 | |
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
A problem I often run into is that some people just assume their "common sense" concepts are right and anything else is nuts.
I must admit having "common sense" problems (or at least I use to -- I don't now) with the idea that matter has the effect of "warping" the space-time around it, so that the earth orbits the sun because of geometry, not force.(Of course there is the alternative quantum particle exchange view, but I only mention this so as to keep someone from "correcting" me).
The common sense view is of a force -- an invisible hand that reaches out from the sun and holds the earth in place. I can see why Newton was criticized -- what is this hand that does its thing through the vast emptiness of space?
Something people won't admit is that the universe was not designed, and if it was designed, it was not for our benefit in understanding it. That we can't understand something -- even if it seems outrageous and we can't see how it could possibly be -- is not grounds for dismissal. It may be grounds for demanding extraordinary evidence, but even here we need to have the humility to accept the verdict of the experts.
I must admit having "common sense" problems (or at least I use to -- I don't now) with the idea that matter has the effect of "warping" the space-time around it, so that the earth orbits the sun because of geometry, not force.(Of course there is the alternative quantum particle exchange view, but I only mention this so as to keep someone from "correcting" me).
The common sense view is of a force -- an invisible hand that reaches out from the sun and holds the earth in place. I can see why Newton was criticized -- what is this hand that does its thing through the vast emptiness of space?
Something people won't admit is that the universe was not designed, and if it was designed, it was not for our benefit in understanding it. That we can't understand something -- even if it seems outrageous and we can't see how it could possibly be -- is not grounds for dismissal. It may be grounds for demanding extraordinary evidence, but even here we need to have the humility to accept the verdict of the experts.
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Gay, queer, and the dictionary
When writing, the author does not dare use the word "gay" or the word "queer"in any context except reference to homosexuality. To say, "We had a gay time at the party," or, "That house gives me the creeps -- it makes me feel queer all over," just cannot be done without the reader being distracted from what you want to say onto the idea of homosexuals being around.
In short, the old meanings have been destroyed by the new ones, even though we still find the old ones listed first in the dictionary.
In short, the old meanings have been destroyed by the new ones, even though we still find the old ones listed first in the dictionary.
Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, and no country on the planet has it. They all have institutions that temper the will ("tyranny?") of the majority. Hence elected representatives rather than direct votes on all issues, hence courts who can overturn things, hence a Constitution, and so on.
The problem with government is choosing who governs, and obviously inherited aristocracies and strong monarchies are really bad ideas. So Churchill didn't like democracy because he saw how foolish it was and ended up letting Hitler get much further than he felt should have been allowed. Still, he realized he could not suggest a better solution.
There is a tradition in political philosophy begun with Plato that says only a small and carefully selected few should govern. The problem is who decides who is to be in that small few and who does the selecting, and how do you prevent the choices from becoming corrupt or inherited. Still, my inclinations are toward that sort of system, seeing the stupidity with which most people cast ballots.
I think lawyers and politicians are by definition unqualified to make political decisions, yet we find in most countries that they are the ones in power. You have to have known a few of them personally to realize that they are (at least the politicians -- there are lots of good lawyers). Most of us like power and have opinions, but we don't have the drive to power that motivates politicians -- indeed, we don't even understand it -- it is a form of sexual drive that most of us either lack or only have a bit of.
The problem with government is choosing who governs, and obviously inherited aristocracies and strong monarchies are really bad ideas. So Churchill didn't like democracy because he saw how foolish it was and ended up letting Hitler get much further than he felt should have been allowed. Still, he realized he could not suggest a better solution.
There is a tradition in political philosophy begun with Plato that says only a small and carefully selected few should govern. The problem is who decides who is to be in that small few and who does the selecting, and how do you prevent the choices from becoming corrupt or inherited. Still, my inclinations are toward that sort of system, seeing the stupidity with which most people cast ballots.
I think lawyers and politicians are by definition unqualified to make political decisions, yet we find in most countries that they are the ones in power. You have to have known a few of them personally to realize that they are (at least the politicians -- there are lots of good lawyers). Most of us like power and have opinions, but we don't have the drive to power that motivates politicians -- indeed, we don't even understand it -- it is a form of sexual drive that most of us either lack or only have a bit of.
Monday, February 8, 2016
The problem with faith
The problem with belief (faith) is that doubt is inevitable. This causes the thing psychologists call "cognitive dissonance" and it is not pleasant. It leads to guilt and fear.
I try to maintain a distinction between opinion and belief, although I know the language is against me a lot of the time, still the distinction is a real thing. I find that by meditating on something I very much want to believe but have problems with, I can flip a switch in my mind and bring about real belief, so that I no longer think the thing is probably true but am sure it must be true -- I believe it.
Then there arises the unpleasantness of doubt, as some thought or maybe some event shows me that my belief might not actually be right.
The way to avoid all this is to take the attitude of the Buddhists, that nothing is certain, that belief is foolish, that the best we have are opinions, supported by good reasons, that we can hold with varying degrees of confidence, but never absolute confidence.
All memes (systems of thought typified by religions) have ways and tricks whereby they protect themselves, and faith is one of the worst of these. They make it a sin to doubt and a virtue to forget one's doubts and return to the fold, which is then followed by the brain giving one a flood of chemicals that we experience as joy and peace and misinterpret as God's spirit. This is one of the ways religions keep going in spite of their absurdity in the modern world.(Of course they also use propaganda (emotional appeals), indoctrination (especially of children), peer pressure, and violence here and there.
I try to maintain a distinction between opinion and belief, although I know the language is against me a lot of the time, still the distinction is a real thing. I find that by meditating on something I very much want to believe but have problems with, I can flip a switch in my mind and bring about real belief, so that I no longer think the thing is probably true but am sure it must be true -- I believe it.
Then there arises the unpleasantness of doubt, as some thought or maybe some event shows me that my belief might not actually be right.
The way to avoid all this is to take the attitude of the Buddhists, that nothing is certain, that belief is foolish, that the best we have are opinions, supported by good reasons, that we can hold with varying degrees of confidence, but never absolute confidence.
All memes (systems of thought typified by religions) have ways and tricks whereby they protect themselves, and faith is one of the worst of these. They make it a sin to doubt and a virtue to forget one's doubts and return to the fold, which is then followed by the brain giving one a flood of chemicals that we experience as joy and peace and misinterpret as God's spirit. This is one of the ways religions keep going in spite of their absurdity in the modern world.(Of course they also use propaganda (emotional appeals), indoctrination (especially of children), peer pressure, and violence here and there.
AIDS and gay men
A large portion of men would be womanizers, going from woman to woman to woman, if the women would permit it.(Nowadays this is somewhat the case in colleges, but still women have a different agenda).
Now put such a man in an environment where the women have his agenda, and assume he is young and good looking. He will be like a kid let go in a candy shop.
This is a characteristic of maleness, not gayness. Female gays are not promiscuous, but a lot if not most male gays are, and they are in an environment where everyone around them has much the same agenda.
Now come a virus that dies instantly when exposed to air, so the only way it can spread is through sex (and a few other ways where no exposure to air happens). Give the virus a good long gestation period so people can have it and spread it a lot before they know they have it.
Put together typical young male in the gay environment and the evolution of such a virus, and you have a recipe for the disaster that happened. There are a lot of diseases that young gay men get out of proportion to the rest of the population. They are young and eager and full of hormones and really quite uninformed.
Now put such a man in an environment where the women have his agenda, and assume he is young and good looking. He will be like a kid let go in a candy shop.
This is a characteristic of maleness, not gayness. Female gays are not promiscuous, but a lot if not most male gays are, and they are in an environment where everyone around them has much the same agenda.
Now come a virus that dies instantly when exposed to air, so the only way it can spread is through sex (and a few other ways where no exposure to air happens). Give the virus a good long gestation period so people can have it and spread it a lot before they know they have it.
Put together typical young male in the gay environment and the evolution of such a virus, and you have a recipe for the disaster that happened. There are a lot of diseases that young gay men get out of proportion to the rest of the population. They are young and eager and full of hormones and really quite uninformed.
Skepticism versus cynicism versus faith
Skepticism should, to any intelligent, thinking person, be the default. Unless you have good reason to think something is true, then it probably isn't. The burden should always be on the person claiming the truth of something -- the doubter has the right and intellectual duty to doubt.
Distinguish skepticism from cynicism. The former is the healthy, correct attitude, the latter goes too far and won't accept truth even when there is good evidence for it.
This is the problem with the concept of "faith," which the religions make a virtue of but which is really a vice -- a way people have of excusing their believing what they want to believe and avoiding the intellectual responsibility of questioning and always doubting.
Distinguish skepticism from cynicism. The former is the healthy, correct attitude, the latter goes too far and won't accept truth even when there is good evidence for it.
This is the problem with the concept of "faith," which the religions make a virtue of but which is really a vice -- a way people have of excusing their believing what they want to believe and avoiding the intellectual responsibility of questioning and always doubting.
Freedom from religion
It seems to me a claim to freedom of religion doesn't mean much if there isn't also freedom from religion, by which I mean the ability to not have a religion and suffer no political or legal consequences. Protecting this liberty seems to me one of the most important functions a court can have.
The idea that public property be used to celebrate religious events, such as posting the Ten Commandments on a courthouse wall or celebration of Christmas in a public school, are violations of the First Amendment, regardless of whether atheists exist or not, as there are other religions that this sort of thing also offends. Private property should be used for such things, and government should not pay for it.
I have to remark on an aspect of this -- the Buddhists and the Roman Catholics have a running competition in Vietnam as to who can erect the most grandiose and remarkable statues (icons) all over Vietnam. The government doesn't allow proselytizing, but somehow the erection of these statues is not seen as proselytizing, so they do it everywhere. I must say the happy fat Buddha (Maitreya) and the beautiful, peaceful Quanyin on her lotus blossom are more pleasant to the eye than all the bloody Jesus statues and all the Mary's with bleeding hearts. Catholics seem to be a religion of blood.
Still, they both distract from the scenery and despoil a lot of beautiful views.
The idea that public property be used to celebrate religious events, such as posting the Ten Commandments on a courthouse wall or celebration of Christmas in a public school, are violations of the First Amendment, regardless of whether atheists exist or not, as there are other religions that this sort of thing also offends. Private property should be used for such things, and government should not pay for it.
I have to remark on an aspect of this -- the Buddhists and the Roman Catholics have a running competition in Vietnam as to who can erect the most grandiose and remarkable statues (icons) all over Vietnam. The government doesn't allow proselytizing, but somehow the erection of these statues is not seen as proselytizing, so they do it everywhere. I must say the happy fat Buddha (Maitreya) and the beautiful, peaceful Quanyin on her lotus blossom are more pleasant to the eye than all the bloody Jesus statues and all the Mary's with bleeding hearts. Catholics seem to be a religion of blood.
Still, they both distract from the scenery and despoil a lot of beautiful views.
Sunday, February 7, 2016
Christian sacrifice and curses
We have not just mankind but the whole world under a curse of suffering and death -- because Adam disobeyed. Even if you take the Adam and Eve story as allegory, it still is just not credible. Curse? That is something of primitive magic. Why? What has the gazell brought down by the lion anything to do with sin or disobedience? What has the death of millions of men, women, animals and forests killed in a volcanic eruption have to do with it all? It just didn't hold even a drop of water.
And then we have the idea that this is lifted (although strangely the suffering is still around) by the human sacrifice of a god or of God (depending on your view of the Trinity) dying in order to somehow, I can only think magically, lift this.
Of course the idea of sacrifice, even human sacrifice, to mollify and bribe the gods was common enough -- humans when faced with things out of their control invent ways to at least think they are doing something -- but isn't Christianity supposed to be above and superior to such primitive things?
And then we have the idea that this is lifted (although strangely the suffering is still around) by the human sacrifice of a god or of God (depending on your view of the Trinity) dying in order to somehow, I can only think magically, lift this.
Of course the idea of sacrifice, even human sacrifice, to mollify and bribe the gods was common enough -- humans when faced with things out of their control invent ways to at least think they are doing something -- but isn't Christianity supposed to be above and superior to such primitive things?
Is giving God a name idolatrous?
One distinction to keep in mind. "God" is a title, not a name, like "President" or "Buddha." "Allah is a name -- "There is no God but Allah." That in and of itself is problematic -- that the one and only omnipotent God should have a proper name. There is a good deal of confusion on that subject in the OT, and the Jews ended up with a couple of names for their God, but they clearly didn't like it and made the names, rather superstitiously, taboo to speak out loud.
It seems to me that naming God is a form of idolatry -- a picturing of him of sorts.
It seems to me that naming God is a form of idolatry -- a picturing of him of sorts.
Dumbing down
There is an element of anti-intellectualism in the American culture. Smart people are "eggheads" and so on. Obama is one of the smartest, most academically successful, men in modern politics, but he goes way out of his way to conceal it. If I were interviewing candidates for a job, this is what I would look for, but not if you are a candidate for the Presidency.
Electoral reforms
Oh no doubt about it; a large part of the Republican base is composed of racists, religious bigots, homophobes, jingoists, and the like. This has always been a problem for me since when one of those wins the primaries and is the candidate I necessarily have to vote for the Democrat.
I think both parties are beholden to Corporate interest -- if you look at the fact that most Corporations write big checks to both parties one can see this.
This illustrates two problems with the American system. The Bill of Rights needs amending to allow regulation -- strict regulation -- of all campaign contributions and of the amount of money that can be spent on campaigns (as it is now such regulation is difficult to get around the free speech guarantee). All this money really is just bribery in a different form.
The other problem is partisan elections. A better system would be for all the candidates to be listed in a single ballot with each person having one vote, then any candidates getting less than a given percent removed and a second election, continuing the cycle until someone gets a majority. In other words, no parties, no primaries where the extremists dominate, forcing candidates to the center.
I think both parties are beholden to Corporate interest -- if you look at the fact that most Corporations write big checks to both parties one can see this.
This illustrates two problems with the American system. The Bill of Rights needs amending to allow regulation -- strict regulation -- of all campaign contributions and of the amount of money that can be spent on campaigns (as it is now such regulation is difficult to get around the free speech guarantee). All this money really is just bribery in a different form.
The other problem is partisan elections. A better system would be for all the candidates to be listed in a single ballot with each person having one vote, then any candidates getting less than a given percent removed and a second election, continuing the cycle until someone gets a majority. In other words, no parties, no primaries where the extremists dominate, forcing candidates to the center.
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Infinite God and my atheism
I think it likely there exist in the universe alien civilizations with technology far beyond us, who would seem like deities were they to come here, but that doesn't mean they are deities. I would put Zeus and all similar beings, if they were real, in the same category. They are powerful and if they demand worship one would be wise to give it, but I would remain at heart an atheist.
How would God differ? He would not just be a superman with great power. Now, would he qualify as "God" if he were infinite? Even then, no. I can in theory have a stack of books that stretches (assuming space is Euclidean) up infinitely far, and contains an infinite amount of knowledge in them. But is that all knowledge possible. No, because I could also have a second pile next to it that contains even more knowledge, again infinite. The same could apply to a being that knows an infinite amount of stuff -- it would have no way of being sure it knew everything there was to be known -- there could be infinite amounts of knowledge completely outside its ken.
No -- to really be God and cause me to stop being an atheist, this God would have to be all-knowing -- but I just showed that such a state would be impossible. Even with infinite knowledge one could never be sure there didn't exists realms or even whole universes outside this God's knowledge and impossible for it to reach.
This is just one of the problems with the idea of a real God. Of course Christians, when presented with these problems, redefine their God into something more limited, but then all he is is a superman or advanced technology alien. Not God and I remain an atheist. Just a little intelligence is needed to see all this and stop the silliness, although in all probability any response I get to this will reflect inability to think about infinity with any clarity.
How would God differ? He would not just be a superman with great power. Now, would he qualify as "God" if he were infinite? Even then, no. I can in theory have a stack of books that stretches (assuming space is Euclidean) up infinitely far, and contains an infinite amount of knowledge in them. But is that all knowledge possible. No, because I could also have a second pile next to it that contains even more knowledge, again infinite. The same could apply to a being that knows an infinite amount of stuff -- it would have no way of being sure it knew everything there was to be known -- there could be infinite amounts of knowledge completely outside its ken.
No -- to really be God and cause me to stop being an atheist, this God would have to be all-knowing -- but I just showed that such a state would be impossible. Even with infinite knowledge one could never be sure there didn't exists realms or even whole universes outside this God's knowledge and impossible for it to reach.
This is just one of the problems with the idea of a real God. Of course Christians, when presented with these problems, redefine their God into something more limited, but then all he is is a superman or advanced technology alien. Not God and I remain an atheist. Just a little intelligence is needed to see all this and stop the silliness, although in all probability any response I get to this will reflect inability to think about infinity with any clarity.
Friday, February 5, 2016
Global warming
Pure carbon dioxide is lethal in the sense that you suffocate. Carbon monoxide is lethal for complicated reasons (it substitutes itself for oxygen on the hemoglobin molecule).
I think the lesson is that carbon dioxide is necessary. What that means is some carbon dioxide is good, too much is bad.
The same applies in the atmosphere. Water vapor is far and away the most important greenhouse gas, but it cycles in a period of weeks, so no matter how much water we put in the atmosphere we just get it back. The cycle time for carbon dioxide is thousands of years is not more, so when we put it in the atmosphere it stays there and accumulates. Although the amounts we put in are small compared to the amounts already present, the increase has immediate effects in causing the earth to hold more heat and warm up, again by just a small amount (a few degrees). Add to that the warming effect of methane produced by domestic animals and we are putting ourselves in danger.
The risks can and are sometimes overstated and exaggerated for political purposes (Al Gore is one of the worst here and his behavior in discrediting genuine concerns with his exaggeration of it for his personal purposes disgusts me).
But he is not the only one playing political games with the fate of mankind. While I don't expect extinction of humanity, if what is happening goes on we are likely to have a severe century or longer setback in human progress, just to cover the costs rising sea levels will cause.
I am hopeful technology will save us. Fusion, better fission reactors, solar, wind, carbon dioxide capture technologies, greater efficiencies in energy use, and other things may or may not arrive in time. In the meantime measures like taxing gasoline more, removing the oil depletion allowance (a hidden subsidy for the oil industry), maybe a carbon tax, taking a more reasonable approach to nuclear plants, and scores of other measures that could be taken would all improve the eventual outcome.
I think the lesson is that carbon dioxide is necessary. What that means is some carbon dioxide is good, too much is bad.
The same applies in the atmosphere. Water vapor is far and away the most important greenhouse gas, but it cycles in a period of weeks, so no matter how much water we put in the atmosphere we just get it back. The cycle time for carbon dioxide is thousands of years is not more, so when we put it in the atmosphere it stays there and accumulates. Although the amounts we put in are small compared to the amounts already present, the increase has immediate effects in causing the earth to hold more heat and warm up, again by just a small amount (a few degrees). Add to that the warming effect of methane produced by domestic animals and we are putting ourselves in danger.
The risks can and are sometimes overstated and exaggerated for political purposes (Al Gore is one of the worst here and his behavior in discrediting genuine concerns with his exaggeration of it for his personal purposes disgusts me).
But he is not the only one playing political games with the fate of mankind. While I don't expect extinction of humanity, if what is happening goes on we are likely to have a severe century or longer setback in human progress, just to cover the costs rising sea levels will cause.
I am hopeful technology will save us. Fusion, better fission reactors, solar, wind, carbon dioxide capture technologies, greater efficiencies in energy use, and other things may or may not arrive in time. In the meantime measures like taxing gasoline more, removing the oil depletion allowance (a hidden subsidy for the oil industry), maybe a carbon tax, taking a more reasonable approach to nuclear plants, and scores of other measures that could be taken would all improve the eventual outcome.
Thursday, February 4, 2016
How to be a famous philosopher
One conclusion I drew reading almost all the famous philosophers is that you have got to be arrogant out your ears, not tolerating any objections (the ethicists are usually an exception).
You also have to be inventive and very assertive if you want to get famous as a philosopher, even if you know you are wrong, don't admit it. Thereby you get famous as others quote you in order to refute you.
You also have to be inventive and very assertive if you want to get famous as a philosopher, even if you know you are wrong, don't admit it. Thereby you get famous as others quote you in order to refute you.
Creating universes from nothing
I think I will discourse a little on conservation of matter/energy. This is a principle that was only discovered in the nineteenth century, and it was discovered empirically, using induction, not by deduction. Maybe that is why God didn't include it in the Ten Commandments.
Now, it is for sure that when someone looks at the output of a particle collision, and finds the output doesn't total the input, then there is assumed something wrong. Matter/energy is so almost always conserved that the assumption is always that that is the case. This was in fact how neutrinos were predicted, and later found.
However, quantum uncertainty makes it a certainty (now I like that -- uncertainty makes a certainty [grin]) that so-called "virtual" particles pop into and out of existence all the time. This is a misnomer -- while they exist they are real and have demonstrable effects. It is in fact this creation of particles at the event horizon of a black hole that caused the scientific community to realize they eventually evaporate.
What you do, when you want to make a universe, is you make it from nothing. The universe is "the greatest possible free lunch." There is good reason from observation, and excellent reason from theory, to say that all the conserved quantities (mass/energy -- gravitational charge --, electric charge, momentum and angular momentum) when taken for the universe as a whole total nothing. Positive gravitational energy is balanced by negative ("mostly dark") energy, electrons balance locally (positive and negative charge), motion is essentially in all directions, and the cosmos is not observed to rotate.
However, to get a universe you need do nothing but wait. Quantum uncertainty will see to it that it will happen now and then.
I have posted my understanding of this as best I can: those with knowledge of the area are welcome to nitpick at any mistakes.
Now, it is for sure that when someone looks at the output of a particle collision, and finds the output doesn't total the input, then there is assumed something wrong. Matter/energy is so almost always conserved that the assumption is always that that is the case. This was in fact how neutrinos were predicted, and later found.
However, quantum uncertainty makes it a certainty (now I like that -- uncertainty makes a certainty [grin]) that so-called "virtual" particles pop into and out of existence all the time. This is a misnomer -- while they exist they are real and have demonstrable effects. It is in fact this creation of particles at the event horizon of a black hole that caused the scientific community to realize they eventually evaporate.
What you do, when you want to make a universe, is you make it from nothing. The universe is "the greatest possible free lunch." There is good reason from observation, and excellent reason from theory, to say that all the conserved quantities (mass/energy -- gravitational charge --, electric charge, momentum and angular momentum) when taken for the universe as a whole total nothing. Positive gravitational energy is balanced by negative ("mostly dark") energy, electrons balance locally (positive and negative charge), motion is essentially in all directions, and the cosmos is not observed to rotate.
However, to get a universe you need do nothing but wait. Quantum uncertainty will see to it that it will happen now and then.
I have posted my understanding of this as best I can: those with knowledge of the area are welcome to nitpick at any mistakes.
Causation is not always so
Something came from nothing. Being an atheist isn't hard when you realize that all creationism depends on are intuitive ideas we picked up as children, such as everything has a prior cause. There is no logical reason for this. It seems to be the case, most of the time, and that really is all that can be said. It also seems the case that anything that goes up must come down, but it isn't always the case.
Something people need to learn is that just because one cannot see how something could be doesn't mean it can't be. It may be just your ego rejecting things not understood because your pride won't allow it.
Something people need to learn is that just because one cannot see how something could be doesn't mean it can't be. It may be just your ego rejecting things not understood because your pride won't allow it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
First. they are intelligent. You don't get into law school, let alone get the degree, without smarts.
However, think about all the smart kids in their last years of undergraduate work. Some will become academics or scholars of some sort, some will become teachers, others will become engineers or work on computers or architects or doctors. Then some will go to law school. Why do they go to law school?
Being a lawyer is a prestige although not very well liked profession, and it is extremely remunerative. If you are even reasonably good at it you can make hundreds of thousands, and lots of them make millions. Also, since the legal system is designed and enacted by politicians who are mostly lawyers, the system is tilted in your favor in all sorts of little ways.
Now, then, the other professions also usually make good money (except scholars and teachers -- the two society needs most). They all contribute to society except lawyers, and generally those who enter the other fields have altruistic and idealistic reasons. The only reason a young person enters law school is with the aim of making money. I suppose there are a few exceptions, but I never met one.
The US is particularly infested. Most countries still prohibit legal advertising and ambulance chasing, and under Code Napoleon there are no juries easy to fool and confuse, and the lawyer has a greatly diminished role even in criminal cases and particularly in civil cases. In America, as we have seen, if you have enough money and can get really good lawyers, it is not that hard to get away with murder.
That is the main reason things like health care, education, municipal governance, and even law enforcement are so much more expensive in the States, with only average and sometimes below average outcomes.