The Baby Owner’s Manual – Louis Borgenicht, Joe Borgenicht

還有個多月孩子便要出世了,我初為人父不懂照顧嬰兒。看見別人照顧嬰兒看似很簡單,不外乎餵奶換片,但輪到自已時肯定手忙腳亂。其實育嬰是一問很深澳的學問。所以趁嬰兒未出世前,要看多些書育嬰書藉做足準備,雖然沒有實戰經驗,但有些理論打底總好過沒有。

「嬰兒使用手冊」與上次介紹的「孕婦使用手冊」屬同一係列作品,同樣也是以輕鬆幽默的手法,模妨電器使用手冊的文字和插畫風格,教導讀者零至一歲育嬰的基本知識。兩位作者一位是作家,另一位是兒科醫生,所以可以放心書中資料正確。內容與其他嬰兒書差不多,從準備嬰兒房,如何接出院,如何抱嬰兒,餵奶換片沖涼,哄嬰兒睡覺,和嬰兒玩耍幫助發育,常見的嬰兒疾病,一切父母需要知道的東西也應有盡有。

現在我已經開始緊張,不知到時如何應付嬰兒。不過每個父母經歷過這個階段,船到橋到自然直,嬰兒生下來自然懂得湊。我的朋友已經忠告了我,趁現在嬰兒未出世,有得睡好睡多點,有想做想玩的事好去做,嬰兒來到後,沒覺好睡什麼地方也不用去。所以現在我把握機會,和老婆過多些二人世界時光。

照顧嬰兒是一項能功多藝熟技能,只要對著清單分辨他為何哭,讓嬰兒舒舒服服不哭按時吃睡,跟著標準肥肥白白長大,多點和他玩耍刺激他的腦部和手腳發展,應該不會太難。育嬰理論沒有太多爭議性,餵人奶比奶粉健康,嬰兒頭一年應該在父母房睡,但要有自已的嬰兒床,是人所共知的最新醫學研究結果,其他的理論則主要強調嬰兒的安全。反而到了孩子開始上學,應該按那一套教育哲學理論,找出一套最好的教育理念,則比較讓人頭痛,不過我還有幾年時間去研究教育哲學。

Serendipity 情有獨鍾

想當年初次約會老婆時看的電影,時隔十年找來翻看,與老婆重溫住日情懷。電影的很典型甜到膩的荷里活愛情片,由當年很靚仔的John Cusack和當年很靚女的Kate Beckinsale主演。電影的故事老土到不得了,靚仔靚女主角偶然相遇,大家很夾得來過了很開心的一夜。不過女主角腦袋有問題,硬是要考驗大家有沒有緣份。把男主角的電話寫在鈔票上,去花掉說然後如果鈔票回到手上就代表有緣。而她則把自已的電話寫在一本舊書上,男主角在舊書店找到就是有緣,當然他們沒了下文。

幾年後男的要結婚女的嫁人,無聊地忽然又記起對方。男的當起偵探打鑼去找女的地址,女的則千里迢迢飛回約紐,心有靈犀認為會重遇男主角。很公式巧合的在多個場景擦身而過,女的好友還要是男的新娘的舊同學,不過兩人總是錯開沒有碰面沒有相認。最後男的發現自已不想結婚,女又殺到婚禮場地喊停,不過原來已經取消婚禮。下個鏡頭便在溜冰場碰面,再下一個鏡頭便結婚週年紀念,大團圓結局。

整套電影男女主角同時出場的時間少於十五分鐘,兩人不停在你找我我找你,大慨演員檔期不能配合,只好兩人分開來拍。這套電影的英文片名單字解作巧合,所以戲中所有超巧合的情節也能自完其說。我完全看不明白這套電影有什麼浪漫,只看見兩個腦袋有問題的人,明明要結婚就不要搞這麼多無謂事情了,最後弄到結不成婚真糟糕。

這類電影是明抗拍拖男女,男仔想約女仔看電影,就要揀這類愛情片。現在我打死也不會入場看,浪費時間兼還意識不良,荼毒無知少女的愛情觀,以為要像電影橋套般才叫浪漫。

Is Math Still Relevant?

Is math still relevant? That depends on your metaphysical view of the world. If the reality is indeed appearance of mathematics as some metaphysics theories suggest and we are living in endless possibility of equations, then maths is the only way to understand the Truth.

By Robert W. Lucky, IEEE Spectrum, March 2012
The queen of the sciences may someday lose its royal status

Long ago, when I was a freshman in ­engineering school, there was a required course in mechanical drawing. “You had better learn this skill,” the instructor said, “because all engineers start their careers at the ­drafting table.”

This was an ominous beginning to my education, but as it turned out, he was wrong. Neither I nor, I suspect, any of my classmates began our careers at the drafting table.

These days, engineers aren’t routinely taught drawing, but they spend a lot of time learning another skill that may be similarly unnecessary: mathematics. I confess this thought hadn’t occurred to me until recently, when a friend who teaches at a leading university made an off-hand comment. “Is it ­possible,” he suggested, “that the era of math­ematics in electrical ­engineering is coming to an end?”

When I asked him about this disturbing idea, he said that he had only been ­trying to be provocative and that his graduate students were now writing theses that were more mathematical than ever. I felt reassured that the mathematical basis of engineering is strong. But still, I wonder to what extent—and for how long—today’s under­graduate engineering students will be using classical ­mathematics as their careers unfold.

There are several trends that might suggest a diminishing role for mathematics in engineering work. First, there is the rise of software engineering as a separate discipline. It just doesn’t take as much math to write an operating system as it does to design a printed circuit board. Programming is rigidly structured and, at the same time, an evolving art form—neither of which is especially amenable to mathematical analysis.

Another trend veering us away from classical math is the increasing dependence on programs such as Matlab and Maple. The pencil-and-paper calculations with which we evaluated the relative performance of variations in design are now more easily made by simulation software packages—which, with their vast libraries of pre­packaged functions and data, are often more powerful. A purist might ask: Is using Matlab doing math? And of course, the answer is that sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn’t.

A third trend is the growing importance of a class of problems termed “wicked,” which involve social, political, economic, and un­defined or unknown issues that make the application of mathematics very difficult. The world is seemingly full of such frus­trating but important problems.

These trends notwithstanding, we should recognize the role of mathematics in the discovery of fundamental properties and truth. Maxwell’s equations—which are inscribed in marble in the foyer of the National Academy of Engineering—foretold the possibility of radio. It took about half a ­century for those radios to reach Shannon’s limit—described by his equation for channel ­capacity—but at least we knew where we were headed.

Theoretical physicists have explained through math the workings of the universe and even predicted the existence of previously unknown fundamental particles. The iconic image I carry in my mind is of Einstein at a blackboard that’s covered with tensor-filled equations. It is remarkable that one person scribbling math can uncover such secrets. It is as if the universe itself understands and obeys the mathematics that we humans invented.

There have been many philosophical discussions through the years about this wonderful power of math. In a famous 1960 paper en­titled “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences,” the physicist Eugene Wigner wrote, “The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift [that] we neither understand nor deserve.” In a 1980 paper with a similar title, the computer science pioneer Richard Hamming tried to answer the question, “How can it be that simple mathematics suffices to predict so much?”

This “unreasonable effectiveness” of mathematics will continue to be at the heart of engineering, but perhaps the way we use math will change. Still, it’s hard to imagine Einstein running simulations on his laptop.

Stumbing on Happiness – Daniel Gilbert 快樂為什麼不幸福?

到底快樂是什麼?如何才可以擁有快樂呢?每個人也想追求快樂,歷代不少宗教和哲學家,也是教導人如何才活得快樂。這本書的作書是個心理學家,他引用心理學的最新研究,去解釋人會快樂這個現象。這本書不會教你快樂的秘訣,反而它指出人為什麼會不快樂,而那正因為我們腦部構造的先天局限。看完這本書雖然我們不一定會快樂,至少可以知道什麼原因令我們不快樂。

這本書的主旨十分簡單,三兩句就可以講完。不過因為書中的快樂理論創新,只講那三個重點欠缺說服力,於是作者引用很多心理學實驗,從最基本的理論開始,一步步推論出人為什麼不快樂。作者先從何謂快樂說起,快樂是一個主觀的感覺,但同時在生理也有客觀的反應。人類會感受到快樂,是因為人有記憶力和想像力。可是記憶並不完全可靠,人會用想像力補完忘記的細節,結果記憶中快樂的部份被放大,不快樂的部份被遺忘。人會根據記憶去預計未來,可是由於記憶不準確,我們往往錯估未來的快樂,因而作出錯誤的選擇。另一方面,人類的心理有自我保護機制,懂自動緩和不好的事情帶來的不快樂。結果同一件事情,在我們的記憶和預期中的感受,與在當下發生時的感受有很大差距,好事沒有帶來想像中快樂,壞事也沒有想像中的那般不快樂。

作者在書中也有提出補救的方法,叫我們不要運用記憶和想像力,只看別人冰冷的數字去計算預期的快樂,才作出正確的決擇。不過他自已也說那根本不可行,因為人腦不可能那樣思考,除非腦部受傷喪失想像和計劃末來的能力。早前看過的另一本書Predictable Irrationality,亦引用一些相同的心理學實驗,但兩書的作者應用在不同的研究方向。或許兩者之間其實也有關連,不快樂的原因於源人腦的非理性,若一個人能夠百份百理性,他便可以感受到無盡的快樂了。

佛家說快樂源於著眼當下,要忘記過去不想未來,才可以感受到快樂。可是看完這本書,我卻得出一個完全相反的結論。若果記憶和預期的快樂是一致,只是當下的感覺有差落,那少數服從多數不理當下便行了。不要去想現在發生的事現在的感受,按著心中所想的期望去做事,到了明天變成了今天時,再去回憶當日的感受,便可以重溫那預期了但不曾出現快樂。書中提出一個很好的心理實驗,說到底人其實是為創造回憶而生活。若果只照顧當下的感受,那為未來留下來的回憶,未免流於平淡無味了。