new book for the American high school english class canon. I was impressed that this book--which I only knew for its associations with Dungeons and Dragons and sci-fi and fantasy--would get so much acclaim, not only winning the Pulitzer and critical raves, but with some going as far as calling it a classic of our time.

The Brief Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Diaz uses a series of flashbacks to give an epic yet intimate portrait of the life and lineage of Oscar Wao, a geeky Domincan kid, from Patterson New Jersey. The story of Oscar's tribulations as a social outcast in high school and in college at Rutgers, is so believable in that his affected speech patterns (like the heroes in cheap sci-fi) and penchant for using SAT words in everyday conversation, is easily identifiable to anyone who has traveled in such circles. The book also details the life of his family--Oscar's sister, his single mother, his grand parents in the Dominican Republic (DR)--and the curse that plagues their household. Delving into three generations of Oscar's life, we get a picture not just of a troubled boy, but also of a troubled DR.

I wish I could say I loved it, but the book dragged at times despite the prose style which was brisk and excellent. Part of what worked is how the conversational narrator references something from geekdom on nearly every page (weird to see something part of my 'childhood' identity that always labeled me as outsider has become high brow mainstream). The narrator casually drops obscure allusions to comics (Watchmen, X-men, Stan Lee, Fantastic Four; the narrator refers to himself as The Watcher), Dungeons and Dragons (the narrator describes a girl losing her virginity as taking 4d10 points of damage), Sci-fi (Oscar calls his sister a Bene-Gesserit witch), Fantasy (Lord of the Rings comes up incessantly; many characters are described as Saurons or Ringwraiths or Orcs). Diaz drops obscure references to genre fiction like Eco or Stoppard reference ancient Greek poets.

Despite its odd unique narrative voice, the book is quite conventional in its subject matter: an immigrant coming of age struggle and the family seeds that led there. Swap out the sci-fi references, and replace the excellent primer into Dominican recent history with Chinese recent history, and this book could have been written by Amy Tan. The book thus drags at times (at least for me) as we follow the tragic lives of Oscar's family and Oscar's own quixotic (a favorite word of mine from SAT prep days) quest for love, and more prosaically his quest to lose his virginity.

However, though the book is not as tight as it could be, I will say that after 300 pages, the payoff (with slight epic magical realism tinge that requires a reading of the comic The Watchmen to fully appreciate) makes the reading worth it.

Final Grade:B
Please rate my review here.

(random connections to the author Junot Diaz, he did his MFA at Cornell, and now teaches at MIT, who manages to attract top notch fiction writers. One of my favorite sci-fi books from high school, the Forever War, was written by another MIT lecturer)

Slate on Cinematic Fight Scenes

There is a pretty awesome rundown in Slate magazine on fight scenes in movies, complete with youtube clips. Illustrates nicely the historical development, and chooses some nice exemplars.

From a charmingly quaint scene in Big Country from 1958:

1. to Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris in Return of the Dragon
   
2. to the amazingly honest, Rangin Bull
   
3. to the perfunctory action scenes of 80's style action ala Die Hard
   
4. to the introduction of hong kong cinema
   
5. to the "weightless acrobatics" of the Matrix, whom I have often cited.
   
6. to the creative use of film making, without resorting to cheesy cgi of Bourne Ultimatum.
   

Also makes me want to see Oldboy (totally an 8-bit shooter homage)

Amusingly, the writer also calls Batman pop-Nietzchean. So it's not just me (my Wanted Review, my post on Batman Begins). And also overuses/misuses Platonic ideal like me (my review of Firefly, Diamond Age, Legally Blonde)

I love these Slate slideshows (often on architecture or art). Unlike NYtimes which just copies a print segment to the web, Slate really after so long, does demonstrate its original intent (back when it was founded by Microsoft), to really create a new kind of news, a multi-media news that is made possible only by the Internet. (Though to New York Times credit, their recent take on Google Maps Style mashups are pretty cool, like their review of Flushing eats for example.)