Re:rational thinking and "why"
on
DNA Goes Binary
·
· Score: 2
I think you overestimate both yourself, and your precious little Science.
My world isn't nearly as empty as you might think it is... and all these opinions I have arrived to took years and years of cogitation while engaged in Physics/Math academia.
You should read a philosophy book or two, and maybe a book on logic.
True (1=1) , False (1=0)
To the question, "What is the truth?", there is therefor one single answer, or an inifinity: "The truth is 1=1".
Truth is determined by a predicate (in math). It assigns a 'value' to a statement. T("1=2") = false. If you do a bit of advanced math, quickly you will start seeing that "1=2" *IS* 0=1 *IS* false. Everything in math is the *same*. There is nothing generated apart from the 16 axioms of Real theory (or whatever theory you're using). Everything you do, including integrating fibonachi series, or whatever tickles you, IS those 16 axioms...
And in the same way, everything you do in physics derives from not axioms, but principles - postulates. The three tenets of thermodynamics for example. Everything in the world *is* those three tenets. If that is the truth you seek, I wonder how deep and real your world is.
I can already see you stirring in your chair thinking about the pretty little sun spots, and thinking how you learned in your physics class 101 how you can estimate the surface temp and luminosity of the sun by deriving from thermodynamics and what not... Good for you. You have not answered the Truth.
I will not try to argue anything with you, because this sort of realization takes years to come to, or for some, all of their lives, (you should actually read a bit of the discussion we were having on this thread with FnkMaster) but don't be fooled my friend that science 'generates' any truth. The truth of science is only observation. Existance or non existance. If a scientific formula generates 'a truth', and it doesn't fit observation, you revise the formula, not the world.
And really, as soon as you start asking questions which aren't 'a matter of fact', you are outside of the realm of truth/falshood that science has to offer you.
Don't get me wrong, science is a very powerful tool indeed. It's the ultimate use of one mankind's most cherished tools (logic/reasoning), but you're a fool if you think it answers any *real* question.
You quote Orwell, I quote Sartre: "When you have no character, all you can resort to is methodology" (it's from "La Nausee")... Be sure you never lose touch with your humanity by abandoning it to the methodology of science.
Re:rational thinking and "why"
on
DNA Goes Binary
·
· Score: 2
I beg to differ...
The Human race's only 'truth' finding method is reasoning and intellect.
Science, is as the name implies, knowledge. Think of Science as a vast library of past experiences the collective human race has had (add to that some models that have been developed that fit these observations).
Truth is an entirely subjective concept... and thus can only be resolved in the subjective realm.
In the world, there is only being and not being. No truth.
As to why we have 10 fingers, the answer is even simpler: we have 10 fingers because our ancestors had 10 fingers
This comes back to what we were discussing earlier with Fnkmaster, you are here answering the 'how' it came to be that we have 10 fingers. Not the 'why'.
The difference is subtle, but it's there... a chain of events may explain the current state of the world, but it doesn't add 'meaning' to it... or as I was saying earlier 'intent'. Intent comes with conscious being with wills (like humans - or gods). And that's what I came to realize (and what Fnkmaster too, it seems) over the years, that asking the question is a very human trait, and the answer only lies in the realm of humaness... not the absolute.
Gentelmen, the blade of the grim reaper (/. archiver) approaches...
And as I search for something witty to adjourn this nice discussion, my brain pulls a blank on this christmas morning, at 3.45 in the AM.
So I leave the wit to others, and paste you this quote:
There are worlds out there where the sky is burning, and the sea's asleep, and the rivers dream. People made of smoke and cities made of song. Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, somewhere else the tea is getting cold.
I'm very fascinated really to have stumbled on someone with such a similar story as mine. I started off being the science lover, and started my university as a pure Physics major. All throughout highschool, I had been several years ahead of my fellows in both physics and math. But after one year of physics, I decided Math must be the thing for me at univ. That eventually turned to comp sci - believe it or not, I was for a while infatuated with the idea of being the god of my programming realm. Eventually, the drunkeness of that omnipotence on a computer faded away.
Strangely enough, just in the recent couple of years, I've almost completely moved onto the arts. I've accepted a certain fatalism and determinism in the world, but it doesn't mean I'm mystic, or religious... having had so many years of scientific training makes that I'm always clear minded about why things happen. I've just stopped looking for a reason because, as one philosopher says (I forget which) "even if there is god, it's in my best interest to act as if there isn't".
In the end, I've found it incredible how the same impulse that was in me to ask the question 'why' is what drives my artistic aspiration. It's a 1:1 correspondance really, an isomorphism of the same thing. The act of creating anything that is 'harmonious' gives me the same joy that would the answer of a 'why'.
I just recently got a christmas present for a friend of mine, it's "40 years of pictures with Jeanloup Sieff" (he was a very famous french photograph)... in his intro, he says there is no art... only artists who have an urge to create - and their creations.
See, my point of view is not that we should all sit in silence like Skeptics would have us (because there is no line to draw)... but rather not ask the question 'Why?'... Science, and physics answers 'How?' rather than 'Why?'.
There was a very famous press release done with Feynmann around the 50s (Feynmann is one of the most renowned Physics professors in the world)...
A journalist asked him some simple question like "why is there lightning?" or something like that. To which Feynmann started saying "because...", and the journalist would then say "well, why is that that electrons do that"... and Feynmann would continue explaining EM theory... and in the end, Feynmann gave this loooong speach and left the journalist dumb-founded. Anyways, it's just a point to show that "why?" isn't always the good question to ask, because ultimately, the answer is "because.".
In essence, Why implies 'intention'... "Why did scientists do this? so that they could have a simpler model to work with"... Asking that question to the world of physics, is ultimately believing that the world has intentions - ie. a creation of some being. (which I don't believe personally, but that's OT).
As for the constants you talk about, you are absolutely right. There definitely are 'more special numbers' than others, but it still doesn't give _meaning_.
Re:Does Morse not have three codes?
on
DNA Goes Binary
·
· Score: 2
I'm not too sure about that...
Morse has design principles in it that make it that there are very few ambiguities (sp?) in distinguishing different letters... Just like the error correction codes on CDs: if you've ever thought of it, how tha f*ck does an audio CD reader know where the stream starts, and where it ends?
Morse is meant to be fast bursts... the messages are brief and kurt, with little room for confusion, and don't convey anything that isn't essential. Just like life at a cellular level.
There is a concept in scientific reasoning which I forget the name...
It basically goes: it's no use thinking of such 'arbitrary' things, because you know what, if it had been base 2, and we all had 12 fingers, your post would have been:
As the article points out, RNA and DNA both are constructed of 2 amino acids *: X, Y. Is there a reason for why nature used two instead of 4 ? I'm curious as to the scientific answer why we have 12 fingers as well. Both 4 and 10 seem arbritary, or are they?
There are certain things that have a 'scientific explanation', like why all life is most likely carbon based (because Carbon is a 'small atom', and has a very very complicated structure allowing it to form very varied types of bonds (tripple, double, single), which allow for long chains of molecules -- it has been argued in fact that Silicium, which is very similar to Carbon in all respect apart from it's not being a 'small' atom wouldn't be suitable because it wouldn't be as flexible as carbon based chains, and hence they would break easily... anyways, offtopic).
Re:Does Morse not have three codes?
on
DNA Goes Binary
·
· Score: 2
Pause doesn't really 'exist' in morse.
In fact it's very interesting, how in the beginning of math, '0' didn't exist either. It was nothing. But they had to come up with a symbol to represent nothingness.
In short: 'Pause' in Morse would be the end of your binary-DNA molecule.
Have you watched the movie 'Traffic'... it's all about numbers and odds. If you travel through places that carry lots of people flow, you are rather safe (you won't arrouse suspicion). For places that aren't crowded like this, you get less footprint...
Example: cross from Toronto to Detroit, you have a pretty good chance of being asked your nationality, and that's it.
Same in most european countries. Fly to Paris, and then find a car (don't make me explain how to do that)... and ride on off... Cross into slavic countries as fast as you can, and then roll on down to turkey.
Be a 'new age' tourist. Pass from a non tourist heavy location where they *don't* have computer terminals (borders are wide lines, and not many are always computerized). And ride on down to Iran.
It's not complicated. It's illusion to think that governments are all over the place... frick, the CIA hasn't been able to kill Saddam for years now because they just can't find out where he is...
It's just as easy to live in your own little country and not leave a wide footprint. It's all about being aware of different data you leave around the place, and being careful not to leave hints on how to correlate it: like your email, and your actual location, your phone # and your IP, your name and your CC#. Even your passwords are hints as to who you are...
In fact, there was an interesting concept in a book called "Writing Secure Code" (Moft PRess), on how the majority of the current passwords could be sniffed out: create a porn site... clean, free of popups. Get people to register for free (don't even ask for email), and you have a very good chance that people will choose the same password they use on most of their other accounts when they create an account for you...
Hey dude, I regularly travel to Turkey and back. And many times, they don't stamp passports. Flying to Europe, and then passing borders by foot or car will get you almost anywhere without being tracked.
That's what really annoys me actually: a person with the intention to avoid detection can do it with a bit of effort. Normal joe bloe's who don't care, can't.
The 'avoidance' I talk about is partly the number of people surfing. It's just gigs and gigs of log files that most ISP just delete after a while.
Who doesn't get spam because I've never used my real email address on a site?
Who doesn't have any subscriptions to anywhere except for my driver's license, bank cards (one credit, one debit) and Social insurance number?
People who become peons of Big Brother do so because they want big brother to nurture their lazieness... It's almost like selling your soul to the devil in exchange of comfort.
I could travel to an arab country and back (from Canada - with a canadian passport), and nobody would know.
Beyond being racist and elistist, and pro industrialist, it's just false too: AIDS doesn't kill fast enough that populations are being decimated or even kept under control.
Let's not kid ourselves... we all know 99% of the people will use this to copy DVDs. I will.
If as a defense, we're naively turning the blind eye to this fact, then we will be like deer caught in headlights when they charge us with copy protection stuff...
Banning this software is just like stripping out the weeds in your lawn, and leaving the roots in the ground.
The battle really should be about first amendment rights, and basically it being unconstitutional to have a law like the Sony Bono act. Also there should be some sort of reaction to hollywood: decades of complacency have led to actors like Mel Gibson making 20 million off a single movie... That's just *not* right.
So long as we stay in this pasture of yellow grass, we aren't making any headway. It's no use acting coy and pretending that we're not doing something that isn't currently illegal... It is illegal. It's more important to tell the law makers that the law doesn't represent the best interest of the majority of the public.
Or something...
My point is we don't have an advantageous point here, and really, all we can do is fend off offensives by corporate giants, one after another.
I realize what you are saying... and the LoTR has plenty of flaws in my opinion... not the least of which is that any character in the whole mythology that is ever touched by Evil never escapes it for the rest of their days.
I personally prefer stories where people go into evil, and then return... Kind of like Darth Vader really. But whatever...
I agree that thinking about stuff is good, but I also get really quickly irritated by 'thinkers' who get lazy. It's easy to stir the cauldron, but it's difficult to make a proper point.
Here's my point in return, regarding democracies and the rulling of 'arbitrary lords'... (check a related post). Arbitrary rulers are a necessity in a world where there are more then 100 people. It starts out as the head of a family, a patriarchy, and then works on up. Criticising this is just like throwing eggs at a house and running away giggling like children. it's not constructive. I also just happen to think that 'arbitrary' rulers can actually do a pretty damn good job if they are properly chosen... and that's where Tolkien is so valuable: proper choosing means people who don't aspire for Power (e.g. Saruman vs. Gandalf).
Too many people do this hype shit that is to look bold enough to go against the trend... I'll listen to them if they make good points, not if they clown around and start throwing around shovelfuls of shit... that's called flame baiting.
Re:Democracies, and speaking of debunking
on
David Brin On LOTR
·
· Score: 2
Brin is saying that for 200 years some reasonable proportion of the world has lived in a democracy. The fact a few Greeks had something like it before the birth of Christ is irrelevant - it was almost forgotten and certainly never much practised in the next 2000 years or so. He didn't say it hadn't been INVENTED, only that it wasn't USED.
Granted, but I still disagree with his weak logical links. He makes VERY broad generalization that aren't completely backed up. For example the fact that he doesn't even consider what the rest of the world had been doing during the dark ages of Europe: the dark ages of Europe were the high times of the Ottoman empire. They had the largest fleet of the world. Arabs were the kings of Mathematics for a LONG time. There was even a man who flew across the Bosphorous centuries before flight was known to the west - but that's a whole different can of worms not worth opening.
Japanese had a 'feudal' society which wasn't based on the shit Brin talks about... Feudal isn't just the feudal in Europe.
My point about the meta-data as you call it, is that Tolkien was romantic, definitely, but he wasn't 'anti-enlightenment' at all.
His romantic standpoint was that Evil (Morgoth) was what turned Art into a Power Struggle (the 'magic' of the Elves is called their art).
Cross it over to our world: there are Einsteins who come up with relativity, and then there are Hitlers, and Enola Gay's who harness their Art and turn it into darkness.
In fact, this is the very nature of the strifes that go on in the software industry... IMHO. But take it as you will.
Slashdot Mirror
My world isn't nearly as empty as you might think it is... and all these opinions I have arrived to took years and years of cogitation while engaged in Physics/Math academia.
You should read a philosophy book or two, and maybe a book on logic.
True (1=1) , False (1=0)
To the question, "What is the truth?", there is therefor one single answer, or an inifinity: "The truth is 1=1".
Truth is determined by a predicate (in math). It assigns a 'value' to a statement. T("1=2") = false. If you do a bit of advanced math, quickly you will start seeing that "1=2" *IS* 0=1 *IS* false. Everything in math is the *same*. There is nothing generated apart from the 16 axioms of Real theory (or whatever theory you're using). Everything you do, including integrating fibonachi series, or whatever tickles you, IS those 16 axioms...
And in the same way, everything you do in physics derives from not axioms, but principles - postulates. The three tenets of thermodynamics for example. Everything in the world *is* those three tenets. If that is the truth you seek, I wonder how deep and real your world is.
I can already see you stirring in your chair thinking about the pretty little sun spots, and thinking how you learned in your physics class 101 how you can estimate the surface temp and luminosity of the sun by deriving from thermodynamics and what not... Good for you. You have not answered the Truth.
I will not try to argue anything with you, because this sort of realization takes years to come to, or for some, all of their lives, (you should actually read a bit of the discussion we were having on this thread with FnkMaster) but don't be fooled my friend that science 'generates' any truth. The truth of science is only observation. Existance or non existance. If a scientific formula generates 'a truth', and it doesn't fit observation, you revise the formula, not the world.
And really, as soon as you start asking questions which aren't 'a matter of fact', you are outside of the realm of truth/falshood that science has to offer you.
Don't get me wrong, science is a very powerful tool indeed. It's the ultimate use of one mankind's most cherished tools (logic/reasoning), but you're a fool if you think it answers any *real* question.
You quote Orwell, I quote Sartre: "When you have no character, all you can resort to is methodology" (it's from "La Nausee")... Be sure you never lose touch with your humanity by abandoning it to the methodology of science.
The Human race's only 'truth' finding method is reasoning and intellect.
Science, is as the name implies, knowledge. Think of Science as a vast library of past experiences the collective human race has had (add to that some models that have been developed that fit these observations).
Truth is an entirely subjective concept... and thus can only be resolved in the subjective realm.
In the world, there is only being and not being. No truth.
It's obviously not a sure shot. It's still a good start.
It's from Doctor Who. Google will help you on that.
I'd have to dig it up, don't make me... I'm lazy... but it's a rather simple integral...
I think the integral of f(x)=e^(x^2) over (-inf;+inf)... Or something. I'm too lazy.
The point is there are numbers that have definite 'speciality' in the world (of math).
As to why we have 10 fingers, the answer is even simpler: we have 10 fingers because our ancestors had 10 fingers
This comes back to what we were discussing earlier with Fnkmaster, you are here answering the 'how' it came to be that we have 10 fingers. Not the 'why'.
The difference is subtle, but it's there... a chain of events may explain the current state of the world, but it doesn't add 'meaning' to it... or as I was saying earlier 'intent'. Intent comes with conscious being with wills (like humans - or gods). And that's what I came to realize (and what Fnkmaster too, it seems) over the years, that asking the question is a very human trait, and the answer only lies in the realm of humaness... not the absolute.
Very entertaining indeed.
And as I search for something witty to adjourn this nice discussion, my brain pulls a blank on this christmas morning, at 3.45 in the AM.
So I leave the wit to others, and paste you this quote:
There are worlds out there where the sky is burning, and the sea's asleep, and the rivers dream. People made of smoke and cities made of song. Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, somewhere else the tea is getting cold.
Strangely enough, just in the recent couple of years, I've almost completely moved onto the arts. I've accepted a certain fatalism and determinism in the world, but it doesn't mean I'm mystic, or religious... having had so many years of scientific training makes that I'm always clear minded about why things happen. I've just stopped looking for a reason because, as one philosopher says (I forget which) "even if there is god, it's in my best interest to act as if there isn't".
In the end, I've found it incredible how the same impulse that was in me to ask the question 'why' is what drives my artistic aspiration. It's a 1:1 correspondance really, an isomorphism of the same thing. The act of creating anything that is 'harmonious' gives me the same joy that would the answer of a 'why'.
I just recently got a christmas present for a friend of mine, it's "40 years of pictures with Jeanloup Sieff" (he was a very famous french photograph)... in his intro, he says there is no art... only artists who have an urge to create - and their creations.
See, my point of view is not that we should all sit in silence like Skeptics would have us (because there is no line to draw)... but rather not ask the question 'Why?'... Science, and physics answers 'How?' rather than 'Why?'.
There was a very famous press release done with Feynmann around the 50s (Feynmann is one of the most renowned Physics professors in the world)...
A journalist asked him some simple question like "why is there lightning?" or something like that. To which Feynmann started saying "because...", and the journalist would then say "well, why is that that electrons do that"... and Feynmann would continue explaining EM theory... and in the end, Feynmann gave this loooong speach and left the journalist dumb-founded. Anyways, it's just a point to show that "why?" isn't always the good question to ask, because ultimately, the answer is "because.".
In essence, Why implies 'intention'... "Why did scientists do this? so that they could have a simpler model to work with"... Asking that question to the world of physics, is ultimately believing that the world has intentions - ie. a creation of some being. (which I don't believe personally, but that's OT).
As for the constants you talk about, you are absolutely right. There definitely are 'more special numbers' than others, but it still doesn't give _meaning_.
Morse has design principles in it that make it that there are very few ambiguities (sp?) in distinguishing different letters... Just like the error correction codes on CDs: if you've ever thought of it, how tha f*ck does an audio CD reader know where the stream starts, and where it ends?
Morse is meant to be fast bursts... the messages are brief and kurt, with little room for confusion, and don't convey anything that isn't essential. Just like life at a cellular level.
It basically goes: it's no use thinking of such 'arbitrary' things, because you know what, if it had been base 2, and we all had 12 fingers, your post would have been:
As the article points out, RNA and DNA both are constructed of 2 amino acids *: X, Y. Is there a reason for why nature used two instead of 4 ? I'm curious as to the scientific answer why we have 12 fingers as well. Both 4 and 10 seem arbritary, or are they?
There are certain things that have a 'scientific explanation', like why all life is most likely carbon based (because Carbon is a 'small atom', and has a very very complicated structure allowing it to form very varied types of bonds (tripple, double, single), which allow for long chains of molecules -- it has been argued in fact that Silicium, which is very similar to Carbon in all respect apart from it's not being a 'small' atom wouldn't be suitable because it wouldn't be as flexible as carbon based chains, and hence they would break easily... anyways, offtopic).
In fact it's very interesting, how in the beginning of math, '0' didn't exist either. It was nothing. But they had to come up with a symbol to represent nothingness.
In short: 'Pause' in Morse would be the end of your binary-DNA molecule.
But these [four] bases aren't easy to make from the chemical constituents of the early Earth, point out Reader and Joyce.
Have you watched the movie 'Traffic'... it's all about numbers and odds. If you travel through places that carry lots of people flow, you are rather safe (you won't arrouse suspicion). For places that aren't crowded like this, you get less footprint...
Example: cross from Toronto to Detroit, you have a pretty good chance of being asked your nationality, and that's it.
Same in most european countries. Fly to Paris, and then find a car (don't make me explain how to do that)... and ride on off... Cross into slavic countries as fast as you can, and then roll on down to turkey.
Be a 'new age' tourist. Pass from a non tourist heavy location where they *don't* have computer terminals (borders are wide lines, and not many are always computerized). And ride on down to Iran.
It's not complicated. It's illusion to think that governments are all over the place... frick, the CIA hasn't been able to kill Saddam for years now because they just can't find out where he is...
It's just as easy to live in your own little country and not leave a wide footprint. It's all about being aware of different data you leave around the place, and being careful not to leave hints on how to correlate it: like your email, and your actual location, your phone # and your IP, your name and your CC#. Even your passwords are hints as to who you are...
In fact, there was an interesting concept in a book called "Writing Secure Code" (Moft PRess), on how the majority of the current passwords could be sniffed out: create a porn site... clean, free of popups. Get people to register for free (don't even ask for email), and you have a very good chance that people will choose the same password they use on most of their other accounts when they create an account for you...
Hey dude, I regularly travel to Turkey and back. And many times, they don't stamp passports. Flying to Europe, and then passing borders by foot or car will get you almost anywhere without being tracked.
That's what really annoys me actually: a person with the intention to avoid detection can do it with a bit of effort. Normal joe bloe's who don't care, can't.
The 'avoidance' I talk about is partly the number of people surfing. It's just gigs and gigs of log files that most ISP just delete after a while.
Who doesn't have any subscriptions to anywhere except for my driver's license, bank cards (one credit, one debit) and Social insurance number?
People who become peons of Big Brother do so because they want big brother to nurture their lazieness... It's almost like selling your soul to the devil in exchange of comfort.
I could travel to an arab country and back (from Canada - with a canadian passport), and nobody would know.
Wake up people - it's not that hard.
I love these kinds of posts...
Uhh... Yeah, we've known about computers for a while too... so is linux kernel 2.5 is old news?
How bout ASCII files. They've been around forever. Has XML been around forever?
Beyond being racist and elistist, and pro industrialist, it's just false too: AIDS doesn't kill fast enough that populations are being decimated or even kept under control.
Heh, I'm still getting 90KB/s.
Mang they've got big pipes outbound of Redmond.
If as a defense, we're naively turning the blind eye to this fact, then we will be like deer caught in headlights when they charge us with copy protection stuff...
Banning this software is just like stripping out the weeds in your lawn, and leaving the roots in the ground.
The battle really should be about first amendment rights, and basically it being unconstitutional to have a law like the Sony Bono act. Also there should be some sort of reaction to hollywood: decades of complacency have led to actors like Mel Gibson making 20 million off a single movie... That's just *not* right.
So long as we stay in this pasture of yellow grass, we aren't making any headway. It's no use acting coy and pretending that we're not doing something that isn't currently illegal... It is illegal. It's more important to tell the law makers that the law doesn't represent the best interest of the majority of the public.
Or something...
My point is we don't have an advantageous point here, and really, all we can do is fend off offensives by corporate giants, one after another.
It had the christmas tree around the holiday season too...
Fantastic game... back in the day when there were actually good games on the mac.
I personally prefer stories where people go into evil, and then return... Kind of like Darth Vader really. But whatever...
I agree that thinking about stuff is good, but I also get really quickly irritated by 'thinkers' who get lazy. It's easy to stir the cauldron, but it's difficult to make a proper point.
Here's my point in return, regarding democracies and the rulling of 'arbitrary lords'... (check a related post). Arbitrary rulers are a necessity in a world where there are more then 100 people. It starts out as the head of a family, a patriarchy, and then works on up. Criticising this is just like throwing eggs at a house and running away giggling like children. it's not constructive. I also just happen to think that 'arbitrary' rulers can actually do a pretty damn good job if they are properly chosen... and that's where Tolkien is so valuable: proper choosing means people who don't aspire for Power (e.g. Saruman vs. Gandalf).
Too many people do this hype shit that is to look bold enough to go against the trend... I'll listen to them if they make good points, not if they clown around and start throwing around shovelfuls of shit... that's called flame baiting.
Granted, but I still disagree with his weak logical links. He makes VERY broad generalization that aren't completely backed up. For example the fact that he doesn't even consider what the rest of the world had been doing during the dark ages of Europe: the dark ages of Europe were the high times of the Ottoman empire. They had the largest fleet of the world. Arabs were the kings of Mathematics for a LONG time. There was even a man who flew across the Bosphorous centuries before flight was known to the west - but that's a whole different can of worms not worth opening.
Japanese had a 'feudal' society which wasn't based on the shit Brin talks about... Feudal isn't just the feudal in Europe.
His romantic standpoint was that Evil (Morgoth) was what turned Art into a Power Struggle (the 'magic' of the Elves is called their art).
Cross it over to our world: there are Einsteins who come up with relativity, and then there are Hitlers, and Enola Gay's who harness their Art and turn it into darkness.
In fact, this is the very nature of the strifes that go on in the software industry... IMHO. But take it as you will.