The Tragic Religion of Rationality

Scientists (and some others) like to tell us that ours is a world that can be understood and experienced through rationality alone. Well, you know what? They are wrong. Our world is not purely rational and to expect it to be is some kind of delusion of grandeur and narcissism. Some scientists have discovered that our universe does not actually behave as they expect it too according to their "laws" and principles, and some therefore imply that the universe is somehow behaving "unnaturally" or something. Okay, maybe I really am that dumb, but I would think that if your laws and principles don't match your experience then it's not the experiences that are faulty. It is the expectations that are faulty. You see, human "rationality" is not infallible and it is not ever going to completely agree with the whole of reality. Okay, unless you decide to create strict little conditions, that is, which severely limit all the possibilities. But that is a very unnatural (and tragic) way of looking at big complexities in the same way as some tiny little speck of energy or whatever.

So where does the religion of rationality fail? It fails when the scientists' observations and experiences fail to match their expectations. Why doesn't the world unfold in the exact way that they demand? It's because their "rationality" is limited by its inability to account for irrationality, unexpectedness, and other surprises. They just cannot reconcile the "quantum" nature of life with their strict "standard model" of what is supposed to work and what they want to work. It's all about them and how they want the world to conform to their expectations. Guess what? It is irrational to expect the world to always look, feel, respond, or behave in the way you have decided is the only right way. And it will only lead one to a very lonely and unsatisfying life if one thinks he can reject all things that don't agree with his expectations and "rational" conclusions.

Why is this religion of rationality tragic? Well, because it causes people to limit their options and possibilities by defining something "irrational" which can mean anything from "unlikely" or "untenable" or "impossible." I do believe that anytime someone limits his experiences in life because something will probably require some extra effort and "faith" that it will work out it is a tragedy because there is no growth/progress/learning without trying new and possibly difficult things. Did the Wright Brothers stop trying to fly just because it was "irrational" for men to believe it was possible? Did John McCain give up when he was beaten, broken, and near death in a prison camp just because survival looked impossible and irrational? Do men and women stop falling in love and marrying just because the survival of a marriage is statistically unlikely and "irrational" because their biological makeup is designed for something other than lifelong monogamy? Fear is the rational response to many situations, but sometimes people don't rely on that rationality and instead decide to fight against the odds, even if the odds are very much against them.

I've seen a "proof" that equality is an irrational concept because it has no real physical basis. I find that a tragic conclusion because it does not allow that human beings can transcend their "purely physical" biology. It only looks at some discreet measurements of human bodies and brains but it does not look at the deeper value of life itself. Do we decide that some human lives are less valuable than some others just because of some somewhat artificially determined measurements of their biologies? I don't think that is really and truly a moral, or even rational, approach. Equality exists in the human mind that can actually see more than just the sum of the parts. Maybe some people just cannot conceive of something being greater than the sum of its parts, but thousands of years of human experience have illustrated very different conclusions. Does that thing that is greater than the sum of the parts actually exist? I think it does even though we haven't yet found a way to measure it in some "real physical" way. Is that irrational?

I think that the religion of rationality fails to account for the way that rationality isn't always exact and unchanging. What we see as rational options now might have been seen as crazy fantasies hundreds of years ago. How does that change? It changes because some people are willing to reject strict rules of "rationality" to imagine the "impossible" and to actually have the courage to try to make it possible. To borrow a phrase from Obama, et al, it is the "audacity of hope" that drives many instances of transcending the "rational."

Of course, some rational things can't be changed, just like the omnipotent God trying to convince the immovable object to move. That immovable object keeps telling the God that it is irrational to listen to an irrational God at all and that it is too difficult to try to move anyway. So the God just keeps on making circles around that object so that they are stuck in some swirling "singularity" of conflict between the known and unknown, the real and the imagined, the rational and the irrational, much like the Yin Yang symbol:

Free Photos

Well, of course, all of this is just a bunch of irrational mumbo-jumbo, but it is that irrational mumbo-jumbo that has really and truly propelled humanity to transcend its perceived physical limits, and I think it will be truly tragic if humanity forgets its "divine" nature and relies only on what it sees as "rational". Honestly, how many times has it changed the world for the better when people chose to limit themselves to what they believed were the only "rational" options?

Quick Random Notes

Example of good "defensive treaty":

Neighborhood Watch Programs. Only threatens the people who want to break the laws.


Boltzmann Brains:

Impossible except when trying discuss things in the weird dimension of the internet. What I mean is that a normal intelligent brain can somehow create a disembodied piece of junk that only superficially appears to be the same as the actual physical brain.


Racism:

It's only racism when it's an American who is supposedly "wrong." But everyone else in the world can say whatever insults against Americans that their Boltzmann's brains can create and that's okay and not racism.


100% agreement/consensus:

Impossible except in the Boltzmann's brains of those who aren't Americans and those who believe in global warming.


Wishful Thinking:

The delusions that keep hope alive.


Optimism:

The road to disappointment.


Pessimism:

The nasty reality that hope really does fail and that the world is probably being overtaken by a bunch of Boltzmann's brains (disembodied pieces of junk).


Precautionary Principle:

Hurricane evacuations are NOT an example of misapplication of the precautionary principle because the danger of not evacuating has been clearly demonstrated to be worse than the inconveniences of the evacuations.


Feel free to add your own in the comments.

Unusual Fossil

Sometimes being a packrat is rewarding. I've finally been unpacking some boxes from when we moved into our house seven years ago, and what treasures I've rediscovered!

Back in the pre-momma days we liked to go rock and fossil hunting. The local area has many places where fossils are easily found if you know where to look. I had completely forgotten about this particular kind that we'd found at least 15 years ago.

What does it look like to you?



My best guess for its identity is some kind of Stromatoporoid, but a Google search for "vulva-like fossil" doesn't yield much. You'd think such a curious thing would be a big Google hit, or at least I would think that. ;-)

Well, if any geologists or other experts know for certain what this fossil is then please do leave a comment to let me know. Thanks!

Oh, and isn't Nature fascinating? Who would have thought that the vulva form could be hundreds of millions of years old? ;-) And the shaman in me wants to think that this fossil is a very powerful talisman...

Stubbed TOEs and Other Pains

This was the post I was working on before my appendix blew. Obviously, even more pains worse than stubbed TOES and dead hard drives were lurking in the near future, little did I know. ;-) (no "seer" is 100% accurate due to the probabilistic nature of our world) These words are no longer really timely or relevant, but what the hell, here they are anyway:


11/07

Let me do the other pains first.

The last couple of weeks have been full of all kinds of annoyances and disasters. The source of the worst and still continuing pains has been the dead hard drive in my old desktop. I did manage to recover my Quickbooks and some percentage of my Paintshop files before it completely died, but because I'm a jack of all trades but master of none it has been somewhat challenging.

Well, what do you expect from a $15,000 employee whose titles and jobs range from bookkeeper to human resources to payroll processing to IT manager? I mean really, according to this website the average Information Technology Manager earns about $100,000 dollars annually. Check the links of the other jobs and you'll see how much I should be making. ;-)

Okay, so, since the Quickbooks on the old computer was the 2002 version I thought I'd go ahead and upgrade to the 2008 version since I had to get a new computer anyway. Well, I really kind of hate Quickbooks and Intuit because they are constantly bringing out new versions and making it difficult to continue using the older versions. It's accounting. How much new stuff can there be every year? Not enough to keep "upgrading" software. Jesus. It's a rip-off. And they want you to subscribe (means pay for) all these other services like online backups, payroll updates, etc. blah, blah, blah. And it's really disturbing that all of your business information that you put into "their" software that you're only paying for the "use of" (license) ends up being inaccessible to you without certain codes and whatnot. Hey fuckers, it's my information in there and you can't steal it from me. I've exceeded my f-bomb quota for the entire year in the last few hours. ;-)

Anyway, I did successfully install the upgrade, but when I was trying to register it ends up that I have to call a number to get a validation code. What? You can't fool me. I know that's just another one of their ploys to get me talking to one of their salesmen who's going to try to sell me a bunch of their shit that I don't need. Is it not enough that they got $200 out of me already?

And get this. In my old Quickbooks I could manually enter paychecks and do all my own payroll processing, but now in this new one they won't even let me do that. I have to pay at least $99 more per year just to be able to track my two employee payroll! This is enough to make me go postal on them. Where is the Intuit headquarters where I can go and tell them in person just how disgusted and outraged I am about their evil business practices? If you read about some crazy woman going postal at the Intuit headquarters it might be me!

Okay, I'll leave that rant and move on to the Stubbed TOE. The big buzz in the science news has been a surfer dude's Theory of Everything. Well, he did make a pretty picture of it, but just because we can create vivid images of things doesn't make them real.




While watching that video I keep thinking intuitively I can see that this "simple" explanation just cannot 'evolve' into the complex universe that we see today. There is no universe in those pretty pictures. It looks to me like the surfer dude has just created a system of explaining how to move those points around in certain patterns. But how that translates into a Theory of Everything just isn't clear at all. He and his advocates call themselves "seers" but as you know, I'm a seer too. ;-) And I ain't seein' anything in this "theory." Well, actually, what keeps coming to my mind is "snowflakes." (If that means anything to anyone then please let me know.)

Other than the scientific aspects of this story, I have to say that this surfer dude seems like a typical slacker who's looking for an easy way to make it. Lubos perfectly summarizes my thoughts too in response to a comment about the recent passing of Sidney Coleman:

LM: Unfortunately, it's not just irony, it's another example of great minds being systematically replaced by cheap crap. What do the media do? For many days, they don't even report about one of the greatest theoretical physicists of the last 50 years - it is much more important to refer a politically correct story about a "poor" imbecile whose main result is a "theory of everything" - a textbook example of a childish proposal that can't work according to a theorem known for several decades. I am irritated by the breathtaking hypocrisy of those proponents of the "right" thinkers. For example, crackpot Lisi is promoted because it is poor. Tell it to most guys in Africa or even Europe - offer them to be poor so that they can surf for whole days on Hawaii. I think that most of them will instantly accept this kind of poverty. But he paints himself as "poor", so he is welcome even though his physical theory and physics knowledge is just a small piece of shit. But the media serve this shit as a yummy dinner. And most of them won't even tell you about Sidney Coleman. The world is just going to hell.

To add to that, if you want to read more of this surfer dude's confused blather about things other than physics you can find it at Bee's.

In addition to that, if you want more details about it all, you can Google it or go to The Reference Frame.

I couldn't resist putting in my 2 cents worth about it. Well, if you ask me, this theory is really only worth about 2 cents anyway. I'm sorry if I've stubbed or stepped on anyone's TOE or toes, but generally, if I'm allowed a little immodesty, my intuition about these things is pretty good. I think the main point of this entire story is that even the scientific world has fallen into the Hollywood fakery mentality that relies only on superficial and artificial prettiness and unlikely plots.

I think the perfect ending to this would be that a little old hillbilly housewife from Tennessee with no formal physics training falsifies the surfer dude's TOE with her own pretty picture:

[unfortunately I couldn't figure out how to post my pretty .gif animation]

Wouldn't that be a perfect, unexpected and unlikely Hollywood plot twist? ;-)

Brian Greene and Religion

via Lubos Motl, excerpts of Brian Greene's interview in Whole Life Times:

Does your work with string theory make you more or less religious?

I think it partly depends on your exact definition of religious. If it means the traditional notion of going to services and some organized religion, then the answer is no. If it means, does it fill me with a sense of awe and wonder about the universe, does it fill me with a sense of how remarkable it is that the pieces of the universe fit together with such logical cohesion, does it fill me with this unshakable sense that there is an underlying order and harmony behind the universe, then to all of those I would say absolutely, yes. For some people, that is religion.

I could not have said it better. When I speak of religion and the Freedom of Religion as it is promised in our First Amendment, this is what I mean. It is the Freedom of Thought, the choice to believe in whatever reasons you want to explain the "underlying order and harmony behind the universe."

I realize that many bad things have been done in the name of religion, but the same is true of any idea. I can't think of a single idea that is exempt from being abused and misused. Does that mean that all ideas should be discounted? Of course not. So why do so many people think that eliminating religion and religious thinking will accomplish anything?

The answer is, and it's so simple, respect for others' rights. Sure, you can think that you are right and everyone else is wrong. But when it comes to actions, we do not have unlimited freedom to trample all over everyone else's beliefs. You can tell people they are wrong, but you can't enforce or impose your own beliefs on them. You just have to agree to disagree. If everyone could do that there would be more peace.

What’s your favorite conspiracy theory?

The most fun one is that God created the universe. But would one consider that a conspiracy? Certainly it arises from a lot of individuals collectively believing in something, which to me is wonderful because it’s a wonderful point of departure for so many ways of thinking about things. I love the fact that you’ve got individuals such as myself trying to figure out the universe using math and equations. You’ve got other people trying to figure out the origins of the universe from philosophical concerns, others that are approaching it from a theological direction. My brother is a Hare Krishna, and for years every time we’ve had a breakthrough in physics I tell him about it and he says, “Oh, yes, we know of that. It’s in Vedic text number 16,” or something like that. To me it’s always difficult to make sense of the resonances between what you find in sacred texts and what we find in science, because often times it’s a similarity of language or a similarity of perspective — but they’re really not exactly the same by any stretch of the imagination. But I do find it compelling that human thought, trying to answer the same question how the universe began, brushes up against similar concepts [as science] now and then.

That's a funny way of putting it, as a "conspiracy theory."

I've thought a lot about how the religious and philosophical ideas about ourselves, our origins and universe began and evolved with our increasing knowledge. In many ways it probably seems like modern people are much smarter than ancient people. But I wonder if that's really true. There seems to be a difference between amount of knowledge and ability to reason. Humans have had this reasoning ability for a very long time. In the past I'm certain that some people had intuited basic Truths about our existence but were limited by their language and knowledge in how they explained it. That would explain how many sacred texts contain some of the 'same' information as recent scientific discoveries. They are just put into different terms and symbols. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The development of symbolic and religious thinking is one of the characteristics that separated us from the "apes". One of the "pillars of civilization."

I have never intended to sound like I put religion above science or "rationality." If anyone has thought that, then they simply haven't been paying attention or trying to understand me. I'm sorry if my communication isn't always clear and if that is the reason for any confusion. Anyway, if we use Greene's definition of religion, "unshakable sense that there is an underlying order and harmony behind the universe," you will realize that without it we never would have bothered to invent science at all. Science is the process of discovering that underlying order. Religion is the celebration of it.


Incidentally, a friend of mine has experienced a real and genuine miracle last week. I would like to explain it explicitly, but due to privacy concerns she really doesn't want me to talk about it. But allow me to say this much. What happened absolutely cannot be explained away unless you want to say that the best and most unexpected solution out of 10^500 jumped out and said, "Here I am!" ;-) Really and truly, and you just have to trust my judgment about it, the one thing that no one even imagined could happen did happen. The series of events leading up to it were so convoluted and uncertain that it seemed completely impossible. But as they say, in God all things are possible. Miracles really do happen.

God Is Not Dead Yet

Update: this was originally published on 10-8-2006, but I have added some new relevant thoughts.


Lubos has some links to some very interesting video discussions of science and religion. These ideas are probably the two that are closest to my heart and mind, and I've spent a disproportionately large amount of my time thinking about them. I wish I could say that the results of all that thinking are commensurate with the effort put into it. ;-) I'm still processing the content of those videos, but I'd like to jot down some initial thoughts.

I agree with Steven Weinberg's dislike of the characterization of God by the Old Testament religions, and by extension the New Testament- though Jesus's God was a "kinder, gentler" God, it still deeply troubles me that a "Father" would "sacrifice" his Son. But I'll get into that more later.

I'm not interested in an angry, jealous, or otherwise human-like God (and the imagery of a Heavenly "Father" doesn't suffice either). And Weinberg is correct in saying that religions built around that kind of God are harmful. Dawkins speaks a little about the issue of good vs. evil and whether there are some external forces ("spirits") that produce good and evil. I'm of the mind that there is a nature of duality (creation and destruction) to the Universe and that it's kind of a normal progression for people to assign "values" to results of these somewhat 'opposite' (though dependent) forces due to their perspective (like, if something good or bad for them).

Dawkins speaks about the use of language, and I tend to agree with his point that the words we use to define things often limit or misrepresent them. He speaks of individuals having "mystical wonder" and "transcendent, mystical experiences" that can be considered "scientific" as well as "religious". In my own transcendent, mystical experiences I've felt "connected" (as opposed to the idea that we are "detached" from some greater "domain" or God, and that is another issue I have with Christianity - the teaching that we are separated from God by "original sin") to the greater Whole while trying not to make value judgments on myself and everything else in that Whole. These experiences are almost always in response to some observance of Nature and not in the process of some religious ritual. I do want to talk about the meaning and purpose of ritual at some point though.

Is "faith" a bad thing? It seems like faith has gotten a bad reputation among scientists. The dictionary says:

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person: LOYALTY b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially: a system of religious beliefs

Only a small part of that definition specifies "belief without proof" (which is where religion seems to fit). Most of it implies a loyalty and trust in something other than the self. Certainly, I would hope that most scientists have faith in science and the scientific method. This does not have to imply adherence to the "unproven" but more of a belief that the unknown can become known. And from what bits I've studied of religion in a larger sense, many religions don't necessarily require rigid belief in the face of opposing evidence. That's mostly limited to the angry, jealous God that many of us dislike. ;-)

The issue of American Patriotism and Religion was briefly discussed in the Weinberg interview. It seems fairly obvious that since the European settlement of America was primarily motivated by the desire for religious "freedom", our 'national character' and/or culture would be strongly influenced by religion. It is not a misrepresentation to say that the foundation of America is inextricably linked to religion, religious practices, and disagreement about religion and religious practices. For some of us perhaps this religious feeling has evolved from attachment to God to attachment to Country. Perhaps Weinberg would find that disturbing, but it's important to acknowledge that many people deeply need to attach to something because it gives them the strength to keep going when life gets difficult. (Think of the famous "Footprints" poem.)

Now back to the New Testament God vs. the Old Testament God. I'm no bible scholar, but it seems that the distinction is a major point of contention among religious groups. Jesus's teachings about God were rather revolutionary but he still had to defer to the God of his Jewish upbringing. He spoke of God's love which wasn't as important in the Old Testament.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:16 (King James Version)

That is the first Bible verse my grandmother made me memorize and (very painfully for a shy child) recite in front of her church. Even as a small child I wondered why God would give his only son to save everyone else. It didn't make sense. I understand the concept of sacrifice, but I've never understood a parent sacrificing a child. A parent sacrificing him/herself? Yes, and I think that's probably part of the rise the Trinity - meaning that since God is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all together then He really just sacrificed Himself, but that argument isn't really any more satisfying.

Maybe the child sacrifice is a relic of that culture's times. Maybe to the people back then the idea that a God would sacrifice his own flesh and blood was very impressive. But in today's world when children are sacrificed every day for many unholy reasons it just smacks of wrongness.

I do think that many of Jesus's teachings and ideas have been distorted. He did emphasize love and forgiveness and those were revolutionary ideas at his time. It's not too hard for me to apply much of what he said to the world I know by observation, though my ideas on that often differ a lot from the 'orthodox' views. And I don't think that my interpretations dilute or "liberalize" Jesus's message, only the messages of other people's interpretations. ;-) But honestly, I don't really worry too much about that. My 'relationship with the Divine' is between me and the Universe and no one else has the right tell me it's wrong. (Just like so many other things in life.) And that is Religious Freedom.

And about that being "separate" from God or The Fall from Paradise because of Original Sin. Well, I think I should probably save that for another time because there is a lot to say, and I'm still formulating how I want to say it.

Anyway, God is not dead yet. And as the wise men in those videos implied, even if we do ever learn all the "how" of the Universe we will probably never learn exactly "why". And by cloaking Himself in that one word God is still alive and kicking.

And that's this Sunday's Sermonette. ;-)

Addendum: In the months since this post it has become even more clear that a faithless and atheist, or completely secular, society is dysfunctional and prone to the same kind of descent into chaos as an overly religious society. Intolerance is a virus or cancer that spreads and infects all aspects of life and society. If you allow it to infect one part of society it will inevitably spread to the others, eventually leading to the crippling or death of that society.

If you allow science and scientists to attack and disrespect the need of most people to have faith in something larger than themselves you are basically damaging the foundation of a free society. We are seeing this happen everywhere. Religion and God are ridiculed, criticized, and otherwise intolerated in an alarmingly increasing rate. Look around you and tell me this: Is our society getting better without faith, God, or religion? It sure doesn't look that way to me.

But science isn't the villain here. Science is also infected by intolerance and faithlessness. What so few realize is that their faith in science is pretty much indistinguishable from a faith in God, when you boil it down because both rely on the belief that this 'thing' will provide the answers. But I don't really want to go into that at the moment. You can read all about it on Lubos Motl's blog and how he is trying to fight that intolerance and faithlessness that has infected science.

Allow me to tell you why this lack of faith is damaging the world. Or really, allow me to ask you some questions and you can think for yourself. Extend these questions to their logical ends.

How can we expect most people have faith in each other if they don't have faith in something larger than themselves? (hint: if one can't have faith in a larger, greater thing then he/she is probably not likely to have faith in equal or lesser things)

If there is no faith and trust then how are people supposed to function in cooperative and benevolent ways? (hint: one isn't likely to trust anyone who cannot demonstrate having trust themselves)

Freedom absolutely depends upon tolerance. Even when you know or think you are right and everyone else is wrong you must have tolerance for their needs to hold onto or attach to what makes them happy, whether that is believing in God or pink fairies or aliens from an adjacent universe or unseen eleven dimensional constructs. You can tell them why you think you are right and they are wrong, but you still have to respect that they are allowed not to believe you. At this point in the world NO ONE can say for 100% certainty that God does not exist. And thank God for that because if that day ever comes it will truly mark the end of humanity and love (perhaps the most irrational thing that exists).

And I ain't April foolin'.

The "Biofriendly" Universe

I read a really funny thing today over at Lubos Motl's. He was discussing the "invention" of the biofriendly universe by an "alternative physicist." Well, let's take a look at how friendly this universe is to biology.

Individual life is always fatal. Not so friendly.

Cancer has killed (and is killing) most of my older relatives. Not so friendly.

Do I really need to go on? I think I've pretty much smashed that little invention with two sentences.

Okay, how about I invent some things here too?

After all I can call myself a "seer" as much as anyone else. ;-)

Well, I have a headache right now and the Death Watch has begun for my father-in-law so the inventions will have to wait. Sorry.

Sedentary Living and Global Warming

I just got a laugh from this article about a new, serious disease that is even recognized by the World Health Organization:

Get Moving!

(by Carol Krucoff)

Professor Frank Booth, Ph.D, was out for his daily run one spring morning in 2000, pondering one of the toughest problems facing public health officials these days: how to get the nearly 70 percent of Americans who don't regularly exercise to start moving.

"Everyone knows exercise is good for them, but many don't realize it's a matter of life and death," says Dr. Booth, who teaches biomedical science at the University of Missouri-Columbia. "My father was in advertising, so I know how important a short, catchy name is to grab people's attention and change the way they think and behave. Running always helps my creativity, and the name Sedentary Death Syndrome just popped into my head."

Sedentary Death Syndrome (SeDS) may be a little too scientific to be catchy. But it needs to catch on. Because what it means, says Dr. Booth, is that "inactivity kills."

Dead Man Sitting
In fact, sitting kills more than 300,000 Americans annually. If it were a real disease, that would make SeDS the third leading cause of death in the United States, right after heart disease and cancer. But SeDS is more than one disease. Being sedentary is linked to a wide range of debilitating ailments -- from diabetes and depression to osteoporosis, certain cancers, and even sexual dysfunction. It affects nearly three out of four adults and a growing number of children and is projected to cost the United States $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

Though it's not yet a household word, the SeDS concept has caught on with a growing number of exercise scientists. Dr. Booth used his own money to start "Researchers against Inactivity-Related Disorders," or RID, an organization advocating governmental support for research into the disorders associated with sedentary living. A founding group of 40 RID members unveiled the concept of SeDS on Capitol Hill in 2001. Today, the group has more than 400 members in 19 countries.

(Just sitting around is apparently a worldwide phenomenon. Last year, the World Health Organization announced that about 2 million deaths annually worldwide are attributed to sedentary lifestyles and chose physical activity as the theme for World Health Day.)

Uh, yeah, I think the most revealing phrase in the entire article is "RID, an organization advocating governmental support for research into the disorders associated with sedentary living." We all know what "advocating governmental support for research" means: we want money, money, money! Oh, boy, someone has discovered a new source of pork-spending. They've created a new lobbying group disguised as doctors and researchers concerned for the health of all the people sitting on their asses (writing blogs and reading blogs and stuff, ;-) ). But the real truth of it is that this is just like the global warming scare that some people have created and perpetuated for their own job security and wealth. This new "SeDS" group is taking a page right out of the global warming playbook and working to create a huge public health scare.

I mean, this could be a scary statement for some people: "sitting kills more than 300,000 Americans annually." Wow! Just from sitting. ;-) If this isn't some kind of alarmist scare tactic like Gore saying that we have about ten years until the Earth is uninhabitable unless we all immediately go back to living like in the Dark Ages (well, except for him and all the other "important" people, just like when the Communist leaders lived in luxury while the "people" lived in poverty). And then get this, "[sedentary living] is projected to cost the United States $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years." Trillion. They really have set their sights pretty high, haven't they? These are some high maintenance "researchers" who must have some big mortgage payments to think about. ;-)

Unfortunately, there is some grain of truth to this "SeDS" in that our lifestyles have changed and some people apparently aren't adapting too well to those changes. But this grain of truth gets turned into a mountain just like the way a warm winter gets turned into climate change. Is this really something that can be fixed? I'm kind of thinking that on the larger societal scale, no, it's not something that can be eliminated like small pox, unless someone invents a perfect health pill and/or instates the Health Police. (actually, the Health Police are already trying that with the no smoking laws and now the no transfat laws some cities are passing)


The Health Police were too late for this fella.
Photo found on this hilarious site: Pushin Daisies: a mortuary novelty shop, though it looks like this particular item is no longer available, oddly enough.

Besides, I really question some of their "facts" about what really makes people unhealthy and kills them. I keep hearing about all these famous athletes getting cancer and bad arthritis and all the same things that regular people get. Yeah, all that healthy eating and exercise didn't keep them from getting sick, did it?

Just look at the commercials on TV. There's another key to this story: poor health is big business. We are constantly being told that we are depressed, full of mucus, impotent, too fat, allergic to everything, sleepless, asthmatic, hypertensive, full of cholestrol, and have acid reflux, ADHD and enlarged prostates (men) and leaky bladders (women). But all we have to do to get better is take these expensive pills. Now seriously, are we supposed to believe that this "RID" group really wants to kill their cash cow? I see right through their ruse.

Another big money maker for doctors is colon cancer screening.* I remember the day when it was only the unethical and seedy doctors who advertised their services (but never on tv because tv ads are expensive), but now all the big practices have their pseudo public service ads telling us we all must go pay them (or if you're lucky your insurance will pay them) to stick a camera up our butts or we will die of colon cancer. Scare tactics, again.

And there is a part of me that asks why we should be trying to keep all these people alive longer anyway, especially if the world is becoming overpopulated with couch/computer potatoes who drive their gas-guzzling SUVs to the Dunkin Donuts for a 60 pack of donut holes and a dozen jelly-filled. ;-) Well, of course, the answer is that we must do as much as possible to keep filling up the doctors' and researchers' and lawyers' pockets.

I have to wonder if this isn't a matter that will take care of itself. Just like the climate.



*Hold onto your stones. There's no need to throw them. I know the seriousness of colon cancer and that screening can save lives. Thank you.

Good News for String Theory

While looking through my kindergartener's school work last night I was pleased to find this:



Now, I'm not sure how long the concept of symmetry has been taught in kindergarten, but I do know that my 10 year old did not bring home any work like this when he was in kindergarten six years ago.

About a week ago I also saw several papers in my second grader's work that covered the concept of symmetry. I would interpret this trend as good news about the "trickle down" effect of String Theory's acceptance in a more general educational sense. Of course, String Theory did not invent Symmetry, but it has made symmetry an important foundational idea.

Quick Question

Recently there have been lots of visitors from Belgium using the search words "hoe jumpen". Is this some kind of foreign porn? LOL

A Rant

I'm kind of on a relgious kick these days. Sometimes that happens. Maybe it's part of being a little crazy. Maybe it's lots of other things too. There have been a few distinct periods in my life when I've focused my mental energy on the Divine and how it fits into my world. I've always known that there is Something Larger Than Me. And I've always, in the back of my mind or maybe in my left heart ventricle, known that my life has a purpose, even if it's only to perpetuate my species and try to improve my immediate surroundings while here. I see no conflict with God there.

I'm also on a science kick, but that's been a much more consistent, enduring kick in my life than religion. I see no conflict with God and science. But that is a minority view, it seems. Some fancy-schmancy writer wrote an article called My God Problem. I suppose she thinks she's clever to insult people for believing in things they cannot prove. Her condescending attitude is exactly the kind that turns most normal, God-fearing people's stomachs. She has no respect for humanity. People think, "Gee, if not believing in God makes you a catty bitch who thinks she's better, smarter, and more important than everyone else, well, no thank you very much. I'll stick with God if Science creates jerks." This is a problem that any scientist with a heart needs to consider.

People resist evolution because they think it dehumanizes them, just like Ms. Smartypanties' article dehumanizes them by calling them "poor gullible gits" among other things. Of course, I know that evolution and science don't dehumanize me, but I'm speaking for other people here. They've had their school prayers taken away by irrationally angry atheists, and now here's this high-falutin author trying to rile up the scientists to bring on an all-out war against God and religion.

I recognize that science doesn't have all the answers and doesn't pretend to, and that's one of the things I love about it. But it has a pretty good notion of what's probable or possible, and virgin births and carpenter rebirths just aren't on the list. Is there a divine intelligence, separate from the universe but somehow in charge of the universe, either in its inception or in twiddling its parameters? No evidence. Is the universe itself God? Is the universe aware of itself? We're here. We're aware. Does that make us God? Will my daughter have to attend a Quaker Friends school now?

I don't believe in life after death, but I'd like to believe in life before death. I'd like to think that one of these days we'll leave superstition and delusional thinking and Jerry Falwell behind. Scientists would like that, too. But for now, they like their grants even more.

I think Ms. Smartypanties is a little confused about science and its place in the world. She says that science doesn't pretend to have all the answers. Some of it thinks it does, and makes a big to-do about it. And she's upset with the scientists for being more concerned for their financial well-being than for converting all Americans to atheism. Look, lady, get your head out of your ass. Scientists are people too, and most of them just want to get through their days, weeks, months, and years and pay their bills and live their lives. Most people aren't interested in running crusades one way or the other. How has religion hurt you? It's probably only added to your bank accounts.

Yes, yes, I know all the arguments about the evil deeds done in the name of God or Allah or whatever diety. Sure, there is a lot of that. But no one really stops to think and list out all of the good that is done through religion or inspired by the Divine. How many schools, hospitals, ophanages, etc. have been built and maintained by religious efforts? How many lives have been saved by people moved by a force that they can only identify as God? The list is endless. I don't recall that part of the scientific method includes leaving out evidence just because you don't like where it comes from and only including the evidence that supports your hypothesis (in this case, that religion/God is worse than it is good). Where's the scientific objectivity when looking at God and religion? You won't find any in Angier's article.

On a kind of personal note, I didn't see any mention of children in her bio. Now, I know this is a very controversial thing that I'm about to say, but I'm willing to bet that it's closer to true than not. Many childless women lack a certain capacity to love and respect life. And indeed, having children was a pivotal event in my own spiritual evolution because of the absolutely overwhelming love that filled me. Perhaps it was/is only biological responses and so on. Fine if it is. But it is surely more powerful than anything that science has discovered or created, so what's wrong with attributing it to some Divine Force?

Well, I don't want anyone to misunderstand the point of my little rant here. I'm not dissing science and scientists. I love science and scientists! Some much more than others. :-) But I also have a close relationship with something that I believe is Divine. If that makes me a "poor gullible git" then I'll just be a poor gullible git instead of a well-paid but heartless bitch.


(Ms. Angier could be a very nice person. I don't know; I'm only responding to the attitude reflected in her article.)

Physics Anonymous

Hi, I'm Rae Ann, and I'm addicted. And it's a problem.

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

It's time for a twelve-step recovery program:

1. Admit I am powerless over my addiction - that my life with it has become unmanageable.

Done. I'm powerless and my life is unmanageable.

2. Believe that a Power greater than myself could restore me to sanity

Done.

3. Decide to turn my will and my life over to the care of God as I understand God

From now on I surrender my life to the God of Cute Kittens.



4. Make a searching and fearless moral inventory of myself

Done. I've spoken of things I know nothing about. I've sinned against science and nature.

5. Admit to God, to myself and to another human being the exact nature of my wrongs

Done. The exact nature of my wrongs is that I've asked silly questions and made stupid comments and wasted the valuable time of serious scientists, possibly interfering with the advancement of their work.

6. Be entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character

Done. I'm ready. Entirely.

7. Humbly asked God to remove my shortcomings

Done. Please, God, take this compulsion away, make me know my limits, and make me a better kitten lover so that my natural sweetness can shine through.

8. Make a list of all persons I have harmed, and be willing to make amends to them all

Done. Lubos, Bee, Kea, Mahndisa, Louise, Nigel, Matti Pitkanen, Lee Smolin, and yes, even Peter Woit. If I've left anyone out, please tell me.

Too all: I'm offering to make amends for wasting your time, etc. I'm not sure what kind of amends would work, so you'll have to let me know.

9. Make direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others

Until I'm told otherwise, the only amends I know is to only think of cute kittens and keep my mouth shut.

10. Continue to take personal inventory and when wrong promptly admit it

Will do.

11. Seek through prayer and meditation to improve my conscious contact with God as I understand God, praying only for knowledge of God's will for me and the power to carry that out

Will do.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, try to carry this message to other addicts, and to practice these principles in all my affairs

Here, you have it.


I guess completing nine steps in 30 minutes is a good start. ;-) What cute kittens! I wish you could see them...

The Meaning of Life

People say I'm crazy doing what I'm doing
Well they give me all kinds of warnings to save me from ruin
When I say that I'm o.k. well they look at me kind of strange
Surely you're not happy now you no longer play the game

People say I'm lazy dreaming my life away
Well they give me all kinds of advice designed to enlighten me
When I tell them that I'm doing fine watching shadows on the wall
Don't you miss the big time boy you're no longer on the ball

I'm just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round
I really love to watch them roll
No longer riding on the merry-go-round
I just had to let it go

Ah, people asking questions lost in confusion
Well I tell them there's no problem, only solutions
Well they shake their heads and they look at me as if I've lost my mind
I tell them there's no hurry
I'm just sitting here doing time

I'm just sitting here watching the wheels go round and round
I really love to watch them roll
No longer riding on the merry-go-round
I just had to let it go
I just had to let it go
I just had to let it go

"Watching the Wheels" by John Lennon

And what lovely wheels they are with many intricate and colorful gears. Last night the sky was very purply blue, or indigo. Recently most nights it's more greenish, but last night it was much closer to the violent (silly me) violet part of the spectrum than the green. Indigo is the color of the third eye chakra which 'governs' knowledge and intuition.

The dictionary defines life as

1 a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b: a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings -- compare VITALISM 1 c: an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
2 a: the sequence of physical and mental experiences that make up the existence of an individual b: one or more aspects of the process of living
3: BIOGRAPHY
4: spiritual existence transcending physical death
5 a: the period from birth to death b: a specific phase of earthly existence c: the period from an event until death d: a sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of a convict's life
6: a way or manner of living
7: LIVELIHOOD
8: a vital or living being; specifically: PERSON
9: an animating and shaping force or principle
10: SPIRIT, ANIMATION
11: the form or pattern of something existing in reality
12: the period of duration, usefulness, or popularity of something
13: the period of existence (as of a subatomic particle) -- compare HALF-LIFE
14: a property (as resilience or elasticity) of an inanimate substance or object resembling the animate quality of a living being
15: living beings (as of a particular kind or environment)
16 a: human activities b: animate activity and movement c: the activities of a given sphere, area, or time
17: one providing interest and vigor
18: an opportunity for continued viability
19 capitalized Christian Science: GOD 1b
20: something resembling animate life

Well, all that's rather extensive and comprehensive, but it still doesn't tell us exactly what is life. Yesterday, I thought of the simplest way to say it:

Life is the process by which energy is turned to matter repeatedly. Every living thing does this. Every living being also converts matter to energy, but that doesn't seem as remarkable. If you click the NASA link above you'll read that even though particle accelerators have created very tiny bits of matter the energy needed to do that is immense and that the matter quickly changes back to energy. How is it a tiny virus can take a relatively low amount of energy and create more matter (multiply)?

From what I understand gravity is still one of the biggest mysteries of science. And I don't understand gravity enough to connect it to some other mysteries, but could it be the 'engine' of life or something like that?

Well, it seems I've gotten away from my spinning wheels. And I'm afraid I've lost my point. Maybe I was going to suggest that Gravity is God? ;-)


(And that is this Sunday's incomplete Sermonette.)

Magical Vines and Adjacent Universes, part 2

This article is from yesterday but I just read it tonight.

It says that another step toward "quantum computing" has been taken by some guys who have "teleported" information from light to matter.

Quantum entanglement involves entwining two or more particles without physical contact.

Although teleportation is associated with the science-fiction series Star Trek, no one is likely to be beamed anywhere soon.

But the achievement of Polzik's team, in collaboration with the theorist Ignacio Cirac of the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany, marks an advancement in the field of quantum information and computers, which could transmit and process information in a way that was impossible before.

"It is really about teleporting information from one site to another site. Quantum information is different from classical information in the sense that it cannot be measured. It has much higher information capacity and it cannot be eavesdropped on. The transmission of quantum information can be made unconditionally secure," said Polzik whose research is reported in the journal Nature.

Quantum computing requires manipulation of information contained in the quantum states, which include physical properties such as energy, motion and magnetic field, of the atoms.

"Creating entanglement is a very important step but there are two more steps at least to perform teleportation. We have succeeded in making all three steps -- that is entanglement, quantum measurement and quantum feedback," he added.

I don't know if that is an accurate description of what was done, but it sounds good. And a lot like Magical Vines and Adjacent Universes (eventually).



Don't be in such a hurry to get to that Other Universe. It's not time. It's not 'ready' yet.

Dear Dr. Freud,

I have an answer for your never answered question about what a woman wants. It seems that scientific discoveries and developments since your death offer a little enlightenment about the questions of your day. I don't pretend to be able to explain these things well enough for you or anyone else to understand fully, but I'll try anyway. For lack of a better way of organizing myself I'll start with a list:

1. A Woman Wants Supersymmetry which has to do with particle physics and is sort of self-explanatory by its name. I can't explain it exactly, but I kind of understand it (something about these tiny, little particles wanting to even themselves and each other out by partnering). I like it. I think that it is the state that we all (the whole Universe) would like to attain. We all want our 'superpartner'. (Maybe this is the state of Completion or Heaven or Nirvana at which we are no longer having to make adjustments and stuff?) And really, isn't that what Life is all about? Getting as close to balanced as you can. A woman wants a balanced relationship with a man. She doesn't want to feel like she's doing all of the work. She wants to feel necessary and wanted, and dare I say it, equal in importance and not just an accessory. (Though I wonder if there is ever "perfect" balance would it result in stagnation? Maybe there must be some imbalance required to maintain movement/energy? But that's probably a topic for another time, and I don't want to argue with myself right now.)

2. A Woman Does Not Want the Anthropic (man-centered) Principle which deals with why the Universe (or at least what we know of it) is perfectly suited for our existence. I can't pretend to understand that much about this one either, but I've decided that I don't think it's really necessary or worthwhile to put too much effort into exploring because it's a 'dead end.' It is a dead end because we are an expression (extension) of the Universe. The Universe is not an expression (extension) of us. If the Universe was truly an expression/extension of us (Life) then I think we'd not be asking this question at all. If it was an expression/extension of our consciousness or whatever then we'd understand it much, much better. If it was an expression of us then we'd be much better at altering it. Sure, "I think, therefore I am." But that doesn't mean, "I think, therefore you are." Likewise, a woman does not want the man to be the center of the Universe. A woman wants to be right there with him, partnered. (There is room for two at the center.)

Semi-seriously, doesn't the Anthropic Principle seem like a dog chasing its tail (or a man looking in the mirror)?

So, Dr. Freud, I hope that brings something new to your quest to understand women. My apologies to your physicist colleagues for abusing their terms and ideas. I hope that you can see that women don't envy your penis. We don't feel "incomplete" because we don't have one attached to us. But we do feel incomplete when we aren't in a balanced and harmonious relationship with a man because men and women are meant to be complementary and partnered. Men shouldn't envy women for the ability to 'create' life, and women shouldn't envy men for having the ability to 'support and increase' life. Your "toy models" of women are just far too simple and incomplete in light of modern knowledge. It's unfortunate that still to this day there are conflicts, power struggles, illusions, and delusions about our "other halves."

Anyway, rest in peace.

Sincerely,

Rae Ann

PS I thought you might be interested to know that this Anthropic Principle is the latest 'new wave' (popular) philosophy that has infiltrated many fields of study, particularly psychology and physics. And subsequently, the areas of spirituality and "self-help". Hmm, I guess there wasn't such a thing as "self help" back in your day. Nowadays, there is a glut of disposable books written by "experts" of various qualifications and credentials who tell other people how to live their lives. Anyway, I suspect that this Anthropic stuff is just a philosophical "fad" much like communism that will eventually be shown to be a dead end. But, then, what do I know? I'm just a woman, and a housewife at that! ;-)

Distribution of Life

According to NASA (green to yellow=more, blue=less):





'Design' your own.

Secret Worlds

Trust me, this is really neat. You'll take a 'tour' of the universe in an amazing way:

Secret Worlds: The Universe Within


While you're there click on some of the other galleries. They are beautiful. Click here for a gorgeous pearl image. This is a beautiful Universe, for all its mysteries and all that we've so far discovered. Nature is the greatest artist.

And don't miss the picture of my favorite cocktail.

Be sure to give yourself plenty of time to browse these wonderful images. Sometimes a lifetime isn't long enough.