Innovation

Please humour me while I connect some apparently disconnected ideas here – and let me know what you think.

Popular films such as What The Bleep Do We Know – Down The Rabbit Hole and The Secret discuss the premise that we are all interconnected. Crossover physicists like Fred Alan Wolf and John Hagelin explore this interconnectedness of all things, explaining human consciousness and spirituality in terms of behaviour of matter and energy at the quantum level.

In her book The Field, journalist-turned-author Lynne McTaggart interviewed many respected scientists and physicists about experiments that seemed to point to the existence of the 'Zero Point Field', an energy field that connects every single thing in the universe.

Whether you regard this theory as absolute truth or quantum nonsense, one thing is certain: people want to believe that we each exist not in splendid isolation but as one in this cosmic soup.

We seem to have a need to connect with each other.

Even in the more traditional scientific camp, research physicists continue to pursue and describe a unified theory of everything, a quantum-mechanical theory that encompasses all forces and all matter.

In 1935, Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen came up with the idea of quantum entanglement to explain why quantum particles don't have fixed values for their properties until they are observed. Quantum entanglement is the effect in which the quantum states of two or more objects are linked together and must be described with reference to each other, even if the individual objects are spatially separated. Einstein famously called this 'spooky action at a distance'.

When it was finally possible to carry out the physical quantum entanglement experiment in the early 1980s, it was found that indeed there was an instantaneous faster-than-light action at a distance between once-linked photons, and presumably between once-linked particles.

If, as the Big Bang theory proposes, all particles that now exist originated from a common point when the universe began, does that mean all particles in the universe are connected?

As researchers, scientists, metaphysicists and mystics the world over investigate and postulate particle and conscious connectivity, the internet has provided the platform for the explosion of interconnecting phenomena such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and MySpace.

In what we could term 'social entanglement', applications such as Facebook and Twitter enable the mirroring of connectivity behaviours that scientists are investigating, witnessing and trying to understand in the quantum and string world since the early 1900s.

We reach out.

We bond with friends and strangers via status updates, tweets and links. The tendrils of those thoughts and feelings we choose to share spread out and curl around our followers and friends.

We in turn are gripped by the words of those whom we follow and friend.

Our entry into each others' lives is elegant, simple and seamless.

Then we become completely immersed in, and addicted to, mutual dramas, trending topics and what's on our respective breakfast menus.

It seems that via this growing social entanglement, our six degrees of separation are becoming more like six minutes of connectedness, or even six seconds of unification.

Is our intention and desire to become more interconnected with our fellow human beings actually affecting the weird quantum interconnectivity behaviours that physicists are observing?

Or is our growing understanding of the quantum world leading us to realise that we are, in fact, all connected?

Which is the cause, and which is the effect?

What do you think?


Whatever your answer, mind your language (and your thought experiments).

This blog is about language, not politics. Political behaviour that uses ambiguous language to curtail the use of language, however, definitely gets my attention.

Ireland's politicians have seen fit to introduce a new crime of blasphemous libel to replace the Defamation Act of 1961.

Many articles already discuss it here, here and here.

Please bear with me while I offer you the short, sharp version.

Article 40.6.1.i of Ireland's Constitution protects freedom of speech for its citizens as follows: 'The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.'

It qualifies this freedom of speech with the imposition of an obligation to implement the constitutional offence of blasphemy: 'The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.'

(Although the Defamation Act of 1961 fulfilled those obligations, offering up to seven years in prison and a hefty fine, only one blasphemy action was ever taken in the State since the introduction of the 1937 Constitution.)

Ireland's Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern, has just repealed the Defamation Act. In doing so, however, he has had to satisfy the constitutional obligation.

And he has, in fine style.

Blasphemy now has its own special place in Irish law. The fresh, crispy Defamation Bill introduces a new crime of blasphemous libel. Although not punishable by imprisonment, fines of up to €25,000 may be imposed on offenders.

So, Minister Ahern has replaced draconian legislation required by the Constitution with slightly less draconian, more sweetly tweaked legislation.

Are you still with me? Good.

Minister Ahern has offered reassurances about Ireland's freshly polished rod of blasphemy.

He says that the revised provision would require at least three elements to be present: the material would have to be grossly abusive or insulting in matters held sacred by a religion; it must actually cause outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion; and there must be intent to cause such outrage. Such intent was not previously required.

The problem I see here is that successful prosecution of a case of blasphemy may hinge on proving or disproving the existence of some of these elements. That will rely on construal of meanings, behaviour and intention. Where there's interpretation, there's ambiguity.

And there's the conundrum: the possibility of using language cleverly in a court case to prove that inciteful language was used with blasphemous intent. This clever use of language may be the sword on which true freedom of expression falls.

If I'm afraid of breaking a law that doesn't allow me to say what I think or feel, does this not contravene my basic rights as a human being to express myself?

If I insult someone's religious beliefs – reprehensible as it may be – does my insult damage their beliefs?

It may incite heated debate, but you could argue that contained prejudices are even more dangerous than those expressed in language.

Of course, this whole issue could have been neatly sidestepped with a more considered, logical and democratic approach. Minister Ahern could simply have held a referendum and asked the people of Ireland if they thought the aforesaid draconian constitutional requirement should be removed altogether.

Minister Ahern decided not to, however, because it was "a costly and unwarranted diversion".

As human beings, each of us is responsible for our own actions and our own thoughts, which ultimately emanate from our beliefs.

Language is a vital way for us to communicate those thoughts and beliefs; via language we may even be convinced to change them.

Any attempt to legislate people's use of language is akin to attempting to control their thoughts and beliefs. It limits healthy debate, restricts robust discussion and creates a level of resentment and fear.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin:

'Without Freedom of thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of speech.'

Remember to mind your language and what you say and write (particularly if you live in Ireland).

Many a success - both business and personal - has resulted because of embracing risk rather than fearing failure.

In his recent post What does risk management mean to your business?, Robert Rath discusses how innovation can flourish in an environment where risks are taken as well as managed.

Go to http://www.innovation-mentor.com now and risk sharing your thoughts.


Remember to mind your risky language.