Phylomeny Go buy glasses.

of Deniz Cem Önduygu

This is a personal project that dates back to 2009; I’ve been postponing sharing it because I wasn’t sure it was finished. I still am not sure but I decided it waited too long in my computer and would better develop with comments from other people.

My challenge to myself was to map these different adjectives with yes/no questions that have the pronoun “you” as their subject. First, let me make it absolutely clear that I would easily admit that this whole thing is a gross oversimplification if pushed; I even deliberately went for the fun factor in some questions/answers. Secondly, I salute those who see the seriousness in it, and below the image are some explanations for them.

This chart was done with basic ontology and epistemology in mind – with some weight on modern philosophy of mind; it doesn’t include ethics or political philosophy because the adjectives for these areas of philosophy are not mutually exclusive with the ones that are on the chart: one can be a non-reductive physicalist and a Marxist at the same time. I realize that even some of the ones on the chart are not always mutually exclusive, but they at least deal with the same type of questions and therefore can be said to be “in competition” with each other. Maybe the most troubling in this respect are the nihilist/postmodernist categories: a nihilist can be a biological naturalist, but I expect a true nihilist/postmodernist to answer a question like “Can you be duplicated within a computer?” with “I don’t care” or “It doesn’t matter” or “It’s an invalid question” – they would have a unique indifferent stance towards those questions. That’s why I included them in this chart.

My apologies go to those who take this thing seriously enough to feel bad that they are excluded from it; I will do my best to include other adjectives (related to the concept of the chart) if you point them out to me. I know, for instance, that Hindus are missing, but their beliefs are too diverse for me to understand, generalize and transform into one question-answer. It should be obvious that, even though I did my research for the majority of the adjectives, I went deeper in areas I was most familiar with.

A final note: You don’t really get to be non-reducible just because you believe it and consider yourself a non-reductive physicalist. While the questions on this chart are about what you think you are, the answers in fact reveal what you are – the adjective you get in terms of your theories/beliefs.

What do you think if you notice that all the zeros in the book you’re reading have inverted stroke modulation? (The vertical parts are thinner than the horizontal parts.) You may think that there’s been a glitch in the font software. The moment of delight comes when you remember that the book you’re holding is A Universe From Nothing by physicist Lawrence Krauss who argues that the nature of nothing is quite different from what we thought: it is unstable and has to give rise to something. You may then think, as I first did, that the “0″ glyph of the font has been modified for this purpose but the original Stempel Garamond design actually has zeros with inverted strokes. I bet someone was reminded of this fact and chose the typeface with this clever detail in mind, though I wasn’t able to find out who did the typesetting. Even if this is pure coincidence, it’s too good to go unnoticed.

To be honest, I view physics as a much respected distant elder in comparison to biology which is like a lover to me. Ever since I did my first readings on quantum physics and relativity, I’ve always felt the famous barrier of intuitive understanding – the limits of our cognitive machinery evolved to function in “the Middle World”. My approach to contemporary physics and its deep questions as a layperson has been an indifferent one: “Even if we arrive at new answers, I won’t be able to understand them” – in a Searlean sense.

Krauss’s book has somewhat changed that. First, while he surveyed the recent (last century) developments in physics and cosmology, he managed to make me understand many things that I hadn’t quite understood in my previous readings. Moreover, the book regenerated the curiosity in me related to the big questions only physics can answer by making them more accessible and relevant, and convinced me that our flat universe with its total gravitational energy of zero can indeed come from almost nothing. (The last one was probably the easiest since I’m in no position to dispute.) I say “almost” because I can see how Krauss’s version of nothing is not going to satisfy those who ask the age-old metaphysical question “Why is there something rather than nothing?” As for me, I find the question too, well, metaphysical to be taken seriously.

If you’re curious but not enough to read the book, you can watch Krauss’s popular talk after which the book was written.

The first issue of the new Leonardo Electronic Almanac is out on Amazon since January 2012. I did the identity and the editorial design of the journal, and recently got hold of some copies and documented it here. (The typographical cover art “MISH MASH” was done by Emre Parlak.)

LEA is the electronic arm of the pioneer art journal, Leonardo – Journal of Art, Science & Technology. It is itself a peer reviewed electronic journal dedicated to providing a forum for those who are interested in the realm where art, science and technology converge. The new LEA, with Editor-in-Chief Lanfranco Aceti, is a collaborative effort between The MIT Press; Leonardo/ISAST; Goldsmiths, University of London; FACT; and Sabancı University. In addition to the electronic format on its website, it is now available as print on Amazon.

ISType (Istanbul Type Seminars), conceived and organized by Onur Yazıcıgil (Sabancı University) and Alessandro Segalini (Izmir University of Economics), is a lecture and workshop series devoted to encouraging typographic literacy in Turkey. The upcoming ISType 2012 will be held between June 15–18 under the theme Transmit and will host international guests including Ellen Lupton and Gerard Unger as well as Turkish designers/academicians such as Esen Karol and Ömer Durmaz. I and Emre will also be speaking as Fevkalade.

P.S. Emre made this amazing opening title for the seminars, don’t miss it.

 

This is a summary of the history of the universe, life on Earth and humanity, all belonging to the same picture shown in seven different time scales. It is in fact a reminder I made for my own use, like a summary of the course material a student prepares before an exam. (This was something I was particularly good at as a student, and I now realize that most of my personal work too is of that nature. I’ll remember this if I ever need an “artist’s statement”. If I ever become an artist.)

After publishing this, quite a lot of people have said that they want to hang a print of it on their wall. High-quality prints of different sizes and materials of The Big Picture in Seven Scales can be bought here, with worldwide shipping. (The png file you see on the web isn’t good for printing.)

The initial plan was to represent everything on one very lengthy line at one scale and produce a print to hang on some large enough wall so that the viewer can intuitively sense the amounts of time in question. For the screen medium – and for regular walls – this was not very practical so I did this version with seven scales, though I still plan to do the big version, at least 15 meters long.

My main purpose with this thing was to give a sense of how tiny our time scales are compared to the larger scheme of things, in one look. For this reason, the key feature of this visualization to me is the gray gradients relating the different scales to one another. And that’s why I stick with an oldschool flat-out one-image version instead of a fancy interactive one with zooming in and out. (It has nothing to do with my personal dislike for interaction.) By the way, I find the fact that all this immediate visual information is embedded in a 104 kilobyte image file terribly pleasing.

Dates are of course approximate. I first wanted to cite the sources for the information here but after some point of my research they became just too numerous to keep track of as I cross-checked everything in multiple sources. (When different dates were given at different sources, I chose to use something in between. Luckily there isn’t too much controversy; everybody agrees that Mayans came after the dawn of multicellular life.) In any case, I believe the information here is as public domain as can be. I will just hyperlink the sources of the linegraphs I included: the atmosphere oxygenation, the global mean temperature for 160.000 years, the world human population and the global mean temperature anomalies for 150 years.

While researching for the temperature data I had a chance to form a more informed opinion on the issue of global warming but here I won’t go into the discussions of whether it is real, human-induced or dangerous; I tried to stay as neutral as possible by showing temperature graphs at two different time scales, both accepted and used by people on both sides of the argument. If anything my visualization just says “Yes, the global mean temperature is fluctuating in every time scale, and yes, in the scale of the last 100 years we are seeing a warming trend.” – these two statements, I believe, are not debated. (This page by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research is by far the most clear, concise and structured one I saw on the basics of global warming, and although it’s on the “warmist” side it could be a good starting point for any curious person no matter his/her inclination on this politically charged issue.)

Some of the information on The Big Picture is less conclusive than the majority and perhaps I should add a few explanations for those.

  • The RNA World hypothesis about the origin of life may be impossible to confirm but I observe that it’s the most popular one among scientists, and I was assured enough when I saw it favored in the prestigious Molecular Biology of the Cell (Fifth Edition).
  • The dates for the beginning of sexual reproduction are also vague, and I have nothing to say about that. I just wanted to give you a piece of advice based upon my experience: don’t ever google “sex” if you want information on the evolution of sexual reproduction. Just don’t. The world doesn’t work like that.
  • There’s some recent findings, published in Nature in 2010, that suggests that multicellular life may have begun as early as 2.1 billion years ago but I chose to stick with the status quo on that because the paper’s too fresh.
  • There’s also some new findings (Science, 2005) suggesting, contrary to what we knew, that grasses may have evolved before the end of dinosaurs. (Just a cool way of saying “They found grass in fossilized dinosaur dung”.) Here I was convinced enough to have it their way.
  • There are people who claim that the Moon landing was faked. There are also people who claim that everything popped into existence 6000 years ago. Just so you know.

One terminology note: The dinosaurs – that are extinct – are dubbed “non-avian dinosaurs” today by scientists because we’re sure that birds are technically dinosaurs too. So we mustn’t say that “dinosaurs”, in their entirety, are extinct. However, as Jack Horner reminds us, all the kids in the world know that birds are not really cool enough to be dinosaurs.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me via comments below or email if you think there are corrections to be made, very important things to add, etc. I’m sure it’ll need updating in future, thus the “v1.2″ in the title.

My thanks go to Bilge Kobaş, Amaç Herdağdelen and Eser Aygün for their useful and challenging comments, as always. Eser has suggested that I should also add the future of the universe and at first I loved the idea. However, when I did research for the future scenarios for humanity, the Earth and the universe, I realized that there are too many alternatives – nearly all of them speculative – and it would be misleading if I chose between them and omit the rest. The historical information displayed in this work is obviously much more conclusive compared to our predictions about the future, and adding those predictions here would unfairly diminish the reliability of the former. Maybe I can do another version just for the alternative future scenarios. In future. That’s one scenario.

I dedicate this piece to mom, who has made sure, recently and on many past occasions, that I stayed sane enough to be spending time on these things.