Bacon and Set Theory?

Been meaning to post for a bit. This isn't really it. However, it amused me.

This comes from a fairly low level paper of interconnected networks. If you can worry through the verbiage you'll find there's actually always an answer to the Kevin Bacon game. It also appears that other papers have been written about this!

---

The ultimate small-world graph is the so-called Kevin Bacon graph (KBG), in which the nodes represent actors who have appeared (any time, anywhere) in one or more feature films in which pairs of vertices are connected by an edge whenever the corresponding actors have appeared together in at least one feature film. Watts lists a number of factors that make the KBG worthy of serious study [3]. For one thing, the data are reliable. The entire history of motion pictures has resulted in the creation of only about 150,000 feature films, with a combined cast of about 300,000 actors, all of which are listed in a single searchable database (at www.us.imdb.com). Moreover, about 90% of the actors listed are part of a single connected component KBG of the graph that includes about 225,000 actors in about 110,000 films. Strictly speaking, Watts and Strogatz’s analysis of the KBG applies only to KBG, since only connected graphs are of interest in the present line of inquiry.

KBG is sufficiently large (n = 225,226) and sparse (k ≈ 61) that L could conceivably vary over several orders of magnitude, while C might lie almost anywhere in the unit interval. Yet the graph is not so large that it cannot be stored and manipulated by a (suitably powerful) computer. Specifically, if n were even a single order of magnitude larger, it would be difficult to find any computer that could hold the connected component in memory at one time, as must be done to compute statistics like L and C with reasonable dispatch. The KBG is so named because (a) every actor who has ever appeared in an American-made film is connected to Bacon by a path of length four or less, and (b) every actor in the entire graph - whatever his or her nationality - is connected to him by a path of length at most eight. It is almost anticlimactic to learn that the decidedly more accomplished Rod Steiger has an even shorter average path length than Bacon to other members of KBG.

From: http://www.siam.org/siamnews/11-01/networks.pdf

What's with Tom Cruise, I may know

I'd like say I live in an Ivory Tower where only the media PR I'm actually interested in makes it to my brain. Unfortunately, that's not the case, so I've been forced to watch the odd exploits of Tom Cruise along with Rosie and everyone else. Tom seemed like such a nice guy, did love for a younger woman turn him into an asshole? It's the stuff tabloids lust after.

Tom has always been a member of the Cult of Ron, otherwise known as Scientology. Other media personalities will also admit following the teachings of the prolific scifi writer turned guru. I can't help but suspect there are others that are less public with their affiliation ( Ophra comes to mind ), but I have no proof and really don't care.

What does interest me is the seemingly sudden resurgence of dianetics. Now, mainstream media, if it can still be called such, seems to be talking seriously about the new "faith" of such personalities as "Tom C" and "John T". More and more, scientology seems to be tossed around with more naive curiosity than scorn. Hmm...

Someone called me recently, distraught and offended, that some self help show had brought out the engrams. While I didn't see the show in question, I strongly suspect the sighted meme was an enneagram and not one of Ron's methods. Which, while similarly flaky, is more an astrology-magic square fusion thing. I read about these years ago, they sprang from the mind of G. I. Gurdjieff, an amusing but not menacing fellow. I rather liked his writings.

While trying to remember what Ron meant by engram and how to spell Gurdjieff, I stumbled upon more history of Ron. I'd always assumed Scientology started in the sixties as a bar bet among SF writers. I knew that Ron was one of those special kinds of fruit loops who believes the crap he made up, but that's kind of fun as long as it's not hurting anyone. But, well, Ron's more messed up that I knew.

"An it harm no one, do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law," is the warm fuzzy from infamous Aleister Crowley ( quoted from memory, I scare myself sometimes). Of course, it's hard to practice what you preach. Crowley was an over the top practitioner of Black Magick ( as opposed to the mellow, laid back kind). He gave a new, Satanic face, to earlier Lodges like the Golden Dawn and the Freemasons in his group, the OTO. Ron, future founding member of far more successful cult, was a serious member of the OTO.

What does all this have to do with the Madness of Tom? Well, upon discovering the Ron - Aleister connection, I had one of those Eureka moments. It all suddenly made sense and I had to share.

All secret societies have their rituals. Freemasons are famous and practically public domain at this point. However, the more mystical groups have more heavy duty trails. The point of these exercises, beyond the basic frat house psychological bonding, is to induce different and higher states of consciousness. Such paths are not without their pot holes.

OTO is rife with various initiations intended to evoke various states of mind. Unfortunately, like LSD in the punch bowl, sometimes more damage is done than liberation achieved. Indeed, Crowley's followers accept the risk and call such failures things like "falling in." Sometime, such initiates never climb out.

It is known that there are many levels to Scientology, in the last of which you get to find out about Xenu ( don't ask ). I didn't think they would involve High Magick style initiations, but why not? I strongly believe that Tom, the Ron devotee, is showing all the classic signs of falling in.

Good luck Tom, hopefully you'll find yourself again before Xenu does.