Author Archives: Kevin L

For a week I seem to have been indulging in myself – looking out for scholarships, thinking about my achievements to flaunt in my personal statement, looking out for opportunities in the different organizations offering me a chance to study abroad. For the same period, I realised I didn’t make any contributions to academia, I didn’t generate any new ideas for the world and I have not helped much people with anything (besides a few for matters that are of, okay, considerable importance, and I guess you know who you are). In essence, I have been selfish and that’s why I have not been being too happy. My intentions for generating ideas have become those surrounding the elevation of myself rather than purely for the sake of inquiry like in the past. Even when I speak to people I seem to hope to obtain information that would be of use to me in future rather than out of pure curiosity. This sort of motives are bothering me.

I have been happy most of the time this year (and many other years) because I held on only to the desire to know. This change in me is not inherent but shaped by external forces – the realities of the world and the features of our system. That’s not to discredit the system in achieving its purpose of advancing the society and cultivating talents; I know of tonnes of people who are working towards the good of the entire society because they are responding appropriately to the incentives system that is set up and for them, the reason they work is directly tied to these incentives. I long admit my deviation from the typical rational agents of the system and have never once seen myself as part of the system anyways – perhaps until recently. As I grow to take up more responsibility of my life, the sad fact of reality sets in and I become subjected to the constraints set up by the environment and forced to respond to the incentives of the system. I dread that sort of materialism (that’s to assume knowledge is immaterial) so what I need now is a consistent set of belief that would reconcile my persistence for truth and the natural constraints of both my physical and mental capacities.

Had I clarified the context of my discourse earlier, I might not have disturbed so many readers (and many others who cease reading this entry even before this part comes). My goal: To know. And now that I have reached a particular milestone in knowing, getting to the next stage is harder and the entropy of this next stage is so high that it sometimes confuses me. I need access to more advanced text only available in limited libraries in the world and I need to get in touch with people, specialised people of different fields, to talk to them, to discuss about issues I have been interested in, to conduct research with them, to propose theories and get them validated, to make criticism about flawed arguments, to have my own propositions corrected. Of course, I guess there’s no need to spell out the constraints. I need a scholarship, an admission into a top institution and a good deal of luck to fulfill my goal. But the stuff really don’t end there. Remember? I am a rogue academic, what makes you think I stay in academia and let myself be overwhelmed by the sort of power (super)structure that exist in the realm of the intellectuals?

I have never said that ‘to know’ is a goal restricted solely to academia or intelligent systems. I understand some previously thought I am a misanthrope but the fact is that I am extremely interested in social/human systems, the macro-consequences of micro-interactions. I am curious about how the aggregate of all is more than the sum of its constituents. To want to know these would mean I have to immerse myself in human systems, in societies, in artificial environment free of the forces of nature (at least for most times – I am not that ready to tackle the question of anthropogenic interaction with Mother Nature but I’ll touch on that later). I have chosen to be with the corporate, to be around businesses, the meaningful sort of interactions between people that have the longest history. Just think about it, the family systems in the human race have been very much the same throughout all these years of existence, even if the functions were to differ, the relationships are grounded upon the same basis that is borne of nature. But businesses are different – it is something so entirely artificial and yet seem to stem from human nature itself. I hope to plant myself in these business interactions and see things being accomplished through such interactions – perhaps even take part in such interactions. High chance I’d try to make a career out of that.

If a life goal of the desire ‘to know’ is merely restricted to studies and a career I guess I wouldn’t consider myself a ‘wholesome’ person (though you can call that a ‘workaholic’ as well). I am also curious about the interactions between man and nature and the wondrous power of the consequences our collective decision have on the environment and eventually, ourselves. I hope to have an idea of how a world where nature-man’s mutual dependence can be more pronounced or plausibly manifest in our reality. Given such abstract goal, I can only fulfill it through the arts. I may not really know the stuff I desire in my conscious mind, but through exploration of the world, photography and the ventures into different art forms, I hope my subconscious mind gets a glimpse into answers to the questions I have. I want to be able to experience and know things that cannot be so easily achieved from my interactions with the other beings and my adventures into the tomes and scrolls accumulated over my time.

I am glad now, for in such a short piece of writing, I seem to have mapped out my purpose and reconcile it with the harsh realities of our world. It has always been in my mind but somehow I didn’t know what I think until I write them out. Laying out all these is just the first step to getting them into reality. Perhaps, the title of this entry can mean the way Richard has used it.

On my way home yesterday, I thought about what sort of term I can describe myself given my exploits in academia, my lack of respect (at least in writing) for academic authority and my passion in exploring all different fields of knowledge. The term ‘Rogue Academic’ flashed in my mind, having recalled Steven Levitt described as the ‘Rogue Economist’ in Freakonomics. Aware that the term ‘rogue’ is negatively associated with any person, I looked up the term on Answers.com:

Rogue
n.
1. An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal.
2. One who is playfully mischievous; a scamp.
3. A wandering beggar; a vagrant.
4. A vicious and solitary animal, especially an elephant that has separated itself from its herd.
5. An organism, especially a plant, that shows an undesirable variation from a standard.

adj.
1. Vicious and solitary. Used of an animal, especially an elephant.
2. Large, destructive, and anomalous or unpredictable: a rogue wave; a rogue tornado.
3. Operating outside normal or desirable controls.

I prefer to have the word as a noun and I guess the 3rd meaning best suits my intention of the description, the notion of a lack of vested interest (not entirely true though), the connotations of having no special [selfish] motives for inquiry beyond the cultivation of the mind. I spent the journey home thinking about why I want to know things. It took some time before I realized that I was fumbling for a justification for curiosity. It was something rather hard to define but it rarely serves as a motivation for the life work of a person – for me, it has been doing so and I hope that continues.

I continued to question my own motives for inquiry and other actions associated with my dealings with academia – I asked myself why I choose to do that economics essay that I have never ever attempted when presented another essay question which I wrote twice in class. I asked myself why would I even bother to clarify things outside the syllabus with my teachers. I often wonder why I respect teachers who show little respect for their bosses (it seems like they didn’t really deserved it); while I dislike those people who perform their duties (according to their Instruction Manuals) with little flaws. The answer it seems, point to my intense disfavour of convention, and abhorrence of those who goes by the book. In that sense, the 5th meaning of ‘rogue’ seems to fit into the picture in the figurative sense.

If I ever decide to put this term to describe myself in any scholarship application form, or personal statements, I wonder what those people will think.

I must say I have entrusted the role of valuing and measuring my abilities to my teachers. I trusted them to identify my potential and supply me with Truths of the world. They have, repeatedly failed me and led me to question their authority in the subject matter they are supposed to be handling. I claim no authority but cannot help wondering if I can continue to leverage on their interpretation of Truths…

An Update

I have forgiven the teachers for their unthinking tendencies when marking scripts. I admit my inadequacies in attempts to make conceptual understanding explicit. It’s like I explained how gases behaviour and how the molecules interact as well as the macro-properties of the gases observed in theory and in practice but failed to give the ideal gas equation (something that is apparently regurgitated) and so I was faulted. Of course, the subject in concern is not Chemistry but Economics. My teachers have been brought up under strict, disciplined, traditional studies of Economics that emphasized theory over empirical study, that employs concepts rather than parallel experiences; while my passion and interest is fired up by books like ‘Freakonomics‘, ‘The Undercover Economist‘ or ‘MicroMotive & MacroBehaviour‘. I find validation of my knowledge with Sloman but that is all. I haven’t even read Wealth of Nations though I don’t doubt the fact that the book wouldn’t help me much in tackling the A Levels.

I shall get through a formal Economics education and get back at them some time in the future. Of course, I am hoping I would feel grateful to them when I am back (I am currently not a bit grateful because I feel that my knowledge are all self-assembled and not a bit imparted by them); if I still feel the same as now, I guess something has to be done to save the coming generations of youngsters.

It has been a really long time since I commented on any social phenomenon at all but reading through my Human Geography materials has forced me to develop some viewpoints about social issues I normally wouldn’t bother. The idea I was introduced to is about the ‘Equal Emancipation’ of women at both the level of the society and education. In one of Janadas Devan’s columns in The Straits Times a few years back (yea, we use newspaper articles across a range of years as materials for our study of population), he described the phenomenon of a seeming direct and proportional relationship between female participation in the workforce and fertility. Comparing figures between countries like Sweden and Spain, one realised that Sweden has a fertility rate above 1.5 while Spain’s fertility is below 1.5 while Sweden’s female participation in workforce is significantly higher than in Spain.

Such a counterintuitive observation is explained by the inequality in emancipation of females in education and society at large. In countries such as Italy and Spain, female enjoy same education levels as their counterparts in the other developed nation but generally enjoy lower status in the society. Experts believes that the inequality that the females in this more chauvinistic societies led them to go on a ‘womb-strike’ because child-bearing is seen as a form of adherence the traditional perceptions of women (which is that of lower status) and as these society is less understanding of the woes of working mothers, they enjoy less accommodation/encouragement by the employers – this would mean that it was harder for mothers to rise in the corporate ladders. This made females more determined not to give birth while they are into their career, dragging the total fertility rate with it. On the other hand, in the Nordic states like Sweden, with their strong support for working women, not only has social equality for females but also tailor policies to ensure that females do not lose their advantage in the corporate settings because of their family ‘responsibility’ of child-bearing. Excellent child-care services further relieve the burden of working mothers and reduces their worries linked to child-bearing. Father’s responsibility in child-care is also emphasized and there’s a mandatory paternal leave period.

In contrast, expectations of females to stay at home to care of the children without the husband’s aid in the family chores in the male-dominated societies of Spain and Japan pushes females who are working to stay childless. There’s is thus a very complex relationship between socio-economic development and fertility. While traditional theories that suggest that socio-economic advancements necessitates rising cost of child rearing and naturally leads to falling fertility rates, there is a bottom to this because cost factors is not the only concern of parents. The attitudes towards childbearing and the motivations involved have to be considered. While emancipation of women and the increasing proportion of working women has been singled out as factors causing the fall in fertility, we now realise that these factors only reduce fertility to particular extents and further reduction can be attributed to problems pointed out in this entry – the unequal emancipation (in terms of mindset of society at large and the females themselves).

In understanding of such a social phenomenon, there are policy prescriptions that can be applied to Singapore. Singapore must seek to ensure greater equality for females (a good start is to lift any gender quota in anything – study of medicine in particular) and churn out policies that would aid working mothers with balancing their duties. While we already have programmes promoting family bonding and highlighting importance of families, the campaigns that restructure social mindsets (trust me, our government can work this out) to recognize the importance of father’s role in the family would help give females greater opportunities outside the family. If the mindset now is such that forming families restrict their opportunities and makes it harder for them to compete in the society, then it must be changed. Financial incentives such as grants and tax rebates would remain important in encouraging birth but in long run, attitudes must be changed. In the past, the reduction of family size became successful because the two-child norm was successfully erected, this time, the justification for bearing children is weak and we tried playing on ideas of family and patriotism. It turned out that it wasn’t the justification for childbearing that our people need, but the social environment that is friendly to females bearing children and corporate settings that do not discriminate against mothers (or fathers who now must share the responsibility of child-rearing for that matter).

Of course, I am not saying that this unequal emancipation is the sole cause or the root of the fertility problem but it can have significant impacts on the effects of policies and long term fertility trends. Economic growth stands out as another important factor as affluence encourage people to believe in their ability to raise a child; moreover, parents would very much like to give birth in an environment they believe to be good for their children and would contribute to their success.

Like ‘伪君子’ who ‘说一套，做一套’, Chemistry department is always setting questions that seem so far-fetched from what they teach. It doesn’t matter if they are testing something that may appear at the end of A Levels and force us to prepare for them. The problem, as you may figure out after 1.5 years in the college, is that the questions always differ in style and methods, so much so that it is hardly plausible to make generalization about the stuff that would possibly appear in the National Examinations. Of course, spotting questions is bad and we shouldn’t do that, but at least allow us to grasp the standard that is expected of us will you (those up there)? Some seem to enjoy setting examination papers in their ivory towers without concern for the standard of the student they are testing and without care about what they were teaching the students in the first place.

Those who patronize Ikea, for the little cool-designed stuff, or a couple of potted cactus, or perhaps just to get a towel might be aware that they no longer provide plastic bags for free and people who needs them have to purchase them by picking them up at baskets near the checkout counters. The plastic bags can cost cost up to 10-cents and in general, people who don’t purchase much stuff should not be expected to buy them. Curious about the economics of being ‘Green’, when I dropped by at Ikea today for a couple of items, I hunt for ways to circumvent the problem (or at least identify loopholes).

A survey of their policy reveals that plastic bags are still handed out freely for takeaways at Ikea Restaurant (I personally would really think about complaining if they expect me to purchase my plastic bags for takeaways); so it’s only the main store that stops the giving of free plastic bags. After picking up stuff to buy, it dawned on me that Ikea has the ‘wrapping area’ where they provide large pieces of brown waxed paper for wrapping porcelain products or glassware. I decided to try making a paper bag out of those. With the help of the masking tape provided (for free as well), I made a decent, huge doggie bag for carrying the items I purchased. It was a funny experience. I was rather worried I may get scolded for it but it turned out to be alright. I saved a the Earth by reducing the use of plastics, and a couple of cents for the plastic bags I may need to buy, but I also killed a tiny fraction of a tree and spent a couple of ATP worth of energy to make the paper bag. I wonder if it was worth the while.

Economic Analysis in this case is pretty difficult and I always think that although Ikea makes a lot of sense in their advertising and promotion of their own policies, they often overlook counter arguments (or intentionally ignore them) and presents things in too rosy ways. Perhaps they should try a dose of cynicism sometimes.

Sometimes, you know your school isn’t that good at teaching a particular subject but you are not sure how to show it. Traditional theories of student behaviour suggest that questioning of authority can be dangerous and a direct assault should be avoided. My numerous discourse that attempted to discount the importance of factors for different phenomena proposed by the economics department has met with failure (largely because of both herd mentality of teachers and perhaps a contempt for students who are not that consistent with schoolwork). So today, as a last minute attempt, I am trying this…

I glanced through the MOE H2 Economics Syllabus document and discovered the following clauses:

[Elasticity characteristics of straight line demand and supply curves are not required.]

[The geometrical explanation of the kinked demand curve is not required.]

the analysis of deadweight loss using the concepts of consumer and producer surplus is not required.

[Interest rate determination and graphical illustration of the transmission mechanism are not required. A descriptive explanation of how monetary policy works will be sufficient.]

[Theory of absolute advantage is not required.]

And in case you have been studying the price elasticity of supply or reading about price leadership models, maybe you like to switch to reading the syllabus document instead to attain a higher level of enlightenment.

In my September Holiday random wiki surfing, I stumbled upon an article on van ‘t Hoff, not because I wondering how fast chemical weathering will take place in the tropics or how moving the same piece of limestone from Jamaica to Canada can slow down its solution process. I was, in fact, looking at the article on the Arrhenius Equation mainly because I forgot if the (RT/Ea) that was a post-exponential factor had a negative in front of it.

I was first introduced to the name van ‘t Hoff in Physical Geography, when we studied about chemical weathering. We spelled his name as ‘Van Hoff’, apparently dropping off the necessary alphabets that conveys no information on how to pronounce his name. I had doubts about them being the same person but upon reading more about him in the Wikipedia article, I am pretty sure they are. In Physical Geography, we learn the Van Hoff’s Law.

Van Hoff’s Law states that for every 10 degree Celsius increase in environmental temperature, the rate of chemical weathering increases by two to threefolds.

Although this law appears strongly Chemistry, it is firmly grounded in the area of geology and the reason, I have realised, is that van ‘t Hoff was professor of chemistry, mineralogy, and geology at the University of Amsterdam for 18 years. I guess geology have not progressed that far since his time, relative to the subject of Chemistry. Looking at the work van ‘t Hoff did in Chemistry, I must say his talents had been way beyond the subject could offer him in his time. The most amazing thing is that he is the first ever recipient of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry and that was 1901 and obviously, Physical Geography have paid more tribute to him than Chemistry did. At least for today.

Van ‘t Hoff was responsible for proposing the relation between the rate constant, temperature and activation energy now known to be the Arrhenius Equation. Svante Arrhenius provided the physical justification and interpretation for the equation and thus got his name attached to the equation. Svante Arrhenius was one of those top scientists at that time who could have contributed greatly to today’s Physical Geography in area of Climate Science. He proposed the greenhouse effect and its link to ice ages. He received the third Nobel Prize in Chemistry in history, in 1903.

Subjects are converging once again…

Talking to several people, problems with my hypothesis have been raised, which I find worth sharing:

Wee Chern focused on traversing between the space and time dimension: Is speed a means of being purely in a type of dimension? What sort of implication would an expanding spatial dimension have on the model?

Yong Xian gave a Special Relativity viewpoint: Maybe individual objects have their own axis of time within their own frame of reference? And so the differences in time experienced arises not from a distortion of reality but merely the differences in frame of reference?

My own questions emphasized on the problems associated with the notion of distortion: What exactly is this stretching? What is the movement of the ball like along the time-axis? Is it a constant speed? If it’s constant then stretching caused by object moving will only occur when the object ‘accelerates’, because if stretching continues when object is maintaining high speed, then time for the object must always move slower than the rest of reality and this effectively means the stretching will increase along the time-axis, creating the same ‘infinity-stretching’ problem I had in order to make time stationary for objects at light speed. I circumvented that issue with erasing it from time but for this, I can’t. Even if I can accept the stretching modification, the whole model is not well erected enough. There’s fine-tunning required pertaining to the exact details of ‘stretching’ or distortion.

It’s apparent this hypothesis still has a long way to go and I shall think about these questions after my Prelims (maybe after A Levels too).

Teachers’ Day Celebrations. Too bad the highlight was something more intellectual. While I had lunch with a couple of classmates (Pei Shan, Yu Shan, Yong Xian, Peng Sing and Jiahao), Pei Shan started talking about ‘The Time Travelers’ Wife‘ (by Audrey Niffenegger) and that got me talking about the Concept of Time I have formulated almost exactly a year ago. I thought it was a very simple illustration of time but I was fully aware of its limitations. I was expecting Yong Xian (who does Physics H3) to be like one of the first to comprehend my model and start questioning its validity. Well, she kind of disappointed me. But anyway, I thought of a question for myself to ponder over on my way home.

In my model, the entire spatial dimension is encapsulated in the Time dimension and this presents a problem. It conflicts with Einstein’s postulations of time slowing down for one experiencing high speed. Einstein’s model is such that any object would constantly traverse at the speed of light, except when it is at rest, all of the object’s speed is focused on travelling along the time axis, which would mean that it experiences the full force of time. When the object is in motion however, it begins to traverse in the spatial dimension with some speed as well, this speed is then deducted from the Time dimension and this makes the time slow down for the object experiencing motion. Since time itself travels at the light speed, once an object attains light speed in the spatial dimension, time for it stops and thus that’s the fastest it can go. This model doesn’t fit into my concept of time because my over-simplified model assumes everything to be traversing in time at the same speed (ie. everything in reality, on the ball is traveling along the exist of time at light speed). That’s to say that my model conflicts with Special Relativity. That’s the question I was expecting Yong Xian to ask but too bad – I thought of it myself.

In a bid to reconcile my model of time with cases of Special Relativity, I have to make a little modification. I make a bold claim that the ball of reality is rubbery, and therefore can be subjected to distortion. I apologize for imitating Einstein when it comes to the use of geometric distortion to circumvent problems of temporal-spatial convergence in cases of Special Relativity – I must say it’s really useful. When stuff in reality is subjected to motion (ie. traversing spatial dimension), it stretches the surface of reality. The way it stretch is such that the point of reality that the object at motion is on, moves against the direction of the axis of time. Relatively, as long as the object is not at light speed, the net movement is still forward in time, but the experience of time will be slower, slower than the rest of reality. The rest of reality continues moving along the time exist at the same way, albeit with projections protruding from it as a result of stuff speeding through space. Because the speed of light is so fast, our normal kind of travelling, even the speed of sound, would only produce little ‘humps’ on the surface of reality. To produce a ‘projection’ would require objects to be traveling at speeds that particles in particle-accelerators move.

The ball of reality at that vertex stretches out such that the corresponding value on the time-axis remains constant for any object at the speed of light.

The ball of reality is like a rubber ball, thus the name for the hypothesis of this model of time. The distortions that this rubber ball is capable of ensures that not all parts of reality moves at the same speed along time, and thus internalizes the whole of Special Relativity. As the object decelerates, it returns back to the rest of reality and thus experience everything like others. Essentially, the existence of the object is lengthened in terms of a God’s perspective but for itself, because of the slowing down of time, its motion within the frame of reference is also slowed down and thus it experiences effectively no difference. The Einstein’s method of moving into the future would involve stretching reality such that time stops for you for a while, and so the rest of reality tumbles on far from you along the time axis. When you return to the rest of reality, you are suddenly allowing yourself to speed through all the time that the rest of reality has already traverse and then getting back in touch with the rest of reality. Your experience of time is less than the others, and you successfully moves to reality, but in a way that’s within the constraints of the model. In this sense, time travel forward is still plausible, though not in the way others would normally conceive.

Armed with such a visualization, I challenged myself once more by thinking about what happens if the object tries to move faster than light in spatial dimension. Einstein would say it’s impossible because the speed can only be shared between the spatial and the time dimension and there’s a ‘conservation of speed’ that limits the total speed in all dimensions to that of light speed. I suspect that if you travel faster than light, there’s a chance you can move against the direction of the time axis, but you will tear the rubber ball of reality. Or perhaps, you’ll just lift yourself off the rubber ball because it can no longer stretch beyond that and enter a void. The elasticity of the rubber ball is thus limited by this constrain on speed. Unfortunately, we can’t think of it in the sense of elasticity because if you continually travel at light speed, you are effectively stretching the surface of reality infinitely – then comes the question of what is light and how it actually manifest on this rubber ball. To account for all that, I must say that time cannot stop for any object besides light. If an object is to travel at light speed, it’ll have to behave like light, which means it has to vanish from the axis of time, and exist only in spatial reality. That being said, anything that stretches the ball infinitely would leave this uni-directional dimension and exist solely in the spatial dimension. Therefore, to exist in both time and space, the object must only tend towards light speed and will never attain it. Here, the limitations of having space encapsulated in time presents a problem – one needs to be able to accommodate the notion that spatial reality is indeed contained in the ball but in some other sense just as time in felt to be contained in our space (ie. they contain each other and it really only depends on perspective; which is why I highlighted this issue as a bias that my means of visualization would pose). Hence, to cease existing in temporal dimension means the object (as well as all light we experience) are not contained in this rubber ball model.

Having said all that, I must stress that the ‘Rubber Ball Hypothesis’ is not a scientific theory but a proposed visualization of what is time and how it works and a plausible model in explaining the impossibility of time travel. I welcome modifications to overcome the existing limitations and biasness that is inherent in the model even if it’s in the expense of complicating the geometrical visualization of the model.