mikolas » Science

Time to Change (the Subject)

Mikko Hämäläinen — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:19:43 +0000

I have been trying to find anything of importance to report about in the media industry for a while. I mean, really trying. However, it seems that nothing that interesting is going on, apart from multitudes of cost cuts, layoffs and abysmal quarterly reports. As it seems to me, this is not going to change in the near future as there also isn’t really any great innovation in the business.

So, time to change the theme to something that is more interesting for me. From now on I’ll be focusing more on things that I am really passionate about: music, science, technology and the digital future. Stay tuned.

Two Interesting Scientific Events of the Week

Mikko Hämäläinen — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:06:38 +0000

It’s been a while since anything that really has caught my eye has been happening in the science department. However, this week I came across two very interesting pieces in my Google Reader.

First, New Scientist had an article about an anomaly found in the cosmic microwave background. In essence, there might be some indications that our universe has collided with another universe soon after big bang. This sounds like science fiction, so check out the article and make your own conclusions.

Second, Science News reported about successful quantum teleportation. The method is still very unstable, but it has succeeded in something that has been theoretically possible by quantum entanglement.

SciAm: Blurring the Boundary Between Perception and Memory

Mikko Hämäläinen — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:59:41 +0000

Scientific American has a nice article about human perception. The article kind of resonates with my earlier writing on bayesian statistics that the brain seems to conform to. Anyway, I recommend the article as it really gives some food for thought.

The Bayesian Brain

Mikko Hämäläinen — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:35:14 +0000

Some time ago there was an interesting article in New Scientist, about new theory on how human brain works. It turns out that high level brain functions can be modeled using Bayesian statistics and the brain in fact uses statistical data from prior experiences to predict the current sensory input. Being a layman, this rises a few issues at least for me. I’m not going to quote the article here, please read it first yourself.

The observed reality is only an approximation

If the human brain really does not actually ever have a complete and accurate view on the environment (or reality) as the whole sensory process is based on calculating probability and minimizing error between observation and predicted input.

The brain functions follow causal processes

If prior events effect on how we observe the environment, causality is a fundamental part of how our brain works. If our whole neural network functions via Bayesian statistics, then everything we process, even our thinking, happens in accordance with causal processes – probabilistic causation comes to my mind first. This is pretty much what Russell actually proposes in his theory about causal lines.

The brain can be simulated more easily than was thought

While computers have a hard time crunching massive neural networks, the basic infrastructure of the brain, they are quite efficient in statistical analysis. If you have ever used a spam filter, you actually have Bayesian statistics running in your software that does two things that a human would: 1) it learns along the way b) it predicts using partial or fuzzy data. Therefore it is quite possible to be able to simulate some limited brain functions without millions of CPUs. And as processing power increases, such simulations can be done by anyone or a community of people just like SETI@home. Singularity, anyone?

But what is most fascinating for me is that once again macroscopic structures stem from microscopic ones. Bayesian probability can be applied in quantum mechanics – as QM is mostly about probabilities since we do not have the resolution to really accurately measure full quantum states. And due to Heisenberg uncertainty principle, we can not even if it technically was possible. And as atomic particles and natural forces are causal, and as it seems so is the brain in this theory.

Also one more interesting thing in this theory is that it gives you some advice on how to become an intuitive decision maker. Intuition in this case is to have a lot of alternative statistics available in order to make a quick and most correct estimation of given situation. So you should get rid of tunnel vision and observe a broad set of information even if it is not of direct interest to you or your business. The thing with statistical probabilities is that the correct solution could come from a “wrong” place and it would come spontaneously. That is what intuition is all about.

PS. I did not even go to the free energy principle proposed by Friston. It also underlines that actually our interpretation of quantum physics has it’s counterpart on higher level structures like classical physics that has its higher level counterpart in chemistry which has a counterpart in molecular biology and so forth. Kind of makes me think that in the end, everything is hierarchical following the same rules from Planck scale to infinity.

Book Recommendations

Mikko Hämäläinen — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:14:39 +0000

I’m currently going through a massive pile of books since I’ve had not that much free time at hand. However, I thought I could share a few of the books I’m reading that I find most interesting at the moment, so here we go.

Michael Lockwood: The Labyrinth of Time. This book deals with the different explanations of time itself. For anyone who has gone deeper in the theoretical physics, time (or arrow of time) is one of the unsolved mysteries and it also has deep relation to my favorite subjects, namely entropy and causality.

Derek Parfit: Reasons and Persons. Parfit has good arguments against our traditional view on ourselves and our view on rationality and morality. I’m interested in human decision making process in general, so this makes a good read.

Kevin D. Hoover: Causality in Macroeconomics. This relates to my last post about causal business decision making. I need to understand the subject better.

C.G. Jung: Synchronicity. The other side of the causal coin. Jung’s argument for acausal connections of events.

J.G. Ballard: Kingdom Come. Fiction about the ultimate manifestation of consumerism. Or is it actually fiction anymore?

For Finns, I could also recommend Pekka Teerikorpi’s “Miljoonan vuoden yksinäisyys“, as it really is a good one about history of science. Not a traditional history book, but loaded with a scent of melancholy and exceptional way to connect events via cultural history.

More recommendations coming when I manage to get into some of my unread books, the pile is now about 150 centimeters high, and this is not a joke :-)