Observers

A sort-of parody song written in 2003. To the tune of "Landslide" by Stevie Nicks:

Observers
Here in the cockpit lookin' round
Looked out the window, then looked down
I saw some guy guess I'll call him S
My observer on the ground

Observer in the sky is what I've become
Called myself S' ...just because
See I heard about this Einstein guy
He claims strange things happen when you fly

So then I started planning
'Cause I wanted to see the effects
You know I've been thinkin'
This plane could be shrinkin'
But I ain't seen nothin' yet

Oh, waved to that guy S on the ground
He's not my twin just a guy I found
And I only wanted to ask him the time
But his watch might need to be wound

Yeah, I only wanted to get the time
But his watch seems to have slowed down

There used to be a physics limericks competition, and I think I was motivated by "Relatively Good Advice." Some of my other favorites were:

Condensed Story of Ms Farad
A Brief History of Gravity
Cole's Lost Soul
Quark-Dork Symmetry Group

Biblical Economics - Part 2

At this point, it would really be more accurate to switch the title of the blog to Old Testament Economics. However, since I started the first part with the title “Biblical Economics,” and sine the Old Testament is part of the Bible, I'll still keep the old title. But, now you know what to expect from this second part. The points that I am about to describe/consider may actually reach farther than just economics, so perhaps the second part of the title is now suspect too? Also, I'm not really going to describe a complete economy/society, I just want to point out some of the differences that I have noticed between the society/economy that we have in present-day America, and what was prescribed in the Bible. I am also not going to attempt to make any arguments for how such an economy could be enacted in present-day America (either partially or fully), though I do feel that there is room for such arguments to be made (but that goes beyond the scope of this blog). Anyway, here are some things that I have noticed:

Permanent Property Rights

Lev. 25:13-16

In this Year of Jubilee everyone is to return to their own property. If you sell land to any of your own people or buy land from them, do not take advantage of each other. You are to buy from your own people on the basis of the number of years since the Jubilee. And they are to sell to you on the basis of the number of years left for harvesting crops. When the years are many, you are to increase the price, and when the years are few, you are to decrease the price, because what is really being sold to you is the number of crops.

Perhaps this helps explain the tenth commandment “Do not covet your neighbor's house or his wife.” Why? Because each is considered equally permanent. Can you imagine America with no homeless citizens? For further consideration, I would also like to add:

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. - Attributed to Thomas Jefferson

...Ron Paul for President! Down with the Fed! Well... probably not Ron Paul anymore at this point, he was 72 the last time he ran, and he can't keep running every four years (Oh, snap!). Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now.

Anti-Usury Laws

Lev. 25:35-37

If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you. Do not take interest or any profit from them, but fear your God, so that they may continue to live among you. You must not lend them money at interest or sell them food at a profit.

Deut. 23:19

Do not charge a fellow Israelite interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest.

What would our economy look like if U.S. Citizens could not charge each other interest? One need only consider how integral a part of our economy interest rates are to see how far off base we are with this one.

Gleaning Laws

Lev. 19:9-10

When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the LORD your God.

Deut. 23:24-25

If you enter your neighbor’s vineyard, you may eat all the grapes you want, but do not put any in your basket. If you enter your neighbor’s grainfield, you may pick kernels with your hands, but you must not put a sickle to their standing grain.

Deut. 24:19-22

When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow. When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this.

If someone in modern day America attempted to glean, what would we call them? A thief and trespasser. In Colorado, they could probably even be shot without question (Make My Day Law). Now, I do see some good reasons for the laws that we have now, but I just wanted to point out how they differ from the Bible in this case.

I don't know the exact “addresses” of the passages, but specific examples of gleaning would be Ruth, and Jesus and his Disciples (which also brings in New Testament support). Another point worth noting is that even aliens and foreigners are allowed this privilege (they are actually allowed many privileges).

Respect for Rest

Lev. 23:3

There are six days when you may work, but the seventh day is a day of sabbath rest, a day of sacred assembly. You are not to do any work; wherever you live, it is a sabbath to the LORD.

What would the American economy be like if not allowed to operate 24/7? Perhaps the standstill wouldn't be as bad as it would first appear. Only a few decades ago most places had “Blue Laws” which did not allow most businesses to operate on Sundays. Some are even on the books to this day (In Colorado, cars still cannot be sold on Sundays).

Tithes

Deut. 14:22-28

Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and olive oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the LORD your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the LORD your God always. But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the LORD your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the LORD will choose to put his Name is so far away), then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose. Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice. And do not neglect the Levites living in your towns, for they have no allotment or inheritance of their own.

At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year’s produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the foreigners, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.

I tend to think of tithes as taxes. Our taxes now are obviously much more than 10%. But even if you take tithes in the common/traditional sense as something given to the church, this doesn't quite match contemporary American thinking – using your tithes to buy wine and “strong drink” (another translation, which one I don't remember)? Who would've thought! Notice again that the aliens and foreigners are provided for.

Bankruptcy Law

Deut. 15:1-4
At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel any loan they have made to a fellow Israelite. They shall not require payment from anyone among their own people, because the LORD’s time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your fellow Israelite owes you. However, there need be no poor people among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you,

You can't beat this as far as bankruptcy laws go! However, you might think that this law would lend itself to easy abuse by the borrowers. But, I think it is up to the lender's discretion to decide whether or not the borrower actually NEEDS a loan. You think your neighbor is likely to give you a loan for a big-screen TV under these conditions? I say, think again!

Freedom and Liberty for All?

Deut. 23:15-16
If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.

Respect for Military Families

Deut. 24:5
If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.

I have heard so many sad stories of military couples who have only a few days to marry before the soldier is deployed again, often for over a year! Although ultimately, everyone is responsible for their own actions, I can't help but think that a law like this would prevent at least a few instances of unfaithfulness and divorce.

So, these are just a few things that have stood out to me. I must also say that there are many things in the Old Testament laws that I find confusing, distasteful, and even contradictory – but I find things about our current system to be confusing, distasteful, and contradictory! Is it any wonder that I would feel some of the same negative emotions towards the laws of another place and time?

Biblical Economics - Part 1

I used to participate in HSA, an online community of homeschool alumni. I actually tried to start a place like that on my own once, but I wasn't very motivated to do all the managing and recruiting necessary to keep it going. So, I was very happy to find HSA! The majority of people there were, like myself, homeschooled in a very strongly Christian environment. Once (Jul 28, 2008) I created a message board topic focused around the question “Are savings accounts, IRAs, investments, etc godly?” where I was suggesting that perhaps they are not. I cited scriptures from both the Old and New Testament, and I felt they were in context because I never quoted a singe verse by itself, and in one passage I quoted 10 consecutive verses. I thought I was making a good case for a casual, Christian-oriented message board. I expected at least a few dissenters, and a lot more Bible verses. What I got was 5 separate replies. 1 person vaguely agreed with me. Of the other 4 who disagreed, only 1 cited more scripture. The others just gave opinions and their own interpretations of the verses I had already mentioned. I was a bit disappointed with this. HSA is one of those places where I can often be annoyed by the expectation that you should have a Bible verse for every single opinion. It is a stronghold of Christian fundamentalism, Religious Right, etc – and although I am somewhat like that myself, even I think that they go overboard at times. But in this one case, where I was specifically discussing Biblical support for something, I only got haphazard responses. Why is that?

Now, I would like to point out that I was slightly arguing Devil's advocate. That is to say, I do think that saving is wise (although, less so since I've studied inflation a bit), and there is probably a Biblical case to be made for it. What bothers me is that on a site for Christian (who believe the Bible literally) homeschoolers (who should be studious enough to know), nobody even tried to make that case. I think I would've been happier if my post got no replies and I had simply felt boring or ignored.

Anyway, here are the scriptures that I presented:

1 Corinthians 15 : 18-19, 30-32

Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. […] And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? I die every day I mean that, brothers just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."
(not directly talking about money, but noting that gains in this life can't be the goal of Christianity)

Exodus 16 :14-20

When the dew was gone, thin flakes like frost on the ground appeared on the desert floor. When the Israelites saw it, they said to each other, "What is it?" For they did not know what it was. Moses said to them, "It is the bread the LORD has given you to eat. This is what the LORD has commanded: 'Each one is to gather as much as he needs. Take an omer for each person you have in your tent.' " The Israelites did as they were told; some gathered much, some little. And when they measured it by the omer, he who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little. Each one gathered as much as he needed. Then Moses said to them, "No one is to keep any of it until morning." However, some of them paid no attention to Moses; they kept part of it until morning, but it was full of maggots and began to smell. So Moses was angry with them.

Matthew 6 :19-21, 25-34

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. […] Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Matthew 19 :21-24

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

The two “rebuttal” verses I received were:

Proverbs 13:22 - A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children:

Proverbs 21:20 - There is treasure to be desired and oil in the dwelling of the wise; but a foolish man spendeth it up.

...oh, and one other person did say: “Matthew 25 and Luke 19 speak positively of investing money. Although those accounts are parables, I doubt Jesus would use them as examples if it would be wrong to emulate them.” Without actually quoting any of what was said or discussing it. But now, on my own blog, I do feel like discussing it a bit, so here goes. As to Luke 19:11-29, you have the Parable of the Ten Talents. As I re-read that, I find myself a bit in wonder, that has always been a strange and mystifying parable to me, and reading it again it has just become even more so (because on this re-reading it suddenly seems to be about nothing other than a local political squabble*). Anyway, one servant is chastised for NOT investing, and other servants are rewarded for investing. This is actually one of the verses I would probably quote in support of the idea that making/saving money is Biblical. But my “opponent” didn't quote that verse. If you look at the rest of 19 it is also talking about Zacchaeus, the wealthy tax collector regarded as a “sinner.” He is so happy that Jesus associated with him that he pledges to give half his possessions to the poor and pay back four times what he may have ever cheated others out of. Jesus responds by granting him salvation. At the very end of Chapter 19, Jesus gets mad at the money changers and throws them out of the temple. So, taking the whole chapter in context, there is a bit said in favor of investing, but I'm not even sure if that was the point of the parable, and anyway the rest of the chapter may cancel out whatever was said in favor of wealth. Matthew Chapter 25 just retells the same parable, with slightly different details. I think I had been more used to hearing the Matthew version. The rest of the Matthew chapter is two other parables that seem to be dividing people into those who are for and against the bridegroom/Son of Man, and neither of which seem to say anything about money.

As I said, I actually think saving is wise, but so what if I think that? “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death. ” - Proverbs 14:12. Well, at least I think there are verses/passages to balance the other viewpoint. For instance, what about Joseph being put into Pharaoh's court just so that he could store up harvests from the good years so that there would be enough for the bad years? Or Luke 14:28-30 “"Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.” So, those are just a few examples of how the Bible might promote saving. However, I think the Bible has a much more complex and detailed view of economics, which is what I'm saving for Part 2.

* I just noticed that before much of the parable (Luke's version) takes place, it says that the master is going away in order to have himself appointed as king. His servants didn't want him to be king (presumably because he is a harsh master), and they sent some representatives to stop him from being named king. Apparently the representatives failed, because the master did become king afterall. When the master (now king) comes back, and demands an account of what has been done with his money, he really just seems to be mad about the fact that his servants didn't want him to be king, and just proves their point about being harsh, and kills the ones who don't like him. ???? *boggles* Even of the ones who were faithful servants, it never says they liked their master, so one can only wonder if they were happy being loaded down with new responsibilities? And then the whole thing ends with the famous (infamous?) “to those who have, more shall be given, and to those who have not, even what they have shall be taken away!” ...is the master/king in this parable even supposed to represent God? I hope not :-.. ...perhaps the next section holds the key. It is the Triumphal Entry “Palm Sunday.” Jesus enters Jerusalem and is hailed as king by the people – but the Pharisees grumble.

Does Language Make Me Think the Way I Do?

I just got a new book Twenty Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy. One of the 20 questions (Chapter 7) is "Does Language Make Me Think the Way I Do?" I haven't read that chapter yet. However, a while back, I read a very interesting article:

Does Language Influence the Way I Think?

Something that I found particularly interesting was that certain primitive cultures have no words for "right" and "left." However, they have a much better conception of space than most English speakers do.

When I was first learning to drive, I was notorious for getting lost! I was very uncomfortable with maps, and always wanted directions to be given to me in writing, with relative directionals (ie right and left), rather than the cardinal directions. I simply was so accustomed to the world revolving around me (almost literally) that it was just very hard to get used to absolute directions. Perhaps this is somewhat excusable, as I grew up in Oklahoma where everything is FLAT, and there is nothing to orient oneself to. Here by the mountains, it is much easier, since they are always in view and are always West (though from a civil engineering point of view, the streets of Okla. are much more navigable). Anyway, if I had never known words for right and left, I would have, by necessity, had a much more absolute conception of directionality.

So, I have missed out on something by having such convenient words in my vocabulary. I have to wonder how, or if, our mental life would be impoverished if we didn't have words for "right" and "left"? It is actually hard to come up with anything. But, science fiction lends a few examples. In Flatland (or perhaps it was Sphereland?), there is a brief description of Flatlander dogs: mongrels and pedigrees. They were mirror images of each other, the only difference being that one had what might be called a "left facing" orientation, and the other "right facing." Within Flatland, they retained their orientation throughout their lives. When taken up one dimension, they could be flipped, so that a mongrel could become a pedigree (quite a lucrative change for the Flatlanders). I also read a short story by Arthur C. Clarke, Technical Error, in which a scientist was, it seems, mysteriously flipped in another dimension. The truth was only discovered when he began to starve, as his body could no longer use certain vitamins which had specifically left- or right-hand orientations. If some molecules really are like that (and I think some are), how would a cardinal-directions-only culture discover these classifications? I think eventually they would figure it out, and give it a name, but it would probably take longer.

Perhaps even more interesting was what happened when you gave speakers of different language types pictures from an obvious progressions in time (example: baby, child, adult, old person; seed, sprout, bud, flower; etc), and then ask the person to arrange the pictures in order. People who read languages from left to right arranged the pictures L->R, those who read from R->L arranged the pictures R->L. Those who read from top to bottom arranged them from T->B. In the cultures without words for right or left, something very interesting happens: they arrange the pictures from east to west, no matter how they themselves are oriented. A little thought shows that this matches the way the sun moves across the sky, and is perhaps the most natural and accurate representation of time.

It is one thing to say that language affects our definition and awareness of abstract concepts, but what this shows is how it affects even our definitions and awareness of the physical world!

I once watched a rather interesting (if mildly embarrassing - though he explains why I can't help feeling that way) talk given by Steven Pinker, about swear words. In addition to what he says about swearing, he also talks about what an alien culture might know about our perceptions of physical reality based on our language. Which was a rather unique point-of-view, I thought. Anyway, it just goes to show even more ways that language might affect (or at least represent) our perception of the physical world.

Since I live with someone whose first language is not English, I am aware, first-hand, of a few differences that language can make in our thought processes. One of my favorite stories is of a time Adrian and I were sitting down to watch a movie on our computer in the office. Adrian pointed towards the light-switch (unsurprisingly located right next to the door) and said "Close that." I gave him a weird look, but proceeded to close the door. He looked at me like I had lost my mind "What are you doing? Close THAT!" and pointed again. Feeling a bit confused and affronted, I began searching through the bookshelves (located just under the light switch and right next to the door) looking for anything that could be closed, as Adrian stares on in complete befuddlement. Finally I blurt out "There's nothing here left to close! I already closed everything that can be closed!" To which he exclaims in exasperation "The light!" Me: "Ohhhh ...you don't close a light!!!" Actually, Adrian's English is pretty good. But, it just so happens that in Romanian the words for close/open and turn on/off are the same. Though he knew the correct words, he didn't have separate concepts to assign them to. (Of course, it also doesn't help that he uses a non-specific pronoun and just points. Typical male behavior, in my experience. Sometimes I think he does it on purpose just 'cause he thinks I'm cute when I'm annoyed. Or maybe he really just doesn't like to speak in specifics.)

Kurt Godel once said "The more I think about language, the more it amazes me that people ever understand each other." I would agree. But, I think there is more to communication that language. It really helps to know the person you are talking too. For instance, my mother-in-law has trouble with English, and yet I am often able to understand exactly what she means (sometimes when neither Adrian nor her husband can understand), to which she always replies in delight "You guess me!" Similarly, when my little brother was first learning to talk, I was known as his "translator" (even within my family). To this day, we still think quite alike, and in a group setting often end up responding exactly the same way to conversations.

So is this ESP or what? I don't know. In the case of my mother-in-law, I think I may just be paying more attention to her than anyone else, and between knowing the kinds of things she would say, and having the right kind of imagination about what her words actually mean, I am able to communicate (though sometimes I do mis-guess). In the case of my little brother, not only do we have similar backgrounds, but I think somehow we just got very similar genes (perhaps even more similar than with my other two siblings). For instance, we are both known for misunderstanding things in exactly the same ways. Rodney was once telling me about a time he was driving with Tommy in the car, and they passed a sign saying "Correctional facility nearby. Hitchhikers may be escaping inmates" - to which Tommy responded: "Those poor hitchhikers! If we see any, we'd better stop and help them escape the inmates!" I found this funny, but especially because it's EXACTLY what *I* thought seeing that sign for the first time. So, in addition to knowing someone well and paying attention, good communication may be somewhat dependent on your brain being hardwired the same way as the one you are trying to communicate with. For instance, it is usually much easier to communicate with another human than, say, a cat. But, communication with a cat (also a mammal) is still much easier than with a reptile (at least for me, perhaps some people with more reptilian brains feel differently?).

I read a book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, by Neil Postman. At one point in the book, he questions whether "Thou shalt not make any graven image" was meant to prevent a image-based culture (which postman says we now have, thanks to TV and other forms of mass media/communication), and the way that changes our thoughts. So, perhaps some forms of communication are more moral than others? Anyway, maybe someday the Tower of Babel will be reversed?

Zepheniah 3:9 (KJV)
For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

Fear: Another Lyrical Essay?

"What do you fear, milady?"
"A cage. To stay behind bars until use and old age accept them and all chance of valor has gone beyond recall or desire."
Aragorn and Eowyn in The Two Towers

I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. - Romans 8:15

"Dear God.... How did I come to this? ...Five curtain calls! I was an ACTOR once, darn it. Now look at me... LOOK AT ME." - Dr. Lazarus, Galaxy Quest

"I'm a codfish!" - Capt. Hook

Nothing really matters
Anyone can see
Nothing really matters
Nothing really matters to me
- Queen, Bohemia Rhapsody

So you live from day to day, and you dream about tomorrow, oh.
And the hours go by like minutes and the shadows come to stay
So you take a little something to make them go away
And I could have done so many things, baby
If I could only stop my mind from wondrin' what
I left behind and from worrying 'bout this wasted time
- Eagles, Wasted Time

I don't know what's right and what's real anymore
And I don't know how I'm meant to feel anymore
And when do you think it will all become clear?
'Cuz I'm being taken over by the Fear
- Lily Allen, The Fear

Lyrics Enjoyed of Late

It should be our time. This fertile youth's black soil is ready for rain.
The harvest is nigh, but the well has gone dry.
- The Lines of My Earth, Sixpence None the Richer

Make the best of what's given you
Everything will come in time
Why deny yourself
Don't just let life just pass you by
Like winter in July
- Winter in July, Sarah Brightman

She's a beautiful girl
And everything around her is a silver pool of light
The people who surround her feel the benefit of it
It makes you calm
She holds you captivated in her palm

Suddenly I see (Suddenly I see)
This is what I wanna be
Suddenly I see (Suddenly I see)
Why the hell it means so much to me
- Suddenly I See, KT Tunstall

She comes to me when I'm feelin' down
Inspires me without a sound
She touches me and I get turned around
She's got a way of showin'
How I make her feel
And I find the strength to keep on goin'
She's got a light around her
And ev'rywhere she goes a million
Dreams of love surround her ev'rewhere
- She's Got A Way, Billy Joel


Something in the way she knows,
And all I have to do is think of her.
Something in the things she shows me.
I don't want to leave her now.
You know I believe and how.
- Something, The Beatles

...and I'm thinking of Sarah Smith, from The Great Divorce.

I'm so vain,
I probably think this song is about me.
Don't I, don't I!
- Rachel and my version of You're So Vain by Carly Simon

She's come undone.
She She didn't know what she was headed for,
And when she found what she was headed for,
It was too late!

It's too late
She's gone too far
She's lost the sun.
She's come undoooone!
- Undun, The Guess Who

She comes out of the sun with a silk dress running
Like a water color, in the rain.
The Year of the Cat, Al Stewart

Greeen Eyed Lady, lovely lady
Strolling slowly towards the sun
Green eyed lady ocean lady
child of nature, friend of man
Green eyed lady passions lady
dressed in love she lives for life to be
- Green Eyed Lady, Sugarloaf

Midnight, on the water.
I saw, the ocean's daughter.
Walking on a wave she came, staring as she called my name.
And I can't get it out of my head.
No I can't get it out of my head.
Now my whole world is gone for dead.
'Cause I can't get it out of my head, no no, no no.
- Can't Get It Out Of My Head, Electric Light Orchestra



'We War Der Thor, Wer Weiser, Wer Bettler Oder, Kaiser?'

'Ob Arm, Ob Beich, im Tode gleich.'

'The wise have eyes in their heads,
while the fool walks in the darkness;
but I came to realize
that the same fate overtakes them both.' (Eccl. 2:14)

The Best Thing Since 555 LED Blinking Circuits

I found the funniest website (while searching for instructionals on how to make fabric covered boxes), that has all sorts of geek recipes such as hydrogen orbitals cookies, fractal cookies, and circuitry snacks:




While reading through that article, I came across the line, "What's better than a 555 LED blinking circuit? A 555 LED blinking circuit that you can eat!" As I was thinking about this, I managed to come up with the following hypothetical converstation:

Reader: "What's better than a 555 LED blinking circuit? A 555 LED blinking circuit that you can eat!" Is this the beginning of an ontological proof?
Author: No.
Reader: Why not?
Author: Because you can't HAVE your 555 LED blinking circuit and eat it too. A 555 LED blinking circuit that exists is obviously better than one that doesn't, and once you eat the circuit it doesn't exist anymore, so an edible one one can't be better than an inedible one because it doesn't last as long.
Reader: But what if you could have your 555 LED blinking circuit AND eat it too?
Author: Then you'd need to invent a new logic gate and/or thruth table. How do you propose to do that?
Reader: Well, I'd just give my edible 555 LED blinking circuit to Jesus. He could use it to feed a multitude, and still have one left over. Thus, I could HAVE my 555 LED blinking circuit AND eat it too!
Author: When you said ontological argument, you really weren't kidding were you?? God: the best thing since edible 555 LED blinking circuits.

Topics in Physics: 'c' THE constant of Relativity

I know that in the comment for my next to last blog I said that the next blog would be about Snell's Law, but I guess I'm not quite ready to get to that. Maybe it wasn't as big of a deal as I was first thinking. Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

In the colloquial domain, I think physics' Theory of Relativity is often confused with Relativism. Whenever I mentioned relativity to a former math classmate of mine, he would always laugh and say "Everything is relative!" But this of course begs the question (not in the sense of a logical fallacy, but in the sense of crying out to be questioned) "Relative to what!?" If EVERYTHING is relative, then nothing means anything. Fortunately, in The Theory of Relativity, c is the absolute which holds everything together. That said, c may not actually be as absolute as we would have liked.

For starters, I can see at least two ways of interpreting the statement that "the speed of light is an absolute". First, it could mean that light always travels at 299,792,458 m/s. It could also mean that absolutely nothing ever travels faster than the speed of light.

In the first case, light that we see almost always travels at less than c, because it is not in a vaccuum. Every medium: air, glass, water, etc has it’s own index of refraction. The speed of light in air (@STP) is actually c/1.00029 = 299,705,543 m/s. That’s a difference of 86,915 m/s. Since everyday air probably varies slightly from Standard Temperature and Pressure, light in our everyday experience probably travels at an exactly constant speed only very rarely. By using Bose-Einstein Condensates, some physicists have even managed to slow light down to about 38 mph! There are even some who think that c has been slowing down over time.

Secondly, some waves can travel faster than the speed of light, in the case of phase velocities. Basically, when you have multiple waves of close frequency traveling together, you get what is called a beat frequency. There is an outer wave, the ‘envelope’ that travels at the group velocity. Inside are waves that travel at individual phase velocities. These phase velocities may be faster than light (or even vice versa), but it doesn’t matter since they are contained by the slower-traveling envelope. Effectively, this means that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

So, now I’ve just shown you how c may not be constant at 299,792,458 m/s, light doesn’t consistently travel at c, and somethings can even go faster than c! So much for constancy.

One more thing, if something ever did travel faster than light (and I don’t mean phase velocities), according to spacetime diagrams, that might be the equivalent of going backwards in time. In the somewhat similar Feynman diagrams, a positron might as well be an electron going back in time. That is not to say that a positron actually is an electron going backwards in time, but according to the descriptions that physicists have been able to develop for quantum phenomena, they are identical. Things at the quantum level behave so weirdly anyway, that it just might be possible for things beneath the Plank dimensions to actually go backwards in time.

Moving to Tumblr

Thanks to Rodney, my technology goad. <...spurr, cattle prod, ...>. Actually, he suggested the idea, like, last year. And I actually started migrating then. But, since I think my MySpace page here is already so cool, and I don't have a clue how to replicate it over there, I've been dragging my feet. It'll be slow going anyway, since MySpace doesn't have a good export function. I'll be copying and pasting, reviewing and editing all my blogs (100+) since I joined MySpace. My life will flash before my eyes... like a slow motion preview of death. Maybe I'll get fed up and never really move at all:




In honor of this lolz cat:




My new blog will be titled I Write for Therapy (link: http://maece.tumblr.com/). I can't actually make a link because MySpace blocks it. They are afraid of competition, methinks.

Topics in Physics: Schrödinger's Cat

Well, I was a physics major after all. So, I guess I should write some blogs about stuff I thought was interesting in physics. Mind you, contrary to what my transcript says, I don't think I really learned much physics in college. I learned most of the really memorable stuff from reading pop science books prior to becoming a physics major. I DID learn alot of math in college. That is, if one can label it learning given that I promptly forgot what I learned after each exam. Still, I guess it does give one a level of confidence to know that if I learned it once, I could probably learn it again. Though, since I haven't really found a good way to use what I learned since graduating, I'm not sure it would be worth the effort of learning it again. *shrug* Anyway, as to interesting concepts, one of my favorites was Schrödinger's Cat. You can read the Wikipedia article on it, or watch this brilliant video of the double-slit experiment (highly recommended):



...or you can read my accidental explanation of it to a friend about 8 years ago:

Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 12:58:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jennifer G."
Subject: Re: If you want to know write me w/ your ideas!!!!!!!!!!!
To: "Daniel Y."

For once I'm stumped - what is it? (can you smell my baited breath? As a cat lover I do have extra lives but I've used up many of them doing the Schrödinger experiment [ask only if you really want to know], so don't get me so curious that I lose some in non-scientific pursuits...)

To: "Jennifer G."
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 22:29:42 -0500
Subject: Re: If you want to know write me w/ your ideas!!!!!!!!!!!
From: "Daniel Y."

My my my I have Jennifer stumped this could be BIG NEWS!!!! So what is
this experiment that you were referring 2???? What it is the entire
sentence is completely able to spell it the same forwards and backwards so if you start and take it backward and it spell the exact same both ways. Something like Hebrew I don't remember a friend explained it and I forgot it.

Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 21:07:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Jennifer G."
Subject: Re: If you want to know write me w/ your ideas!!!!!!!!!!!
To: "Daniel Y."

Sorry I took so long to respond. Here is a further explanation of the
Schrödinger's Cat experiment (if this is boring, remember that I warned you not to ask) :

There is a really weird phenomena in quantum physics that proposes the non-existence of causality. Causality is the idea that events are caused by previous events in a predictable fashion. Causality lies at the root of logical reasoning - we know one thing beCAUSE we know some other thing. [6/7/10 - I think I was saying this because statistics are different than black and white causality. Actually, I now think it a bit presumptuous to say that quantum physics threatens causality.]

I don't remember who the physicists were (I'm thinking this is the Young double-slit experiment), but some physicists set-up an experiment that brought causality into question. Imagine a sheet of bullet-proof glass w/2 holes drilled in it. Stand this thing in the middle of a room and shoot a bunch of bullets at it and you make two regions of bullet marks on the wall behind the bullet-proof glass, each region corresponding to one of the holes you drilled. Now set this thing in a bin of water, the water level even with the holes. If you make a wave on one side you will notice that when the wave hits the holes a two new waves are begun on the other side of the glass, one corresponding to each hole. After a certain distance these waves will meet and interact with each other. Some of the peaks of one wave will add to the peaks of the other wave, creating a larger wave, and some will cancel with the troughs of the other wave, creating a flat zone. Some of the troughs will also add to the troughs of the second wave, creating a trough twice as low. This is call a wave interference pattern.

Electrons, most sub-atomic particles in fact, are know to have a property called wave-particle duality. This means that an electron behaves as both matter and energy simultaneously - though in reality it may be neither. So, we redesign the above experiment as a sheet of some material with two slits in it. The slits are very small, ideally they will be slightly larger than the diameter of one electron. Electrons are shot at this thing, and some electron-sensitive device on the other side will record the pattern produced. The funny thing is this: if we observe to see which hole the electrons are passing though, we'll get a pattern as if we were shooting bullets. If we don't make any such observations, we'll get a wave-interference pattern. Even if we shoot the electrons one at a time we will still get a wave pattern when we don't observe which slit the electron goes through (How does one electron interact with itself to produce a wave pattern?). After repeating this experiment many times in many forms, most physicists have concluded that sub-atomic particle behavior is governed by statistical rather than absolute laws, and the wave-interference pattern is often considered to be a statistical wave. The peaks represent areas where there is a high probability of finding the electron, the troughs represent an area where there is a low probability of finding the electron. But where is the electron really?

This is the question that Schrödinger wanted to answer. He decided that thinking about this whole business at the particle level was rather confusing, because after all, nobody really knows just what particles are, and everyday experience does not lend us intuitive expectations for their behavior. So, he devised a thought experiment that brought the puzzling question into more familiar terms. We imagine a box that is completely sealed, and is not transparent or anything like that. There is no way for us to know what is going on inside the box once we close it. The box contains a cat, and a glass globe containing a lethal amount of cyanide gas. There is a hammer poised to break this globe. The hammer is connected to a device that is sensitive to radiation. If a certain amount of radiation is detected within a certain time limit, the hammer will fall and the cat will die. Otherwise the cat lives.

Radiation is actually particles being ejected from an atom. The rate of radioactive decay for any given sample is fixed, but it is a statistical rate. Whether or not the radiation is actually emitted is a matter of probability. Therefore, when the cat is locked up in this box and the sensor is exposed to a radioactive sample, the question becomes is the cat dead or alive? The most plausible answer given (I believe it is called the Copenhagen interpretation) is that until we look, the cat is simultaneously dead and alive. Really it is the same question as "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to here it, does it make a sound?", only Schrödinger wanted to use a cat, and he connected it with a known physical dichotomy.

This idea could have very far reaching consequences because the entire universe is made up of particles. If they all behave in this statistical manner (and if one of any given type does, then all particles of that type should be the same throughout the universe), then it is very possible that there are zillions of worlds in "existence," and "reality" is created by an observer, who in effect forces the statistical universe to exist in a single, absolute state.

At the philosophical level, this can be interpreted many ways. Some people would say that this means that truth and all values are relative, that people are master of their own fate and of values themselves. However, there are other questions entirely about what happens when more than one observer is at work. Perhaps only one observer can "force" a statistical universe to choose its course, and then things are set from there on. This argument is sometimes used to "prove" the existence of one, omniscient, creator God. I like to believe that this physical dichotomy holds part of the answer to the dichotomy of predestination (which follows from God's existence), and free will (which follows from our being created in His image, and especially of individual responsibility for sin). Then again, perhaps the physical world is too different from the spiritual for such analogies to be really meaningful. Anyway, that is Schrödinger's Cat, where it came from, and what it might mean.

Hope I didn't kill your eyes.

~Jennifer

PS - I'll have to go back and look at the sentence. That is really amazing that someone constructed a coherent sentence that long which is also symmetrical. Cool!


To: "Jennifer G."
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 00:14:58 -0500
Subject: Re: If you want to know write me w/ your ideas!!!!!!!!!!!
From: "Daniel Y."

You're right that is magor [sic] boring and very into math of which I'm not.
 -----

Original MySpace comments:
  What would I do without the internet??? Anyway, here's fascinating discussion of the Heisenberg Uncertainty "Principle" This is the best discussion I have yet seen of the Heisenberg Principle. Being part of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, perhaps it is not surprising that I get the feeling that Heisenberg was infected with logical positivism/Wittgensteinism. Mind you, I'm still not entirely sure what either of those stand for, but I believe they were roundly (or squarely, whichever you prefer) defeated by Godel. Perhaps I prefer the Bohr explanations?

6 months ago
-----

Well, before I move on to the next blog, I just figured I post this. It's something I made, thinking I ought to turn it into a T-shirt or bumper sticker. It's a purposefully obscure reference to introversion:


 6 months ago
-----

 Ha! I found it:

"We are able to see a bird in flight because of the reflection of photons of light from the bird to our eyes. We certainly would not expect those photons striking the bird to alter it's path in any way. However, to detect an object as small as an electron requires photon of very short wavelength (high energy) such that the speed and position of the electron will be changed the moment the photon strikes it. This is not unlike trying to detect the position of a bird in flight by firing baseballs at it; obviously the bird's position and speed will be disturbed when it is struck by a baseball.

Heisenber's uncertainty principle theoretically holds for all objects, but like matter waves, it becomes important only for very tiny particles like electrons. In effect, the result of this principle was to produce a model of the atom in which the electron had a certain probability of being found at a given region in space; it was futile to attempt to describe electron behavior precisely."

-Ch. 8 of Chemistry: Precison and Design (A Beka Book Publishers, version unknown)

On the flipside of that same page, in a section of it's own, was a very nice pieces written by Feynman, which reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:

Sir Arthur Eddington summed up this situation brilliantly in his book The Nature of the Physical World, published in 1929. "No familiar conceptions can be woven around the electron," he said, and our best description of the atom boils down to "something unknown is doing we don't know what." He notes that this "does not sound a particularly illuminating theory. I have read something like it elsewhere- 

    The slithy toves
    Did gyre and gimbal in the wabe"

From In Search of Schröedinger's Cat, by John Gribbin

So, my HS Chemistry text really did mention the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. And I rather misremembered the passage. But hey, cut me some slack, that was 12 years ago. I'm lucky I remembered it at all! Furthermore, I don't think I remember anything like that from my college textbooks ...though, there was this one rather beguiling proof for the law of refraction in my optics textbook, which showed quite clearly that a straight line is not always the quickest path between two points. It gave me some rather interesting thoughts on the nature of time, too, though I can't remember just what that was all about at the moment... oh, well. Next blog! ;-)

6 months ago
-----

On the subject of measurement, I really ought to briefly address the Heisenberg principle. Most people talk about talk about it as a sort of weird limit that doesn't allow you to simultaneously measure velocity and location at the same time, and the math basically looks at it like that. However, I remember a brief explanation in my high school chemistry text that explained it something like this: 

Bats see by bouncing sound waves off of physical objects, and "seeing" the feedback. We see by the results of photons bouncing off of objects all around us. Imagine if you tried to look at a bird by bouncing baseballs off of it - would you be able to measure it's speed and position this way? It's speed and position would change as soon as you started "looking" at it. A photon is much larger than an electron, so we can't tell the the speed and the position of the electron by bouncing photons off of it.

Now, maybe the book was wrong, or maybe I'm just misremembering (I should go back and find this, I think I still have the book), but there are some problems with this explanation. First of all, if you tried to "measure" a bird's speed or velocity by bouncing baseballs off of it, you probably wouldn't be able to measure either. The Heisenberg Principle DOES allow us to measure one or the other. Second of all, it's hard to say that a photon is "bigger" than an electron, since it is more-or-less a massless particle. It may be correct to say that it is more energetic, but I'm not sure if even that is always true. Anyway, I still think that the analogy gets you to think about what's going on, more than some formulaic rule which simply states "it can't be done." Granted, no one is really sure how to look at particles without disturbing them, but perhaps there is a way. At least, this is how I always tended to think about it. Though, in college it was never presented as if there was any possibility of circumventing the problem through a variation in methods, and I generally didn't feel like speaking up in class to probe issue further.

After graduation, however, someone did show me this article. So, apparently, I hadn't been the only one to consider the possibility that "unknowable" things might be discoverable if only you could come up with a proper method of observation. Another cool thing is that they were doing the double-slit experiment with photons! I had only ever heard of it being done with electrons, previously. Furthermore, I would've thought that photons, being massless particles, would be more inclined towards behaving as waves rather than particles. So, generally, it's surprising to see that electrons can behave like waves. But, in this case, it re-surprising to discover the wave-duality nature of things seeing that photons can act like particles!

5 months ago

Life on Rubadoo

This is from my first on-campus college course. English 101, taken concurrently at Oral Robert University. The assignment was to write a work of satire, and I guess I was writing what I considered to be a metaphorical representation of one of my possible futures. The paper is dated Nov. 5, 1998, and bears the following note from the professor:

A-

Very creative, in the C.S. Lewis and JRR Tolkien tradition (mode). A bit long and detailed for this assignment. Good satire, but needs more humor, wit, sarcasm in the form of exaggeration and stating the opposite of what you mean.

Life on Rubadoo

Dear Thomas,

You have always been a dear friend to me and so when you asked for the particulars of my experiences on Rubadoo I wanted to give you an overview of my time spent there. The body of this letter is composed mainly of excerpts from my journal. As I reflect on those days, it is always surprises me what strange ideas I had as a youth. Anyway, enough reflection, here is a brief account of life on Rubadoo:

During my days at sea, I was once shipwrecked upon an island by the name of Rubadoo. I learned many things and many of my ideas about life have been changed due to this experience. One of their customs that most fascinated me was the respect they had for the 'gift.' The closest thing I can relate this to is our society's idea of intelligence, though that is a very bad analogy.

From childhood, the natives of Rubadoo were reared to respect the temples of the gifted. I constantly heard youngsters discuss these temples and brag about the number of of times each had visited the local temple. Curious, I decided to visit one of these myself. I found that it was very much like a library, filled with many shelves of books written on every conceivable topic. I strolled through a few aisles until I found a section that interested me: The History of Rubadoo. Scanning the titles, I found a particular volume that sparked my curiosity: Halibub I, Emperor of Rubadoo. I lifted it gently off the shelf and turned to the first page. I had read only the first paragraph when a 'priest,' for I assume that is what he was, tapped me on the shoulder and informed me that no one was allowed to read these books at the present time. I asked him where the books I could read were located and he led me through a maze of shelves until we reached one small corner of the temple. There another priest stood in front of a group of desks that were occupied by several small children. Later, I learned that this was a class for children who had 'the gift.' I quietly found an empty desk and sat down. On the desktop was a copy of the text being studied, entitled: Mathematical Principles. Finding the page that the group was studying, I began to read. The first sentence read: ”Mathematical addition is the compilation of two or more real numbers into a single numerical resultant.” I watched the priest, he read the sentence to the class. No, actually he recited the sentence to the class. One of the natives later informed me that all priests had to memorize the texts before being ordained. I stood up and went looking for the first priest. When I found him, I asked how long it would be before a class would be taught using Halibub I, Emperor of Rubadoo? He led me again through the maze of shelves, back to the aisle devoted to the island's history. Finding the book I had inquired about, he opened it and glanced at the front cover. “I'm sorry,” he said “this book should have been retired five years ago.” And with that, he made his way to one of many strange machines that I had seen throughout the temple, and placed the book in a small depression in the machine. Immediately, the book was torn to pieces. I left the temple that day utterly astonished and slightly irked.

Well, after a few weeks I realized that if I was to keep enjoying the luxury of meals that I would have to find a job. I went to the Rubadoo employment agency and they told me that to work in Rubadoo a person had to take an employment proficiency test. A person's score from this test was used to decide what sort of work he was suited for. I agreed to take the test and found, to my surprise, that it was ridiculously easy. In fact, my scores were so uncommonly high that I was immediately appointed to become a personal aide to the current Emperor, Nilcot IV. Normally, a person would also have to have several certificates of training from a temple before he could gain a position like this, but since I was a foreigner, that requirement was waived. Also, my high scores on the proficiency test caused me to be labeled as one with 'the gift.'

When I arrived at the emperor's palace, I was met by a man who was to be my personal attendant. He had my belongings sent to my suite and then took me on a tour of the palace. The first place we visited was the Adviser's Hall. This looked somewhat like a temple, only there were no priests and no one ever read any of the books. I observed that most of the advisers spent their time making and playing with paper airplanes, a few made spit wads, and the rest slept. I was introduced to several of the advisers, including the Chief Adviser, Adviser Davenport. My attendant had previously informed me that Davenport had received his training at Elay temple, the most prestigious on the island. I asked Davenport how many books were at Elay, but he stared at me as if this was the strangest question he had ever been asked, then finally stammered “I don't know.” When my visit ended, Davenport invited me to attend the upcoming legislative session. I readily agreed, and then my attendant led me on the rest of his tour.

The day of the legislative session I was very excited, for though I was a personal aide to the emperor, the only thing provided for me to do was to follow my attendant around n his never-ending tours. When I arrived at the Adviser's Hall, I was given a warm greeting and a comfortable chair. Once all the advisers had arrived, the session began. The first item on the agenda was whether the paper provided for the adviser's planes should be yellow or green. The adviser's quickly agreed that a committee should be created to decide this matter, and then chose the members by saying “eenie-meanie-miny-moe....” The next item was how much money should be spent on temple maintenance and priest's salaries. Once again, a committee was created using the same method. Item after items was read from a list, and for each the advisers performed their little ritual and created a committee. The final item was a pet project of Davenport's simply called “The Box.” Immediately a vote was taken, and the decision was unanimous: “The Box” was to receive unlimited funding and work on it was to begin immediately.

A model was brought in of this box. I examined it and found that it was nothing more than a simple cardboard box with two slits in the front situated so that a long piece of paper could be pulled through them and across The Box's face. The adviser's were provided with rolls of paper, as well as crayons and other art supplies. The advisers set to work creating various scenes on their rolls of paper. From the conversations of the advisers I gathered that Boxes would be distributed to every home on the island. Periodically, families would be provided with copies of the advisers' paper strips. I knew that the people would gladly receive the Boxes, and eagerly watch the strips of paper as they were pulled across the front. Furthermore, because the creators of The Boxes all possessed 'the gift,' the people would believe whatever the adviser's chose to display.

When I finally met Emperor Nilcot IV, I was very surprised to find that he had so many helpers. Most of them were women, ans very beautiful, and dressed in such a way that made this very apparent. I was surprised that the Emperor was able to concentrate on his work with such distractions around, but being the emperor, he had 'the gift' in abundance, so I did not trouble myself over the matter. He was very glad to meet me, because I was a foreigner, and told me that if any of my fellow countrymen wanted to work at the palace, he would be happy to give them a job.

I spent the remainder of my days on Rubadoo at the palace, and eventually became an adviser. Ten years later, an American ship sailed in, and I went home. Now that I am in America, I find myself missing the company of all those people who had “the gift,” and especially Davenport and his Box. I no longer have an attendant to follow around, and I even miss the shredder machines. If only I could visit a temple again, this time I would appreciate what the priests said. And when I look back, it really was rather foolish of me to want to read a book that was retired. I also miss Nilcot, and all the wonderful advice he gave me. It really is a shame that America cannot have the same type of government and educational institutions as the people of Rubadoo had. Anyway, it would be very hard to have institutions like that here, if only because I am the only truly intelligent person in the country.

Sincerely,

Ryan Gladwater

So, looking back, it wasn't at all a bad paper for a sixteen year old to be writing, though I hope I've improved as a writer since then. Anyway, I think it got the message across. Despite the professor's note that I needed more exaggeration, I actually was already exaggerating my views to some extent. I honestly don't remember how much I believed that the existing systems of contemporary America actually resembled those of Rubadoo, but it was more a vague speculation. I've never been really involved in politics at a high level (nor would I want to be, my recent two-year stint as a precinct committee person will keep me satisfied for a long time to come). However, I did have one non-political experience which I think vaguely resembles the environment of the palace:

Summer 2003 I had an internship at Purdue University through a program sponsored by the National Science Foundation. All of the other student participants were also physics majors, and I'd say close to half of them were also National Merit Scholars (the professor supervising my project was also a National Merit Scholar). I was really looking forward to a summer filled with intellectual adventure and camaraderie, but that is hardly what I found. That is not to say that the other students were dumb - but what were their interests and activities? Well, the favorite books were mainly Harry Potter and other fantasy series. In fact, my roommate and a few others actually waited in line at the bookstore until midnight just so they could be the first to get their hands on the latest Harry Potter book being released. Often, during the day, the students would take extended lunch breaks to go bowling. Since it was summertime, the "supervising" professors weren't always around, or were gone to conferences all the time (the professor on my project was one of these). One of the girls I was talking to planned to get a doctorate in physics. She said her reasoning was that she wanted to have a job with good pay and light work hours so that she could pursue her real love: kayaking. Now, I'm not trying to say anything against Harry Potter (which I've never even read), or kayaking, or bowling - it's just that amongst this group of people I had really expected to find some excitement for physics and intellectual pursuits in general.

So, paper airplanes and crayons are still a bit of an exaggeration, but they get the same idea across. Anyway, the main point is still that I was worried that the flattery and comfort of success in the current system would turn me into something I never planned to be.

May Day!

This seems an appropriate day to post some updates on the garden. Actually, when I was a kid, I loved May Day! I always wanted to take part in a celebration with a May pole, and perhaps even get to be May Queen. But, I don't remember ever celebrating May Day in any social setting. On my own, however, there was at least one year when I went out and picked wild flowers, and arranged them in little paper cups which I left on people's doorsteps. Then I would ring the doorbell and run away.

Anyway, my hellebores still haven't bloomed. I don't think they will now :( Perhaps next year? But, these are the things I've had bloom since my April 1st post. In about a month, the garden will REALLY come alive when the columbines start to bloom! I also have various kinds of lettuce, spinach, radishes and sugar snap peas sprouting. I think I will wait until average last frost (May 15th) to buy tomato and zucchini plants. If by May 5th the 10-day weather forcast looks fairly friendly, I may risk it and buy early.

The Hellebores are coming! The Hellebores are coming!

Imagine this said in the spirit of when Bilbo was running around in circles yelling "The Eagles are coming! The Eagles are coming!" during the Battle of Five Armies at the end of The Hobbit (at least, I think that's when it happened). Now let me explain what a Hellebore is. It is a kind of plant that is know for flowering in winter. That is, in warmer climates it flowers in winter. There is an all-white variety called a "Christmas Rose", which will actually bloom at Christmas time in some USDA grow zones (not mine). I do have some Hellebores in my garden. However, they are not blooming yet. Not even close. So, now that I've gone to all the trouble of explaining my title, allow me to excl.. APRIL FOOLS'! Actually, it's not quite an April Fools'. The Hellebores ARE still coming. They just won't get here for a while. But in the meantime, I've had Hepatica, Crocus, and Glory-of-the-Snow to keep me company.

My Heaven II

This is meant to be a wrap up of all the blogs since "My Heaven I". Before I actually move on to any more views of heaven, let me introduce a few more examples of repetition/recursion. Many religions/cultures believe in the idea of reincarnation. I have often wondered if this is at all compatible with Christianity? I don't see anything in the Bible to suggest that we would ever have more than one shot at an Earthly life, but I'm not sure there are any definite evidences against it either. I have especially wondered if all who don't "get saved" might get reincarnated again and again until they live a life where they do accept Jesus. In this way, everyone would be saved, I think. This would line up with my ideal model of how learning works, doing things over and over until you get them right. Anyway, I can't say there is really any truth to that, it's just something I've wondered about. 

 

Recently, a new friend of mine introduced me to Nietzsche's idea of Eternal Recurrence:

This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything immeasurably small or great in your life must return to you-all in the same succession and sequence-even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned over and over, and you with it, a grain of dust. 

 

That would be pure repetition, and if you were totally enthralled with your life, that might  actually feel like heaven! However, I doubt there has ever lived any person who was that excited about every detail of their own life. I think there could be worse lives to be re-lived than my own, but just the same, if I'm going to have more lives, I'd like to at least have a manual override button somewhere. Although many people do believe in reincarnation, I don't think most of them actually have memories from their past lives. If people claim to have memories from past lives, they are generally thought of as crazy (I've yet to actually meet anyone who claims this, though). However, if I were going to be reincarnated, I would really, really like to be able to benefit from the presence of such memories. I used to say that I didn't believe in regret:

...since I never will live my life over again, I don't see the point of searching for regrets. Furthermore, my past has shaped who I am, and if I changed my past I might become a different person who would make a different decision about changing my past, and the process would become an endless loop. 

 

But what if you would get the chance to live your life over? In regard to school (college), specifically, I have often wished to have done things differently. I have often felt that I wasted alot of time and energy with nothing to show for it, that I missed opportunities that I should've taken, that I let other people's ideas override my own better instincts, and that in general I gave up much too easily on things that would've been good ideas. So, for a long time, I kept "re-planning" my education in my own mind. Now I think I'm finally getting to the point where I am assimilating those experiences into myself. All the thoughts and conflictions that came out of those experiences are now part of me, and now that I am that me (before I was still in the process of becoming that me), I find it nearly impossible (though not quite) to imagine or desire another me. But before I got to this point, I used to imagine all the time getting to go through the motions again. As a sort of wishful thinking, I even imagined that it could be done in the following way: create a time machine and a robot that can do brain surgery, then go back in time and have it transplant your adult brain into your childhood body. Then, you would always know what was coming, and could act accordingly. Furthermore, you could effectively live forever, with memories of all lives  always there to help you in the next. I don't know that I really wanted to live my life infinitely many times; but I at least kept hoping that in heaven I'd get the chance to design my own life, or live my life over as many times as necessary, until I got to a version that met with my complete and unreserved approval (and then perhaps I would actually want to repeat that one forever).

 

Reading GEB, I was going through a particularly long mathematical proof, and at the end the author made a brief revisitation, comparing each part of the derivation to music, and to the feeling you have in music of "knowing what comes next" and looking towards a resolution. As with all chapters, he begins with a dialogue/narrative/story section. In this particular one, he was constantly putting the characters into very threatening situations, and he was pointing out how this tension too, pointed towards an ultimate resolution. And I was suddenly reminded of a Sixpence None the Richer lyric: "For tension is to be loved/for it is like a passing note/to a beautiful, beautiful chord."

 

And it all brings me back to the advice I gave to that guy who was complaining about Saxon math being a bore: "try to think of it like music", I told him. In this sense and this sense alone, I think I can perhaps accept the possible necessity of pain, sin and suffering. Does this mean I am accepting the "Yin-Yang Hypothesis"? Perhaps. However, I don't think that it is as simple as saying that "pleasure cannot be appreciated without pain", and it's certainly not the cessation of desires! I think that perhaps each song/life is perfectly and individually tailored to be the most pleasing for the one who is living it. Now I am tending to see heaven as the resolution of all desires. Which again. reminds me of another lyric, this one from the title track of Charlie Peacock's album The Secret of Time (the first CD I ever owned) "I can see, I can see/What a great and grand, great and grand/Act of affection/It's all been."

 

If you have enough faith to believe in that, then each problem or hurt in your life can been seen as a mere foretaste of its resolution. And if I am right, that each song is perfectly tailored for the who must "play" it, then free will would sort of disappear from the equation. Of course you will want what you were created to want. If you can just have a bit of patience, you will actually get it, and it will be made that much sweeter through anticipation. So, did God have to create life in the tension/resolution format? I don't think so. I think he just has a sense of drama and wanted to. And, maybe I'm ok with that ;)

Oh, and while I'm in the lyrics mode, here's two more that go back to the whole pot and potter analogy:

Margaret Becker, title track from the Falling Forward album
"I am clay and I am water/Falling forward in this order/While the world spins 'round so fast/Slowly I'm becoming who I am"

Sixpence (again!) Dizzy
"And I'm spinning unconcealed/Dizzy on this wheel/For you my love"

Free Will, Creativity and Recursion

So, again querying the Christians (including myself): Why allow sin? In order to permit free will, goes the standard answer (even amongst non-Catholics, there is a sort of catechism - this is the answer given even in the movies, for example Time Bandits). One must admit, this does seem a logical answer. For, if humans are not allowed to choose against Him, can it really be said that we are choosing in favor of Him? But Who made logic (I am being rhetorical, here)? Or is it even something made? Is logic pre-existent to God? Is logic greater than God? If logic is greater than and pre-existent to God, then it only seems fair to say that logic IS in fact God. I don't think that this is what most Christians believe (including me). So, if God made logic, why did He make it the way that it is? We must admit that He could have made it anyway he chose, otherwise we run again into the problem of some pre-existing order which is greater than God. So why did God CHOOSE to make a logic that would cause free will to require sin? Why not create logic in such a way that free will and absolute sinlessnes could get along just swimmingly??? The only answer I can come up with, and a disconcerting one it is, at that, is that He made things the way He made things because He wanted to. It certainly isn't the way I would've done it. But then, I'm not God. Obviously. And probably a good thing too, I suppose.

Now, though I started this blog with the idea that I am actually asking Christians, it's not something that I would really go around doing (nor would I recommend that anyone else try it - so kids, don't try this at home). If they (and I really shouldn't keep saying "they" since I consider myself one too, but I don't know how else to phrase this) actually get your meaning, you will get the inevitable response (as I once did):
Roman 9:19-21
One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

To which I can't help but respond that this is a very interesting analogy (personally, I can't help but feel there is a hidden meaning in it, which is more important than the obvious one?), however, I am not a pot. I am a living, breathing, thinking, questioning being made in His image. I do not say that my brain is perfect, but He gave it to me and it's the only one I have, so of course I'm going to ask the questions which pop into my head! Besides, it's not as though I am attaching any silly, impudent conditions to my question, like "God, you'd better answer me or I'll stop beliving in you!" - I am merely asking a question. I'm not even sure that my question is worthy of an answer (Currently reading GEB. Maybe the answer is "Mu," or that is to say "You have not asked a well-formed question"), but I do think that it is worthy to be asked by me. Besides, what about other Biblical themes like Jacob wrestling with God in order to be blessed, or the widow persistently asking a judge for justice until she gets it, or "knock and the door will be opened for you," etc?

Anyway, I can't help but feel there is nothing wrong with asking questions, provided it is done with a proper attitude. I think free will and the ability to question, have alot to do with creativity. I think creativty is the defining characteristic of humantiy; that is, what separates us from animals. It is very telling, I think, that the Bible weaves a story of a Creator who creates in His own image. Of course we are creative, and of course we are supposed to be! Perhaps, in the end, this is why God could not create a perfect world. Since God can do everything, he doesn't have to do any one thing. If we are created in His image, then we also have unlimited power as well (though, I believe, somewhat bridled at this time), just as He has. If He had made us essentially limited (that is, limited in essence, as opposed to temporally/temporarily limited), we would not be like Him.

There are, or course, a whole sector of Christians who do not even believe in free will: Calvinists. The Calvinism vs. Arminiamism debate is, in many ways, one of determinism vs. free will. If God is omnipotent, and omnicient, then determisnism seems inevitable. How could He not have control over us? How could He not know the future? Although I detested the ego-centric conclusions of Calvinism (namley, that some are chosen by God to be saved and some are not), I was attracted to all the omni-'s that it guaranteed any conception of God. Afterall, if God is not omni-, why should I be interested? What guarantee is there that He could solve any of my problems? Who wants a wimpy God? Yet, in my ever-present fascination with time, I also had to remember that God is supposed to be omnipresent, meaning he inhabits and sees all times at once. If time is conceived as a dimension, and God lives in some hyperdimension above time, then He would see all times at once. Not only that, but it is not so much that we are predestined to choose certain things, it's more like we already have chosen them, and our limited dimensional senses just haven't clued us in to the fact yet. Still, this is a bit hard to think about. C.S. Lewis suggests this sort of thinking in his various writings, the clearest depiction, I think, being in The Great Divorce.

After reading The Divine Conspiracy, by Dallas Willard, I saw yet another possibility. That is, God may not actually see the future, He simply wills it, since He posesses the sort of will which can create everything it wants. Maybe the future hasn't happened yet, and maybe there is no "hyperdimesnion" where he sees the landscape of time all laid out before him as a scroll, but maybe His will power is sufficient enough that it doesn't matter. This does, however, bring us back once again to a problem of determinism from the human perspective.

I mentioned recursion in my title. I must admit this is going to be a rather brusque tie-in, since I haven't figured out a smooth transition. Self-reference is exactly what it sounds like. In and of itself, it's a little interesting, but not much. An example of self-reference is the statement "I am" (denoted in Hebres as YHWH). Within certain systems, self-reference often leads to paradoxes, which are quite amusing (for instance, the liar's paradox). Recurions is the idea of something calling itself over, and over, and over (possibly into infinity). Calling on oneself is a form of self-refernce, but recursion also implies that there is a bit of change going on at each iteration. I believe that repetition is the best way to learn, because it leads to recursion, which is creativity. Anyway, if YHWH creates creators in His own image - is it any wonder that we wind up with a paradox between free will and determinism?