Distorted Perceptions of Time

 

Time flies an arrow, and fruit flies like banana!

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Time warps strangely,
 like distorted reflections
 in a hall of mirrors.
 
 A month slips by in a blink,
 gone before it’s lived.
 
 Yet years in the past
 feel as though,
 between then and now,
 I have lived an eternity,
 wandering through
 folds of time.

There is indeed something distorted about the percepts of time.

With much fanfare, we celebrated the start of a new year and in a blink, it is already the month of February. If I were to say that the month of January just flew by, it would not be an overstatement.

The pace of time seems to depend on their proximity from the present. Moments that are close to now seem to pass quickly. On the other hand, years in the past (that are distant from now) seem to move at a much slower pace. It is similar to sitting on a train, where the electric poles adjacent to the track rapidly pass by, whereas the trees in the distance near the horizon move at a leisurely pace.

There is also a perception that those past years occurred in a different era. It feels as though centuries have passed between then and now, even though that is obviously not the case.

Reflecting on my high school years in 1972, approximately fifty years ago, I find it challenging to ascertain the significance of the notion of ’fifty years ago’. The passage of five decades does not evoke specific emotions or sentiments regarding its importance, or perhaps, its triviality.

Is ‘fifty years ago’ any different from ‘fifty-one years ago’? Or for that matter, is it any different than twenty or ten years ago? Is one weightier than the other? If they can have olfactory influence, will one smell stronger than the other?

What was I doing in the 365 days that were in the year that was ‘fifty years ago’?

I am uncertain about which adjective best describes the span of fifty years between then and now — whether it feels distant, recent, like it happened yesterday, or as though it occurred ages ago.

As time progresses, it seems that the life markers begin to merge into a single continuum. While individual days in the past week are still distinct and identifiable, those from two weeks ago require more effort to distinguish. Beyond two months, the concept of individual days essentially loses its meaning.

Individual months from the previous year may still retain their distinct identity, but even they tend to lose this distinction if they are part of a year that is more than a couple of years ago. Further back in time, even the specific years within a decade begin to blur together.

The phenomenon is like driving along a straight highway and observing milestones in a mirror. The ones recently passed remain distinguishable individually, whereas those located further down the road tend to merge into an indistinct blur.

Perhaps there are some markers for specific events that among the receding years stand taller — the birth of our child, passing away of parents, the visit to Grand Cayman — and can be discerned, but the distance for now still manages to erase details. For some of them, the exact year they occurred escapes.

It may be that my life is too monotonous, or perhaps the perceptions of time I have are not what others see. Alternatively, it could be that events, and their memories, are still there but do not stand out at a quick glance. Only through mindful reflection do the memories of individual events begin to emerge.

Percepts of time are like being in a hall of mirrors.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Before I rise from bed...

 

Each morning, before I rise from bed, if I remind myself of my mortality and recall that someday I will leave this world, unable to carry any possessions with me, the thought will render the baggage and the grudges I bear so utterly meaningless; free of those burdens, I might live a happier day.

Each morning before we get out of bed, if we remind ourselves…
...the world might be a happier place. 

The Irony of Short-Term Economic Pain

 

In the current US political landscape, where the wealthy elite don their suits and deliver impassioned speeches, a recurring theme is the promise of long-term prosperity through short-term pain.

This narrative is championed by figures like Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur who assures us that reducing government spending will lead to a brighter future. Musk often speaks of “temporary hardship” as a necessary evil on the path to “long-term prosperity.” He assures us that the economic pain resulting from his cost-cutting proposals will be short-lived and ultimately beneficial.

The same message is echoed by President Trump. In a speech to Congress, he mentioned that there would be a “little [short-term] disturbance” from his plan to impose tariffs on billions of dollars in goods, but he confidently asserted that it wouldn’t be long before the larger benefits of tariffs set in.

As we listen to this rhetoric, one can’t help but marvel at the irony of such statements coming from those least likely to feel the sting of economic hardship. After all, what’s a little disturbance when you’re sitting on a mountain of wealth?

The irony here is palpable. Billionaires with resources beyond the reach of most people speak of economic pain as if it’s a minor inconvenience. Perhaps they imagine that the average person can simply dip into their vast reserves of wealth to weather the storm.

But let’s be real: the economic pain resulting from such policies is unlikely to affect billionaires in any meaningful way. Instead, it will be ordinary citizens who bear the brunt of these changes. The lower one is on the wealth ladder, the worse the pain of this “little disturbance” will be.

What’s missing from these statements is any mention of the wealthy offering their own resources to mitigate the pain felt by those most in need.

Imagine an alternate universe where billionaires put their money where their mouths are and used their wealth to support those struggling through the period of hardship. Instead of preaching about the virtues of short-term pain, they could provide tangible assistance to help people get through the tough times until the promised long-term benefits materialize.

So, the next time we hear billionaire politicians being poetic about the virtues of short-term pain, let us take a moment to appreciate the irony.

One more thought — since when anything in the future is assured to go certain way or is guaranteed to be a “little disturbance.”

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Can Positive Human Attributes Scale with Group Size?

 

When you scale up a complex system, you’re not just multiplying what you started with by some constant factor; you change the system’s dynamics — Geoffrey West

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary: At microscopic levels, quantum mechanical forces dominate, while classical mechanics accurately describes macroscopic scales, and therefore, for the physics of the system scales matter. Similarly, are positive attributes like sharing, caring, also scalable? Despite these attributes’ evolutionary advantages, their benefits do not proportionately scale with increasing group size because certain challenges hinder the seamless transition of positive attributes from small to larger groups.

Scales, and what forces are important at different scales, matter.

In the realm of physics, the concept of scaling plays an important role in deciphering the complexities of natural phenomena. Scaling involves the study of how different physical quantities change with size, and it can significantly simplify our quest for understanding the workings of various systems. When studying the dynamics of a system, certain forces can often be ignored at one scale but become important at another.

At microscopic scales, quantum mechanical forces dominate, and classical mechanics often falls short in providing accurate descriptions. For example, the behavior of electrons in an atom is governed by quantum mechanics, and ignoring quantum effects would lead to erroneous conclusions. However, at macroscopic scales, classical mechanics suffices to describe the motion of objects, and quantum effects can be safely neglected.

In the context of scaling, our previous discussion focused on the possibility of scalability of positive attributes such as sharing, caring, and empathy from small groups of humans to larger ones. We discussed whether these attributes would continue to prevail as small groups of hunter-gatherers expanded in size. The key points of our discussion can be summarized as follows.

In a small group of hunter-gatherers living in the wild, positive attributes such as sharing, caring, and empathy offer distinct advantages for both survival and reproduction. During a hunt, having someone who is vigilant and protective significantly improves the chances of survival.

As positive attributes provide survival and reproductive advantages, they would result in small groups of hunter-gatherers expanding in size. If these attributes were to scale proportionately with group size, the prevalence of wars and social upheaval throughout human civilization would not be there. We would live in harmony that mimics what happened in small hunter-gatherer groups.

Nevertheless, as societies evolved from smaller groups into larger entities such as tribes, villages, and nations, the scaling did not happen. Somewhere along the way the evolutionary benefits of positive attributes lost their edge. In going from smaller to larger groups, additional (and negative) factors must have counteracted the advantage of positive attributes.

What occurs when transitioning from an isolated small hunter-gatherer group to larger groups? Why does the benefit of positive attributes not scale upward with increasing size?

There are two primary challenges associated with scaling the advantages of positive attributes from small groups to larger ones: (i) the inverse correlation between empathy and degree of kinship, and (ii) the impact of random fluctuations on the physical, cognitive, and psychological traits of individuals within a group. These factors pose significant obstacles that must be overcome to successfully scale positive attributes with increasing group size.

The influence of kinship on the development of positive attributes is most pronounced among close relatives who share a common genetic background. As the degree of kinship between individuals decreases, the intensity of positive attributes also decreases.

Random variations in physical, cognitive, and psychological attributes can also influence the cohesiveness of larger groups. This occurs as certain individuals, because of random variations, having superior capabilities are better at securing resources. Random variations, therefore, can benefit a subgroup within the group. Furthermore, it is more difficult to manage competitive tendencies driven by randomness in larger groups because the moderating influence of kinship is less prevalent compared to that in smaller groups.

It is important to acknowledge that the influence of kinship degree and randomness are unavoidable. The decrease in positive attributes with a reduction in kinship is inevitable, as the cultivation of such attributes necessitates time and energy, which are limited resources that cannot be allocated to larger number of individuals. Additionally, the impact of randomness on creating variations in physical, cognitive, and psychological attributes is also unavoidable.

The bottom line is that the influence positive attributes have in keeping negative attributes in check for small groups do not scale up as quickly with the size of the group as negative attributes do. Consequently, for larger groups the influence of positive attributes takes the back seat.

The dynamics that work in a small group are indeed different from those for a larger group.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.