L'habitacle de Menard

15 bandas. Historia y Discografía completa

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:09:00 +0000

Aquí se concentrará el siguiente proyecto: Sumar algunas de las bandas más representativas que conozco. La idea es sencilla. Sumar discografía e historia de la forma más amena posible. Siempre comprometiéndome a mantener tanto los links como la información debidamente actualizada y bien presentada. El material que me propongo presentar no es inédito. Tampoco agregaré información en demasía, siempre con el fin puesto en redondear lo que de otra forma sería insulso. Siendo quizá un poco más dificultoso pero ciertamente, logrando una presentación didáctica e informativa. Que, sin ser compleja, sirva como medio de descarga.

Las bandas en cuestión. Como reza el título son quince. Siendo un trabajo inabordable de otra forma, presentaré a modo de índice esta pantalla, con el fin de mantener todo en su lugar, también para que sea más fácil acceder a los sucesivos post que se irán dando con el tiempo.

A la hora de decidirme por Qué bandas integrarían el trabajo, he de admitir que mucho a tenido que ver mi gusto personal. A qué negarlo. Si me comprometiese a invertir tiempo en bandas que no son de mi predilección seguramente el resultado no sería el mismo. Algunas más trabajadas que otras, sin dudas, pero con el tiempo iré completando lo que considere pobre o insuficiente.

Las bandas son:

THE DOORS
THE PIXIES
PINK FLOYD (el viernes estará completo)
THE JIMMY HENDRIX EXPERIENCE (noviembre)
THE ANIMALS (noviembre)
PESCADO RABIOSO (noviembre-diciembre)
JANIS JOPLIN (diciembre)
DEEP PURPLE (diciembre)
THE BEATLES (diciembre)
PATRICIO REY Y SUS REDONDITOS DE RICOTA (diciembre-enero)
THE CLASH (enero)
SUPERTRAMP (enero)
SUMO (enero)
THE BEACH BOYS (enero-febrero)
LED ZEPPELIN (febrero)

Como más arriba se menciona. Este post estará continuamente actualizado. Si finalmente la tarea que me propongo realizar resulta más sencilla de lo que creo iré agregando otras bandas. Pero la primer prioridad será concluir estas 15, que no poco esfuerzo ameritan.

En estas semanas estaré recopilando todo lo que pueda acerca de PINK FLOYD para ir preparando el próximo post. Siendo esta una de las bandas que más me gustan, el esfuerzo que me propongo realizar será doble, tanto material discográfico como fílmico será subido en su correspondiente post. Post que seguramente en estas semanas estará finalizado. Las fechas son pesimistas. Mi idea, siempre y cuando encuentre el tiempo, será concluir antes con este proyecto.

Algunos discos, dependiendo de cada caso, no los subiré por distintas cuestiones. En principio presentar la discografía y un Greatest Hits me parece un poco contradictorio. Pero tampoco es de mi interés material que por ser "inédito" generalmente se difunde, más para la obtención de ganancias que por méritos musicales.

Albert camus

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:05:00 +0000

Nuestros conciudadanos se habían puesto al compás de la peste, se habían adaptado, como se dice, porque no había medio de hacer otra cosa. Todavía tenían la actitud que se tiene ante la desgracia o el sufrimiento, pero ya no eran para ellos punzantes. El doctor R. consideraba que, justamente, esto era un desastre, porque el hábito de la desesperación es peor que la desesperación misma. Antes, los separados no eran tan infelices porque en su sufrimiento había un fuego que ahora ya se había extinguido. En el presente, se los veía en las esquinas, en los cafés o en casa de los amigos, plácidos y distraídos, con miradas tan llenas de tedio que, por culpa de ellos, toda la ciudad parecía una sala de epera. Los que tenían un oficio cumplían con él en el estilo mismo de la peste: meticulosamente y sin brillo. Todo el mundo era modesto. Por primera vez los separados hablaban del ausente sin escrúpulos, no tenían inconvenientes en emplear el lenguaje de todos, en considerar su separación enfocándola como a las estadísticas de la epidemia. Hasta allí habían hurtado furiosamente su sufrimiento a la desgracia colectiva, pero ahora aceptaban la confusión. Sin memoria y sin esperanza, vivían instalados en el presente. A decir verdad, todo se volvía presente. La peste había quitado a todos la posibilidad de amor e incluso de amistad. Pues el amor exige un poco de porvenir y para nosotros no había ya más que instantes.

-----
Albert Camus
La peste. Edición Sol90

El huérfano

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 04:56:00 +0000

Antes del tiempo,
Cuando la esencia era la cosa,
Y nada, excepto la cosa, emitía esencia,
Deambularon taciturnos y lóbregos señores,
Por todo el universo,
Hablando un idioma perdido, desoyendo la materia que los había forjado,
Sucumbiendo ante la inexistencia de memoria social,
En un espectáculo siniestro,
Donde la belleza de las cosas ocupaba el espacio todo,
De lo cotidiano,
Y no permitía lugar,
Para divagaciones matemáticas,
Ni para paradigmas obscenos,
Ni para literatura universal.

Estos señores no sacaron fotos,
No emitieron juicios,
Ni fundaron partidos políticos.

Serían la encarnación de perfectos anarquistas,
Lejos de cualquier nimiedad terrenal,
Lejos de las guerras,
Del hambre,
Del racismo.

El deambular cumplía con la esencia perfecta, para la cual habían sido construidos,
Máquinas, observatorios andantes y toscos,
Mudos y sosegados. Temerosos y compasivos.

No construían ni destruían. No adoraban. No comían. No bebían.
Su objetivo era no plantearse objetivos. Su objetivo era existir.
Existir, todo lo posible, manifestando lo menos posible.

En algún punto de historia, esto cambió.
La modificación sobrevino a los planteos, a las dudas, a la razón.
El comienzo del cambio, fue el fin de la inmutabilidad,
Y todo debió ser transformado, todo se procesó a fin de encajar en el gran cálculo.
Todo debía cerrar; el azar, el amor, el infinito, el sexo.

Comenzaron a revelarse los sentidos. El resultado de insuficiencia sensorial fue suplido por el racionalismo, por la falta de necesidad. Fue asociado al exceso. Y finalmente prohibido.

Lo prohibido resultó ser insuficiente. Altas cuotas de tecnología derrochaban ocio entre una población de seres cada vez más retraídos. Experimentaron con la música, con el arte en general, desarrollaron el surrealismo, el cubismo, el impresionismo.

La notoria insuficiencia dio lugar a un desarrollo hostil, inarticulado y absoluto. El fin fue puesto en la energía. Los sistemas que se desarrollaron desde entonces buscaban la frontera perfecta entre el consumo y el aprovechamiento. Todos los sistemas tendieron desde allí al equilibrio.

Creyeron poder detener el avance. El poder absoluto del cambio. Sobrevinieron crisis teológicas y grandes guerras intelectuales. Todos luchaban por hacernos independientes de la energía. Por hacernos inmortales.

La inmortalidad no era el fin. Nunca se halló algún fin determinado. Quizá el fin era el mero determinismo. La necesidad de hacer sobre el ser hecho. La imposición de exigir en lugar de ser exigido. Cierta notoriedad filosófica finiquitó el paradigma. La existencia resultó ser productivamente ociosa.

El ser, esa indeterminable posibilidad de existencia, según concluían los cálculos, iba perdiendo necesidad. Habiendo creado un medio perfecto para el ahorro energético absoluto, el ser se convirtió en víctima, fue expulsado de su propia creación.

Ante la innecesidad práctica de existir. La máquina declaró que todo ser era contraproducente para el objetivo de ser. Y que la eternidad, víctima de su propia codicia, no podía cobijar compañero.

Después del fin del tiempo, algunos señores máquina, eternos dentro de un sistema agotado, alejados de los sentidos divinos, perderán la memoria y se volverán humanos.

El primer niño es siempre huérfano.

Multiverso

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 04:45:00 +0000

El mejor laberinto que podría construir, sería uno con dos entradas por lado, cada una de las cuales estaría representada por un número. Construiría la estructura en virtud de este singular sistema: por cada una de las dos entradas, es decir 1 y 1(n) respectivamente, distribuiría X cantidad de pasillos, y por ende, X cantidad de intersecciones. Para determinar el número de pasillos, sumaría X + X(n), es decir, sumaría la cantidad de pasillos resultantes, con su producto inmediatamente anterior.

Para comenzar, sumaría el primer pasillo, es decir 1, con el segundo pasillo, es decir 1(n). A su producto le sumaría la cifra inmediatamente anterior, generando un orden proporcionalmente creciente de pasillos, y por ende, un orden proporcionalmente creciente de intersecciones. Esta progresión numérica, y porqué no topográfica, estaría distribuida prolijamente en la superficie infinita de cualquier materia. La primer secuencia sería de una intersección por lado, la segunda constaría de dos intersecciones por lado, la tercera de tres, la cuarta de cinco, la quinta de ocho, la sexta de doce y así subsiguientemente.

Si graficáramos el plano, obtendríamos una proyección creciente de X(n) en su segmento vertical. Deberíamos obviamente evitar la yuxtaposición de pasillos, dilatando los espacios vacíos entre aquellos, horizontalmente. Así pues, garantizaríamos una extensión razonable y suficiente de ramificaciones sin necesidad de superponer pasillos contra pasillos.

Para emular las dimensiones de la física, los lados del laberinto serían 4, o si se prefiere, serían 3 y un cuarto, llamado tiempo, que sólo se manifestaría indirectamente sobre los otros tres.

A medida que elijamos un pasillo, nos iremos acercando o alejando del centro del laberinto, y esto variará la percepción de tiempo, así pues, a medida que nos acerquemos al centro el discurrir de las cosas irá acercándose a 0, mientras que los pasillos exteriores de la estructura, se aproximarán al de una aceleración infinita. Como el tiempo es sólo una manifestación externa, será necesario comenzar con un participante por lado, garantizando la interacción entre uno y otro a través de un pasillo determinado, cuya existencia es marginal e improbable, pero ineludible.

El laberinto, descansando sobre una superficie cualquiera, de ser plano, violaría las leyes de la física. Su forma, sin serlo, será pues semejante al de una esfera, aunque achatándose en su ecuador, imitando casi la forma de una pera.

Como ya hemos dicho, cada secuencia de intersecciones, será la suma de las dos anteriores, pero impondremos cierta singularidad; por cada 7 números primos resultantes, introduciremos una nueva esfera que imite a la anterior, y que aunque más pequeña, poseerá la misma cantidad de intersecciones, afectando sólo las proporciones de las mismas.

El centro, siguiendo las reglas básicas de toda lógica, será aquel cuyo tamaño sea inferior al de la estela que genere el paso de los participantes. Triunfando quien llegue primero al mismo, al momento en el que se produzca el inevitable atoramiento del participante, quien gozará indudablemente del más envidiable premio, es decir, la eternidad.

Para garantizar el estado óptimo del sistema, será necesario acotar que quien se aventure hacia los extremos deberá soportar, como ya hemos aclarado, una aceleración infinita y por ende, perderá el juego. Gracias a la inexistencia de magnetismo en la estructura, será imposible identificar un punto cardinal, y por lo tanto, no será posible determinar una posición exacta y eludir así el peligro que supondrían los lados más externos del núcleo. También impondríamos el siguiente comportamiento; por cada vez que se elija un lado determinado, no se podrá luego elegir el contrario. Por lo tanto, de virar hacia la izquierda, en las siguientes cuatro intersecciones, no se podrá virar hacia la derecha, y viceversa, esto garantizará cierta eficacia en relación a la regla anteriormente expuesta, es decir, el de la inexistencia de un punto cardinal determinado.

Los primeros pasillos, no serían tales en función de la estructura, sino sólo en función del recorrido, evitando el exceso de vacío y por ende, el de una extensión determinada de superficie imposible de recorrer. Las rectas meramente abstractas que testifiquen el recorrido, podrán desde luego ser recorridas nuevamente, pero estará prohibido cortarlas. La forma de cruz evidenciará inmediatamente este suceso.

Cuanto mayor sea el número de participantes que consigan llegar al núcleo, más improbable será, para los siguientes, no alcanzarlo, dado que el mismo crecerá en la medida en la que sea alimentado por los competidores. Del mismo modo que, cuanto mayor sea el número de participantes que se precipiten hacia el exterior de la estructura, mayor será el espacio de la estructura. Dicho lo cual, diremos que de mantenerse en un 50% y 50% la cantidad de participantes que terminen en uno u otro lado la estructura se mantendrá invariable Si por el contrario, la materia del núcleo crece en detrimento del vacío, las posibilidades de adentrarse al núcleo aumentarán paulatinamente, y viceversa, de aumentar el vacío, las posibilidades de llegar al núcleo caerán paulatinamente.

Finalmente, cabe aclarar, que el comienzo del recorrido no podrá darse en la esfera exterior, sino, exactamente, en la estructura cuya distancia y posición esté entre una (el núcleo) y otra (el vacío), igualmente proporcionada.

Deep Purple

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 04:02:00 +0000

▼ descarga · 283mb

The Animate and the Inanimate

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 03:59:00 +0000

CHAPTER VII

THEORIES OF LIFE

we find that the theories of the nature of life divide themselves into two varieties: the mechanistic and the vitalistic. The former kind of theory states that all living phenomena are to be explained solely by the ordinary physical laws, and that life differs from other phenomena only on account of its complexity, or in some other incidental manner. On the other hand, the vitalistic theories are to the effect that living phenomena are characterized by some mysterious sort of "vital force" which would seem to have the power to suspend or alter the operation of the physical laws that govern the rest of the universe. In the course of the history of science, much has been said both for the vitalistic and the mechanistic theories, and, as yet, no agreement has actually been reached on that subject.

In the attempt to solve our paradox of the second law of thermodynamics, we have incidentally reached a suggestion of the nature of life. According to the conclusions we have reached, there are in the universe what we have called positive tendencies, neutral tendencies, and negative tendencies, all of which are possible results of the reversible physical laws governing the motion of particles of matter. The neutral tendency being an extremely improbable result, very few cases of it are likely to take place; but, in any given case, unless further special circumstances alter the probabilities, the positive or the negative tendency has a 50% probability, and will therefore result from the reversible laws in about half of the cases occurring in the universe. In our section of the universe the positive tendency, however, preponderates, though, inasmuch as it would be extremely improbable that any section of the universe is entirely without instances of the negative tendency, it follows that there must be phenomena of the negative tendency within our observation. The phenomena of the negative tendency are the living phenomena; while the phenomena of the positive tendency are the non-living phenomena.

This theory of life is strictly mechanistic in so far as life is assumed to operate solely under the physical laws applying to the motion of particles, which laws are sufficient to determine a complete chain of causation. On the contrary, physicists, confining their observation entirely to inanimate matter, have reached the conclusion that there is a further physical law, the so-called second law of thermodynamics, which is suspended by living phenomena. There is according to our theory, this essential difference between living and non-living phenomena; and this difference would supply the basis for the idea of "vital force." Thus the two theories of life can be reconciled.

On the matter of the difference between living and non-living bodies, there is still less agreement. For instance, it is stated that lifeless substances, in so far as they form definite shapes, form only geometrical shapes, while living substances form irregular shapes. Outside of the fact that this does not distinguish living bodies from bodies which were once alive but which have lost the property of life, and outside of the fact that not all inorganic substances but only certain solid substances form geometrically shaped crystals, we may refute the statement that living bodies always have irregular shapes by simply adducing the example of the egg. This distinction is therefore on all sides untenable.

Again, it has been said that the difference between living and lifeless substances is the question of the presence of organs. But will that alone distinguish the average organism from a machine? The same objection can be urged against the proposed distinction on the ground that living bodies have a complex organization. However, either of these proposed distinctions may mean that a living body is so organized that everything has its teleological function; and this leads us to a proposed distinction between living and non-living bodies, namely, that living phenomena are essentially teleological. In the case of a machine we have the organization, but the teleology must be sought for in the living being that assembled the machine.

Apparently, teleology is a characteristic of life; but yet every thing is explicable on a physico-chemical basis; therefore we have in life the property of apparent teleology as a distinguishing characteristic. Only in this form can the proposed differentiation on the basis of "organization" be tenable. But, as we have seen, apparent teleology is one of the characteristics by which a reversal of the second law of thermodynamics can be recognized. It therefore follows that, in all probability, our distinction on the basis of the second law of thermodynamics is really the fundamental point of difference between living and non-living bodies.

Another suggested method of differentiation is in the capability of reproduction. But, when we come down to the ultimate living units, the cells, this reproduction consists merely of constriction and division; in which it is hardly to be differentiated from the breaking up into smaller drops of a drop of oil in water or a drop of mercury on a glass surface under slight shock. As we have seen, while under ordinary circumstances a shock is necessary to accomplish this division in these cases, yet, under the reversal of the second law of thermodynamics, this form of division is a normal phenomenon.

A further suggestion as to a method of differentiation is that life always derived from other life, while inanimate matter may be derived from either living or non-living bodies. This distinction is a general one, simply stating a fact, but cannot serve as a definition or as a means of differentiation, because it would not show whether any individual case was one of living or lifeless substance. Should we try to apply the test, we should have to ask whether it could only have been derived from other living matter. What it could have been derived from we cannot experimentally find out; the actual causes might be discovered, and then we are reduced to the question whether life is to be found among those causes, and we are now no better off than at first. It is like trying in an unknown region to find the east by the directions in Schedrin's story: Face the north, and the east is on your right. Such directions obviously are useless where the north is as unknown as the east. The basis of fact behind this proposed distinction between living and lifeless bodies, however, we will examine more in detail later on.

The suggestion that organic bodies grow by absorbing particles, while growth, where it is found among inorganic bodies, is always by accretion of matter on the outside, turns out, when analysed, to be rather a distinction between solids and liquids than one between living and lifeless substance. The absorption of particles can be duplicated in the laboratory under circumstances by liquids enclosed in membranes, and a living cell consists of a membrane containing liquids.

Finally, we come to the dynamical distinctions. The most obvious of these is, to say that life is distinguished by movement. This is obviously an incorrect distinction, since all objects are in motion. But there is obviously something peculiar about living movement that seems to make it seem more mobile than other movement. It is thus, for instance, alleged, that living movement comes from internal causes, or else that living bodies work of themselves, while other objects need to be supplied with energy. Even that is not descriptive, for there are always "external" causes for all movements, and life does not create energy; if it uses up energy, it must obtain that energy from somewhere. Similarly with the distinction between static equilibrium of lifeless bodies and the so-called "dynamic" equilibrium of life, often more accurately defined as the metabolic process; such a dynamic equilibrium exists (as molar energy) in the case of almost all machines, and chemically in the case of any catalytic agent, which is also being constantly decomposed and recomposed.

But there are more accurate definitions of this mobility which is so peculiarly characteristic of life. We may notice, for instance, the theory advanced by the late Prof. William James, the theory of the existence of a "reserve energy" in the case of biological, and especially in psychological, activities, which is absent in the case of lifeless activities. According to this, while the living organism can normally use a certain amount of its energy; yet in some mysterious way it can, under special circumstances, draw on an immense surplus fund of "reserve energy." This property being absent in physical bodies, we may draw a distinction on that basis between living and lifeless bodies, and this would seem to be an absolute distinction. Now, it has long been known that physical bodies contain an immense amount of energy which is unavailable for conversion into any thing else; and the physical law that limits the amount of energy which it is possible for a physical body to utilize is precisely this second law of thermodynamics that has given us so much trouble.

We must therefore come to the conclusion that, since life does not create energy, and this "reserve energy" is evidently real physical energy, that the peculiarity of life is its ability to draw on more energy than the second law of thermodynamics would allow; that is, its ability, in some circumstances at least, to reserve that second law. And again, we have seen that reversals of the second law are characterized by ability to use a fund of reserve energy that physical bodies cannot use. Let us say that the mechanical efficiency of a set of bodies is 85%; the reciprocal, or 118%, is that of the same set in the reverse universe. But as, under some circumstances, producing special results in the way of heat, etc., not quite 85% of the energy will be used, but, let us say, only 50%, then under those special cases in the reverse universe requiring more energy, the mechanical efficiency will be not 118%, but 200%, thus using over five times the amount of reserve energy normally used. This excess constitutes James's "reserve energy."

Another definition of the mobility of life is what is called "irritability," that is to say, the ability to make a large response to small stimuli. This, it is alleged, is possessed only by life, so that life may be defined by irritability. Against this Verworn objects that such inanimate substances as nitroglycerine also possess this property, that substance producing a powerful explosion under the influence of a slight shock.

But in the case of nitroglycerine, we have an unstable equilibrium, and a slight shock simply lets loose the difference of level necessary to reduce to a stable equilibrium; while in the case of life, irritability is part of the so-called "dynamic equilibrium" and does not disturb that equilibrium. Irritability, as it is found in biological phenomena, is the ability to produce normally a large effect from a small stimulus without an irreparable leveling down of energy; in other words, the irritability that distinguishes life consists of the ability to build up higher differences, of energy-level from lower ones, in exactly the inverse order to that required by the second law of thermodynamics. In other words, irritability is identical with the "negative tendency" or, in other words, with the reversal of the second law of thermodynamics. Thus we are again reduced to our form of distinction between living and non-living bodies, namely, that between the negative and the positive tendency.

Verworn proposed the distinction on the basis of chemical constituency namely, that living bodies consist of complicated carbon compounds, such as albumen, protein, etc., which cannot be produced outside of life. But in what way would this definition distinguish a living body from, let us say, a corpse? Or, according to the definition by chemical composition, every wooden object is alive. It is obvious, therefore, that this distinction is untenable.

On the contrary, we have the extreme mechanistic view, represented by Dr. Jacques Loeb, that such a distinction cannot be drawn. The actual existence of a hard and fast distinction of this sort is, indeed difficult to prove, but there is certainly a difference in appearance, which must be based on something, however flimsy that something might be. Dr. Loeb calls a living body "a chemical machine," and states as the only base of differentiation "the power of automatic development, self-preservation, and reproduction."

It is not quite clear whether or not all three properties are essential; and not all living bodies possess at all times all these three properties; while, on the contrary, these properties separately are possessed under certain circumstances by certain non-living bodies; so that, to say the least, this attempted distinction must be cleared up somewhat before it can be of any service at all.

Thus, of all the distinguishing characteristics that may be used to define life, we have left simply these three: apparent teleology, reserve energy, and irritability. The latter property (irritability) is, as we have seen, a condensed statement of the reverse of the second law of thermodynamics; while we have seen before that the other two properties, apparent teleology and reserve energy, are the outstanding characteristics by which a reversal of the second law of thermodynamics can be recognized. It follows, therefore, that the fundamental definition behind all these is: Life is a reversal of the second law of thermodynamics. Or, to put it in other terms, since we have seen that mechanical efficiency under positive tendency is less than 100%, under neutral tendency just 100%, and under the negative tendency more than 100%, we may define: Life consists of bodies with a mechanical efficiency of over 100%.

<< solution of the paradox - chapter VI -

---

William James Sidis

Antoine Lavoisier

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 06:19:00 +0000

Esa misteriosa mecánica, llamada vida, tiende a violar la ley de Antoine Lavoisier.

Upton Sinclair

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 04:54:00 +0000

Es difícil que un hombre entienda algo, cuando su sueldo depende de no entenderlo.

Domingo Cavallo's Achievement

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 04:42:00 +0000

Few people get the chance to play so constructive a role in their country's history as Domingo Cavallo, who resigned last month after five years as Argentina's Finance Minister. Applying his own powerful intellect and personality, and enjoying the unflinching political support of President Carlos Saul Menem, Mr. Cavallo guided an economy desperately sick with hyperinflation and corruption back to vitality and international respectability.

The benefits of Argentina's economic revival have been unequally distributed. Mr. Cavallo's ruthless war against inflation and his vigorous privatization campaign have brought high unemployment and painful reductions in social programs. But by most measures Argentina's overall economic performance and its future prospects now look better than at any time in the past 65 years.

Before Mr. Cavallo took office in 1991, the Government paid its bills by printing money, sending prices soaring. Mr. Cavallo stripped the Government of its unfettered right to print money, creating a ''currency board'' that tied the value of the peso to the United States dollar. He pledged that additional pesos would not be created unless Argentina, through trade and investment, accumulated sufficient dollar reserves to back new currency. That way foreigners would be assured that they could redeem pesos for dollars at full value.

Inflation fell to near zero and the economy prospered, growing more than 7 percent a year. Mr. Cavallo then sold large blocks of the economy to private investors, who managed to boost output even as they laid off employees from bloated Government enterprises. If the economy continues to prosper, the laid-off workers will soon find new jobs.

Mr. Cavallo's success helped Mr. Menem win re-election in 1995. But last month, after union protests against increased unemployment, Mr. Menem decided that the Finance Minister's political usefulness had come to an end.

By replacing Mr. Cavallo with Roque Fernandez, the University of Chicago-trained president of the central bank, Mr. Menem signaled that he remains committed to anti-inflation policies. But Mr. Fernandez lacks Mr. Cavallo's independent authority to confront corrupt bureaucrats and unions, many of whom wield influence in the ruling Peronist Party. If Mr. Menem wants credit for Mr. Cavallo's impressive achievement, he must take on that politically hazardous assignment himself.

---

10 de Agosto de 1996. (fuente) www.newyorktimes.com

La moneda de oro

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 03:23:00 +0000

Ante la pregunta de un comensal Arthur contestó, simplemente, no sé. El comensal, un tanto jocoso, admitió su sorpresa diciendo -Y yo que creía que usted era un sabio. Que todo lo sabía. Arthur sin dudarlo replicó -Se equivoca. El conocimiento no es infinito. Lo único ilimitado en el mundo es la estupidez humana.

The Animate and the Inanimate

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 02:41:00 +0000

CHAPTER VI

SOLUTION OF THE PARADOX

We have seen that the second law of thermodynamics, if pushed to its logical conclusion, leads to absurdities; that, on the basis of the other physical laws, it is most extremely improbable; and that it cannot have been universal for all time past unless we assume some sort of creation or some other form of miracle.

On the contrary, we have seen that the probabilities from the physical laws governing the motion of particles, which are all reversible, and whose consequences must therefore be also reversible, lead us to the conclusion that, although the universe as a whole will tend to be neutral in that respect, yet, in certain limited portions of space and time, the second law of thermodynamics represents a prevailing tendency. We may easily, therefore, suppose that the portion of space and time under our observation (which, as we know, is very limited) is just such a section, and that the second law of thermodynamics represents a prevailing tendency of energy to level down in our vicinity and in our epoch. This would seem to be the only way leading out of the paradox which seems to follow from the second law of thermodynamics; so that as this law is thus supposed to be true only for a limited epoch, there is no necessity to suppose any creation or other miracles; and therefore the rule for the whole universe is really reversible.

This would apparently solve our paradox, if not for the fact that, according to this proposed solution, the second law of thermodynamics would represent, not a constant law, as observations would indicate, but,on the contrary, merely a prevailing tendency, with a number of instances of reversals of that law in our own part of space and time. Thus we find a difficulty in accepting this solution of the paradox, namely, that our proposed solution requires that, even in our own section of space and time, there must be many instances of the reversal of the second law of thermodynamics; which seems contrary to observed facts.

And yet, considering that the second law of thermodynamics itself leads to absurdities, it might be worth while to inquire whether, after all, there might not be in our portion of space and time certain instances of the reversal of the second law, certain events with what we have called a "negative tendency," which might have escaped our attention.

In order to conduct this inquiry, we would have to find some way to recognize such a reversal, should any be found. This can be done in two ways: either by translating, common occurrences into the reverse universe, and thus familiarising ourselves with how such a reversal looks (a moving-picture outfit could easily bring this reverse universe before the sense of sight, by operating the reel backwards); or else we can reason from the abstract second law itself and infer from its reversal certain easily recognisable outstanding characteristics. We shall proceed in both ways, starting with the abstract method, then using the other method to fill in, as it were, by way of illustration.

One characteristic of the second law of thermodynamics is that there is, under it, a tendency that large causes should produce smaller effects (some energy becoming lost always in spreading heat throughout the universe), while small causes rarely, though occasionally, produce large effects. Now since it is always possible to regard any event either as caused by past conditions (reasoning from cause to effect) or as being the cause which will produce the conditions of the future (reasoning from effect to cause), both cause and effect of a given event being a determined thing, we may say that, under the second law of thermodynamics, since a given event is likely to have more visible causes and less visible effects that itself, it follows that, under the second law of thermodynamics, it is easier to explain an event as the effect of past causes than as the cause of future effects. In other words, under the second law of thermodynamics, though reasoning from effect to cause is possible, it is almost necessary to reason from cause to effect, as the physical sciences usually do.

On the contrary, when we have the negative tendency, when the second law of thermodynamics is
reversed, the reverse is the case. Under the negative tendency, energy is constantly being reclaimed from the enormous heat-reserve which otherwise lies unused, and this will be happening at every occurrence taking place under the reversed second law. Thus the tendency in such a case will be that, while occasionally large causes will produce smaller effects, yet as a general rule smaller causes will produce larger effects. In other words, a given event is most likely to have less visible causes and more visible effects than itself, so that, if we try to explain an event as the effect of past conditions, we shall always have difficulty, because part of the cause in any case, and sometimes even the entire cause, will consist merely of diffused and undifferentiated energy which cannot be observed unless we can keep track of every individual particle of matter. But, on the contrary, if we try to explain such an event as being the cause determined by future conditions which are its effects, such an explanation is simple, because the full effect is observable, and the effect is usually more visible than the cause.

The result is that we get one distinguishing characteristic of that reversal of the second law of thermodynamics for which we are looking. If we find such a reversal, we will, in all probability, be finding some sort of events which it is easier to explain from the future than from the past; in other words, we must, in looking for such a reversal, look for something which, while it acts under the ordinary form of causation like the common physical bodies, yet appears teleological in nature. This teleology is only apparent, for causation under the negative tendency is no different from ordinary physical causation. In causation in general, the reverse or pseudo-teleological explanation is always possible, but is more obvious in the case of a reversal than in the ordinary case of positive tendency. Thus, when we wish to find a reversal of the second law of thermodynamics in our section of space and time, we must look for phenomena with an appearance of teleology.

Another outstanding characteristic of a reversal of the second law is the ability to use the immense store of energy which, under the second law of thermodynamics, is unavailable. In other words, a reversal, besides the property of apparent teleology, must also possess the property of ability to use a store of reserve energy, some of which is always used, while at times even all of it could theoretically be used and converted into visible forms.

So we thus we get theoretically two outstanding characteristics of the reversal for which we are looking; namely, apparent teleology and the ability to use a fund of reserve energy. If we can find anything in our section of space and time which has these two properties, then in all probability we have found the reversal for which we are looking.

Now, to take the more concrete method, that of observing the reverse universe, either by reversing any common occurrence, or else in observation by reversing a motion-picture-film, etc. We have already seen that a reversal of such an incident as a ball rolling down a flight of stairs becomes, in the reverse universe, the following: the floor and the stairs successively throw the ball up-stairs; the ball itself aids the process by giving a jump, as it were, each time it lands. This would give floor, stairs, and ball somewhat an appearance of being alive. In fact, in any case, all ordinary physical objects will act in the reverse universe somewhat as if alive. Instead of rivers running down to sea, we would have in the reverse universe the situation of seawater rejecting its salt and then jumping up the river channel to the source, where the water, separating itself first into drops and then finally into molecules, make a final jump up to the clouds; in other words, the water is constantly jumping upwards, as though of its own violation, and aided at each step by the ground pushing it upwards or even throwing it up. Here again there is an appearance of life in objects that we would certainly, in our universe, consider as dead.

Take a more complicated instance: The behavior of drops of mercury on a smooth surface, consisting, we may suppose, partly of metal. These drops, in our universe, would roll around under the influence of any external forces that may happen to be present, unite if two happen to come together, and, in case they touch metal, the drop will shrink and partly amalgamate with the metal. In the reverse universe, on the contrary, we have a different arrangement: the drops will roll around as before, but, in their rolling, will avoid the pure metal surfaces, but will tend to roll over the amalgam surfaces. When in contact with the amalgam, they will extract the mercury, and thus the drops will keep growing. When the drop grows in this manner to a large size, there will appear a constriction, and finally a division into two drops, each like the original. This action of ordinary mercury drops in the reverse universe corresponds in many details to the growth and division of living cells in our universe.

In short, we may say that, in general, events in the reverse universe appear as though they were living phenomena; and the general events of the reverse universe may be taken as the type of negative phenomena, of the reversal of the second law of thermodynamics. We should thus expect, in the real universe, to find such reversals in some sort of living or apparently living phenomena. Furthermore, if we find in the reverse universe some phenomena that, contrary to what might be expected, obey the second law of thermodynamics, it must follow that the corresponding phenomena in the real universe must be precisely those reversals for which we are looking.

Inasmuch as we have seen that ordinary inanimate phenomena take on a appearance of life in the reverse universe, let us see what becomes of living phenomena in the reverse universe. Let us inject some sort of living agency into any previous illustration of the reverse universe. Suppose, in the case of the ball rolling down-stairs, that it was originally thrown by someone. The beginning of the incident (which will correspond to the end in the reverse universe) will consist of a human arm starting to move, carrying the ball forward against the resistance of the air, finally letting the ball go, after which the ball, on the momentum thus acquired, proceeds to bounce down the stairs. In the reverse universe the ball properly aided by the floor and the stairs, comes jumping upstairs into the hand; the ball, though it tends to be speeded up by the air pushing the ball along, and by the heat-energy of the ball similarly reacting on the air, yet slows down quickly and finally comes to a stop: the acquired momentum of the ball moves the hand, swings the arm, and finally the molar energy thus transferred to the arm becomes transformed into heat, and the arm stops. This very last part of the incident is a rather unexpected case of the second law of thermodynamics in the reverse universe; and we may note, as a result, that the living body, when reversed, becomes a mere obstacle instead of a moving force.

We may therefore conclude: first, that inanimate phenomena, when reversed, become animate: second, that animate phenomena, when reversed, lose the appearance of animation; and third, that animate phenomena, when reversed, lose this appearance because, when reversed, they tend to follow the second law of thermodynamics. The logical conclusion from these would be: that inanimate phenomena are positive tendencies, and follow the second law of thermodynamics, while animate phenomena, on the contrary, are negative tendencies and tend to reverse that law. Thus we have found where our part of the universe contains reversals, and come to a solution of our paradox.

<< the probabilities in the problem - chapter V -

- chapter VII - theories of life >>

---

William James Sidis

Dónde radica la verdadera discontinuidad

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:03:00 +0000

La muerte es la imposibilidad de todas las posibilidades dice heidegger, pero entonces antes de nacer no existiría cierta probabilidad, el nacimiento constituiría la única posibilidad de todas las posibilidades y esto no es así. La idea de que se pueda nacer o no constituye una posibilidad que no logra desencadenar consecuencias hasta que no es observada la metamorfosis del estado de inexistencia que es un estado absoluto, hasta el estado de existencia o de nacimiento que es el desencadenante primero, tanto de la posibilidad toda como de la imposibilidad última de todas las anteriores. Cómo puede, entonces, un estado de incertidumbre absoluto como es el estado de inexistencia anterior al nacimiento desencadenar en una serie de posibilidades limitadas por una sola imposibilidad que es la muerte, es decir, un estado de incertidumbre absoluto. Cómo, si lo inexistente es tan vago y difuso como suponemos aquí, pueden de él, en última instancia, depender todas las posibilidades, y existir, limitadas por la única imposibilidad que es la vuelta, el retorno, al estado de incertidumbre.

Si la manifestación de una posibilidad única que es la vida depende de la inexistencia de un estado anterior, un estado sumamente oscuro que ofrece gracias a la combinación infinita de posibilidades como resultado vida, negando a su vez y por la propia naturaleza de la gestación humana un número sumamente superior de posibilidades, entonces, cómo puede la imposibilidad gestar posibilidad si es precisamente la imposibilidad, es decir la muerte, es decir ese estado oscuro e indescriptible de inexistencia, la suma de todas las posibilidades.

El embarazo no es sólo la fertilización de un óvulo, no es únicamente la elección natural de un espermatozoide entre millones, es también la elección de un coito de entre cientos, es también la negación por nueve meses aproximadamente de otros coitos, es decir de otros millones de posibilidades, es también el resultado de otros miles de coitos y de miles de generaciones anteriores sin las cuales esta posibilidad última, por un espacio de tiempo efímero, no existiría bajo ningún aspecto. Esa expresión única de vida es también una expresión única de imposibilidad, porque la suma de todas las posibilidades que podrían haberse gestado, y quizá, la existencia de una sola de ellas, habría imposibilitado el resultado final, es decir, el nacimiento, es decir, la salida, el escape de esa situación oscura de inexistencia. Ahora, cómo puede ser la muerte, como imposibilidad, la suma de todas las posibilidades, si por la naturaleza del vocablo empleado resultaría inadmisible la existencia de dos imposibilidades (1), y cómo puede ser la muerte la única imposibilidad si depende precisamente de la existencia de cierta posibilidad infinita que es, en definitiva, la existencia.

Siendo esto cierto la muerte está condicionada por la existencia, requiriendo más que de sí misma para manifestarse, supeditándose a una posibilidad que resulta, por mera lógica-deductiva más poderosa que su propia imposibilidad. Contrariamente, ser la imposibilidad de todas las posibilidades, sería situar a la inexistencia por encima de todo lo demás, de todo aquello que la experiencia llama complicidad. ¿Acaso Dios necesita del hombre para ser dios? No sería triste (cuando menos) asumir que el hacedor del universo requiere del hombre, incluso más de lo que el hombre requiere de Dios. Porque la creación divina resulta efímera, pero su manifestación es perenne, supeditar el milagro a la contemplación es un tanto irrisorio. Del mismo modo que conjugar un hecho –la muerte- absolutamente supeditado a todos los demás, resulta irrisorio si como resultado de ello catalogamos a la muerte como la imposibilidad de todas las posibilidades.

---

(1) La muerte no puede, sin embargo, constituir una mera posibilidad. La imposibilidad, para subsistir, requiere de una absoluta unicidad. Debe ser inigualable, del mismo modo que no puede, siguiendo a Aristóteles, el infinito abarcarse en tiempo finito, no puede la imposibilidad radicar en la suma de todas las posibilidades, porque daría por resultado una serie de imposibilidades desligadas entre sí, cualquier posibilidad sería entonces la suma de una serie infinita de imposibilidades, de este modo, la verdadera imposibilidad sería la posibilidad, es decir, la muerte sería la posibilidad de todas las imposibilidades.

The Animate and the Inanimate

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 13:33:00 +0000

CHAPTER V

THE PROBABILITIES IN THE PROBLEM

To help us towards a solution of this paradox, we must first find out what the probabilities actually lead us to conclude. We have already seen that, in a given case, the chances are even as to whether energy will run down or build up. There are also small chances of a neutral condition, in which energy remains, on the whole, at the same difference of concentration as before. But the probability of this neutrality is negligible, and we may say that the probabilities are, that in 50% of the cases the second law of thermodynamics will be obeyed, and in 50% of the cases it will be reversed. If such is the case, the universe as a whole will be neutral; that is, taking all the occurrences over all of time and space, there will be no tendency in one direction or the other.

In this reasoning we can be assured as to the probabilities in any given occasion, for we must assume all combinations of initial positions and velocities to be equally likely. Inasmuch as any event occupies a certain amount of time, let us figure on the probabilities of the positions and initial velocities at the middle of that interval. For any range of positions and velocities resulting in a combination obeying the second law of thermodynamics, we have an equal and therefore an equally probable range of positions and velocities reversing that law; namely, the identical positions with the reverse velocities. Where the positions and velocities happen to border between the two kinds of combinations. we will have a sort of neutral result, which is so improbable as to have a zero probability (though that does not make it impossible). Aside from that, the second law of thermodynamics is, on any occasion, equally probable with its reverse, and the probability of each may be taken as 50%. The probability of the second law of thermodynamics being followed on two certain occasions is, as a result, only 25%; and so on, while its probability for all occasions is almost a nullity.

The probability is, however, as a result of this 50% probability, that approximately half the events of the universe, taking all of space and time, will be in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, while about half will tend to reverse it. The former tendency we will, for short, call the positive, while the latter tendency we will call the negative tendency. Between these two there is a bordering, or neutral, tendency, which, as a whole, neither builds energy up nor levels it down.

The universe as a whole, including all of time and space, will tend towards this neutral tendency, but this neutral tendency will simply be a compound of positive and negative tendencies at different parts of space and time tending to cancel one another. Taking definite portions of space and time, the chances are that there will be some sort of preponderance of tendency in one direction or the other, the preponderance being greater the smaller the section of space and time that we take Into consideration. We may, therefore, assume that, in the part of space and time under our observation (which, we know is very limited) the preponderance is towards the positive tendency. We may suppose that there are other parts of space, and other periods of time, when the preponderance will be in the reverse direction.

But even where the preponderance is toward the positive tendency; it still remains merely a
preponderance, and instances of the negative tendency would be almost certain to occur it is true that the probabilities are that, in such a part of space and time, instances of the negative tendency will occur to a very limited amount; but, all the same, they will occur.

The probabilities of the situation, then, are as follows: the whole universe, including all of space and time, will tend to have as much of the positive as of the negative tendency, with a certain amount of the neutral tendency. At a particular moment of time the probabilities are that there will also be about as much of one tendency as of the other, but that in some sections of space there will be a preponderance towards the positive tendency, while in other sections of space the preponderance will be the reverse; about half of space falling under one heading, and about half of space falling under the other. In each of those portions of space there will be instances of events opposed to the prevailing tendency, presumably in certain material objects. The same applies to a more limited extent if we take one section of space with respect to the different moments of time.

<< the paradox - chapter IV -

- chapter VI - solution of the paradox >>

---

William James Sidis

La incógnita

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:39:00 +0000

El principio de la perfección resulta un tanto confuso. Para alcanzarla se requiere una repetición indeterminada de errores y es la suma. Solo la suma de esos errores la que constituiría verdadera perfección. Si uno logra la altura estética o intelectual suficiente para la creación augusta, gallarda, de una obra potencialmente perfecta, sólo deberá arreglar, pacientemente, las imperfecciones que dicha obra posea, y constituir la misma, una vez libre de impurezas, en perfección.

El verdadero arte, entonces, no radica en explotar cierta genialidad continuamente, sino en desvelar el alma con ideas imperfectas, es decir, aquello que constituye al genio no procede de la perfección de su obra sino en la captación absolutamente irremplazable de cierta perfección, cierto equilibrio ideal que solo el trabajo y la voluntad constante lograrían develar al ojo mísero y común.

El milagro de su genialidad es el de ver perfección en algo imperfecto, asumir la forma deficitaria y solo trabajar para acallarla pero siempre sabiendo con certeza el resultado final de su trabajo, de allí que sea ímpetu vehemente de andar fastuoso el de los genios.

Andrómeda

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 07:08:00 +0000

El laberinto constituye un principio determinado por la distribución errática, e imperfecta, de sus usualmente angostos pasillos. El problema central del laberinto radica en la ausencia de castigo, su experiencia se reduce lamentablemente a la mera prueba y error, limitando así el goce y el placer. Al estar cercenado tan groseramente por estos parámetros, el verdadero éxito amerita cierta paciencia; recorridos el ciento por ciento de su totalidad, sería imposible no encontrarnos con la solución, incluso evitándonos todo tipo de deductivismos detectivescos, fútiles.

La última posibilidad de salvar este fracaso sería la de recrear un laberinto infinito. Si cierta disposición pudiese albergar un infinito número de posibilidades, la idea de lograr la solución no sólo requeriría de cierto ingenio, sino, y en mayor medida, de una exagerada y necesaria suerte. Un error en el trayecto sería fatal absolutamente. Quizá, dada esta caprichosa disposición, no sería necesaria la inclusión de espacios cerrados –o muertos-, tan solo una espiral elíptica cerrándose sobre si misma, una mera línea infinitamente divisible cuya única y real solución sólo la podría encontrar un inmortal, y ni siquiera la humanidad toda (1).

Si la línea que constituye el laberinto fuese infinita, doblándose eternamente sobre si misma –aunque jamás cortándose- (el infinito no contempla tiempo ni ninguna otra grosería) no podríamos ubicar espacio entre las respectivas líneas. Porque la línea sea infinita, ingenuo de mí creer que el espacio que la albergue también pueda serlo, todos sabemos que dos infinitos no pueden arrojar un resultado finito (aunque algún italiano haya expresado lo contrario), dada esta particular dificultad, debemos replantearnos la idea de la elipsis. Quizá, más efectivo sería resolver nuestro laberinto con un punto, un mero punto de tinta negra, infinitamente divisible y que, gracias a ello, se vuelve infinitamente inexpugnable. Escaparía a la tediosa probabilidad científica, a la innecesaria deducción lógica y por qué no, al limitado concepto de distribución errática.

----------
(1) La idea de un laberinto infinito prevé dos posibilidades, ambas en mano del inmortal (como probará serlo quien logre descifrarlo) una supone la aleatoriedad, es decir, la consecución errática que parta desde un punto determinado hasta otro indeterminado hasta cubrir el infinito número de posibilidades, y soluciones. O los planos de su superficie, si se quiere, según lo preveía Cavalieri. La segunda, recurre a cierta analogía física relativa al comportamiento de la luz, y se traduciría en una ligera curva que solo el tiempo puede abarcar con la inusitada esperanza de cortar su propio eje, generando un orden dentro del infinito y a su vez, la solución efímera al problema.

Adiós a los Chicago Boys

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 03:47:00 +0000

El capitalismo puro estuvo vigente entre 1915 y 1929, los años de mi infancia.¿Quién lo mató? El presidente republicano Herbert Hoover y su multimillonario secretario del Tesoro, Andrew Mellon, fueron los culpables antes y después del asesinato.

¿Quién lo devolvió a la vida? El New Deal –que siguió el camino intermedio– de Franklin Roosevelt fue el encargado de resucitarlo. Pero eso llevó siete años desde el día en que Roosevelt inauguró su mandato, en marzo de 1933.

Avancemos hasta el actual colapso financiero mundial. Los sistemas de mercado no regulados tarde o temprano se suicidan. ¿Acaso es éste el final del sistema de mercado? Como ciudadano común, espero que no. Mil años de historia económica avalan objetivamente cuán indispensables son los sistemas de mercado.

Marx, Lenin y Stalin, como economistas fueron tontos de la aldea. Y Mao, peor. Ni qué hablar de Castro en Cuba, Chávez en Venezuela y quienquiera que llevó a Corea del Norte al hambre y estancamiento.

¿Qué fue entonces lo que provocó el suicidio del capitalismo de Wall Street a partir de 2007? En el fondo de esta hecatombe financiera, la peor de todas, está el capitalismo liberal de laissez faire de Milton Friedman y Friedrich Hayek, que tuvo rienda suelta sin ningún tipo de regulación. Fue la raíz de todos los males de hoy. Los dos están muertos, pero sus legados venenosos perduran.

Sé que mis palabras son duras y tendré que justificarlas. Pero permítanme advertirles, estimados lectores, que mi extensa y variada experiencia en historia económica hizo de mí un centrista incurable. Peor que eso, aprendí a los golpes a ser un ecléctico irremediable.

Fui un excelente estudiante en la conservadora Universidad de Chicago de 1932-1935. Me encantaban mis renombrados profesores de economía, y ellos me calificaban con las notas más altas. Pero... Pero... Siempre que miraba por las ventanas del campus, veía índices de desocupación de casi un 50%. (La Alemania pre-Hitler tenía una situación parecida). Nada de todo eso concordaba con lo que decían mis libros de texto de lectura obligatoria.

¿Por qué pasé mis cuatro veranos de universidad en la playa del lago Michigan? Mi familia no era pobre, pero tampoco terriblemente rica. En aquel entonces no había trabajo. Nada, cero trabajo. Casi todos los bancos de Indiana, Illinois y Wisconsin habían quebrado.

¿Cómo hicieron el benévolo presidente Roosevelt y el pérfido Adolfo Hitler para casi restablecer el pleno empleo seis largos años después de 1993? ¡La respuesta es ni más ni menos que con un enorme gasto presupuestario deficitario que hizo subir las deudas públicas! No van a encontrar esta historia, así como se las acabo de contar, en la mayoría de las tesis posteriores a 1970 de los doctores en economía de las mejores universidades estadounidenses. (Evidentemente la ciencia mejora y desmejora).

Estos párrafos enfáticos que estoy escribiendo se relacionan con el futuro incierto de los esfuerzos de rescate que se están llevando adelante en los cinco continentes Primero aclaremos quiénes son los culpables de convertir la estabilidad y el crecimiento de 1995 en el caos de 2008.

1. Nunca olvidemos las imbecilidades de George Bush en materia de geopolítica. La historia futura lo documentará.

2. Desde la llegada de Ronald Reagan a la Casa Blanca en 1980, Estados Unidos se volvió, cada vez más, una nación de "desahorristas" a nivel familiar, a nivel empresarial y a nivel del Estado, de la mano de los fanáticos de la derecha ofertista.

En algún momento, cuando se produzca una corrida desordenadamente letal contra el dólar como moneda, los operadores de los hedge funds estadounidenses que hayan sobrevivido serán short-sellers (vendedores "a la baja") de dólares. Esos legados reaganianos habrán jugado un papel fundamental.

3. Los programas prometidos por George Bush de "conservadurismo compasivo (sic)" resultaron ser un programa de rebajas de impuestos generalizados para gente como mis vecinos acaudalados.

4. La promoción diagramada de la desigualdad no aceleró la productividad total de los factores. Por el contrario, la suba obscena de las remuneraciones de los CEO hizo que todo el sistema de gobierno corporativo se volviese disfuncional. A los CEO inescrupulosos les fue espectacularmente bien mintiendo sobre las verdaderas ganancias de las empresas. Y cuando los descubrieron, salieron libres riendo en todo el trayecto al banco. En realidad, las personas asignadas por Bush a la SEC (Comisión de Valores de la Bolsa), como su primer presidente, Harvey Pitt, fueron elegidas sólo porque podían desregular en vez de continuar con una regulación razonable. Pitt fue elegido principalmente porque había sido abogado de las cuatro principales firmas auditoras, que estaban ideando medidas engañosas sobre rentabilidad verdadera.

5. Pongamos a esos auditores en el estrado. Reciben su paga de manos de quienes supuestamente ellos deben vigilar –un caso evidente en que el monitoreo y la regulación son una necesidad prioritaria.

6. Dejemos lugar en los tribunales para las tres grandes agencias de calificación de crédito: Fitch, Moody y S&P-McGraw Hill.

Se supone que deben extender aprobaciones AAA sólo en casos seguros. Pero si una de las tres calificadoras actuase con honestidad, las otras dos se quedarían con todo el negocio. Y esto apesta a conflicto de intereses. Legisladores: tomen nota.

7. Para ahorrar espacio, pasaré a referirme a los nuevos "Frankensteins desalmados" de la "ingeniería financiera". Yo y algunos colegas del MIT, Chicago, Wharton, Penn, y colaboradores, posiblemente seamos maltratados cuando nos encontremos con San Pedro en las puertas del cielo.

¿Cuál es el problema? Los derivados y los swaps pueden generar un reparto racional de los riesgos y, de este modo, reducir el riesgo total. Sí. Pero también pueden destruir completamente toda posibilidad de transparencia.

Durante décadas, integré conducciones de organizaciones sin fines de lucro con CEOs de Nueva York hasta California. Ni uno de ellos entendía ni remotamente las fórmulas Black-Scholes-Merton para valuar activos. Todo lo que sabían, o creían que sabían, era que centros de beneficios, nuevos, maravillosos, libres de riesgos, habían invadido sus oficinas. La alquimia, que prometía convertir el estiércol en oro, no era nada al lado de esto.

Evidentemente nadie aprendió la lección del Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM), que casi colapsó en 1998 y necesitó un rescate concertado por el Banco de la Reserva Federal de Nueva York.

La ingeniería financiera es lo que nos permite ir de un apalancamiento cero a otro de, digamos, 50 a 1. Y cuando el consiguiente riesgo autoinferido explota, todo lo que ocurre, una vez más, es que nuestro CEO y nuestro director salen libres y riendo en el camino al banco.

Bear Stearns convirtió a sus multimillonarios en meros millonarios de la noche a la mañana. El emperador Nerón tocaba la lira mientras Roma se quemaba. El jefe de Bear Stearns jugaba torneos de bridge mientras sus accionistas estaban en el horno.

Teniendo en cuenta que ésta era una de las firmas de correduría de Bolsa que manejó buena parte de las operaciones del LTCM, ¿no deberían haber aprendido algo sobre el hiperapalancamiento letal? Conclusión. La mayoría de las pérdidas serán permanentes, como lo fueron en 1929-32. Sin embargo, con suficiente cantidad de dinero fresco de la Fed y del Tesoro de Estados Unidos, la recuperación y la estabilidad serán posibles.

El camino intermedio de Roosevelt-Truman-Kennedy-Clinton habría evitado el caos y las quiebras de hoy. Los académicos de hoy todavía debaten si Colón trajo la sífilis al Nuevo Mundo o al revés. Pero nadie duda de que el colapso mundial de 2008 tiene en su etiqueta las palabras "Hecho en Estados Unidos".

Desde Islandia hasta la Antártica, los niños del futuro aprenderán a estremecerse al oír los nombres de Bush, Greenspan y Pitt. Por supuesto que estoy exagerando. Pero no mucho.

---

El artículo se lo robé al Grupo Clarín

The Animate and the Inanimate

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:25:00 +0000

CHAPTER IV

THE PARADOX

The second law of thermodynamics is, as we have seen, an irreversible physical law, and seems to be the one distinguishing characteristic between the real universe and the reverse universe. At the same time, that law is of such a nature, that, for the ultimate particles of matter. it dues not exist; It Is essentially a law concerning transformations of energy of large masses. And yet all large bodies are made up of countless numbers of the ultimate particles of matter, the laws of whose motion are all perfectly reversible. All phenomena of the reverse universe, however strange they may look, are perfectly explicable in terms of the ordinary physical laws as applied to the smallest material particles. It would seem, then, as though there must be some reason in terms of the reversible physical laws why the second law of thermodynamics must be true; that is, the second law of thermodynamics, if true, should be a consequence of the reversible physical laws applicable to ultimate particles. We are, then, confronted with the paradox of having to deduce an irreversible law from perfectly reversible ones.

And yet, since the reverse universe consists of a perfectly consistent series of positions, obeying all reversible physical laws, it follows that any logical deduction from premises which are reversible laws must Inevitably apply to the reverse universe, and that therefore the conclusion must be true in the reverse universe as well as in the real physical universe. That is to say, any deductive conclusion from reversible laws must itself be reversible. And yet, in the case of the second law of thermodynamics, the reversible laws which govern the motions of ultimate particles of matter seem to compound themselves somehow into the best possible example of an irreversible law governing the motions of large masses.

We are, therefore, inevitably led to the conclusion that the second law of thermodynamics cannot be deduced from the reversible laws by strict deductive reasoning. The reversible laws must of necessity leave some room for the possibility of the truth of the reverse of the second law of thermodynamics. But, since the second law of thermodynamics simply represents a general tendency, we come to the conclusion that the only possibility that the second law of thermodynamics represents a correct physical law, is, that it is to be deduced from the reversible laws not as a strict logical consequence, but as a great, or even an overwhelming probability. Such a solution of this paradox of the second law was propounded by Clerk Maxwell and other physicists of the middle of the nineteenth century.

Let us, then, examine the reasoning by which Clerk-Maxwell was enabled to reconcile reversible premises with an irreversible conclusion. According to his reasoning, both processes are physically possible, concentration and diffusion of energy. The one process obeys the second law of thermodynamics, the other reverses it. Under the second law of thermodynamics, a collision of large masses will generate heat (conversion of molar energy into heat-energy); under its reversal, the heat generates molar motion in and of itself. Now, says Clerk-Maxwell, if particles move In a group, or rather in two approaching groups, the particles are likely to strike one another at all sorts of angles, so that, after the Impact, the resulting velocities will become scattered, which means that some of the energy will be converted into heat. On the contrary, a reversal of the process means a concentration of the motions, of the particles at the very point and time of the impact, which is a very much more improbable combination, and, requiring as it does that this concentration should happen in a particular direction, at a particular point, at a particular time, in order to have the desired effect, it follows that such a reversal of the second law of thermodynamics is so overwhelmingly improbable as to be almost impossible. The second law of thermodynamics is thus based not on necessity but on extreme probability. A reversal of the second law is possible under the reversible physical laws, as we have seen, but this reasoning tends to prove that it is overwhelmingly improbable, and therefore would almost never happen. But, again, if the premises of the reasoning are, as we suppose, reversible physical laws, it must be possible to apply the same reasoning to the reverse universe. Consequently, a similar line of reasoning, which must be exactly as correct logically, can be followed by tracing events backwards from effect to cause instead of tracing from cause to effect, as Clerk-Maxwell has done. Any momentary condition, of the universe may be regarded either as the cause of all future conditions of the universe or as the effect of all past conditions. And not only can a given momentary condition of all particles in the universe determine one and only one possible effect, one and only one possible future; that same given momentary condition (position and velocity of every particle) could only have been caused by one possible past series of conditions. Hence it is just as possible to trace our causal relations step by step backwards, as it is to trace them similarly forwards.

Now, tracing causation thus backwards, we find that molar motions, when traced backwards into the past, will, in all probability, bring us to a time when two masses which are now in motion have been together, in contact. Following Clerk-Maxwell's reasoning, we must say that, when two particles move away from contact with each other, an impact must have been the cause, at least some form of impact of particles, but it is a form of impact which produced molar motion. In all probability, those two particular masses will not have motions which trace back to a rebound of all particles at the same angle; which necessitates, according to the rules of elastic collision, that before the impact the motions of the particles must have been scattered. Thus, tracing the reasoning backwards, we arrive at the probability that the molar motions must have been partially at least caused by heat, that is, to the probability of a reversal of the second law of thermodynamics. On the contrary, In order to have a case in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, on this analogous reasoning, it would be necessary to suppose two bodies being traced back to contact at some particular time, and that the heat-motions of those bodies, when thus traced back, should suddenly, at the particular moment and point of contact, trace back to a concentration of motion of the particles of each body away from the other, for only such concentration could be the effect of a molar motion bringing the bodies into collision. Now, the probability of such a combination is extremely small, so that, by merely shifting our reasoning gear into reverse, the very same reasoning tells us that the second law of thermodynamics is most-extremely Improbable, but that, on the contrary, its reversal is an overwhelming probability.

Tracing thus from a given momentary condition of the universe, our forward and backward reasoning combined might be interpreted, if such reasoning could be trusted, to mean that the second law of thermodynamics holds good as a probability as to the future, but that its reversal holds true as to the past. Aside from this result being untrue In point of fact, it is self-contradictory, for any given moment of time is always future as to moments that precede it. and past as to moments that follow it. It follows, then, that there must be some fallacy in Clerk-Maxwell's reasoning, which, when extended, gives us the second law of thermodynamics in the general form.

To take the special case that we have been using as an illustration. Molar motion without heat, it is true, is likely, as a matter of pure theory, to produce, after impact, less molar motion and some heat (the total amount of energy remaining invariable). But such an initial condition is, in itself, extremely improbable. If initial velocities of particles may be selected initially as in any direction: and in any amount, it is extremely improbable that all the velocities will have the same direction and amount, or even approximately so. The smaller the number of particles, the greater the probability of a concentrated motion resulting. Also, the smaller the mass, the greater the probable average velocity of the mass at a given time, when the particles are moving at random. Hence, when there is impact of bodies in which particles move at random, the probabilities are that, at that moment, at the point of contact, the small mass of particles in the immediate vicinity will have a greater speed in all probability than the entire mass. Thus, when the collision occurs, the force available for producing molar motion will consist, in the immediate vicinity of the point of contact, of two average speeds greater than those of the respective masses. If those greater speeds lend to be more towards one another than the masses as a whole, then it would be most probable that some of the heat-energy of the two bodies will be converted into molar motion. On the other hand, if the respective speeds in the vicinity of the point of contact are more away from each other than the velocities of the masses themselves, the reverse will happen. Besides, while we have this possibility of heat turning into molar energy or into some other form of energy, and of differences of energy concentration building themselves up in this manner, we have the contrary tendency supplied by Clerk-Maxwell's reasoning. The result is, that we as yet can form no conclusions as to which tendency Is more likely.

If, furthermore, we consider that we must regard for a given moment of time, all positions and velocities as equally likely, and that for all such initial positions and velocities which will give a universe obeying the second law of thermodynamics, there is a reverse universe, equally probable; reversing that law, we come to the conclusion that the second law and its reverse are equally probable. If this is true for any given event, then the probability of the observed facts, that is to say, that all events obey the second law, must be infinitesimally small. So that, again, we are forced to the conclusion that the second law of thermodynamics, being an observed fact which can only be explained as an extremely probable result of the reversible physical laws is, on the contrary, most extremely improbable.

Not merely that, but the second law of thermodynamics, when pushed to its logical conclusion, produces rather absurd results. In the first place, we have, seen that it involves a sort of death of the universe in the remote future, a time when all will be one dead level of heat; though all this will, in all probability, come about slowly. But the rate of decrease of the available energy under this second law is approximately proportional to the amount of available energy In the universe; therefore the rate of the running down of energy into the unavailable form must be constantly decreasing. Tracing backwards, we find that, in the past, the farther back we go, the more we get a larger percentage of available energy in the universe, Increasing at an ever greater rate. Therefore it follows that we must arrive at some definite time in the past—and that not at an infinite time back—when the available energy was 100% of the total energy of the universe. At a time probably not much farther back, all the motion in the universe must have consisted of molar motion of masses which, as we go back, must have increased In size till we arrive at a time when all the energy must have consisted of the energy of two halves of the universe moving together, each half of the universe being at a temperature of absolute zero and all its parts moving side by side at exactly the same velocity. This possibility, it is true, is somewhat corroborated by the fact that at present the stars are moving in two opposite directions, in two opposite currents, as it were, which may be supposed to be the remnants of the two original large groups of stars whose collision formed the present universe according to this hypothesis.

At the same time the two original halves of the universe cannot have been altogether mutually Impenetrable, for in that case the result of the collision would but have made them rebound, though producing a great amount of internal heat-energy in each, and possibly breaking some small pieces off each. It would seem, then, as though the original halves of the universe must have consisted of separate dark stars, with a structure somewhat similar to the present universe. At the time of the collision, all the stars, even all the particles, In each semi-universe must all be moving together at the same speed and in the same direction.

The second law of thermodynamics, then, must date from some sort of Great Collision out of which the present universe evolved. But what happened before this Great Collision? The answer would have to be, everything was at a temperature of absolute zero, there were two semi-universes which were moving towards each other, in each of which there was not even a trace of relative motion. Although each of the two semi-universes were in motion, yet within each there was no motion, no internal energy.

But if such was the situation at the time of the Great Collision, it cannot have been so for an eternity past, unless we conceive of the law of gravitational attraction not to have been true in those times. Taking each semi-universe by itself, its reverse universe will also show the same conditions as we have already described, except that the semi-universes are moving away from each other, so that we can proceed in peace without danger from the impending Great Collision. Each semi-universe may, for the purpose of internal occurrences, be regarded as at rest. Gravitation will then draw all the stars of each semi-universe towards its center of gravity, till all of them fall in there. Reversing once more, so as to obtain the process as it must have been supposed to happen, we get the following result: Each semi-universe originally consisted of one great body; suddenly, somehow, that body exploded into pieces, which formed stars, each piece, though, remaining at a temperature of absolute zero. Finally, in each semi-universe. mutual gravitation of the stars slowed them down to relative rest. Just when this relative rest was reached, the two semi-universes collided, and out of this collision came our present universe. Thus we trace a little farther back to the Great Explosions; but these explosions cannot possibly be traced back any farther according to the known physical laws without violating the second law of thermodynamics. In consequence, if we wish to preserve the second law of thermodynamics, we must either dispense with some of the other physical laws, or as some physicists have done, intersperse a creation. In other words, the second law of thermodynamics cannot have been true for an eternity past, though it may be true for on eternity in the future. And even the assumption of a creation would be assuming a process different from the processes coming under the ordinary physical laws.

In other words, we come to the inevitable conclusion that the subsistence of the irreversible second law of thermodynamics in the same universe as the reversible laws concerning the motion of particles is a paradox, both from that point of view and from the fact that this second law, pushed to its logical conclusion, leads back to a mysterious creation which denies all physical laws whatever.

<< irreversibility - chapter III -

- chapter V - the probabilities in the problem >>

---

William James Sidis

Modern times

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 18:55:00 +0000

The brokers with hands on their faces

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:19:00 +0000

The Animate and the Inanimate

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:47:00 +0000

CHAPTER III

IRREVERSIBILITY

So far, we have seen that the physical laws essential to the determination of the course of the universe from its present momentary condition are all reversible. From this it might be concluded that all physical laws must in consequence be reversible, and that, therefore, there can be no essential difference between the real universe and the reverse universe. And this much is true, that, provided we examine the motions of the particles of matter, everything that happens in the reverse universe can be described in terms of the physical properties of matter as we know them.

But at the same time, if we take the most ordinary events of the real universe and attempt to find out what is the corresponding event in the reverse universe, something strange will at once impress us about the reverse universe. Take this, for example: a ball rolls down a staircase, bounces a little at the bottom, and finally stops. In the reverse universe the initial condition is the ball at the bottom, on a floor near, the foot of a staircase. The heat energy in the floor collects at one point underneath the ball, so as to push the ball suddenly upward. Each time that the ball falls back to the floor this process is repeated, until finally the floor throws the ball on to the first stair. The stairs, each in turn, throw the ball in a similar manner up the staircase, till finally the ball stops at the top. The molecular vibrations in the ball, floor, and staircase, had previously been so arranged that concentration of energy would happen at a particular spot and time, while the ball so moved that it just happened to be at those spots exactly in time.

So it will be with the occurrences corresponding in the reverse universe to almost any common occurrence in the physical world of our experience. Everything seems to be perfectly explicable In terms of physical laws, but at the some time the combinations of motions seem to have something utterly strange about them. Hence there is some point of difference between the real universe and the reverse universe, and hence there must be some property of the real universe that is irreversible.

This irreversible property is found in what is called the second law of thermodynamics. This, taken in its most general aspect, amounts to this: that the energy of the universe is constantly running down to one common level. In other words, where energy of the same variety is present in different degrees of concentration, those differences will be equalised, and energy of a still higher level or to a greater amount must become dissipated in order to re-create these difference of concentration. Of the various varieties of energy, all kinds tend to turn into heat, which is the least concentrated form of energy; and, even though some of that heat may be re-converted into some other form of energy, still, at each step, some energy is irretrievably lost in the form of heat.

This physical law, as well as all those which are derived from it, is irreversible. Furthermore, only such physical laws as are derived from the second law of thermodynamics are irreversible; so that this law constitutes the sole difference between the real and the reverse universe. Where, in the real universe, energy runs down to a common level, it follows that, in the reverse universe, energy tends to build itself up into different levels.

We may say, then, that the characteristic irreversible part of the universe consists in this, that energy tends to evolve (or devolve) from molar motion of extremely large masses, which is the most concentrated form of energy, to a condition in which all energy is in the form of heat, which is the least concentrated form, and at a uniform concentration, that is to say, at a constant temperature throughout. A final condition would result in which a dead level of energy would be reached, and after that nothing further could ever happen in the universe.

The fact, for instance, that perfectly elastic collisions of large masses of matter do not occur, but that such collisions are inelastic, is a direct consequence of the second law of thermodynamics. The characteristic of an inelastic collision is that some of the molar kinetic energy of the colliding bodies is lost by the impact. This lost kinetic energy is changed into heat, which is always produced by an inelastic collision. This is in strict accord with the second law of thermodynamics. In the reverse universe, on the contrary, an impact would be an occasion for heat to be converted into molar motion, thus increasing the total amount of kinetic energy. Such a collision we may call super-elastic, and not within our experience.

Again, the resistance offered by one body to another, whether in the form of friction or otherwise, is but an example of the second law of thermodynamics, being another case of change of molar energy into heat. In the reverse universe, the very opposite process would take place. Accordingly we find as might be expected, that the laws of friction, etc., are irreversible.

Many chemical reactions are irreversible, though some are reversible. As a general rule, the irreversible chemical reactions are cases of conversion of chemical energy into heat, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. So with all irreversible processes. In the case of a machine, the ratio of the energy obtained to the energy put in (usually expressed as a percentage) is called the mechanical efficiency of that machine. The remaining energy, that the machine has lost, becomes heat. The second law of thermodynamics, expressed in terms of mechanical efficiency, means that all physical phenomena have a mechanical efficiency of less than 100%. The reverse universe, on the contrary, is distinguished from the universe of our experience in that the mechanical efficiency of its phenomena is over 100%.

Again, to express it In another way. Suppose two bodies, one at a temperature of 0° Fahrenheit, the other at a temperature of 200°. The only available heat-energy in those bodies would be the amount represented by 200 degrees in the hotter body. At the same time, the colder body being 460 degrees above absolute zero, there is unavailable energy, which, according to the second law of thermodynamics, cannot be reached, amounting to 460 degrees in each of the two bodies. If both bodies have the same mass and specific heat, the energy which, under the second law of thermodynamics, is available for conversion into other forms of energy, could thus be represented by 200, while the total heat-energy In the two bodies would be represented by 460+660 =1120. The ratio of available to total energy in this case would be 200:1120, or 5:28. In other words, only 18% of the total heat-energy is available for conversion. The second law of thermodynamics states, not merely that not all the available energy can actually be used for any purpose except heat, but also that all energy in an available form (a form other than heat, or else heatenergy in the form of a difference of temperature) tends to turn into unavailable energy, that the amount of available energy in the universe is constantly decreasing.

In the reverse universe we have a different situation, since the second law of thermodynamics is irreversible. Even the heat-energy below the temperature of the coldest bodies in the environment is not merely available, but constantly drawn on. The same immense fund of energy which in the real physical universe is constantly stored up and unavailable, now ceases to be unavailable, but becomes a reserve fund of energy with which difference of concentration of energy is constantly being built up. Under the second law of thermodynamics a reserve fund of energy is constantly stored up in the form of heat and never afterwards touched; under the reverse of that second law, on the contrary, we start with this reserve fund of energy and constantly draw on it to build up energy-differences.

<< reversible laws - chapter II -

- chapter IV - the paradox >>

---

William James Sidis

Girl

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:44:00 +0000

Dodecaedro

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:48:00 +0000

Centro de un dodecaedro mediante Ø.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 03:30:00 +0000

We do not have to visit a madhouse to find disordered minds; our planet is the mental institution of the universe."

La naturaleza de la sustancia

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 03:23:00 +0000

If bodies are phenomena and judged in accordance with how they appear to us, they will not be real since they will appear differently to different people. And so the reality of bodies, of space, of motion, and of time seem to consist in the fact that they are phenomena of God, that is, the object of his knowledge by intuition [scientia visionis]

Indeed, God sees things exactly as they are in accordance with geometrical truth, although he also knows how everything appears to everything else, and so he eminently contains in himself all other appearances.

---

Leibniz's Correspondence with Des Bosses

Las paradojas de Zenón

noreply@blogger.com (Charles_Blake) — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:38:00 +0000

"In a race, the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead.

Achilles and the tortoise

Las imposibilidades que plantea la paradoja son principalmente dos; primero indica que no importa cuan rápido avance el "corredor más rápido", el otro le llevará siempre ventaja, lo cual viola el principio del movimiento relativo a la velocidad, es decir, sería dable asumir que en cierto punto de tiempo el "corredor más rápido" tenderá a sobrepasar a su débil competidor, sin embargo, matemáticamente este resultado no llega nunca a darse, así ambos corredores podrán infinitamente, el uno intentar sobrepasar al otro, y el otro intentar terminar la carrera, sin que ninguno de dichos sucesos llegara a concretarse realmente.

Siendo el corredor más lento A y el más rápido B y C el punto en que A se encuentra en un momento determinado de tiempo y espacio, antes de que B logre alcanzar C, A habrá avanzado aún más, de modo tal que B jamás podría alcanzar C realmente.

La segunda imposibilidad que plantea la paradoja se basa en la inexistencia de movimiento. Lo que dicha paradoja hace suponer es, finalmente, que todo movimiento es en realidad una ilusión.

Si durante la noche decido ir a jugar bowling, llego, preparo el inentendible calzado que se acostumbra utilizar para dicha actividad, agarro el bolo, y lo lanzo despiadadamente contra los conos, me encuentro con una situación bastante parecida a la anterior. La realidad que percibimos indica, indudablemente que el bolo partió desde la posición D hasta la posición E y se estrelló produciendo, no sólo un magnifico estruendo sino también un strike. Sin embargo, ahora, es decir hace dos mil años aproximadamente, ponemos en duda que el bolo se haya movido realmente. ¿Entonces?

Entonces dos mil años después nos encontramos con una perspectiva un tanto distinta que indica lo siguiente: Rodeando D y E hay un entorno en reposo, y -aquí está la llave de la cuestión- de no existir dicho entorno la percepción de movimiento jamás tendría lugar. Sin embargo, la posibilidad de argüir la existencia o no de movimiento resulta aún un tanto confusa. Si no existiesen objetos en reposo ni ninguna referencia ni barrera que diera cuenta de dicho movimiento ¿Podríamos percibir realmente si el bolo se mueve?

La tierra misma es un ejemplo claro de lo confuso que un término bastante difundido como el del movimiento puede, finalmente, ser. La velocidad que la tierra desarrolla al orbitar el sol es realmente altísima, aproximadamente (en promedio - recordemos que dibuja una trayectoria elíptica de tal modo que la velocidad no es constante sino solo promediable -) de 28 km/s. Y sin embargo, éste, no puede referenciarse mas que con puntos lejanos del entorno y por ende, la tierra parece estar estática cuando esto realmente no es así.

"If everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, the flying arrow is therefore motionless".

The arrow paradox

En un punto determinado de tiempo, las posibilidades son dos, o bien que la flecha se esté moviendo hacia donde ya está o bien que se esté moviendo hacia donde no está. Moviéndose hacia donde no está es imposible, porque nos estamos refiriendo a un momento determinado de tiempo, a un momento preciso y singular, y no puede tampoco estar moviéndose hacia donde ya está, precisamente, porque ya está allí.

Es decir, en cada momento de tiempo determinado no habría movimiento involucrado. Por lo tanto, si no puede moverse en determinado instante, no puede hacerlo en ningún instante. De lo que se deduce que todo movimiento es imposible.