"2 + 2" = "two plus two"

I read back those last few posts on my way home from work yesterday (Was it yesterday or the night before? All the days are blurring into one this Christmas). Either way, whenever I read them, they read a bit stilted. I think this is the problem when you want to do something, but don't have the time to catch the moment. You end up trying to fake it by retracing your steps, but the essential salience goes missing somewhere. So I hope I at least conveyed the general idea, especially on the topic of Number Worship. In fact, this is another problem: when you read something back that's fresh in your mind it can be hard to tell if you expressed what was on your mind on the actual page, as it's all tied up as one blob. Really you need to come back with fresh eyes in a few months' time, when you've forgotten all the mental rehearsals. Then it's easy to spot the mistakes, or the bits that don't make sense because you failed to include something important that the reader would've needed to know.

Anyway, today I'm gonna return briefly to Number Worship as something popped up that spurred me further.

The following exchange appeared on Twitter.

Firstly, neither of these tweets were in response to the particular point I was making, so it would be unfair to reply to them as if they were. It's more the case that they're convenient for me to make a point off the back of.

The initial tweet shows a meme that, slightly tongue-in-cheek, states that "Math isn't real." The reply then asks, "Why does 2 + 2 = 4?"

I like both these people, so I don't want to unfairly accuse anyone of stating something they were not. However, the reply tweet so neatly encapsulates the Number Worship mindset that I was trying to explain in my last, rather meandering, post.

Instead of just acknowledging, "Yes, mathematics is a language," the response is a defensive one. Making an argument implying that number is a fundamental aspect of reality. In fact, another tweet popped up in response to the debate that highlighted the worldview even more plainly.

It sums up the view in a nutshell, and if you remember the point from the last post - that literature gave rise to a belief in written bibles, which has since been supplanted by a belief in bibles written in mathematics  - you'll notice the common themes. (Though to be fair, looking up the quote online, it appears that the sentence only paraphrases Galileo, and in his original passage God is not mentioned. It is, nevertheless, the classic refrain.)

Anyway, the claim that maths is real because "2 + 2 = 4" misses the point. As just because a language can be used to make a true statement doesn't mean the language itself is fundamentally real and not conceptual. For instance, I can make a true statement in English. Let's say, "If you heat a solid it will turn to liquid." This is true, but no one would argue that therefore English, or some other spoken language, is the true essential root of all physical reality. (Though again, in the age of the written bibles we had, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" [My emphasis, not God's :p .)

Likewise I can write "2 + 2 = 4" in English, .."Two plus two equals four."

There's this vague notion, as per the Galileo quote, that the universe is constructed entirely from number. Like numbers are somehow the essential building blocks. However, even if the numbers themselves were not conceptual, which they are, the language of mathematics is held together by symbols that are not numbers. Even the simple "2 + 2 = 4" is not simply numbers. The + sign is a symbol that symbolises the concept of adding. The = sign the concept of things being the same. So we're dealing with concepts here, abstractions from the real world.

Plato's Forms

The Number Worship worldview is a little bit similar to Plato's theory of Forms. This notion that conceptual ideas are somehow more real than the physical examples. That the concept of an Orange, or a Tree, is truer and more perfect in form than its real world imitations. This is an interesting idea from a philosophical, or even religious point of view, but it's not science. Science is about observing the real world - so it would be a topsy-turvy science that deemed concepts more fundamental than physical reality.

Nevertheless, it serves as a good illustration of how language is indeed conceptual. There are, of course, real actual oranges. However, when we use the word orange we're conveying a concept. Even if I have an actual orange, the minute I express to another person, in writing or in speech, "I have an orange," the words are conceptual. And I'm relying on the fact that the other person shares the same concept, and understands that the symbols on the page symbolise that concept. I'm not giving them an actual orange by writing the word orange.

This belief that the numbers themselves are somehow truer than the real world objects they're counting, is, like Plato's Forms, actually quite a mystical idea. Though those who believe it are generally quite oblivious, so much do they confound the notions of maths and science. It's also more restrictive, as the Plato theory can appeal to all concepts, whereas the more modern form is exclusive to just numbers (and also geometric shapes).

(In fact, geometric shapes - the circle, the triangle, the perfect sphere and so forth - also very much fall into this category of concepts that are taken as more real than reality itself. It's likewise interesting to note that at the macro and micro level we have worldviews that mirror this. Be it the spherical suns and planets orbiting in space, or electrons whizzing around protons and neutrons. In contrast to what we witness in our everyday lives - where flowers, humans, clouds, birds, etc, are complex shapes. Though here the round orange does indeed seem perfect in its radiance.)

..Back To Christmas

Anyhow, I better get back to Christmas. I'm back at work tomorrow, so I'm gonna have to get presents wrapped tonight. Sadly the perfectly wrapped presents that exist in my mind's eye won't be viewed quite like the real thing by the people receiving them. So I'm a slave to reality, and my poor wrapping skills will have to suffice.

What Is Number Worship? A Primer.

Number Worship is a label I've been using recently. It's a little bit pejorative, and I use it to describe a certain way of thinking. A way of thinking that in many ways is the true religion of our time. That might sound a little odd, hence the purpose of this article - to make it clear what is meant.

There are two ways of understanding the term. By looking at how it manifests in today's world, and by looking at the historic context. I'll start with today..

"" The Science ""

Most people will be familiar with the "Trust the Science" mantra. This idea that Science, with a capital S, must not be questioned. It's pretty easy to see the parallels with religion, and this is often commented upon. However, what is not as well acknowledged is something more fundamental to this worldview, and that is that the "Trust the Science" types (in fact, most people in today's world really) fail to recognise the difference between mathematics and science.

Science is about observation. Fundamentally it's about making observations of the actual world. Whereas mathematics is a language. It's symbolic and abstract. Sure, maths and science make good bedfellows, and maths can be applied to science, but maths is not the real world.

A graph or table of data might be a model or symbolic representation of the real world, but it is not the real, actual world.

Even if you believe the real world can be entirely represented and understood as data, the data in a model will always be less than the real world data. Likewise data is collected and compiled by humans, with all the biases of thought and circumstance that come with that. So when it comes to science reality is primary, and models are always inferior and secondary.

However, as the "Trust the Science" people don't recognise this, and conflate the two in their minds, the data becomes more real than the actual observed world. In fact, if you find yourself debating these people you'll often be confronted with the refrain of, "Where's Your Science?!"

And what they really mean when they say this is "Where's your data?". They're not asking for an observation they can repeat. They want a study with data. They want some graphs and numbers - and if you do not have that then no appeal to logic or observation will sway them. In their minds data is the ultimate and primary source of truth.

An Example.

To give an easy example we can return to the pandemic and the issue of masking. One of my arguments against wearing a mask was that I feared they'd be a breeding ground for bacteria and fungus. This wasn't based on data, but upon observation. We know that dark, damp, warm and poorly ventilated places are good breeding grounds, so it's not illogical to surmise that wearing a mask for eight hours a day might have a similar effect. However, if I raised this argument the reply would come back, "Where's your science?!" - again, in reality meaning, "Where's your study/data?".

As I had no data, I therefore had no science in their eyes.

Of course, when studies finally appeared backing up the notion that bacteria and fungus might be an issue they begrudgingly accepted it. (Though even here, once studies with data are presented there are often appeals to counter studies and different interpretations of the data. Or claims that the studies were flawed, or conducted by "discredited" people. -- The issue of authority and interpretation will be familiar when we get to the historical context.)

As you're reading this you may be thinking that my views on masks are wrong. That the issue of bacteria on masks is negligible, or that my reasoning is faulty. You could be right. However, this isn't the point. The point is that these people on the other side of the debate are so enthral to the notion that data is reality that they root their worldview in data - that is, they root their views not in first-hand experience and observation, but in abstract models and studies.

If there is no data then it doesn't exist to them, and if there is data then they believe it to be as real as the ground beneath them.

Consequently, as they're not rooted in reality, it's easy for them to get lost in fairy tales written in mathematics. Fairy tales written by men.

First there was the Word..

Now for the historic context. It's no coincidence that not long after man discovered the art of writing, books - or bibles - became the source of all truth. This wonderful new technology came along - a way of putting ideas down into stone or clay - and lo, it became the true authority.

We still have this sense now - "It was written in a book, it must be true."

Of course, most "intelligent" people today understand only too well that books are written by men, and that like men they can be false. Still though, this appeal to text has never quite went away.

"Source?!"

A written source is seen as something more solid and authoritative than a general opinion. It's afforded more weight and gravity. Even the "intelligent" academics that pooh pooh the various Bibles will get very angry if you doubt a historic source that backs up their particular worldview. "It's written down, we have the evidence!"

Nevertheless, in spite of this lingering reverence, since the advent of the enlightenment we've left the true worship of books behind. We now have a purer symbolic language to etch the word of God down in: mathematics.

Maths, with its universal beauty, has transplanted the written word, and it's no coincidence that with the rise of reason and science it has become the true language of scribes and priests. Now, just as Christians, Jews, Muslims and other religionists once took a book to be more true than reality itself, so Scientists take data to be truer still. The graph is more real than the outside world. The table of data is sacrosanct and must not be questioned.

Lo, we have the data.

And lo, once we get enough data - once we have a book big enough - we will have all the answers.

I'm getting a little bit heady and over the top here, but you get the point I'm making. The modern hierophants, arguing over graphs and making appeals to authority, are little different to priests arguing over different textual interpretations. Lost in abstract things, their egos tied up in the arcana, unable to come back down to earth from the ivory tower.

"Following the Science."

Followers for sure, but it is not science they're following. It's data - again, data that is collected, collated and divined by men. In fact, there's that other common saying we hear from governments these days that implies the same thing,

"We're led by the data."

At least this one is more accurate in its literal sense.

Anyway, this is what I mean when I say the 'worship of numbers,' and in my view it's actually quite dangerous - as dangerous as any past religion. As all these politicians, academics and experts are true believers in the data, and are simply incapable of understanding that data is not reality.

They'll bow down to the holy graph (or to the infallible AI algorithm) and lock us down or execute some other political policy in a heartbeat. Even the ones that disagree with the action will only be able to provide counter arguments by making different appeals to scripture (that is, appeals to different interpretations of the data). So fully immersed in this religious worldview are they. Unable to step outside the book of numbers.

It's like the Matrix, but the pods aren't needed.

Carry On Britain

Earlier, when I last posted, what I wanted to write was clear in my mind, but I didn't have the time. Now I'm back home and I have the time I've completely lost my thread. The flow has gone.

What I was thinking this morning was how odd the Labour Party are. That is, the current make up of the Labour Party. It's now majority female (104 out of the 199 Labour MPs in parliament are women).

I've noted this female contingent before, often disparagingly. In fact, had I posted this morning when the the ink was still wet I would've continued in that vein. Now, in the contemplation of evening fall I don't quite have the venom in me. So I'll try to describe the stereotype more politely. They're the sort of women who often start sentences with, "As a working mother..." It's that type of politics. The social justice stuff, but with a HR department type vibe.

Actually, let's stop beating about the bush. This attempt at being nice is fooling nobody, let's just be honest. The women on the Labour Party benches remind me of a hen party. Irate, on the warpath, and looking for a man to blame. I remember when they were all berating Boris, demanding an apology because he'd used "bad language" in the chamber. I noted on this blog at the time that it was like seeing a man get scolded by a harem of housewives.

Of course, it no doubt comes across as sexist stating this. Perhaps it is. However, really I think it's quite the opposite. The other parties don't seem to have this problem. Labour seem to elevate women that have a victim mentality though. Being "a woman" is such a strong part of their political identity that they can't escape the stereotype. The role of an MP is supposed to be a leadership role - you're stepping up in your community to take charge and responsibility, the buck is supposed to stop with you. So you can't be a good leader if you have a mindset where you expect someone else (that is, someone above you in society) to dole out justice in your direction. Where the state and its male politicians are just another father figure you appeal to (and complain to) when problems arise.

To be blunt, you're not supposed to be complaining that your husband hasn't put the shelf up, you're supposed to be putting the shelf up yourself.

Either way, it is what it is, and I can't hide my opinion that these Labour MPs look so hysterical and hectoring.

Keir Starmer

This brings me to the key observation. Namely that Keir Starmer is the male at centre of all these females. It's such a strange social dynamic. Many, many people are commenting on the fact that Labour look set to win a landslide at the next election, however, few seem to envision what that government will look like. It'll be unlike any government in history in its make up in my opinion.

It also seems quite noteworthy to me that Keir Starmer comes across as slightly camp in his mannerisms. It's strangely fitting. Like it takes a male with that sort of personality to manage so many women of the hen party type. I can't really imagine a more masculine politician keeping such a situation in check. Especially after beating two female candidates in the leadership race. It's quite a feat.

It's a little like the Margaret Thatcher years in reverse. There you had a strong woman surrounded by males in a male dominated world. Here you'll have a male politician surrounded by females that behave like stereotypical housewives. It's so strange I'm amazed that it goes under the radar so much. Though I guess the people that see it are afraid to point it out and elaborate for fear of being called sexist, etc.

Carry On..

Earlier today I couldn't help but think in terms of Carry On movies. There you had a similar dynamic. The camp Kenneth Williams, surrounded by matrons and uptight housewives on the one side, the laddish Sid James & Co on the other, being all cheeky and politically incorrect.

With the Conservative Party moving more to right they could very well fit the Sid James role in opposition.

It seems so British. From a logical point of view it terrifies me. I just don't see how it will work. Seeing it through the lens of a Carry On movie (especially at Christmas) makes it feel more reassuring though. So perhaps it'll be alright after all.

It's also worth noting that if Labour do win a landslide that'll mean another cohort of new politicians. Given the positive discrimination I'm guessing that'll mean even more Joan Sims and Hattie Jacques. So the picture could be even starker. Though I noticed in the local elections this year that the Little Boy Labour* stereotype seemed to be the commoner trend. So who knows.

/////////////////////////////////////

*This is the moniker that instantly springs to mind whenever I see these new and incredibly young Labour politicians that pop up these days. It could partly be a bias stemming from the fact that I've finally reached my early 40s and politicians are starting to simply look younger to me. Though I think the theme is real. The current Middlesbrough mayor looks about twelve and is in fact just thirty-three years old. Likewise, the Labour MP Keir Mather, who won the Selby and Ainsty by-election this year is just twenty-five.

It's similar to the Harry Enfield 'Tory Boy' stereotype.

I think the underlying commonality in these two stereotypes is that the people are defined by their investment in the party, rather than by their own personal convictions. The Tory Boy vaguely believes whatever it is that the current manifestation of the Conservative Party believes. So, for example, a young conservative that has strong and genuinely held free market libertarian views, or strong traditional Christian views wouldn't be a 'Tory Boy,' as their personal convictions may put them in opposition to the party at times. Whereas the Tory Boy is always with the party, wherever it goes. Their worldview is the party.

 

I think it's similar with these young 'Little Boy Labour' types. I don't think they stand for anything in particular as individuals. They just have a vague belief in 'Labour Party values.' Which at present are a vague mix of socialism and social justice. In fact, when Keir Mather was elected there was a brief furore when he immediately stated that he supported Keir Starmer's policy of keeping the two-child benefit cap. Of course, there's nothing wrong with taking a particular policy view. Nor is it necessarily wrong to compromise and support policies you might not fully agree with in the party interest. However, when someone so young says something that's clearly so calculated it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. There's just something not right about it. There's the sense that someone so young can only be making such a judgement for the wrong reasons, as they're not old enough to have the sense of pragmatism. So therefore it must be self-interest, or a case of being misled by older party figures.

Anyway, that was a longer than anticipated addendum. Well done if you've reached this far.

Christmas Miss Much

I haven't posted recently as my time has been consumed by work and Christmas. I have lots of things I want to post about though - including: how to fix your aesthetic compass using strawberry jam; a primer on 'number worship'; and also an article about how Britain after the next election could be like a Carry On movie. So hopefully now I have a few days off I can get some of that done.

First, alas, I have to once again brace the cold and head out to do yet more shopping.

It's all very mundane and unmanly, but at least fitting as a prelude to Carry On Britain.

Why The Elites Can't Just Leave Things Alone

This is a topic I keep meaning to post about. Namely the difference in attitude between ruling class type people and more regular type people when it comes to dealing with problems.

To give a simple example.

Let's say a bookshelf breaks in your home. It's a mundane problem, but one that needs fixing. However, though you recognise it needs fixing you may not be able to fix it immediately. It might be that you don't have the £70 spare at the moment to go and buy a new one from Argos. It could be that you simply don't have the time to spend an afternoon drilling holes in walls as you're too busy working a 9-5, or looking after the children. So it gets put on the backburner. Hopefully at some point you'll get round to sorting it, but for the time being it gets left.

However, if you're someone that has a lot of wealth, especially someone that employs staff, then it's quite different. You simply note the issue to an aide, and it gets dealt with. The money isn't an issue, nor is the time, as you're hiring someone else to come in and do the work.

When you live like this it becomes a habit. You get used to having problems dealt with immediately.

It's similar with health issues. For instance, let's take baldness. A cosmetic issue, but nevertheless one that is often considered important by men who start losing their hair. Now a normal person, with limited resources, might try a few over-the-counter remedies to stop the hair loss. Or order some online wonder-drug in the hope it works. However, after trying and failing a few times they'll quickly accept their fate and embrace life as a bald person.

If a person has a lot of money though they don't have to be as accepting of their fate. They can spend thousands jetting off to hair transplant specialists, or trying the latest state-of-the-art procedures. If they're unhappy with the results of one specialist they can hire another. The dream of hair remains alive, and the sense of control over the situation is retained.

An extreme example can be seen with celebrities and their endless plastic surgeries. Michael Jackson perhaps being the classic case in point. All humans have hang-ups about their appearance, but it's only with money that the possibility to indulge these hang-ups becomes an option.

Political hang-ups..

I think it's much the same with world politics. When there's so much money sloshing about, and so many people that can be employed to tackle a problem, it's very hard to just leave things be. The war in Iraq took place twenty years ago. It's hard not to imagine that had things just been left alone Saddam Hussein might have died of natural causes by now. Of course, conversely it's also possible that he could've went on to wage his own wars and lived to have been one hundred and twenty. So it's impossible to know for sure. Again though, it's hard not to feel the war just made things worse. Like drilling into the wall to put up a shelf, only to hit an electricity cable by accident.

I think lots of things in politics essentially boil down to this "do something" vs "leave things alone" question. However, most the people that are vocal in politics (including myself for sure in this regard) tend to be the sort of people that want to set the world to rights. So "leave things alone" rarely gets aired as an option. The sort of people that want to leave things alone are leaving things alone by default and staying out of it.

In many ways the Brexit vote (yes, Brexit again) was a vote to leave things alone.

"Just leave Britain be Britain, stop doing stuff!! ..and stop doing it so fast!"

When I was seven years old the Berlin Wall fell. That same year Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife were executed by firing squad. By the time I reached the age of thirty-one we had completely open borders with Romania.

That's quite the pace of change. All driven by an elite class with an innate desire to impose some kind of order on the world. Even as one order had just fallen. Could we not just have waited a few generations and enjoyed life after the Soviet Union? Meandering naturally, testing the waters.

I'm being a little unfair here. Like with our appearance, we all have these hang-ups and impulses. It's just accentuated in those that have the means to get their own way. That habit of doing something, the annoyance that something is out of place and not exactly where you want it to be. That an ornament has been moved slightly or put in its wrong place, or that the world jigsaw isn't exactly how you envision it in your mind. We would all shape the world to our own desires to some extent if we could. It takes a tremendous amount of self-restraint to step back when you can see in your field of vision a problem that's bugging you.

Plus, at the other end of the scale, leaving problems to fester is also a bad habit. So a bit of zip is needed in life as well. I guess it's a case of trying to find a balance. A little bit of will and purpose, but a little bit of pragmatism and acceptance of reality too.