from the glacier

bye bye blogger

2007-02-24T14:45:00.000-06:00

go to beitiathustra.wordpress.com

i hate blogger

Season's Readings

2007-02-21T17:59:00.000-06:00

No idle word should be uttered. I understand a word to be idle when it serves no good purpose, either for myself or for another, and was not intended to do so. Hence, words are never idle when spoken for any useful purpose, or when meant to serve the good of one's soul or that of another, of the body or of temporal possessions. Nor are they idle because one speaks of matters that do not pertain to his state, for example, if a religious speaks of wars or of commerce. In all we have mentioned, there will be merit if what is said is directed to some good purpose; there will be sin if it is directed to an evil purpose, or if engaged in for no good end.
from "The Spiritual Exercises" of Saint Ignatius Loyola

True Now as it was in 1930

2007-02-07T20:36:00.000-06:00

From the lunch-hour read:

If from the view-point of what concerns public life, the psychological structure of this new type of mass-man be studied, what we find is as follows: (1) An inborn, root-impression that life is easy, plentiful, without any grave limitations; consequently, each average man finds within himself a sensation of power and triumph which, (2) invites him to stand up for himself as he is, to look upon his moral and intellectual endowment as excellent, complete. This contentment with himself leads him to shut himself off from any external court of appeal; not to listen, not to submit his opinions to judgment, not to consider others' existence. His intimate feeling of power urges him always to exercise predominance. He will act then as if he and his like were the only beings existing in the world; and, consequently, (3) will intervene in all matters, imposing his own vulgar views without respect or regard for others, without limit or reserve, that is to say, in accordance with a system of "direct action".

Shocking revelations...

2007-02-01T20:29:00.000-06:00

I took another of those stupid online quizzes:

You are a 100% traditional Catholic!

Congratulations! You are more knowlegeable than most modern theologians! You have achieved mastery over the most important doctrines of the Catholic Faith! You should share your incredible understanding with others!

Do You Know Your Baltimore Catechism?
Make Your Own Quiz

There's a surprise . . .

More math

2007-01-31T21:40:00.000-06:00

I can't claim credit for this little redux, it actually owes its existence to one Bertrand Russell, but it does provide a little food for thought:

If 2+2=5, and twice two is four. Subtract 3 from both sides then 1=2. But you and the Pope are two therefore you and the Pope are one. [and therefore you're the Pope!]
Its in that basic form. Two things strike me from this silly little display. First, historically, with the advent of non-Euclidean geometries and various 'logical systems', the whole project of mathematics became one of consistency - not truth as from some outside source. This is why prior to these forays into mathematical extravagance Theology, Mathematics and Philosophy were tied so closely together. Mathematics did not have to appeal to some experience, or observation for its truth, it was in some sense like seeing into the mind of God. Mathematics fell on hard times after that, however. (one is reminded of Gauss' assertion that we should climb three very tall mountains with beams of light to determine what the "actual" measure of the interior angles of a triangle is to determine whether Geometry should be plane (Euclidean), hyperbolic or elliptical) I guess the point is that if you base your mathematics solely on the principle of self-consistent axioms solely, then what was once a rich edifying subject is now just a chess match. Ugh. From a non-mathematical standpoint one finds this very distasteful.
The second thing that strikes me is a caveat pure and simple: Beware taking the solution to an equation for real life. Let God be a mathematician - I find that warming. But if God is a mathematician, I certainly don't think he makes axiomatic consistency His primary rule of thumb. We can certainly create an axiomatic system where 2+2=5, but equating me with another is a much further step. I would caution scientists from doing the same thing.

Playing with pets

2007-01-28T15:30:00.000-06:00

Half the fun of having children is playing with them and their pets.
Without further ado, John and Flannery:

New kid

2006-12-13T21:00:00.000-06:00

Here's the photos you all wanted to see (by popular request):

introducing. . .

2006-11-30T13:43:00.000-06:00

I am now a father for the fourth time. Michael Ambrose was born yesterday, November 29th at 9:30 p.m. cst.

Through the eyes . . .

2006-11-04T13:52:00.000-06:00

Soon to be not my youngest. . .

Happy Birthday

2006-10-10T20:48:00.000-05:00

Happy birthday to John, my eldest. Five years passes by very quickly.

Bakunin

2006-09-28T20:36:00.000-05:00

I was thinking. . .

A lot of the anarchist thoughts of Bakunin strike me as interesting. Of particular note is that the governments do not exist for the sake of the common good. Nope. Rather government limits the opportunities of the subjects to realize their virtues. Of course I can't agree with all that the good anarchist says, but this one point I really liked. Power, commanding - are these perfective of man? Analogously, look at the institution of slavery in this country. Not only did it deprive people of their liberty to act, but also reduced them to the level of animals. But what did it do to he who commands? Unfortunately, he who commands life or death of his "chattel" suffers as much from the commanding as the slaves. Bakunin makes a similar point about rulers. He asks us to suppose we had a society of virtuous men. Then this organization would need a leader - so they choose the best and brightest, wisest and prudential men to rule. But the very act of ruling is what perverts them: for every virtuous Platonic philosopher-king, there are a million Neros.
I would love to see a government for the common good. But I fear that with our fallen state, our insipid Western failure to rely on the Sacraments, and our hyper-materialistic capitalist views, the closest thing a government can offer to 'good' is a welfare state. If so, then where's my fucking kick-back? Ah, for a Duma, for the right to peacefully assemble (and make an assembly). I fear revolution can only be messy, and it can only be while on the brink of destruction. And while cable T.V. still operates, we will never be that close to the brink.

politiks

2006-09-26T20:43:00.000-05:00

I've been doing a bit of history reading lately. But one doesn't just read history to learn about the events passed, but rather as an insight into the 'what must be done'. I touched on this a while ago in the onagainoffagain blog here. Revolution. This idea astounds me. Should I study the theses of Bakunin? The treatises of Lenin?

Practically speaking I would like to see a revolution in this country in a similar manner to the Russian revolution of 1905 (not that messy one in 1917). The U.S. government (particularly the executive branch) is acting less like a Western prime minister, and more like an Eastern Autocrat. In the first Russian revolution there was the formation of the Duma, or parliament, distinct from and in certain cases in opposition to the established rule of law. But this parliamentary body had legal and economic (no, not entirely socialist nor communist pogroms) reforms in mind. I would like to see a peaceful transfer of power similar to this one (of course, this one didn't last, and it wasn't so peaceful, especially given the reprisals of the Tsar and his bureaucracy...).

So, I ask, is the American population educated enough for this? Are our elected officials and appointed bureaucrats virtuous enough to accept this? Could we peacefully re-draft the law of the land?

no no and no.

At the first gathering of an order separate from the established order, swat teams, marines and smart bombs would wipe the whole thing out. The government would fire on the people. But at least then we would be sure that we lived in a terrorist regime.

What would St. Thomas say?

2006-09-03T14:47:00.000-05:00

About six day creation? Why, let's ask him:

I answer that, in discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.
We say, therefore, that the words which speak of the firmament as made on the second day can be understood in two senses. [he goes on to discuss various ideas of the heavens, Plato, Aristotle et al.] If, however, we take these days to denote merely sequence in the natural order, as Augustine holds, and not secession in time, there is then nothing to prevent our saying, whilst holding any one of the opinions given above, that the substantial formation of the firmament belongs to the second day.

Hmm. . . and I was told that St. Thomas says we need strict six day creation. I guess the person who told me that was misinformed. . .

Fame! Fortune! Hummus!

2006-09-03T14:36:00.000-05:00

When I was younger (and not by a whole lot) I wanted to be renowned: Beitiathustra: the brilliant [insert here]. Gifts of wisdom would be passed down to the community of knowers, and my fame would be eternal. Now of course this was a pipe dream - and motivated by hubris. But I have, accidentally discovered my intellectual gift to mankind this afternoon after Mass. I have discovered:

THE PERFECT SANDWICH!

I'm not kidding. This is my gift to man. I started by frying a half pound of bacon. While that was cooking, I sliced some mushrooms and diced some onion. In a separate pan, I sauted them in butter. While this was going on I grated some cheddar and pepper jack cheese. Then toasting some bread, I gave a liberal spread of Trader Joe's Three Layer Hummus. Placing the cheese on the hummus, the sauted onions and mushrooms on the cheese, and the bacon (all hot and drippy) on the mushrooms, I flattened it enough to fit in my mouth. I had to say grace twice before biting into the sandwich, God was deserving of so much thanks. I need not reiterate what the results were. And, as my brainchild, my gift, has finally seen the light of day, I can go back to killing my brain with beer.

The Revolution

2006-09-02T11:54:00.000-05:00

As promised, further notes on the revolution. I know as moral and upright citizens we are compelled to obey the lawful authority of the land. But as lawful authority is such a nebulous term, I wonder how and where and why a government might lose this privilege.

How seems pretty clear - by losing the consent of the governed. But this is again a pretty loose way of looking at things. How much consent? If one man gives consent is this enough (if there's one good man in Sodom. . . )? Is this a case of simple majority? When is governance simple majority? If the states reject the authority of the federal government does this qualify? Yes or no, depending on your Civil War stance.

Where seems pretty clear too. There have been numerous revolutions throughout history, and some of them even legitimate (I imagine most of us could agree that the American Revolution was just such a case - others get a little more picky).

How. How is difficult. Perhaps if the government disregards its own law. Perhaps if, for example, habeas corpus were suspended. Perhaps if taxation increased beyond bounds necessary to pay for things not in the interests (for the common good) of the people so ruled.

Obviously, we can agree or disagree about the particulars in this regime. I have a feeling that the bleeding hearts and flock-like mentality of the modern American keeps us in line no matter how un-lawful the authority becomes. Rock fights? Molotov cocktails? Hardly. But I have a suggestion, just to get the ball rolling:

The Confessions of non-Saint Beitiathustra

2006-09-01T17:13:00.000-05:00

I hate to argue. I know that may come as a slight surprise to those who know me, but it's true. Incontinence is the issue. If I read, hear, see anything that I disagree with I can't hold my tongue (or my typing little fingers). Self-justification? Perhaps I see no reason to believe anything unless we believe in it strongly. So, I give a list of beliefs:
1. Catholicism is the only way to heaven.

2. Roman Catholicism should have the primary sacrament according to the Tridentine rite. Novus Ordo is simply an inferior rite.

3. Since God "disposed all according to number, weight, and measure" understanding nature is understanding the mind of God.

There is a corollary to #3:

Mathematics and science are paths to sanctity when coupled with proper living according to Catholic belief.

There is another corollary to #3:
God ordered the cosmos rationally. Number and measure are meant to be understood by man. Therefore, modern science and mathematics are not per se evil but rather good.

4. Philosophy, as an understanding of what is, is essential to mathematics and science in so far as from philosophy mathematics and science derive their principles.

There is a corollary to #4:

Mathematics and science could no more talk about the existence of God than a mechanic could talk about the ideal gas laws. Each is above their corresponding science (or art).

And, on a personal note:
5. Children are the greatest blessing for a married man, far outweighing any material good. (this one gets me into trouble at work sometimes....)

Unfortunately, these five and their corollaries are constantly getting me into arguments. If one disagrees with any one of them, no matter in what small matter, I lose the ability to remain silent. Sometimes, however, silence is the better part. Now if I only had a penguin to blame this all on. . .

Science, virtue and morons

2006-08-28T20:20:00.000-05:00

I was thinking yesterday evening about the reluctance of certain people to accept the role science plays in human understanding. But then, in contradistinction, I thought about how scientists are unable to keep their conclusions within their own realm of human knowing (trying to talk about God, morality, society and so forth). Then it occurred to me: in order to "do science" one has to be both intellectual and virtuous. Six day creation folks are obviously not smart enough for science. Even St. Augustine on the strength of Scripture alone saw that six days is analogical. Now with empirical deductive evidence we should revel that the conclusions are the same. Scientists, on the other hand, are not virtuous enough to see how their efforts are ad maiorem gloriam Dei. The world was created according to laws. Numeric ones, as much as that may gall the "philosophic" element. Understanding the numbers gives insight into the mind of God. This is a holy task. It should be approached with reverence and awe.
It makes me very sad for mankind when I see those that actually believe in holiness hide their collective heads in the sand (or up their collective ass, depending on how you look at it). According to these morons, we understood God at the time of Moses, what more could we learn? Six days, dinosaurs and people roaming around with saber-toothed tigers, flood "geology" and so forth. The whole thing is a scandal. It supports my theory that, as a culture, we are not ready for science. Modern Americans: we're either too vicious, or too fucking stupid.

Imaginary friends

2006-08-28T20:10:00.000-05:00

Remember when you were a little kid? If you were like me and weren't around a lot of other children (at least in spirit not around them) you spent a lot of time hiding in your imagination. My second son, Andy is like this. He has the "black-footed penguin of death" as I call it, he just calls her penguin. Any time anything bad happens around here, it's penguin's fault. Penguin hits people, breaks lego towers, keeps Andy and John from sleeping at nap time, disturbs the Rosary, talks back, and any other wicked thing Andy can think for penguin to do. Andy is a very good kid. Penguin, however, is not.
Now wouldn't it be nice if this carried over into adulthood . . .
I would walk around work with a stuffed animal blaming all fuckups on it. It would make talking shit to other people a lot easier too. "I wasn't calling so-and-so stupid, it was frog." You get the picture. "Frog forgot to pay the power bill, not me." "Frog was speeding, I was trying to drive thirty-five." "Frog cut you off not me. What's that frog? Frog says you drive like an asshole anyway." Ah the simple pleasures in life, lost to adulthood.

Political Philosophy

2006-08-27T14:33:00.000-05:00

Let's open a can of worms. All modern political philosophy from Locke to Rousseau and others says that the governments exists by consent of the governed. That may or may not be the foundations for the regime in which we live - I suppose certain friends of mine would say no. Be that as it may, there is even in "On Kingship" and certain passages of the Summa by St. Thomas that require government to have the consent of the governed. Look at our current regime. What if the government lost the consent. What does that morally do? Does the governing body have to have a mass resignation? What qualifies as consent? Simple majority? Plurality?
But what if the governing body lost the consent of the ruled - but did not lose the power. Wouldn't that put us two degrees from Molotov cocktails and rock fights? It wouldn't be a rebellion, or a revolt - both of these operate within the framework of a legitimate government. It would be a revolution. So if natural law states that the foundation of rule is by consent, and the consent is rescinded, then revolution is legal (in the natural sense if not in the sense of positive human law). But then again, if the rule of (positive) law broke down, I'd probably be one of the first assholes up against the wall when the revolution came.

What's in a Name??

2006-08-27T14:24:00.000-05:00

Since my mathematico-physical writings hold no interest for anyone (at least that may pretend to read this), I decided to bring in science in a popularized way to the glacier. All week in the newspapers and on the internet there have been articles on the "death" of Pluto. On the Daily Southtown in Chicago the front page even had "Pluto: 1930-2006". What a crock of shit. Pluto still is what it is, the have just changed what they classify it as. The new definition of "planet" includes sufficient mass to avoid irregularities in the orbit. It is well known that Pluto's orbit overlaps Neptune's. Thus, by the new definition it is not a planet. So what. I like to think of it analogically: you can call a shithead a neo-conservative, but does that change the underlying? You could call a Puritan a "trad", and what's the difference? One could even call whining irrational linguistics "postmodern philosophy" but it still is what it is.
A rose by any other name. . .?

An attempt to clarify the previous post, but will probably obfuscate

2006-08-19T11:54:00.000-05:00

If we have a non-expanding, rotating "universe" with a non-zero cosmological constant of sufficiently severe four dimensional geometry, the geodesic (or rather world-line of a particular body) describes a "circle". This is not to say a body "orbits" continually. That misses the point. Orbits understand the closed loop not as a geodesic, but rather in three dimensional space. Repetition is not the case, but rather the cessation of time per se according to the mathematical construct. The question then becomes not whether this (our) universe could conform to the radical geometry of the "Godel universe" but rather, given the equivalence of all frames of reference in general relativity, how this does not "kill" time for all frames of reference. That is to say that if time (t in equations) can be shown - when conjoined to space in the continuum - to be demonstrably false, what does this do to our intuitive sense (philosophical sense?) of time.

There is a tension between positivist empirical science and theoretical philosophy of science (or theoretical physics). On the one hand, empiricism leads us from our experience of time to the measurement of time by clocks. But this very "commonsensical" approach leads us to the integration of time with space as the four dimensional continuum. If we, in an empirical manner, describe, mathematically, time as space-like all vestiges of "time", as we experience it, fade. Time then becomes the t of the equation, the fourth dimension in exotic geometry. All that then remains is the equivocal name.

Relativity relatively revisited

2006-08-16T20:05:00.000-05:00

A little research into the writings of one of my heroes, Godel, has provided me with an interesting conundrum. I understand general relativity pretty well; well enough that I can manipulate the more simple solutions to the field equations. But I have a problem... or is it physics??

We all remember special relativity and the deductions that distance and time are dependent upon relative motion, and what happens in one frame of reference can be described equally as well in another frame of reference, provided gravity is ignored and the frames are moving in a uniform non-rotating manner. But general relativity elaborates on this, including gravity and any relative motion whatsoever. Just as in special relativity, in general relativity any frame of motion works equally well to describe any motion. Hell, its all relative.
Well, Schwartzchild discovered that there are solutions to the field equations for gravity that would produce infinite gravitation: the Schwartzchild singularity. Then they were observed (black holes, they are called, because Schwartzchild singularity is a mouthful). Also, we can see that because of the distortion that gravity has on the four dimensional spacetime fabric, all bodies move along "geodesics" in space-time - the shortest 4D path geometrically speaking. But if we change frames of reference, we're okay - 'cause its all relative. Still things move along geodesics - just with regard to the newly distorted space-time. Also, for general relativity to be "true" all imaginable possible "universes" that satisfy the field equations are all equally valid.
But then Godel had to come along. In 1949 he published a brief paper showing solutions to the field equations (now called Godel Universes) where the geodesic was a circle. "A circle!!?" you exclaim. Or perhaps you don't. This would mean that traveling quickly, one would come to a "point" in "time" that was the beginning. Time would be circular. But before you break out the H. G. Wells, if you go forward to the past, then the past hasn't passed because it is presently the future. Either it is, or in the Godel Universe, there is no time. "Okay fine, there's no time in the Godel Universe, so fucking what?" But if in this possible universe there is no time, it is equally valid in all universes satisfying the strictures of general relativity - including our own. Therefore there's no time.
So, relativity captures time and shoe-horns it into a space-like dimension. This renders all philosophic, empirical, epistemological concerns for time null. But in capturing time, in sealing it with space, in making it computable, time pulled a Houdini - and vanished.
What now?

Sidelights

2006-08-11T17:15:00.000-05:00

It has been awhile since I mentioned Kurt Godel in this on-again off-again excuse for a blog. I was again pondering incompleteness as a theorem in reference to human understanding and the myth of artificial intelligence. Since all computers (machines) work by a finite set of axioms (on-offs or 0 and 1s in binary code) and all finite sets of axioms are mathematically incapable of demonstrating truths within their systems (that can be known to be true by man) computers are incapable of thinking even if thinking were purely mechanistic. It seems rather to point out that men do not think mechanistically - a crushing blow to computer geeks and positivists everywhere.

But what really piqued my curiosity was the paper Godel wrote in 1949 about relativity. Still in the process of researching, but needless to say the physics of a static, rotating universe with a non-zero cosmological constant intrigues me. I'll keep you posted. . .

musings

2006-08-08T08:04:00.000-05:00

I'm another year older today. It always makes me muse on my life around this time. I was thinking about the proverbial 'where am I in life' question, and wondering if this is where I saw myself when I graduated high school, or college. Then I realized: I didn't see myself really anywhere - and that is where I've ended up. Every plan I've ever had has been either half-assed or delusional, and of course has never come to pass. But it is easier to daydream than to work for something. God must know that I'm incapable of self-determination too - for some things have fallen through due to no fault of my own. Random failure makes me wonder how much worse of a person I would be if I had success. But, we must trust in His wisdom. On another digression, the Hubble Constant has been recalculated recently. If the new data is correct, the calculations for the age and size of the universe need to be increased by fifteen percent. This makes the universe not 13.7 billion years old, but rather 15.8 billion years old. Increased human insignificance? Perhaps.

Obedience

2006-07-25T18:52:00.000-05:00

In an attempt to provide a counter-example to someone (you know who you are) I give the barest bones argument on obedience as it occurred to me.

1 God exists? a: yes b: no
if b forget the whole thing, if a continue
2 God has a will? a: yes b: no
if b go back to 1 and re-examine, if a continue
3 Follow God's will? a: yes b: no
if b go back to 1 and re-evaluate, if a continue
4 Follow God's will either: a per se or b: per accidens
if b then 3a or 3b equally valid, if a then obedience.
Thus obedience as a virtue requires God exists, He has a will, one follows God's will and that is intentional. Therefore there is some sense in which God's will must be knowable. But this can be known in two ways: the indelible stamp of natural law on men's hearts, and also in terms of the moral law that does not pertain to natural law. Therefore, we continue:
5 God's law is knowable: a Institutionally or b: privately
but if b then either back to 4b which rejects obedience, or private personal revelation to everyone, which contradicts natural experience. Therefore, if 5a then there is an institution of God (church). Therefore:
6 The institution of God is: a: visible b: invisible
But if 6b then back to 5b.
Therefore, if there is a God, with a will, that is to be followed in itself, there must be a knowable moral law institutionally in a visible church. This, according to the brief argument I have inadequately lain out, is obedience.

More poor reasoning from those who should know better

2006-07-25T18:39:00.000-05:00

Ah yes. More goodness from the blog of Fumans asserem. These boys have hit the nail on the head again. Previously, for those with better taste than myself (or perhaps don't read stupid shit just to get pissed off) who don't read this crap regularly, they referred to a woman disagreeing with anything they say as "needing a date" or "ugly". Wow. Spectacular reasoning. Now, if you are male and disagree, you must be gay or get beat up a lot. I find it interesting that for such "good" Catholic boys to use the basest materialistic reasoning - as opposed to actually thinking that anyone could contradict them. One jackass (who, to their credit only comments probably because he has not the fortitude to post for himself) who I don't know personally, levels some pretty good attacks at my character. "Sophist pantywaist" and "elitist prig" are quite compelling. I feel myself rebuked. Thus sophistry is redefined as disagreeing with those who can only reason ad hominem.

Rate your friends on the VELAWIG scale

2006-07-21T17:22:00.000-05:00

Okay, I hear a lot about the Fatima proclamation that most souls go to hell for sins of the flesh. Reasonable. But what bothers me is that the common interpretation (at least in the circles where I hear an interpretation of this) is that these sins of the flesh are confined solely to modesty. Now correct me if I am wrong, but there are a lot of sins of the flesh that do not relate primarily to lust. Has there ever been an age where obesity has reached crisis proportions than in this country at this historical time period? Crisis speaking spiritually, not health-wise. Not going to claim to be a reader of souls, but looks like the modern world has a gluttony problem. Has there ever been a time in history when there were more people with more free time to sit on the couch and watch T.V.? Or play video games? Or post on the internet? Sounds pretty immobile to me, or perhaps another 'i' word would do better: indolence. Sloth seems to be a pretty clear sin of the flesh, as does gluttony. Drive through junk food - that combines the best of gluttony (bad food in large portions) with the best of indolence (not only do I not have to cook or clean up, but I don't even have to get my ass out of the car). Does your town have a drive through fast food place? More than one? I'm shocked. Not to downplay the role lust has played in the damnation of people. Look around, in our overly sexualized society (which I would argue makes things less sexual, but that for another time) idiotic thirteen year old boy fantasy "women" are paraded around naked to sell everything. Several years ago a comedian joked that there would be billboards of naked women, provocative (I won't say what he said exactly) and letters reading "drink Coke". We're not too far from there. But at the same time, the sins of the flesh, as a general rule, seem to be, to me, rolled into one lusty, indolent glutton called: the modern American.

(aside, spell check tried to replace "VELAWIG" with Bellagio, a casino in Las Vegas. I forgot all about lottery tickets, gambling, Texas hold 'em and greed. . . but that seems a little less fleshy to me)

The Numerology of Birthdays

2006-07-21T17:13:00.000-05:00

As my birthday is fast approaching, I realized that we celebrate the oddest dates in our culture as "special". Thirty. Who cares about thirty? Three decades - big deal. Me, I'm going to be twenty-eight. That is important. It is the second perfect number, and the highest perfect number I will live to see. (Twenty-eight is perfect because its factors add up to it: 1,2,4,7,14 are the factors, 1+2+4+7+14=28) The next perfect number is 496 - way outside my lifespan. Thirty, on the other hand could be a very special birthday, for it is the product of the first three prime numbers, and we all know the Theological significance of three. Its actually pretty simple to give yourself a numerology of birthdays, instead of only celebrating the decades as important, as long as you remember prime factorization. If anyone cares to comment, I will give them a free birthday numerology analysis - up until my birthday. After that, $9.95.

Modern War

2006-07-21T17:07:00.000-05:00

Modern warfare is terrorism. This alarms me. What, in point of fact, is the difference between a terrorist walking into a crowded bus stop and blowing himself up, and everyone else around, and a pilot of a U.S. bomber dropping a large explosive on some part of a city? Oh, I forgot, there is intention. Intentions don't seem to me to mean a whole lot if there is the same net result: people blow up who have nothing to do with fighting the war. I think the boat was missed (and badly) when people try to discuss the particulars of this or that war (Iraq being only the latest installment of the bad reasoning debates) when it is the way modern warfare exists that is immoral. But terrorists (one may object) don't have a goal; the U.S. is trying to bring liberty, equality, fraternity, to these poor nations. Then I guess the ends justify the means. For if the immoral practices can have good results then it is all worth it in the end. Seems to me a rather poor way to live. And die. And make war.

Link

2006-06-30T17:12:00.000-05:00

The rare world of linkage from the Glacier brings you this

http://health.msn.com/healthnews/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100138628&GT1=8211

I feel vindicated. As possibly the only male in his late twenties never to have owned a cell phone, and feeling nothing but pure hatred (hyperbole) for cell phone users, this is a justification. Now that we are all interconnected with everyone, e-tasking, talking, driving, eating, smoking, piped in music, honking, lights, brakes, stop, go, hands-free, hands-full, 0-60, 60-0, I SAY STOP.

FUCK IT, I'm walking...

Satire

2006-06-22T21:27:00.000-05:00

It occurred to me the other day to write a satirical piece, so, here it is.

The Trial (no I'm not ripping off Kafka)

The scene is a small Colorado courtroom, two lawyers, a judge, the defendant and the court stenographer.

Judge: I see the defendant has waived his right to a trial by jury, and has opted for a bench trial.
Lawyer for Defense: That is correct.
Judge: And what are the charges?
Prosecutor: The people charge Mr. Bates with murder in the first degree.
Judge: And how do you plead, Mr. Bates?
Defendant (Mr. Bates): Not guilty.
Judge: Let's here the arguments.
Pros.: Well, you honor, we have the dead body of the victim, the murder weapon, and we have Mr. Bates' fingerprints all over the murder weapon. We have the receipt from the gun store that Mr. Bates purchased the weapon. We have seventeen witnesses that saw Mr. Bates pull the trigger. We have the traffic camera video footage of Mr. Bates pulling the trigger. You can see exhibits, A, B, C, D, E, F, and G.
Judge: Anything further?
Pros.: No, as you can see, the evidence speaks for itself.
Judge: Is there anything the defense would like to say to this?
LforD: Well, your honor . . .
Mr. Bates: If I may, your honor . . .
Judge: Yes?
Mr. Bates: It was self defense. I never denied killing the man.
Judge: Explain.
Mr. Bates: Well, your honor, you see, he was a Methodist.
Judge: And?
Mr. Bates: Well it started last year when I lived in California. There was this Methodist...
Pros.: Relevance?
Judge: I'll allow it, provided it is going somewhere, Mr. Bates.
Mr. Bates: Well when I lived in California my neighbor was a Methodist. We didn't get along. He said all sorts of mean things to me over the fence between the yards. And one day, when I was backing out of the driveway to go to work, I backed into his garbage cans. Spilled it everywhere.
Judge: As fascinating as this is, what, exactly, is the point?
Mr. Bates: Well, he threatened me, and said all sorts of horrible things. And while I wasn't looking at work, he drove his car into my fence, and knocked the whole thing over.
Judge: What does your old neighbor have to do with anything?
Mr. Bates: Well, just like the man I killed in self-defense, he was a Methodist. In fact, I have reason to believe they were in on trying to kill me together.
Judge: Why is that?
Mr. Bates: They were both Methodist, and neither liked me.
Judge: How did you know the victim?
Mr. Bates: A couple of months ago, we bumped into each other outside the grocery store by my house. He was mad because I 'made' him drop his dozen eggs.
Judge: And?
Mr. Bates: Well, I followed him for a couple of days and saw him going into the Methodist church. I knew then and there that the eggs could be no accident.
Judge: How is that?
Mr. Bates: Well, I started seeing him frequently, since I was following him, and he kept getting angry at me. In fear, I bought the gun that you see the receipt for, and that my finger prints are all over. That gun I purchased so that I might not be the victim again, like when my fence was destroyed, killing my begonias.
Judge: So what happened the day that you shot him?
Mr. Bates: Well, he saw me following him, so I hid. He came and found me, and yelled a lot. I told him that I knew that he was in league with my old neighbor, and that they were plotting my death. I told him that I would never let my fence be knocked down again, that my begonias would always be safe. I told him that my way of life was worthwhile, and no one would stop me from leading it, and I shot him.
Judge: That's it?
Mr. Bates: Yes, that it. But more: It was a pre-emptive strike, saving my fence, my flowers, even myself from death. Your honor, this is the clearest case of self-defense. I was protecting those who couldn't protect themselves (my flowers), protecting my fence, my way of life.
Judge: Anything further from the useless lawyers?
Pros.: Nope.
LforD.: Nope here.
Judge: Then I find the defendant, Geoff William Bates, not guilty of murder.
Pros.: What!?
LforD.: WHAT!?
Stenographer: What??
Judge: Yes, I believe he was perfectly justified. I'd have done the same thing myself. Methodists. . .
LforD (aside to Bates): I'm glad we opted for the bench trial. You're lucky to get off. I doubt we could have found twelve Americans who would've bought that shit.

Father's Day Ramblings

2006-06-18T09:16:00.000-05:00

Well, another year has gone by as we return to the Hallmark holiday where the sun beats down, barbecues are the rule, and middle aged men wear stupid t-shirts. It's kind of weak compared to mother's day, if you look at retail sales, and no one really takes it seriously any way. Thankfully my children are not old enough to get me some crappy tie or other such garbage. But, given we move and live in the culture of our times, I used the chorus of "happy father's day" from the boys to inform them of the impending arrival of their new sibling. Andy, in his typical mania, seemed overjoyed (if his jumping around the kitchen was any indication), but John, well, he seemed concerned. Poor boy already has Andy and Sara to look after, I can imagine the weight of the impending responsibility (or so it seemed to occur to his four and a half year old mind). Well, tough luck. He's had a brother since he was just turned one, he should be used to it. On the lighter side, both he and his brother want another brother. I can't say I blame them. Sara is so spoiled (sadly, mostly by John anyway) that they couldn't really want a sister (unless they have latent masochistic tendencies). If they have masochistic tendencies, they sure come by it honestly - look Erin and I will have four children five and under this coming November. History of telling people my wife is pregnant:

1st time: "Congratulations!" (thanks)

2nd time: "So soon?" (sure looks like it mr. obvious)

3rd time: "Another one?" (No, I just put Andy back in, dumbass)

miscarriage: "Probably for the best" (fuck off)
4th time: "So when are you getting fixed?" (well, since you had elective surgery - lobotomy...)

I didn't make up the last one, either. So what are the highlights of fatherhood? Teaching your boys at four and three to say "I have apodictic certitude" (like good Kantians) to answer the question "are you sure?" Teaching them - in the previous year - to sing the alphabet backwards. When Andy was two he could totally pass a field sobriety test. Fatherhood - teaching important life lessons. Now the three of us are working on the "Our Father". It seems to be going well. John's already got it down pretty well.

But lest everyone think that fatherhood is all work and no play, I must say, well, hmm. . . anyone who knows me knows I fuck off all of the time. Now I have an audience, and accomplices. Life is much better with a studio audience - complete with applause. I honestly don't know how older people do this. I have a lot of energy still, but at forty - who knows. You need a lot of energy when your house is as populous as mine. The hardest part is cracking a beer without the beer vultures (otherwise known as Andy and John) attempting to beg a sip - they are very persistent. I usually have to give a teeny swallow just to get them physically off of me. C'est la vie.

So, father's day. If you're a father already, I toast my cup of coffee to you right now. If you aren't, well, better luck next year. . .

Hmm . . .

2006-06-11T10:27:00.000-05:00

Shall this blog live?
Are we nearing blogular suicide (blogocide)?
Have I, after all these years of prattling on, verbally and via keyboard, finally ran out of anything even mildly interesting to say?
It seems.

Back in the day, "Beitiathustra" was a joke at my expense. Cheers to assimilatiodei, you were all-to-correct. It finally looks like the joke has come full circle and the rant has petered out.

Not with a bang but a whimper?

Prelude, part IV

2006-04-01T10:22:00.000-06:00

Isn't the term "nature" the largest stereotype of man's thought? In a sociological sense, men cannot be categorized by external appearances, for every man is different. Poor social justice and odd political philosophies have been based on this taking of the unessential for true, and necessary. What is the case with nature? "All or for the most part" we have been taught. Is this nothing more than taking that which is unessential - similarity - for necessary? Each thing, each instantiation of sensuous material 'stuff', each incident, each happenstance is different. Categorically, and by this we mean in the mind, we call these differences accidents. But existence in the mind is wildly difference from existence. Shouldn't we perhaps consider these things as essentially different - in themselves? (assuming of course the phrase 'in itself' is not just another stereotype) With this, there is the abolition of nature, the rejection of the "oughts" placed on the outside world, based on the untruthful 'faculty' of man, indiscriminately smearing the dissimilar together. For this is what we mean when we say something "has a nature" - it acts in a way similar to another different thing. So instead of naming everything individually (each blade of grass with its own proper name - etc.) we squish it all into the conceptual category - nature. Nature is in man, not in things.

Prelude... again

2006-03-20T21:04:00.000-06:00

No one denies that thoughts, ideas, are in some way "inside" of man. In fact, we here fully affirm that they are totally inside the man, in every essential respect. When Platonists prescribe the forms "ideas" existing apart in their own separate, higher reality, we see the burden of proof on them. Semi-syllogistically, this would run in the following manner. Thoughts are in man. Man knows his thoughts. To say that his thoughts come from higher requires an addition positing of some third thing, in addition to the two: man and the thought. Occam's razor neatly slices away the other. . .

Why is it necessary that the world be intelligible at all? Intelligibility requires that there be some sense in which the world is in the mind. In fact, it requires either a god to know the world, and our participation in that - the semi-Platonic view, or that the world is in some sense a representation of that inside of man - an un-rigorous Sartrean view. Or perhaps some third intermediary view - like that of Aristotle. There is some "faculty" in us that apprehends the "intelligible form" directly. So that man in his whatness sees the natural stuffocity of the thinghood in question. Jargon? Perhaps. A description of the world? Less likely.

Shouldn't we rather assert that the universe is unintelligible? But there is some "faculty" in man - call it the untruthful faculty - that smears nature into these categories of thought for the sake of recognizing dissimilar situations as the same - for the sake of living. But then wouldn't all recognition of similitude be an analogous smearing of nature? We see the fundamental questionableness of nature. But nature is dumb. She never answers our calls...

Prelude continued

2006-03-19T18:36:00.000-06:00

All of the so-called "hard sciences" are really informed by a philosophical, that is, metaphysical outlook. Empirical science only "views", it is unable to say what it views, in what manner it views, or make any connections among what it views without said recourse to metaphysics. The world view of the cognoscenti determines the way in which nature is seen. Let us continue our thought process and reason about the sciences, which enlightens the view of metaphysics held by men.

Mathematics has been about the study of man since its inception. Even with the ancient Greeks it was this way. Pythagoreans thought they were studying the "mind" in nature. Plato saw the "forms" the idea, existing upwards. Aristotle saw the study of quantity qua quantity. The only way quantity can exist separate from substance, in an Aristotelian hypothesis, is in the mind. Math is in the mind. Forms of Plato - existence in the mind (disjointed somehow, but one can forgive the mistake for excellent dialectic). Now to the moderns - they have studied mathematics as the pure intuition of the minds logic. Nothing outside of man is required. Definitions and axioms are posited as the way in which human reason proceeds. All of this can lead us to only one thing - consensus sapientiam puts mathematics in the mind of man. It does not exist outside of ourselves.

And to what, we may ask, does modern science conform its viewings? To mathematics. All of nature is pushed into the mind of man, with thoughts of laws, and "love and strife", "struggle for existence" all according to mathematical forms. The humanization of nature (after the de-deification of nature) has pushed the existence of all learning inside of man - and thus imposed man on all of nature.

Which now brings us back to our original point. Since the sciences cannot of themselves comment, and their comments have shown the impression of man on the cosmos, the metaphysics of the age is that of a humanization of nature. This is our task: a deconstruction. If all that I study is only a study of what I know, I respectfully opt out.

Prelude to a new Metaphysics

2006-03-18T20:40:00.000-06:00

Philosophy has followed an interesting strategy since its inception with the ancient Greeks. In all of western tradition the thinker has attempted to describe the world [ousia, presencing, substance, the world of appearances, the subject, nature, physis] metaphysically. By metaphysically, of course, we mean in terms of anthropomorphisms [eidos, idea, essence, res ipsa, forms]. This has trickled down into the modern sciences, where "laws" exist in physics, where evolutionary biology is the norm [permit a Nietzsche quote: "one should not confuse nature with Malthus."], where Chemists talk of "attraction" and "repulsion". The deviancy of this position perhaps is not clear; man thinks, "I am man, I think nature as man, impute my will on the face of creation - how could it be otherwise?" The scientist see great strides in human understanding, for we have kicked the gods out of nature. Unfortunately, we replaced them with man. So, either:

A: The deconstructionalists are correct. Everything is understood in terms of man, but man communicates [thinks] by language. Therefore we should deny everything but linguistic analysis and symbolic logic. These two suffice to explain the universe.

or:

B: We force the de-humanization of nature. We deconstruct our own way, pushing aside man and all that he wills, impugns onto nature. Why seek to understand the laws of nature? This only seeks to understand how we think nature should act.

I, for one, choose B. If we meditate, circling round and round this thought, we see the overfull, needless excess that is the world: disharmonious, unthinking, unpatterned. A violent, nonsensical mash of unrelated happenstance. This should be the beginning of our metaphysics. Once we realize that our science, our sciences, are only understanding ourselves [the oughts of nature] we then clear the way for authentic thinking - an actual encounter - with what is.

Veritas est adaequatio intellectus ad. . .

2006-03-10T16:57:00.000-06:00

Sometimes things which are manifold are oversimplified by vices of language. "Truth is the adequation of the intellect to the thing." No one may deny that there is some sense in which something can be said to be "in" the mind. But this in seems so slippery. I'm sure the shulamite could correct me on this, but it seems that definitions do not admit of demonstration, so long as the thing defined is simple and not manifold. We can name the manifold in actuality by one term, but that does not mean the term so named is simple, or that the definition of this is not the conclusion of some demonstration. What are we adequating? Why are we adequating? How is adequation possible? Why is it even necessary to think that it is possible? Which rem? Whose intellectus? Truth: definitive, propositional, factual, tautological, analogical?

Three errors that I see a lot

2006-03-05T16:33:00.000-06:00

Insofar as all men are rational, all men can reason. Insofar as all men have hands, they can paint. Difference is, not all have the training and tools to do either. First, similarity means the same. This is the error of an accidental [mistaken] cause. Secondly, what applies to a group applies to an individual. This is the error of collective versus genus (or universal). Thirdly, it is either A or B. This is the error that says simply different things are contradictories. The POC only applies to those [A and ~A], not two different things. I hear these three all the time. They obfuscate matters and reasoned discourse impossible. [now if I could only avoid them]

Aesthetics and art

2006-03-04T12:04:00.000-06:00

There is a fundamental misunderstanding in judging artwork from the time of Aristotle. Since the Poetics art and the beautiful has been understood from the perspective of the observer. Tragedy is analyzed for what it does to us. Why don't we think of it another way? If we see art and artwork as the creation of the beautiful, and understand precisely this - it is a creative act. Should we then not think of it from the perspective of the creator? See that the plenitude of one man's soul overflows in the creation of some thing? If tragedy causes catharsis in the observer, what does it do to the Tragedian?

Quote with "exegesis"

2006-02-25T18:30:00.000-06:00

First:

Two who are happy. - Truly, in spite of his youth, this is a great improviser of life who amazes even the subtlest observer; for he never seems to make a mistake although he continually takes the greatest risk. One is reminded of those masters of musical improvisation whose hands the listener would also like to credit with divine infallibility although here and there they make a mistake as every mortal does. But they are practiced and inventive and ready at any moment to incorporate into their thematic order the most accidental tone to which the flick of a finger or a mood has driven them, breathing a beautiful meaning and a soul into accident.
Here is an altogether different person: at bottom, everything he desires and plans goes wrong. What he has occasionally set his heart upon has brought him several times to the edge of the abyss and within a hair of destruction; and if he escaped that, it was certainly not merely "with a black eye." Do you suppose that he feels unhappy about that? He made up his mind long ago not to take his own desires and plans too seriously. "If I do not succeed at this," he says to himself, "I may perhaps succeed at that; and on the whole I do not know whether I do not have more reason to be grateful to my failures than to any success. Was I made to be stubborn and to have horns like a bull? What constitutes the value and result of life for me lies elsewhere; my pride as well as my misery lie elsewhere. I know more about life because I have so often been on the verge of losing it; and precisely for that reason I get more out of life than any of you."

Psychological arguments based on failure? Would this all be dismissed with a good day? I suspect this is what keeps some from jumping off of buildings . . .

Religious

2006-02-23T19:38:00.000-06:00

What is religious? I have the suspicion that what is religious, more often than not, degenerates into mere religiosity. Call it the religious sentiment, if that nomenclature is preferable. Posturing and positions based on feeling a certain psychological what-have-you. Give me your Thomistic deductions, your Protestant exegesis - fill me with historical and scientific imperatives. But as a thought experiment, ask yourselves "why do I believe, deduce, exegize. . . ?" And if the answer is that it is true, ask yourself in what way is it "true"?

West and East

2006-02-20T21:05:00.000-06:00

If you think about the current conflict in ideas, ideals and arms in the current mideast, a stark contrast shows itself. It is not just a clash of arms, but a clash of culture. We ask why the Americans are in the mideast. "To protect our interests." Why does the Mohammedan lash out against the West? "To protect our ideology." Shouldn't we rather put it as, "to protect our Idol?" Isn't this brand of terrorism - sacrifice? Isn't sacrifice - power? In a war between interest and idol, between concern and passion, between filling gas tanks and filling paradise, there will be a victor. It will be interesting to note how the concern of the West grows when our sacrifice is required -

Religious

2006-02-20T20:54:00.000-06:00

What is religious has always included the element of a sacrifice. From the pagan idols all across the globe to the Jews of the Old Testament, from Catholicism to Buddhist self-sacrifice - all have contained this element. Frequently it is of that which is - or should be - most dear: children to Moloch, self in Zen, even God in Christianity. Other times it was sacrifice of the conquered, as in the Aztecs, pre-kingdom Israelites and so forth. In this the sacrifice is an element of strength. It also shows an element of strength in animal sacrifice, such as the Greek hecatomb. Psychologically (and purely psychologically) this shows man as a creature who shows power by sacrifice, whether power over the vanquished, over nature, or even over himself by giving that which is most dear.

For the sake of?

2006-02-18T11:52:00.000-06:00

There is a polemical attitude that seeks to strike discord in communication. Dissecting every sentence, every word, every structure to find fault - this is how these morticians of thought proceed. Avoiding synthesis, they seek to overcome ideas - regardless of the intention of the original author, even intentionally disagreeing with intention. Why? To win. The will to misunderstanding, the will to un-truth as a condition for the will to power.

True thoughts

2006-02-16T20:46:00.000-06:00

The 'essence' of truth lies neither in certitude, nor exactitude, and less still in grammatical wordplay. Examine the dictum: existence precedes essence. If by essence, you mean: to be what it is, of course it must be to be what it is. How could it not? Grammatical wordplay from one who would persue vain morality. All truth then, analogical, tautological, equivocal?

Masks

2006-02-15T20:23:00.000-06:00

What viciousness is hidden in the ideology 'respect for persons'! How wretched is the demos that they demand obeisance to - a mask. Greatness demands that we push beyond this. Seek individuals, primary substance, souls, Da-sein; these may be worthy of respect. As for appearances, personally, I find them very readable.

Discipleship

2006-02-14T20:33:00.000-06:00

The role of the disciple is one who has set oneself at the feet of the master. The master's writings are received as pure truth illuminated. If this disciple revere the ancients, he must assume the moderns didn't understand them - at least not like he does. So smugly he kneels at the feet of the masters, content that he knows better. Submission - out of - pride?

The New Beginning (aphoristically?)

2006-02-14T20:24:00.000-06:00

Some wish to seem wise by overcomplication. Others wish to seem wise by oversimplification. Unseemly - the will to wisdom is at root - overdone.

Self-Examination, or, the Aphorism

2006-02-13T23:08:00.000-06:00

One thing that I have always admired about Nietzsche, Pascal et al. is the ability to write an aphorism. There is something I find profoundly interesting in the ability to state something clearly and lucidity, without argument, in a few short words. Others, like myself, have no capacity for brevity, and tend to drone on and on. Brevity, rather, pithiness is the heart of what makes Nietzsche brilliant. Well crafted sentences that are all-to-poingiant should be what people, stylistically, strive for. No one really has the interest to follow Hegelian paragraph-length sentences. I remember when writing my thesis for undergraduate college I came across a 'sentence' that I wrote that was over seventy words long. A stylistic abomination. By the time I came to the end of it, I had forgotten what I meant to say when I started the sentence. Perhaps a six-week-late New Year's resolution is in order: only to write in aphorisms. Hmm. . . this would greatly lessen my output, but perhaps afford me the time to write more often. Well, no one wants to argue anyway. . . we all write online to tell each other how brilliant we are. Maybe I will start today:

Or maybe not. I can't think of anything to say that wouldn't take thirty minutes and five paragraphs to type out...

More vitriol from the glacier

2006-02-02T21:28:00.000-06:00

I was thinking. . .

While reading some pro-Bush somewhat-pseudo-kind-of-quasi-'conservative' drivel on what might be better called "not-so-live slightly revolting", it occurred to me that there are several discrepancies in American policy. One revolter likes to point out that the founding fathers were not liberal elightenment guys. Sure, why not. I'll buy it. But if you want your conservative whatever, we should probably look at the founding fathers and thier complaints. Review, for example, theTownshend Acts. What again, was the point of the taxation that the colonists were so adamantly opposed to? Oh, military "for their own defense" . . . Hmm. . . you can actually read these acts and see how small the taxation really was. Income tax (of the modern variety) is actually quite larger than any of the taxes proposed on goods. Plus, sales taxes and hidden taxes and . . . I digress . . . But what does income tax really pay for? I know. Defense for our own good. [aside, the last link is a little slanted. But scroll down and read all of it, and they show their own bias - especially if you read the part about why the spending varies - in yellow] Thus, if our founding fathers could so object to these unfair levied taxes "for their own defense", why can't we? I guess I would say that being pro-Bush (i.e. - pro-war) is, well, kind of liberal and newfangled. It goes against the ideas of the founding fathers. Thus, I'm not sure how revolutionary one can be, when towing the party line. . . unless being liberal is revolutionary. . .
But lest we take all of this as hate speech, just remember, I don't know what I'm talking about, and never say anything seriously anyway. Plus, there's others who are in line for some good natured vitriol"....

The state of the union

2006-01-31T20:15:00.000-06:00

My fellow 'Mericans! This year in 'Merica we have stayed much the same. The status quo will not be overthrown. The rich got richer, and the poor got poorer. We even see now the lowest savings rate among our subjects since 1933! We have unnaturally force interest rates so low so that we can, as a nation of strong people, continue to avoid thinking about tomorrow and spend more and more money building up the Chinese economy by buying their garbage. But amid all the doom and gloom that 2005 had to offer we have many bright spots. Exxon corporation posted profits of nearly thirty-six billion dollars last year - record setting! It is easy to see why when local subjects in, say, the south suburbs of Chicago, pay $2.35 for a gallon of 87 octane. Way to go Exxon! An exemplar of the 'Merican dream. Heathcare continues to be unaffordable for the working poor, while frivolous lawsuits and the erratic market drive insurance rates up. Ford layed off thirty thousand, Kraft, twenty thousand, but other than that the job market is great.

On the world scene, we are now universally despised by other nations for our global ram-rodding of our virtue down the throats of third-world countries. But democracy will be realized everywhere soon! Soon there will be Starbucks, McDonalds, and Wal-Mart everywhere!! Many young 'Merican soldiers continue to get killed needlessly in Iraq, for whatever reason, as no one can really determine why we are there still, or were there in the first place. China continues to become an industrial power, thanks in no small part to our excessive socially irresponsible spending, and their state-sanctioned slave labor. But let's make sure to watch out for bird flu and follow any reports of this with rapt attention so that we can ignore these other problems and trap the small minds of you, the subjects, with yet another catastrophe. With any luck, some Godforsaken country like India or Louisiana will have another natural disaster to distract us. [oh, Louisiana is part of the U.S.? I had no idea. Did we send them aid?]

Finally, my fellow 'Mericans, my plan for the future. Nothing. Jack shit. Let's keep on keepin' on. Nothing changes anyway, except for for the worse, and I cannot get re-elected anyway, so fuck it.

Response, of a sort

2006-01-30T20:42:00.000-06:00

I was thinking. . .

mostly about this post and the comments. I think most of us in the modern era have forgotten the liberal arts. We have especially forgotten that the second grouping, the quadrivium, is mathematical. Yep, fully 56% of the liberal arts are mathematical. Yes, and this includes music as well. [pop] (bubbles bursting). Also, as I have quoted numerous times, God disposed all according to number weight and measure. It is mathematical. Further, sound can be described by waves (analogously to water waves, as it is a compression and rarefaction, not a peak and a trough). So should we be terribly surprised to find that music is mathematical? But what is the upshot?

I have been thinking a lot about music and the enjoyment of it lately, and something has occurred to me. Think about a song you really love, be it pop music, phat rap - yo, indie whining, or concerto. Upon first hearing it, you were tentative, not certain where the music was going. It is analogous to first meeting another person. You aren't really sure what they're all about. But after listening and listening, it becomes more than a friend (to stretch the human analogy to the point of breaking). No it is much more like a lover (in the Romantic sense of the term) where you know every thought, every breath, every inch - of the music. I would further stretch the analogy to 'knowing' the piece - in the biblical sense. You know every note, and every note has its place and that place is determined by . . . bum bum bum . . . (pick one: how it sounds or the numbers). Because we can't separate how it sounds from the numbers. It is two ways of looking at the same thing. The numbers aren't something superadded to understand the music. They are in the music - from Boethius' story of Pythagoras discovering the 3/2 ratio of the fifth to M. M. Gustin's Tonality. The numbers are there. The vibrations make the sounds. If the vibrations are not in ratios, it sounds like total shit. Do you need to understand the numbers to enjoy? No. Does it enhance the music? Maybe, but only in the understanding, not in the passion for the piece as a lover. Will it make you a good composer? Hell no.

So I guess I will conclude this concerto for twenty-six letters and various punctuation. Music needs to sound good. Numbers are the underlying reason for this. But the most important thing, let me underline that MOST IMPORTANT THING - is to have passion for the music. Know it, love it. Hum it tunelessly to irritate friends, family and co-workers. And, on that note, I think I have a piano concerto to go listen to.

Working noise

2006-01-28T11:39:00.000-06:00

I was wondering, is there anything worse than being subjected to piped-in radio music while being stuck at work? First, I'm stuck at work. That's bad. Secondly, there is K-Billy's Super Sounds of the Seventies lightly echoing in my ears. That's bad enough to contemplate suicide. Enough is enough, on Saturdays I get to take back control of the audio. I can put CDs on the computer and try to drown out the noise. (Saturdays only, because I am the only one here 'working' . . . flying solo). Nothing like Bob Seger singing over Mozart. . .

I did get to thinking about noise pollution. Ever notice how there is always piped in music wherever you go? I have it at work. Every store I go to, whether grocery or otherwise. Every restaurant. (Sadly, even most modern Masses have continual noise [prayers out loud as opposed to silent, constant bad music, etc.]) Where can we get some silence? In high school I used to drive out to the desert (sometimes with my now brother-in-law) just to escape from the clatter of modern living. I wonder if there is something that is destroyed in man by having neither silence nor darkness. Maybe this makes us more distractable, as our attentions are always diverted. That can't be too good of a thing.

Quote of the day/quiz

2006-01-27T17:33:00.000-06:00

"My formula for happiness: a yes, a no, a straight line, in short, an answer."

Things done poorly, things done well

2006-01-27T17:06:00.000-06:00

I was thinking. . .

While listening to some tunes the other night, I subjected myself to a fugue for two violins by Mozart. Typically, I will be the first to laud the structure, point-counterpoint, and, in general, the mathematical perfection of a piece of music written by Mozart. However, in this particular instance, I was struck by what a bad example of a fugue this piece is. The beauty of the fugue is the repetetion of the theme with variations superimposed on the original theme. It is a harmonious mathematical structure, but in its mathematic complexity it leaves the listener with an aneseptic feeling. That is to say that the piece leaves one with no feeling. I certainly think that it is superior mathematically to any other form of music, but inferior structurally to, say, the concerto. Because of this, I started wondering why there are no good fugues after Bach (at least that I am familiar with). Is it because the advances in instrumentation (the piano) led composers to explore other avenues of harmonic expression? Is it that advances in musical structure (i.e. the allegro-andante-allegro of the symphony or concerto or sonata) rendered the even-tempoed single movement fugues obsolete?

But then I thought, Mozart, Hyden, Paganini all have very good mathematic structure. Yes they have advanced beyond Bach in the form of music. But shortly after these composers we have a more romantic flare, where structure takes a back seat to "feelings". I will not deny that there are feelings in some of Bach's pieces, but on the whole it is lacking. Listening to Chopin's nocturnes or, worse, Rachmoninoff's 2nd symphony suggests that more modern music has too much feeling, so that the structure suffers. So I suppose the whole point is this: do things well. That which is done well is a composite. It is an admixture of mathematical harmony and structural brilliance. I think this applies to more than just music.

Protestants, Iconoclasts and Four-year old Wisdom

2006-01-23T20:26:00.000-06:00

I was thinking. . .

Actually, this post is really about something my wife, Erin, said to me. A little background information first, however, is needed. At our parish during the Christmas season they keep a nativity behind the altar rail on the left side (as you face it) of the altar. We seem to always sit on the opposite side of the church (habits and all of that). The vestibule is out the back, opposite of the altar, but there are several exits in just about every direction (possibly because the architecture dates from the not so pretty fifties roundhouse style of church). Shortly after Christmas, Erin asked our oldest child, John, if he wanted to see the baby Jesus after mass. Of course he wanted to, so after mass was over we crossed the front of the church, genuflected, and knelt at the altar rail in front of the nativity scene. She pointed out the statue in the manger. John seemed very disappointed. He said "that's just a statue, I want to see the real baby Jesus." Explanations followed about history, chronology and the time of Christ.

To quote my wife: "How come a four year old can separate something most adult protestants can't?" Or, to put it more clearly, statues aren't people. Images are not what they represent. No one gets confused and tries to eat a still life painting. Why the lack of a corpus on crosses at protestant churches? Why the iconoclast heresy in all its forms throughout history? Probably because these people, in their erudition, forgot what they knew - when they were four.

This is a public service announcement...

2006-01-20T17:01:00.000-06:00

I was thinking. . .

Or perhaps not. Rather it would be better to say that I have been mired in Mozart's 20th Piano Concerto and "sidoku" puzzles. While listening to the first movement of the piece it occurred to me that there is no better example of melancholic division than in this concerto. The orchestra thunders in violently playing in a minor key. The piano responds, sometimes powerfully, sometimes softly; sometimes in mimicry of the theme of the orchestra, sometimes on its own theme. Always, however there is the underlying division between the soloist and the group, the one and the many - and underlying this, is melancholy, or even frustration.

So I guess I got to thinking about it. Angst is much clearer in this piece than in any rock music or pop music or any other modern harmonic medium. This, of course, got me to thinking about angst in man - not in music. The hypothetical syllogism breaks down like this: if angst is better played without words, if emotion is more clearly stated without stating it (all in music) then this should be applied to man. Angst becomes meaningless as long as it is verbalized. Trivial, yes, and it debases the person. As Heidegger put it "Angst is the fear of - ". If it is the fear of the nothing, then it should be spoken - at no time. Otherwise it is just puerile complaining.

Outline for a book that I should write but never will

2005-12-28T20:08:00.000-06:00

I was thinking. . .

Long story short I was stuck someplace with little to do but doodle on someone else's sticky notes, an idea occurred to me, and I sketched an outline. It would be called, grandly:

Unity in Truth

How All Human Knowledge is Related

It breaks down into sections like this:

I) The Hierarchy of knowledge:

A) Reductionist Science
1) Biology reduces to organic chemistry, reduces to chemistry, to physics. Hierarchical.
2) Comparison between the metrical observational inductive scientific method and the theoretical deductive 'top-down' methods in science. Their relationship.
B) Philosophy and Nature/Man
1) Politics reduces to ethics, to a philosophy of man
2) Physics (philosophically) reduces to metaphysics. Hierarchy.
3) The threefold investigation of man into nature, as man, nature, and man's knowledge of nature (psychology, ontology, epistemology). The relationship between the three.

II) Mathematics and the Cosmos:

A) Math as logic
1) The failure of axiomatic structures explaining mathematical reasoning.
2) A consideration of the possibility of math as human structure simply, its possibilities and drawbacks.
B) Mathematics as Pythagorean/Platonic
1) Can mathematical objects really be 'out there'?
2) Tie in the relationship of espistemology to ontology from (I.B.3) to understand
mathematic objects existing separately from man.

III) Conclusions?

Okay, I know some of you out there are thinking "what's the point? Thomas already proved that truth=beauty=good=being=one". I know. I haven't forgotten. Others might say "okay what is the point? I really don't see where you are going" Answer: I guess I just like to think that all human understanding is ordered toward the same goal. I don't think that it is productive in the since of interdisciplinary dialogue to simply state this, without at least trying to understand how this can be. Someone I know talks a lot about the tradition. Agreed. But the tradition is richer than philosophers philosophizing, mathematicians mathematizing, experimenters experimenting, politicians politicizing, depending on one's departmental (compartmentalized) slant. Richer by far, I say, because all of these are co-mingled, mixed together, but in a hierarchical systematic way that can (or at least could) be elucidated (not merely stated as if self-evident).

But I will never write it anyway.

Theory and Reality

2005-12-22T20:13:00.000-06:00

I was thinking. . .

While doing my lunchtime reading I stumbled across a lovely little book with BBC interviews of physicists about "string theory". Personally, with the minimal knowledge I have of it, I find it very compelling. The mathematics is way beyond me, but the basic ideas I find interesting (aside - I plan on eventually remedying the defect in mathematical knowledge - eventually). String theory basically breaks down like this:
Wait. Back up. Preview. Remember in general relativity how Einstein loves his gravitational theory because it is based on a geometrical interpretation of space time in four dimensions? Recall how gravitation of massive bodies 'bends' the continuum to create fields? Even if we look at the field equations we see that one half, at least, is geometrical. Also recall how in quantum physics energy is measured as only a difference in energy, (per Shulamite's complaints of energy) whereas in general relativity absolute energy is important. Finally, remember the difficulties in reconciling quantum mechanics and relativity.

In quantum physics the basic particles are treated as point-like entities without extension. This is false. Everyone knows that this is false. The basic building blocks of atoms (protons, etc.) are made up of quarks. In string theory a proton is made of the same three quarks as regular particle physics, but on a 'string'. (usually a closed loop) In fact all of space-time and all 'fundamental' particles are made of little Planck-sized strings. The benefit of this is a purely geometrical interpretation of the cosmos, which I find appealing. There are drawbacks, though...

First, the cosmos must not be four-dimensional. Instead, string theory dictates that there must be nine spatial dimensions and one time dimension. Ten dimensional space-time is very unattractive to some, but the particular mathematical choices of string theory (certain ones, that is) show how six of the spatial dimensions must 'curl up' into little tiny six-dimensional mathematical topologies, that would be undetectable. I guess if it isn't hard to swallow four dimensions, then it shouldn't be too hard to swallow ten (especially when six of them are considered in a size scale of the Planck size). Secondly, there is absolutely NO empirical evidence that this should be the case. No experiments to confirm predictions, or any of the sort that is usually required by the metrical reductionist scientific method. Again, I find this rather appealing. Top-down is the way to go in science (generically).

There are also some good things. Unlike regular quantum gravity equations - that always give you the answer: infinity - string theory has quantum gravitational equations that are actually calcuable. Additionally, string theory describes the cosmos as entirely made up of strings. These strings vibrate in different resonances. These resonances make up different particles and forces. So we can imagine the universe as a giant symphony of resonating strings, all playing the chords of existence - I find this an elegant and attractive - if medieval - conception of nature. Opposing the brutality of force and inertia we have the harmony of creation. . . I daydream . . . innumerable nearly-infinitesimal orchestral choirs of strings. . .

Like Einstein, I think physics should be beautiful and elegant, and that is more the mark of truth than laboratory quantization...

Random Thought

2005-12-21T08:35:00.000-06:00

I was thinking... no musing....

Why is it in our culture that people make a big deal out of turning a certain age? Does it really make a difference whether one is forty or thirty-nine? But they sell those black balloons, and cards that only 'celebrate' the tens. I was wondering, why not use numbers that are unique? Why not use prime numbers for every major annual event for men! No driving at sixteen, that's just two to the fourth! Drive at seventeen! Vote and smoke at nineteen; drink at twenty-three. Become a representative at twenty-nine; Senator or President at thirty-seven. Retire at seventy-one. Why worry about forty being middle aged, when forty-one is prime? It works for children - start school at five, become a teenager at thirteen.

I know I know, the system has flaws, like "when does my senior discount start?" but trust me, there is a prime for everyone (like 53 for the AARP members).

Quote of the day

2005-12-20T20:07:00.000-06:00

The basic problem in modern physics is that these two pillars are incompatible. If you try to combine gravity with quantum mechanics, you find that you get nonesense from a mathematical point of view. You write down formulae which ought to be quantum gravitational formulae and you get all kinds of infinities. It's pretty discomforting for a physicist to find infinities in the middle of his calculations.

-Edward Witten

I was thinking. . .
Why do we even bother discussing things that have no bearing in scientific fact in order to make scientific sense of the universe? Well, because we have to. Take, for example, the radiation of dark bodies. Boltzmann fixed the constant of proportionality by experiment, and found that the radiation was proportional to temperature raised to the fourth power. Okay fine and good. Then Planck founded quantum theory, and it was found that the constant, fixed by experiment, is really based solely on Planck's constant. Beautiful theories finding that nature agrees with them? So what is the real dichotomy in modern physics?
The problem is not exactly as Witten writes it. Yes, it is true that the calculations go strangly awry when quantum mechanics and relativity are combined. But look at the theories closely. Einstein begins with a philosophical principle - the principle of equivalence. He uses some pretty and pretty elegant mathematics, and shortly thereafter we have general relativity. Quantum mechanics starts with observed facts - that energy only comes in discrete packets. Loads of not so pretty math follows. But what relativity has as its strongest point - a philosophic basis - quantum mechanics lacks. There is no compelling reason why we should believe in quanta, other than observation. What physics needs is a PHYSICS (in the manner of Aristotle). It needs a compelling reason to think that this is the way the cosmos (in deference to Shulamite) should be.
aside - energy has mass according to general relativity. In quantum mechanics, the messenger particles that carry energy (photons) can't have mass because they travel at the speed of light. Now where are all of our ugly infinities coming from?

Three Brief Points

2005-12-06T20:32:00.000-06:00

I was thinking...

While some of us pretend to be philosophers, mathematicians, and so forth (when anyone who knows me knows that I am a blue collar working stiff) there seems to be three points I'd like to keep in mind in my long winded inquiries here:

1) All true things, insofar as they are true, are unified by this truth - even if this is transubstantiation and Apollonius and muon decay rates.

2) To quote: "God is a mathematician". Laws (of nature and otherwise) have more of the force of unbreakability the more they approach mathematic exactitude. This is true of nature and human positive law.

3) Tradition isn't better because its older, nor is novelty better because of newness. The historical and culture advances in human understanding have to maintain what is true always. All ideas - both old and new - should be scrutinized for their truth and not accepted on mere authority nor because of new technical jargon (this applies to all disciplines).

[aside - it is pretty bad when the spell check tries to replace (the possibly misspelled) 'transubstantiation' with 'transvestite'.]

If IDers only knew

2005-12-01T20:27:00.000-06:00

I was thinking...

There has been this 'great' debate recently on evolution and so-called intelligent design. While the crux of many well-meaning 'Christian' arguments against atheist evolution (whatever that means) is based on the appeal to the extraordinary circumstances that would have to be present in order for specification to take place (and for life in general to arise), I got to thinking, this is a pretty microscopic horizon to be considering, you lazy IDers. Look at the odd set of coincidences necessary for the cosmos - then talk shit about evolution. For example:

Grant, for the sake of argument, the big bang is an explanation for the beginning of the universe. Alright - BANG - but what if the bang isn't big enough? Instead of the relatively uniform density of stellar matter you have CRUNCH due to gravitation. What if the bang is too big? Whooosh - too rapid acceleration away from each other prevents the forming of galaxies, stars, planets and so forth - hence - no us. What if matter is perfectly evenly distributed at the big bang. Instead of galaxies, stars and so forth you have uniform density and nothing different than anything else. Pretty large coincidence, no? And again:

What if matter at the beginning of the universe was too clumpy (like bad gravy)? Instead of pretty uniform galaxies, stars, planets, you would have gigantic galactic sized black holes sucking in everything mercilessly (and not planets, stars, and thus, no us). Awfully lucky, aren't we? Oh, and again:

What if neutrinos didn't have the properties they have. Pretty much no mass, speed approaching the speed of light. In fact, one neutrino could penetrate and entire light year of solid lead, without being diverted. You may think, and rightly, what does this particle have to do with me? Well, I'll tell you. In the center of a star that has expended most of its nuclear fuel (read: hydrogen) neutrinos react to create supernovas (exploding stars) instead of the collapse due to gravity that would cause a black hole. Without supernovas, heavier elements than hydrogen wouldn't exist outside of stars. Guess what - no planets then and therefore, no us. Oh wait, there's more:

Chemically, all living things are carbon-based. Where does all this carbon come from? In the nuclear reactor that is the center of a star three helium atoms sans electrons have to collide at very high speeds - an extremely rare occurrence - 'cause its easier to crash two than three. Think about it, what if the laws of physics prohibited a crash of more than two. No carbon. That would be pretty rough for us. Nice coincidence? I think. But wait....

One last example. I talk a lot about relativity and quantum mechanics in my posts (mea culpa). Think about this, however: Quantum uncertainty only applies to little tiny itty bitty things. Relativity only applies to HUGE MASSIVE FAST-MOVING things (as gravitation increases the effects of relativity [read general relativity all over again]) Again, by 'applies', I mean is noticeable. What if the initial conditions of the big bang were different. Many cosmologists have studied this, and they found "universes" which didn't have a realm of classical (Newtonian) physics on any scale - all was quantum. In fact that was the vast majority of them. Imagine your beer suddenly blinking out of existence in your hand, because it was subject to quantum uncertainty. That would be bad. But, that is the more statistically likely - if we had to make a table of possible universes - in fact, hugely more probable. Lucky, aren't we? Our universe has classical physics at our scale.

I guess all this is to say - shut up ID. Biology isn't even a science anyway [being the least mathematical of all of the so-called 'hard' sciences]. If you want to fight for intelligent design, pick a ring where you have a chance, 'cause chances are big in the realm of cosmology. The odds of me evolving from primordial ooze are great in comparison to there even being an earth in the first place. Evolution [Darwinian] versus there even being a coherent universe in the way ours is? I will take that bet any day.

Causality and Scientific Conundrums

2005-11-30T21:01:00.000-06:00

I was thinking. . .

Modern science cannot escape the problem of causality in the creation of the universe. There are three possible solutions to the "origin" of the universe commonly proposed. First, the universe goes back to a certain point in time, and that is the beginning (the big bang et al.). Second, the universe had no beginning (either the infinite regress, or the cyclical universe). Thirdly, there is the "strange loop" where the latter determines the former, but the former causes the latter (a quantum cosmology). There are severe difficulties with all three.

Ad primum: Red shift is pretty well studied and documented. While there is disagreement as to what Hubble's constant should be, this school of thought usually says that about fifteen to twenty billion years ago BANG the universe started. What caused the bang? This would be outside of science. Some propose the theory of "bootstrapping" - that is, because of quantum fluctuations there is a probability of something springing out of nothing and starting the whole thing going. (aside - Poincare actually worked out the numbers. The odds, though, have way too many zeros for me to write out.) But even the bootstrapping argument has the difficulty as to why the universe came to be with the laws, regularities and so forth that it has. This cause also lies outside of the science.

Ad secundum: Human knowledge [of physics-] is thus unattainable if there is not any beginning. All further questioning of nature resolves into this infinite regress, and the understanding of the "initial conditions" is thrown out. Even if it were somehow proved that the universe extended infinitely in time backwards and had no beginning, there would still be the problem of why the laws and regularities are the way they are. These can be explained in a way by the first hypothesis, but that, as said, has its own problems.

Ad tertium: Again, the strange loop has the same problems as the infinite regress: why is the universe ordered how it is ordered? How does it come to be that there is suitable conditions for stars, planets, and, finally, life? These questions (of order, which science is based on) cannot be answered by the strange loop.

What are we to do? Invent a deus ex machina to save ourselves? Have the clockmaker god wind up the world? Perhaps we say "fuck it - life is absurd anyway". Maybe we move to Arkansas and say "physics don't exist - it ain't in Genesis". Maybe we follow some scientists into "superstring theory" and try to find a theory that mathematically unites all four forces, explaining them all simply and elegantly [while ignoring, in the pit of our stomachs, the unease at not being able to explain why that should be the way it is. . .]. Drink heavily?

Or perhaps

just perhaps

we rediscover metaphysics. . .

Brief Explanation of Omega-inconsistency

2005-11-29T21:20:00.000-06:00

I was thinking. . .

I parenthetically mentioned Godel's Theorem in my last post, expecting that to make clear how mathematical sciences being an invention of the mind would leave us knowing nothing. I now realize that is way too cursory an examination to make my point. But, since my explanatory power is inversely proportional to my interest in the subject, I will try to make this as easy to follow and interesting [ha] as possible. First, some background history . . .

Some of you my remember vaguely reading Dedekind. Roots of number theory and all of that, trying to separate arithmetic from Geometry. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries an attempt was proposed, that number theory could prove its own consistency. All that is saying that given a set of axioms, and simple "rules of inference" [symbolic logic] we could prove all theorems. Many attempts were made to have all of number theory derived from a very limited set of axioms.

On to the proof. Numbers and operations and so forth in this number theory [often called sentential calculus] are given letters and so forth with the standard symbolic logic "and" "or" "not" and so forth symbols. The "sentences" in sentential calculus represent "well-formed" strings. Analogically, the equation '8=' is not well-formed, because there isn't anything on the right of the equal sign. Godel showed that by giving words numbers and translating those numbers into "strings" that the strings were well-formed inside of the axiomatic schema. So, what does he do? He makes (roughly) the equivalent of "I cannot be proved in system A" (which we can call for simplicity, sentence G) a sentence written in system A. He then shows that it is "well-formed". Therefore, G is a theorem of the axiomatic schema, and a true theorem, as long as the schema is incomplete. But if we could prove G, then the axioms would contain a contradiction, because G itself says that it can't be proved. Thus he calls it "formally undecidable". But even if we added G as an axiom, to make a new, expanded schema, we could use the same method to create a new sentence "I cannot be proved in system A plus axiom G" and follow the same reasoning to get the same incompleteness.

To illustrate the point, Hofstadter, in "Godel, Escher, Bach" has a character with the best record player, who proclaims that it can play any record. So the other character make a record called "I cannot be played on so-and-so's record player". This record, when played, makes sounds that resonate in the natural frequency of the record player, causing it to vibrate and break. This is the result of axiomatic number theory - a broken record....

Back to last post. If mathematics is purely an invention, deductions following from inferences and axioms, then it is incomplete or inconsistent, for it follows Godel's proof. If that is the case then the human endeavor in mathematical physics is a waste of time. This is why I rejected choice number two.

Beitiathustra in Mathemagic Land

2005-11-26T20:51:00.000-06:00

I was thinking...

I guess this point was already made in a way in this blog. I just have a different way of going about it, I suppose. My division would rather be one of "mathematizing" the cosmos.

There seem to be two divisions. First, either the universe, and the knowledge thereof, is understood mathematically or it isn't. Second, either mathematics is "out there" to be discovered by man, or it is invented by man - purely as a construct of logic. This would give us four logical possibilities:

1: The universe is understood mathematically, and that is discovered.

2: The universe is understood mathematically, and this is invented.

3: The universe is understood a-mathematically, but mathematics is discovered.

4: The universe is understood a-mathematically, and that is invented.

Think about it: Biology really isn't a science, because it has no laws that are formulated as mathematical algorithms. All laws of physics are just words used to describe a mathematical formula. Newton's Second Law: F=ma. But back to the choices. Choice four is sort of the fundie way of looking at the universe, disturbing to say the least. [the universe is understood only Biblically, and math is invented]. Choice three makes no sense to me. If mathematics is really out there, and is discovered, how could that not tell us something of the universe? Choice two has problems of its own, for if we look at the crushing defeat of axiomatic number theory, following Hilbert's Program, we see that we could not understand the universe at all. If math is solely invented, and not discovered, it will always be subject to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem.

This leaves us with choice number one. [I guess this would make me a quasi-Platonist....]

Science . . . generically

2005-11-13T10:46:00.000-06:00

I was thinking. . .

Things are knowable insofar as they have actuality. All things have actuality, and are therefore intrinsically knowable in themselves. But to be knowable in itself is not necessarily to be known by this or that particular knower. Again, there is also knowledge of the thing, and one's knowledge of one's knowledge of the thing. [knowing vs. self-consciousness]

Turn to science - generically. We make statements about nature. This is knowledge. We make statements about our knowledge of nature - and this is epistemology. We make statements about our science (philosophically) and this is meta-science.

The confusion in modern science (specifically) is a level confusion between science, epistemology and meta-science. As shulamite pointed out, the only reason people read Dawkins et al. is because of the philosophy. Thus these books should not be called biology, but meta-biology. Examine quantum indeterminacy. Is that indeterminate because of the thing itself, or because of our knowledge of the thing (or perhaps both). To say that quanta have wave-like and particle-like properties is perhaps a difficulty in language - our epistemological understanding of electro-magnetism in modernity. Perhaps the thing itself in question has an actuality we have not fully described, and is therefore more knowable to us? Perhaps it lacks the actuality of other objects in nature, and is hence more potency (or less actualization of said potency) and thus our cursory knowledge is complete? Perhaps, epistemologically, the mathematical description of nature is not the complete language needed to describe the world? Perhaps, finally, we need to slow down and remember our A,B,Ds.

Not feelin' it

2005-11-12T21:55:00.000-06:00

I was NOT thinking. . .
I spent way too much effort arguing here and here and here today that I have nothing really left to say to the world. All that is left is entreaties:
Study physics.
Read good books.
Argue with old friends.
And, for the love of all that is holy, drink beer that tastes good...

A rare glimpse at the personal life of. . .

2005-11-11T21:33:00.000-06:00

I was NOT thinking. About a damn thing.

My lovely e. is in Washington D.C. visiting friends, so here I am, at home in the "great" midwest, with John, Andy and Sara: ages 1 to 4, for the weekend. Oh, and if that were not enough to scare most men, my ears are still fucking ringing from the punk show we went to last night, (and yes, BR still shreds in their old age) in the last forty-eight hours I have eaten precisely and only three pastor tacos, and drank ten beers as my only sustenance. (Plus the five gallons of coffee I drink a day, and the Camels) I got kicked in the head by a fucking crowd surfer with a mohawk, while listening to Murphy's Law cover "Someone Got Their Head Kicked In" by Black Flag. I love irony. Pennywise sang "Fuck Authority" and "Bro Hymn" which strangely reminds me of one Daniel Fluery. At work today I answered phones and talked to morons all with the ever present ringing of Tinitis in my ears.

I raised my middle finger in angst with the kids. I shouted lyrics to Bad Religion songs I have loved since my misspent youth. I fucking threw elbows at the ever-expanding mosh circle. I bought over-priced beer in handfuls, using the pockets of my ancient "seminar shirt" [blue with pinstripes and a red skull patch over the left chest - come on, you've seen it] to hold spare cans of full beer. My steel toed Docks kicked shins. My glasses we "re-adjusted" by elbows - of other people. Sick of it All covered "Minor Threat" and we all loved every minute of it. (well, it is only one minute long, anyway - fuck it, it is only punk rock)

Which brings me to my point. FUCK IT, IT IS ONLY PUNK ROCK. (aside - I miss the mohawk I used to have. . .) That was the most authentic Dasein I have seen in years. Sadly.

Corollary, not Postulate.

2005-11-05T20:31:00.000-06:00

I was thinking...

Although the first postulate was postulated, I think it somehow is not a postulate, but rather a corollary of Beitia's First Law of Physics. You see, every science thinks they need to start from principles. But the problem in the modern academy is the inability to have structure or hierarchy. We have departments, disciplines, concentrations and so forth. This is all well and good, but the problem arises when we have no discernible structure in knowledge. Most sciences draw upon lower sciences for the basis of their arguments, and report to higher sciences. I guess the problem I see is made clear in de Anima. Group Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Sociology. Their certitude goes from most to least in the order I gave them. In that way, one could reasonably say that Mathematics is the better science than Sociology. But Sociology deals with a higher object intrinsically, therefore it must be accounted better. All this babbling aside, I think it is necessary to see Theology as the queen of the sciences, philosophy as her handmaid, and all other things subject to that. Of course, that is not to say that these things are not worthwhile studying in their own right (math and so forth) but that they are lower sciences. Physicists would not have it this way. Paul Davies goes so far as to say that Physics is the queen of sciences.

I guess that is why Postulate one will further more be named Corollary One of Beitia's First Law. I'm too lazy to go back edit all my posts, so there it is. If all learning leads us to truth, and truth is one, then all disciplines are subject to that truth. The sarcasm and self-reference of the first law indicated (humorously, I had hoped) the necessity of stepping outside of the current science to appeal to another science - a higher one.

I fear all my verbiage will make it impossible to follow the thread... Alas. I may have to recapitulate one of these days. . .

Postulate 1 part 2

2005-11-04T20:40:00.000-06:00

I was thinking. . .

The relationship between mass and energy given by Einstein has a peculiar effect in quantum physics. Taking two very small particles, accelerating them nearly to the speed of light, and running them into one another oftentimes produces new particles - with more mass than the original. The kinetic energy of the collision results in the creation of new mass. Sometimes, however, one of the particles "ceases to be" creating a release of energy - in proportion to the mass (according to the equation). So I got to thinking: what is the definition of energy?

So I grabbed a science textbook from the bookshelf:

Energy: the ability to do work.

If this isn't the most post hoc definition I have read, I'm not sure what is. But then I started thinking like (in the manner of) Aristotle in reference to the pre-Socratics. When talking about Thales, Aristotle uses "all is water" to show the glimmer of truth - that matter must be able to become things, and the mutability of water makes it an attractive choice. So how do we look at the bad definition and pull some gem of wisdom out of it? Then it became very clear. Ability. Potency. To do. Resolved to act. Energy, in this translation, becomes "the potentiality resolving to act in work." Cumbersome, to say the least. Again, looking at the first paragraph here, energy can also become matter. So it doesn't just do work. So we can re-write our new definition as: "the potentiality resolving to act in work or becoming matter". But then again, what is work?

Work: The amount of energy transferred into or out of a system, excluding energy transferred by heat conduction.

Okay, here's the vicious circle rearing its ugly head. Perhaps no headway can be made. But if we forget the textbook definition for a moment, and think about the mathematical representation, or equations for work: Work = Force multiplied times distance. Interesting, so work is a moving thing. Example, if I wanted to pick up a keg of beer, and run up a flight of stairs, the work done would be the weight of the keg (the force of "gravity") multiplied by the height of the second floor (the distance up I carried the keg). So it looks now that work is a moving of material things. How does that fit into our newer definition of energy?

Energy is the potentiality resolving to act in moving matter or becoming matter. So then energy is a principle of change (in the Aristotelian sense). My only question then is whether energy is the potentiality or the resolving to act. If we then take up the first option, energy becomes a sort of "universal potentiality" - that which can become all things. But I don't think that this is exactly correct. In the second case, energy becomes synonymous with Aristotelian motion. But I also think that this is incorrect. Maybe we should re-write our definition again. Boldface words are used in the sense of the Physics of Aristotle, brackets to conjoin an idea. Energy is the [potentiality resolving to act] in change. Using change to replace local motion and substantial change simplifies our definition. I think that if we consider "potency resolved to act" as one thing it also clears up things. But again, potentiality resolving to act means motion in the Aristotelian sense (with attendant qualifications, of course). So does that mean that we have come upon it? Energy is the motion in change. Energy is the changing in change. Energy is the whereby change can occur. Energy is prime matter . . .

Postulate 1 part 1

2005-11-02T21:19:00.000-06:00

I was thinking. . .

Sadly, it is all about comparative philosophy/physics. But, back to my last post, (specifically, postulate #1) Aristotle uses matter and form as a means of explaining motion. Here again, by motion we mean change (although it seems that the moderns have reduced all change to local motions, for better or for worse. . .). Let's think about it though, what does matter and form conjoined in substance teach us about change? Clearly there must be some potentiality in the thing itself in order that it be other than it is (locally, with relation to quality [hot/cold] and so forth). Even if we understand accidental forms in another way, still the reasoning looks good. For example, take the accidental form of "hot" in a lump of metal. That accidental form could be explained as increased molecular motion [local] and the corresponding collisions because of this motion. But is that to say that this motion is not something superadded to the "metalness" of the thing? Again, if mathematics is a study of form, then even the mathematical description of the heat will be formal, if accidental to the substance. Even if we say that all of the molecules, atoms, and particles of a particular lump of metal are always moving, the particular "hotness" or relative rapidity of motion is still an additional formality, or determination of the thing. Just because all inside the thing is moving, it is not to say that it has to move in any particular way.

Now we step back. E=mc^2. C is the speed of light in a vacuum. M is mass, E is energy. Now I know that modern textbook high school science gives workable definitions to these two, m and e. But I ask, perhaps following the shulamite, what is the definition of energy?

And if we had a definition of energy, would it be possible to say that Einstein's equation somehow brings something to bear on potentiality in substance? On matter (in the Aristotelian sense)? On substantial form understood mathematically?

Misplaced Aggression

2005-11-01T21:29:00.000-06:00

I was thinking. . .

All the outpouring of rage and angst I have been subjected to at various points in my life concerning atomic theory, etc. etc., has been based on a grave misunderstanding both of nature and of physics. All of the objections that people have raised in the past are against some sort of Anaximanderian 'void-motion-hard-indivisible-stuff' theory of the universe. So, to prevent (...) any more confusion on the subject, let me lay down some postulates:

1) Act and potency are real. Aristotle was right. (you may want to copy this for future reference if I waffle)
2) Saint Thomas/Heidegger/Heisenberg are correct. Man (intellectual substance conjoined to matter/Dasein/physicist) affects the world - by being I.S.C.t.M./Dasein/physicist.
3) Einstein is correct. General relativity actually describes the large scale motions and interactions of things in the universe - both philosophically and mathematically.
4) Quantum mechanics speaks of particles analogously (self-admittedly). Quanta are analogous. A thing cannot both be a particle and a wave. (trust me, they know this)

I may think of more as they come to me. But, for now, I think that it is enough to keep these four in mind at all times when thinking about modern science and philosophy/theology. Hateful as it may seem, this is still part of the tradition. It remains to see how these four "postulates" combine to for a cohesive argument. Back to the original point, however, all these have to kept in mind when discussing atomism. This is not the atomism of Newton's Principia, or of Lucretius' De Rerum Natura.

But I've dropped enough names for one night....

Scientist, or Fundie Prot?

2005-10-28T19:00:00.000-05:00

I was thinking . . .
(also somewhat continued from last post...)

If you look at the statistical argument for the end of the world coming, as given in the last post, you see a funny parallel between the scientist/gambler, and the rapture squawking fundamentalist Christian. Only scientists like to drag in "Mr. Billion" to make it seem as though they are not saying that the world is about to end now, just relatively speaking to the overall duration. I do think it would be funny to see physicists in lab coats marching around a university with "the statistical end of the universe is coming" cake-board signs.

But all of this got me to thinking: what are the ominous parallels between the scientist and the fundie, besides this one? Hmm......

"Do you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and savior?" compared to experiment as the only method of knowledge. Both require a personal experience with a higher thing (laws of physics, God) as the only roads to "salvation" - Hallelujah vs. Eureka! Both think that there is one particular way to reach that truth, and look with scorn on any other methodology. Hmm....

Both love dissention. If a fundie doesn't like what another one says, he just goes off and founds a new church. If a scientist has a disagreement with another one, he comes up with his own theory of how the universe runs according to laws - while publishing papers to discredit the other one. Hmm.......

The fundie has private revelation of a secret (i.e. his salvation) which elevates him beyond the sinners of the world, to a new-made higher class. The scientist uses private language to become a new intellegencia - a higher class of knowers. He is elevated above the common man by his rationality and "detached reserve". Hmm.......

Ominous Parallels....

Chance, Gambling, and the End of the World

2005-10-27T20:49:00.000-05:00

I was thinking....

Postulate: the universe evolved through chance causes. The slight statistical "advantage" that particles have of slipping into matter as opposed to anti-matter made there "be" something material at the big bang. That same statistical percentage accounts for why the universe is "lumpy" and not a homogeneous heat death. Again, the sun is only a few billion years old, as opposed to the oldest stars that have burned out (say eighteen billion by current estimates). The earth is five billion or so years old so it has had time to cool and develop atmosphere. The earth is close enough to the sun to be warm, but far enough away not to be too hot. There was enough of the correct type of organic chemicals to create amino acids in the middle-early years of this planet. "Survival of the fittest" works well enough to create favorable evolutionary mutations. Here we are. All of this is chance (by the postulate).

Now, I don't want to calculate the statistical odds of all of this (were I even capable), but I think anyone can reasonably say that they are long odds.

Thought experiment: suppose I have two coffee cans. One has ten poker chips in it, one has one-hundred. All of the chips in each can are red except one blue one in each. We can easily see the odds of me pulling out the blue chip in each case. But we aren't going to discuss that. Suppose I have been pulling out chips one at a time - unknown in numbers to you. I show you the blue chip, which I have just pulled out. Would you say that I had a lot of chips left, or very little in each coffee can? In the case of ten chips, the odds are fairly good that I will come up with the blue chip in any order - first, eighth, etc. But in the case of the one-hundred chips we would all bet that there were more chips pulled out than left in - because as I pull chips my odds of getting the blue one get better all the time. So, for me, and I'm sure for everyone else, we would bet that the blue chip came out well after the halfway point - not that we would always be right. There is actually a statistical method for obtaining this - but let's just go on common sense here. Now say I have billions and billions of red chips - and still only one blue one? Would we bet on the blue one coming very close to the "end" of pulling out red chips?

If the universe being in such a way as we could come to be is by chance, the odds are horribly bad. And, from our betting game of poker chips in coffee cans, we can see that the one in a million will almost certainly come at the end of the road. The universe is eighteen billion years old. We came to be by chance. Therefore, the universe is almost at an end.

Which gives you three choices:

1: Relief?

2: Dread?

3: This is all very silly. . .

somewhat partially continued from last post

2005-10-20T21:08:00.000-05:00

I was thinking...

The more I think about the revolution in physics in terms of general relativity, the more I like the idea of changing the focus of quantum mechanics (see last post[s]). For example, we all remember the basic Newtonian formula for "gravity": F=g*m*m/d^2. Translation: the force of gravity equals the product of the masses divided by the square of the distance between the two objects (multiplied by "g" to get the units right). Einstein gave us a new equation, which, as we know from the appendicies to "Relativity" correct the apparent error in the perhelion of Mercury. This is the so-called "Einstein's field equation": Gmv=8'pi'Tmv. The interesting difference is that there are not two objects here to discuss "gravitation". All is with reference to one body. Gravitation is rather the mass of one body "warping" the space time continuum around the body, as opposed to the mutual attraction of two bodies. Again, we can examine the Geodesic discussion and the lead ball on the cushion of a previous post. . .

So I think that this leads us to re-define our notion of space and time further than just simply saying: "space time continuum". It is easy for us to say, "if there were no massive bodies, then space would be Euclidean and flat." But there is a deep seated error hidden in that statement. I say: "without massive bodies there would be no space". Space and time are not independant of one another, but, more strongly, they are not independent of bodies either. Augustine was right when he says that God created time when God created stuff. I think we could also hypothesize that the gravitational field surrounding bodies is really just the extension of space time around them caused by being the sort of things they are: massive bodies. So I think it is an error to say that gravity causes time and space to "bend" or "curve" or "dialate". We should rather think of all material bodies as not bounded by their surface, but rather as continually creating the world around them by their very material existence. This is why in a static spherical single body setup it is possible to work out Einstein's field equation to a solution that gives a particular distance for a particular mass to determine the "infinite" warpage of time and space. Of course, spining, non-spherical bodies provide so much of a mathematical puzzle that they use "super-computers" to attempt to figure out the solutions. I digress...

In a perpetual effort for brevity, I will try to wrap up. Physicists have measured the mass and relative distances of various sub-atomic particles in relation to one another. I still think that it would be possible to take a proton, given the mass, and derive the Schwarzchild equation for it. If anyone would like to try, since I have been a little busy lately, look up the mass of a proton, and plug it into the following equation:

ds^2 = c^2(1-2MG/c^2r)dt^2

- dr^2/(1-2MG/c^2r)

-r^2(d'theta'^2+sin^2'theta'd'phi'^2)

[I really wish that blogger had a fucking font where I could type mathematical statements, or even fucking Greek letters - ed.]

Somewhat continued from last posts

2005-10-18T20:24:00.000-05:00

I was thinking . . .

More and more of what I wrote in my last post seems to be to be clearer in terms of the revolution that is required in modern physics. I guess I had a "theory" [not saying it is original - ed.] occur to me this afternoon. But, as usual, I will need to start with some background information. A lot of this will come as "highlights" of my last two posts.

First, it is essential to note two of the consequences of general relativity: time and space dilation. It is certainly evident from the mathematics that the space time continuum is subject to flexing based on the motions of the objects in question. The faster one goes (relative to a certain frame of reference) the "slower" time goes, and the "longer" distance gets. This is of course proportionally opposite in the other case. Also, remembering our general relativity, mass also has the effect of bending the space time continuum.

Relativity, historically, never really had too strong of an objection from theoretical physics. But as time has gone on, various experiments have shown that the theory of relativity, though certainly not a complete mathematical description of nature, at least capture part of that description. I spoke of pulsars in my last post as a means of furnishing empirical evidence for relativity. Another is the decay rate of muons. The scientists say that muons are a dense sub-atomic particle. They "rain down" from outer space and can be detected by a simple Geiger counter. But muons that are made in laboratories decay so rapidly, that there is hardly and time for them to move. So physicists wondered how "natural" muons could travel from wherever they came from, go all the way through the atmosphere, and be detected by a Geiger counter. The trick was considering relativity. In relation to our frame of reference, the "natural" muon lived for a long period of time compared to the lab muon. But then the "natural" muon is also moving at a high fraction of the speed of light. So physicists corrected for the speed differential and compared the time that the "natural" muon "lived" before decay, and found it to be the same as a lab muon, corrected of course for the relativistic motion. The muon, in either case, looked at "from itself" as being at rest has always and everywhere the say rate of decay. It is only when we try to measure it whizzing by that the difficult arose.

Secondly, in the 1910's a mathematician, Karl Schwarzchild, was analyzing Einstein's field equations, and in doing so he discovered something odd. The field equations show that the amount of time dilation depends on the gravity of the object being studied. If we use the example of a sphere, the warpage in time directly relates to the contraction of the radius. He found that for a sphere with close to the same gravity as the sun would have a critical dimension when the time warpage would be "infinite" - aptly named the "Schwarzchild Radius". For the sun, this distance is a little less than two miles. This is what mathematically gave rise - decades later - to the theory of black holes and so forth. We could get into the observational evidence and so forth for black holes, but then we would start looking like Hawking, and drawing "light cones" and "event horizons" and I find the whole thing rather tedious. Top-down is the way to proceed here. But it is enough for my eventual point to remember the idea of a critical point where time warps greatly.

From these two observations on relativity I think it is possible to lay the groundwork for a new theory uniting quantum physics and relativity. (Of course, someone would have to look at the mathematical details - I am kind of talking out my ass here - just had some sort of "traffic jam inspiration") First, sub-atomic particles are subject to the rules of relativity, otherwise we would not have observable time dilation in muons. If muons have time dilation and can only be compared as decay rates when looked at "from themselves" then is it safe to apply this to all other sub-atomic particles (or at least the ones that have mass)? If it is the case that we can apply this to sub-atomic particles, can we also apply the bending of the space time continuum based on the mass of the particle in question? Of course, it seems clear that for the relativistic quantum mechanics to be possible we should have to apply these laws to them as well. Then we would necessarily have to apply these to the massive sub-atomic particles of the proton and neutron. Here's the difficulty for me, because I haven't worked out the math yet, what, then, is the Schwarzchild radius for a very small mass? I know we are talking of a factor of millions upon millions in mass, but we are also talking of a factor of millions and millions in terms of distance. Could it be that quantum uncertainty in the "kangaroo hops" of the orbit of an electron is caused by a severe bending of space time locally around the nucleus of an atom accordingly as it approaches its own Schwarzchild radius? especially when we consider that most of the experiments involving quantum mechanics are taken at a high rate of speed, or the bombardment of atoms with photons or other radiation that does in fact travel at the speed of light.

What is the upshot? Perhaps the method of working with statistical mechanics (or Dirac's insistence on proceeding from the Hamiltonian) are efforts in the wrong direction to unite quantum mechanics and relativity. (Again, not saying that the statistical mechanized method of understanding quantum mechanics is wrong) Perhaps we should cast aside the thought that gravitational fields do not matter on the nuclear scale and examine what would happen if we considered the time and space dilation as primary in understanding the jumpy motions of things. I wrote earlier about the geodesic, and how "straight" becomes very difficult to analyze in four dimensional space time. Perhaps the electron travels in a geodesic of its own around the nucleus of the atom, it just remain to figure how the warpage of space and time could create that path. The attractiveness of understanding quantum physics - at least in principle - from this angle is that it would make it subordinate to relativity, which, as I spent much of the last post arguing, is the more known and more noble pillar of physics.

Sadly, I fear, the more elegant, the less the likelihood of veracity.

Continued from last post

2005-10-13T23:12:00.000-05:00

I was thinking. . . but ran out of space . . .

I have remarked, and am not alone in this, about the ideas behind relativity having their inception in Aristotle. It is clear from the argument that Aristotle gives, that relativity is a natural consequence. For Aristotle, and perhaps in fact, time is the number of motion. He says that since there is one motion, the celestial sphere, there is one time. Subsequent centuries have shown the celestial sphere to be false. But can we so quickly give up on Aristotle's definition of time? A complete lack of a universal "at rest" seems to further strengthen Aristotle's definition. Einstein is clearly not disagreeing with the ancients, but rather with the physicists of the generation before, in their strict Newtonian mechanism. Newton defines "absolute time" as that which flows without respect to anything. Without remarking on the philosophical difficulties that accompany such a definition, it is clear to the casual observer that this definition is in stark contrast to Aristotle. The Philosopher ties time to motion - explicitly. A fact that is ignored, and a definition that is ignored, up until the advent of special relativity. Physicists construct experiments based on the pulses of binary neutron stars to "prove" the theory of relativity. But let us take a step back and examine nature "top-down" as Einstein did, and also Aristotle. Begin with the general theory, then move further to the details. Why associate Aristotelian physics with "dark age" backwardness, when really there is no disagreement in principle with the definitions of motion given by the modern physicist? See here on Univocism for a good exposition on the subject. Einstein (the modern day "saint" of science - brilliant and disheveled) was a top-down thinker - a man who made theories and let others work out the grimy details. So was Aristotle. Both men had ideas about how the nature of the universe should be, and they ran with it. I just find it interesting to note that if Aristotle had the Astronomical data that we have today, he would have easily deduced the theory of relativity - if not mathematically (see the Lorentz transformations) at least in theory. His writing paves the way intellectually for it. But, I digress, this is just a first point leading into the next argument.

In all science, we proceed from the more known to the less known. The typical exposition of this includes the "scientific method:" experiment, then theorize, then make laws (find laws?) of nature. Let's consider now relativity and quantum mechanics. Relativity, as we argued above, is easily deduced philosophically from simple observation. Clearly there can be no void. Therefore distance is determined by the "stuff" and what is "in between". But it is also shown that all that "stuff" is moving. Motion determines time. Everything is moving. Time is relative to motion. But if time is relative to motion, and there is no void, distance is also determined by the various motions of the "stuff" that makes up distance. As we can see, everything in the realm of relativity is clearly a logical consequence of what is clear to reason, without the aid of specific experiments (though they do help to "flesh out" the theory). Relativity in physics, as well as natural philosophy, is clearly known, and from first principles. (aside - Paul Davies, in About Time, says that to understand relativity you need a barely highschool mathematics education. This should be very distasteful to the priesthood of initiated physicists...) Let us turn an eye to quantum physics.

The other pillar of modern physics is quantum mechanics, not a study of motion in the same way as relativity, but, as I put it, the study of the "way too small". Of course, as a caveat to begin, no one can deny the predictive power of quantum physics, nor its practical applications' success. These alone give some credence to the theory. But what I would like to propose is that there is not a real quality of "the smallest things" that the scientists study in actuality. The reasoning goes as follows:

First, relativity is the more known to the less known, the only way to proceed in human understanding. Quantum mechanics can not, as yet, be made to agree with general relativity, in mathematical form. Of course, we remember, that the mathematical form is the only form quantum mechanics can take, for it denies pictorial representation, is too small to see, and its calculated effects are demonstrated from other larger things. If the two disagree, then one is to be kept at all cost: the theory that is more known, follows from first principles, and is (on the scale of human existence) empirically verifiable. Therefore, we must reject quantum mechanics insofar as it claims actual existing things, not insofar as it claims statistical results.

Secondly, there is the matter of observation. As was briefly mentioned above, the theory of relativity has been tested with great accuracy by measuring the pulsations of binary pulsar star systems. It is almost as if God has provided the perfect stellar laboratory outside of us in the heavens to show the accuracy of the theory. The pulsar stars can be seen, in some cases, emit radio waves that can be monitored, in all cases, and requires no "special instruments" to discern. (it does require more precise instruments that a cheap telescope and a T.V. antenna, but not different in kind) Examine particle physics. Particle accelerators, electron microscopes, and so forth. Shooting a muon at .9c and measuring the rate of decay does not appear to me to be a procedure following the textbook "scientific theory". Even if we can call these experiments "observation" it is in a restricted, possibly even analogical sense. So we can see that relativity is more verifiable, in the sense that it is clearer to the sensation of man, in addition to being clearer to his reason.

Thirdly, there is the problem of the observer in quantum mechanics. Looking at Heisenberg's principle, Schrodinger's Cat (hypothetical experiment) and others, we see that the apparent paradoxes of quantum mechanics always resolve to the problem of the viewer. Man (see post on Thomas and Heisenberg) brings something with him whenever he attempts to distill a particular experience of nature. In natural philosophy we can see that the observation of nature differs from man to man depending on various factors. For example, take myself and Kodiak out into nature, stripped of all modern accoutrements, and ask what we see. Kodiak might view all of the scene in its splendor, and describe it in great detail, whereas I, in my nearsightedness, would be confined to describing clearly only those things within arm's length. But when we take this one step further, into the lab, there is such an emphasis on the distilled experience that our observing itself makes the behavior of the "particles" unsure. Many of the results of quantum mechanics are based on this "unsureness". But if we step back and examine relativity as being based on the individual motion of the perceptor of time, then we can clearly see that this (or something like this) takes place in the experiment of the "way too small".

Finally, I guess this thought process is just made to say that relativity is in accord with proper natural philosophy. Quantum mechanics is on shakier ground. It is my personal belief that in order to "get a quantum mechanics that agrees with relativity" we must first step back and consider the activity of the scientist when disturbing nature to the point of having sub-atomic experiments. If time and motion (and distance) are all relative to the observer, then why can't we push this further and say the destruction of things (atoms) into smaller things (particles) is another activity on the part of the intellectual observer that changes the nature of the problem?

Beitiathustra's Conjecture:

Quantum physics will agree with relativity if and only if quantum mechanic takes into account the intellectual act of the experiment maker, whereby the experiment is made actual.

Do I have any experiments to back me up? No. Do I have any suggestions on how this could be done? No. But, fuck it, I'm a top-down thinker.....

Paul Dirac, and the almost but not quite

2005-10-12T20:42:00.000-05:00

I was thinking . . . and I just finished a book of four lectures on quantum mechanics yesterday. . .

Dirac was a physicist whose writing seems very concerned with a mathematical explication of quantum field theory. But, like all modern physicists, he was keenly aware of the problem, and tension between, quantum physics and the theory of relativity. So, he sets himself a task of examining the field, in terms of quanta, and how that would relate to a relativistic space.

So we have relativity. It is a pretty tried and tested theory of how motion, time, space and gravity are connected. It provides good predictions and corrects the errors of classical mechanics in terms of the orbits of planets. It accounts for the finite speed of the propagation of light. But, if one, like Dirac, wants to examine a quantum physics in terms of relativity, we have to make the mathematical descriptions of what happens to the "particle" agree with any other mathematical description regardless of the frame of reference. But this, as we know, will only make it agree with special relativity. General relativity goes on to show that the space-time continuum is "bent" due to the effect of massive bodies (gravitation). So, not only will our mathematical description have to be equally valid without regard to "absolute" velocity, or the time of one frame of reference, but it must be made to agree as described on a curved continuous surface.

Dirac's mathematics are difficult to grasp, but he proceeds in a very logical order. He begins with two elementary equations, one he calls an "action integral" which is a particular formal mathematical description that is an equation of motion. It makes it easier to think of a Cartesian plane, with the equation y= -gx^2 + b, describing a parabola. Following along the Galilean thought lines, this upside down parabola describe the motion of a falling body moving along the x-axis with some uniform velocity. The action integral that Dirac uses is the same sort of thing, only the Cartesian plane is eliminated. He follows this by deriving a mathematical way to proceed from this "classical" mechanics of particles to what is called the "Hamiltonian" giving way to a quantum mathematical description of the motions of particles. The first two of the four lectures follow along these lines, first picturing how we could mathematically go from classical mechanics and a description of motion, to a quantum description. The second lecture does just that, moves from classical mechanics into quantum mechanics.

But once he has passed from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics he wonders about how this would agree with relativity. The equations starting off his derivation, though not explicitly in agreement with relativity, they are made from relativistic assumptions. But the problem arises when he uses quantifiers to pass over from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics, there are certain assumptions that must be made. We (as mathematicians and physicists) have to choose the order of our factors, and in so choosing, we may introduce a quantifier which will make the result at odds with relativity. So Dirac starts over. He redoes the "action integral" with a different time variable. He then shows that with this derivative - going quickly through the same steps as the first two lectures, yields an equation that also is quantum, thus showing that there is not any absolute time variable. Then he has shown that there is not one observer in his descriptions, because there is not one time, and therefore at least in this way it agrees with relativity.

Dirac then tries to construct his equations on a curved surface. He shows that it can't work. Finally, he shows that he can make some simple cases in quantum mechanics work out on flat Euclidean space, which is good enough o get his mechanics to agree in simple cases with special relativity, but which cannot be in accord with general relativity. Close, but not quite the "Grand Unified Theory". He recapitulates by pointing out all of the difficulties in quantization of quantum mechanics, and how far mathematical physics is from being complete. He brings up again the idea of "degrees of freedom" in the motion. They have to restrict the degrees of freedom to a certain finite amount in order for his theory of quantization to work. But he points out that the actual fact is that the thing described has "infinite degrees of freedom". Specifically, he says:

But with field theory, we have an infinite number of degrees of freedom, and this infinity may lead to trouble. It usually does lead to trouble.

He then enumerates the problems of the infinite variables, mathematically inconsistent methods of dealing with divergent integrals, and so forth. He concludes, finally, on a grim note, saying the work is far from complete. Others are trying methods completely different from his. But Dirac maintains that even if the method he uses is not the answer, the answer will look something like his method.

This is getting quite long, but I have a couple preliminary reflections to make, to be elaborated later. First, compare relativity with Aristotelian motion and time (with the given empirical data superadded to Aristotle). Consider quantum mechanics then as the problem of the way too small, both in the breaking of substance, and the problem with the intellectual observer in the way too small. Consider, finally, the priority of the more known to the less known, and the relationship of relativity to quantum mechanics in that light. Perhaps these few questions will shed some light on a melding of natural philosophy, what is heard of nature, and physics, what is calculated about nature.

Against the false dichotomy of Subject/Object in Modern Physics

2005-10-09T10:38:00.000-05:00

By request.

referring to my last post, there is a scale issue in modern science, and in human knowing in general. Man occupies the central place. Things that appear to him on this scale of himself include the dichotomy of subject and object, and there is a philosophical tension therein. But classical physics made use of this division to "objectify" the world and explain it in purely mechanistic terms. With the advent of the new Physics, however, this dichotomy vanishes. I will limit myself to two examples, for the sake of (failed) brevity.

First, there is the case where we are dealing with things that are much larger than ourselves, moving much faster, relatively (relativity) speaking. With the advances of general relativity we can see that the measuring stick, the time and the motion can only be described from a frame of reference, not absolutely. Newtonian "absolute time" and "absolute space" have vanished. So we see that in our observations (just thinking of special relativity first) man's own position and speed determines his measure. The object cannot, therefore, be perfectly detached from the measurer, because the state of the measurer affects the measuring of the object. Extending to General Relativity, where gravitation is included, the Geodesics described by moving objects are affected not only by position and speed, but also by the mass of the bodies that they are near. Simply being a massive body creates a curvature in space-time, so again, even on the smaller scale of man, the fact that there is a massive body next to the observable object creates a variation in space-time, creating a variation in measurement. One cannot divorce the two, because relativity shows we cannot.

Secondly, there is the case of objects that are very much smaller than we are. If we look at the "structure" of the atom, as it is described by the quantum physicist, we will see a picture painted much differently from our high school chemistry classes. Instead of a large massive center - made up of protons and neutrons - "orbited" by electrons - like a tiny solar system - we have a much more uncertain picture. Electrons "are" in an orbit, they say, but do not move in orbits. One Physicist describes them as "kangaroo hops". But there is no telling why or how they end up in any particular position. Also, in 1917 Einstein showed that atoms not only collapse under the influence of radiation, but they can - and frequently do - collapse spontaneously of their own accord. There is an indeterminacy in the structure itself. Enter Schrodinger's cat. Suppose we have a closed container with a living cat in it. And we have isolated a system so that within a certain time frame if one atom decays, then Hydrogen Cyanide is released, killing the cat. The odds of the atom decaying are also set to fifty-fifty because of the certain time frame. If the atom decays, dead cat; if it doesn't, live cat. In the world of subatomic particles they can be in both places "virtually" and there are effects from both places. The particles only "fix" themselves if we look at them. Schrodinger concludes that there is a dead and live cat in the box at the same time. (He found it problematic, because he didn't see that indeterminacy on the quantum level would mean indeterminacy in the observable level) Until we open the box and look, there is both - but only in the realm of quantum mechanics. So, subject and object - to make a long story short, do not exist at the quantum level, because observation changes the things observed. (See also Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle - the reason for the uncertainty is the viewer)

Recapitulation - once we escape classical mechanistic physics we also avoid objectifying nature as simply the object observed. We can see this from general relativity and quantum mechanics. Read my post on Aquinas and Heisenberg for more thoughts on the possible reason why.

Thoughts on Modern Physics (again, sigh)

2005-10-07T21:05:00.000-05:00

I was thinking......

Sir James Jeans wrote a neat little book in the Forties called "Physics and Philosophy" that I just finished. Interesting. But there are a few points that I would like to bring out for those who will most likely never read this book. They bring about the questions of the possibility of a (as I would like to create) "science of physical method". First we attend to the problem of scale.

Man is, well, man-sized. Pretty big compared to atoms. Pretty small compared to nebulae. Oddly, however, man occupies the central size. Ratio: atom : man :: man : nebula. Now look at "classical physics" of Newton. Gravitation (in its mathematical form) works well enough to land some people on the moon, and predict missile trajectories well enough to assure global destruction (from the military aspect). But as things get smaller, Newton breaks down. Even if there was such a thing as a "force" of gravity, which modern science denies, the action of electrons around a nucleus evade the results predicted by Newton, as does the diffusion of light. Further, although we predict how long it will take my empty beer bottle to go from my hand to the garbage can (given my height and G) we still (as Einstein points out in one of the appendices to "Relativity") can't precisely locate where the perihelion of Mercury is supposed to be. Scale. It all resolves to a problem of scale. I guess it seems logical from a homocentric point of view to put us in the middle, as it is we who observe, but I don't think it is an accident that when we change scales the number that work for us don't work in another frame of reference. Let's examine the larger frame of reference first, because more of "my public" is familiar with Relativity.

First of all, Newton assumed absolute time and space. Not true. Space and time become conceived of as relative to bodies - simply. This makes more logical sense anyway. Einstein shows the General Principle pretty well, every law in K applies to K prime. If you read the appendix on Minkowski space and the mathematical ramifications of the Lorenz transformations, you see that the proof that light is propagated with a finite (though huge) speed, implies that the "time variable" depends on the motion of the frame of reference. Space and time can no longer be thought of as X,Y,Z and T (the red-headed stepchild of mathematical physics' variables) but rather as X1, X2, X3, and X4, a time-space continuum. This replaces the theory of "forces" in the way that Newton wrote about them. What is the difference between "love and strife" a la Empedocles, "gravitas" of Newton, the pagan belief in moon gods, and Angelic Heavenly spheres? NOTHING. But as soon as you replace time and 3D space with a continuum of space-time, you lose inverse square law as a method of description. To quote:

We first suppose that the presence of a gravitating mass at the place and time represented by the point P of the continuum impresses a curvature of the continuum in the proximity of the point P [per General Relativity - ed.], just as the presence of a lead ball on a cushion at a certain place and time impresses a curvature on the cushion in the proximity of these points of space and time. Thus the continued existence of the sum will impress a curvature on the continuum in the region surrounding the world-line of the sun.

having introduced us to a curved continuum in this way, the theory of relativity now tells us that the would-lines of small bodies moving in the neighborhood of the mass - as, for example, planets, comets or meteorites moving round the sun - are either straight lines, or are the straightest lines that are consistent with the curvature of the continuum.

Re-read to digest if necessary. All that is shown is that all moving bodies travel in straight lines. (Newton's first Law [!?]), but since space and time are not divisible in nature, those straight lines are now called Geodesics, because the shortest distance between two points is now through a "curved space". Planets travel around the sun in ellipses because, given the gravitational effects of the sun on space-time, ellipses are the mathematical "Geodesic", or straight line in curved space-time. It is like an extended conservation law - "everything goes straight. If space curves, then they curve. But they're still going straight". It is elegant. The you boil down the principle of gravitation (and all that hideous Geometry of the Principia) to a specialized case of Occam's Razor. I know it is difficult to envision 4D space-time and ellipses being straight, but there are other ways to visualize by analogy. Imagine Venus and the sun. The principle of this new way of viewing gravitation and straight lines would say that the shortest distance to get to the other side of the sun for the planet is straight through the sun. But as space curves so much more where mass is greater (examine Jeans' example of the lead ball on the cushion and replace it with a bowling ball, see what happens) it takes less distance (4D) to go around. And the closer you get to the mass the more it curves and the harder it gets, so Venus goes faster, conserving the straight (ish) line (remember time is in the 4D continuum too). It is easier to visualize a flat surface, like the cushion and the lead ball, and see the difference in distance if you have to go down to the bottom of where the ball pushes the custion. Around is a shorter distance (assuming that space requires you to stay in contact with the cushion, which is the claim of a curved space-time continuum - you can step outside it). I think general relativity is much more elegant that the poor Lorenz transformations of uniform translation found in the special theory. It preserves straight lines as the motion of choice (redefining "straight"), it more accurately describes nature, and it does away with the problematic idea of "force". (sort of, but more on that at another time) But it is enough to see that a reduction of principles from gravitation down to more a a conservation principle is definite progress in our understanding. But enough of the bigger than man side of physics.........

I was going to write about the small side of physics. But this got way too long. So, I will return to this at a later date (Fuck quantum uncertainty! [again again, for those who know - ed.])

against my own statement

2005-09-28T19:58:00.000-05:00

I blog again.

First, a preface to a preface. Do you ever have to take a step back from writing to get those "creative juices" flowing again? I do, and for those who don't know, on the glacier, that means cracking another beer. That having been accomplished, leads me to a preface (by way of a quote):

If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.

Maybe I should have title this "against Kodiak" for, although he has my respect, I think we have a disagreement of some proportion. Another preface would be to read his post, or more fully, the several comments to the post. So basically I am stepping out on a limb, speaking of neither math nor science (except maybe incidentally), but rather starting with some modern local history. Those of you who have become accustomed to my rants will have to swallow your surprise at this, and everyone else will have to take a big leap of faith that I may know something more than just equations. Again, the preface is way too long... maybe I should just leave off with a preface. . .

The year was 1997. The location was Southern California. The underground was the NMS People's Revolutionary Council. It rained incessantly. A great man (with me and a fifth of Vodka) created a plan. A nine month plan. Well, for those of you who remember, it met with mixed results, and ultimately, the plan disbanded the NMS.

That short trip down memory lane is meant to illustrate, comically, that the endeavors of humanity can frequently be short-sighted. Kodiak himself remarked that: "the nine-month plan turned into a five-year plan." We were poking fun at the communist five year plan, that never seemed to get accomplished (shades of Orwell). But I think that if we look back at this it will teach us, as a microcosm, a valuable truth in the macrocosm. (footnote - the problem with Catholics and politics - a later rant)

What have I learned? Don't drink? Hardly. The kernel of truth I found was that if you attack an effect of a greater cause in order to achieve an end, but the cause you attack is not the ultimate cause of the deficiency you are trying to correct, you will fail. I admit it, the NMS was a diversion that I invented based off of an old "Melvins" poster in my sister's house. I was trying to correct the feeling of ennui and being trapped in a "fishbowl", I was fighting the weather. But a "secret" society based loosely on parodying communists did not go to the heart of that ennui. It failed. Ennui came back. Look at the modern American regime. I hate the phrase "culture of death" so I will invent a new one: "unculture of bad math" or, to shorten it, "2=3". Since we live in a 2=3 world, many people - well meaning, pious, generally good people - try to fight it. They say "abortion is the only issue I vote on". Or, when confronted by a politician "is he pro-life?" Or they talk about the constitution, or the founding fathers, or natural law, or the rule of law. Yes, the falling away from all of these things has created a 2=3 regime. But I deny, and will affirm my denial, that these things are the ultimate cause. [time to get those creative juices flowing] Physicists and Mathematicians (see, I couldn't stay away) run the culture. Once science (or at least the habits of thought and common terminology of science) filters its way into society, society changes. So where does 2=3 come from? Not divorce, not abortion, not the "living constitution", not rock music, not gay rights, animal rights, right-wingers, left-wingers, not positive law, not legislating judges, not any other political ill you can name. What do you have historically in math and science at the beginning of the twentieth century? BAD MATH. Set theory. Quantum mechanics and relativity understood without philosophical grounding. Sentential calculus (symbolic logic devoid of meaning in the symbols). Truth statements. Geometry as analysis. Consistency becomes the Holy Grail of mathematicians - not truth. Lucidity fails. Quote Poincare - even subject to his own criticism (written in 1908):

All the efforts that have been made to upset this order, and to reduce mathematical induction to the rules of logic, have ended in failure, but poorly disguised by the use of a language inaccessible to the uninitiated.
Roughly seventy years later we have the 2=3 world coming to full bloom (with Roe v. Wade if you want to make that your starting point). So, what are we to do? Go to the ballot box and vote in only "good" people? Lobby the government to have the constitution place on an altar of unassailable footing, so that no "interpretations" counter to the founding fathers can be made? Do we form little towns hidden from the rest of the world (see Pennsylvania) so we can live isolated and not have to deal with the outside world? ("who is my neighbor?") Shoot your T.V.? No.

Absolutely not.

Fuck the nine month plan. Fuck the five year plan. Fuck voting in or out. But, most of all, fuck the mathematicians. Over, that is. We need to inundate ourselves in their inaccessible language. Learn it, breathe it, speak it - destroy it. Shift the footing of physics back to philosophy - by understanding it. Use their arguments against themselves. It can be done. Make Heisenberg kneel to Thomas. Einstein curtsy to Aristotle. And this, once completed, spreads: in our children, our schools and colleges, our media, our newspapers, our everyday speech. Instead of "survival of the fittest" in media you hear "for the natural end" or "for the common good".

Not a four year plan of an administration, but a SEVENTY year plan of global domination.

versus

2005-09-23T21:31:00.000-05:00

I know it has been a couple of weeks, but....
I was thinking...

While reading Science and Method the other night, Poincare puts the versus in the field of mathematical speculative theory as a contradiction between Kant and Leibniz. Or, Bertrand Russell relying on logic alone versus an idea of induction and basis in common thought processes as the background for mathematical reasoning. Basically, the logicians have said that there can be no synthetic judgments a priori in mathematical reasoning. It has to be logic and the rules of inference (not including induction) simply. But, as Poincare notes, one logician say that a conjunction combines TWO things. This is all before he comes to a definition of ONE.

But I guess my question is, stated by example, does the statement " all circles are similar" [in Euclidean Geometry, because we all know they aren't in other Geometries] follow from the definition of circle, or from the definition of similarity? We could say that because circularity is defined as equidistant from a point, and also show that any other similar figures have a defined ratio to a point of all sides that circles are defined as similar figures. But so also with squares, but this doesn't seem to be as great of a revelation. Maybe because we can line up squares meeting at one vertex and the two sides will correspond (at least to the extension of one side) whereas when when have two circles line up at one point, there is not the same "overlapping" . . . Perhaps it is evident from induction that all rectilinear similarly equiangular and equilateral figures are similar, but it is not so evident with curves. Curves are "trickier".

I for one, would like to lay down the following LAW: (Beitia's first law of mathematics)

Mathematics, to be true and consistent, must not be devoid of content, but must make use of prior knowledge of mathematical objects.

There are several corollaries that follow from this:

1: Induction is necessary.

2: Mathematical objects exist prior to the science of mathematics.

3: Mathematics truly is (with the Philosopher) the study of magnitude qua magnitude.

3a: not a relationship of formal symbols (an arithmetic formal calculus)

4: Man does not make mathematics, he discovers it.

Thus, math is as much art as science, and a view toward the beautiful guides a mathematician as sure as a poet. Re-read Euclid II. 14. He proves the anunciation without even constructing that which is his goal. Beautiful. Genius. Examine II. 11 - the golden ratio. He constructs the golden ratio along the vertical side to cut the horizontal in such ratio - all without having even defined ratio yet. Beautiful. Genius. Examine Godel's inconsistency proof (for those with some training in mathematical logic). The way he turns Russell on his head and forces the sentencial calculus to talk about itself - Beautiful... Genius. . . [for those who cannot read mathematical logic, he constructs within system X a statement that translates "I cannot be proved in system X" - pure genius]

Beauty guides all science

Question

2005-09-07T21:17:00.000-05:00

What it the algorithm governing the production of the infinitude of prime numbers?

Set Theory and the Antimony

2005-09-05T20:05:00.000-05:00

I was thinking.....

I found this neat little essay on number theory at a Barnes and Noble in the used pile (why there was a used pile at a new bookstore is mysterious, perhaps it was fortune...) called The Continuum by Hermann Weyl, an early Twentieth Century mathematician [the book was published originally in 1918]. In addition to the standard nearly unintelligible garble, there were a few points worthy of notice. First, Weyl decides to ground number theory (including natural number, rational number and real numbers) solely in the ideas of a few logical principles of inference and two axioms. Instead of using the Euclidean definition of number as a multitude of units, Weyl follows the modern adaptation by using the idea of "immediate successor". Thusly, two axioms: every number has one unique immediate successor, and "one" is not the immediate successor of any number. From this and his rules of inference he proceeds to deduce the rule of number theory.

Unfortunately, number theory is vastly boring to those with no strong interest in it. So I can't go into that great of depth. It just seems important to note that there is a difference since the classical period of mathematics by changing multitude to immediate successor, and also by using rule of inference on strings of purely symbolic logic. In that sense the manipulations he does with these strings do not necessarily have to be about numbers. I digress. Additionally, he uses the same method for deriving other numbers (than counting ones) that I have toyed around with doing, even classifying them as "second degree" "third degree" etc. . . (for the rational numbers). But this is also an aside. Two other things are of note before I mention his antimony.

First, he thinks that a derivation of purely formal number theory is PRIOR to Geometry - which I have not been able to firmly refute thus far (but I just finished the book this morning). But, not to contradict himself, he says that the continuum formed by real numbers is a continuum of individuals different from and not applicable to "real" continua - time and space. Hmm. . . food for thought.

Secondly, and quote:

The failure to recognize that the sense of a concept is logically prior to its extension is widespread today; even the foundations of contemporary set theory are afflicted with this malady. It seems to spring from empiricism's peculiar theory of abstraction; for arguments against which, see the brief but striking remarks in Fichte (1912, 6:133 ff.) and the more careful exposition in Husserl (1913a: 106-224). Of course, whoever wishes to formalize logic, but not to gain insight into it - and formalizing is indeed the disease to which a mathematician is most prey - will profit neither from Husserl nor, certainly, from Fichte.

There is one sense in which it is right to say that mathematics is formalized - since it treats of magnitude as its proper object, but in another very striking way, Weyl has hit upon the problem (even plaguing himself) of modern mathematics. The further abstracted (albeit badly abstracted) mathematics is from reality, the more tenuous its foothold on truth becomes (this post [and this statement] is actually a preface to the next one I'm about to write).

Finally, I'll finish with Weyl's antimony (Bertrand Russell has a similar one, etc. etc. in the realm of mathematics, they all boil down to Epimenides' self-referential statement "this sentence is false").

Some adjectives are what they describe ("brief" when said is brief) - these are autological.

Some adjectives are not what they describe ("long" is only four letters, and one syllable - and therefore not long) - these are heterological.

What about the adjective "heterological" which one is it???

Mr. Heisenberg, meet Mr. Aquinas

2005-09-04T18:09:00.000-05:00

I was thinking. . . but I'd rather start with quote:

But what authority has decided that nature as such must forever remain the nature of modern physics, and that history must forever appear only as subject matter for historians? We cannot, of course, reject today's technological world as devil's work, nor may we destroy it - assuming it does not destroy itself. (Heidegger - Identity and Difference)

That, as a preface, provides us with a good point for embarking on a little mental journey. As we all know, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is the basis for quantum mechanics in the sense that it is the ground. It basically say that the position and speed of a particle are mutually unknowable. It also provides for the "virtual paths" I rambled about in the Feynman Diagram diatribe in an earlier post. Even in the transcribed lecture of Paul Davies that T.A.C. so diligently mailed to me (how they found my address I will still never know) had the author asserting that quantum uncertainty destroys the causal argument for the existence of God - since things come into and out of being spontaneously. I digress (again). I really do have a point. So, the principle of uncertainty has been extended to say that there is uncertainty in the things, but it began by saying that the uncertainty comes about because of a problem of observation. The simple looking at the sub-atomic thing changes the thing by looking. Davies, in God and the New Physics, goes so far as to say that if there were a cat in a box with a deadly chemical that will be released by a chemical reaction having fifty-fifty odds, that there is in fact a "virtual live cat" and a "virtual dead cat" in the box at the same time until an observer opens the box, and thus vanishes the virtual leaving only the real live or dead cat. He even has nifty hand drawings of dead/live cat to illustrate his point (I'm not kidding). Forgive the second digression as well. Glean one think from the rant - uncertainty is because of the observer.

Flash to Thomas, De Ente et Essentia, to be precise. In his observations on the being and essence of intellectual substances he shows that for God, to be and to be God are on and the same thing. Additionally, he shows that in angelic substances the essence is not the same as the act of existing, and so that even without matter, there still exists potentiality in angels, etc. Then he comes to lowly man. Again, for an intellectual substance there is some overlap between essence and act of existing, which is to say, in some limited sense, that to be a man and to be are somewhat the same. Without going into greater detail (for few people will bother to have read this far anyway, even if I assure the reader that I will eventually have a point), it is enough to say that if existence is somehow necessary to be a man, then there is a sense in which being and intellectual being affects the world around us in a way different that a simple unthinking causal reaction (like a falling rock). Permitting a course analogy, it is as if the world were a sheet of paper with iron filings on it. But every intellectual substance is like a magnet, of greater or lesser power depending on the kind of substance it is, and its mere presence affects the world around it. hmm.......

Could we then say that Heisenberg's principle has its causal root in Thomas' definition of man as intellectual substance? Is it possible that the basis of quantum physics is rooted in the "empty" and "unenlightened" dark age philosophy of a Schoolman? A rather appalling thought for a amateur mathematician and physicist (theoretical only) such as myself. I really don't know if I will be able to sleep tonight. But, to end with a quote from the same essay as the first quote:

Only when we turn thoughtfully toward what has been thought, will we be turned to use for what must still be thought.

an infinity of infinities

2005-08-29T17:50:00.000-05:00

I was thinking today about the infinite density of the real numbers a la set theory. Then it occurred to me that Cantor has an elegant proof for the incompleteness of the density of real numbers - that I would like to show in a scaled down model. Suppose one thought that numbers could only be broken down into eighth's, and that was the smallest division of numbers allowable - and this covered all numbers. Then suppose you listed them in decimal notion between zero and one like this: (the boldface will become clear)

. 1 2 5 0 0 0 0
. 2 5 0 0 0 0 0
. 3 7 5 0 0 0 0
. 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
. 6 2 5 0 0 0 0
. 7 5 0 0 0 0 0
. 8 7 5 0 0 0 0

Take the decimal illustrated by the diagonal. Add any number to each of the digits (say 1 in this example). You get .2661111 - which is not on the chart. Now generalize. The modified diagonal number has the first digit different than the first number, the second digit different from the second number, the third digit different from etc etc etc. So even if we had very very small differences the diagonal number modified will always be different than any other number on the list.
What is the import of this? Probably nothing. But something analogous to this reasoning is used to show omega inconsistency in formalized mathematical systems. But more on this at another time.

Time interests

2005-08-22T18:17:00.000-05:00

I was thinking. . .
When we look at the theory of Relativity in comparison with classical physics in the relation of time to motion, gravity, space and so forth, we see the dissolution of the exact and eternal time arrow. Rather (possibly because it make equations look better) we now conceive of a "space-time" in four dimensions - not analogously to the three spatial dimensions, but even more closely tied. In fact, with a view toward different motions, one man's present is another man's past or future. There is no absolute time outside of motion. I, for one, was relieved, finding the study of Newton distasteful on a multitude of levels. But why does the Physicist make such a strange deal out of time? I quote:
In their search for this mysterious time-flux many scientists have become deeply confused. All physicists recognize that there is a past-future asymmetry in the universe, produced by the operation of the second law of thermodynamics. But when the basis of that law is carefully examined, the asymmetry seems to vanish.
I don't think it is very fruitful to examine this in any great detail, but Davies goes on to say that the asymmetry of time vanishes when you look at the particles that make up the universe. Each "thing" bouncing against others is perfectly reversible. And the whole of the (material) universe is just things bouncing against things. So it could just as soon go "forwards" as "backwards" - whatever forwards and backwards would then mean. But all the arguments for time dilation (muon decay rates at near light speed, relativity, et cetera) depend on motion. Why not simplify everything and define time as "the number of motion" (I think I seem to remember reading that somewhere) - which would have the happy side effect of having every distinct motion having a distinct time. Also, it would account for the asymmetry in the sense that motion is based on causality, which does not have perfect symmetry (as indicated by the second law of thermodynamics). Concordant with relativity, in agreement with muon decay rates, supported by entropy, and - here's the kicker -
SUPPORTED BY EXPERIENCE
No. There can be nothing in modern science that is supported by experience. I forgot, the whole purpose is to try and destroy common perception, so that the physicist can appear as the new priestly class, with revelations from on high, esoteric doctrines that clash with reasonableness for the sake of appearing as cognoscendi. Obfuscation breeds respect from the masses. Clarity brings contempt.
One associated digression: to be profound, just be confusing.

uncertain about uncertainty

2005-08-14T21:58:00.000-05:00

I was thinking about physics again.....

Why is the relationship between mathematics and physics so strong? Remember, where Plato taught had the sign "Let no one enter who does not first know Geometry". Examine (though bad examples of philosophers) Descartes, Leibnitz, Kant (in his own way), even in modern times Edmund Husserl, - all mathematicians. Even the Pricipia is a truncated title. Maybe it is because Physics is the science of nature, and dispuisti omnia secundum numerum, (something I can't remember - probably Latin for weight) et mensuram. How the world is created is according to mathematics. To describe it in intelligible human terms we must describe it mathematically. This leads to the question of why Physicists do not call themselves philosophers - a question I have often asked. Not to cut my meandering preface short, but I stumbled across another very interesting passage from a book, I would like to painstakingly type out and comment on. Without further ado, the reason I started writing this:

At the quantum level, the electromagnetic forces between charged particles A and B are understood in terms of the exchange or transfer of photons. . . . . In this way, forces between particles are transmitted by other particles (photons in this case). Actually, this description is rather simplified. The transmission involves a complex web of short-lived (or "virtual") particles travelling in both directions and also buzzing around each of A and B individually. A similar sort of description may be given for nature's other fundamental forces. The diagrams are a symbolic representation of abstract mathematical terms that can be used to compute subatomic processes correctly to a very high accuracy.

Paul Davies, God and the New Physics, pg. 148

All the boldface is mine, but it highlights what concerns me. First, there is the "understood". What is to prevent me from giving another physical explanation for this force without resolving to particles that yeilds the same mathematical results? See my last post for thoughts on the sentences from "Actually," to "individually" - I would hate to try to type out another exposition on Feynman diagrams. Finally, there is the troubling phrase - also in bold - in the last sentence. I thought when I was force-fed a highschool Chemistry (or Physics) text that these diagrams were supposed to in some way reflect the reality of nature. But here we have a PhD telling us that that is not the case - that the particles are abstract mathematical entities. Where do mathematical entities reside? Certainly not in my beer bottle in front of me. The only math there is ounces (sadly down to about two). Abstract mathematical entities are notional, more to the realm of philosophy than to the study of nature. But that's okay, Davies reassures us, even if they don't exist they still calculate (numbers?) to a "high degree of accuracy" - but what are we calculating? Is this like a non-Euclidean Geometry, whose axioms are not self-contradictory, but distasteful, and can still give demonstrations? Does this reside only in the mind? I have to cut this short (I doubt anyone's made it this far anyway) but I have a few more thoughts about the card tower itself. But, that will have to wait until another day...........

Self-Reference and the Problem of meta-

2005-08-13T22:34:00.000-05:00

It has always amazed me that the members of the scientific community always base their branch of science as the queen. Paul Davies, for example, does so in "God and the New Physics". But every time a discipline speaks of more than its content - generalizing to say something about the universe or whatever - it falls into the trap of self reference. Statements about mathematics are themselves not mathematical, but meta-mathematical. A good example that most should be familiar with is the fifth postulate argument and the various attempts to "prove" it. Trying to reduce a fundamental axiom of plane geometry to a problem of geometry is confusing the meta- for the thing in question. All sorts of paradoxes and irrationality follows.

I think most paradoxes (parenthetically) resolve in some way to self-reference.

This sentence is false.

See? Clearly it is a problem of self-reference. Even if you look into particle physics the problems see to all arise from the same. Look at any Feynman diagram for the path of an isolated electron moving from point A to point B. At any time in the moving it can generate photons and "virtual photons" that stay or decay randomly, but those photons that stay can randomly degenerate into electron-positron (positron = anti-electron) pairs that combine to destroy each other and make new photons, which in turn either degenerate or form new matter/anti-matter pairs, which in turn - and magically the electron makes it to point B - now named a renormalized electron. Most Feynman diagrams are too complicated to even admit of mathematical calculation, but that is another digression. The relationship between the photon and the electron-positron pair, and the fluid movement back and forth between them forms a self-referential pair. If you can't speak of the electron moving without these other things coming to pass, which make up the moving electron, well, then.... then what? Perhaps particle physics has gone so far off base assuming the material reality of these things, and using these assumptions to prove other things that the self-reference contained therein is inherent in the flawed assumption of physical reality. Ouch. It really doesn't please me to say that.
But on the other hand, why don't they call the bulk of what is called physics philosophy, because they are plainly expanding beyond the horizon of pure experiment and observation. Slide out of the problem of meta-physics by turning it into metaphysics.
perhaps
I'd like to leave off with one slightly plagarized (with my own spin) thought:

Beitia's First Law of Physics:

Without true philosophy, physics will always resolve into contradictions, even if you take into account Beitia's first law of physics.

Sic transit gloria mundi. . .

2005-08-13T09:10:00.000-05:00

I was thinking about physics again... I find it interesting the reasoning that they use and the evidence that they have, and then the bizarre leaps from evidence to theory. For example, if you see that light is wavelike and can be shifted (like the Doppler effect of a passing train) depending on the motions, and everything in the heavens is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum, you can pretty safely conclude that everything is going away from everything else. I'm fine to this point. Turn time on its head, run the tape backwards, and everything is going toward everything else. This suggests that the universe had a beginning and so forth, called the "Big Bang Theory" - which the Church said in the fifties was a good theory in terms of revelation. I'm fine to this point as well. My problem comes at the other end of the tape.

Is the expansion of the various galaxies moving fast enough to escape the inevitable pull of gravitation? Is there a break point where it all comes tumbling back together? Although this would be a fiery and exciting end of the world, I just don't see it coming to pass that way. Plus, most of the Physicists who believe in the big crunch just think everything starts all over again, bang, crunch, bang, crunch . . . this kind of endless repetition I find personally distasteful, like watching an NBA game - back and forth.
I like the idea of heat-death. Thermodynamic equilibrium. Every closed system tends to thermodynamic equilibrium, from more usable energy to less, to a uniform temperature and pressure with no disturbances. In stars, this is done by nuclear reactions that change Hydrogen (and later, Helium) into stuff (I won't say "atoms") with much higher entropy - most notably iron. To avoid wasting any more time - basically, stars run out of fuel, burn out or explode. The entire universe approaches thermodynamic equilibrium where all matter is turned into energy and all energy degenerates into heat energy and there is a vast expanse of simply radiating heat glowing a barely above absolute zero (-273C).

I guess maybe how one looks at the end of the universe is probably based on how a person views the world - the essentially optimistic enternal return of the same - or we're all tending in a direction, but that direction is not good, kind of like a negative teleologist.
but, typically, I digress

fuck quantum uncertainty (again for those who know)

2005-08-11T19:04:00.000-05:00

I was thinking

while reading a lecture by Paul Dirac today (nobel physicist, 1933), at the abject absurdity of mathematical constructs of nature. . . He discusses in his first lecture on how a quantum theory would mathematically arise out of a classical dynamic theory of motion, in terms of atomism. But that theory in its mathematical formalism would have to agree in principle with (at least) Special Relativity. Remember from you books that relativity not only shows the motions to be relative, but also the times. So we have to re-formulate our equations with time and distance variables - at random - so that we do not have any particular time or distance bias. Again, remember at the end of Einstein's Relativity, Cartesian co-ordinates are replaced by Gaussian co-ordinate planes by non-intersecting curves of infinite fullness. . . remember also that relative to one's frame of reference the motion can be none at all, rectalinear, curvalinear, accelerated, all describing the same world-event.
I digress....
So anyway, Dirac sets about a series of strange analytical equation transformations to solve for these randomly picked time and distance functions. Again, to be concise (hardly) he takes an undefined normal motion equation, transforms it into a Lagrangian, then, with the use of "Poisson Brackets" transforms it into Hamiltonian equations, all the while showing there must be primary and secondary contraints on the equation - also undeciphered - all for the sake of

are you ready?
ARE
YOU
READY??
i doubt anyone's made it this far anyway

I quote:
When we have the Hamiltonian, we can apply a standard method which gives us a first approximation to a quantum theory, and if we a lucky we might be able to go on and get an accurate quantum theory.

You may now exhale. The wait is over. Nature - thus explained.
NO! WAIT! the mind reels. What standard method? Approximation - I go through all this formalistic mathematical bullshit for a fucking approximation - of fucking things I can't see, or sense or anything else? Oh, I get it. I go through mathematical rigmarole for the sake of saying that a particle is everywhere in its "energy level" at the same time until I "look" at it. Oh, nonesense for the sake of - nonsense.
Before we ask the question of whether a Hamiltonian (Hamiltonian what? - Dirac never says) can approximate a quantum theory we need to ask the question
why is it necessary to believe in a Hamiltonian

(who the fuck is Hamilton?)

I will study more, and, sadly, update as necessary
thus spake Beitiathustra

finally

2005-06-04T22:44:00.000-05:00

i have finally entered into the realm of people who have nothing better to do. . .

but i was thinking today

someone once said that modern philosophy was vain because modern culture was vain. But then I got to thinking about that, and maybe it is because the modern life is vain and fruitless.
Think about it
Groundedness.
How are we grounded?
we move, we change jobs, cities, states, lovers, hairstyles, cars, brands of cigarettes, friends, even (on-line of course) identities. How are we rooted? It used to be that people grew up, lived and died in the same locale; that rooted them in their welt. We don't have one, or maybe ours is constantly changing. I have no world. Idaho, Cali, Texas, Illinois, Idaho again, Illinois again - all in much less than ten years. Constants? me. any others? no.
So, let's recap. As a product of the modern world, I have lived my life according to its virtue. I have moved - on, but certainly not up - and feel no connection to this place I currently reside. I don't like these people, this job, or this climate. I claim to be educated, sometimes even intelligent, but I have gotten no further than anyone, at any time, in any place.
I ramble - NO! Keep focus!
pithy
strive for pithy
recap attempt number two:
Vain philosophies succeed in the modern world because people live vain lives, which breeds vain cultures. The mobility of people in terms of Geography leads to the mobility of people in all habits, that is, choice of locations without restraint leads to a plethora of choices in all manner of human endeavors.
Freedom to choose means freedom to lose contact with that which determines your world.
Solution?
Settle down. Till the soil. Deny one's self the choices. Ride the tide. Become a rock. No, a mountain. But, above all:
Create for yourself a world
thus spake Beitiathustra