Why Versus How? Physics, Feminism, And Shifting Perspective: A Reflection.

Many years ago, I was a “why” person. In fact, I’m still a “why” person and I always want to know why things are the way they are because if the reason isn’t good, then something (like rules) may have to change. I used to pester my parents, and ask “why, why, why” about basically anything in any subject, and my parents, who were educated, my Dad at the University of Chicago, and my Mom at Oberlin with an actual PhD at UC Berkeley, did their best to answer my questions. However, in the end, my tiny five-year-old self stumped them routinely and they would eventually run out of answers. Asking “why” is one of my favorite techniques, not to disrespect boundaries because obviously “no” in many contexts is a full and complete answer and no one has to justify, for example, not requiting romantic interest. But if the legal system is built on making sense, then laws ought to have sound justifications for why rules or laws exist. 

My life’s work actually started well before I was a First Amendment lawyer and was probably born in law school when I read the case I consider the worst case in all of constitutional law, and it’s not Dred Scott, or Plessy v. Ferguson, but McCleskey v. Kemp, where the death penalty eligible Black men had a smoking gun statistical study that unequivocally proved that more Black persons were executed due to, that’s right, racism, and the majority, led by Justice Rehnquist, actually conceded this. What was the majority’s response? The Court said, essentially, you are right, and we (the majority) admit we have “zero” response to this study, but indeed you are so right that we (the majority) decline to do anything to correct the death penalty you will in fact be executed by because if we did correct this injustice, all aspects of the criminal justice system would have to change because the whole system is, that’s right, racist.  

I had one of the most amazing Constitutional law professors in the country, Justice Goodwin Liu, now of the California Supreme Court, and internally, I thought “well the justice system makes no sense” because why would some actually lose for being too right? (Just like I’ve been bullied for being too fashionable or too attractive.) 

At any rate, being too right was my first indication that my true calling was scholarship, and not litigating, and I was later given an amazing book by Tom Tyler called “Why People Obey the Law” and it is one of my favorite books of all time. According to Tyler, most people obey the law and follow the law when they think it’s morally right, and don’t follow it when they think it’s morally wrong, and the best way to get a working justice system is a system that accords with morality. 

Now, humans have vastly different senses of morality and what Donald Trump considers moral I definitely don’t, though I think that DT can change his mind at any time and be reformed because someone who wishes to be a better person has the “liberty,” in the Justice Kennedy sense, of mentally deciding to be a better person and then simply following conventional spiritual teachings of all major religions, even if I take issue with certain aspects of the Bible like the parable of Adam and Eve, or with Cain and Abel, but obviously not with the central teachings of doing onto others as you would have them do onto you, though there’s an upgrade, i.e., the “platinum rule,” namely do unto others as they would have them do unto them is better because people have different preferences, and this requires recognizing that what person a) might want is different that person b) might want, or in physics speak person might want something than person and that’s the whole point of game theory and mental models because people are different and not everyone wants the same thing. But aside from this, all major spiritual teachers generally agree about what it means to be a good human, and it’s not rocket science even if it doesn’t come naturally to a lot of people who struggle with say, impulse control. 

                  In any event, I’ve no longer decided that the people who ask “why” are morally superior, and I regret (in the sense of beneficial regret) that I used to judge people who asked “how” questions. I still ask “why” and think it’s the greatest question of all time. In a job interview if a person cannot answer “why” or in a presentation, it’s a DQ, and probably means the person who is being asked needs to think more deeply about their problem. But “how” is just as important a question as why and I discovered this gradually when I had a spiritual awakening circa 2019 that reoriented every single aspect of my entire life, and that led me to pursue science in a faith-based way, and I now have discovered “why” I was put on planet earth, and discovered that “how” is really important too, and discovered I should not have contempt for people who are “how” people, or contempt for anyone at all because all humans matter simply by virtue of existing. I discovered my contempt was unfair and bad, and having contempt in a relationship is a toxic emotion and it can poison a relationship, though obviously people need to obey court orders, and “contempt” of court is a crucial tool to enforce the rule of law.

                  So today’s post is a shout out to Goodwin Liu, and actually an admission, which is that I wrote my job talk paper originally as an apology to a student who I felt I had not succeeded with and taught well enough, and I owed them an explanation for “why” impact cases didn’t always work. So, Aaron El Sabrout, who is simply outstanding, contact me, because I wrote my job talk paper dedicated to you because you are an amazing and anti-authoritarian just like me, and that’s a plus, not a minus, in my book. My job talk paper, which morphed into a takedown of John Nash, was originally written as a letter to Aaron about why impact litigation sometimes fails. The project was and still is an apology/explanation and the most crucial part of an apology is the “why” and Aaron here’s the “why”: litigation is a whole lot bigger than you and it wasn’t your fault the case you worked on failed and you did nothing wrong because sometimes winning cases fail even if they should win because life is unfair even though it should be fair, and the my paper does one better and seeks to correct injustice and take an unfair system and make it fair. Because the rule of law “ought” to be fair in the Tom Tyler sense from the perspective of truth and justice, and the best way to do this is math.  

I had absolutely no idea my job talk paper would turn into a takedown of John Nash, or bring me my life purpose, but I wrote it simply to be accountable to Aaron, and now to show my readers sometimes impact litigating isn’t enough. To be clear, I’m not against impact litigating, but the world in my view is changed by the symbiotic relationship between social movements, lawsuits, and government, and society needs all three, in a triangle to effectuate social change, even though triangles are not my favorite shape, and I prefer roses, which is the shape I now study. 

My game theory research was an accident, how amazing is this? All because I decided I wanted to write Aaron an apology in a heartfelt way, and it utterly transformed my life, so I benefitted from taking ownership of a mistake I made, and genuinely apologizing to Aaron? I think this is called “healing” and apologies are outstanding. Also, I did also write my original job talk paper as a love letter to Amy Kapczynski at Yale, who is an utter super genius and changed the world. And she is one of the smartest con law scholars in the whole country, even if we disagree about capitalism because I don’t think there’s an alternative, and it’s the best economic system the world has got, though I think capitalism should be incredibly loosely defined, and needs to be fixed through altruism, the inspiration for my life, and the way I’ve lived my life. 

And I’ve been an altruist pretty much since I was a kid, and the act I’m proudest of in my entire life is standing up for a Black woman on a study abroad program at Dartmouth who was discriminated against by a teacher and her host family, and I was the most powerful person on my program, and staged a mutiny, and that mutiny united the whole class to protect my friend, and brought Dartmouth to its knees, so even if I’m not Amy Kapczynski, and did not bring Yale to its knees on HIV, I did speak truth to power for a friend, an amazing Black woman who was not kicked out of the study abroad program after I looked up the rules and discovered they hadn’t been followed. 

And yes, I was a #MeToo victim before the movement even had a name because my former college teacher forced me to dance the tango with him (which in Argentina is supposed to have three dancers, not two) in a highly non-consensual way, and he walked in on me naked, and while I never did anything or told a soul until decades later, karma kicked in, and he’s no longer at Dartmouth. 

In my view, karma is causality, the straightforward law of cause and effect, and it’s Newton’s third law hugely oversimplified, and classical mechanics is still correct about a lot of things, even if time is an open question and people are even now debating entropy, and entropy is fundamental to causality and to time. Gravity? I now conclude causality is even more important than gravity, or at least more intuitive to me because I’ve struggled with certain aspects of gravity and classical mechanics, and quantum mechanics was always more intuitive and just made sense in a heartfelt way, and I really actually struggled more with simple easy things in physics than complex questions such as quantum entanglement, which was to me as self-evident as the invisible oxygen in the air that most life uses to sustain itself on planet earth. Both/and.

Dartmouth, in case this is news to you, you can contact me. I reported my teacher decades later, but you lack jurisdiction and I’m pretty sure the SOL has run. And in my case, harming his career wasn’t what I wanted; I just wanted to be made whole. And that’s why each person is unique, and what works for person  might be different than what person  wants, which is why feminism and the entire #MeToo movement needs to be problematized from the angle of physics, though this is well beyond the scope of my commitment to John Nash, so I give this idea away for free to the Universe so some other feminist can write it. Preferably someone with a math or physics background with abolitionist leanings. I wish I could, but I lack the bandwidth, and may give up blogging soon, as it was just an “experiment,” and I need “hyperfocus” for John Nash and maybe Hawking, who also believes entropy is essential to the fabric of spacetime itself. 

I think it’s possible gravity, entropy, and time work together in a triangle, but I clearly need to work on the MG part of the equation. Though maybe I can change the shape, but that I am not telling “how” because while I’m not patenting my research, I also don’t give it away for free, and I’ve even cut out intermediate steps in my work so my ideas can’t be taken. Time is way above my paygrade right now, but some physicists actually do believe in science fiction things like time travel, or reversing the flow of time, or sending information back in time, which could be highly dangerous and this is a fundamental paradox any physicist worth their salt should understand because time traveling backwards could eliminate a person from the planet, and a person could alter the course of history in highly unpredictable and undesirable ways, which is why if time travel is permitted, in most decent science fiction movies, it’s impossible to alter the past even if a person might desire it with every fiber of their heart and soul, as I once did, and if I were inventing the laws of spacetime in the manner an omniscient computer programmer in the simulation hypothesis, I would outlaw changing the past, or any aspect of time as a general rule. 

To people who believe in the simulation hypothesis, why did life evolve? The odds against it are so very high, and most decent computer predictions have always predicted humanity going extinct and it never, ever, has though we (humanity) have come close. Thus, I doubt the simulation hypothesis will be vindicated although it’s the basis for Vanilla Sky, a terrible movie with Tom Cruz, because so many things would be different, including errors like bridges blowing up “randomly,” architecture not working, and the sky turning strange colors. None of which happens. 

My guess is that time, like anything else, is a probability field. And that certain things, even in noisy systems, are going to be no matter what, thus “que sera, sera,” no matter how hard any of us (humans) fight it, or wish we (humanity) could change it, thus even if Harris had actually won the 2024 election, democracy would still have inevitably melted down in any event, no matter “how.” My best guess is that spacetime is a probability field, and that certain stuff is fixed, though details might not be. Brian Greene, feel free to educate me otherwise, I’m a beginner in time, and really only know about Hawking. I do think multiverses also exist, but not in this universe, and it’s not possible to go to any other multiverse in this life.  

Glass half full or glass half empty? It’s up to “you” to choose. Even if “free will” doesn’t exist, most humans do need the sensation of free will to function, or they’ll explode, which is contrary to the goal, and the goal is the betterment of all humanity. Jack Balkin, you once told me I needed a mantra. Darn straight. I guess I did, and I might have seemingly needed one at Yale, but now I remember that I already had one, and I’d forgotten it. “Always do what’s right over what’s easy.”

But I concede when I’m defeated, as all humans, debaters, and true scientists should if they don’t stonewall, one of the “four horsemen of the apocalypse” from the perspective of interpersonal relationships. And I concede someone more enlightened than me came up with a mantra even better than mine: “both/and,”the best spiritual teaching I’ve heard in my entire life. “Both/and” basically explains “how” classical physics and quantum physics can co-exist, even though this person has no background in physics, and he’s a former Jewish rabbi in training who spoke truth to power in Gaza and stopped human deaths of Palestinians. I’m pretty sure he isn’t into Hollywood, though I am. He would tell me it’s a fairytale, and I would tell him all humans need dreams, and that dreams, meaning hopes and ambitions, are what prevent cynicism, and people who give up their most important, cherished, vital dreams (meaning hopes/life goals) eventually become cynics or critics, which is “why” I never “will.” But it’s #not too late for most people, even if it may be too late for democracy unless Trump is spontaneously enlightened in “T-minus yesterday.” 

“Trust” me, I’d give everything I own for Cycles of Constitutional Time to be correct, but I think Sandy Levinson has even more foresight that I do, and as I’ve established, time travel to fix this tragic situation could eliminate many beneficial things. And Jack Balkin, “Democracy and Dysfunction” is just better. I’m still a debater no matter what, in my soul, and debate flows in my veins, even if I metaphorically bleed blue for Yale. And always will, no matter what. No matter where. No matter when. And I’ll love Yale until the heat death of the Universe, even if the Universe doesn’t have a heat death because Hawking turns out to be correct and it’s an accident I got mixed up in something so clearly above my paygrade and actually had true talent, even if I still make ridiculous beginner’s mistakes. “Both/and.”

I’m bested, but also not, all at the same “time.” And I hypothesize in the end, time also is simultaneous, and everything that is or every was going to happen already has, even if I personally haven’t experienced it yet because that would be bad for my wellbeing or anyone’s wellbeing. I didn’t create the universe, I just live in it, and I think the best “cure” for existential angst aside from physics, is creative writing and poetry. And there are “far,” far, better writers than me, and it’s my constitutionally protected opinion Junot Diaz is the most gifted writer in generations and belongs, and nothing, no force or law, should throw this genius away. He’s not trash, and no one is trash, even if someone did actually imply that I was trash in a way I hope he regrets. But I forgive him, and all involved, because he’s a member of the human race. And all beings belong in the sense of Brene Brown.

In the end, if it helps, sometimes all it takes is a perspective shift, and what looks like a 45-degree anglemay simultaneously be 135 degree angle. This perspective shift is simple operation called reflection, and one can use it by simply looking in the mirror, and humans in general should look themselves in the mirror and confront themselves every day in the Steve Jobs way and in the moral way. And that is in the end the kind of thinking that made Einstein the greatest scientist to have ever lived. And even if he’s not a woman I conclude Einstein was robbed, and if the Nobel Prize had been fair and Einstein hadn’t embarrassed the entire physics community, he would have rightly won the Nobel Prize four times over. Einstein wasn’t a people person, and people thought he was weird. He had Asperger syndrome, and rocked back and forth. Should people like him be eliminated from the human race? Delete him, and delete most science on planet earth. 

I’m not comparing myself to Einstein to be clear, just suggesting sometimes disabilities should be seen as gifts that make people great even if they are just different from the rest of the human race, and part of the disability community needs a radical reorientation because it is out of touch. Bill Gates also identifies as on the spectrum. Should humanity delete him? I think not. p.s. It is physically impossible, I while I quarrel with aspects of Microsoft, it’s one of the most important companies to ever have been invented. How to change the world? Think differently. Harvard Business School teaches that, and “out of the box” thinking solves huge problems, that “time and mediocrity” can resolve. And to think I had a close call with teaching at business schools. Phew. So glad that one didn’t work out, not to hate on business, but in the end, I couldn’t do physics as a business school professor, and, in the end, I can as a law professor.

I once was asked to define “love” and measure it, and while this is silly and juvenile, my definition of love from the perspective of the universe is “sacrifice.” What does a person “sacrifice” for the person they love most on the planet? I know now I’d never sacrifice my life purpose for anyone at all, but I might sacrifice other things, even if I’d never, ever, ever sacrifice my law license for anyone at all. 

-Cortelyou C. Kenney (6/22/25 8:43 am PT)