| Item | Count | Weight (oz) | Total Weight (oz) | Included |
| Advil (1 day) | 3 | 0.20 | 0.60 | o |
| Air Mattress | 1 | 39.85 | 39.85 | o |
| Bear Bells | 1 | 1.30 | 1.30 | o |
| Bear Spray | 1 | 15.00 | 15.00 | o |
| Bear Spray Holster | 1 | 1.30 | 1.30 | o |
| Boots | 1 | 43.80 | 43.80 | o |
| Bug Repellent | 1 | 2.00 | 2.00 | o |
| Camera | 1 | 36.50 | 36.50 | o |
| Camera Bag | 1 | 10.25 | 10.25 | o |
| Candy Bar | 10 | 0.60 | 6.00 | o |
| Cheese (1 day) | 3 | 3.87 | 11.60 | o |
| Clothes Pin | 4 | 0.05 | 0.20 | o |
| Duct Tape | 1 | 0.45 | 0.45 | o |
| Ear Muffs | 1 | 1.35 | 1.35 | o |
| Energy Goo | 10 | 1.50 | 15.00 | o |
| Gloves | 1 | 2.15 | 2.15 | o |
| GPS | 1 | 5.30 | 5.30 | o |
| Hat (Sun) | 1 | 3.60 | 3.60 | o |
| Hat (Warm) | 1 | 1.80 | 1.80 | o |
| Headlight | 1 | 2.80 | 2.80 | o |
| Keys | 1 | 1.45 | 1.45 | o |
| Knife | 1 | 2.60 | 2.60 | o |
| Map | 2 | 2.15 | 4.30 | o |
| Matches | 2 | 0.25 | 0.50 | o |
| Pack | 1 | 66.50 | 66.50 | o |
| Peanuts (1 day) | 3 | 2.00 | 6.00 | o |
| Protein Bar | 2 | 2.60 | 5.20 | o |
| Rain Coat | 1 | 2.75 | 2.75 | o |
| Raisins (1 day) | 3 | 3.00 | 9.00 | o |
| Rope (ft) | 48 | 0.05 | 2.25 | o |
| Sleeping Bag | 1 | 47.10 | 47.10 | o |
| Socks | 2 | 1.80 | 3.60 | o |
| Straps | 2 | 0.60 | 1.20 | o |
| Stuff Sack (Extra) | 1 | 2.35 | 2.35 | o |
| Summer Sausage (1 day) | 3 | 3.00 | 9.00 | o |
| Sun Screen | 1 | 2.60 | 2.60 | o |
| Tent | 1 | 51.75 | 51.75 | o |
| Toilet Paper (1 day) | 3 | 0.30 | 0.90 | o |
| Trash Bag | 1 | 1.40 | 1.40 | o |
| Wallet | 1 | 4.45 | 4.45 | o |
| Washcloth | 1 | 2.45 | 2.45 | o |
| Water (Liter) | 5 | 33.81 | 169.07 | o |
| Water Bladder | 1 | 7.55 | 7.55 | o |
| Water Bottle | 2 | 0.95 | 1.90 | o |
| Water Filter | 1 | 13.30 | 13.30 | o |
| Water Shoes | 1 | 17.10 | 17.10 | o |
| Ziplock Bag | 3 | 0.07 | 0.20 | o |
| 637.32 | ||||
| 39 lb | 13.32 oz |
Sunday, September 30, 2012
What to Take Backpacking (List and Weights)
Here's the list I put together for a standard, 3 day backpacking trip. I got all the weights using a digital, kitchen scale that is accurate to the nearest 0.05 ounce (or I assume it's accurate, these things tend to be pretty good). I tend to go heavy on food since I'm always concerned about running out, and since I enjoy photography, my camera equipment tends to run heavy as well. On the other end, I choose not to go with a stove (and thus no freeze-dried food). I found it didn't bother me in the slightest to not have a hot meal and I enjoyed not having to deal with the pain or extra time of cooking.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
The Words of the Séance
Some people die in bed, with so much progeny surrounding 'em they don't know half the names. I know, I've seen it happen. That card never made it into my deck, was never laid on the table for me. I suppose I was lucky I knew it right off, didn't wait for that one to complete my hand before laying it all out in front of me. Opened up a whole new realm of possibilities really; nothing brings focus like a row of shut doors.
If I regret, I regret that I sold my anger too cheaply, let it flow out to easily. Never did come to a point the way it should've, instead spilling out into the world in a thousand rivulets that were dried up hours before the Sun hit its Zenith. If I could've held on, could've held back then there'd be enough there to break through, break out.
It came out at the wrong people and at the wrong time. In the end, what did it amount to? Even here, it's hard to add these things up, the numbers never do seem to stay in the proper column or the appropriate row. I've heard there's a ledger somewhere around here that keeps count but I haven't laid eyes on it. I suppose my entries would be mostly marked in red but I did what I could to tic off the debts I had. Not enough time, never enough time. Life has that nasty habit of slipping away out the back when you're running out the front to try to grab some more.
I haven't got remorse, not in the way you mean. It was my life and now we can all see it in whole. No surprise endings waiting around the corner, no last minute redemption or final failings to mar the whole thing in one misstep. If I wished to change it, well then it wouldn't be me wishing the change anymore would it? Can't reach back like that: no tinkering around after it's over.
Like I said, I knew the cards I had before it was over and I played them the only way I knew how. Wasn't always easy for the rest, and it wasn't any better for me but now that the games been played and we see where the chips lay... well my chips. Yours are still in motion, still hoping for that next turn of fate before you throw it all in. That's life I guess: motion. Schrödinger said that's definition, non-repeating, self-propagating motion. That's certainly all I see looking back, everything all a blur and nothing seeming to make sense. Maybe it makes sense to you, maybe your game is laid out just the way you expected.
No, no advice either, that goes the same time the regrets do. You saw my life, you saw how it turned out and what it turned up. No reason I would be in a better position to guide you now. Never paid much attention before either, why change it up mid-race? Maybe you were right not to listen then, certainly nothings obligating you to pay attention now.
It ended suddenly, always does, but it wasn't much a of a surprise. We all knew years before how the final pages would read and I certainly stuck to script. The two that did it: they seemed a bit unsure from moment to moment but in the end they did their part. People like that never have the commitment to quite lead their lives without stumbling around a bit and I suppose I was the one who suffered for it, but I came out all right didn't I? It's yours to say, my voice has left that choir.
If I regret, I regret that I sold my anger too cheaply, let it flow out to easily. Never did come to a point the way it should've, instead spilling out into the world in a thousand rivulets that were dried up hours before the Sun hit its Zenith. If I could've held on, could've held back then there'd be enough there to break through, break out.
It came out at the wrong people and at the wrong time. In the end, what did it amount to? Even here, it's hard to add these things up, the numbers never do seem to stay in the proper column or the appropriate row. I've heard there's a ledger somewhere around here that keeps count but I haven't laid eyes on it. I suppose my entries would be mostly marked in red but I did what I could to tic off the debts I had. Not enough time, never enough time. Life has that nasty habit of slipping away out the back when you're running out the front to try to grab some more.
I haven't got remorse, not in the way you mean. It was my life and now we can all see it in whole. No surprise endings waiting around the corner, no last minute redemption or final failings to mar the whole thing in one misstep. If I wished to change it, well then it wouldn't be me wishing the change anymore would it? Can't reach back like that: no tinkering around after it's over.
Like I said, I knew the cards I had before it was over and I played them the only way I knew how. Wasn't always easy for the rest, and it wasn't any better for me but now that the games been played and we see where the chips lay... well my chips. Yours are still in motion, still hoping for that next turn of fate before you throw it all in. That's life I guess: motion. Schrödinger said that's definition, non-repeating, self-propagating motion. That's certainly all I see looking back, everything all a blur and nothing seeming to make sense. Maybe it makes sense to you, maybe your game is laid out just the way you expected.
No, no advice either, that goes the same time the regrets do. You saw my life, you saw how it turned out and what it turned up. No reason I would be in a better position to guide you now. Never paid much attention before either, why change it up mid-race? Maybe you were right not to listen then, certainly nothings obligating you to pay attention now.
It ended suddenly, always does, but it wasn't much a of a surprise. We all knew years before how the final pages would read and I certainly stuck to script. The two that did it: they seemed a bit unsure from moment to moment but in the end they did their part. People like that never have the commitment to quite lead their lives without stumbling around a bit and I suppose I was the one who suffered for it, but I came out all right didn't I? It's yours to say, my voice has left that choir.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Ratatouille Party
A short time ago, Britlyn and I had a little but of a Ratatouille party. We had a few guests over, watched Ratatouille, and every time Remy made a dish in the movie, we paused the movie and brought out our version of that dish. It's something I've been wanting to do for a while and it was very nice of Britlyn to do it with me. It took about a day and a half of preparation but was a lot of fun. I wasn't pulled together enough to take pictures myself, but one of our guests did. With a cellphone and very little light so hopefully you'll pretend the dishes look a lot better than the pictures, but she very nicely sent the pictures so beggars can't be choosers.
Course One:
Baked mushrooms with Gruyère and rosemary
Course Three:
Couscous simmered with vegetables and a fruit/vinaigrette reduction topped with raspberries
Course Five:
(No picture avaliable)
Homemade ice cream with ganache and topped with fruit
Course One:
Baked mushrooms with Gruyère and rosemary
Course Two:
Creamy Leek Soup with a spoonful of whipped cream and toasted baguette(ish bread)
Couscous simmered with vegetables and a fruit/vinaigrette reduction topped with raspberries
Course Four:
Ratatouille (this one we actually used a recipe, it's pretty easy to find the recipe from the movie)
(No picture avaliable)
Homemade ice cream with ganache and topped with fruit
Friday, June 22, 2012
Where do we begin?
First off, I recognize these things are mostly for me as not a lot of people look at life, or want to look at life this way. Still, I hope a few others are at least enjoying reading them. If you aren’t but still clicked on this for some reason, know that the amount of math has dropped off to almost none at this point as we move from selecting out of a population to actually dating individual people. So… enjoy!
I often assume people know what to do on a first date, but it’s not true. And it’s not true only partially because a lot of people don’t go on many first dates. The other reason is that no one can agree what they want! How well do you know this person? How well should you know them before you ask them on a date (or accept)? If the answer is: “not very well” how do you pick what to do, or figure out how to make a good, first impression?
For right now I’m going to assume it’s guy-ask-girl. I don’t personally feel this is superior to the opposite, and most of the discussion can easily be reversed if needed, but it is the most common so that’s where we’ll start. Maybe it’s good to begin with the question: “what do most people do on a first date”?
Sadly I have a very limited, empirical understanding of this. I know what I do, but talk about selection bias! I’ve rarely been asked on a first date by a girl so my experience is basically either driven by my choices (and thus not good sampling) or is not first hand. Still I have some idea based on what I’ve seen and heard. My experience says that the typical first date is either a group activity (like a dance, or a large group of friends) or it’s a dinner and a movie style of date, which most often manifests itself as a dinner and a movie.
Each has its plusses and minuses. The group activities, even the dances, are pretty low-stress from a commitment level. Often times neither party is even sure it’s a date! On the downside: neither party is even sure it’s a date. Also, it’s harder to get to know someone in a group setting and easier to get lazy and end up just talking to the rest of the people there rather than focusing on your date.
The ‘dinner and a movie’ has a lot of detractors, but I’m a fan on general principles even if I don’t actually do it myself. The benefits are that it’s demonstrably a date. Though the ability of young people to confuse themselves about romance is endless, most people can tell that when a young man asks a young woman to go see movie with him either preceded by or concluding with dinner: it’s a date. Which means modes of thought and future possible paths get put into play and is immensely helpful in defining what’s going on an why, as well as being a very low-stress environment from which to begin. For those nervous about dating and particularly, nervous on first dates this can be a great thing.
Though there’s no denying its negative side as well. When you add dinner it gets better, but going to a movie isn’t exactly a chance to see the other in action or get to know them any better. And even if you’re not completely destitute, paying for a half-way decent dinner and a movie for two can be a financial issue.
I’d say the biggest thing I think people should do that they don’t when planning a date is think about what they want out of it. Are you just trying to follow the council to date more and thus don’t much care? Have you secretly wanted to date this girl for ages but couldn’t work up the nerve to ask her and thus just want a first date to get over that issue? Do you date all the time and thus need to quickly get to know her and find out if you like her, or do you date few enough people such that you can take a few dates to work out if she’s someone you want to pursue?
Of course other factors come into it too; are you friends already or do you barely know each other? Do you know what she likes and doesn’t like or have you only seen her at school? Can you afford a reasonable evening out or do you have to watch every penny? Even nominally free dates tend to cost money in some form or another, so that one can be a pretty big driver. Especially if you want to date with any kind of frequency.
In general my advice to people (not that they ask, so I don’t every actually give this advice) is make it something you like to do. If you know the person well, and know enough to plan something they’ll love fine: do that. But as a default do what you enjoy. First off, if you’re going to arrange it and pay for it, it may as well be a positive memory. Especially if the two of you are incompatible that can make you feel a lot better about your choices. But there are much more important reasons I suggest that as well.
One of the hardest factors to overcome on a date is that it’s pretty common for one or both people to be nervous or uncomfortable. There can be a lot of pressure and it will make people not themselves. Making them better or worse is not the issue: they’re different from who they really are and who they really are is who you want to get to know. Doing something you like will help at least you relax and since you don’t know what will make them relaxed, may as well make at least one person comfortable. It’s part of putting your best foot forward. In addition, if it’s something you genuinely enjoy then that helps them see who you are, and see if they’re interested in the same things. There’s nothing that says if you like to visit botanical gardens they have to too, but you have to start somewhere.
Everyone I’ve gone with one or more date on here in Wisconsin, at least one of those dates was to the Milwaukee symphony. It’s not for everyone, but it’s something I really enjoy and most girls find appealing even they aren’t really into the symphony. I’ve always had a pleasant time; a drive in to downtown, dinner, and a bit of walking the city followed by wonderful, live music and a chance to discuss it afterward. I quite like it.
I often assume people know what to do on a first date, but it’s not true. And it’s not true only partially because a lot of people don’t go on many first dates. The other reason is that no one can agree what they want! How well do you know this person? How well should you know them before you ask them on a date (or accept)? If the answer is: “not very well” how do you pick what to do, or figure out how to make a good, first impression?
For right now I’m going to assume it’s guy-ask-girl. I don’t personally feel this is superior to the opposite, and most of the discussion can easily be reversed if needed, but it is the most common so that’s where we’ll start. Maybe it’s good to begin with the question: “what do most people do on a first date”?
Sadly I have a very limited, empirical understanding of this. I know what I do, but talk about selection bias! I’ve rarely been asked on a first date by a girl so my experience is basically either driven by my choices (and thus not good sampling) or is not first hand. Still I have some idea based on what I’ve seen and heard. My experience says that the typical first date is either a group activity (like a dance, or a large group of friends) or it’s a dinner and a movie style of date, which most often manifests itself as a dinner and a movie.
Each has its plusses and minuses. The group activities, even the dances, are pretty low-stress from a commitment level. Often times neither party is even sure it’s a date! On the downside: neither party is even sure it’s a date. Also, it’s harder to get to know someone in a group setting and easier to get lazy and end up just talking to the rest of the people there rather than focusing on your date.
The ‘dinner and a movie’ has a lot of detractors, but I’m a fan on general principles even if I don’t actually do it myself. The benefits are that it’s demonstrably a date. Though the ability of young people to confuse themselves about romance is endless, most people can tell that when a young man asks a young woman to go see movie with him either preceded by or concluding with dinner: it’s a date. Which means modes of thought and future possible paths get put into play and is immensely helpful in defining what’s going on an why, as well as being a very low-stress environment from which to begin. For those nervous about dating and particularly, nervous on first dates this can be a great thing.
Though there’s no denying its negative side as well. When you add dinner it gets better, but going to a movie isn’t exactly a chance to see the other in action or get to know them any better. And even if you’re not completely destitute, paying for a half-way decent dinner and a movie for two can be a financial issue.
I’d say the biggest thing I think people should do that they don’t when planning a date is think about what they want out of it. Are you just trying to follow the council to date more and thus don’t much care? Have you secretly wanted to date this girl for ages but couldn’t work up the nerve to ask her and thus just want a first date to get over that issue? Do you date all the time and thus need to quickly get to know her and find out if you like her, or do you date few enough people such that you can take a few dates to work out if she’s someone you want to pursue?
Of course other factors come into it too; are you friends already or do you barely know each other? Do you know what she likes and doesn’t like or have you only seen her at school? Can you afford a reasonable evening out or do you have to watch every penny? Even nominally free dates tend to cost money in some form or another, so that one can be a pretty big driver. Especially if you want to date with any kind of frequency.
In general my advice to people (not that they ask, so I don’t every actually give this advice) is make it something you like to do. If you know the person well, and know enough to plan something they’ll love fine: do that. But as a default do what you enjoy. First off, if you’re going to arrange it and pay for it, it may as well be a positive memory. Especially if the two of you are incompatible that can make you feel a lot better about your choices. But there are much more important reasons I suggest that as well.
One of the hardest factors to overcome on a date is that it’s pretty common for one or both people to be nervous or uncomfortable. There can be a lot of pressure and it will make people not themselves. Making them better or worse is not the issue: they’re different from who they really are and who they really are is who you want to get to know. Doing something you like will help at least you relax and since you don’t know what will make them relaxed, may as well make at least one person comfortable. It’s part of putting your best foot forward. In addition, if it’s something you genuinely enjoy then that helps them see who you are, and see if they’re interested in the same things. There’s nothing that says if you like to visit botanical gardens they have to too, but you have to start somewhere.
Everyone I’ve gone with one or more date on here in Wisconsin, at least one of those dates was to the Milwaukee symphony. It’s not for everyone, but it’s something I really enjoy and most girls find appealing even they aren’t really into the symphony. I’ve always had a pleasant time; a drive in to downtown, dinner, and a bit of walking the city followed by wonderful, live music and a chance to discuss it afterward. I quite like it.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Busy, busy, busy
Does anyone else feel as though we’ve fetishizied business? Some people seem to think it’s the sign of being productive, being worth something to your community. Others feel its lack shows instability of character or ability. Some seem to want pity, or elevation of their own personal woes as a result of how busy they are. Always it’s the excuse: the great catch-all calling sign of disinterest. “Oh I’d love to be able to do that, but I’m just so busy!"
What do you mean when you say “I’m busy”? Let’s be clear: everyone gets 24 hours in a day and if you spend it feeding the poor, working, watching television or just staring at the wall you were doing something the entire time. So in a sense we’re all busy all the time, but presumably that’s not what we mean when we say we’re busy. Sometimes I plan on relaxing in front of the computer with a TV show and some pasta, is that enough to declare myself buys? Can I get out of invitations as a result of being busy with pasta? Do recreational plans allow me to declare that I am really busy this week?
If you’re not busy, what does that mean exactly? Does it really imply something about you? What are you doing with your time, precisely?
What I do find irritating is the large bastion of people who want to engage in time-redistribution though declarations of ‘busy’. I do my best to never be, or claim to be ‘busy’ as I understand it. I know that there is almost always some way of putting an activity into my schedule somewhere. Yes, it requires sacrificing some other activity, but that’s true of literally everything. Perhaps you’re sacrificing feeling sorry for yourself about how lonely you are so that you can go out and spend time with friends. You’re still giving up one activity for another. But there seems the idea that those who do not or will not declare themselves busy owe something to those who unceasingly explain how little time they have (often for hours a day explaining how they have no free hours in their life!)
You wish you had time to take up the piano like I did? I’m not sure how to respond to that. Are you just looking for sympathy? Are you trying to tell me how privileged I am (and if so am I supposed to feel good or poorly about myself)? Are you just inviting me to ask about your life? Are you trying to excuse yourself for having not done so?
Somehow I feel like the last one is the most common. And sadly that’s how I take it most of the time, which is perhaps the worst of all possible explanations. Such a statement takes the accomplishment of another (like learning an instrument) and places it below the generic “busy-ness” of oneself. After all, if learning that instrument were more important that the unmentioned activities, they would’ve learned the instrument! In addition, it’s passing judgment; implying such use of time is somehow frivolous or without meaning. “Ah, I wish I had a chance to frolic around like you do, but there’s real work to be done by us adults.” Excellent, I’ll stay here then shall I?
Perhaps I resent it the same way those who have spent their lives saving up for retirement resent their peers being given money simply because they spent all of their own without a thought for the future. I went to school, did well, planned ahead, and took a job that could both pay for my modest lifestyle while at the same time not demand an unreasonable portion of my time. Now I’m reaping the rewards of those choices and whatever sacrifices they entailed, and I can only say I’m sorry your choices have led you down a path you seem to so regret.
I must say, I do appreciate those who declare themselves busy but admit that they have chosen such a lifestyle. For them being busy is synonymous with feeling fulfilled, or seems to be anyway. Much in the way I would say it’s been a good week since I got to spend much of it outdoors, they would feel their week has been well spent because they were constantly engaged. Is it better than enjoying time in the woods? I don’t know, and I like it when neither of us has to determine who is better for the conversation to proceed.
What do you mean when you say “I’m busy”? Let’s be clear: everyone gets 24 hours in a day and if you spend it feeding the poor, working, watching television or just staring at the wall you were doing something the entire time. So in a sense we’re all busy all the time, but presumably that’s not what we mean when we say we’re busy. Sometimes I plan on relaxing in front of the computer with a TV show and some pasta, is that enough to declare myself buys? Can I get out of invitations as a result of being busy with pasta? Do recreational plans allow me to declare that I am really busy this week?
If you’re not busy, what does that mean exactly? Does it really imply something about you? What are you doing with your time, precisely?
What I do find irritating is the large bastion of people who want to engage in time-redistribution though declarations of ‘busy’. I do my best to never be, or claim to be ‘busy’ as I understand it. I know that there is almost always some way of putting an activity into my schedule somewhere. Yes, it requires sacrificing some other activity, but that’s true of literally everything. Perhaps you’re sacrificing feeling sorry for yourself about how lonely you are so that you can go out and spend time with friends. You’re still giving up one activity for another. But there seems the idea that those who do not or will not declare themselves busy owe something to those who unceasingly explain how little time they have (often for hours a day explaining how they have no free hours in their life!)
You wish you had time to take up the piano like I did? I’m not sure how to respond to that. Are you just looking for sympathy? Are you trying to tell me how privileged I am (and if so am I supposed to feel good or poorly about myself)? Are you just inviting me to ask about your life? Are you trying to excuse yourself for having not done so?
Somehow I feel like the last one is the most common. And sadly that’s how I take it most of the time, which is perhaps the worst of all possible explanations. Such a statement takes the accomplishment of another (like learning an instrument) and places it below the generic “busy-ness” of oneself. After all, if learning that instrument were more important that the unmentioned activities, they would’ve learned the instrument! In addition, it’s passing judgment; implying such use of time is somehow frivolous or without meaning. “Ah, I wish I had a chance to frolic around like you do, but there’s real work to be done by us adults.” Excellent, I’ll stay here then shall I?
Perhaps I resent it the same way those who have spent their lives saving up for retirement resent their peers being given money simply because they spent all of their own without a thought for the future. I went to school, did well, planned ahead, and took a job that could both pay for my modest lifestyle while at the same time not demand an unreasonable portion of my time. Now I’m reaping the rewards of those choices and whatever sacrifices they entailed, and I can only say I’m sorry your choices have led you down a path you seem to so regret.
I must say, I do appreciate those who declare themselves busy but admit that they have chosen such a lifestyle. For them being busy is synonymous with feeling fulfilled, or seems to be anyway. Much in the way I would say it’s been a good week since I got to spend much of it outdoors, they would feel their week has been well spent because they were constantly engaged. Is it better than enjoying time in the woods? I don’t know, and I like it when neither of us has to determine who is better for the conversation to proceed.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Why do I believe these things?
I think string theory is for the birds. How much do I know about string theory? Not much, I'm sure it's insulting to the many men and women who have dedicated their lives to pushing forward the details. Yet there's plenty of well informed individuals that agree with me. I like Supersymmetry as a particle physics model. I don't know much more about it that I do about string theory and the two are intertwined anyway. Why do I even have an opinion? Does it matter that I do? Apparently we've decided that uninformed opinions on global warming matter, should it extend to all the sciences?
Also, I think the multiworlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is bogus and that the Bell theorem proves it. I don't like the Copenhagen interpretation but think it's the most reasonable. Who cares? Why do I care? With these things I know enough to know that my opinions are uninformed, but how many things do I care about that I secretly don't know anything about? How much do I have to know before it matters? After all, someone has to be wrong and there's plenty of very well informed people on either side. No amount of competence will keep them from being wrong, why should I let my incompetence keep me from being right? Can't win if you're not in the game.
Also, I think the multiworlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is bogus and that the Bell theorem proves it. I don't like the Copenhagen interpretation but think it's the most reasonable. Who cares? Why do I care? With these things I know enough to know that my opinions are uninformed, but how many things do I care about that I secretly don't know anything about? How much do I have to know before it matters? After all, someone has to be wrong and there's plenty of very well informed people on either side. No amount of competence will keep them from being wrong, why should I let my incompetence keep me from being right? Can't win if you're not in the game.
Monday, May 7, 2012
Legacy
One drop of water falls in a pond. The forces exerted on that drop are massive as related to its own size and internal integrity: within a blink of an eye the drop is ripped apart to become indistinguishable from the remainder of the pond. Within a split second the original body of water that constituted that drop has irreparably separated and spread far enough to be truly impossible to gather together again. In minutes, it is dispersed through-out the pond and much of seeped into the ground or even evaporated back into the air. Enough years pass and the trillions of trillions of molecules that made up the drop have integrated themselves into every liquid or gaseous concentration of water the planet. There are thousands of them in everything you drink.
But that initial tear, the rip from body to an all encompassing nothingness has it's impact. The drop is gone, but we see its legacy left behind on the surface of the pond: spreading out in ever greater ripples. An observer sits on the edge of the pond, monitoring. If the pond small enough, or the drop big enough and close enough to shore, our observer will be able to record its death knell. The ripples reach the edge and splash up against the walls which hold the water in. Over time, a couple of seconds perhaps, the ripples experience self-interference, boundary conditions come into play and all the rest of the world enters in. The observer losses track of the distinct impact of the drop and it is lost forever. As the pond gets wider, becoming a lake and then an ocean the drop experiences no less force but our observer is forever blocked from access. Only the rarest drop is large enough and close enough to land for them to see the ripple in the water.
More Math
This is a good base from which to start our thinking on what we care about in a mate. When we’re young we tend to have some pretty specific as well unrealistic ideas of what we want. Luckily we also have a lot of hormones and a weaker grasp on our mental consistency (and I’m including myself in this) so we often find ourselves overcoming those restrictions. As we get older both things change. 26 isn’t exactly old and wise but by that age we’ve probably realized that some of our requirements were a bit absurd, though at the same time the things we care about become harder to bend or compromise on.
It’s important to sort out what you care about; obviously if you don’t (or do so incorrectly) you’ll either end up married to someone with whom you’re incompatible or miss someone with whom you would’ve been very happy. However, it becomes more critical to do so when your options are narrowed. When you live in Utah, or are going to school at BYU-Idaho (as examples) you can decide you only want to date men with black hair and a passion for motorcycles and honestly you’ll probably be OK. There’s enough people that meaningless requirements can actually be helpful as it allows you to reduce an overwhelming population to a more manageable number; reducing your choices enough to let you make a sensible decision.
But when there’s 30 people, being specific in ways that aren’t important severely limits your options. Remember, the 30 isn’t the number of delightful young ladies right at my age with whom I have good chemistry, it’s every single (single) LDS female I’ll meet in Wisconsin over the next three years. Some of them I’m likely to outright dislike. Some of them are great people with whom I have no chemistry at all. Many would have no interest in me no matter my level of infatuation. So if decide I’m only interested in brunettes then I’m likely to be in trouble.
Basically what these numbers do is they tell you (or tell me I suppose) how many things I can find important. With two choices (geography and LDS, and I suppose I’m neglecting to count things like: age appropriateness, gender and relationship status as I consider them assumed qualities) I have now defined the pool at 30 women over three years. That means I need more criteria (I’m pretty sure we’re not marrying 30 people together these days) but I only have room for so many before I place myself out of the running statistically.
Let’s say I do have a hair rule: let’s make red hair very important to me (I happen to have red hair so why not). Personal drive, hygiene, life goals, these things pale in comparison to how important it is they have red hair. Statistically about 5% of Americans have red hair, so now my options drop to a (generous rounding) 2 girls. So if I don’t care about personal chemistry, appearance (outside of hair color) life goals, or anything else we’re down to two. Now let’s say there’s a one in four chance any given girl picked from the original 30 would be interested in pursuing a relationship with me (it’s hard to pick a number that’s accurate, not self-aggrandizing nor self-pitying and I feel like one in four is a nice balance). That gives me a one in two chance of having a relationship (forget marriage at this point) in the next three years.
The point isn’t that insisting on only dating redheads is dumb (I mean it is dumb, but that’s not the point now), rather it’s that how many criteria you can have needs to be considered, and what those criteria is something that should be looked at carefully. This is incredibly hard to apply. It’s nice in theory of course, though rarely used even then: but real life tends to get complicated.
On a first or second date, how many things do you notice about your date that impacts your view of them? Picking up a check may not have made the list of the two criteria you allow yourself to care about yet, ladies, if he asks you out and then expects you to pay will it matter? Of course it does. A typical date, even the “dinner and a movie” date consists of hundreds of tiny interactions through all sorts of mediums, each one influencing what you think of your opposite number. And this isn’t a downside: it’s the whole point of dating!
At 18, 19 out of every 20 people you meet are possible prospects for marriage and should you find yourself matched with one you will get married. But that 20th person will not be getting married; so time passes and those 19 begin to weed themselves out. At 18 it's 95% odds, but then it starts to go down. If you have a 1/5 chance of getting married any given year (assuming you wish to) this is the math:
100, 18yos enter the dating world, 95 of whom will marry if given the chance, 5 of whom will not.
A) 95%
B) 5%
Year 1: 19 of them marry (the remainder of that 1/5 statistically hooked up with someone who wont, and thus can't be counted) That means there are now 76 people from that group, 71 of whom will marry and 5 who wont.
A) 93 %
B) 7%
Year 2: 14 marry
A) 92%
B) 8%
Year 3: 12 marry
A) 90%
B) 10%
So in three years the percent population of singles who wont marry has doubled. By the time you hit 28, a full half of those left in the single's category wont marry. The numbers I've given are of course fictious, as is the idea that people divide into categories of any kind, much less just two. But the idea is sound: those prone to not marry fill a greater and greater percentage of the single population as time passes. I have no particular comment on this phenomenon, just presenting it.
A month or two into my time here I had identified 3 women I was interested in. I’ve since removed one from consideration (the process is interesting enough to me that I hope to give it its own topic, but I’ll just say it involved discusions, time together with friends, and several dates) and will probably soon be removing another. Still, 3 people may sound miserly, but when that’s out of 15 possible it’s actually pretty good I think. It’s part of my numbers gut-check; is the number of people I find interesting, as compared to the pool out of which I’m selecting, suggest that I am too picky and need to modify my standards? In this case I found 20% of the eligible women (when using the inflated numbers, 30% otherwise) worth going to the point of going on dates with serious consideration. In my mind, that’s pretty fair.
A month or two into my time here I had identified 3 women I was interested in. I’ve since removed one from consideration (the process is interesting enough to me that I hope to give it its own topic, but I’ll just say it involved discusions, time together with friends, and several dates) and will probably soon be removing another. Still, 3 people may sound miserly, but when that’s out of 15 possible it’s actually pretty good I think. It’s part of my numbers gut-check; is the number of people I find interesting, as compared to the pool out of which I’m selecting, suggest that I am too picky and need to modify my standards? In this case I found 20% of the eligible women (when using the inflated numbers, 30% otherwise) worth going to the point of going on dates with serious consideration. In my mind, that’s pretty fair.
There is good reason to believe that, in the aggregate, these assumptions are in fact correct. The 1/5 chance of being married each year estimate I made above is about right for the wards I’ve been in. It’s actually significantly higher in my current ward. That being the case, it’s clear that in most cases such a person both exists, and has a high probability of meeting you in your early years (let’s say before you turn 31, since the majority of my experience is in YSAs) even in low-density areas like Wisconsin.
Now with these assumptions being true, then we know that if you take a group of people who meet the demographic requirements (age, gender, ect…) of some size ‘N’, then some number of them ‘X’ will meet the qualifications that allow them to marry … me, or whoever we’re talking about. And we know that X/N (the percent who meet those qualities) is large enough such that, in general, there will be one every, let’s say 5 years or more in your area. For me, that would mean a little more than 4%, or 1 in 25. Keep in mind, that’s not the number of people who would make good dates, or boyfriends/girlfriends, that’s those who would represent fully compatible spouses. And the number seems reasonable to me at least. Chances are it’s well within an order of magnitude correct (again, in the aggregate, I’m sure it varies widely for any specific person).
Now let’s take some requirement like red hair (black hair is too common), and see what that does. Now even if we agree that having red hair wouldn’t make someone more likely to be compatible with anyone else intrinsically, if that someone else is set on red hair then chances are it would, the same way thinking a placebo works tends to make it work. But we’ll pretend that’s not the case and that this requirement in no way increases the likelihood that two people would make a good, married couple. So having red hair will leave the number of compatible people at 4% (that’s rounding down) and then select within that group for only the red heads.
If I’m still here in Wisconsin and make that selection then I have dropped from 1/5 chance of getting married each year to 1/25 chance (sort of, close enough). This means I’ve taken a serious consequence for selecting for a trait that did not indicate fitness of partner. But here we’re not talking about Wisconsin, we’re talking about a high density area like Provo, and the math doesn’t work. This is the break-down of assumptions. In Wisconsin, in a Ward that has 15 easily identifiable potential partners (in that there are 15 total, and easy to identify who those 15 are) it is a reasonable assumption that you can get to know and evaluate for martial fitness all 15. Thus if there is a 1/25 chance that someone is compatible and capable of pressing through initial roadblocks there’s a 46% chance you’ll end up married to one of those 15 (and a 70% chance from 30 after 3 years according to our old math).
But as the number of people within our reach increases, the quality of that assumption decreases. If it goes from 15 to 20: no problem. But now let’s say it goes up to 2,000 (still much less then you’ll find in my age range in Provo). If we keep the old assumption then there are now 80 people on average who would be compatible for marriage, and a 99.9..% (with 33 ‘9’s after the decimal place) that one our hypothetical person gets married to one of those 2,000. And if the assumption is correct then this person can decide: “only redheads for me!” and they still have 4 people on average or a better than 98% chance of getting married.
But we know that this critical assumption has been scaled out of existence. So we need to determine how our hypothetical hair-based-selector selects their social circle. That discussion is rather complex and I’ve already wasted a bunch of time at work writing this so I won’t pursue it. Suffice it to say that as long as such a person is on the look-out for red-heads, their potential chance to be married has not been meaningfully impacted. It only becomes an issue when someone takes no personal action to select friends or acquaintances based on hair color, no effort to meet anyone of that hair color, no effort to ask anyone out who meets their hair requirements, but still refuses at all costs to marry anyone who isn’t red-headed. At that point we have to determine how many people will randomly fall into their life and then go from there. But even then, in a high density area, it still leaves them quite a bit of room to have stupid requirements.
Now if the question is: if someone is compatible in every way to be a spouse (and not just a: “we’re both x years old and tired of looking, let’s just give up and get together” kind of way, but in a “we make each other unreasonably happy and want to spend our lives together building a family” kind of way) is it reasonable to consider the question: “what if there’s someone better”? That’s an interesting discussion I hope to address at some point too.
It’s important to sort out what you care about; obviously if you don’t (or do so incorrectly) you’ll either end up married to someone with whom you’re incompatible or miss someone with whom you would’ve been very happy. However, it becomes more critical to do so when your options are narrowed. When you live in Utah, or are going to school at BYU-Idaho (as examples) you can decide you only want to date men with black hair and a passion for motorcycles and honestly you’ll probably be OK. There’s enough people that meaningless requirements can actually be helpful as it allows you to reduce an overwhelming population to a more manageable number; reducing your choices enough to let you make a sensible decision.
But when there’s 30 people, being specific in ways that aren’t important severely limits your options. Remember, the 30 isn’t the number of delightful young ladies right at my age with whom I have good chemistry, it’s every single (single) LDS female I’ll meet in Wisconsin over the next three years. Some of them I’m likely to outright dislike. Some of them are great people with whom I have no chemistry at all. Many would have no interest in me no matter my level of infatuation. So if decide I’m only interested in brunettes then I’m likely to be in trouble.
Basically what these numbers do is they tell you (or tell me I suppose) how many things I can find important. With two choices (geography and LDS, and I suppose I’m neglecting to count things like: age appropriateness, gender and relationship status as I consider them assumed qualities) I have now defined the pool at 30 women over three years. That means I need more criteria (I’m pretty sure we’re not marrying 30 people together these days) but I only have room for so many before I place myself out of the running statistically.
Let’s say I do have a hair rule: let’s make red hair very important to me (I happen to have red hair so why not). Personal drive, hygiene, life goals, these things pale in comparison to how important it is they have red hair. Statistically about 5% of Americans have red hair, so now my options drop to a (generous rounding) 2 girls. So if I don’t care about personal chemistry, appearance (outside of hair color) life goals, or anything else we’re down to two. Now let’s say there’s a one in four chance any given girl picked from the original 30 would be interested in pursuing a relationship with me (it’s hard to pick a number that’s accurate, not self-aggrandizing nor self-pitying and I feel like one in four is a nice balance). That gives me a one in two chance of having a relationship (forget marriage at this point) in the next three years.
The point isn’t that insisting on only dating redheads is dumb (I mean it is dumb, but that’s not the point now), rather it’s that how many criteria you can have needs to be considered, and what those criteria is something that should be looked at carefully. This is incredibly hard to apply. It’s nice in theory of course, though rarely used even then: but real life tends to get complicated.
On a first or second date, how many things do you notice about your date that impacts your view of them? Picking up a check may not have made the list of the two criteria you allow yourself to care about yet, ladies, if he asks you out and then expects you to pay will it matter? Of course it does. A typical date, even the “dinner and a movie” date consists of hundreds of tiny interactions through all sorts of mediums, each one influencing what you think of your opposite number. And this isn’t a downside: it’s the whole point of dating!
At 18, 19 out of every 20 people you meet are possible prospects for marriage and should you find yourself matched with one you will get married. But that 20th person will not be getting married; so time passes and those 19 begin to weed themselves out. At 18 it's 95% odds, but then it starts to go down. If you have a 1/5 chance of getting married any given year (assuming you wish to) this is the math:
100, 18yos enter the dating world, 95 of whom will marry if given the chance, 5 of whom will not.
A) 95%
B) 5%
Year 1: 19 of them marry (the remainder of that 1/5 statistically hooked up with someone who wont, and thus can't be counted) That means there are now 76 people from that group, 71 of whom will marry and 5 who wont.
A) 93 %
B) 7%
Year 2: 14 marry
A) 92%
B) 8%
Year 3: 12 marry
A) 90%
B) 10%
So in three years the percent population of singles who wont marry has doubled. By the time you hit 28, a full half of those left in the single's category wont marry. The numbers I've given are of course fictious, as is the idea that people divide into categories of any kind, much less just two. But the idea is sound: those prone to not marry fill a greater and greater percentage of the single population as time passes. I have no particular comment on this phenomenon, just presenting it.
A month or two into my time here I had identified 3 women I was interested in. I’ve since removed one from consideration (the process is interesting enough to me that I hope to give it its own topic, but I’ll just say it involved discusions, time together with friends, and several dates) and will probably soon be removing another. Still, 3 people may sound miserly, but when that’s out of 15 possible it’s actually pretty good I think. It’s part of my numbers gut-check; is the number of people I find interesting, as compared to the pool out of which I’m selecting, suggest that I am too picky and need to modify my standards? In this case I found 20% of the eligible women (when using the inflated numbers, 30% otherwise) worth going to the point of going on dates with serious consideration. In my mind, that’s pretty fair.
A month or two into my time here I had identified 3 women I was interested in. I’ve since removed one from consideration (the process is interesting enough to me that I hope to give it its own topic, but I’ll just say it involved discusions, time together with friends, and several dates) and will probably soon be removing another. Still, 3 people may sound miserly, but when that’s out of 15 possible it’s actually pretty good I think. It’s part of my numbers gut-check; is the number of people I find interesting, as compared to the pool out of which I’m selecting, suggest that I am too picky and need to modify my standards? In this case I found 20% of the eligible women (when using the inflated numbers, 30% otherwise) worth going to the point of going on dates with serious consideration. In my mind, that’s pretty fair.
There is good reason to believe that, in the aggregate, these assumptions are in fact correct. The 1/5 chance of being married each year estimate I made above is about right for the wards I’ve been in. It’s actually significantly higher in my current ward. That being the case, it’s clear that in most cases such a person both exists, and has a high probability of meeting you in your early years (let’s say before you turn 31, since the majority of my experience is in YSAs) even in low-density areas like Wisconsin.
Now with these assumptions being true, then we know that if you take a group of people who meet the demographic requirements (age, gender, ect…) of some size ‘N’, then some number of them ‘X’ will meet the qualifications that allow them to marry … me, or whoever we’re talking about. And we know that X/N (the percent who meet those qualities) is large enough such that, in general, there will be one every, let’s say 5 years or more in your area. For me, that would mean a little more than 4%, or 1 in 25. Keep in mind, that’s not the number of people who would make good dates, or boyfriends/girlfriends, that’s those who would represent fully compatible spouses. And the number seems reasonable to me at least. Chances are it’s well within an order of magnitude correct (again, in the aggregate, I’m sure it varies widely for any specific person).
Now let’s take some requirement like red hair (black hair is too common), and see what that does. Now even if we agree that having red hair wouldn’t make someone more likely to be compatible with anyone else intrinsically, if that someone else is set on red hair then chances are it would, the same way thinking a placebo works tends to make it work. But we’ll pretend that’s not the case and that this requirement in no way increases the likelihood that two people would make a good, married couple. So having red hair will leave the number of compatible people at 4% (that’s rounding down) and then select within that group for only the red heads.
If I’m still here in Wisconsin and make that selection then I have dropped from 1/5 chance of getting married each year to 1/25 chance (sort of, close enough). This means I’ve taken a serious consequence for selecting for a trait that did not indicate fitness of partner. But here we’re not talking about Wisconsin, we’re talking about a high density area like Provo, and the math doesn’t work. This is the break-down of assumptions. In Wisconsin, in a Ward that has 15 easily identifiable potential partners (in that there are 15 total, and easy to identify who those 15 are) it is a reasonable assumption that you can get to know and evaluate for martial fitness all 15. Thus if there is a 1/25 chance that someone is compatible and capable of pressing through initial roadblocks there’s a 46% chance you’ll end up married to one of those 15 (and a 70% chance from 30 after 3 years according to our old math).
But as the number of people within our reach increases, the quality of that assumption decreases. If it goes from 15 to 20: no problem. But now let’s say it goes up to 2,000 (still much less then you’ll find in my age range in Provo). If we keep the old assumption then there are now 80 people on average who would be compatible for marriage, and a 99.9..% (with 33 ‘9’s after the decimal place) that one our hypothetical person gets married to one of those 2,000. And if the assumption is correct then this person can decide: “only redheads for me!” and they still have 4 people on average or a better than 98% chance of getting married.
But we know that this critical assumption has been scaled out of existence. So we need to determine how our hypothetical hair-based-selector selects their social circle. That discussion is rather complex and I’ve already wasted a bunch of time at work writing this so I won’t pursue it. Suffice it to say that as long as such a person is on the look-out for red-heads, their potential chance to be married has not been meaningfully impacted. It only becomes an issue when someone takes no personal action to select friends or acquaintances based on hair color, no effort to meet anyone of that hair color, no effort to ask anyone out who meets their hair requirements, but still refuses at all costs to marry anyone who isn’t red-headed. At that point we have to determine how many people will randomly fall into their life and then go from there. But even then, in a high density area, it still leaves them quite a bit of room to have stupid requirements.
Now if the question is: if someone is compatible in every way to be a spouse (and not just a: “we’re both x years old and tired of looking, let’s just give up and get together” kind of way, but in a “we make each other unreasonably happy and want to spend our lives together building a family” kind of way) is it reasonable to consider the question: “what if there’s someone better”? That’s an interesting discussion I hope to address at some point too.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Apple of my Eye
I attend a ward of about 70 or so active members. It's one of the rare wards where the guys outnumber the girls, but half and half isn't an unreasonable estimate. That puts the numbers at about 35 girls (or, 35 guys if your interests run that way). The geographic area it represents is virtually all of South-Eastern Wisconsin so there is no cross-ward opportunities until you hit long distance dating (Madison really being the closest place with any kind of LDS, YSA population and at a round trip of well over 100 miles I feel safe calling that long distance).
So what would you say when I explained that I have identified a total of 3 people who are of some romantic interest to me from the ward, and written the rest off? 4, if you want, but by the time I identified the 4th I had already dismissed one of the first three. Restrictive and not open minded right? Or overly picky? Or is it incredibly generous? It represents 10% of the total possible population. That means that, outside of assumed standards like age range and status as a single female, the requirement of active, LDS has narrowed the possibilities down in the area from many tens of thousands to less than 40. If I added only one more criteria of that nature there would be less than a 5% chance that anyone meeting my two criteria could be found in a population of over a million people. So it seems to me that 10% of those left after applying a single rule is evidence of an extremely flexible outlook.
Of course it still means three people. And at this point, down to two. Which is still ignoring the question of the chances of any of them reciprocating.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)