You wrote:
I think he holds in his mind an idea that "Intelligent Design" means accepting the literal Genesis account of creation.
Many people do not follow Christianity or The Bible because "science" offers a much more compelling origin of the history of species than Genesis. This is very unfortunate. I often find myself wishing all that stuff about 6 days and ribs had been left out. This is probably heresy of course, but the "Let There Be Light" is in excellent agreement with a Big Bang and scientific theory, but other parts are not. I'm not sure what Moses was thinking, but maybe it is meant to be like this for a reason and I just cannot work it out. I don't subscribe to "it's like this to test your faith". That's like saying "believe in lighties, if you don't then your faith is weak and you are a bad person".
Check out:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/news/2005-11-08/rsa-640/
There is a $200,000 reward if we, or anyone else, can find the two prime factors of a 2048 (binary) digit semiprime.
From your description of your underpowered kit it is unlikey that your Lenovo ThinkPad will give us the answer. However, it struck me that God clearly knows the answer, so can we win the $200,000 through prayer rather than brute force computation? Would this be a latter day "proof" of the magnitude of Jesus Himself walking up to the White House and asking George W. Bush what he's up to?
I guess another possibility is that humans will work out what these factors are at some point in the future. If time travel really is possible then perhaps they could come back into the past and tell us the answer?
Either way I will put a blank piece of paper under a cushion tonight, with a message on it saying "Please write the prime factors of RSA-2048 on the reverse. And see if there is any answer in the morning.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Specie = Different Clockspeed
I think you're correct ... I think we did discuss the specie thing before. I think the definition of a "specie" being a grouping in which breeding is possible is generally accepted, but I think there are exceptions to it.
I'm perfectly happy with the idea that God simply used all the mechanisms of what we call "science" to create us. He created the "science" and used his creation to create us. No problem. The key is that God is behind it. That, to my eye, is the real concept behind "Intelligent Design." Science explains much of the "how," but not all the "how" nor any aspect of the "why." This is why I think it is impossible for someone to be a Christian and reject "Intelligent Design," unless they hold a different definition of that term than I do. But if rejecting "Intelligent Design" means rejecting the idea of higher-power creative force, then rejecting "Intelligent Design" necessarily means subscribing to atheism. This is my primary complaint with John Derbyshire of National Review Online, who scoffs at "Intelligent Design" yet speaks of him being a "lifelong Anglican." In fairness, I think he holds in his mind an idea that "Intelligent Design" means accepting the literal Genesis account of creation. I tried to tease that out of him via e-mail, but he's a slippery chap and I couldn't pin him down. Frankly, I think he's employing inconsistent logic. But bless his heart, he's a good writer on many different topics, so I still like him. :-)
You ... are ... a ... pointy ... headed ... GEEK! All that talk of clockspeeds and voltages. But good for you building a screaming system. I could use that with my XD testing. My Thinkpad comes to an absolute crawl with the minimum server processes started. I have 1GB real memory and the memory demand is over 2GB ... the paging subsystem of Windows (or perhaps it is the access speed of my hard drive) seems to struggle to swap stuff in and out.
Good luck with our friends across the channel.
Only 84 references to God? I would have figured many, many more! :-)
I'm perfectly happy with the idea that God simply used all the mechanisms of what we call "science" to create us. He created the "science" and used his creation to create us. No problem. The key is that God is behind it. That, to my eye, is the real concept behind "Intelligent Design." Science explains much of the "how," but not all the "how" nor any aspect of the "why." This is why I think it is impossible for someone to be a Christian and reject "Intelligent Design," unless they hold a different definition of that term than I do. But if rejecting "Intelligent Design" means rejecting the idea of higher-power creative force, then rejecting "Intelligent Design" necessarily means subscribing to atheism. This is my primary complaint with John Derbyshire of National Review Online, who scoffs at "Intelligent Design" yet speaks of him being a "lifelong Anglican." In fairness, I think he holds in his mind an idea that "Intelligent Design" means accepting the literal Genesis account of creation. I tried to tease that out of him via e-mail, but he's a slippery chap and I couldn't pin him down. Frankly, I think he's employing inconsistent logic. But bless his heart, he's a good writer on many different topics, so I still like him. :-)
You ... are ... a ... pointy ... headed ... GEEK! All that talk of clockspeeds and voltages. But good for you building a screaming system. I could use that with my XD testing. My Thinkpad comes to an absolute crawl with the minimum server processes started. I have 1GB real memory and the memory demand is over 2GB ... the paging subsystem of Windows (or perhaps it is the access speed of my hard drive) seems to struggle to swap stuff in and out.
Good luck with our friends across the channel.
Only 84 references to God? I would have figured many, many more! :-)
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Speciation
Any idea?
You know I have a feeling we have discussed what actually constitutes a species before. Do you recall us talking about mules and horses and chromosomes? Can't think when it was, I searched our blog and couldn't find it. Then again I think the search feature at the top of page is broken, as I searched for "René Descartes" (remember the joke?) and couldn't find it. I was sure I put that joke on our blog. Anyway, there are 84 occurrences of the word God though :-)
Species - I think it's about whether they can successfully breed together, if they can then they are possibly said to be of the same species. There is an interesting article on the subject - well worth a scan read at:
http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/8/1/1
I think the human brain is evidence enough that we aren't totally local to the planet Earth. We're more likely the outcome of some engineering of something that did evolve on this pretty little blue and green ball.
You wrote:
I reject the idea that the universe simply "always was" and that by the random bumping of atoms into atoms, molecules were formed
Aha! I was on the line a few weeks ago asking "what is randomness"? In a Universe created by God true randomness cannot exist. Therefore all this "random bumping" is actually part of His plan. Randomness and Chance are a real gift from God. This appeals to me from the perspective of quantum mechanics. I suspect if one looks very closely at the concept of "randomness" one sees God looking back.
I'm glad that Brazil is working out, I am on vacation this week and having so much fun building a new PC and overclocking it - it's smoking, literally. New PSU coming tomorrow which should hopefully give me better voltage stability, it has two independent rails. My multiplier is at 10x, I put the HTT down to 4x, RAM frequency is divided at 166, with 2.5-3-3-8 timings, the FSB is overclocked from 200 to 230 using clockgen, giving me a nice boost of 600 mhz (dual core). All this with a stock vcore of 1.35 volts, using the stock AMD HSF. Now, unless you're a pointy headed geek you will not have understood any of that so I apologise, but it had to be said.
I'll be in Germany next week with "our friends".
Safe travels sir !
You know I have a feeling we have discussed what actually constitutes a species before. Do you recall us talking about mules and horses and chromosomes? Can't think when it was, I searched our blog and couldn't find it. Then again I think the search feature at the top of page is broken, as I searched for "René Descartes" (remember the joke?) and couldn't find it. I was sure I put that joke on our blog. Anyway, there are 84 occurrences of the word God though :-)
Species - I think it's about whether they can successfully breed together, if they can then they are possibly said to be of the same species. There is an interesting article on the subject - well worth a scan read at:
http://www.genome.org/cgi/content/full/8/1/1
I think the human brain is evidence enough that we aren't totally local to the planet Earth. We're more likely the outcome of some engineering of something that did evolve on this pretty little blue and green ball.
You wrote:
I reject the idea that the universe simply "always was" and that by the random bumping of atoms into atoms, molecules were formed
Aha! I was on the line a few weeks ago asking "what is randomness"? In a Universe created by God true randomness cannot exist. Therefore all this "random bumping" is actually part of His plan. Randomness and Chance are a real gift from God. This appeals to me from the perspective of quantum mechanics. I suspect if one looks very closely at the concept of "randomness" one sees God looking back.
I'm glad that Brazil is working out, I am on vacation this week and having so much fun building a new PC and overclocking it - it's smoking, literally. New PSU coming tomorrow which should hopefully give me better voltage stability, it has two independent rails. My multiplier is at 10x, I put the HTT down to 4x, RAM frequency is divided at 166, with 2.5-3-3-8 timings, the FSB is overclocked from 200 to 230 using clockgen, giving me a nice boost of 600 mhz (dual core). All this with a stock vcore of 1.35 volts, using the stock AMD HSF. Now, unless you're a pointy headed geek you will not have understood any of that so I apologise, but it had to be said.
I'll be in Germany next week with "our friends".
Safe travels sir !
What Defines a Specie?
I got to thinking more about "evolution," and it occurs to me that how one defines what constitutes the boundary between species is important. If a puppy is born with a mutation that give it a red nose, and that trait is passed along to the next generation and beyond, does that red nose constitute a new species? I would gather not ... but it got me thinking about what truly does define when one species stops and another begins.
This is important because one of the challenges to the proponents of evolution and natural selection is this: show an example where evidence shows the chain of mutations leading to the creation of a new species. Or show me a laboratory experiment where viruses in a petri dish mutate into a bacteria.
The work to show a common genetic link to some long-past humanoid in Africa does not convince me ... how are we to know that was a different species? It may just have been a very hairy human. But again ... the key to this is the definition of a "species."
Any idea?
This is important because one of the challenges to the proponents of evolution and natural selection is this: show an example where evidence shows the chain of mutations leading to the creation of a new species. Or show me a laboratory experiment where viruses in a petri dish mutate into a bacteria.
The work to show a common genetic link to some long-past humanoid in Africa does not convince me ... how are we to know that was a different species? It may just have been a very hairy human. But again ... the key to this is the definition of a "species."
Any idea?
The Evolution of Brazil
The course in Brazil is coming together nicely. I was initially concerned, as the concept of names within a WebSphere configuration was challenging to the students. But they've come a long way in the last two days. I've learned a dozen or so Portegeuse words. I think my trying -- badly -- to use snippets of their language is appreciated.
* * *
I think the power of a theory can be tested by seeing what it predicted, and predicted correctly. And to that extent, the idea of natural selection (or "evolution" -- I'm not convinced the two are the same thing in some people's minds) seems to bear the scrutiny. But within the context of the more essential argument about creationism or evolution, I'm not sure there's a problem here. The idea of "change over time" isn't contrary to the Bible, or at least in my reading. The idea of things "evolving" over time doesn't shake my faith in God as creator and sustainer.
The idea of natural selection being the explanatory force behind our initial creation is what I reject. I reject the idea that the universe simply "always was" and that by the random bumping of atoms into atoms, molecules were formed. And that stars formed by the collapsing of dust clouds, which then led to conditions creating basic amino acids, which then formed up DNA, which then formed up life, which then formed up a chain of events that led to the complexity of the human ... all by random chance, all without any guidance by a higher power.
To my view, it takes considerable "faith" to believe that.
However, that "faith"is much less threatening than the belief in an omnipotent Creator God that might -- just might -- hold us accountable for our actions.
And that, dear friend, is why I think most who hold so strongly to the theory of evolution do so -- it is a way to avoid thinking about the alternative.
That's just my view ... I freely admit that.
As for natural selection, I am quite comfortable with the idea of God using the mechanism as part of His creation. And even if humans "evolved" from lower forms, I'm okay with that too ... but at some point human beings must have been "touched" by God -- imbued with his "image" -- because we have evolved much more than any other species. Natural selection must explain that, and I'm not sure it does ... or at least not well.
Question: it is said that the human brain -- very large in proportion to the rest of our body, particularly compared to other species -- is only fractionally utilized. If so, then the question is this: why? What reproductive advantage would be offered by having a bigger brain that isn't fully used?
I'm sure some would say that the bigger brain might be used in small, select instances, providing a greater chance of survival and reproduction. Perhaps. But I'm not convinced of that argument ... particularly when I think of the enormous gap in development between humans and all other species.
Well, all species except the dolphin, of course ... or whales. They're the smartest things on the planet, of course. :-)
* * *
I think the power of a theory can be tested by seeing what it predicted, and predicted correctly. And to that extent, the idea of natural selection (or "evolution" -- I'm not convinced the two are the same thing in some people's minds) seems to bear the scrutiny. But within the context of the more essential argument about creationism or evolution, I'm not sure there's a problem here. The idea of "change over time" isn't contrary to the Bible, or at least in my reading. The idea of things "evolving" over time doesn't shake my faith in God as creator and sustainer.
The idea of natural selection being the explanatory force behind our initial creation is what I reject. I reject the idea that the universe simply "always was" and that by the random bumping of atoms into atoms, molecules were formed. And that stars formed by the collapsing of dust clouds, which then led to conditions creating basic amino acids, which then formed up DNA, which then formed up life, which then formed up a chain of events that led to the complexity of the human ... all by random chance, all without any guidance by a higher power.
To my view, it takes considerable "faith" to believe that.
However, that "faith"is much less threatening than the belief in an omnipotent Creator God that might -- just might -- hold us accountable for our actions.
And that, dear friend, is why I think most who hold so strongly to the theory of evolution do so -- it is a way to avoid thinking about the alternative.
That's just my view ... I freely admit that.
As for natural selection, I am quite comfortable with the idea of God using the mechanism as part of His creation. And even if humans "evolved" from lower forms, I'm okay with that too ... but at some point human beings must have been "touched" by God -- imbued with his "image" -- because we have evolved much more than any other species. Natural selection must explain that, and I'm not sure it does ... or at least not well.
Question: it is said that the human brain -- very large in proportion to the rest of our body, particularly compared to other species -- is only fractionally utilized. If so, then the question is this: why? What reproductive advantage would be offered by having a bigger brain that isn't fully used?
I'm sure some would say that the bigger brain might be used in small, select instances, providing a greater chance of survival and reproduction. Perhaps. But I'm not convinced of that argument ... particularly when I think of the enormous gap in development between humans and all other species.
Well, all species except the dolphin, of course ... or whales. They're the smartest things on the planet, of course. :-)
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
The Theory of Evolution: Part II
Are these some things that the theory of evolution has predicted, thus adding weight to it's "goodness" as a theory? Or are these people just misguided? (I really do not know).
* Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
* Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
* Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
* Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
* Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
* Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
* Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html [talkorigins.org]
* Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
* Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
* Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
* Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
* Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
* Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
* Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html [talkorigins.org]
The Theory of Evolution: Part I
A while ago I posted that a good theory makes predictions. This was my defense against those lighties of yours. So I got to thinking - does the theory of evolution predict anything? If not, then it's not a goood theory.
How's Brazil?
How's Brazil?
Monday, November 07, 2005
Hydrino Energy
Claims to be 20% of conventional energy cost and to disprove quantum mechanics
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1627424,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1627424,00.html
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Birthdays
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_16 I share birthdays with
Catherine of Aragon
Ludwig Van Beethoven
Jane Austen
Noel Coward
Philip K Dick
Liv Ullman
and, of course
Arthur C Clarke
I found much delight in the fact that I was born on the same day as Sir Arthur. I only found that out this year. When I was a child/teenager his books were always my favourite. He had a great impact on my thinking, especially with two books "Profiles of the Future" (which I received and read on my 9th birthday) and "2001: A Space Odyssey". I still say that that film is my #1 movie of all time.
"Imperial Earth" and "The Fountains of Paradise" (oh joy at the space elevator we are going to build!) were right up there too. Then Rama of course.
Note that Dec 16 is also Kazakhstan independence day!
How about you good self sir? Who was born on your birthday?
There are moves afoot to print wikipedia by the way, mainly to be distributed in poorer countries (such as some African nations).
I loathe blogger when it's acting up. I now create my appends in winword, and then copy & paste in before the big "publish". I hope I get to see what you wanted to say! Perhaps another method would be to create them in the blogger, but just select all and copy before you "publish post". That way at least if there is a network error, you'll have everything saved in the windows clipboard. Yes thinking about it that may be the best approach.
Catherine of Aragon
Ludwig Van Beethoven
Jane Austen
Noel Coward
Philip K Dick
Liv Ullman
and, of course
Arthur C Clarke
I found much delight in the fact that I was born on the same day as Sir Arthur. I only found that out this year. When I was a child/teenager his books were always my favourite. He had a great impact on my thinking, especially with two books "Profiles of the Future" (which I received and read on my 9th birthday) and "2001: A Space Odyssey". I still say that that film is my #1 movie of all time.
"Imperial Earth" and "The Fountains of Paradise" (oh joy at the space elevator we are going to build!) were right up there too. Then Rama of course.
Note that Dec 16 is also Kazakhstan independence day!
How about you good self sir? Who was born on your birthday?
There are moves afoot to print wikipedia by the way, mainly to be distributed in poorer countries (such as some African nations).
I loathe blogger when it's acting up. I now create my appends in winword, and then copy & paste in before the big "publish". I hope I get to see what you wanted to say! Perhaps another method would be to create them in the blogger, but just select all and copy before you "publish post". That way at least if there is a network error, you'll have everything saved in the windows clipboard. Yes thinking about it that may be the best approach.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Bad, Bad Blogger!
I've tried this three times now, and each time Blogger has done something to make me grumpy. First, it threw away everything and reported "server not found." Then it created a post with only the subject line, but no body. The text I had entered into the body was discarded. A third time it did the same thing.
God's logic
You asked:
Elaborate, please. :-)
I take it back, I don't think that God has a nature, scientific or otherwise, these are human concepts after all. I should not be bringing God down to our level.
When He instantiated Himself as Jesus Christ I think he injected energy (and matter, E=mc2) into this Universe. Jesus could bleed. Did He use technology to do that or just "willed it"? Probably the latter.
Questions for you ..
"Can God tell a lie?"
and a subsequent question
"Would God tell a lie?"
Elaborate, please. :-)
I take it back, I don't think that God has a nature, scientific or otherwise, these are human concepts after all. I should not be bringing God down to our level.
When He instantiated Himself as Jesus Christ I think he injected energy (and matter, E=mc2) into this Universe. Jesus could bleed. Did He use technology to do that or just "willed it"? Probably the latter.
Questions for you ..
"Can God tell a lie?"
and a subsequent question
"Would God tell a lie?"
The Nature of God
You wrote:
I would counter that everything is within the realm of science, even God. God is not limited by science but God is of that nature.
I'm not sure I understand your point here. See the italicized words. Elaborate, please. :-)
Friday, November 04, 2005
Nothing is Unassailable
You wrote:
" ... evolution fails to explain X; therefore evolution may not fully explain our existence."
Spot on. Your logic is exactly the scientific method. I suggest that you tell the chap what you think that the "X" is that evolution does not explain and then to see what his answer is.
He wrote:
"Scientists have no business dealing in non-scientific things in a scientific setting."
Nonsense, that's a [popular] cop out - a failure of nerve. I would counter that everything is within the realm of science, even God. God is not limited by science but God is of that nature. Just look at pi, phi, the Universe etc. Remember Clarke's Third Law as modified by deep.thought?:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from miracles".
Very unsatisfying I agree, I need my supernatural! But I am unable to refute it, yet.
" ... evolution fails to explain X; therefore evolution may not fully explain our existence."
Spot on. Your logic is exactly the scientific method. I suggest that you tell the chap what you think that the "X" is that evolution does not explain and then to see what his answer is.
He wrote:
"Scientists have no business dealing in non-scientific things in a scientific setting."
Nonsense, that's a [popular] cop out - a failure of nerve. I would counter that everything is within the realm of science, even God. God is not limited by science but God is of that nature. Just look at pi, phi, the Universe etc. Remember Clarke's Third Law as modified by deep.thought?:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from miracles".
Very unsatisfying I agree, I need my supernatural! But I am unable to refute it, yet.
Is Evolution Unassailable?
Today I had an e-mail exchange with a writer for National Review Online. He is a fierce critic of "Intelligent Design," claiming it is "not science." Fair enough. I asked him, via e-mail, if using science to question the claims of evolution was itself not science. That, I explained, was how I saw the serious proponents of "Intelligent Design" operating -- not so much "if not evolution, therefore a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis is required," but rather something more akin to "evolution fails to explain X; therefore evolution may not fully explain our existence."
His response: "Two wrongs don't make a right. Scientists have no business dealing in non-scientific things in a scientific setting."
So, using science to question to the claims of another scientific theory (evolution) is non-scientific.
Either the theory of evolution is completely unassailable, or there's some horribly inconsistent thinking going on out there.
His response: "Two wrongs don't make a right. Scientists have no business dealing in non-scientific things in a scientific setting."
So, using science to question to the claims of another scientific theory (evolution) is non-scientific.
Either the theory of evolution is completely unassailable, or there's some horribly inconsistent thinking going on out there.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
The story of Schrödinger's cat (an epic poem)
Dear Deep thought,
DT, you're my final hope
Of finding out the true Straight Dope
For I have been reading of Schrödinger's cat
But none of my cats are at all like that.
This unusual animal (so it is said)
Is simultaneously live and dead!
What I don't understand is just why he
Can't be one or other, unquestionably.
My future now hangs in between eigenstates.
In one I'm enlightened, the other I ain't.
If you understand, DT, then show me the way
And rescue my psyche from quantum decay.
But if this queer thing has perplexed even you,
Then I will and won't see you in Schrödinger's zoo.
BAGWELL
Dear Bagwell,
Schrödinger, Erwin! Professor of physics!
Wrote daring equations! Confounded his critics!
(Not bad, eh? Don't worry. This part of the verse
Starts off pretty good, but it gets a lot worse.)
Win saw that the theory that Newton'd invented
By Einstein's discov'ries had been badly dented.
What now? wailed his colleagues. Said Erwin, "Don't panic,
No grease monkey I, but a quantum mechanic.
Consider electrons. Now, these teeny articles
Are sometimes like waves, and then sometimes like particles.
If that's not confusing, the nuclear dance
Of electrons and suchlike is governed by chance!
No sweat, though--my theory permits us to judge
Where some of 'em is and the rest of 'em was."
Not everyone bought this. It threatened to wreck
The comforting linkage of cause and effect.
E'en Einstein had doubts, and so Schrödinger tried
To tell him what quantum mechanics implied.
Said Win to Al, "Brother, suppose we've a cat,
And inside a tube we have put that cat at--
Along with a solitaire deck and some Fritos,
A bottle of Night Train, a couple mosquitoes
(Or something else rhyming) and, oh, if you got 'em,
One vial prussic acid, one decaying ottom
Or atom--whatever--but when it emits,
A trigger device blasts the vial into bits
Which snuffs our poor kitty. The odds of this crime
Are 50 to 50 per hour each time.
The cylinder's sealed. The hour's passed away. Is
Our pussy still purring--or pushing up daisies?
Now, you'd say the cat either lives or it don't
But quantum mechanics is stubborn and won't.
Statistically speaking, the cat (goes the joke),
Is half a cat breathing and half a cat croaked.
To some this may seem a ridiculous split,
But quantum mechanics must answer, "Tough @#&!
We may not know much, but one thing's fo' sho':
There's things in the cosmos that we cannot know.
Shine light on electrons--you'll cause them to swerve.
The act of observing disturbs the observed--
Which ruins your test. But then if there's no testing
To see if a particle's moving or resting
Why try to conjecture? Pure useless endeavor!
We know probability--certainty, never.'
The effect of this notion? I very much fear
'Twill make doubtful all things that were formerly clear.
Till soon the cat doctors will say in reports,
"We've just flipped a coin and we've learned he's a corpse."'
So saith Herr Erwin. Quoth Albert, "You're nuts.
God doesn't play dice with the universe, putz.
I'll prove it!" he said, and the Lord knows he tried--
In vain--until fin'ly he more or less died.
Win spoke at the funeral: "Listen, dear friends,
Sweet Al was my buddy. I must make amends.
Though he doubted my theory, I'll say of this saint:
Ten-to-one he's in heaven--but five bucks says he ain't."
DEEP THOUGHT
(Not sure who wrote that but it's brilliant!)
DT, you're my final hope
Of finding out the true Straight Dope
For I have been reading of Schrödinger's cat
But none of my cats are at all like that.
This unusual animal (so it is said)
Is simultaneously live and dead!
What I don't understand is just why he
Can't be one or other, unquestionably.
My future now hangs in between eigenstates.
In one I'm enlightened, the other I ain't.
If you understand, DT, then show me the way
And rescue my psyche from quantum decay.
But if this queer thing has perplexed even you,
Then I will and won't see you in Schrödinger's zoo.
BAGWELL
Dear Bagwell,
Schrödinger, Erwin! Professor of physics!
Wrote daring equations! Confounded his critics!
(Not bad, eh? Don't worry. This part of the verse
Starts off pretty good, but it gets a lot worse.)
Win saw that the theory that Newton'd invented
By Einstein's discov'ries had been badly dented.
What now? wailed his colleagues. Said Erwin, "Don't panic,
No grease monkey I, but a quantum mechanic.
Consider electrons. Now, these teeny articles
Are sometimes like waves, and then sometimes like particles.
If that's not confusing, the nuclear dance
Of electrons and suchlike is governed by chance!
No sweat, though--my theory permits us to judge
Where some of 'em is and the rest of 'em was."
Not everyone bought this. It threatened to wreck
The comforting linkage of cause and effect.
E'en Einstein had doubts, and so Schrödinger tried
To tell him what quantum mechanics implied.
Said Win to Al, "Brother, suppose we've a cat,
And inside a tube we have put that cat at--
Along with a solitaire deck and some Fritos,
A bottle of Night Train, a couple mosquitoes
(Or something else rhyming) and, oh, if you got 'em,
One vial prussic acid, one decaying ottom
Or atom--whatever--but when it emits,
A trigger device blasts the vial into bits
Which snuffs our poor kitty. The odds of this crime
Are 50 to 50 per hour each time.
The cylinder's sealed. The hour's passed away. Is
Our pussy still purring--or pushing up daisies?
Now, you'd say the cat either lives or it don't
But quantum mechanics is stubborn and won't.
Statistically speaking, the cat (goes the joke),
Is half a cat breathing and half a cat croaked.
To some this may seem a ridiculous split,
But quantum mechanics must answer, "Tough @#&!
We may not know much, but one thing's fo' sho':
There's things in the cosmos that we cannot know.
Shine light on electrons--you'll cause them to swerve.
The act of observing disturbs the observed--
Which ruins your test. But then if there's no testing
To see if a particle's moving or resting
Why try to conjecture? Pure useless endeavor!
We know probability--certainty, never.'
The effect of this notion? I very much fear
'Twill make doubtful all things that were formerly clear.
Till soon the cat doctors will say in reports,
"We've just flipped a coin and we've learned he's a corpse."'
So saith Herr Erwin. Quoth Albert, "You're nuts.
God doesn't play dice with the universe, putz.
I'll prove it!" he said, and the Lord knows he tried--
In vain--until fin'ly he more or less died.
Win spoke at the funeral: "Listen, dear friends,
Sweet Al was my buddy. I must make amends.
Though he doubted my theory, I'll say of this saint:
Ten-to-one he's in heaven--but five bucks says he ain't."
DEEP THOUGHT
(Not sure who wrote that but it's brilliant!)
Reciprocity
You wrote:
... we're more likely to respond awkwardly ...
I guarantee you that the root cause of this is that we do not really believe that the compliment from the other person is sincere. This is bred from the McDonald's/USA retail culture of "have a nice day". This is rooted into the general falsehood of today.
You wrote:
Could it be that we tend to shy away from this because there's a fear of a reciprocal obligation? Or perhaps there's a feeling of infringement on our autonomy?
Probably both of these. On the first, as a child we think we have all the time in the world, but as we grow older we realise that we cannot be everything to all people so must use our time and love wisely.
On the second, a child loves all the attention it can get. But as we get older we tend to want our "own space". Again I think this is because we realize that we have a finite time and want to spend it achieving our goals, we realise that we can exist on our own without attention from others.
So it appears to me the root of our not wanting to connect (as adults) to the love offered in the above two examples is a recognition of one's own limitations and one's own mortality.
But there is another reason. Perhaps we don't accept love because we don't want to hurt the person giving us the love? When we are immature children we don't realise the pain that our accepting all the love from the other person does to that other person. But when we grow up into maturity we notice that if we accept this love, and we don't want to reciprocate that love (for any number of reasons) then we end up hurting the other person. So we decide not to accept their love.
You wrote:
I would fall into the category of people who for whatever reason resists "giving in" to the love that God offers
Question: how would you know if and when you had given in to the love that God offers?
... we're more likely to respond awkwardly ...
I guarantee you that the root cause of this is that we do not really believe that the compliment from the other person is sincere. This is bred from the McDonald's/USA retail culture of "have a nice day". This is rooted into the general falsehood of today.
You wrote:
Could it be that we tend to shy away from this because there's a fear of a reciprocal obligation? Or perhaps there's a feeling of infringement on our autonomy?
Probably both of these. On the first, as a child we think we have all the time in the world, but as we grow older we realise that we cannot be everything to all people so must use our time and love wisely.
On the second, a child loves all the attention it can get. But as we get older we tend to want our "own space". Again I think this is because we realize that we have a finite time and want to spend it achieving our goals, we realise that we can exist on our own without attention from others.
So it appears to me the root of our not wanting to connect (as adults) to the love offered in the above two examples is a recognition of one's own limitations and one's own mortality.
But there is another reason. Perhaps we don't accept love because we don't want to hurt the person giving us the love? When we are immature children we don't realise the pain that our accepting all the love from the other person does to that other person. But when we grow up into maturity we notice that if we accept this love, and we don't want to reciprocate that love (for any number of reasons) then we end up hurting the other person. So we decide not to accept their love.
You wrote:
I would fall into the category of people who for whatever reason resists "giving in" to the love that God offers
Question: how would you know if and when you had given in to the love that God offers?
Monday, October 31, 2005
Accepting Love
What I was getting at was not so much the reciprocation aspect of this, but rather the question why we (humans, in general) seem to have difficulty accepting kindness and love from others. As a simple example, someone offers a sincere compliment and rather than offer back a sincere, "Well, thank you so much ... that's very kind and I appreciate it very much," we're more likely to respond awkwardly or try to diminish that which was complimented in the first place.
Some might call this modesty, but I'm not so sure.
Could it be that we tend to shy away from this because there's a fear of a reciprocal obligation? Or perhaps there's a feeling of infringement on our autonomy?
Note: kids have this ability early on, don't they? They'll happily receive and soak up all the love a parent will give, right? I wonder when and why that tends to change.
I brought the topic up for two reasons:
Some might call this modesty, but I'm not so sure.
Could it be that we tend to shy away from this because there's a fear of a reciprocal obligation? Or perhaps there's a feeling of infringement on our autonomy?
Note: kids have this ability early on, don't they? They'll happily receive and soak up all the love a parent will give, right? I wonder when and why that tends to change.
I brought the topic up for two reasons:
- The pastor this last Sunday made it a point to talk about how necessary it is to not only believe in the selfless love of God, but to accept it as well. He wouldn't have made the point if there wasn't at least some he's come across who struggled with that aspect of the faith.
- I would fall into the category of people who for whatever reason resists "giving in" to the love that God offers. I honestly don't know why. I suspect it's at least partly because I don't really understand the word "love," and certainly not in the biblical "agape" sense. And two, because the titanic battle in my heart right now really is one of sovereignty.
That's why I asked the question. I'm thinking around this point because it strikes me as central to the faith. And my struggles right now are all very basic, very central, very fundamental things ... mostly having to do with my real intent to follow Jesus.
I suppose I should count as a good sign my knowledge of the struggle. If I were truly lost, I probably wouldn't be thinking anything like these things.
Take care!
The Power of Love
You wrote:
In many ways, the ability to receive love is one of the hardest things to do
The first part of this post assumes that we have a common understanding of what love is.
In your mind does receiving love involve any action from the recipient? Is it not possible to love someone from afar?
Ok with this common understanding of what love is, let's take the scenario where one professes one's love for someone to that someone ... then the recipient can say:
a) "Thanks for that, I understand that you love me, that's great, I don't think I love you back, bye" Has the recipient received love in this scenario?
b) "That's marvellous I love too, bye" - has the recipient received love in this scenario?
c) "That's marvellous I love too, let's spend all of our lives togther" - has the recipient received love in that scenario?
d) Something else
You see what I am getting at? There are various responses that an individual can have to the news that someone loves them, whether that someone be God or a human being.
Now if God is saying to all of us, I love you and want to spend all eternity with you, what should our response be? It can be any one of a) to d) I guess. Is your question not about receiving love .. but really about c) - about reciprocating love. Or is it that you really want to be in the c) category but you don't really believe that God loves you? I am unclear!
The second part of this post asks "what do you mean by love?" Perhaps we don't share a common view. Is love about putting an others needs before your own? Or some chemical rush, or both?
In many ways, the ability to receive love is one of the hardest things to do
The first part of this post assumes that we have a common understanding of what love is.
In your mind does receiving love involve any action from the recipient? Is it not possible to love someone from afar?
Ok with this common understanding of what love is, let's take the scenario where one professes one's love for someone to that someone ... then the recipient can say:
a) "Thanks for that, I understand that you love me, that's great, I don't think I love you back, bye" Has the recipient received love in this scenario?
b) "That's marvellous I love too, bye" - has the recipient received love in this scenario?
c) "That's marvellous I love too, let's spend all of our lives togther" - has the recipient received love in that scenario?
d) Something else
You see what I am getting at? There are various responses that an individual can have to the news that someone loves them, whether that someone be God or a human being.
Now if God is saying to all of us, I love you and want to spend all eternity with you, what should our response be? It can be any one of a) to d) I guess. Is your question not about receiving love .. but really about c) - about reciprocating love. Or is it that you really want to be in the c) category but you don't really believe that God loves you? I am unclear!
The second part of this post asks "what do you mean by love?" Perhaps we don't share a common view. Is love about putting an others needs before your own? Or some chemical rush, or both?
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Graciously Accepting A Gift
Today at church the pastor preached on the rather famous 1 Corinthians 13 passage about "love." He's been in a series where he's covered elements of this each Sunday, using a different translation each time for effect. His focus today was on the love ("agape") God has for us. As I was listening to the sermon, I got to thinking that there are really four "states" to one's approach to this:
Note: well, none of us are worthy of it ... that's the nature of Grace ... but set that aside.
In many ways, the ability to receive love is one of the hardest things to do. Or so that's how I see things from my rather strained perspective. I wonder why that is?
Have you ever thought about this ... the challenge of simply accepting the love offered by another? What are you thoughts on this?
- An understanding of the difference between our contemporary notion of "love" and the concept embodied by the term "agape" in the original Greek
- A belief that God does indeed personify this kind of love
- A willingness to accept this love from God
- A response to this love -- "the fruit"
Note: well, none of us are worthy of it ... that's the nature of Grace ... but set that aside.
In many ways, the ability to receive love is one of the hardest things to do. Or so that's how I see things from my rather strained perspective. I wonder why that is?
Have you ever thought about this ... the challenge of simply accepting the love offered by another? What are you thoughts on this?
Friday, October 28, 2005
Lunch
Perhaps that is why the Lord created this physical world with such deep mysteries, such as "bits" that appear as both waves and particles.
Maybe, maybe. But remember that God created the structure of our brain also, he could have created us in such a way that we didn't have a desire to solve puzzles I suppose.
So the greyhound is programmed to run for it's lunch (it must have been such a disappointment when it caught something with the nutritional content of a mechanical hare!) - but what are we humans "running" for? How does solving a puzzle help us with our survival? I guess I could think of some scenarios where it would, hmm .... for example:
How do I kill this creature that is faster and stronger than myself? So that a) it doesn't eat me, and b) I can eat it?
How can I stay warm when it is cold? Let's try rubbing these old dry sticks together and see what happens ...
Maybe, maybe. But remember that God created the structure of our brain also, he could have created us in such a way that we didn't have a desire to solve puzzles I suppose.
So the greyhound is programmed to run for it's lunch (it must have been such a disappointment when it caught something with the nutritional content of a mechanical hare!) - but what are we humans "running" for? How does solving a puzzle help us with our survival? I guess I could think of some scenarios where it would, hmm .... for example:
How do I kill this creature that is faster and stronger than myself? So that a) it doesn't eat me, and b) I can eat it?
How can I stay warm when it is cold? Let's try rubbing these old dry sticks together and see what happens ...
Greyhound Racing
I don't know if you're familiar with dog racing. Here in the United States, they race greyhounds around a track, and the inducement to the dogs to run (and run fast) is a mechanical rabbit that zips around on the inside rail, just in front of the dogs.
Note: the career of a greyhound for racing is about 2 years. After that, they are of no use to the racing industry. Many are, sadly, euthanized at this point. There's a whole industry in the United States to "rescue" the dogs for "adoption" by people who want them for pets. Greyhounds make wonderful pets ... very gentle and loving creatures.
Why do I bring this up? Because I once heard someone say that at one race, the mechanical rabbit broke down and stopped. The dogs, furiously racing after the rabbit, had, for the first time, an opportunity to actually catch the rabbit. Apparently the poor dogs had no idea what to do with the rabbit -- the objective was to chase after it; they had no programming for what to do if they ever caught it. They just jumped around, yelped, and were generally perplexed.
Might that be our condition with the mysteries of the physical world and the mysteries of God? Might it be that our biggest disappointment in life would be to actually acquire full knowledge? Is not the bulk of the thrill the pursuit of knowledge? Perhaps that is why the Lord created this physical world with such deep mysteries, such as "bits" that appear as both waves and particles.
Note: the career of a greyhound for racing is about 2 years. After that, they are of no use to the racing industry. Many are, sadly, euthanized at this point. There's a whole industry in the United States to "rescue" the dogs for "adoption" by people who want them for pets. Greyhounds make wonderful pets ... very gentle and loving creatures.
Why do I bring this up? Because I once heard someone say that at one race, the mechanical rabbit broke down and stopped. The dogs, furiously racing after the rabbit, had, for the first time, an opportunity to actually catch the rabbit. Apparently the poor dogs had no idea what to do with the rabbit -- the objective was to chase after it; they had no programming for what to do if they ever caught it. They just jumped around, yelped, and were generally perplexed.
Might that be our condition with the mysteries of the physical world and the mysteries of God? Might it be that our biggest disappointment in life would be to actually acquire full knowledge? Is not the bulk of the thrill the pursuit of knowledge? Perhaps that is why the Lord created this physical world with such deep mysteries, such as "bits" that appear as both waves and particles.
Computational Biology
Use of the algorithm that JAligner uses is discussed in the latest Nature podcast?
http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/v437/n7063/nature-2005-10-27.mp3
http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/v437/n7063/nature-2005-10-27.mp3
God is on top of it all part deux
Yes it goes without saying that everything is below the creator, all of science etc. And I agree that those Christians I have met who have some understanding of the scale of the Universe have been through the "Wow, why would He be interested in me?" moment. And indeed it's pretty amazing that He would be.
My view of science is that I am using it to try to work out the mechanism that God used to create the Universe, and the nature of the "reality" that He created for me. Why do I find this interesting? Maybe it's one of:
a) Satan is influencing me to dare to do such a thing
b) I like solving puzzles
or
c) Something else completely
The hidden variable thing may well be the answer. If so, God is playing dice, but the dice are loaded so both Einstein and Bohr were correct. If that is the case then it is kind of funny as their "superposition of states" was predicted by quantum mechanics anyway, so they should have intuited that they were both right !
Either
a) "Little bits of things" are particles and not waves
b) "Little bits of things" are waves and not particles
c) "Little bits of things" are waves and particles at the same time
or
c) "Little bits of things" are something else
Measurements shows that "little bits of things" are really "waves and particles" at the same time. Duality. What could be more illustrative of two seemingly opposite things being true at the same time? Hmm, maybe "little bits of things" are vibrating little strings? The string being like a particle and the wave being in place on the little string?
My view of science is that I am using it to try to work out the mechanism that God used to create the Universe, and the nature of the "reality" that He created for me. Why do I find this interesting? Maybe it's one of:
a) Satan is influencing me to dare to do such a thing
b) I like solving puzzles
or
c) Something else completely
The hidden variable thing may well be the answer. If so, God is playing dice, but the dice are loaded so both Einstein and Bohr were correct. If that is the case then it is kind of funny as their "superposition of states" was predicted by quantum mechanics anyway, so they should have intuited that they were both right !
Either
a) "Little bits of things" are particles and not waves
b) "Little bits of things" are waves and not particles
c) "Little bits of things" are waves and particles at the same time
or
c) "Little bits of things" are something else
Measurements shows that "little bits of things" are really "waves and particles" at the same time. Duality. What could be more illustrative of two seemingly opposite things being true at the same time? Hmm, maybe "little bits of things" are vibrating little strings? The string being like a particle and the wave being in place on the little string?
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Randomness
I couldn't follow all the logic of the theorem ... but then again I'm a bit tired and my mind wasn't fully on it. But there was a sentence in there that said something to the effect that things we can't predict may not be random, but rather controlled by a variable we can't see.
From a purely theological point of view -- and by that, I mean keeping with the concept of God's omniscience -- there is nothing truly, ultimately "random." That would mean it is beyond the understanding and control of God. Personally, I can't -- and don't desire to -- trust a God that is limited. The God I have come to understand through Scripture, and what small personal insights he has given me, is one who is unlimited.
Does God "play dice" with the universe? I don't believe so. I believe he knows exactly what's going on at every moment within every atom in the entire physical universe. That a God with that capacity for knowing would care about you or me personally is quite something to my mind.
I don't understand physics like you do. Talk of "strings" and "quarks" and such are just words. When it comes to God it doesn't really apply -- he created those things, he stands above those things, it is him who sustains the existence of those things. God is not dependent on quantum mechanics; quantum mechanics is dependent upon him.
Quite something to ponder, isn't it?
From a purely theological point of view -- and by that, I mean keeping with the concept of God's omniscience -- there is nothing truly, ultimately "random." That would mean it is beyond the understanding and control of God. Personally, I can't -- and don't desire to -- trust a God that is limited. The God I have come to understand through Scripture, and what small personal insights he has given me, is one who is unlimited.
Does God "play dice" with the universe? I don't believe so. I believe he knows exactly what's going on at every moment within every atom in the entire physical universe. That a God with that capacity for knowing would care about you or me personally is quite something to my mind.
I don't understand physics like you do. Talk of "strings" and "quarks" and such are just words. When it comes to God it doesn't really apply -- he created those things, he stands above those things, it is him who sustains the existence of those things. God is not dependent on quantum mechanics; quantum mechanics is dependent upon him.
Quite something to ponder, isn't it?
God and dice
Postulation: Randomness is a mathematical construct that is not found in the real world. (Whatever the real world is).
Why?
Because everything seems to be intrinsically connected. Two random events can and will happen at the same time. This was proved by an Irish physicist John Bell in 1965. Maybe the acceptance that "randomness" does not exist in the real world allows us to have a real world? For if randonmess truly exists, the world is not "real" until we look at it.
To see what I mean:
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html
One of his [Einstein's] objections was that "God does not play at dice with the universe." Bohr responded: "Quit telling God what to do!"
...
Einstein died many years ago, and so is not here to defend himself against claims of what he would or would not do today. Nonetheless, I tend to think that if he were alive today, Bell's theorem would force him to accept Quantum Mechanics.
David M Harrison
Question: Could it be that the dice of the Universe aren't "random" but are "loaded" in some fashion?
Why?
Because everything seems to be intrinsically connected. Two random events can and will happen at the same time. This was proved by an Irish physicist John Bell in 1965. Maybe the acceptance that "randomness" does not exist in the real world allows us to have a real world? For if randonmess truly exists, the world is not "real" until we look at it.
To see what I mean:
http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/BellsTheorem/BellsTheorem.html
One of his [Einstein's] objections was that "God does not play at dice with the universe." Bohr responded: "Quit telling God what to do!"
...
Einstein died many years ago, and so is not here to defend himself against claims of what he would or would not do today. Nonetheless, I tend to think that if he were alive today, Bell's theorem would force him to accept Quantum Mechanics.
David M Harrison
Question: Could it be that the dice of the Universe aren't "random" but are "loaded" in some fashion?
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
The Answer ...
... is this:
1 gallon [U.S.] of aviation gasolineis equal to
822,380,893,799,955,840,640,328,720.223808937999558e+26 electronvolt
That's a lot of electron volts. But one can't argue with facts.
All this and more fun can be had at: http://www.onlineconversion.com/Monday, October 24, 2005
Einstein didn't like it
Quantum mechanics that is.
Excerpt from latest book I'm reading, Brian Greene's "The Frabric of the Cosmos":
Einstein's viewpoint is very compelling. What could be more natural to expect a particle to be located at, or, at the very least, near to where it's found a moment later?
But Neils Bohr and the QM entourage disagreed, such reasoning they argued, is rooted in conventional thinking according to which each particle follows a definite path as it wanders to and fro.
But the two slit experiment shows us that particles act as waves, if they wandered about in some definite path then no interferance pattern would be seen (and one is seen).
The particle has a position in the usual sense only when we look at it. Rather contrary to what you would expect, the particle simply does not have a definite position before the measurement is taken.
This is a radically strange reality. In this view, when we measure the particles position we are not measuring an objective, pre-existing feature of reality. Rather, the act of measurement is deeply enmeshed in creating the very reality it is measuring.
Einstein never liked QM and over a period of years tried to discredit it with some neat thought experiments - all of which were refuted, the refutations being agreed to by Einstein. In the end Einstein had to admit that QM holds water but was never completely satisfied by it.
Reality used to be a friend of mine !
Excerpt from latest book I'm reading, Brian Greene's "The Frabric of the Cosmos":
Einstein's viewpoint is very compelling. What could be more natural to expect a particle to be located at, or, at the very least, near to where it's found a moment later?
But Neils Bohr and the QM entourage disagreed, such reasoning they argued, is rooted in conventional thinking according to which each particle follows a definite path as it wanders to and fro.
But the two slit experiment shows us that particles act as waves, if they wandered about in some definite path then no interferance pattern would be seen (and one is seen).
The particle has a position in the usual sense only when we look at it. Rather contrary to what you would expect, the particle simply does not have a definite position before the measurement is taken.
This is a radically strange reality. In this view, when we measure the particles position we are not measuring an objective, pre-existing feature of reality. Rather, the act of measurement is deeply enmeshed in creating the very reality it is measuring.
Einstein never liked QM and over a period of years tried to discredit it with some neat thought experiments - all of which were refuted, the refutations being agreed to by Einstein. In the end Einstein had to admit that QM holds water but was never completely satisfied by it.
Reality used to be a friend of mine !
Saturday, October 22, 2005
Absolute spacetime
The book I am reading ("The Fabric of the cosmos" - by Brian Greene) says that according to Einstein there is a scientific absolute truth. It's something called absolute spacetime. It is the same for all observers.
In normal 3D space two observers can measure an event differently, so to one observer runner A wins a race ahead of runner B, but to the other observer runner A and runner B tie (in the same race!) and both measurements are equally valid. This is a consequence of the Special Theory of Relativity and has been experimentally verified by setting clocks in motion through space and seeing them run slow compared to clocks that are "stationary" with respect to the clocks in motion.
So I am wondering if I have found the scientific absolute truth that I am looking for? I already said
Truth is relative to God
But now I am wondering if I can add
Truth is relative to absolute spacetime ?
In normal 3D space two observers can measure an event differently, so to one observer runner A wins a race ahead of runner B, but to the other observer runner A and runner B tie (in the same race!) and both measurements are equally valid. This is a consequence of the Special Theory of Relativity and has been experimentally verified by setting clocks in motion through space and seeing them run slow compared to clocks that are "stationary" with respect to the clocks in motion.
So I am wondering if I have found the scientific absolute truth that I am looking for? I already said
Truth is relative to God
But now I am wondering if I can add
Truth is relative to absolute spacetime ?
Friday, October 21, 2005
Objective reality?
You asked:
If reality didn't exist, would our discussing it create it?
I'd like to ask what you mean by reality in this statement?
I assume that you mean the way things really are. But this is circular logic. All that says is "reality is real". These are just words, there must be something more to it.
If I could rephrase the question as:
"If an absolute truth didn't exist, would our discussing it create it?"
This I don't know. Interesting question. I suppose not. By my definition an absolute truth would be agreed upon by all observers, and we haven't seen that yet. Or have we?
Let's postulate for a moment that an absolute truth could be a reality - something that doesn't require everyone to agree upon it, but still it is true nontheless.
I don't know how one could ever discern this type of truth - any ideas?
If reality didn't exist, would our discussing it create it?
I'd like to ask what you mean by reality in this statement?
I assume that you mean the way things really are. But this is circular logic. All that says is "reality is real". These are just words, there must be something more to it.
If I could rephrase the question as:
"If an absolute truth didn't exist, would our discussing it create it?"
This I don't know. Interesting question. I suppose not. By my definition an absolute truth would be agreed upon by all observers, and we haven't seen that yet. Or have we?
Let's postulate for a moment that an absolute truth could be a reality - something that doesn't require everyone to agree upon it, but still it is true nontheless.
I don't know how one could ever discern this type of truth - any ideas?
Monday, October 17, 2005
Serenity ... Emotions
I saw the movie "Serenity" last weekend. It was a pretty good science fiction thriller ... and for me that means it's not overburdened with loud noises and excessive action. I think the story line was ladened with various mysticisms ... River was somewhat mystical, there were overt references to Buddhism, and "the Shepherd" character (played by Ron Glass of "Barney Miller" fame) was a human portrayal of Jesus. Towards the end I was looking for the opening for "Serenity II" -- after all, a movie can't be made today without creating a plausible bridge to a sequel.
Speaking of sequels, I caught the last 1/2 hour of "Godfather II" on TV the other day. Wonderful.
* * *
You wrote:
* * *
Answer me this -- why is it people go nuts for the shopping experience here in the U.S.? Is it because of the prices, or the selection? I've been to the U.K. and elsewhere, and the stores seem as well-stocked as here. Taxes, perhaps?
* * *
My "Technical Leadership" thing was canceled. All that survey work for nuttin'. :-)
Speaking of sequels, I caught the last 1/2 hour of "Godfather II" on TV the other day. Wonderful.
* * *
You wrote:
"I think it's worth examining just why we have emotional needs, why we are looking for something."Theologians say it's because we were created to be in a relationship with our creator God, and by our fallen nature we are not in that relationship. That yearning -- that seeking something -- is a product of the emptiness created by the lack of relationship. I sense some validity to this, but I can't say I've worked out the "relationship with God" aspect of this yet.
* * *
Answer me this -- why is it people go nuts for the shopping experience here in the U.S.? Is it because of the prices, or the selection? I've been to the U.K. and elsewhere, and the stores seem as well-stocked as here. Taxes, perhaps?
* * *
My "Technical Leadership" thing was canceled. All that survey work for nuttin'. :-)
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Reality used to be a friend of mine
At Newark airport I picked up a book by Brian Greene called "The Fabric of the Cosmos". I will reserve judgement until I have actually read it but this snippet from the preface bodes well :-)
"And physicists such as myself are acutely aware that the reality we observe - matter evolving on the stage of space and time - may have little to do with the reality, if any, that's out there."
Figments again ? :-)
PS. After dropping 200 bucks in the outlet mall I went to see a film called SERENITY - great if you like mindlessly violent sci-fi.
PPS. They showed a trailer to a film called JARHEAD - nothing to do with java but about the young fellows that went to fight in Iraq. Looks a bit like Apocalypse Now.
"And physicists such as myself are acutely aware that the reality we observe - matter evolving on the stage of space and time - may have little to do with the reality, if any, that's out there."
Figments again ? :-)
PS. After dropping 200 bucks in the outlet mall I went to see a film called SERENITY - great if you like mindlessly violent sci-fi.
PPS. They showed a trailer to a film called JARHEAD - nothing to do with java but about the young fellows that went to fight in Iraq. Looks a bit like Apocalypse Now.
Survival of the most emotional
Minor problem in that my inflight entertainment was broken with no space to switch me to another seat so no movies :-( Got a flashy upgraded car for some reason (a soft top 2 door mustang) drives well but is a gas guzzler (and your gas over here is not as cheap as it used to be).
Fishkill hotel is really good - free wireless! Had breakfast with a Swedish colleague (he brought his golf clubs - he's a serious player) - we were going to play today but it's been raining for a week and the courses are either closed or waterlogged - if we find a suitable course we may play later, but in the meantime we are going shopping at 9.30am to local outlet mall http://www.premiumoutlets.com/outlets/store_listing.asp?id=7 - I have instructions to get a Quicksilver surfers necklace.
More evidence of folks with psychological neuroses turning to religion: there is an evangelist fella on the TV banging away about how he was a salesman 20 years and that money was his God. But that he felt lost and that he was looking for something. Then he found religion and he made Jesus his God and now he is much happier. I think that this is a common sales pitch for religion. I think it's worth examining just why we have emotional needs, why we are looking for something.
As I met my colleague for breakfast (he'd been there for 15mins already) he opened with "I had to come I work up early and was so hungry".
It occurred to me that we people get emotional about eating, the act of sustaining the machine (or failing to) can cause us an emotional reaction (pleasure or distress). It made me think that emotion is there for reasons of survival and could it be that if we analyzed every emotion that we are capable of experiencing (even the ones caused by the higher up needs), could we find some causal link to survival?
Thoughts Dr Maslow?
Fishkill hotel is really good - free wireless! Had breakfast with a Swedish colleague (he brought his golf clubs - he's a serious player) - we were going to play today but it's been raining for a week and the courses are either closed or waterlogged - if we find a suitable course we may play later, but in the meantime we are going shopping at 9.30am to local outlet mall http://www.premiumoutlets.com/outlets/store_listing.asp?id=7 - I have instructions to get a Quicksilver surfers necklace.
More evidence of folks with psychological neuroses turning to religion: there is an evangelist fella on the TV banging away about how he was a salesman 20 years and that money was his God. But that he felt lost and that he was looking for something. Then he found religion and he made Jesus his God and now he is much happier. I think that this is a common sales pitch for religion. I think it's worth examining just why we have emotional needs, why we are looking for something.
As I met my colleague for breakfast (he'd been there for 15mins already) he opened with "I had to come I work up early and was so hungry".
It occurred to me that we people get emotional about eating, the act of sustaining the machine (or failing to) can cause us an emotional reaction (pleasure or distress). It made me think that emotion is there for reasons of survival and could it be that if we analyzed every emotion that we are capable of experiencing (even the ones caused by the higher up needs), could we find some causal link to survival?
Thoughts Dr Maslow?
Saturday, October 15, 2005
A Patent on God?
I suspect our friend JAligner to be involved somewhere:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1013_051013_gene_patent.html
I'm travelling to sunny Poughkeepsie so may be out of pocket for a while, I'm not staying at the Courtyard which has the wireless but at some hotel in Fishkill (not the RI) - we shall see.
I'll drop my daughter off with her mother in two hours or so and then hit Heathrow for the 4pm Virgin flight to Newark. I need to find a good book.
I'm not sure why some folks feel that some part of them (the soul) has been around for aeons. Maybe it's some instinctual awareness of the vanishly small odds to be conscious and considering the origin of one's soul within a few years of the creation date of ones soul? Wow what a coincidence when one could have been pondering on this - say 3 or 4 trillion years in.
Remember the "pi" analogy? It's so amazing that all our discussion so far has taken place to the left of the decimal point. Highly highly unlikely, unless there almost as many digits to the left of the decimal point (the analogy being that the soul has been around for ages).
Take care buddy.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1013_051013_gene_patent.html
I'm travelling to sunny Poughkeepsie so may be out of pocket for a while, I'm not staying at the Courtyard which has the wireless but at some hotel in Fishkill (not the RI) - we shall see.
I'll drop my daughter off with her mother in two hours or so and then hit Heathrow for the 4pm Virgin flight to Newark. I need to find a good book.
I'm not sure why some folks feel that some part of them (the soul) has been around for aeons. Maybe it's some instinctual awareness of the vanishly small odds to be conscious and considering the origin of one's soul within a few years of the creation date of ones soul? Wow what a coincidence when one could have been pondering on this - say 3 or 4 trillion years in.
Remember the "pi" analogy? It's so amazing that all our discussion so far has taken place to the left of the decimal point. Highly highly unlikely, unless there almost as many digits to the left of the decimal point (the analogy being that the soul has been around for ages).
Take care buddy.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Memories
I don't remember anything prior to my birth either. But then again, I don't remember anything up until about age 4.
I wonder why it's often thought our "souls" pre-existed our birth. Why does that have to be? I think we say, with a fair degree of certainty if the Bible is our source of guidance on this, that our souls are not eternal like God himself is eternal. We must have been created at some point. Why "a long time ago" vs. "at the moment of birth" or "at the moment of conception?"
I wonder why it's often thought our "souls" pre-existed our birth. Why does that have to be? I think we say, with a fair degree of certainty if the Bible is our source of guidance on this, that our souls are not eternal like God himself is eternal. We must have been created at some point. Why "a long time ago" vs. "at the moment of birth" or "at the moment of conception?"
Elvis Presley
Sorry about the random append title.
JAligner - Oh man that is funny!
I never heard of this Smith-Waterman algorithm but a quick google seems that it is trying to compare two parts of a genome and say "Hey look! These two parts look similar!" If the two parts look similar enough they are said to be "aligned". JAligner appears to be some computer implementation written in java of said algorithm.
The genome is just a sequence of chemical bases right? A,C,G,T but lets call them 0,1,2,3. Hey the human genome is a quaternery (as opposed to binary 101001010101011101000101 ..) system!
So if you can find a set of "0123"'s (in any order) that look similar you are aligned pal.
hey these look similar ..
01131323210010203000213203221001312120000212131021301210100312113112123201
and
01131323210010203000213203221001312121000212131021301210100312113112123201
yep! See what JAligner makes of that. Now can you cure my cancer please?
But I can assure you that the maths folks that thought this stuff up don't really like all the obtuse language around their algorithms but they have to use it as it expected of them, and justifies the fact that they are smart and you are not. They have convinced themselves that such rhetoric (and it is rhetoric) is necessary for accuracy. But really everyone is saying "God what a supercilious bunch of hoey where is the local bar - pass me my beer Norm!" for sure.
You questioned:
My thoughts, my hopes, my dreams, my awareness -- are they bounded by the physical?
I suspect so. Why? Taking my own case. I can't recall what my dreams, awareness, thoughts or hopes were on Monday 12th April 1205 at all (and it was a Monday so please don't bother to check!)
In fact, I cannot recall anything before I had a physical brain. So I must infer that there was nothing, I cannot prove it, but that is what the available evidence suggests to me. So yes, I suspect all of those things are bounded by the physical. If the soul exists, and I believe that it does, through no evidence other than what is in a book (The Bible) then I suspect it was created at sometime during my physical existence or created at the start of my physical existence. Once created, my soul is eternal and will spend the majority of it's time in Heaven or Hell. This is what The Bible is telling me I think and I made the choice to believe that.
Is there a "reality" beyond the physical?
I believe that there is, Heaven and Hell for instance. I have no evidence for this but I have chosen to believe it nontheless.
Nirvana - Heart Shaped Box (coz I like it)
She eyes me like a pisces when I am weak
I've been locked inside your Heart-Shaped box for weeks
I've been drawn into your magnet tar pit trap
I wish I could eat your cancer when you turn black
Hey! Wait!
I got a new complaint
Forever in debt to your priceless advice
Meat-eating orchids forgive no one just yet
Cut myself on Angel's Hair and baby's breath
Broken Hymen of your highness I'm left black
Throw down your umbilical noose so I can climb right back
Hey! Wait!
I got a new complaint
Forever in debt to your priceless advice
Your advice
JAligner - Oh man that is funny!
I never heard of this Smith-Waterman algorithm but a quick google seems that it is trying to compare two parts of a genome and say "Hey look! These two parts look similar!" If the two parts look similar enough they are said to be "aligned". JAligner appears to be some computer implementation written in java of said algorithm.
The genome is just a sequence of chemical bases right? A,C,G,T but lets call them 0,1,2,3. Hey the human genome is a quaternery (as opposed to binary 101001010101011101000101 ..) system!
So if you can find a set of "0123"'s (in any order) that look similar you are aligned pal.
hey these look similar ..
01131323210010203000213203221001312120000212131021301210100312113112123201
and
01131323210010203000213203221001312121000212131021301210100312113112123201
yep! See what JAligner makes of that. Now can you cure my cancer please?
But I can assure you that the maths folks that thought this stuff up don't really like all the obtuse language around their algorithms but they have to use it as it expected of them, and justifies the fact that they are smart and you are not. They have convinced themselves that such rhetoric (and it is rhetoric) is necessary for accuracy. But really everyone is saying "God what a supercilious bunch of hoey where is the local bar - pass me my beer Norm!" for sure.
You questioned:
My thoughts, my hopes, my dreams, my awareness -- are they bounded by the physical?
I suspect so. Why? Taking my own case. I can't recall what my dreams, awareness, thoughts or hopes were on Monday 12th April 1205 at all (and it was a Monday so please don't bother to check!)
In fact, I cannot recall anything before I had a physical brain. So I must infer that there was nothing, I cannot prove it, but that is what the available evidence suggests to me. So yes, I suspect all of those things are bounded by the physical. If the soul exists, and I believe that it does, through no evidence other than what is in a book (The Bible) then I suspect it was created at sometime during my physical existence or created at the start of my physical existence. Once created, my soul is eternal and will spend the majority of it's time in Heaven or Hell. This is what The Bible is telling me I think and I made the choice to believe that.
Is there a "reality" beyond the physical?
I believe that there is, Heaven and Hell for instance. I have no evidence for this but I have chosen to believe it nontheless.
Nirvana - Heart Shaped Box (coz I like it)
She eyes me like a pisces when I am weak
I've been locked inside your Heart-Shaped box for weeks
I've been drawn into your magnet tar pit trap
I wish I could eat your cancer when you turn black
Hey! Wait!
I got a new complaint
Forever in debt to your priceless advice
Meat-eating orchids forgive no one just yet
Cut myself on Angel's Hair and baby's breath
Broken Hymen of your highness I'm left black
Throw down your umbilical noose so I can climb right back
Hey! Wait!
I got a new complaint
Forever in debt to your priceless advice
Your advice
Huh?
From the web, earlier today:
JAligner ... is an open source Java implementation of the Smith-Waterman algorithm with Gotoh's improvement for biological local pairwise sequence alignment using the affine gap penalty model.
Ouch.
Is the stone all there is?
It seems our discussion of reality has been bounded by the physical. So now I'd like to explore whether the physical is all there is, specifically --
- My thoughts, my hopes, my dreams, my awareness -- are they bounded by the physical?
- Is there a "reality" beyond the physical?
The microphone is yours. Sing, baby ... sing.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
There is no stone
I recall when I was in the 6th form at school (aged 16 or s0) our computer science teacher Mr Ramjee saying that if you drop a stone it has to travel half way to the floor before it gets there, then it has to travel half that distance again, then half that, then half that, how does it ever hit the floor? I think he was trying to explain logic. Then he came out with the answer:
"An infinite number of steps can take place in a finite time"
And I immediately knew that this was incorrect. I didn't tell him of course, I was probably dreaming about taking Nancy to the prom (except that we don't really have girls called Nancy and we certainly don't have proms over here).
I knew instinctively that the stone was not some euclidean point and I knew that the stone never really did hit the ground. I knew that the wave functions of the electron shells in the stone came to some probabalistic agreement with the wave functions of the electron shells in the floor about roughly where in spacetime they would put their world lines. They'd do that governed by an amount of uncertainty. It's the uncertainty that gives us relief from the illogic of:
"An infinite number of steps can take place in a finite time"
And lets the world work. If you look closely the world isn't really here. There is no stone.
"An infinite number of steps can take place in a finite time"
And I immediately knew that this was incorrect. I didn't tell him of course, I was probably dreaming about taking Nancy to the prom (except that we don't really have girls called Nancy and we certainly don't have proms over here).
I knew instinctively that the stone was not some euclidean point and I knew that the stone never really did hit the ground. I knew that the wave functions of the electron shells in the stone came to some probabalistic agreement with the wave functions of the electron shells in the floor about roughly where in spacetime they would put their world lines. They'd do that governed by an amount of uncertainty. It's the uncertainty that gives us relief from the illogic of:
"An infinite number of steps can take place in a finite time"
And lets the world work. If you look closely the world isn't really here. There is no stone.
10th Grade
I recall vividly the moment I finally "got" the concept of geometric proofs. I struggled for well near a semester because I could not see the purpose of theorems and such ... to me it was just rote memorization of things that I couldn't apply.
Then it dawned on me, like a flash. Ah ... things taken as self-evidently true can be chained to form an irrefutable conclusion. My world made sense.
Then you come along ... suddenly, what was real is no longer real. I don't exist, unless you're consciously aware. But if I'm not conscious, then you can't exist to be conscious so I can exist ...
I recall a science show on TV, years ago, in which some geek physicist was talking about how a stone dropped will travel half the distance to the earth, then half again, and again ... until the energy it takes to measure the smallest of time increments would form a black hole.
What's up with you science guys, anyway? :-)
Then it dawned on me, like a flash. Ah ... things taken as self-evidently true can be chained to form an irrefutable conclusion. My world made sense.
Then you come along ... suddenly, what was real is no longer real. I don't exist, unless you're consciously aware. But if I'm not conscious, then you can't exist to be conscious so I can exist ...
I recall a science show on TV, years ago, in which some geek physicist was talking about how a stone dropped will travel half the distance to the earth, then half again, and again ... until the energy it takes to measure the smallest of time increments would form a black hole.
What's up with you science guys, anyway? :-)
You want proof? You can't handle the proof!
What does proof look like to you? Has anything -- ever -- been proven? Or is everything open to ultimate skepticism because reality is not real?
In reading back what I just wrote, it occurs to me I have two options going forward:
In reading back what I just wrote, it occurs to me I have two options going forward:
- Grow a goatee, wear a beret, recite poetry and start smoking weed, or
- Be afraid ... very afraid
:-)
The Power of Mathematics
You wrote:
"How do you know the particle was actually in two different places at the same time? How do you know that it didn't just appear to be in two difference places at one time?"
I don't know. I just know that the maths predicts it.
Nobody really knew that time went slower the faster you travelled. Still, they knew that Einsteins maths predicted such a phenomenon.
Then one day we got smart enough to synchronize two very accurate clocks. Then we put one in orbit (going really fast!) Then after a while we compared their times and the one in orbit was lagging.
Maths predicts.
You wrote:
"That's a bold assertion."
Clearly! But can it be disproved?
I really appreciate your help today - thanks buddy!
"How do you know the particle was actually in two different places at the same time? How do you know that it didn't just appear to be in two difference places at one time?"
I don't know. I just know that the maths predicts it.
Nobody really knew that time went slower the faster you travelled. Still, they knew that Einsteins maths predicted such a phenomenon.
Then one day we got smart enough to synchronize two very accurate clocks. Then we put one in orbit (going really fast!) Then after a while we compared their times and the one in orbit was lagging.
Maths predicts.
You wrote:
"That's a bold assertion."
Clearly! But can it be disproved?
I really appreciate your help today - thanks buddy!
House of Cards ... and I'm holding a Full House, Aces High
You wrote:
The questions you raise get to the ultimate of all fundamental questions -- even more fundamental than "What is life?" -- and that question is: "What is reality?" Or, stated slightly differently, "What is existence?"
We can't say that existence is dependent upon physical matter. I have thoughts in my head that are definitely real (to me), but are not, so far as I know, comprised of molecules in my head ... except, perhaps, as it relates to the molecular structure of my brain neurons and the chemicals that provide communications between them.
You asserted:
Does that mean that God himself ceases to exist?
Would that then imply that God himself is simply a "created reality?"
You need help, friend. Here's my prescription for you:
If there were no such phenomenon as a particle being in two different places at the same time then I would not be getting hung up on this at all.How do you know the particle was actually in two different places at the same time? How do you know that it didn't just appear to be in two difference places at one time?
The questions you raise get to the ultimate of all fundamental questions -- even more fundamental than "What is life?" -- and that question is: "What is reality?" Or, stated slightly differently, "What is existence?"
We can't say that existence is dependent upon physical matter. I have thoughts in my head that are definitely real (to me), but are not, so far as I know, comprised of molecules in my head ... except, perhaps, as it relates to the molecular structure of my brain neurons and the chemicals that provide communications between them.
You asserted:
The Universe did not exist before "I" became conscious and it will not exist after I lose consciousness.That's a bold assertion. That means that I will cease to exist after you lose consciousness, as will you when I depart that realm. It means that each day, when someone dies, everything ceases to exist.
Does that mean that God himself ceases to exist?
Would that then imply that God himself is simply a "created reality?"
You need help, friend. Here's my prescription for you:
- Get a six pack of Guinness
- Put "Holy Grail" in the DVD
- Ponder how one would cut down the tallest tree with ... a herring!
It beats pondering the reality of reality, I'll tell you that.
Hobbits
Getting back to "reality" .. what do you think about these small bones?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/10/11/hobbit.jaw.ap/index.html
Seems like there could be lots of explanations for them, I'm wondering if they were descended from Adam and Eve?
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/10/11/hobbit.jaw.ap/index.html
Seems like there could be lots of explanations for them, I'm wondering if they were descended from Adam and Eve?
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
A House of Cards
You asked:
Question: before mankind could prove, through scientific experimentation and observation, that the planet Neptune existed ... did it exist? Or did it come into existence only when there was agreement that it existed?
I'm seriously wondering whether it did or not - I do not know.
I guess that I'm questioning "If A then A". Why? Because looking at "the nature of reality" one gets a hint that it needs questioned. If there were no such phenomenon as a particle being in two different places at the same time then I would not be getting hung up on this at all.
This is all linked to "We create our own realities".
Assertion:
The Universe did not exist before "I" became conscious and it will not exist after I lose consciousness.
How can "I" disprove that?
The terms "We" and "I" need defined I guess.
Question: before mankind could prove, through scientific experimentation and observation, that the planet Neptune existed ... did it exist? Or did it come into existence only when there was agreement that it existed?
I'm seriously wondering whether it did or not - I do not know.
I guess that I'm questioning "If A then A". Why? Because looking at "the nature of reality" one gets a hint that it needs questioned. If there were no such phenomenon as a particle being in two different places at the same time then I would not be getting hung up on this at all.
This is all linked to "We create our own realities".
Assertion:
The Universe did not exist before "I" became conscious and it will not exist after I lose consciousness.
How can "I" disprove that?
The terms "We" and "I" need defined I guess.
Facts and Truth
I wrote:
Let's take your game show example. There are really two things going on there:
As I've stated before, the existence of God either is or is not, and whether it's measured and agreed upon by all observers has no bearing on it at all.You wrote:
How do you know that? Is it obvious? A bit like time being constant is obvious regardless of your velocity (which it is not). Is it so because you stated it?I know that because the assertion I'm making has nothing whatever to do with the reality of God's existence, or his nature, or any notion of agreement. My assertion is a very simple logical statement:
If A, then A.If that can be refuted, I'd like to understand how. Knocking down the premise ("If A") does not count -- I'll agree that's a perfectly valid form of logical argument. But I'm not arguing for the validity of the premise. I'm saying, "Assume the premise for the sake of argument. Therefore ..." Refute my conclusion, given the premise.
Let's take your game show example. There are really two things going on there:
- The chance (probability) of picking the door behind which the car resides
- The reality of where the car actually resides
The location of the car doesn't change, regardless of the decision made by the contestant.
And that's all I've been saying about God. I'm not asserting his existence. I'm not stating it as fact, nor saying it's the capital-T-Truth. I'm simply saying that his existence is not dependent on other things. The car's existence behind one of the doors was not dependant upon the decision made by the contestant.
Question: before mankind could prove, through scientific experimentation and observation, that the planet Neptune existed ... did it exist? Or did it come into existence only when there was agreement that it existed?
Flat Tyre
That's TYRE not Truth Is Relative Eventually (TIRE).
It just occured to me when reading your response, that what we all do is construct our own realities.
The job of the scientist has always been to try to find out what is really going on.
You wrote:
As I've stated before, the existence of God either is or is not, and whether it's measured and agreed upon by all observers has no bearing on it at all.
How do you know that? Is it obvious? A bit like time being constant is obvious regardless of your velocity (which it is not). Is it so because you stated it?
You wrote:
Your first bullet and your second bullet contradict one another. In your first bullet you assume the constancy and reality of the speed of light
That's not correct - I don't assume the constancy of c at all - I state that no-one has ever measured it to be other than the constant that everyone has measured it to be.
You wrote:
In your second bullet you assume that the existence of God is dependent upon an agreement as to the definition and nature of God.
That's not correct - I don't assume the existence of God is dependent upon an agreement, I said that we cannot state as a fact that God exists.
You wrote:
By that logic, then, if I bring together a group of people who believe the speed of light is something different, then the "fact" of the speed of light is no longer true.
I kind of agree with you here - it could mean that the small group has faulty equipment, or that they sense things in a different way. If it's the latter then we're not going to get agreement. For people to agree upon facts I agree that they need the same sensory equipment and they need to be logical and rational. Thus my woefully belated realization that we all create our own realities as we all have slightly different sensory equipment.
Throughout my argument you will notice that I do not connect the word "fact" and "true" as you did.
And how can two people be standing next to eachother and be asked to pick a door with a car behind it and one has a 66% chance of winning a car and the other a 50% chance? How can this possibly be?
Two doors
Same question
No-one has seen behind the doors
Same universe?
I can't fathom what it is going on but somehow it is important. If numbers run the Universe then all sorts of weird things are possible - just because the mathematics allows them to be possible. All good news for an Omnipotent Diety I feel.
It just occured to me when reading your response, that what we all do is construct our own realities.
The job of the scientist has always been to try to find out what is really going on.
You wrote:
As I've stated before, the existence of God either is or is not, and whether it's measured and agreed upon by all observers has no bearing on it at all.
How do you know that? Is it obvious? A bit like time being constant is obvious regardless of your velocity (which it is not). Is it so because you stated it?
You wrote:
Your first bullet and your second bullet contradict one another. In your first bullet you assume the constancy and reality of the speed of light
That's not correct - I don't assume the constancy of c at all - I state that no-one has ever measured it to be other than the constant that everyone has measured it to be.
You wrote:
In your second bullet you assume that the existence of God is dependent upon an agreement as to the definition and nature of God.
That's not correct - I don't assume the existence of God is dependent upon an agreement, I said that we cannot state as a fact that God exists.
You wrote:
By that logic, then, if I bring together a group of people who believe the speed of light is something different, then the "fact" of the speed of light is no longer true.
I kind of agree with you here - it could mean that the small group has faulty equipment, or that they sense things in a different way. If it's the latter then we're not going to get agreement. For people to agree upon facts I agree that they need the same sensory equipment and they need to be logical and rational. Thus my woefully belated realization that we all create our own realities as we all have slightly different sensory equipment.
Throughout my argument you will notice that I do not connect the word "fact" and "true" as you did.
And how can two people be standing next to eachother and be asked to pick a door with a car behind it and one has a 66% chance of winning a car and the other a 50% chance? How can this possibly be?
Two doors
Same question
No-one has seen behind the doors
Same universe?
I can't fathom what it is going on but somehow it is important. If numbers run the Universe then all sorts of weird things are possible - just because the mathematics allows them to be possible. All good news for an Omnipotent Diety I feel.
Confusing Belief with Reality
Ah, now I must disagree with you, good sir, and do so in a most strident fashion!
You wrote:
You wrote:
Christians say that the existence of YHWH is a fact. I'm being picky I know, but it's not a fact until it is measured and agreed upon by all observers.
Perhaps we're arguing over semantics. As I've stated before, the existence of God either is or is not, and whether it's measured and agreed upon by all observers has no bearing on it at all. If tomorrow everyone agreed God did not exist, that agreement would not change God's existence. If he is, he would continue to be.
However, if what you meant by the use of the word "fact" is simply to mean "agreement to an assertion," then yes -- it would require agreement by all observers. But fact used in that sense and reality are not the same thing.
You wrote:
In a vacuum light travels at 186,000 miles per second. This is a fact. It has never deviated from this speed in vacuo no matter what the religious belief of the observer is.
Well, more precisely, 186,282 miles per second, but let's not get distracted. I agree, that is a fact -- the velocity of light in a vacuum is a natural constant. It is reality. The number applied is somewhat arbitrary since "mile" and "second" are manmade things. But nevertheless, if I and a group of others used tools of our own to measure that and all agreed that the number was 300,000 quatloos per bing-bong, it would not change the actual natural constant that is the velocity of light in a vacuum.
Your first bullet and your second bullet contradict one another. In your first bullet you assume the constancy and reality of the speed of light. In your second bullet you assume that the existence of God is dependent upon an agreement as to the definition and nature of God. By that logic, then, if I bring together a group of people who believe the speed of light is something different, then the "fact" of the speed of light is no longer true.
Again, I cycle back -- the existence of God ... not our beliefs about him or what we call him or what we think of him or feel about him -- but the very existence of God either is or is not.
Now, getting to your point about quantum mechanics and your attempt to apply that to the existence of God. Three points:
- God is not physical matter, but pure Spirit. He stands above, beyond and outside things like quantum mechanics.
- He created quantum mechanics; he is not a product of it.
- God is not created himself; he is and always was. All that is he created ex nihilo, out of nothing. "In the beginning God created ..." (Genesis 1:1)
We can debate about all three of those points. Heck, we can even argue about whether God exists or not. But my original point, which is truly unassailable, is simply this: if God exists, then he exists. That is simply if A, then A.
Superposition of states
I'm escaping here briefly from an irate teutonic customer ! We covered superposition of states right?
You wrote:
"...... God's existence either is or is not. ..."
Quantum Mechanics gives us a third option, "is", "is not" and "is and is not".
This third state cannot be ignored just because we don't experience it in every day life. Well I guess it can. Just like a driver can ignore the workings of a car engine and still drive it. But that third state appears to be what is happening in this Universe. Maybe we just got the math wrong and it doesn't really exist?
You wrote:
"...... God's existence either is or is not. ..."
Quantum Mechanics gives us a third option, "is", "is not" and "is and is not".
This third state cannot be ignored just because we don't experience it in every day life. Well I guess it can. Just like a driver can ignore the workings of a car engine and still drive it. But that third state appears to be what is happening in this Universe. Maybe we just got the math wrong and it doesn't really exist?
Facts just twist the truth
You wrote:
"...... God's existence either is or is not. But if it is, it is. And our inability to measure him plays no role in that reality."
Ok I will give you three examples of "a fact".
Measurement effects reality in a very real way - take the following example, (I think you know this one):
You're a game show contestant and you want to win a car which is hidden behind one of three doors
The game show host asks you to choose a door, you pick door 3 (for example, you could have picked any door)
Then door number 2 is removed so just doors 1 and 3 are left.
The gameshow host asks you if you wish to change doors.
Question: to maximise your chance of winning the car should you:
a) stick to your original door (door 3 in this example)?
b) change doors (so select door 1 instead in this example)?
c) it's doesn't matter, both doors have a 50% chance of winning the car?
Now I will tell you if you were not the game show contestant, but someone who walked in off the street when there were only two doors there and asked to choose, then it would not matter, each door would have a 50% chance to you.
But to the original game show contestant this is not the case. This is how measurement affects the reality of two people standing next to eachother. One has measured, and gained some information that the other has not. So their worlds are very different. The latters inability to measure something changes his reality, as compared to the former. Truth is relative.
Maybe:
"...... And our inability to measure him plays no role in that reality."
Is not the case? I don't know. In any case I choose to believe, I don't like playing devils advocate either.
"...... God's existence either is or is not. But if it is, it is. And our inability to measure him plays no role in that reality."
Ok I will give you three examples of "a fact".
- In a vacuum light travels at 186,000 miles per second. This is a fact. It has never deviated from this speed in vacuo no matter what the religious belief of the observer is.
- Christians say that the existence of YHWH is a fact. I'm being picky I know, but it's not a fact until it is measured and agreed upon by all observers. The existence of YHWH is only a fact when you consider the set of observers in your local church or the set of all Christians, but as soon as you include non-Christians into the set it no longer becomes a fact it becomes a belief held by a subset of the population.
- My imaginary friend on the Unicorn is "a fact" to me and no-one else but me believes in him, except maybe you :-)
Measurement effects reality in a very real way - take the following example, (I think you know this one):
You're a game show contestant and you want to win a car which is hidden behind one of three doors
The game show host asks you to choose a door, you pick door 3 (for example, you could have picked any door)
Then door number 2 is removed so just doors 1 and 3 are left.
The gameshow host asks you if you wish to change doors.
Question: to maximise your chance of winning the car should you:
a) stick to your original door (door 3 in this example)?
b) change doors (so select door 1 instead in this example)?
c) it's doesn't matter, both doors have a 50% chance of winning the car?
Now I will tell you if you were not the game show contestant, but someone who walked in off the street when there were only two doors there and asked to choose, then it would not matter, each door would have a 50% chance to you.
But to the original game show contestant this is not the case. This is how measurement affects the reality of two people standing next to eachother. One has measured, and gained some information that the other has not. So their worlds are very different. The latters inability to measure something changes his reality, as compared to the former. Truth is relative.
Maybe:
"...... And our inability to measure him plays no role in that reality."
Is not the case? I don't know. In any case I choose to believe, I don't like playing devils advocate either.
Monday, October 10, 2005
Measuring Reality
I would disagree with Mr. Schrödinger regarding "how unreal everything is unless it is measured." The love you have for your daughter is quite real, and quite unmeasurable. It can be described; it can be favorable compared to your affection for other things; but it can't be quantified or measured.
So it is with God himself. He can't be measured -- not only because he is Spirit, but also because he is infinite. Our inability to measure God does not change the reality of God. That is not to say I have just proven the reality of God ... God's existence either is or is not. But if it is, it is. And our inability to measure him plays no role in that reality.
Even in the realm of physical science, that standard falls down. We have never "measured" a black hole. We have simply drawn inferences from other measurements. That is like saying that the love you have for K is "measured" by your pulse rate when she is near, or a CAT scan of brain activity when pictures of her appear before your eyes.
I'll give you 200 quatloos for the stone!
So it is with God himself. He can't be measured -- not only because he is Spirit, but also because he is infinite. Our inability to measure God does not change the reality of God. That is not to say I have just proven the reality of God ... God's existence either is or is not. But if it is, it is. And our inability to measure him plays no role in that reality.
Even in the realm of physical science, that standard falls down. We have never "measured" a black hole. We have simply drawn inferences from other measurements. That is like saying that the love you have for K is "measured" by your pulse rate when she is near, or a CAT scan of brain activity when pictures of her appear before your eyes.
I'll give you 200 quatloos for the stone!
Schrödinger's Cat
Question: does the inability to prove the existence of the gold ring affect the reality of the gold ring?
Yes.
Question: Is there such a thing as "reality" without measurement?
Erwin Schrödinger came up with a thought experiment to prove the absurdity of connecting small events to large events. But in the process ended up showing us how unreal everything is unless it is measured. I won't go into the specifics of the experiment because I know that you know them.
I believe that the ring is there by the way. Let's start a bidding war for the stone?!
Yes.
Question: Is there such a thing as "reality" without measurement?
Erwin Schrödinger came up with a thought experiment to prove the absurdity of connecting small events to large events. But in the process ended up showing us how unreal everything is unless it is measured. I won't go into the specifics of the experiment because I know that you know them.
I believe that the ring is there by the way. Let's start a bidding war for the stone?!
Unproven Reality
There sits a box. It is sealed tight. Rumor has it inside the box there is a gold ring. But nobody knows for certain because the box can't be opened. Therefore, the existence of the ring can't be proven.
Question: does the inability to prove the existence of the gold ring affect the reality of the gold ring?
* * *
I want that petroglyph. $1.9M is what I had earmarked for retirement, but who needs creature comforts when I can have a hunk-o-clay with a fish etched on it. Sobering. :-)
Question: does the inability to prove the existence of the gold ring affect the reality of the gold ring?
* * *
I want that petroglyph. $1.9M is what I had earmarked for retirement, but who needs creature comforts when I can have a hunk-o-clay with a fish etched on it. Sobering. :-)
News from the asylum
http://cgi.ebay.com/Magic-Johnson-cup-with-image-of-Jesus-on-other-side_W0QQitemZ6214299216QQcategoryZ1447QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.com/The-Jesus-Petroglyph_W0QQitemZ5623058584QQcategoryZ1469QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
The last auction says "A sobering reminder to the fact: 'this physical evidence relates history, scripture and mythology to a genuine reality'!"
http://cgi.ebay.com/The-Jesus-Petroglyph_W0QQitemZ5623058584QQcategoryZ1469QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
The last auction says "A sobering reminder to the fact: 'this physical evidence relates history, scripture and mythology to a genuine reality'!"
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Virtual reality
My first post from a brand spanking new Lenovo T43p 2GB RAM Pentium 770 2.13ghz Dothan toting 60gb 7200rpm disk spinning dream machine. With fingerprint reader. The latter of which has already given my daughter an hour of pleasure with as she trained it to recognize her swipe to allow her to login to Windows ... "Just wait til I tell my friends at school!". Lol.
I really like that Patsy Cline song, so much so that I used to play it when I was DJ’ing in the early eighties. You know, a “you can go home now folks the lights are on type of song”.
You wrote:
“… does the word "neurosis" necessarily suggest something bad?”
Good question, I’ve always wondered what gives certain medical people their authority you know. What gives some doctor the right to label somebody as neurotic? A large percentage of doctors (>90%) seem completely useless at their jobs (but lovely people) in my opinion. What on earth do they spend their time doing in medical school these days? I will say that the few that are good are REALLY GOOD and God Bless ‘em. Anyhow the majority of doctors, useless as they are (at their jobs), are still well ahead of lawyers in the food chain. So I don't think that a neurosis is necessarily bad - as long as it does not make one unhappy all of the time.
I really think the world is better off on the whole due to religion. Although people will argue about all those that have died "in the name of" Religion, but when you look at it closely they usually actually died in the name of power (money, land, greed, etc – all the “best” human characteristics :-)), it’s just that the protagonists dressed it up with religion to legitimize their actions is some way.
You wrote:
“Consider: what would this world be like if tomorrow morning everyone -- and I mean everyone -- had a deep sense of conviction that there is no God, nothing beyond this life, and no chance of ever being held accountable by a higher power ... what would the world be like that day? After a week? After a year? The mind shudders. ”
Actually I think it would be ok. People would no longer be able to repent, they could no longer hang their sins upon the sky, and they would have to take real responsibility for their own actions. No more “God guided me to do this”. I lived my life for 38 years like this and never did anything mind shuddering that I can think of. Of course in this new world everyone would go to Hell so life after Earth would make the mind shudder I agree.
You wrote:
“Interesting how, after a century of breakneck achievements in science and technology, we are, in general, more apprehensive than ever.”
It is reported that when Robert Oppenheimer saw the first atomic explosion at Alamogordo a phrase from the Bhagavad-Gita glittered in his mind: "I am become Death, the shatterer of worlds ...” This apprehension will remain with us forever I guess.
You wrote:
“But I also maintain that my choice to do so doesn't change the reality of God and Jesus. They simply are. Our decision to believe or not believe doesn't change that.”
As usual you throw in a teaser! That’s very interesting, you use the phrase “the reality of God and Jesus” – this “reality” is what we have been talking about isn’t it? Perception, belief. What is the standard of proof for “reality?” In the case of Jesus The Holy Bible is obviously not enough for a great many religious and non-religious people alike.
How do you know that this reality -- “the reality of God and Jesus” -- is in fact real? I say “I don’t”. I say “I believe”.
I really like that Patsy Cline song, so much so that I used to play it when I was DJ’ing in the early eighties. You know, a “you can go home now folks the lights are on type of song”.
You wrote:
“… does the word "neurosis" necessarily suggest something bad?”
Good question, I’ve always wondered what gives certain medical people their authority you know. What gives some doctor the right to label somebody as neurotic? A large percentage of doctors (>90%) seem completely useless at their jobs (but lovely people) in my opinion. What on earth do they spend their time doing in medical school these days? I will say that the few that are good are REALLY GOOD and God Bless ‘em. Anyhow the majority of doctors, useless as they are (at their jobs), are still well ahead of lawyers in the food chain. So I don't think that a neurosis is necessarily bad - as long as it does not make one unhappy all of the time.
I really think the world is better off on the whole due to religion. Although people will argue about all those that have died "in the name of" Religion, but when you look at it closely they usually actually died in the name of power (money, land, greed, etc – all the “best” human characteristics :-)), it’s just that the protagonists dressed it up with religion to legitimize their actions is some way.
You wrote:
“Consider: what would this world be like if tomorrow morning everyone -- and I mean everyone -- had a deep sense of conviction that there is no God, nothing beyond this life, and no chance of ever being held accountable by a higher power ... what would the world be like that day? After a week? After a year? The mind shudders. ”
Actually I think it would be ok. People would no longer be able to repent, they could no longer hang their sins upon the sky, and they would have to take real responsibility for their own actions. No more “God guided me to do this”. I lived my life for 38 years like this and never did anything mind shuddering that I can think of. Of course in this new world everyone would go to Hell so life after Earth would make the mind shudder I agree.
You wrote:
“Interesting how, after a century of breakneck achievements in science and technology, we are, in general, more apprehensive than ever.”
It is reported that when Robert Oppenheimer saw the first atomic explosion at Alamogordo a phrase from the Bhagavad-Gita glittered in his mind: "I am become Death, the shatterer of worlds ...” This apprehension will remain with us forever I guess.
You wrote:
“But I also maintain that my choice to do so doesn't change the reality of God and Jesus. They simply are. Our decision to believe or not believe doesn't change that.”
As usual you throw in a teaser! That’s very interesting, you use the phrase “the reality of God and Jesus” – this “reality” is what we have been talking about isn’t it? Perception, belief. What is the standard of proof for “reality?” In the case of Jesus The Holy Bible is obviously not enough for a great many religious and non-religious people alike.
How do you know that this reality -- “the reality of God and Jesus” -- is in fact real? I say “I don’t”. I say “I believe”.
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Patsy Cline ...
... recorded the song, "Crazy." It is a wonderful song in the traditional of "old time" country. Her voice is simply perfect in this song. And, if my memory serves me, I think Willie Nelson wrote the lyrics to that song.
I know what you're getting at with the "neurosis" thing. The need to keep myself immersed in scripture, contemplation and prayer just to keep myself anywhere near serious about the Christian faith often makes me wonder if it's all not just a mind control thing. I'm not proud of those thoughts, but those are just the kind of thoughts one would expect from a man so deeply possessed by a galaxy of neurosis. :-)
This makes me think ... does the word "neurosis" necessarily suggest something bad? A great deal of good has been done in this world in the name of Christ. Yes, some bad as well ... just as an awful lot of evil is being done in some perverted view of Islam. But on the whole I think it can be said the world is a better place because of Christianity. I suppose I could make that more generic ... because of religion.
Consider: what would this world be like if tomorrow morning everyone -- and I mean everyone -- had a deep sense of conviction that there is no God, nothing beyond this life, and no chance of ever being held accountable by a higher power ... what would the world be like that day? After a week? After a year?
The mind shudders.
Some say that the idea of a "God" is simply a manifestation of the mind to account for things they can't understand, or things they fear. They feel that with the advance of knowledge, the things not understood or feared is diminished. Interesting how, after a century of breakneck achievements in science and technology, we are, in general, more apprehensive than ever.
As you say, I choose to believe in God and Christ.
But I also maintain that my choice to do so doesn't change the reality of God and Jesus. They simply are. Our decision to believe or not believe doesn't change that.
Crazy ... I'm crazy for feelin' so lonely.
I'm crazy, crazy for feelin' so blue.
I knew you'd love me as long as you wanted
and then some day you'd leave me for somebody new.
Worry, why do I let myself worry
wondering what in the world did I do.
Crazy for thinking that my love could hold you.
I'm crazy for trying
and crazy for for crying
and I'm crazy for loving you.
Worry, why do I let myself worry
wonderin' what in the world did I do.
Crazy for thinking that my love could hold you.
I'm crazy for trying
and crazy for for crying
and I'm crazy for loving you.
I know what you're getting at with the "neurosis" thing. The need to keep myself immersed in scripture, contemplation and prayer just to keep myself anywhere near serious about the Christian faith often makes me wonder if it's all not just a mind control thing. I'm not proud of those thoughts, but those are just the kind of thoughts one would expect from a man so deeply possessed by a galaxy of neurosis. :-)
This makes me think ... does the word "neurosis" necessarily suggest something bad? A great deal of good has been done in this world in the name of Christ. Yes, some bad as well ... just as an awful lot of evil is being done in some perverted view of Islam. But on the whole I think it can be said the world is a better place because of Christianity. I suppose I could make that more generic ... because of religion.
Consider: what would this world be like if tomorrow morning everyone -- and I mean everyone -- had a deep sense of conviction that there is no God, nothing beyond this life, and no chance of ever being held accountable by a higher power ... what would the world be like that day? After a week? After a year?
The mind shudders.
Some say that the idea of a "God" is simply a manifestation of the mind to account for things they can't understand, or things they fear. They feel that with the advance of knowledge, the things not understood or feared is diminished. Interesting how, after a century of breakneck achievements in science and technology, we are, in general, more apprehensive than ever.
As you say, I choose to believe in God and Christ.
But I also maintain that my choice to do so doesn't change the reality of God and Jesus. They simply are. Our decision to believe or not believe doesn't change that.
Crazy ... I'm crazy for feelin' so lonely.
I'm crazy, crazy for feelin' so blue.
I knew you'd love me as long as you wanted
and then some day you'd leave me for somebody new.
Worry, why do I let myself worry
wondering what in the world did I do.
Crazy for thinking that my love could hold you.
I'm crazy for trying
and crazy for for crying
and I'm crazy for loving you.
Worry, why do I let myself worry
wonderin' what in the world did I do.
Crazy for thinking that my love could hold you.
I'm crazy for trying
and crazy for for crying
and I'm crazy for loving you.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Neurosis
neurosis
n : a mental or personality disturbance not attributable to any
known neurological or organic dysfunction
You asked me:
Are you suggesting that Faith in Christ is a "universal neurosis?"
I don't believe that it is. I choose to believe otherwise.
But it is an interesting hypothesis don't you think? I wouldn't personalize it to Jesus though, imagine a professor setting an essay for University students:
"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - discuss.
The evidence for a positive viewing of this hypothesis is (to me) at least three-fold, I have found many examples of the following:
1. People have come to religion through some major life event (illness, loss of loved one (often a parent when the religious devotee was very young)). Something that causes a mental disturbance.
2. Many people say "I'm so glad I found religion otherwise my mind would be in an awful state". (And I have snippets of Bagwell-on-the-blog saying just this).
3. Some are brainwashed into believing in whatever (Allah, Koresh, Moonies and dare I say it Jesus - etc)
Do you see the connections that I am making here? Again it's a numbers game, probability and statistics. What we choose to believe is affected by probability and statistics, it is a faith thing and therefore in the "mind" camp - belief in a superbeing that is unprovable (in this life) - could it be defined as a neurotic condition?
Perhaps a better question is "Is having faith in a religion the result of some sort of neurosis?"
Also take your original question:
Are you suggesting that Faith in Christ is a "universal neurosis?"
And let's say a positive answer to this was very bad, so one scores a zero for saying "yes".
Now change your original question to:
Are you suggesting that Faith in Allah is a "universal neurosis?"
Now is a positive answer to this new question just as bad (still a score = zero for saying "yes"?)
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Universal Neurosis?
You quoted Freud:
"Devout believers are safeguarded in a high degree against the risk of certain neurotic illnesses; their acceptance of the universal neurosis spares them the task of constructing a personal one."I stand on the edge of a deep and foreboding ravine, and I quiver. Dare I ask? I dare ...
A gentle wind blows up from the valley floor. I wait in silence for an answer to my question. What, pray tell, shall that answer be?Are you suggesting that Faith in Christ is a "universal neurosis?"
Blogcrawlers
That's what I am going to christen these bots that make comments to blogs. I can find 30 or so hits in Google for the word "blogcrawler" but none in this context so this is not plagiarism.
What a waste of bandwidth. Part of the human condition. It takes the same time to cross London by road today as it did in 1905.
What a waste of bandwidth. Part of the human condition. It takes the same time to cross London by road today as it did in 1905.
Happiness
Research shows that happier people are healthier, more successful, harder-working, caring and more socially engaged. Misery makes people self-obsessed and inactive.
These are the conclusions of a burgeoning happiness industry that has published 3,000 papers, set up a Journal of Happiness Studies and created a World Database of Happiness in the last few years
Once upon a time, Freud famously wrote:
"... the intention that man should be happy is not included in the plan of Creation"
(http://www.borntomotivate.com/FamousQuote_SigmundFreud.html)
On the same page he also says "Devout believers are safeguarded in a high degree against the risk of certain neurotic illnesses; their acceptance of the universal neurosis spares them the task of constructing a personal one." Excellent, this is one of the major benefits of religion to the individual that I see and something that I've been trying to verbalize for a long time, spot on. But that's another story.
:-)
+++
Five days ago my daughter and I watched William Shatner at a sci-fi convention here in the UK signing autographs. He was charging £25 ($40) a pop and doing 400/min - a fact which the organizers told me, along with the fact that £25 was great value - I did not get one however. 400*40 = errr, that's a tidy sum, and he was there for three days. He's a big fella, permanent smile, bon vivant, I could clearly see that he was Jim. I accept your conclusion that science is limited because of him!
These are the conclusions of a burgeoning happiness industry that has published 3,000 papers, set up a Journal of Happiness Studies and created a World Database of Happiness in the last few years
Once upon a time, Freud famously wrote:
"... the intention that man should be happy is not included in the plan of Creation"
(http://www.borntomotivate.com/FamousQuote_SigmundFreud.html)
On the same page he also says "Devout believers are safeguarded in a high degree against the risk of certain neurotic illnesses; their acceptance of the universal neurosis spares them the task of constructing a personal one." Excellent, this is one of the major benefits of religion to the individual that I see and something that I've been trying to verbalize for a long time, spot on. But that's another story.
:-)
+++
Five days ago my daughter and I watched William Shatner at a sci-fi convention here in the UK signing autographs. He was charging £25 ($40) a pop and doing 400/min - a fact which the organizers told me, along with the fact that £25 was great value - I did not get one however. 400*40 = errr, that's a tidy sum, and he was there for three days. He's a big fella, permanent smile, bon vivant, I could clearly see that he was Jim. I accept your conclusion that science is limited because of him!
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
The Limits of Science
It must have limits. Here's my proof. And you'll have to admit, this is pretty rock-solid proof.
- Think of the original "Star Trek" series
- Think of the voice over at the beginning of each episode. It was none other than William Shatner, also known as Captain Kirk
- Captain Kirk proved never wrong ... every episode he was vindicated
- Captain Kirk said, "Space ... the final frontier."
- "Final" is a word that suggests limits
- "Space" is all about science
- Remember, Captain Kirk is never wrong
Ergo ... space ("science") has a final ("limited") frontier.
Factor out "space," "has," "a," "final," and "frontier" and substitue in the word "is."
There you have it: "Science is limited."
Refute that, science boy! :-)
Does science have limits?
Currently scientists do not know how to observe what goes on at very small scales (inside Planck lengths). And scientists do not know if matter can travel faster than light (tachyons notwithstanding). Scientists do not know what (if anything) lies outside of the known Universe, and if there is anything outside of the known Universe should that be considered as part of this Universe. Scientists do not know how to look inside the event horizon of a black hole and to observe a singularity (if such things exist).
Will these things ever be known or does the scientific method have limits?
In these places could be great wonders and miracles that the scientific method could never say anything about.
Science has singularly failed to measure God, or the soul. Or Heaven or Hell. But there are places (see above) where science has yet to penetrate. Perhaps it never will.
Will these things ever be known or does the scientific method have limits?
In these places could be great wonders and miracles that the scientific method could never say anything about.
Science has singularly failed to measure God, or the soul. Or Heaven or Hell. But there are places (see above) where science has yet to penetrate. Perhaps it never will.
Persistent Scientific Inquiry
I thought you'd appreciate this:
The WSJ has a great editorial about the winners of this year's Nobel Prize for Medicine. It's for research over 20 years ago that postulated a link between peptic ulcers and bacteria. When first proposed, the scientific consensus was that ulcers were caused by lifestyle and so the Australian authors Marshall and Warren were ridiculed for their "preposterous" theory. Nevertheless, the scientific method of testing the hypothesis worked, and today, as a result, peptic ulcers are treated easily with antibiotics to the great relief of millions. As the Journal says, "It's an inspired choice -- and a useful reminder that just because there's a scientific 'consensus,' that doesn't mean it's true."
What you hold dear -- the scientific method -- bore fruit in this case. And bore fruit mostly because Marshall and Warren stuck to their guns.
* * *
Have you noticed we're getting more and more "comments?" They aren't real comments, they're robotic comments with thinly veiled SPAM. The monsters! They'll stop at nothing!
Monday, October 03, 2005
God and Grace
You wrote:
I cannot think that an intelligent person, with any understanding of probability and statistics, would not do this.
I'll confess to having pondered the "what-if" scenario: what if I'd been born Hindu in a town north of Delhi? Would I be a follower of Christ right now? Probably not.
I suspect that underlying your question is something that's troubling you. I could be wrong about this, but let me raise a question:
Is your concern here that some in the world, raised in a different culture, may not have the probability of coming to a Christian decision, and therefore face eternal damnation?
Am I right? Does that trouble you?
If so, then let me offer this comfort: God is free to extend Grace to whomever it pleases Him. To suggest that God needs us to do something -- profess faith, respond to an "alter call," raise my hand and shout "Amen" ... whatever -- limits God. This is how I respond when someone wonders whether an infant who dies is going to hell, just because they didn't have an opportunity to "come to Christ" in an overt way. The extension of Grace is not a transaction, not a quid pro quo. God is free to extend Grace to that infant as He sees fit.
Now, that said, I think there's a world of difference between a person who goes through their life a Hindu, let's say, being as kind and considerate as they can be towards others and in all other ways not really knowing the Gospel ... and someone who outright rejects Christ after being provided a good understanding of what the Gospel is.
I don't know any of this, of course. But it strikes me as likely wrong of contemporary fundamentalists who think that God is shackled in the extension of Grace because someone fails to utter some magic series of words, or is not fully immersed for 5.3 seconds in some baptismal pool.
But that's just me.
God Fights For What He Believes In
The title of this post is in relation to the driving out of the money changers.
++++
You wrote:
Does that suggest that a person like me should question my faith in Christ because I did not experience a life-long pressure to be Muslim?
I cannot think that an intelligent person, with any understanding of probability and statistics, would not do this.
++++
I know what you mean about having to compete tearing ones insides up. I don't like it. Perhaps the only time I am comfortable doing it is when I see others treating others as they themselves would not wish to be treated.
++++
You wrote:
Does that suggest that a person like me should question my faith in Christ because I did not experience a life-long pressure to be Muslim?
I cannot think that an intelligent person, with any understanding of probability and statistics, would not do this.
++++
I know what you mean about having to compete tearing ones insides up. I don't like it. Perhaps the only time I am comfortable doing it is when I see others treating others as they themselves would not wish to be treated.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
On Character
I think you mis-read my earlier post. What I was alluding to was that there is a part of me that does not conform itself well to obedience to Christ. It is not the essential part of me, but rather another part of me that is acting -- at the present -- to prevent me from become more naturally the person that I am essentially. I'm not beating myself about this other than to recognize it as fact and ask the Lord to reveal to me how to shed that part of me. I am grateful for God's conviction of my heart in this area ... truthfully, I am. He is working changes in me, and if those changes are at his guidance, they cannot be wrong.
* * *
Why is there competition? Why are there naysayers, and "I told you so" type people? I think, fundamentally, it is because these people continue to cling to their view that they are the rulers of their life. But if the Gospel is to be believed as True, we are called to abandon that and place God in that role. "Let God be God," as the saying goes. I know when I view myself as ruler of my world, I get competitive as a mechanism to preserve that role and expand -- or protect -- my domain. I would guess others do the same. Those who aggressively assert their own kingship display a cut-throat competitiveness in keeping with their aggressiveness. That's something I earnestly do not wish to be. This is why, incidentally, I want no part of being a manager. That role requires a certain competitiveness, and this I know: when I practice that competitiveness it runs counter to my very soul. I can do it, but it tears me apart from the inside.
* * *
Was Jesus competitive? I think not. His driving the money-changers from the Temple was, I think, an act of divine righteousness for the Glory of His Father. His anger -- if we can call it that -- was performed in perfect obedience to the Will of His Father. The thinking goes ... and I have a sense that this is correct ... is that Jesus could be trusted to display such righteous anger. But we, in our fallen nature, cannot. I know for me it is better I not pursue such anger. Beyond a point -- and the point is not far from initialization of the anger -- I lose control and a very dark part of me takes over. Very dark. Again, I can't be trusted with it. Better I not do it at all.
* * *
I'm not clear on what you're getting at regarding a person's decision to follow Christ. My point was that it is not something one "always was" or something one just "drifts into." Rather, it would seem to me, is something one should, ideally, come to intentionally and deliberately.
I think your point is that given the societal context it's not likely someone would arrive at a deliberate decision other than that prescribed by the pressure exerted. You may be right. I'm not sure what the alternative is. Does that suggest that a person like me should question my faith in Christ because I did not experience a life-long pressure to be Muslim?
* * *
I doubt I'm smarter than Willard, but I'll take your compliment. But again, my point was not that I'm tearing myself down because of Willard, but rather I feel I was led to Willard by God so that Willard could expose me to certain things about myself -- and in particular the depth of my commitment to Christ -- so that I might better submit myself to the Lord. I view that as a very, very good thing.
There is much about Willard that makes me a bit uncomfortable. He seems to paint word pictures that are unduly stark in their contrast. I suspect he does that to drive his point. Elsewhere he tempers that starkness and, taken as a whole, his view of the Christian faith is not that far removed from others I've invested confidence in.
Yes, the Lord has made me, and despite much of what I view as the brokenness of me I have a vague sense that God sees past that and has a better plan for me. What a wonderful sense that is. The first glimmer of what unconditional love is, what Grace is all about, is a striking thing.
Still, I feel compelled to seek God's face with a deeper sense of intent. I can attribute that to nothing else but God himself. After all, for several decades I was lost in sin, and from that he called me. Absent his call, I'd still be where I was, and perhaps on a more dismal trajectory.
It is, to me, an utterly fascinating (that word is too weak) thing -- the incomprehensible Glory of God balanced off against his clear call for me to approach him. Amazing. Utterly amazing.
I pray for humility and openness of heart.
Grace and peace, deep.thought.
* * *
Why is there competition? Why are there naysayers, and "I told you so" type people? I think, fundamentally, it is because these people continue to cling to their view that they are the rulers of their life. But if the Gospel is to be believed as True, we are called to abandon that and place God in that role. "Let God be God," as the saying goes. I know when I view myself as ruler of my world, I get competitive as a mechanism to preserve that role and expand -- or protect -- my domain. I would guess others do the same. Those who aggressively assert their own kingship display a cut-throat competitiveness in keeping with their aggressiveness. That's something I earnestly do not wish to be. This is why, incidentally, I want no part of being a manager. That role requires a certain competitiveness, and this I know: when I practice that competitiveness it runs counter to my very soul. I can do it, but it tears me apart from the inside.
* * *
Was Jesus competitive? I think not. His driving the money-changers from the Temple was, I think, an act of divine righteousness for the Glory of His Father. His anger -- if we can call it that -- was performed in perfect obedience to the Will of His Father. The thinking goes ... and I have a sense that this is correct ... is that Jesus could be trusted to display such righteous anger. But we, in our fallen nature, cannot. I know for me it is better I not pursue such anger. Beyond a point -- and the point is not far from initialization of the anger -- I lose control and a very dark part of me takes over. Very dark. Again, I can't be trusted with it. Better I not do it at all.
* * *
I'm not clear on what you're getting at regarding a person's decision to follow Christ. My point was that it is not something one "always was" or something one just "drifts into." Rather, it would seem to me, is something one should, ideally, come to intentionally and deliberately.
I think your point is that given the societal context it's not likely someone would arrive at a deliberate decision other than that prescribed by the pressure exerted. You may be right. I'm not sure what the alternative is. Does that suggest that a person like me should question my faith in Christ because I did not experience a life-long pressure to be Muslim?
* * *
I doubt I'm smarter than Willard, but I'll take your compliment. But again, my point was not that I'm tearing myself down because of Willard, but rather I feel I was led to Willard by God so that Willard could expose me to certain things about myself -- and in particular the depth of my commitment to Christ -- so that I might better submit myself to the Lord. I view that as a very, very good thing.
There is much about Willard that makes me a bit uncomfortable. He seems to paint word pictures that are unduly stark in their contrast. I suspect he does that to drive his point. Elsewhere he tempers that starkness and, taken as a whole, his view of the Christian faith is not that far removed from others I've invested confidence in.
Yes, the Lord has made me, and despite much of what I view as the brokenness of me I have a vague sense that God sees past that and has a better plan for me. What a wonderful sense that is. The first glimmer of what unconditional love is, what Grace is all about, is a striking thing.
Still, I feel compelled to seek God's face with a deeper sense of intent. I can attribute that to nothing else but God himself. After all, for several decades I was lost in sin, and from that he called me. Absent his call, I'd still be where I was, and perhaps on a more dismal trajectory.
It is, to me, an utterly fascinating (that word is too weak) thing -- the incomprehensible Glory of God balanced off against his clear call for me to approach him. Amazing. Utterly amazing.
I pray for humility and openness of heart.
Grace and peace, deep.thought.
Character
On your gentle heart - you are woeful over the fact that it sometimes:
"... manifests itself in ways not attractive ..."
I don't think that you are a mass murderer (he said hopefully) but if you feel like being a cantankerous old goat on occasion then no-one will judge you too harshly for it - the world is all the richer for characters.
I stopped beating myself up all the time a while ago. I know I'm not perfect but there are some even less perfect than me - they don't treat others how they themselves wish to be treated at all :-) One needs to meet some nastys in a while to realise that one isn't all that bad. Apart from being full of sin and fallen of course, which goes without saying.
++++
Competition again. Why do humans fight? Why is the phrase "you fought well" between humans acceptable? What is driving this? Sport. Competition. Why does natural selection exist at all?
++++
There are naysayers in the world. They exist to say "I told you so" and "I'm smarter than you". This gets back to competition again. Why are we like this?
++++
Did Jesus display a competitive nature at any point in scripture? Maybe in driving the market traders out of the Church? He could have just "chilled out" and gone down the local (or the then equivalent). To drive traders out you are kind of saying "I am right and you are wrong" - aren't you?
++++
You wrote:
"If one can't remember ever making that decision on their own, then I guess one should reflect on the nature of their own commitment."
Is that enough though? I don't think so. Many indoctrinated Christians remember just this time, but my point is that they had little chance not to experience this moment - what with all the pressure applied from their environment. It's very rare that - at that moment - the indoctrinated Christian suddenly makes the decision to follow Allah. These statistics tell us something.
++++
I'm glad Dallas is helping you but I know for sure that you're a whole bunch smarter than him. Go with your own VIM pal. The Lord made the Bagwell and He made him well. Trust that.
"... manifests itself in ways not attractive ..."
I don't think that you are a mass murderer (he said hopefully) but if you feel like being a cantankerous old goat on occasion then no-one will judge you too harshly for it - the world is all the richer for characters.
I stopped beating myself up all the time a while ago. I know I'm not perfect but there are some even less perfect than me - they don't treat others how they themselves wish to be treated at all :-) One needs to meet some nastys in a while to realise that one isn't all that bad. Apart from being full of sin and fallen of course, which goes without saying.
++++
Competition again. Why do humans fight? Why is the phrase "you fought well" between humans acceptable? What is driving this? Sport. Competition. Why does natural selection exist at all?
++++
There are naysayers in the world. They exist to say "I told you so" and "I'm smarter than you". This gets back to competition again. Why are we like this?
++++
Did Jesus display a competitive nature at any point in scripture? Maybe in driving the market traders out of the Church? He could have just "chilled out" and gone down the local (or the then equivalent). To drive traders out you are kind of saying "I am right and you are wrong" - aren't you?
++++
You wrote:
"If one can't remember ever making that decision on their own, then I guess one should reflect on the nature of their own commitment."
Is that enough though? I don't think so. Many indoctrinated Christians remember just this time, but my point is that they had little chance not to experience this moment - what with all the pressure applied from their environment. It's very rare that - at that moment - the indoctrinated Christian suddenly makes the decision to follow Allah. These statistics tell us something.
++++
I'm glad Dallas is helping you but I know for sure that you're a whole bunch smarter than him. Go with your own VIM pal. The Lord made the Bagwell and He made him well. Trust that.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Children and Faith and Other Things
I've read on more than one occasion -- from people in whom I've invested some trust in their opinions on such things -- that the role of parents in their children's faith is really to be a role models of the Christian life, provide appropriate teaching and upbringing, answer questions, but encourage them to come to their own understanding and conclusion about the claims made. That strikes me as being sensible advice. The Christian faith really is a personal decision to trust in the Truth of Jesus Christ. If one can't remember ever making that decision on their own, then I guess one should reflect on the nature of their own commitment.
* * *
I have a good many things to work on in my journey of faith. Dallas Willard -- I've read a lot of his stuff lately -- has a useful model he works from:
* * *
I have a good many things to work on in my journey of faith. Dallas Willard -- I've read a lot of his stuff lately -- has a useful model he works from:
- V = Vision; a strong mental picture of the Truth and nature of God and Jesus
- I = Intent; an intentional and deliberate decision to be a disciple of Jesus Christ
- M = Means; the employment of the various "tools" to achieve a deepening and strengthening of one's commitment and obedience to Christ as King
He claimes that most people go straight to the M portion of that without first settling on V or I. They tend to flail about there because the underpinning of effective M is a securely established V and I. That also strikes me as a sensible model and sensible assessment.
About a week or so ago I reflected on this and thought I had the V part pretty well settled, but that my issue was the I -- did I really intend to be a disciple of Christ's, or was I hesitating? Then, on my cross-country flight recently I reflected more deeply, and after jotting down some notes it occurred to me that my problem was really more the V part -- particularly as it relates to the trustworthiness of Jesus and whether God could possible see me as a worthy of his love. Both demonstrate horrible deficiencies on my part of a solid vision of God. Intellectually I can say that Christ is the ultimate trustworthy person. Intellectually I can say that God has the capacity to love all people, for that is his nature. But do I really believe it? That's my struggle, good friend.
It's an awful struggle, because it goes the very heart of me. No ... strike that ... it goes to the protective shell around the very heart of me. The very heart of me -- my true internal heart -- is a gentle one, seeking no harm to anyone. The shell surrounding that is ferociously protective, and manifests itself in ways not attractive, I am ashamed to confess.
I'm being unusually personal here ... because I'm weary of my playing a charade of firm commitment. What I desire -- what I truly long for -- is a sincere commitment to Christ. Honestly, that's what I pray for.
I suspect the Lord has not yet revealed to me what first I must work on. I can only try to trust that He has a plan for effective restoration of me worked out, and that it'll all transpire on His schedule.
* * *
By the way, your last post was beautiful. Very sincere and very touching. Thank you.
Skepticism and trust
You wrote:
"... how does one go about truly trusting in the Lord when one has an inherent lack of trust in everyone?"
Always remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and to keep an open mind -- but not so open that your brains fall out.
When I am presented with the extraordinary evidence that I need, then, and only then, will I start to trust in Him. I've been given that evidence, which makes my having faith that the Biblical Universe is the way it is much easier.
This is why I am suspicious of people who have been indoctrinated into a particular religion from an early age, they never had the opportunity to keep an open mind so didn't need even a shred of evidence. Like many muslims, and even the poor indoctrinated Christian children that I have met -- they have misguided parents (in my view). I don't think He's looking for indoctrinated robots, I don't think it's enough for Him, He needs us to have thought deeply about what we are doing (for some reason).
You and I on the other hand have found The Lord in a different way, so I would say that if we keep looking for God's work (extraordinary evidence) then we will eventually learn to trust in Him.
Skepticism certainly has a place (it keeps the nutjobs at bay) -- I think that it allows humanity to move forwards instead of stagnating in the mire of every loonies latest theory.
Maybe I have to sacrifice my fear of death and you have to sacrifice your skepticism to some degree? Maybe those are the particular tests that you and I have to pass?
"... how does one go about truly trusting in the Lord when one has an inherent lack of trust in everyone?"
Always remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and to keep an open mind -- but not so open that your brains fall out.
When I am presented with the extraordinary evidence that I need, then, and only then, will I start to trust in Him. I've been given that evidence, which makes my having faith that the Biblical Universe is the way it is much easier.
This is why I am suspicious of people who have been indoctrinated into a particular religion from an early age, they never had the opportunity to keep an open mind so didn't need even a shred of evidence. Like many muslims, and even the poor indoctrinated Christian children that I have met -- they have misguided parents (in my view). I don't think He's looking for indoctrinated robots, I don't think it's enough for Him, He needs us to have thought deeply about what we are doing (for some reason).
You and I on the other hand have found The Lord in a different way, so I would say that if we keep looking for God's work (extraordinary evidence) then we will eventually learn to trust in Him.
Skepticism certainly has a place (it keeps the nutjobs at bay) -- I think that it allows humanity to move forwards instead of stagnating in the mire of every loonies latest theory.
Maybe I have to sacrifice my fear of death and you have to sacrifice your skepticism to some degree? Maybe those are the particular tests that you and I have to pass?
Sacrifice
In an earlier post you wondered whether God required a sacrifice on our part to get into heaven. In your most recent post you wrote:
That seems to me a two-part operation: first, trust the Lord. Then, when the scaffolding of trust is in place, then lay down the fear of death.
My question is this -- and it's a very, very personal question: how does one go about truly trusting in the Lord when one has an inherent lack of trust in everyone?
I talk a big game, but in reality I've discovered I know about God far more than I know God, if you understand what I'm saying there.
We should sacrifice our fear of death and trust the LordI wonder ... is that the "sacrifice" you had in mind?
That seems to me a two-part operation: first, trust the Lord. Then, when the scaffolding of trust is in place, then lay down the fear of death.
My question is this -- and it's a very, very personal question: how does one go about truly trusting in the Lord when one has an inherent lack of trust in everyone?
I talk a big game, but in reality I've discovered I know about God far more than I know God, if you understand what I'm saying there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)