Flawless TV?

Would not a society based on strict logic provide a less passions-based mechanism for the female to release herself from the primitive mating bond?

Oh yeah definitely! But then it wouldn't be such good TV would it? I think T'Prings "flawless logic" was based on a number of simple criteria for the bout in her mind, something like the following (translated into English):

1. The bout has to happen
2. I must end up with Stonn
3. Stonn must not take part in it, he might get get killed
4. Whoever wins must not want me, but as I am such a babe all Vulcans want me so Spock must fight a non-Vulcan
5. If Spock wins he must not want me, so I'll get him to fight someone that he loves more than me, if he kills that person then he'll hate me

But as you say, she (like humans) ignored the "X factor" - the things that could go wrong.

Trusting that something bad will happen is an interesting concept. It shows no fear. Could the words "trust", "hope" and "fear" be replaced with "I expect" -- taking all the emotions out of the words? From your treatise the words "trust" and "hope" imply a "running towards" an event, where the word "fear" implies a "running away" from an event (a flight). Attributes of "running towards" and "running away" could be characteristics of any organism that resulted from a survival-of-the-fittest selection process, but they would need to be in balance. If a creature always ran towards its food source it would not survive as well as the creature that also ran towards its food source but had a good look around for traps whilst it was doing so, and ran away if necessary. Survive and breed more.

I enjoyed your assessment of the Spock/Bones splits, although Chekov ended up with more than 100 !

Sheesh, of course dilithium crystals control the matter/anti-matter mix used to power a Cochran warp engine, what did they teach kids in school back then ! "Dateless Geek" lol, Jesus would have approved.

The planet killer was made out of inpenetrable neutronium dear boy ! I guess the science folks were suggesting that as neutrons have no charge then "neutronium" must have been held together by a force stronger than the attraction of unlike charges (which is an electro-magnetic effect). If the neutrons in neutronium were bound by either the weak or strong nuclear forces (which were known in the 1960's as "the nuclear force") then it would have been a lot tougher than ordinary matter.

Poq quiz 2: which two Star Trek things were named "Masada"? (One is connected to the Doomsday episode)

According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia, Masada "was probably named for the hilltop fortress where Jews defied Roman legions, eventually committing suicide en masse rather than surrender." (p.291) Based on this reference, some fans have speculated that Masada was an Israeli Jew.

Flawless Logic?

From the web ... perhaps not entirely correct, but close to correct if my memory serves.

T'Paul: "I grieve with thee."

Spock to T'Pring: "Why did you choose my Captain as your champion?"

T'Pring: "You have become almost a legend among our people. In time, I learned I did not want to be the consort of a legend. I had Stonn who wanted me, and I wanted him."

Spock: "I see no logic in preferring Stonn over me."

T'Pring: "By choosing Kirk, he would not want me if he won -- so I would have Stonn. If you won, you would reject me for choosing the Challenge, and again I would have Stonn. But even if you didn't reject me, you would go back to Star Fleet and Stonn would still be here."

Spock: "Logical. Flawlessly logical."

T'Pring: "I am honored."

Spock to Stonn. "She is yours. After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing as wanting. I know it is not logical -- but it is frequently so."

Let's analyze her logic:

1. If Kirk won, he would not want her
2. If Spock won, he would divorce her for choosing the Challenge
3. If Spock won and didn't divorce her, she would simply have Stonn in his absence

The dialog was spoken as if they were statements of certainty. But in fact they were not.

Number 1 -- She could be reasonably assured Captain Kirk would not want her, but she could not be certain of it. Who knows ... some kind of honor-bound way of remembering Spock? Also, T'Pring had to know she was an attractive female. Kirk's reputation as a womanizer surely preceeded him.

Number 2 -- Again, an assertion she can't make with certainty. Actually, two and three are really co-joined as conditional. "If Spock won, then one of two possible outcomes would ensue ... one, you would divorce me; or two, you would not."

Number 3 -- This is the one that really gets me. So she was willing to risk the death of a man for the possibility of continuing in an adulterous affair? Then why bother with the challenge at all ... why not just marry Spock and then have Stonn in Spock's absence? I'm sure the answer to this is: The state of "marriage" between T'Pring and Spock before his arrival on Vulcan was something more akin to "engagement." For her to "marry" Spock and continue with Stonn would be the difference between cheating on a fiance' and cheating on a spouse.

Okay, I'll accept that.

In all of this is implied the notion that T'Pring had no method of getting out of the marriage other than to issue the challenge. So I ask: how logical is that? Would not a society based on strict logic provide a less passions-based mechanism for the female to release herself from the primitive mating bond?

Oh My Stars and Garters

That's a phrase here that means: "I can't hardly believe this." Wikipedia has a bunch of very serious write-ups on "Amok Time" and "T'Pau."

As for the latter ...



I'm burning ... I'm just burning. :-)

Clean Definitions

Oh, you bet ... those definitions for "fear" and "hope" were a bit loose. Frankly, after having written them, I wondered if I'd short-changed the concept of "trust" in that equation. But then I got to thinking whether "trust" is really just a fancy word for "high expectation that good" -- whatever that may be, given the person and the circumstances -- "will occur."

Trust is always always associated with good, right? Does anyone trust that bad will happen to them? Many fear bad will happen to them. If they're certain of it, is that the same as trusting? I suppose it is. Certainly if they make plans based on that.

Uh oh ... there's our insurance analogy again. :-)

* * *
Spock / Bones Numbers

Kirk -- 40 Spock / 60 Bones ... I don't agree he's the balance. The Enterprise herself was the 60 Spock / 40 Bones that made it balance.

Spock -- 100 Spock / 0 Bones ... but that's only because we agreed he had to be by definition. But in truth there's a shred of Bones in him.

McCoy -- 0 Spock / 100 Bones ... again, I think there's a shred of Spock in him.

Question: how many Bones points would Bones have at that point in the episode "City on the Edge of Forever" where he'd been accidentally shot up with some neural agent and he went nuts after jumping through the time portal? "Assasins! Murderers!" That was a great episode. But what blatant use of the blurring filter whenever Edith Keeler's face was shown as she went goo-goo over Kirk.

Scotty -- 80 Spock / 20 Bones. But get some scotch in him and stand back.

Sulu -- 70 Spock / 30 Bones ... the only episode I can recall where he got really emotional was the one where he took his shirt off and threatened to kill everyone with his Samurai sword. That was the episode with the little spinning special effect up near the ceiling that was supposed to represent some kind of energy-based alien. If memory serves, Kirk came up with the notion to drive out the alien by laughing at it. Kirk even got the Klingon to laugh. I didn't think that was possible, but with Kirk all things are possible.

Note: I wonder if Roddenberry was making a veiled allusion to Satan with that episode. A long-time notion of Satan is that what he can't stand is being mocked.

Chekov -- 20 Spock / 100 Bones ... I view Chekov as being quite emotional. Any pretense of him being cool and collected at the helm was just that: a pretense. He's a seething cauldron of Russian passion.

Uhura -- 30 Spock / 70 Bones ... cool as a cucumber at the communications station, but an emotional mess otherwise. Plus, she'd always trip and fall down whenever they were being chased.

Nurse Chapel -- two states: 60 Spock / 40 Bones around everyone else; 0 Spock / 100 Bones around Spock himself. They were the human equivalent of matter / anti-matter. But the question is, who served as the dilithium crystal?

Note: I was at a college trivia contest where someone in the audience -- it was probably me; I was such a dateless geek -- got all hot and bothered because the master of ceremonies thought that "Dilithium Crystals" was the answer to the question, "What fuel did the Enterprise use." "No! They served as a controlling agent! The fuel was matter / anti-matter." Oh hell, no wonder girls didn't pay me no never-mind back then. :-)

Yoeman Rand -- who cares ... she was hot. But talk about "high-maintenance." How long do you suppose it took her to get that hair all stacked up and braided like that? Hours.

Commodore Decker ("The Doomsday Machine") -- I love this episode. He was 99 Bones with the a one-point veneer of Spock that comes with commanding the ship.

Pop Quiz: what material comprised the exterior shell of the Doomsday Machine?

T'Pau ("Amok Time") -- Spock was a blubbering wreck compared to T'Pau. 400 Spock points. I want that woman. But she scares me. That must be what fuels my passion for her.

T'Pring ("Amok Time") -- 90 Spock / 10 Bones. Why not 100 Spock? Because what she did to Spock was heartless and calculating. Spock may have characterized her logic as "flawless," but in truth I didn't find it so. (Actually, it would be fun to find that dialog where she outlines her logical reasoning and then tear it apart.)

Stonn ("Amok Time") -- Who knows? He didn't say a word. :-)

* * *
You know, as I look back on the original Star Trek series, I view it as a pretty emotions-based show. The show as a whole was only 40 Spock and 60 Bones. But that was in keeping with the times. The late 1960's was all about the awakening of our "feelings".

Sunshine and rain

I like your definitions of "hope" and "fear" - although perhaps they are a little too clean for me as "good outcome" and "bad outcome" should be linked to the person doing the hoping. One persons "good outcome" might be another persons "bad outcome" if you get my drift - they're relative terms.

When does hope become assurance? An assessment of possibility pegged at 100%? Or is a critical mass reached at some lower point which allows the mind to ratchet up to complete assurance even though certainty is not guaranteed?

I think the latter, the human mind will say "Point Y has been reached therefore Z will most likely happen, phew". The human mind is notorious at not considering "the X factor", ie. "what if something goes wrong?" This is how gambling establishments make their billions of dollars in punter revenue, they understand and exploit this aspect of human nature to the fullest. Taking the gambling analogy for this conundrum - in a game of 21 (Blackjack is it called?) at what point will the punter not say "twist"? I guess I would say "twist" at 16 and "stick" at 18, so 17 (for me) is the magic point. 17/21 = 81%. So I guess that at odds greater than 80% certainty I am starting to feel assured.

What's dominant ... hope or fear?

We both agreed, some six years ago now, that fear was the more dominant. I think that's still the case in my mind. What about your good self?

PS. What are your Spock/Bones numbers, both for you and the cast? I haven't forgotten you know !

Possibility Assessment

Very interesting question -- "What is the definition of 'Hope'?" As I thought about this, it strikes me that "hope" and "fear" really are two sides of the same coin, and both have to do with expectations about outcomes. An expectation is an assessment of possibilities.

Hope -- the expectation of a good outcome
Fear -- the expectation of a bad outcome

If I assess the possibility of being hit by a falling satellite as essentially zero, I have no real fear of it happening. But the assessment of the possibility of being hit by lightning in the middle of a thunderstorm is much greater than zero, and the fear -- the expectation of a very bad outcome -- is present.

If I had absolutely no expectation of winning the lottery, then I'd have no hope. Even if I buy a lot of tickets, the chances of winning are slight, so my hope of winning is present but low.

So this suggests to me that there are degrees of hope. There are clearly degrees of fear.

When does hope become assurance? An assessment of possibility pegged at 100%? Or is a critical mass reached at some lower point which allows the mind to ratchet up to complete assurance even though certainty is not guaranteed?

What's dominant ... hope or fear?

Hope

You write very well indeed kind sir, I was back there in time - with you as a 9 year old ! Perhaps you should write occasionally in such fashion and publish a book from your blog posts? Let's hear some recollections from the perfect age thought out by your 10 year old please.

+++

In the absence of hope, fear prevails. Fear eats at a man's soul, which is why for all history man has sought a place to pin their hopes.

Question to you: What is hope?

It must be connected in some way to probability. For example, there is no point in hoping against a certain outcome, only a point in hoping against an uncertain outcome, or an outcome that is not 100% guaranteed. But then again, no outcome is 100% guaranteed is it? Still, I think we tend to "hope" in a probabilistic fashion.

In fact, I believe that dictionary.com has a tenth definition of hope that implies that "hope" itself is probability.

10. hope against hope, to continue to hope, although the outlook does not warrant it: We are hoping against hope for a change in her condition.

I'll have a go at defining hope, this is "Hope" according to deep.thought, the best I can do on the spur of the moment that is:

In a system in which the result is indeterminate, "hope" is a conditioning which allows an individual homo sapiens to focus on the outcome that that individual has some positive attachment to.

?

+++

New Scientist this week published their magazine and the cover refers to an article in the magazine which talks about the laws of nature being different over time in different parts of the Universe. I find this humourous as this was exactly the discussion we were having about a month ago or so. Melvyn Bragg did that to us also with his "In Our Time" radio program, but I can't recall what the subject was in that case, just that it happened. A comment to the Bragg coincidence is in the ascendnextlevel archives somewhere. Sometimes I wonder if there is some kind of una-mind connecting the whole world together, so that thoughts resonate around the collective -- like The Borg! (Not the tennis player).

+++

T60 !! You mega power house. I think that's an Intel Core Duo (2 cpu's), maybe even an Intel Core 2 Duo - the next iteration of Core Duo that is taking the world by storm, well at least taking AMD by storm as Intel regain their crown as Chipzilla. Do you realize that you now have more power in your lap than a late 80's/early 1990's multimillion pound machine room? And no lap-dancing jokes please !

The Perfect Business Trip

Congratulations on your perfectly executed business trip! And a TV celebrity to boot!

* * *
I'm finally getting a new work PC! My current T30 was acquired in 2002, so it's now four years old! By technology standards, that's ancient. The new one is a T60 professional with every imaginable fancy do-dad. Unfortunately, getting a new PC means having to install all the non-standard software.

* * *
The weather here in Tucson has turned glorious: highs in the low 90's, bright and sunny. There's a hint of autumn in the air ... in a sort of hot desert sort of way.

* * *
It is for reasons you allude that we are instructed by the Lord to place our hope in things above. I'm sure I've mentioned before what I was once told: there are two primary emotions -- hope and fear. In the absence of hope, fear prevails. Fear eats at a man's soul, which is why for all history man has sought a place to pin their hopes.

* * *
The Detroit Tigers baseball team has clinched a spot in the playoffs ... the first time in 18 years. I recall vividly their victory in the 1968 World Series when I was but a young lad of just 9 years old.

The Tigers were playing the St. Louis Cardinals. The Tigers Denny McLain, a pitcher who won 31 games in the regular season -- something that has not been repeated since. The Cardinals' ace pitcher was Bob Gibson, who had won 22 games with 13 "shut-outs," which were games in which the opponents scored no runs.

The series meant a lot to the city of Detroit because the year before was the infamous race riots of 1967. With little else to unite around, the city focused on their baseball team.

Denny McLain did not fare well early in the series, and the Tigers found themselves down 3 games to 1 in a 7 game series. That meant the Tigers had to win three straight to take the series; something that had never been done before.

The tension was more than this 9 year old boy could stand.

Then an unlikely hero stepped foward -- Mickey Lolich, a left-handed pitcher known for having a bit of a belly. He pitched and won games 5 and 7, with McLain pitching a victory in game 6. The Tigers won the seventh and deciding game in St. Louis.

I couldn't watch the final game ... it was too much for me. So I went to the local playground and nervously killed time, hoping against hope that the Tigers would win. Then I heard someone run out of their house, yelling "The Tigers won! The Tigers won!"

The city of Detroit went crazy.

But peacefully -- no fires, no riots ... just a million people joyously celebrating their team's victory.

That's my childhood memory of the Detroit Tigers.

* * *
I also vividly recall being 10, and thinking that was the perfect age to be.

Twain

Every man is in his own person the whole human race, with not a detail lacking. I am the whole human race without a detail lacking; I have studied the human race with diligence and strong interest all these years in my own person; in myself I find in big or little proportion every quality and every defect that is findable in the mass of the race. I knew I should not find in any philosophy a single thought which had not passed through my own head, nor a single thought which had not passed through the heads of millions and millions of men before I was born; I knew I should not find a single original thought in any philosophy, and I knew I could not furnish one to the world myself, if I had five centuries to invent it in. Nietzsche published his book, and was at once pronounced crazy by the world-by a world which included tens of thousands of bright, sane men who believed exactly as Nietzsche believed but concealed the fact and scoffed at Nietzsche. What a coward every man is! and how surely he will find it out if he will just let other people alone and sit down and examine himself. The human race is a race of cowards; and I am not only marching in that procession but carrying a banner.

Reach up

Hey buddy how are you doing?

I'm not sure of the origin of that quote about loving people rather than things, it was part of someone's email closing on a chess forum, I did a search for it - one site said it was of "unknown origin".

It's difficult to follow the sentiment expoused, I look around and I see so much pain in the world and it's all caused by people. I'd like to somehow take my daughter to some other planet and live with a bunch of aliens who are further down the track than us. Look at us, we forms groups and then argue over who is right and then we try to kill eachother. Ridiculous. And we are so weak and dependent on one another for things - we're just like children, we have the opportunity to look at the stars and we just look in the gutter.

What was it Oscar Wilde said?

“We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.”

I don't want to be in the gutter anymore, but I'm stuck here for now.

Sorry slightly depressed about people tonight.

+++

Croatia was great ! I got interviewed on national TV (like BBC1 or ABC) and by a business magazine. My presentation was well received and my customer meetings were 100% successful. So now I can die knowing that I had the perfect business trip :-)

I'm around this week and then off to New York next week, ho hum, dreaming of retirement.

"Balkanization of Britian"

From the Sunday Times there in Britain comes this:

Police to brief Muslims before terror raids
Abul Taher
POLICE have agreed to consult a panel of Muslim leaders before mounting counter-terrorist raids or arrests. Members of the panel will offer their assessment of whether information police have on a suspect is too flimsy and will also consider the consequences on community relations of a raid.

Members will be security vetted and will have to promise not to reveal any intelligence they are shown. They will not have to sign the Official Secrets Act.

Andrew Stuttaford writes in National Review Online:

From a security point of view this move looks foolish, to say the least, but, worse than that, it appears to be conceding some sort of special status to Muslim Britons. The Balkanization of Britain continues rapidly apace, it appears, and with the Blair government’s approval. How sad. [Emphasis added]

The world is being held hostage ... willingly, it appears. As Stuttaford writes, "How sad."

Interesting Op-Ed

I offer without further comment:

The Pope Was Right
In his controversial speech last week, Benedict set forth a bold agenda for the civilized world.
By George Weigel
GEORGE WEIGEL, a senior fellow of Washington's Ethics and Public Policy Center, is the author of "God's Choice: Pope Benedict XVI and the Future of the Catholic Church."

September 20, 2006

IN A BRILLIANT lecture at the University of Regensburg last week, Pope Benedict XVI made three crucial points that are now in danger of being lost in the polemics about his supposedly offensive comments about Islam.

The pope's first point was that all the great questions of life, including social and political questions, are ultimately theological. How we think (or don't think) about God has much to do with how we judge what is good and what is wicked, and with how we think about the appropriate methods for advancing the truth in a world in which there are profound disagreements about the truth of things.

If, for example, we imagine that God is pure will, a remote majesty with whom our only possible relationship is one of unthinking submission, then we have imagined a God who can even command what seems to be irrational — like the murder of innocents. Pope Benedict reminds us, however, that mainstream Christian tradition, following its Jewish parent, has a different concept of God. The God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus is a God of reason, compassion and love, a God who comes searching for man in history, appeals to the human mind as well as the human heart and invites human beings into a dialogue of salvation.

This God cannot demand the unreasonable or the irrational. This God's revelation of himself, in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, does not cancel out or abrogate human reason. That is why mainstream Christianity has always taught that human beings can build decent societies by attending to reason.

The pope's second point, which flows from the first, was that irrational violence aimed at innocent men, women and children "is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the [human] soul." If adherents of certain currents of thought in contemporary Islam insist that the suicide bombing of innocents is an act pleasing to God, then they must be told that they are mistaken: about God, about God's purposes and about the nature of moral obligation.

Responsibility for challenging these distorted views of God and the distorted understanding of moral duty that flows from them rests, first, with Islamic leaders. But too few Islamic leaders, the pope seemed to suggest, have been willing to undertake a cleansing of Islam's conscience — as Pope John Paul II taught the Catholic Church to cleanse its historical conscience.

We know that, in the past, Christians used violence to advance Christian purposes. The Catholic Church has publicly repented of such distortions of the Gospel and has developed a deep theological critique of the misunderstandings that led to such episodes. Can the church, therefore, be of some help to those brave Islamic reformers who, at the risk of their own lives, are trying to develop a parallel Islamic critique of the distorted and lethal ideas of some of their co-religionists?

By quoting from a robust exchange between a medieval Byzantine emperor and a learned Islamic scholar, Benedict XVI was not making a cheap rhetorical point; he was trying to illustrate the possibility of a tough-minded but rational dialogue between Christians and Muslims. That dialogue can only take place, however, on the basis of a shared commitment to reason and a mutual rejection of irrational violence in the name of God.

The pope's third point — which has been almost entirely ignored — was directed to the West. If the West's high culture keeps playing in the sandbox of postmodern irrationalism — in which there is "your truth" and "my truth" but nothing such as "the truth" — the West will be unable to defend itself. Why? Because the West won't be able to give reasons why its commitments to civility, tolerance, human rights and the rule of law are worth defending. A Western world stripped of convictions about the truths that make Western civilization possible cannot make a useful contribution to a genuine dialogue of civilizations, for any such dialogue must be based on a shared understanding that human beings can, however imperfectly, come to know the truth of things.

CAN ISLAM BE self-critical? Can its leaders condemn and marginalize its extremists, or are Muslims condemned to be held hostage to the passions of those who consider the murder of innocents to be pleasing to God? Can the West recover its commitment to reason and thus help support Islamic reformers? These are the large questions that Pope Benedict XVI has put on the world's agenda. Men and women of reason and goodwill should be very glad that he has done so.

Copyright 2006 Los Angeles Times

Advice Redux

What most people need to learn in life is how to love people and use things instead of using people and loving things.

That sounds familiar ... but not Biblical in orgin. In concept, yes, but I don't recall seeing that in the Bible. Where did that come from?

First Things First!

So the question is was the Universe created? How do we ever find out if it was or not?

This to me is the fundamental question. If the Universe wasn't created ... it simply always has been ... then it throws the whole "God" question into a mighty mess. At a minimum it puts God and the Universe on equal footing vis a vis eternal existence. That, good friend, throws a mighty monkee wrench into the doctrine of sovereignty. Or it wipes God from the whiteboard entirely.

If, on the other hand, the Universe is indeed created, then something or someone created it. I can't see how it could be reasonably argued that something was created, but that nothing acted as the agent of creation. That seems to me a contradiction.

There is no way to find out. We're back to choosing what to believe.

Good Advice

What most people need to learn in life is how to love people and use things instead of using people and loving things.

I'll give it a go :-)

Action at a distance

Yeah, but they're not now.

Yeah but neither are the two halves of the coin in the same place now, yet still you can instantaneously know something about a point on the moon.

Perhaps particles are connected backwards and forwards in time? So if you jiggle particle A now, this jiggle returns along all points of the time line of particle A in this Universe and this affects particle B because it was connected to particle A at some point in it's history. This disturbance gets communicated forwards on particle B's time line so that particle B does something now when we wiggle particle A? That's entirely self consistent, Spock would like it. However it is pure speculation, but to my mind there must be a reason for this spooky behaviour, behaviour which Christians and Muslims can both measure for themselves. I think Spock would look for a reason for it rather than calling it illogical, wouldn't he? And yeah Bones is going "way cool!"

+++

Suggesting that God does not need a creator may or may not be illogical I agree. I think that you are suggesting by looking at the definition of the word "create" that everything except one thing (the first thing) needs a creator - this could be correct. So the question is was the Universe created? How do we ever find out if it was or not?

Good luck in Ohio and I'm glad your old team won !

Growth

So it will be difficult for a Church-goer to see any growth in my relationship with Him.

But that doesn't preclude growth in your relationship, merely that church-goers will see it. I'm sympathetic to your view of the ordinary church-goer. Really, I am. I'm fighting the desire to condemn because there's too much of them in me. "Judge not" and all that.

It made me sad because I'd hate to see either one of us be satisfied with where we are in our relationship with the Lord. I've seen precious few real Christians, but of the few I've seen the picture is truly and utterly compelling -- as if the glory that is God shines from them.

* * *
I am off to Columbus, Ohio myself. Good luck in Croatia; me in Columbus.

* * *
When I was a youngster, my favorite sports team was the University of Michigan football team. Yesterday they beat the "Fighting Irish" of Notre Dame 47-21. Thrashed 'em. :-)

Spooky Behavior

If the Big Bang Theory is correct then all matter was once at a single point, so could it be that the reason particles can affect eachother instanteously - Einsteins "Spooky action at a distance" is because all particles in the Universe were once together?

Yeah, but they're not now. That's what is spooky about this. If I recall some of the experiments about this phenomenon, they separated the particles and measured the time for A's actions to be reflected by B. And the time was quicker than the speed of light across that distance would permit. So the "communication" -- if in fact there is a protocol of some sort -- is faster than the speed of light.

That's spooky.

Really spooky.

Spock-mode: Illogical. Completely illogical.
Bones-mode: Cool!

Illogical? Or Merely Not Certain?

It's because all of their logical deductions are based on an initial illogical assumption. The illogical assumption is this:

"The Universe exists so must have been created. However we assume that the creator of the Universe did not need a creator himself".

* * *
I'm not certain I agree with your characterization of it as "illogical." I'll agree it's not necessarily entirely self-evident and may in fact be incorrect. But illogical?

Let me try to break this down:

1. The Universe exists
   
2. so must have been created
   
3. we assume that the creator of the Universe did not need a creator himself

Each in turn:

1. Yes, those who argue the point you make above take this as self-evident. It may be incorrect, though it's difficult to argue for the Universe's non-existence in a way that your average person would understand or agree with. That doesn't make it not possible, just difficult to comprehend.
   
2. This is probably the weakest leg of the whole argument for God. You've alluded to this. All that is may simply always have been. I think the assumption for creation stems from two things: a) the cretaion account in Genesis, and b) a layman's understanding of the "Big Bang" hypothesis. If incorrect -- that is, all that is has always been -- then "God as Creator" suffers a serious blow. However, if correct -- it was "created" -- then it follows that something pre-existent must have done the creating. It would be difficult to argue for the creation of the Universe truly ex nihilo without an agent of change behind it.
   
3. I think Lewis touched on this at one point in time ... I think he reasoned that if the creator of the universe needed a creator, then that creator is the self-existent God. What Lewis (and others) were doing is searching back and saying that if this is a created order, then something pre- and self-existent must have done the creation. Again, it would be hard to argue that "In the beginning was truly nothing at all, then into existence came one who then started creating things."

So, in full Spock mode, I see #2 as the chink in the armour of the "God/Creator" hypothesis. But if created, then creator required. Ultimately something pre-creation is required.

In Bones-mode I find the idea of a pre-existent and self-existent eternal God to be fully incomprehensible and therefore extraordinarily awesome. I'm reminded of one of my favorite hymns:

Oh Lord, my God, when I in awesome wonder
Consider all the worlds thy hands have made.

I see the stars, I hear the rolling thunder
Your power throughout the universe displayed

Then sings my soul, my Saviour God; to thee,
How great thou art, how great thou art!

Logical? Not entirely. Wonderful? To me, yes.

The Problem

I've finally worked out why my Spock-me fundamentally disagrees with all of the good folk (Lewis, Sproul, Willard etc) who argue for the existence of God (any flavour) on the grounds of reason.

It's because all of their logical deductions are based on an initial illogical assumption. The illogical assumption is this:

"The Universe exists so must have been created. However we assume that the creator of the Universe did not need a creator himself".

This illogical assumption is fine for Bones-me but Spock-me cannot build a theology on an illogical assumption, therefore Church is no place for Spock-me.

For Spock-me to accept the illogical assumption, as Bones-me does, would mean the death of Spock-me, Bones-me on the other hand is smart enough to know that an initial illogical assumption might actually be correct. Bones-me doesn't give a hoot about the argument for religion on the grounds of reason, because Bones-me doesn't need a reason to believe. So both my Spock-me and my Bones-me (all of me) reject any arguments for God on the grounds of reason.

Spock-me cannot subscribe to wondeful self-consistent theologies built upon an illogical assumption.

PS. I'm getting these posts in now as I'm off to Croatia next week, woefully underprepared as usual :-) My motivation for IT stuff is on the wane.

The Human Condition

I'm looking around at the available research that has been carried out on young humans, and what I have clearly found is that our humanity is evidenced in the fetus before birth.

I'm looking for basic pre-socialization qualities of humans. Two fundamental behaviours that are emerging to me:

1. We learn through response to stimuli
2. Once we've learned something we have a preference for it over something that we haven't learned (ie. We prefer the familiar to the unfamiliar)

(2) may well be because the new born baby needs to recognize and positively respond to it's mother's voice, the one who will be caring for it.

I can easily see how (2) can lead to:

"I'm right and you are wrong"
"My religion is right and yours is wrong"

and so of course to ...

wars.

I'm reminded of p53, a tumour suppressing protein that we all naturally manufacture. It's job is to kill cancer cells, but it often kills temporarily damaged good cells because it thinks that have got cancer but are in fact just damaged and would eventually heal if they hadn't been killed off by p53. The body (and mind it would appear) uses a raggedy bag of thrown together tricks to survive, and they're not always optimal, but they're good enough for survival - so far.

Spock-me musings

It occurs to me, on this Sunday morning, that the reason you know your moon-bound colleague has tails immediately you look at your half-coin that shows a head, is that the two halves were connected at one point.

If the Big Bang Theory is correct then all matter was once at a single point, so could it be that the reason particles can affect eachother instanteously - Einsteins "Spooky action at a distance" is because all particles in the Universe were once together?

The glass is half full not half empty

So I guess I'm perplexed why you would find it so hard to believe that the almighty and eternal creator would provide a name (or set of names) so his limited creatures could refer to him?

In my post I said my Spock-me doesn't see why God needs a name, I said that my Bones-me sees no problem with it. The fact that you concentrated on my Spock-me answer means I guess that you think I am more Spock than Bones .. this could be true I guess. deep.thought(70,30), deep.thought(80,20)? Spock-me likes the fact that if one needs to name God then one calls him something like "I am". Heck, even we call Him "GOD", which is a name. Spock-me much prefers "I AM". Bones-me thinks it's irrelevant.

If you're serious about this, it makes me sad. You've had more revelation that most. What more evidence could you want? And would you believe it if it was given to you?

Please don't be sad. God knows that my Bones-me believes 100% and if necessary will show me more, He doesn't want to kill my Spock-me off as far as I can tell. He's already revealed to me what a bunch of charlatans The Church is, and how angry He is that they speak in His name, so any "growth" in my faith will be as a result of a direct relationship with Him, unbrokered by The Church.

Note: Please note that this is my personal view, my revelation from God may have been a revelation from Satan - but I don't believe so.

So it will be difficult for a Church-goer to see any growth in my relationship with Him. For instance, if I became an ordained minister it would be very easy for a Church-goer to see growth and progress in me as a "Christian".

And yes, I'll believe it when I see it, I think that I can tell the difference between revelations from God and information from Satan, but I can't be 100% sure, it's just a feeling.

I don't know what "I AM's" plan for me is, perhaps He'll let me know, perhaps not, either way - He is there and watching us, often interacting. Both Spock-me and Bones-me believe this.

It Is What It Is?

Good for you. I'm not going to grow mine unless God pops up and reveals himself, I need evidence, well my Spock-me does anyway, Bones-me is happy with the Unicorn.

If you're serious about this, it makes me sad. You've had more revelation that most. What more evidence could you want? And would you believe it if it was given to you?

YHWH

For instance, my Spock-me says that there is absolutely no way that the omnipotent creator of the Universe has a name, YHWH for instance.

I presume you're not so much focusing on the name itself, but rather that God would have a name at all?

Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?"

God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " (Exodus 2:13-14)

I see that as more God saying, "Look, I really don't have a name ... I simply AM. But if you insist, tell them 'I AM' sent you."

From what I understand, in times of old and still in many places around the world, a person's name is more than just a label used to refer to them. It's considered something akin to their very person; their nature and being. To carelessly toss around a person's name is offensive. It is that which helps understand the "Do not use the Lord's name in vain" commandment.

Also, you're aware that the Bible has a whole slew of names used for God? Not just YHWH, but many others. We typically don't see them in our translations, but the web page listed here shows the original and different names and their meanings.

So I guess I'm perplexed why you would find it so hard to believe that the almighty and eternal creator would provide a name (or set of names) so his limited creatures could refer to him?

How the Gaza Strip was won

I don't think she's a happy person. She's can be quite angry and quick to condemn.

Sorry to hear that. History is littered with examples of mad and unhappy geniuses. Some say that in the early days the only thing that God forbade us to do was eat fruit from the tree of knowledge. That could be translated as "if you stay dumb you'll stay happy". I find that my pre-conceptions, or when I have an a priori view of what should happen, can lead to anger and short-fusedness. I have found that the simple trick of counting (to 10 or otherwise) can greatly assist when in a potential flammable situation - and please believe me when I say that I have had a lot of practice! The other simple trick that works for me is to use a Buddhist formula that says "don't get attached to the way that you think that things should be".

I think I'm going to undertake some research. It occurs to me that everything we as individuals know, we learned after we were born. So our view of the Universe is highly coloured by our experiences. I want to look at studies of new born babies to try and find out what a human mind really is before it's imprinted upon by society. This may take some time.

What I know is that when I really seek God there's a peace that descend on me; when I step away I am left with a cold, lonely sense.

Yes - this comfort is one the key benefits in my comparison table. Maybe I should add the words "at peace" though - good one.

Note: like the scene from 2001 when Frank Poole's lifeless body drifts into deep space. Shudder

That was my reaction when I first saw the movie. Now my reaction is almost the opposite. Now I think .. mmmm peace - eternity, it's quite a welcoming thought. Not such a bad way to go. Anyway he gets revived in 3001 as you well know!

I thank God that I have some belief. My goal now is to grow that.

Good for you. I'm not going to grow mine unless God pops up and reveals himself, I need evidence, well my Spock-me does anyway, Bones-me is happy with the Unicorn. For instance, my Spock-me says that there is absolutely no way that the omnipotent creator of the Universe has a name, YHWH for instance (although my "WHY" block impresses some people at dinner parties :-) Heck, if you can get God on the agenda these days at parties it's a minor miracle) but my Bones-me says "Why not?

Great question on the (Spock_points, Bones_points), normalized to a 100 total my answers are:

* Kirk (50,50) - there must be balance in The Force
* Scotty (30,70) - needs a lot logic to fix engines, but he's a scotsman first nevertheless
* Chekov (40,60) - not sure about Pavel
* Sulu (70,30) - became a Captain in his own right later on
* Uhura (30,70) - a great voice driven from her emotional side, but professional with it
* Nurse Chapel (50,50) - GR married Majel even though she was always trying it on with Spock
* Yoeman Rand (10,90) - great outfit !

I think that the majority of the characters were pretty well balanced, what would your numbers be?

At what point do I cut this car loose?

My advice is, if the money is available then get a newer car for the $15K. Life is too short to worry about cars. My experience shows me that whenever I have skimped I've ended up paying more in the long run.

The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!"

Ok I have put the movie on my blockbuster DVD rent-list. Seeing the names of Renier, Cook and Crystal associated with it and your recommendation of the movie, I think it's a good bet, thanks. I have no idea what the character is referring to as I haven't seen the movie. Two things spring to mind.

1. I'm not sure why this springs to mind, as this is the Middle-East and not strictly Asia, but the Israeli massacre of four Arab nations in the 6-day war in 1967.
   


2. The Sicilian Defence in Chess. If you are playing with the black pieces and white opens with 1. e4 you can counter with 1 ... c5. This is one of the strongest defences for black, as it immediately challenges white for control of the centre. This was the favourite defence of both Bobby Fisher and Gary Kasparov, probably the two greatest chess players ever to play the game. In chess, variations are called "lines", so seeing "Sicilian" and "line" in the same sentence is probably what fired off that particular connection in my brain.

Asia

Tonight I was flipping through the channels and came across the movie "The Princess Bride." I love this movie ... it's a gem of a film.

The actor shown here is Wallace Shawn. He played the part of Vizzini, the crafty Sicilian.

My favorite line of the movie -- perhaps all movies -- is when Vizzini is matching wits with Westley for the princess. Vizzini thinks he's outwitted Westley into drinking the wine with the poison powder. Westley tells him he's guessed wrong.

"You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!"

I can't watch that without laughing. It seems such an implausible thing to say in the middle of a movie like this. But that's what makes it so funny to me.

This movie is what I like to term "gentle." That doesn't mean no action or boring; it means the underlying message isn't offensive, and the characters display gentleness and humility.

Spock-Mindedness

My oldest sister was a big Star Trek fan when the series aired originally back in the 1960's. She aligned herself with Spock, emulating his coldly logical view of things. She incorporated that so deeply into her being that to this day she still has her "Bones" side deeply repressed.

I don't think she's a happy person. She's can be quite angry and quick to condemn.

I need to get back to the brainwashing! It really is an eternal struggle between my Spock-me and my Bones-me. "Get back in the box you green blooded, pointy eared ..."

You may well be right. I'm not so sure we were designed or meant to be fully Spock. Nor fully Bones. The Bible -- to the extent it "describes" God -- does so in a way that seems to suggest a full measure of both. Spock in the sense that God is all-knowing and perfectly rational; Bones in the sense that emotions such as Joy and Anger are part of His being.

* * *
I don't think trying to consider the physical makeup of God is something that'll yield anything satisfactory. Anything you consider will limit him. In a sense, it's a form of idolatry.

* * *
I don't have the mental capacity or the desire to try to unravel the mysteries of the origin of the universe. Call me a simpleton, but to me it just doesn't matter. My efforts now are to be more and more brainwashed ... if "brainwashed" means seeking God more sincerely and knowing him more closely. What I know is that when I really seek God there's a peace that descend on me; when I step away I am left with a cold, lonely sense.

Note: like the scene from 2001 when Frank Poole's lifeless body drifts into deep space. Shudder.

I have an imagination ... but it's not all that active. To the degree it is active, it frequently gets me into trouble.

And I possess a deep vein of unbelief in me. Deeper than you, I'm sure of it. I understand what you're getting at with the insurance reference. In a thousand ways each day I show the ingrained nature of my unbelief.

I thank God that I have some belief. My goal now is to grow that.

* * *
Okay, if ...

• Spock = 100 Spock-points and 0 Bones-points
• McCoy = 100 Bones-points and 0 Spock-points

Then give me the rating of each character:

• Kirk
• Scotty
• Chekov
• Sulu
• Uhura
• Nurse Chapel
• Yoeman Rand

(Homer Simpson: "Uhhhhuhhuhhh ... Yoeman Rand ... )

* * *
My 1995 Altima went back into the shop yesterday. The timing chain was so stretched and loose it was slapping around. If it were to break, the engine would be toast. (As opposed to a timing belt which, if it breaks, it just breaks.)

A few months ago it was $1300 for a new distributor. Today it will be $1700 for a timing chain replacement and some other miscellaneous things. $3000 for a car that's 10 years old and has 166,000 miles on it.

Worth it? That's the dilemma. At what point do I cut this car loose? To buy a new car -- brand new or used -- will cost $15,000 minimum. The math seems to suggest that $1700 is a good investment ... but only if I can be reasonably assured the car will now run trouble free for some period of time. I can have no such assurance, of course.

Spirit

But I've always understood the "Big Bang" theory as that point of singularity having sat there for some period of time -- eternity, or a very long time -- then suddenly going poof.

That's not what the Big Bang Theory says ... it says nothing about any of the instants before it happened. In my Spock-favoured interpretation, as I mentioned in a previous post over a year ago now I think, immediately before The Big Bang the Universe was collapsing to a point.

Things just don't go poof. Something causes them to go poof.

Ah so you do expect a reasonable-to-Bagwell Universe I see :-) Well things may or may not need a cause to go poof, we can't be sure, but by the rationale of what I have just said, perhaps we don't need to have a poof-causer, in the same way that we don't need to have a God-causer.

God will keep the rain from falling on my head, or the cold from harming me.

I think The Bible alludes to just this in a number of passages. But we don't really believe it, which is why we take out insurance and the rest. Have you ever believed that if we truly trusted God then perhaps the rain would not fall on our heads and that the cold would not harm us? ("No, and that is why you fail ..." Yoda to Luke). It's a fine balance between knowing when to let go of the steering wheel of our lives and to let God drive, and when to do some of the driving ourselves and buy insurance don't you think?

Unless the unreasonableness that appears to us is perfectly reasonable to Him that created it.

If that is the case, and the Universe does turn out to be unreasonable, then I don't think I was created in God's image, because I just don't get it. Of course you are correct though - but this thinking won't get me anywhere, it just makes me think that a God who allows all the bad stuff (9/11, tsunamis, cancer, child rape etc etc etc) certainly did not create me in His image. Which is not a good train of thought.

The notion of matter and such always having been there is too much for me to comprehend.

Okay interesting. Your imagination allows for something "not-matter" (ie. God) to have been there always but not matter. But all matter is just energy (see the most famous equation). In your mind there was a time before the Big Bang when just God existed .. but as what? An energy? I guess if it's a "spirit" then we get back to talking about things that are undetected, like souls. We can say whatever we like about undetected things, just like my invisible friend riding on the Unicorn, he's undetected also.

I need to get back to the brainwashing! It really is an eternal struggle between my Spock-me and my Bones-me. "Get back in the box you green blooded, pointy eared ..."

Maybe Gene Roddenberry was onto something with his triune leading cast, maybe he knew we all have these elements within us - perhaps that is ultimately why that particular series works so well? Maybe we are triune in nature which would put us firmly in the camp of being created in God's image. Incidentally wasn't Spock mistaken for some kind of evil devil in one episode ... ? :-) (I can hear Mel Gibson muttering discontent)

PS. Okay I had better explain the Mel Gibson reference there ..

1. Star Trek .. Kirk (The Father), Spock (The Son), Bones (The Holy Spirit)
2. In an episode of Star Trek Spock (The Son) was associated with Satan
3. The Jews thought of Christ (The Son) as a false profit (associated with Satan)
4. Mel Gibson (when drunk) appears to have anti-semitic leanings, if you believe the tabloids

Deep.Freud

Two quick initial points:

1. You've invented a new branch of psycho-analysis. Freud had his obsession with sex; Jung his obsessions with ... well, whatever; and now you have the Spock/Bones personality alignment hypothesis. :-)
2. Kudos on the picture ... that episode is one of my most favorite and one of my least favorite ... simultaneously. I like the whole "McCoy getting massive knowledge infusion, performing brain surgery and then slowly losing it" motif. "Of course. Of course. A child could do it." But that whole "men up top, women down below" thing was silly. But the female leader had her moments of 60's hotness.

Can I ask why it is that you (the Spock-you) dismisses this eternal repeating cycle as not persuasive but does not dismiss the possibility of an eternal being that has always existed?

I anticipated you'd ask this question. It's a dilemma. I have no rational reason. To the extent I have a reason, it's based on a notion that all physical reality is created. The notion of matter and such always having been there is too much for me to comprehend.

I'd be more inclined to accept the "repeating cycles" thing if the hypothesis stated that the universe collapsed down to a singularity, then immediately exploded back out. But I've always understood the "Big Bang" theory as that point of singularity having sat there for some period of time -- eternity, or a very long time -- then suddenly going poof. Things just don't go poof. Something causes them to go poof.

This sounds similar to your critique of certain Christians. They are happy to take salvation-rights but are not happy to follow the doctrine. Again - why is one ok and not the other?

I don't agree that it is the same. I hold that Christians should follow the doctrine because that's what God commands them to do. What about science would command me to elevate science to the role of God? My phrasing was vague, but that was my meaning.

Note: please note that I hold very few essential doctrines as unarguable. But one central doctrine of the Christian faith is that salvation is through faith in the works of Jesus Christ, not me. Many "Christians" are claiming the salvation-rights while disobeying God's commandment to believe in his Son. I'd like to claim my motivation was sincere concern for their souls, but I'll be honest -- it's really more a matter of my not respecting their thought process. Shame on me.

And please tell me, do you buy insurance? :-)

I'm supposing what you mean by that is that the buying of insurance is an act of distrust that God will provide. Well, then let's extend the analogy. Why work? Why try to provide for my family? Why have a house -- God will keep the rain from falling on my head, or the cold from harming me.

An unreasonable Universe has no place for God in my humble opinion.

Unless the unreasonableness that appears to us is perfectly reasonable to Him that created it.

Spock's Brain

I'm not offended at all, we're only on the Earth for a short time so I think it's good to explore our thoughts - to find out what it is we really think .. and why we think like that. But I'm also aware that discussing such issues can cause distress, so please feel free to say so and if so lets move on.

Answers such as "it just did" or "there are infinite numbers of universes" or " it's a repeating cycle" are all, in my mind, not persuasive.

The Spock-me is in favour of the repeating cycle. Can I ask why it is that you (the Spock-you) dismisses this eternal repeating cycle as not persuasive but does not dismiss the possibility of an eternal being that has always existed? What I mean is, why is it ok (to the Spock-you) that the Universe needs a creator and that God doesn't need a creator? I fully understand how the Bones-you could believe one and not the other - of course.

I am happy to reap the benefits of it in terms of medicine and computers and such, but I do not elevate science -- or perhaps "reason" would be a better, more generic phrase -- as the answer or the solution

This sounds similar to your critique of certain Christians. They are happy to take salvation-rights but are not happy to follow the doctrine. Again - why is one ok and not the other?

Maybe it's how well we keep our Spock's suppressed? And please tell me, do you buy insurance? :-) Okay I'm sure Jesus never said "do not buy life insurance" but you take my point. Again perhaps it is the Spock in us (and we all have some kind of logical side) that buys insurance?

If I could just murder my Spock I'd go walking the Earth preaching Christianity.

+++

I'm not so sure quantum mechanics necessarily leads to the conclusion that "no such God need exist."

Neither did Einstein. Einy said "God does not play dice". I'm just extending it to "no God necessary" because God gives us reason. An unreasonable Universe has no place for God in my humble opinion, but Einstein was about a million candles brighter than me, so take your pick :-)

Approaching Faith Logically

I'm not comfortable making the case for faith based entirely on "evidence" or logical reasoning. It just can't be done. The counter-arguments you offered are similar to what I've thought of myself ... well, except for the quantum mechanics stuff. :-)

Note: Until you meaningfully incorporate "lighties" into your theory, I won't believe it. Then again, the "quantum entanglement" could easily be explained by lighties.

I believe there is a rational basis for belief. In other words, it's not entirely a "blind leap" decision. Yes, it's based on supposing certain things are true. Lots of things in life are that way.

* * *
I'm not so sure quantum mechanics necessarily leads to the conclusion that "no such God need exist." There are other questions hanging out there. For instance, the theory of "the Big Bang," where all things existed as a "singularity" and in a stable state until the actual event, the question must be asked: what (or who) initiated that change. Answers such as "it just did" or "there are infinite numbers of universes" or " it's a repeating cycle" are all, in my mind, not persuasive. Similarly, until someone comes up with a plausible explanation for the "cambrian explosion" -- where a plethora of new species appeared, seemingly without cause, which forced evolutionists to cobble up a theory about "punctuated equilibrium" -- there remains many questions about the creation of life.

I am not like you ... I have little faith in "science." I am happy to reap the benefits of it in terms of medicine and computers and such, but I do not elevate science -- or perhaps "reason" would be a better, more generic phrase -- as the answer or the solution. It has it's place; its place is not as God. And that's exactly what most people are doing with "reason."

I doubt we will ever come to any agreement on this. I hope the intensity of my response has not offended you.

Dualism

What are you views on this topic?

I don't wish to denigrate anyone's closely held beliefs; either those of yourself or other folks of The Church, so I will make a cold and logical assessment of your four, and then try to recover things with my other thoughts.

"The created order around us -- this is the "Wow" effect when looking up at the stars

This created order, our Universe could be one in an infinite number of Universes, in which case we're a certainty to exist, not an unlikely happenstance.

The conviction in our hearts -- when we know we should not do something

Drummed into us as children - "behave, behave!" - guilt, etc.

The Bible -- as a written record of His work

Unfortunately contradictory and has the agenda of men all over it.

Jesus -- as a human reflection of God

A charismatic but ultimately mere mortal, used and abused by evil men for their own purposes."

I have two sides when it comes to faith, the logical side above (Spock) which is the side that does not truly believe, the side that does not truly trust, this is the side that buys financial insurance.

My other more emotional side (Bones) talks to God and Jesus on a daily basis, like a dialogue, borne out of living alone I bet. When something bad happens I ask for help, when something good happens I give thanks. This behaviour is so ingrained in me now that I don't think I'll ever be able to stop!

Where's Kirk in all this you may ask? I think he was the one kicked in the butt by the direct revelation as you put it.

+++

I read that and thought, "It can't be just by accident. It can't."

Funny to see you write that as that is exactly what I thought when the mother of my child, after giving birth, then gave birth to a life support system called a placenta. The complexity of this thing had me stunned, no one ever told me this was going to come out after the baby, or if they had, I had not appreciated that it would look so H R Giger-esque (of the movie "Alien" fame), I clearly remember thinking that this was designed and no-one was ever going to convince me otherwise.

But after reading how so much complexity can come from such simple rules (like "if you survive you get to breed"), I think that I had a failure of imagination. BUT that still doesn't answer "Why are we all here?" The answer to the "Why?" question in a LOGICAL Universe has to be God (or some intelligent creator), and that's why I choose to believe. If the Universe is not logical, which Quantum Mechanics is suggesting, then there doesn't have to be an answer to the "Why?" question and then no such God need exist in my opinion. Which is why Quantum Mechanics has to be wrong.

Exhibit A for the Jury

I would have thought that quantum entanglement was neutral on the existence of God? Explain yourself please kind sir!

I tend to see anything of the created order that's complicated and elegant as evidence for God's existence. To me, those tend to diminish the plausibility of all things being simply "by chance." I'm sure I told you that it was the book "Ascent of Science" and the chapter on the molecular mechanics of the cell that sparked my search. I read that and thought, "It can't be just by accident. It can't."

On a related point, what is the best evidence out there for God?

There's no hard evidence, of course. The Bible alludes to four sources of knowledge of God:

1. The created order around us -- this is the "Wow" effect when looking up at the stars
2. The conviction in our hearts -- when we know we should not do something
   
3. The Bible -- as a written record of His work
4. Jesus -- as a human reflection of God

I'll be the first to admit that none of these are things that I could lay on the table and have someone say, "Well, you got me there ... okay, I believe." They're all things that require an initial assumption that the existence of God is a possibility. From there all require some act of faith (trust) to believe them.

They're not an atomic group, either -- I can see how someone could agree with 1 but reject 3 and 4. And the possible interpretations of God from just 1 and 2 are quite varied.

Another source of evidence is direct revelation. Both you and I claim this, but in different forms. I personally think this is given to augment the other sources rather than replace them. But that's just my opinion.

We've had this discussion before ... but it seems that God never intended "proof" of his existence to be available us. The Bible has stories of a few who were given that -- Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Paul. But many in the Bible were not.

Of course, the skeptic can claim this lack of irrefutable proof is proof itself of God's non-existence.

What are you views on this topic?

Evidence for God

Hmm quantum entanglement evidence for God?

but I see that as evidence for God

I'm not sure where you are coming from here?! I would have thought that quantum entanglement was neutral on the existence of God? Explain yourself please kind sir!

On a related point, what is the best evidence out there for God? Maybe it's the "fact" that so many people claim to believe in an omnipotent creator? (YHWH or otherwise).

Disentaglement

Two entangled particles can be coupled so that they must swivel in opposite directions. Forcing one to spin clockwise will set the other spinning counterclockwise, no matter how far they are separated in space. They are fatefully entwined.

In the book "The Ascent of Science," Brian Silver described this. It spooked me as well. Perhaps it's me (certainly now more than when I read that book) ... but I see that as evidence for God, not some indictment of his existence, as some skeptics would use it (not you, I don't think).



Well why didn't you say so? Goodness ... that explains it all. :-)

We have a person over here in the UK called Derren Brown. He can do all that clairvoyant stuff and says it's just technique - not supernatural power - I believe him.

Have you ever seen the TV cartoon called "South Park?" One episode of that did a skewering of clairvoyants that was a stitch.

A radio minister here in the United States -- Chuck Swindoll -- once said something along these lines: "I don't believe faith healers are really working from the power of God. Why not? Because I've never once seen one go to the hospital and work down the hall, going from bed to bed." I like that sentiment ... to me it says: "Prove the sincerity of what you claim by doing it for no gain whatever."

Oh what a tangled web we weave

It's even worse that my simplistic example of firing something at what we are trying to look at. Even if we didn't fire a photon in and just looked at the output of the system our act of observing it still changes it's state.

Imagine a dime sliced down the middle, into a heads half and a tails half. One half goes to a person who then flies to the moon, and you keep the other half here on Earth. When you look at your half, and see that it is heads, there is no need for you to talk to your moon-bound friend to know she has tails.

But here's the startling difference between two halves of a dime and two quantum particles. In the moment before you look at a quantum particle, - according to the Theory of Quantum Mechanics which has successfully explained many phenomena, but may be incorrect (it is certainly incomplete) - it is neither heads nor tails. Rather, it is both at once. When you look, it becomes one or the other. Your mere act of observation has changed its condition.

Weirder still, a quantum particle's quirkiest talent may be its ability to be intimately linked, or entangled, with another. Even when two entangled particles are far apart, a change to one always affects the other.

Two entangled particles can be coupled so that they must swivel in opposite directions. Forcing one to spin clockwise will set the other spinning counterclockwise, no matter how far they are separated in space. They are fatefully entwined.

Einstein called this phenomenon "spooky action at a distance". An Austrian team recently carried out an experiment showing the entanglement of particles on opposite banks of the River Danube in Vienna. Even from two buildings nearly 600 meters apart, during a night of 50 km/h winds, across trees and power lines, the particles stayed entangled. In effect, one particle could "communicate" with the other in an instant, without any visible connection bridging the two. I had a discussion with Prof Ian Stewart about this during lunch in November and he thinks the particles may just have the same hidden variable that they are dancing to and only seem to be entangled - not sure I understand how changing one can effect the other in that case.

The researchers envision a global network of satellites that would allow entangled particles to send instant messages far and wide. Experiments with entangled photons involving satellites can now actually be done and are in plan. Therein lies time travel perhaps? Entanglement equation attached.

+++

We have a person over here in the UK called Derren Brown. He can do all that clairvoyant stuff and says it's just technique - not supernatural power - I believe him. I agree with you, why do these people charge money? If you can see into the future then you'd be a multi millionaire - just ask Biff in Back to the Future Part 2. But people are looking for some kind of direction/certainty - perhaps prayer would be better, at least that is free - I think ! :-)

Dull Unhappy People :-)

Observation causes change, because to observe an object you need to get something from the object being observed (usually a photon) and the act of the photon hitting the object - and then proceeding to your measurement instrument - changes whatever it is that is being observed.

Are you suggesting the measuring device needs to "touch" the object in some fashion, such as sending a photon to hit the object and be returned? Then in that case the observation is not entirely benign. A more interesting question would be this: let's say the measuring device was entirely passive. It simply received whatever the object emitted. The encrypted waveform goes down the optical cable. As it goes, it emits tiny amounts of photons. The measuring device simply picks up what is being emitted. Does the waveform state change then? If so, then let's go back in time and remove the measuring device from the picture. Photons still being emitted. But nobody is there to see them this time. Waveform state the same.

And I can guarantee you (as much as I can guarantee anything) that any Jewish, Muslim, Christian or Buddhist person doing the fibre-optic experiment would find the same thing.

I'm sure they would. But that wasn't my point. My point was that this notion of quantum mechanics offering an uncertainty principle can easily be taken too far. Take, for instance, the ethics of infanticide. Darwinism can clearly be used to state: "Survival of the fittest. This child is not fit. Therefore it should be killed." Similarly, it's not impossible that someone can say: "Quantum mechanics says there is a fundamental uncertainty about things. Whether this child should live or die is uncertain. Therefore it doesn't matter if we kill it."

You laugh? Darwinism was definitely part of early 20th century eugenics, which provided a root for Hitler's thinking on the same subject.

Yeah, I know -- extreme. But do you see my point? Quantum mechanics is fine within the realm of atomic level behavior; less so at larger scale behavior; but not applicable in the realm of other disciplines such as ethics.

* * *
Clairvoyants? Good or bad?

I don't really believe people are all that clairvoyant. There's some degree of it, I think, but I just don't believe those people who hang out a shingle and say, "Hey, I'm clairvoyant. Pay me money for this service." So those clairvoyants are bad.

But to the degree that some degree of clairvoyance is within a person ... I don't think it's necessarily bad. But I just don't really know.

What's your thinking?

Shiny Happy People

Are you saying that if a light waveform is sent down an optic line that an completely unintrustive observation -- where one merely observes the light passing by but does not intercept or otherwise interfere or modify it -- can change the state in a way that is detectable at the other end?

Exactly that yes. Observation causes change, because to observe an object you need to get something from the object being observed (usually a photon) and the act of the photon hitting the object - and then proceeding to your measurement instrument - changes whatever it is that is being observed. And I can guarantee you (as much as I can guarantee anything) that any Jewish, Muslim, Christian or Buddhist person doing the fibre-optic experiment would find the same thing.

If true, doesn't quantum mechanics pretty well invalidate any scientific inquiry? What's the value of trying to measure something?

Exactly. But this behaviour, on the face of it, tends to stay in the realm of the very small - so we ignore it and carry on with the more pressing matters of life - usually stuff related to breeding. If you look too closely at how the Universe is telling us that it is constructed you'll go nuts. You certainly wouldn't bother going to work I imagine.

But is it proper to extend the concept into the realm of things like thought and ethics and our notion of God? I'm reminded of how Darwin's theories were extended in a similar manner.

What is "right" is clearly dependent on one's values (eg. is it "right" to fly an aircraft into a building?) I would have thought that how things are would be of interest to even the most anti-scientific person. Then again maybe not, at the moment I'm thinking that too much awareness leads to suffering and pain, whoever it was that said "ignorance is bliss" could have been on to something.

Count me as one unpersuaded.

Good. Me too - the trouble is of course is that I'm still looking.

+++

Clairvoyants? Good or bad?

Uncertain States

Three things:

• Are you saying that if a light waveform is sent down an optic line that an completely unintrustive observation -- where one merely observes the light passing by but does not intercept or otherwise interfere or modify it -- can change the state in a way that is detectable at the other end? I'm skeptical. If experiments can detect the intrusion, I'd suspect that the "observation" wasn't so benign.
• If true, doesn't quantum mechanics pretty well invalidate any scientific inquiry? What's the value of trying to measure something?
  
• I see what you're saying about all this quantum stuff ... I don't understand it, but I accept that there's a whole realm of scientific discussion out there on the subject. All well and good. But is it proper to extend the concept into the realm of things like thought and ethics and our notion of God? I'm reminded of how Darwin's theories were extended in a similar manner.

Count me as one unpersuaded.

Erwin Schrödinger's Cat Redux

So my question is ... so things behave weirdly down at the quantum level. They clearly do not behave that way up at our level. At what point does that phenomenon stop?

No one knows. The Theory of Quantum Mechanics is incomplete. There are two popular interpretations of what might be going on:

1. In the Copenhagen interpretation, a system stops being a mixture of states and becomes one or the other when an observation has taken place. The Cat thought experiment illustrates that it's unclear what exactly an observation is. One could argue the position that while the box is closed, the system exists in a mixed superposition of the states "decayed nucleus/dead cat" and "undecayed nucleus/living cat" and that only when the box is opened and an observation performed does the wave function collapse into one of the two states. This is intuitively absurd, but should we trust our intuition when dealing with the RAM and CPU that we cannot sense? One might think that the "observation" is when a particle from the nucleus hits the detector. However (and this is the point of the thought experiment), there isn't any rule that says one way or the other, and Quantum Mechanics is incomplete without such rules and explanations for how such rules come to exist.


2. In the Everett "many-worlds" interpretation, which does not single out observation as a special process, both states persist, but decohere. When an observer opens the box, he becomes entangled with the cat, so observer-states corresponding to the cat being alive and dead are formed, and each can have no interaction with the other.

Curiously, all of this has some practical use in quantum cryptography. It is possible to send light that is in a mixture of states down a fiber optic cable. If one places a wiretap in the middle of the cable which intercepts the transmission and retransmits it, one conducts an observation which causes the light to fall into one state or another. By doing statistics at the other end of the cable, one can tell if one is received light that is in a mixture of states or if the light has been already observed and retransmitted. This allows one to develop communication systems that cannot be tapped without being noticed at the other end. Of great interest to me personally is this experiment (which one can do) also illustrates that the "observation" in Quantum Mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness in that a perfectly unconscious wiretap will cause the statistics at the end of the wire to be different.

I'll be in Croatia next week - in part presenting cryptography at a conference, but I doubt I will mention this wiretap discovery!

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 s**t.
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 said Herr Erwin. Quoth Albert, "You're nuts.
God doesn't play dice with 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."

:-) You may have even sent me that !

Contrary to this ditty, Schrödinger did not intend his thought experiment to indicate that he believed that the dead-alive cat would actually exist; rather he considered the Quantum Mechanical Theory to be incomplete and not representative of reality in this case.

PS. For the path of an object Newtonian Mechanics does work (ie. forces curving the path of a particle in flat space), however The Theory of General Relativity (where the particle is following basically a straight line in curved spacetime) describes the path of the object with a greater degree of accuracy. Not infinite accuracy I might add due to the way the Universe is, a line or a Euclidean point can't actually exist in the real world due to the fuzziness of the place, that fuzziness is what the incomplete Theory of Quantum Mechanics is concerned with.

At What Point Does It Become Uncertain?

If I accept that the universe if "probabilistic rather than deterministic" at the quantum level, does it necessarily follow that things at the bigger level are still probabilistic? I mean, the Newtonian laws still apply for things like planetary orbits and such, correct? And the flight of a ballistic object is entirely predictable if the environment (wind, air temperature, gravitation force, etc.) is known. I'm sitting at this keyboard ... there is nothing "probabilistic" about it ... it's real; it's right here.

So my question is ... so things behave weirdly down at the quantum level. They clearly do not behave that way up at our level. At what point does that phenomenon stop?

Note: And don't say, "How do you know it's not happening at our level?" Because I'm going to hold you to the very standard of "proof" you seem to hold me. It's not evident; it can't be measured; it can't be repeated. :-)