Everybody is familiar with the notion that an infinite number of monkeys given an infinite number of typewriters and enough time would almost certainly produce the complete works of Shakespeare.

Before I talk about monkeys, let me discuss large numbers.

I was at the shore today eating my subway sandwich watching the waves crash against the rocks, and it occurred to me that the time it takes for waves to turn solid rocks into sandy beaches is incomprehensible to me. Looking up the age of Oahu I find that this island is 3 million years old. That seems pretty straight forward. 3,000,000. That's not too bad.

Let's compare that to my lifetime. For simplicity, let's assume that I live 100 years. So that's 30,000 lifetimes. Or maybe to recorded history, about 5,000 years. So the age of Oahu is about 600 times the length of recorded history. Imagine all of what we know about human kind (a bit more than two times as long as since Christ came to visit the first time) happening 600 times.

So, it's takes somewhat less time than 600 times the entire known history of mankind to make an island and put sand on the beach. I would still say that, in a sense, this is incomprehensible to me. I've made some comparisons and done some math, but for me to really comprehend that span of time, for it to mean something that I might actually be able to experience directly, it's pretty tough. I have trouble remembering my own childhood, and I'm not even 50 years old yet.

How about something really big? The age and size of the known universe? According to wikipedia, the fount of all knowledge, the age of the known universe is about 13.75 billion years. Let's be conservative and call it 10 billion. That's more than 3,000 times the age of Oahu. Another data point from wikipedia: "The number of atoms in the observable universe is close to 10^80" That's a number that my calculator can deal with, but it's really, really big. Theoretically I could write out a 1 followed by 80 zeros, but it's not really a number I can wrap my head around. It's beyond me to imagine that many of anything.

I suspect that when people think about the "infinite" monkeys & typewriters, they picture something on the order of 100, or 1,000 monkeys. I think I can sort of imagine 1,000 monkeys. Maybe some people can imagine 1,000,000 monkeys. So generally people hear the thing about infinite monkeys and chuckle because it just seems preposterous. Even if we replaced every human on Earth with a monkey, you're still not going to get the works of Shakespeare out of those monkeys. No matter how many monkeys you can imagine, it's incomprehensible that they could produce anything near the works of Shakespeare.

But 1,000,000 falls far, far short of infinity. 10 billion is way, way less than infinity. Infinity is really big.

Here's the kicker: The total works of Shakespeare have already been "randomly" produced by something far smaller and simpler than an infinite number of monkeys, and far quicker than an infinite amount of time. Our known universe already produced the complete works of Shakespeare.

The size and age of the known universe are both finite. They're not infinite. I think we can all agree on this. (The key here is the known universe. I'm not talking about anything beyond what we can observe.) The known universe is comprised of a finite number of atoms, tossed around with a few laws of physics. We have not plumbed all the mysteries of physics, but I think we can all agree that an atom is pretty simple compared to a full blown monkey.

I guess my point, if I have one, is that we fool ourselves when we try to think about an infinite number of anything. If a finite number of atoms in a finite amount of time can produce everything we currently find interesting, how can we pretend to imagine what an infinite number of monkeys might or might not produce?

To my 27 followers:

I've created a "mobile photo blog" to which I hope to consistently post photos while out and about.  It's at

http://m.pdk.to

I invite you to visit there, and follow if you're interested.  Also, be aware that the exact same stuff will show up in my twitter stream, and other places.

It looks like I won the getting-the-x10-fast lottery.  I ordered with bestbuy and adorama. Bestbuy shipped first, so I cancelled the adorama order.  (Right now many people are trying to get orders filled from any camera retailer they can.)

The battery is charging. (I've read that the battery life is not so good, so I ordered a couple spares from amazon and they should show up soon.  It's a previously used battery, and not too expensive.)

Couple little things, without even having really used it.

1. It's not as heavy/solid as I expected.  It seems like all the comments online talk about how solid it feels, so my expectations were a little high.  It's still a small and light camera, compared to any DSLR or even any micro 4/3 camera that I've used.
2. The lens caps is deep.  It covers the entire grip area of the zoom.  This is good.  You instantly know when trying to use the camera that the cap is on because the smooth surface of the cap is totally distinct from the textured surface of the zoom control.
3. I was thinking to use a mini soft release from one of my Bessas, but the hand positioning is perfect.  The camera fits just right so that my pointer finger falls right on the shutter release as it should.
4. I confirmed that it's possible to review photos taken without removing the lens cap and twisting to turn it on.  Just press and hold the play button and review mode comes on.  Then press again to turn the camera back off.
5. There is not really any risk of accidentally turning it off by twisting the zoom too far.  I don't think I will have any trouble knowing when to stop turning the zoom ring.
6. I've put my gordy camera strap on it. :)

Perhaps I should mention that for quite a while I've vacilated about getting a canon S95 or a panasonic LX5, but I just never came to the point of getting one for myself.  (I did get an S95 for my wife.)  So when I saw this online, it immediately jumped out at me as the camera I'd been looking for.

Today I heard, on Hawaii Public Radio, a bit from a local "occupy" activist.  There was some hemming and hawing about what exactly the statement is/isn't and that it has not yet been settled on.  Moved by this, and inspired by the recent "occupy" movement(s), I wrote up the following statement of principles.  It may be naive, or maybe I'm just catching up with everybody else, but in the spirit of democratic debate I would sincerly appreciate any comments/or feedback.

thanks

My Statement of Principles

A response to the Occupy Wall Street, Oakland, etc movement(s).

1. Democracy is a process of compromise.  The U.S. Constitution is not a document brought down from the mountain top, crafted by a single all-knowing mind.  It was created through an arduous, and long, process of discussion and compromise.  No one has all the answers.  We are all in a process of discovery.  If you believe that you are correct 100% of the time, then you are wrong.

2. The purpose of environmentalism is to promote and preserve the quality of human life, and the continuation of the human race, ultimately.  It is not just about saving the Earth, or endangered species.  This world was here long before we were, and will go on long after we are gone.  The question is: How long do we get to enjoy our time here?

3. Capitalism, enhanced by free markets, and driven by the profit imperative, is a very effective strategy for the distribution of most, but not all, goods and services.  It is not an end unto itself, but serves the purpose of creating a better society and enabling “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  Some goods and services are better managed collectively (i.e., by government).  Collective good and shared responsibility are not equivalent to communism, not even socialism.  It is not evil “to promote the general Welfare.”

4. Voting and paying taxes are both responsibilities that every citizen of a democracy should be proud to exercise.  Each of these are ways that we, as citizens, participate in the creation of a better society, for ourselves and for our co-citizens.  Every citizen should be as proud of paying their taxes, and being a contributor to society, as of having done their duty by casting their vote.

5. Democracy is government by the people, for the people. Corporations (and other business entities), in themselves, are not people, regardless of legal definitions, and should not be accorded the same rights as people in the political process.  If current law conflicts with this principle, the law should be corrected.

6. Persons in power (political or otherwise) have a responsibility to investigate the implications of their decisions.  Ignorance of the effects of decisions should be regarded as a personal and professional failure.  While “the squeaky wheel gets the grease,” a responsible mechanic checks all the wheels.

Conclusions/Implications:

Persons who hold responsibility for the guidance and priorities of businesses must recognize that the pursuit of profit is subservient to these principles.  In addition to the ability to maximize profits, executives of business must demonstrate an internal moral compass and integrity, above and beyond the rubric of “don’t break the law,” whereby they are able to compromise profits when higher principles are at risk.  They must effectively communicate to boards and stock holders when and why such principles (including the imperative to profit) are in conflict.

Corporate boards and stock holders must hold their executives to a higher standard than “maximize profit and don’t break the law.”  Persons who fail in these regards should be removed from positions of power, regardless of their ability to generate profits, since profits themselves exist only to serve the purpose of bettering society.

Politicians that refuse to participate, reasonably and in good faith, in the process of debate and compromise, should be removed from their positions.  Those politicians that demonstrate that their highest concern is to be re-elected, or fail to be open and honest, should be removed from their positions.

Politicians that elevate corporate interests, or the personal gain of themselves or any individual, over the rights of the people or the principles outlined here, should be removed from their positions.

American invention, American enterprise, soon led the world in the expansion of big business and the mechanization of life.  For a time it was not realized that this march of Triumphant Democracy was essentially the rape of virgin resources that could never be replaced.  Triumphant Democracy poured across the continent, destroying the forests and so changing the climate for the worse, ploughing up pasture that presently became sandy desert, exterminating animal species, using up coal, oil, mineral wealth as though there was no end to any of these things.

-- H.G. Wells, The Fate of Man, 1939

Today anyone can be a photographer -- and most people are.  Sue Davies ... tells us that in England camera clubs have grown ... to nearly 10,000 today.  In New York ... 'every third person is now taking photography courses at the School of Visual Arts'.

To many of the young people today, the idea of going off to a portrait photographer is preposterous.  They are unwilling to submit to his strictures, or to be portrayed only as he wishes....

-- Cecil Beaton, 1975

An excellent presentation explaining and showing evidence of how the disparity of wealth and poverty is harmful.  Not in the global sense, but in the local sense.  In the U.S.A. we have a have a very high spread between the top 20% and the bottom 20% and this relates to many factors: life expectancy, mental health, crime.

Watch it.

http://u.pdk.to/vIm8gv

The other night I ran over a mattress on the freeway.  Actually, that makes it sound like I got past it, but more correctly I hit a mattress and dragged it quite a way.  It was difficult to get it out from underneath the car.

Rode out to Kaena Pt today with Riaan.  

http://g.co/maps/tmqnq