Yeah, that kind of thing. A lot of getting ready involved.

Wednesday.

In the concept of space-time, advocated by modern physicists, we live in a 4-dimensional reality (well, at least 4 dimensions). As time passes, what we see as a three-dimensional object at a given time becomes a three-dimensional cross section of a four-dimensional entity. As our consciousness moves along the 4th dimension (time), we are allowed to see a continuous update of the state of things in the three spacial dimensions.

Each object could be thought of as a 4-dimensional entity in space-time. In order to see it in its completeness, you would have to watch it from the moment it came into existence until the moment it went out of existence. However, in reality this is not completely honest. An object still exists even if our consciousness has moved along the 4th dimension past the point where an object goes out of existence. It would still be real, just in a different position along the line of the 4th dimension.

In Einstein’s view, the forked version of time, allowing for a free choice to lead to two different outcomes, is incompatible with relativity. Four-dimensional spacetime is a coherent whole. There is no room for outcomes A and B. The forked view of time–incompatible with, and indeed the antithesis of determinism–is incompatible with relativity, a very powerful theory of the universe. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems like relativity supports determinism. I’ve read a very interesting (and slightly challenging) book on this, called The Labyrinth of Time by Michael Lockwood. I recommend checking it out.

Moving on…

Any object is simply a particular arrangement of waves/particles of matter and energy. In their particular arrangements, we recognize them as objects. The arrangements are determined by physical interactions governed by natural laws. Note that this does not mean that we can practically predict the exact outcome of any interaction (for example, the collision of two atoms). But that doesn’t matter. There can only be one result of an interaction. If the interaction were repeated with each and every aspect being exactly the same, then the same outcome should be observed. By that I mean the exact wave distributions of atoms involved (I’m talking about the “shape” of the atom, “lop-sidedness” included), the velocities, spins, orientations, vibrations, and energies of particles, all outside interference, etc. If things were repeated exactly, then the same outcomes should be expected. In practice, these things are hardly controllable, and not even simple experiments can be exactly duplicated. But in principle, this notion seems pretty sound.

The reductionist attitude of science takes us down to the core: we are animals, made up of cells, which are made up of molecules, which are comprised of protons, neutrons, and electrons, these particles being subject to the constant laws of physics. As conscious beings, we are not out of the grip of chemistry and physics. The smaller the scale at which you view biology, the more you must focus on chemistry, and the more you deal with things that are predetermined and not controllable by the consciousness of the animal.

My own view, the one that seems so controversial for whatever reason, is that this very consciousness itself does not fall outside of the realm of chemistry and physics. There is no immaterial soul. To quote the mighty Thomas Jefferson, “To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, and God, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise.” I agree with the President. What is something that is “immaterial”, other than something which is not material, and therefore not anything at all, nothing, non-existent?

I now turn to Stephen Hawking’s The Universe in a Nutshell:

“The success of Newton’s laws and other physical theories led to the idea of scientific determinism, which was first expressed… [by] Laplace. Laplace suggested that if we knew the positions and velocities of all the particles in the universe at one time, the laws of physics should allow us to predict what the state of the universe would be at any other time in the past or in the future… Of course, in practice even something as simple as Newton’s theory of gravity produces equations that we can’t solve exactly for more than two particles. Furthermore, the equations that we can’t solve exactly have a property known as chaos, so that a small change in position or velocity at one time can lead to completely different behavior at later times.”

Hawking then goes on to point out that since Laplace’s version of scientific determinism would rely on knowing the exact positions and velocities of particles at one time, it is threatened by the uncertainty principle, which says that we cannot measure accurately both the position andthe velocity of a particle at the same time. The more accurately we measure the position, the less accurately we can determine the velocity, and vice versa. Therefore, “How could we even get started?”

Determinism was later restored in a modified form in quantum mechanics, which incorporates the uncertainty principle. The idea here is the wave function, which is a number at each point of space that gives the probability that the particle is to be found at that position. “The rate at which the wave function changes from point to point tells how probable different particle velocities are.” Also, Hawking states that “we now realize that the wave function is all that can be well defined.” In quantum theory, the ability to make exact predictions is just half what it was in the Laplace view.

I personally wonder whether the flexibilities allowed by uncertainty have anything to do with genuine randomness, or if they are set and fixed (and simply unknowable).

If there is real randomness, complete determinism seems to me to be thrown out the window, although a sort of half-determined world seems appropriate; we certainly can know the wave functions. Also, this really seems like good news for someone who desperately wants to believe in God. Occam’s Razor (the principle of parsimony) seems to have taken away all room for a deity to work, so I’m sure that people would love to cling to this randomness and claim that it is God’s workspace, that this is where God influences the world (working in his mysterious little ways). However, I’m with Professor Hawking: “We cannot even suppose that the particle has a position and velocity that are known to God but are hidden from us. Such ‘hidden-variable’ theories predict results that are not in agreement with observation. Even God is bound by the uncertainty principle and cannot know the position and velocity; He can only know the wave function.” And finally, I want to smack down those who believe that this randomness means that we really do have free will. It should be obvious that we don’t have control over this randomness. Our brains operate on the chemical level.

There is a certain kind of illogic provided by many (but not all) people who want to believe that they have free will. They like to think that they are so special that they must be out of the grip of fate, and they will support their claim with every sort of teleological argument and circular reasoning they can conjure.

• Point: “I can think about my free will, therefore I have free will.”
• Counterpoint: Well, that sure does sound neat, but seriously, does that even make sense? Does that do anything to get rid of the evidence saying otherwise? Just how much truth is really in that statement?

It doesn’t matter if there are humans there to think about it, it’s still going on. To quote Edward Wilson, “Outside our heads there is freestanding reality.” Lucas agrees with me here: it wouldn’t matter whether humans ever existed in the first place; it’s got nothing to do with it. Organic matter is pretty cool, but it’s not that special.

I would like to address one more aspect of determinism. In this matter, I agree with Richard Dawkins. From Dawkins’ The Extended Phenotype:

“I suspect that both Rose and Gould are determinists in that they believe in a physical, materialistic basis for all our actions. So am I. We would also probably all three agree that human nervous systems are so complex that in practice we can forget about determinism and behave as if we had free will.”

—

Soon things will return to normal. In the meantime, however.

Speciation is the process by which one species can become two or more separate species. It is my goal here to explain it.

Each species changes over time, somewhat as a whole. A new form of a gene can come along in an individual because of genetic mutation, and the gene becomes mixed into the “gene pool” of the population through breeding with other members of the population. After many generations, this gene may be found on any member of the population. If the new gene was harmful in effect, it might not go on into future generations, because the first individual to have it may not have been able to reproduce or survive because of it. However, if the new gene was highly favorable, then it can be expected that after many generations, it will have spread throughout the population.

In the last case, the population as a whole has taken up the change offered by the initial mutation in one individual. The population can be said to have shifted toward this new trait. Species-level shift can be seen in human evolution; the fossil record shows that over time, the pelvic cavity of our ancestors has increased in size. This is because larger brains are favorable, and the pelvic cavity must be widened to accommodate the birth of babies with larger skulls.

So a population can, somewhat as a whole, change over time. But how does one species or population branch out into two separate ones? For this to happen, there must be something that blocks the flow of genes from one group to another. This is most commonly in the form of a geographic barrier or separation, such as when half a population crosses a land bridge during a time of low sea level, only to be separated from the rest of the population when the sea level returns to normal. This creates two new groups, unable to come together and interbreed.

At this point, any mutation that produced a new form of a gene will stay only in the group it originated in. If a new favorable trait originates in Group A, it cannot spread to Group B, because the two groups are physically separated and cannot interbreed; gene flow has been blocked. The two groups will continue to evolve independently of one another.

What happens if the barrier is removed? Say the land bridge reappears during another time of low sea level. It is possible that the two groups may come together and “blend” genes into a new gene pool. The differences acquired in each group during separation will slowly be averaged out into the new united population.

However, if the two groups have evolved independently of one another long enough, their DNA might not be compatible. The differences may be so great that the combined offspring might be unfit. In the case of horses and donkeys, DNA is similar enough that successful cross-breeding can occur: these are called mules. However, mules are infertile: two mules cannot come together and reproduce. All mules must be made by crossing a horse and a donkey. Therefore, horses and donkeys are considered different species. A species is typically defined as a group in which a member of the group can only produce viable, fertile offspring with other members of the same group. While horses and donkeys produce healthy-but-infertile offspring, other combinations of species may not even produce viable zygotes (the combined egg and sperm). You might imagine something like spontaneous abortion happening in this case.

Moreover, it may be that two groups are so different that they are completely uninterested in cross-breeding in the first place. In fact, this effect can be so powerful that even if two different animals could produce healthy offspring, they won’t do it unless forced. In this case, zoo-keepers and breeders use techniques like artificial insemination to get the job done. An example of this would be the cross between lions and tigers.

Sexual selection can be a very powerful force in the evolution of a species, as well as in the process of speciation. Imagine another example of a geographic barrier, this time maybe something like a group of birds “budding off” from the population and populating a remote island during a time of high winds. If our Group A and Group B have evolved independently so that females of Group A will only copulate with males who sport bright-red feathers, and females of Group B are, say, attracted to males with mad dancing skills (check out this video), then the males of Group A will have evolved to sport bright-red feathers and no dancing skill, while the dancing males of Group B may still be a dull brownish color. The reunited population will not interbreed, because females of each group will still only be interested in their favored traits. This is a hypothetical example of sexual selection being an even stronger force than DNA-incompatibility: it may very well be that the two groups could interbreed with healthy offspring, but they just won’t. The two groups continue to evolve separately, even though they are fundamentally similar and live in the same habitat. Two species have been made.

In conclusion, geographic barriers, DNA compatibility, and sexual selection (as well as other factors) combine to make speciation quite common. It really doesn’t take much. Consider in our two examples that the two groups are physically separated, and therefore in different habitats. These two different habitats may very well place different selection and adaptation pressures on the groups, which will in effect speed up the process of the two groups becoming different. And if you imagine it as being one species becoming two, becoming four, becoming eight, becoming 16, 32, 64, with occasional forks being deleted (mass and localized extinction), and given the span of 3-4 billion years since the earliest evidence of life, then the number of species observed today should not be at all surprising.

 I believe that the truth is not subjective. Beliefs are subjective. Not the truth. Things are one way and not another.

 ”Outside our heads there is freestanding reality. Only madmen and a scattering of constructivist philosophers doubt its existence.” - Edward O. Wilson

 When people say that science is just another model of the world, they’re wrong. Science isn’t just another model; it’s a model specifically designed to change in order to accommodate new facts, to always fit reality as best it can.

 Religious belief systems, on the other hand, do not change when new facts come along. No, the religious have faith. They stick with what they’ve always thought, maybe because they are too stupid to understand what it means to learn.

• “I don’t know how Jonah stayed alive in the belly of a fish, but I know that he did.”
• No, motherfucker, that’s not how this works. If something logically seems completely impossible, it could very well be completely impossible. Your suspicions were correct.

 How much of a stretch is it to consider that maybe some guy didn’t really get swallowed by a fish and get regurgitated onto land after three days? And that maybe this is just a folk story from 2800 years ago? Don’t you think maybe someone is pulling your leg? It’s not only okay to have these suspicions, it’s great. Because if you don’t, you are completely fucking retarded.

 Perhaps a little unrelated, I want to address a quote of a Baptist pastor I heard yesterday:

 ”Either we’re divine creations of God, or we’re just random particles with no meaning, we’re just animals that evolved and we can do whatever we want, because there are no consequences whatsoever. I could take a pistol and blow out Bro. Billy’s brains right now.”

• Well, first of all, don’t go throwing around the word ‘random’. I hate that. The laws of physics are not random, they are laws. Also, evolution is not a random process; on the fucking contrary, evolution is an algorithmic process. Natural selection is the very explanation of how life on Earth could reach it’s current point in a non-random way. It’s survival of the fittest, not Russian Roulette.
• Second, are you gonna tell me we’re not animals? And are you gonna tell me that we’re not made of particles? You’re gonna need some big evidence to disprove the foundations of biology and chemistry.
•  Third, about the “no consequences” thing. Yeah, there are no consequences after we die. There are plenty of consequences during life. We have to live together. I’ve got no desire or reason for killing anyone. More importantly, there are a TON of reasons not to kill someone. For instance, I’m kind of a good person. If the only reason you’re not about to blow Bro. Billy’s brains out is because you’re scared you’ll burn in Hell for it, then YOU ARE A BAD PERSON.
•  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the shock of the implications does nothing to get rid of the evidence.

LADY ONE 

Clavicus: hello
Lady1: hey..
Clavicus: how are you?
Lady1: i’m great.. =]  you?
Clavicus: pretty good
Clavicus: I have a headache though
Clavicus: I’m about to fix it
Lady1: aww, i’m sorry bout that..
Clavicus: Ok, I took some bc powder
Lady1: some what?
Clavicus: it’s a kind of headache medicine
Lady1: oh, really? i’ve never heard of it..
Clavicus: so how’s it going with Lee?
Lady1: great.. =) just amazing.. i talked to him today, and i’ll most likely talk to him later tonight after he gets off of work..
Clavicus: oh cool
Clavicus: I wish I had a job
Clavicus: I need money
Lady1: me too, lol.. i never have any..
Clavicus: So I got to hang out with Hollie last night. She’s one of the only friends I have here
Clavicus: I’m pretty happy about that
Clavicus: and it was her idea to hang out, too
Lady1: oh really? sweetness..
Lady1: i have my little cousin coming over and my friend tonight..
Clavicus: word
Clavicus: hey, I want to try something with you real quick, okay?
Clavicus: it’s easy
Clavicus: ready?
Lady1: ok..
Clavicus: ok, read this sentence: “Mary and John walked by the bank.”
Lady1: okie.
Lady1: i did..
Clavicus: now in your mind, did you imagine them walking by a financial institution or by a river bank?
Lady1: i imagined them walking by the institution thing..
Clavicus: PERFECT.
Clavicus: thank you
Lady1: ok, lol..
Lady1: would you mind telling me why i had to answer that?
Clavicus: it has to do with consciousness and awareness. you can secretely put key words in someone’s head in order to plant ideas. by mentioning money earlier, I made you more likely to think of a financial institution. If I had used a word like water, you would have probably imagined a river bank.
Clavicus: make sense?
Lady1: oh, yeah, it does make sense..
Lady1: that’s cool, lol..
Clavicus: yep

LADY TWO

Clavicus: hey buddy
Lady2: heya
Clavicus: what you doing?
Lady2: just woke up
Lady2: cereal
Clavicus: mmm
Clavicus: I’m fighting this headache
Lady2: that sucks, got any tylenol?
Clavicus: I took some BC Powder
Clavicus: so it should be ok
Clavicus: but I had to go and buy a Dr. Pepper so I could have something to drink with it
Clavicus: cuz I didn’t want to take it with water
Clavicus: that would’ve been gross
Lady2: why would it be gross?
Clavicus: BC Powder and water just taste horrible together, I don’t know why
Clavicus: do you know what BC Powder is?
Lady2: seen it, my aunt uses it
Lady2: but not realy
Clavicus: ah
Clavicus: can I try something on you real quick?
Clavicus: it’s easy
Lady2: um ok
Clavicus: ok, read this sentence: “John and Mary walked by the bank.”
Lady2: ok
Clavicus: now, in your mind, did you imagine them walking by a financial institution or by a river/lake bank?
Lady2: at first river lake thingy an then I thought of building
Clavicus: the first thought was the lake bank?
Lady2: yep
Clavicus: hmm
Clavicus: okay then.
Lady2: >.> ok
Clavicus: how do you think your mind decides which image to settle on when there are two equally valid meanings like that?
Lady2: no idea
Clavicus: did the lake bank really stick out more than the building at first?
Lady2: yeah
Lady2: an then I was like oh maybe he’s talking about a bank like the building bank
Clavicus: ok then
Clavicus: that’s perfect.

Fuck dat shit. I can complain when I want. According to the Constitution of the country I live in, “all men are created equal.” Forget the fact that this is bullshit that the writer didn’t even believe; if we’re all equal, my opinion matters just as much as yours.

Second, obviously, there’s the whole right to free speech thing, so I can say what I want on this matter.

Third, if I didn’t vote, I’m not the one who put the asshole in office in the first place.

I’m too young to vote anyway. Are you saying that because I’m not going to vote (which I don’t have a choice in because of my age), I’m just gonna have to shut up about politics until the next election year? Because I don’t have the right to complain and challenge things? Fuck dat shit. And fuck you.

Now let’s say I was able to vote but chose not to. So what? The above points still hold. But no, you say, the point is that even if I didn’t put the asshole in office, I still didn’t do anything to stop it from happening. Well fine, I’ll go with that. The reason I didn’t vote in this hypothetical situation would be that I didn’t find a candidate I liked. And I’m pretty sure there’s no ‘vote against’ button or lever in the poll booth. I’ve got a few friends who are voting for one candidate they admit sucks, just because they don’t want the other one to win. I think that’s a little lame. If you can’t find someone to vote for, don’t vote.

If you think that because you casted your one little vote, which may as well not even be counted (because you don’t matter), this gives you the right to “complain” when things go wrong, but not me? Fuck dat shit. My point is that I WILL complain, a lot, about anything that pisses me off.

And besides, if I had a complaint it would be about the president’s actions, not the fact that he/she got voted into office. It doesn’t matter how he got voted in; I would expect certain things of the president. If his actions continually piss me off, and my voice goes unheard when I complain and try to change things… It shouldn’t be like that; he’s the head of the whole country, and we are all equal. It’s as if you’re saying that once a president gets into office, you’ve just gotta take it like a bitch.

I can complain. And if I don’t have the “right” to do that, then where are the police who are going to take me away for doing so? Or does it just piss you off when I speak out of turn? In conclusion, you suck for saying such a thing.

“And so what if he was Muslim?”

Ah, yes, reason, we can has some. Now, with this subject mostly quelled in the mainstream media due to Powell’s strong reasoning skills in this situation, all is well.

—

Oh, if only that were true. Not only has Obama been attacked as though his faith is in question, he has also been attacked as though his politics are in question.

Yes, the conservatives of this country have been bandying about that awful word of hatred. They’re calling Obama a S…
S…..

No, not Satanist, although, I hear Fox News thought McCain could have won the election if he had used that one. (Not to say he won’t win, it’s been a long time since America has had a legitimate election.)

Socialist.

Barack Obama is a socialist and he will bring those pinko commie freaks into the White House!

—

Now, let me take a step back a moment. I’d like to share a film with you. It’s an Encyclopedia Britannica filmstrip from 1946. It’s about a nations path to Despotism. It is positively Foucaultian in nature, and is distressing to watch and realize the people of 1946 in this country were obviously more well informed than our current population. Despotism, of course, being any government where all power is consolidated either in one person or an extremely small group of people. Now, here is said film:

—

Now that we’ve got that out of the way, I’d like to talk about the Respect Scale, which just so happens to be the first social scale discussed in this short film.

First of all, notice how respect (or the lack thereof) applies not only to race and religion, but also to political party. Strange, how it took until last week for one American to stand up for the Muslim religion, and yet, we have no one defending a certain specific political party from attack in this situation.

While Joe Biden defended comments recently from anchor Barbara West about whether Obama was indeed a Socialist, his best line of defense was a single line: “Is this a joke?”

Honestly, his answer was a good one, because it is utterly a joke to consider someone as centrist (in comparison to liberal socialists in other countries) as Obama to be a socialist. If Obama is the “bright center of the universe” then socialism is Tatooine, to make an un-needed Star Wars reference, but only such an astronomical distance can define such disparity in political ideologies.

However, no one has yet stood up to the country and said: “So what if he is socialist?” Has the Red Scare of the 1950’s returned? Or did it ever really leave?

We “fought communism and won,” or at least that’s how our educators like to frame the collapse of the Soviet Union, even though it truly slowly deflated like a flan in a cupboard, without need for external influence from the United States.

The Red Scare was the patently most absurd political theatre America has been put through (well, up until The War Against Terrorism [TWAT for short]), convincing Americans that socialism was not only anti-religion (which it is not, despite some communist regimes giving religion what-for.), but that the whole political and economic system was entirely dedicated to destroying America and its values. (Sounds familiar doesn’t it? No wonder, considering Donald Rumsfeld was involved in both the communist scare and the war against terrorism.)

The first was easier to instill in the population, pushing through quick legislation to add “In God We Trust” to our currency, to remind our citizens this is a Christian nation (not a Godless Atheist nation, nor apparently a Muslim nation.).

The second was more difficult and positively far more absurd because anyone with an ounce of sense realizes that nations are built from individuals, not from some hive-mind where every citizen of the nation knows that they have a distinct and specific purpose to which they all working toward. America would have had its citizens believe this, that you cannot trust anyone from a Communist nation, and anyone who is willing to consider themselves a socialist is not only a godless heathen but desperately wants to destroy your way of life.

—

What is truly disgusting about all this, to me, as a bastard atheist, is that while we defend a religion that in many nations advocates the death penalty for non-Muslims and will stone to death women who are raped, we are unwilling to defend an economic and political agenda that simply says “Hey maybe since we’re all on this shitty rock spinning through space together we should stop acting like fucking animals and share instead of hoard.”

So, Colin Powell, do me one better, give socialists some respect. Don’t give us more reason to believe we’re one pussy-hair’s width away from falling into full-on Despotism, instead, say what no one else has had the balls to say:

“So what if he is Socialist?”