Slashdot Mirror
The Mind of God
Einstein once said that the thing which most interested him wasn't whether God existed or not, but whether God had any choice in creating the world as it is. Einstein wasn't religious in the conventional sense, but he liked to use God as a metaphor for expressing the deeper questions about human existence, an instinct that runs deep in many scientific disciplines, especially physics.
As someone who was for years unnerved by the very term "physics" -- memories of high school, maybe -- one of the most pleasant surprises in recent years has been reading physicist/authors like Freeman Dyson and Evan Harris Walker and discovering the surprisingly strong link between physics and spirituality.
Physicists seem to have taken on some of the heaviest questions of human existence: "Why are we here? Why is the world the way it is? Where have all the Gods gone?"
In The Mind of God: The Scientific Basis For a Rational World, (just published in paperback by Simon and Schuster, US $12) Paul Davies, a professor of Mathematical Physics at the University of Adelaide in Australia (and the author of God and the New Physics and The Cosmic Blueprint), continues this tradition brilliantly.
"The modern world is plagued by a greater diversity of beliefs than ever," writes Davies, "many of them eccentric or even dangerous, and rational argument is regarded by a lot of ordinary people as pointless sophistry. Only in science, and especially mathematics, have the ideals of the Greek philosophers been upheld (and in philosophy itself, of course). When it comes to addressing the really deep issues of existence, such as the origin and meaning of the universe, the place of human beings in the world, and the structure and organization of nature, there is a strong temptation to retreat into unreasoned belief."
Just what is rational thought, anyway? asks Davies, and true to his word, he jumps into a beautifully written, lively -- and yes, profoundly rational -- romp through some of the biggest mysteries in the universe: human reason and common sense, metaphysics, time and eternity, the creation, real and virtual worlds, theoretical physics, the necessity of God, and finally, "the mystery at the end of the universe."
Rather than a book of answers, this is a surprisingly readable, fast-paced inquiry into whether or not science and rationality can unlock the mysteries of the world, from the nature of consciousness to the notion that the world is really a kind of supercomputer, and all of us bits and data swirling around inside.
"I cannot believe," writes Davies near the end of the book, "that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is too intimate. The physical species Homo may count for nothing, but the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here."
Perhaps because they are trained to deconstruct the matter that makes up the universe, physicists go deeper into questions like this than almost any other contemporary subculture of writers.
If Paul Davies were teaching physics, every kid might learn to love science and appreciate its potential for tackling, and perhaps one day even answering, these age-old questions about life. Davies' ruminations here on Metaphysics: Who Needs It? ought to be required reading for anyone who needs to be reminded of the importance of science in the contemporary world. Since most scientific language is arcane and inaccessible to much of humanity, the rest of us tend to forget just how seminal, even spiritual, subjects like physics can be.
If you care about issues like the existence of God, rationality, and the reason for our very being, you can hardly do better than The Mind of God. Davies doesn't have all of the answers, nor does he pretend to, but he sure has the right questions.
Huh? Not following my argument? Say I offer you {a small fraction of Bill Gates' personal wealth, a gaggle of incredibly attractive members of the appropriate sex to do whatever comes naturally, Alan Cox as your personal bug-hunter and nifty-feature-that-I-don't-have-time-to-implement coder} for you to be an atheist. You decide to take the option of guaranteed instant gratification rather than the long-term gamble on the joy of eternal life with God, if God exists. I've just altered your personal payoff matrix in favour of atheism. Has this one iota of influence on the existence of God? Not one bit!
Therefore, Pascal's wager, IMHO, is a philosophical red herring, and I don't know why it is treated with such significance.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Whenever someone tries to claim that the odds of things turning out the way they are is something like 87,285,253,045,105,111,529,549.5 (or more!) to 1, ergo it MUST HAVE BEEN BY DESIGN, planned, the odds are just to great to have just accidentally happened, I think, B.S. While it's true that THIS particular instantiation is highly improbable, what they don't consider is that maybe gazillions of OTHER possible outcomes are equally viable God-comtemplating conscious life supporting alternatives. That is to say, out of the above number, it could very well be that 293,582,359,248,285,288 of them are just as likely to appear as a 'miraculous' against-all-odds outcome that could never have 'just happened' by itself w/o an outside controlling destiny, and therefore life may be quite common.
Whew.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
What I mean is like this: take several decks of cards, shuffle and deal them all out. Wow! The odds against THAT particular deal happening are tremendous! It's a bloody miracle that, out of all the possible deals, THAT one occurred!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
from an insult generator script.
Person you want to bash: Jon
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
ehehe.. i think you misunderstand.
But you then go on to point out perceived fundemental flaws in physics, such as this "nothing but a mathematical abstraction" bullshit argument you drag out to neatly present some fluffy mystical thinking.
No, my point is not to allow 'fluffy thinking', but to indicate that there are other 'levels' of interaction occuring which may be governed by very simple mandelbrot type alogorithms, but will likely be beyond our comprehension simply because their effects on our universe are so 'apparently random and complex' that we will not ever be able to derive their underlying simplicity.
Guess what? This means that science, with physics at the vanguard is ALWAYS revising/refurbishing/theorizing ideas, explanations, and mathematics that attempt to explain to varying degrees of completeness the multitudinal plethora of natural phenomenah that nature puts in our path (Thumbing her nose at us all the way too, that bitch)
Of course, and my point wasnt to say that traditional reductionist science is not usefull, of course it is! But the fact remains that it is not complete, and that many more usefull findings and theories will be found once we realize that the reductionist approach is fundamentally restrictive and simplistic when dealing with complex, seemingly chaotic or random effects.
There is much that is explained rather well, within the limits of the HUP
True, and there is much that isnt. My point again is that for a more complete view of the universe around us, we have to accept the limits of reductionism.
If you COULD get both, or measure one without affecting the particle in any way, Quantum Mechanics wouldn't be a game of probabilities. It would be a game of certainties, just like the macroscopic universe we all know and love
You would have to know both values not just for the particles in which you are concerned, but for every particle in the universe because every particle affects the behavior of every other to some degree or another. It is this fact which goes back to the point I was trying to make about assumptions in the reductionist approach.
There is an absolute, multilayed interconnectedness between matter which causes many confusing effects, and is quite chaotic/complex in nature. The fact is, it may be simple and straightforeward in design, but we may never know because all we can and ever will be able to see are the 'effects', or the fractal image as referred to in the original example.
mind providing us a reference as to why one need invoke subatomic particles to explain dissapative structures in biological cells (or in hot liquids for that matter)
You dont need to, because they cant explain it. The point is that there are extended effects, of an indirect nature, which cannot be accounted for in a reductionist approach because of their very nature.
It is these types of issues that require a diffrent approach, and an acceptance of the fact that in some areas the reductionist approach to scienitific discovery will fail.
A better title:
What many people attribute to Intelligent Design in the order of the universe is actually a simple process that will not be discernable by the reductionist approach to scientific discovery.
Sorry for any confusion on the previous title. I dont beleive in god, but I do beleive there is a lot more going on in this universe of ours than is given credit in biology/physics/ etc...
We are tainted by our traditional reductionist approach to science. This leads us to ignore the more complex, (currently) unexplainable phenomenon as irrelevant exceptions, rather than very important clues to the things we are overlooking or brushing aside.
..and I don't know of a reproducible experiment which would cause someone to fall in love with me.
Its called money. bIIIIIIg fucking heaping piles of that green shit.. enough to wipe your ass with $100's and never let it cross your mind...
Morris has done quite a few experiments with simple bernard cells, however, he and the otheres are quick to admit they have no explanation for the power laws governing parts of these systems, as well as the fact that at best they have general statistical models for general behavior.
;)
This is a LONG way from understanding as I meant it. However, its still incredibly fascinating. And, bernard cells are probably the simplest of disspative structures. When you begin to deal with biological structures complexity begins to melt the brain..
There is a lot of talk about these types of issues in science and for good reason. It is becoming more and more obvious that quantum physics and biochemistry contain puzzling inconsistancies and mounting evidence of external influences in the interactions of subatomic particles, and the complex processes of life itself.
A few examples: dissapative structures like those seen in very hot liquids, to biological cells.
The effect of the observer in 'collapsing' the wave function describing the probabilities for various characteristics of quantum particles.
Things like these are baffling and puzzling because they are very hard to explain. The reason for this is the fact that they are complex.
A nice mental illustration of this would be the following:
- Given a large wall sized image of the Mandelbrot set mapped into fractal form, you are asked to determine what created this image.
If you have no previous knowledge of fractals, it would appear to be an increbily complex algorithm which generated this image, and the complexity of the images within evidence of this.
However, it is actually a very simple iterative algorithm that produced the image. The algorithm is complex because each iteration depends on a previous iteration. Thus, a small change in initial conditions yeilds wild variety from similar initial conditions. This is chaos theory, and im sure you've heard all about it.
So where does this come into play in physics?
Physics is mathematical relationships based on verifiable experimental results. We call atoms and subatomic particles particles because they behave as such (for the most part) but they are actually something else. We now know that the subatomic particles arent really solid at all, but interact according to complex wave functions that predict their behavior on average. That last but is important, because it shows that our understanding of sub atomic particles and matter in general is based on a large number of assumptions wich may not be valid.
For example, consider that each particle is in fact a solitron, or a collection of smaller peices (super strings? M-theory?) that are acting as a whole particle, yet very distinct in and of themselves.
These solitrons would function identical to the subatomic particles they represent, however be comprised of intirely different units.
The point is, physics is nothing but a mathematical abstraction for generalized behavior. And that this fact alone bases many of the assumptions of science on shaky ground. It is becoming more and more evident that there are additional levels of interaction at work in all aspects of matter, from the subatomic to the biochemical. The fields of complexity, chaos, self organization all relate to this abstract 'other' quality in this universe of ours, and have a striking symmetry with the Tao and eastern philosophy.
The modern style causual approach to science with every element of our world conforming to a chain of effect is coming to its limits. It is certainly usefull, but it is absolutely limited and incapable of viewing the entirety of the processes at play within our universe.
In the end I think we will find that god is not a single entity outside our universe, but a common fundamental effect on every part of this universe.
Inspired by this book back in 1993 when it first came out, I decided to conduct an experiment to test the spontaneous creation of life. I had just finished up a mayo and bacon sandwhich, so after scraping the last of the mayo out of the bottom of the mayo jar, I set it next to the window. I reasoned that if life created itself spontaneously, then statistically, somewhere in the universe, life would have to be spontaneously created in a mayo jar sitting next to a window. I figured what are the odds that somebody else has a mayo jar sitting next to a window? So the odds must be pretty good that my mayo jar is the one for life to be created in. Sure enough! Two weeks later the mayo jar was crawling with life. I named the jar planet Mayo, in honor of its original contents, and watched in awe as the alien-looking blue plantlife grew to fruition. Eventually it started to stink though, so I just threw it out. Then I started wondering what God would do if his jar started to stink...
When Stephen Hawking published his "Brief History of Time", he was fond of recounting how his publishers warned him against using mathematical formulae in the book - that each formula would result in the corresponding loss of x-thousand sales. As a result, the only formula published in the final book, IIRC, was E=mc^2.
Davies' expression of faith in the meaningfulness of humanity's existence is similarly oriented towards mass appeal. Regardless of whether Davies believes this or not, he probably would have been forced to say something along these lines, or risk reviews describing his book as "painting a bleak picture of man's ultimate insignificance", which would turn off the masses of people who are looking for people with fuzzy beards to tell them what their life means.
Nobody ever lost money telling people what they want to hear...
> he has reasons for what he believes and others may have beliefs that have not been reasoned out, just adopted.
The problem with this is that when you are talking about something that is subjective, everybodies beliefs tend to be equally valid.
How can you insist that your beliefs about pink fluffy elephants are any more valid than mine when we have not (yet) found any pink fluffy elephants to quantifiably measure.
You can argue over points of logic, but arguments about things which cannot (yet) be proven are subjective arguments based in a persons other beliefs.
That was getting circular, but because we do not share an identical path in space time our perceptions and the beliefs founded upon those perceptions are going to be skewed, but neither of us is going to be _wrong_.
-- reality is just a product of my imagination.
-- I need more coffee. It's Monday. There is no such thing as enough coffee on a Monday.
LOL! You are one of those people who see evidence for God in anything, aren't you? How can I argue with circular logic like that? You've just declared your own beliefs to be true, pal, and there's nothing I can (or will) do about it. Have fun believing in whatever it is that you believe... but don't expect other people to blindly agree. (Look ma, split infinitives!)
(By the way, when you claim that "The evidence you look for is all around you, especialy in physics. The line of extrapolation clearly points to God", I hope that you either (a) meant that purely as personal opinion or (b) have very good, previously unknown, completely conclusive, scientifically sound evidence... because otherwise you're just another theist with an extraordinary claim, and we've already got enough of those.)
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
My loss? Care to explain what it is exactly that I'm "losing"? (Honest question, not meant as a flame.)
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
Kaufmann obligingly follows on to the Termination Center, and, after presenting his Troubleshooter ID, steps into a booth where a disintegration apparatus zaps him, leaving only ashes on the floor. Almost instantly afterwards, said apparatus zaps a new Kaufmann-clone into existence; he dons his Troubleshooter-suit and Troubleshooter-gun, and goes back to the streets, ever intent on... uh, shooting trouble... or whatever it is that Troubleshooters do.
:])
(Sorry for the pointless Paranoia reference... just hope I won't get moderated down...
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
The discussion of reason itself requires the use of reason (unless you've discovered another, incredible new way to think). Either reason is not valid and nothing you think is of any value (including any arguments about why reason must have value), or reason is valid - which we can only affirm by use of reason, and by doing so we're already presupposing that reason is valid. So either way, it must be axiomatic. In the end, we're just left to choose in the grounds of usefulness. And I happen to think that rational thought is damned useful.
Blairgh.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
I'm forwarding this to your email; thankfully it seems we've only two points left to clear out (as opposed to On Lawn's enormous rant, which will take me yet another day to respond...).
Just last night (after I got tired of discussing philosophy with On Lawn on Slashdot... and went to discuss philosophy with the #atheism crowd on IRC) I made that exact same argument about Occam's Razor, although it hadn't occurred to me that it would apply in this case. It does seem now that using Occam's Razor would be a circular argument. So maybe there isn't any default position. Okay.
Regarding the request for evidence: I do tend to follow along the general lines for skeptics (you can look at the sci.skeptic FAQ). So, I consider historical evidence often acceptable, depending on the source and reliability (although I'm not really in much of a position to judge myself, not being a professional); OTOH, testimony from the Bible, a book which claims that pi = 3, is much less so. (And yes, I do know about all the historical stuff in the Bible that was found to be true, but I think that only proves that it's not entirely fictional; having been raised in the Jewish culture, I personally consider the Bible to be a fascinating account of the religious and cultural traditions of our ancestors throughout the ages... and that's all.)
Eyewitness testimony isn't much relied upon even by courts of law (human fallibility); much less so "testimony" about answered prayers; taking into account the witnesses' predisposition for believing in these explanations for their claims, as well as the emotional need for beliefs to support their mental state... well, I think you get my point.
(Re. evidence for evolution, well, of course you can't replicate the evolutionary history of the Earth in a lab, but I think we know enough about the fossil record to make a solid claim that either they are records of evolution in process, or the Almighty is a really clever guy who's trying to mess with our little heads.)
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
I'm glad that you seem to have recovered your "groove" and your willingness to debate in a rational fashion. However, this post of yours has brought open a few new points which I can't help but discuss... once and for all, so that we can all move on to the next 600-comment Slashdot story :)
:)
First, "But to reach out to that intelligence requires faith": I don't see how that's true a priori; I can well envision an universe whose Creator is right at hand, ready to speak to its creation at any time (through means that are natural to them - i.e., that exist within the realm of what the creation considers "natural", and which don't require "tapping into another dimension" or any such things). In short, I can't see why a God couldn't have made his presence natural in his own universe.
Right afterwards, you bizarrely define faith as "taking an extrapolation of data at hand". Where I come from, faith is belief held without supporting evidence, and has nothing to do with the perfectly rational process of extrapolating. I have observed many theists try to claim, unsuccessfully, that their faith in God is of the same kind as a child's "faith" in her mother, or our "faith" that the sky won't fall on our heads. It's just not so.
Further on, "If you recieve laws (information of them) from a divine source, and indeed you find that obedience to them does make your life (not your neighbors or your uncle in slovenia) better then you must have recieved true information. The formulae works, it must be true." This not true at all. First, you only have evidence - and the flimsiest, at that - that said "laws" are "true" (inasmuch as a law can be considered "true" - i.e., in the sense that it's generally appliable and useful). If your mother-in-law is driving you crazy, and I come to you and tell you "you should kill your mother-in-law", and furthermore I give you the means and opportunity as to kill the old hag without leaving any trace, you might very well be happier (depending on what kind of ethic code you follow, you might not even feel bad about it at all). But does that mean that the "law" of "thou shalt kill your mother-in-law" is true? Does that mean that everyone should always kill their mothers-in-law whenever they have the opportunity? And second, even if those "laws" handed to you are "true", that doesn't necessarily tell you anything about their origin, does it? What one calls divine inspiration, another one might as well call a hallucination. (Likewise with many UFO claims.)
Your assertion about the "necessity" to "learn moral laws before we learn scientific ones" also seems very unfounded. In its entirety it sounds extremely obscurantist and reeks of the moralist, pseudo-humanist discourse about "people before technology" of which I believe we're all sick and tired. First of all, it confuses knowledge and science with its application - technology; it also confuses reason and good judgement with morality. It is, in its essence, a bet in the essential evil of mankind, and an assertion that we're not good enough to be allowed this forbidden knowledge. Shades of Genesis... (as in the Old Testament, not as in Peter Gabriel!)
As an atheist and a scientificist, I found this really strange: "Self Restraint and Temper are moral laws we learn from Religion and can see evidence of it scientificaly. Nuclear laws are found out scientificaly, and even show evidence or a correspondance (abstractly) with moral laws." Are you claiming that religion is th only possible source of morals? That I, as an atheist, cannot be self-restrained or well-tempered? That self-restraint and temper are absolute "laws", as opposed to being merely useful guidelines for behaviour in civilised society? Furthermore, what do you consider to be scientific evidence for the "laws" of self-restraint and temper? Are you counting sociology and psychology as sciences, or are you asserting something more profound? Finally, just what is this correspondence between nuclear and moral "laws"?
"There is a need for both is what I'm saying. The Grand Intelligence in the Universe who you mock does have lines of information open. Science is one of them, and religion is one of them but they both require personal discovery and faith." I'm sorry, but I can't consider that anything other than a personal, subjective opinion - and a poor one at that - at least until you explain in minute detail how it is that science requires "personal discovery and faith". (When you do, keep in mind my previous point about the meaning of the word "faith".)
Finally, as for your "request for truths" - frankly, I can't claim to have any deep insights regarding the nature of mankind and the universe; all I have is my opinion, and it was once said that opinions are like asses. In this spirit, I can only translate a Brazilian saying: "if advice was any good, it would be sold, not given."
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
OTOH how much can you really learn through rational and reasoned discourse on the subject of pink fluffy elephants?
;)
LOL! So you did read my reply to that post!
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
It's very strange to see you try to be conciliatory and reasonable, and then turn around and, violently, just throw around the exact same unreasonable arguments that I've been hearing for years now, for example on DALNet #atheism. Quite frankly, because I claim no supernaturally obtained knowledge of any sort, I do not know whether there actually is a God or not; but I definitely know that there must be better arguments for his existence than those that you've given; in general, your entire line of reasoning is extremely poor and ignores a lot of previous debate. So I'll just respond to a few, more indicative paragraphs in your message. Here we go:
(P. 3) All I see in the way of disproving the world around us is what amounts to "There is no God, therefore that is not evidence." In other words, you are accusing me of using circular logic. How fresh!
(P. 4) The evidence you present is not very earth-shattering, nor does it by itself indicate design, seeing as though there are better ways to fit our model around them then by introducing a deity into it. It's the kind of evidence that would only be accepted as such by someone already inclined to believe in a God and who would see this as confirmation of their beliefs. Quite frankly, considering that you are making the ultimate extraordinary claim - that there is an omni-everything deity of some sort or the other - I would expect, likewise, that you would present extraordinary evidence. (A 10 mile high cross hovering over Ithaca would suffice.)
(Of course, I should also point out that, even if your "evidence" represented serious contradictions in the modern theory of evolution by natural selection as it stands, that still wouldn't be enough to make creationism - design of any kind, much less of your preferred brand - automatically true. Evidently, Neo-Darwinism and creationism aren't the only two possibilities.)
(P. 7) Your comparison of atheists with the blind also doesn't follow. The blind have plenty of rational reasons for acknowledging the existence of light and the sense of sight (I believe it's not necessary to enumerate it), even though they aren't able to directly experience it with their own sensory apparatus. The same isn't true of atheists regarding God or the "sense of God" that many theists claim to perceive. In the end, of course, it boils down to Occam's Razor.
Also, I must reiterate that I am making no assertions in this discussion, regarding the issue of whether God exists. There's an enormous difference between not actively believing in the existence of a God (so-called weak atheism, which is the case for me, just as I don't believe in pink fluffy elephants that can read minds) and actively believing in the non-existence of a God (so-called strong atheism). So your accusation of "belief of blindness" would be erroneous even if the general comparison between atheists and the blind did apply.
(P. 8) I can declare what I know is true. Now, this has made me curious. Pray tell, where did you obtain your knowledge of the truth? Divine revelation? I guess that's one of the perks in being a believer, eh? I mean, why subject yourself to murking around in this vast sea of relative thoughts and subjective experience, when you've got direct access to the latest scoop on the objective nature of the universe, straight from the head of the Creator?
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
First, it is significant that this comes near the end of the book. In other words, this is a conclusion that has been reached by examination of the questions at hand. Thus, the implication that this cannot be rational because of its barest interpretation is lazy and misplaced.
Okay, maybe you're right - I must admit I haven't read this book. However, as said sentence seems to stand alone and, by the way it's presented, seems to represent the entirety of the author's feelings on the subject, I'd say that, if my analysis was in fact lacking, JonKatz' poor quoting certainly would deserve some of the blame...
Second, the burden of proof does NOT lie upon the party making the affirmative claim. It lies upon the party making the claim, regardless of its being affirmative or negative.
Again, my fault.
In this case, Davies is making an ontological claim that he must support. If he fails, then that is all that has happened!! It does not show that his case is unsalvagable, nor does it automatically lend support to whatever position you believe. Failure to prove a case means just that; trying to extend the implications beyond that is tricky and requires additional work.
Did I say otherwise? Quite frankly, I think I'd be glad to find that there is a purpose to us being here, and I'm always willing to hear on it, even though to my knowledge previous attempts at proving such claims have always failed.
In other words, folks, THERE IS NO DEFAULT POSITION!
Whoa. That's a non-sequitur! I'm sorry, I may be missing something, but how does that assertion follow from the previous paragraph? I'd have to say that, in this case, the default position is established by Occam's Razor.
Kaufmann may "believe otherwise", and he may tell us what that position is as a matter of sharing information about his current mental states. Once he makes statements about the way the world is as opposed to what's in his head, HE has to prove his case. Whether or not Davies can prove his case makes no difference as to whether Kaufmann is justified or unjustified in his position. That becomes important only when Davies' position is analyzed and its premises, true or false, can be used in a separate argument attacking or defending Kaufmann's position, whatever it may be.
That's all nice and fine, but - here's the rub - I don't remember actually making any statements. I only said I believed otherwise, and as you said, my position and Davies' are independent until either are analysed. My position, personally, is that we do exist by chance; I believe that this position is well funded. However, my position could be entirely different - I might as well be a solipsist, or a Randroid, or merely believe in the "chance" position by faith, as it seems that Davies does for the "purpose" position. That makes no difference regarding my attack of Davies' position.
Considering that above I merely restated the second paragraph of your message, where I think we differ is that you assert that there is no default position, while I consider that Occam's Razor applies (as it does in my ongoing discussion with On Lawn (?) re. the existence of God). However, although I stand by what I consider to be the default position (and although I think it is a well-fundamented position), I'm not inflexible.
As for "actual evidence", I suspect that demand is spurious. I rather suspect Kaufmann would submit any such evidence to a Procrustean bed. I'll go ahead and read his responses and see if my hunch plays out.
Not true. I like to consider myself very open-minded on all-matters - not in that I'm gullible, but in that I'm willing to change my mind if suitable motivation for doing so is presented.
Finally, I'd like to thank you for presenting a good counterpoint to my post.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
Sorry to disappoint you but, no, there isn't any hidden spirituality in physics.
Agreed. However, two points:
(1) The new (relativity + quantum) physics allows many more interesting things to happen as compared to old Newtonian physics. The world "became" more complex, more interesting, and in a sense more open. This has implications for spirituality.
(2) The famous one-electron-two-paths (or Schrodinger's cat) problem. If you pick the Copenhagen interpretation, there is that "observer" figure and the consciousness of that observer seems to mean something. If you pick the multiple-worlds interpretation, the fact that we live in a contiuously forking universe with billions of almost-the-same copies of everybody is a major statement for spirituality that it has to deal with.
Spirituality may not apply to physics, but physics certainly gives philosophers things (or non-things) to think about.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
"Our existence is pointless" is not the default position in the absence of evidence for or against whether or not we have a purpose here in the universe!
The only rational position is "I'll reserve judgement until I see proof, seeing as both sides have none at the moment."
-brian (a weak atheist)
Yes there is, later on in the book (at the point where the Babel fish is mentioned): ``Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God.''
Granted, if you choose to define ``God'' as the laws of physics (resp. the Universe as a whole, resp. pure luck, resp. something of the kind), then I believe in the existence of God. But we already have words for those, so I do not think adding ``God'' as a new one is appropriate or wise.
It probably offends religious people even more if I say ``God is merely a term for the laws of physics'' than if I say ``I do not believe in God''. And I have no desire to anger people, it is a pointless activity.
But perhaps a more important and useful alternate definition of God would be, not whatever created us, but whatever we should use as the basis of our ethics. It is an error to think that the basis for ethics should be sought in science. Nor do I wish to appeal to a Higher Consciousness to do so. One of my favorite lines is from Molière's Dom Juan, when Dom Juan gives the pauper a coin and says ``I give it to you for the love of humanity'': maybe now this seems flat and unremarkable, but at the time it was written, that Molière should have dared write something else than ``for the love of God'' is wholly remarkable.
I have to disagree strongly here. It seems to me human culture started with religion(philosophy) as a way to explain the universe. This didn't work real well when you get to the gory details and so now many put their faith in science, since it has "proved" many things.
Now we are seeing more and more philosophers BASING their ideas on what our scientists have discovered. I think this is the better approach to reach a "Theory of Everything" and even explain consiousness (which as Godel showed, we can never "prove" since we are stuck within the system)
Much like how the human being consists both of mind (philosophy) and body (science), I believe this is the correct approach to explain how it all works together to create the reality we all swim in each and every day.
--
+&x
The physical species Homo may count for nothing, but the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here
how about this.
I think therefore I am. I am therefore I'm special. That's all he's really saying.
so until this guy can produce actual evidence that we are "meant" to be here
We ARE here, that's enough for me. (yes, it's a circular argument, but that seems to be the only way to play when trying to explain your own existence)
--
+&x
When a so-called scientist starts speculating about mystical things, he is no longer acting as a scientist, and may be demonstrating that he never was.
The universe follows rules, and by observation, and experimentation, we can discover those rules. That's science.
You can speculate about mystical explanations for things like the purpose of the universe, and it may serve as entertainment, but to take such thoughts seriously is unjustified, and a waste of time.
It's true that a scientist should keep an open mind. That means always being ready to consider any credible evidence that an accepted explanation might be in error. It doesn't mean giving credence to every wild speculation that might be proposed.
Anyone can say that we are all walking around with gremlins on our heads, but if you want me to consider the idea seriously, you must first demonstrate a contradiction, i.e. some situation or event that cannot adequately be explained by current scientific laws, that would be better explained by your Gremlin-Kopf theory.
Meanwhile, I will continue to rely on the laws of momentum and friction when I drive my car, the laws of chemistry when I brew my coffee, and the laws of electronics and logic when I write my programs. And, I will continue to look both ways before crossing the street, confident that my eyes are providing me with mostly correct information about the world around me.
The modern university teaching that "every idea has equal value", and "science is just another form of faith" are crap. When you can prove what you say through observable events, and logic, then let's talk, otherwise, don't waste my time.
This book would be a waste of my time.
As one might expect, the conversation got a bit out of hand. Before I knew it, I was having to lower my voice on a regular basis. In a particularly impassioned moment, she grabbed me by my shoulders and said, "Ryan, see that out there? All that water, might and majesty? It could destroy both of us in a second and be damned if I understand it. I can't even wrap my mind around the idea of it's bredth. It litertally exerts God-like control over us, and you know what? That's good enough for me. That's my God, right there."
I reflected on this for a few moments and considered mentioning to her that my microwave is something which I personally don't have a real firm understanding of, and my cat is capable of physical feats which I have a difficult time fathoming. I decided against doing so.
In any event, I hear a whole lotta people talking about how stupid everyone else is, and bashing one another over the head with semantics and frankly I can't help but find comfort in her perfectly lucid understanding of the world around her.
-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
I've basically given in to the fact that Godel's incompleteness theorem allows for "unprovable" truths, which may give some room for the conception of something "greater" than the sum of physically measurable parts.
I think it is humankind's hubris, though, that we are some special thing and that the universe revolves around is. The universe doesn't give a damn about us, and our own stupidity could very well get us all exterminated. I think we should humble ourselves and realize we are really but a few specks of dust in the global scheme of things.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
the truth may be hard to accept.
And the truth is..?
You are making the same mistake that many others are. You say that those who believe in God are blind to the "truth." But you have nothing to substantiate your truth. All you have are countless unproven theories.
I haven't read the book, but I think I understand where this guy is coming from. When you first delve into science, you are confronted with a lot of "proofs" against certain religious beliefs. You come to accept that if something can't be proven scientifically, it must not be. Either it doesn't exist, or a previous belief in it was wrong. But when you go farther than just basic scientific findings, you start seeing an order to things that doesn't make sense. You are then confronted with a huge array of odds. 'What are the chances that this thing I'm researching could come about without help?' If you are really honest with yourself, you realize that the odds are actually in favor of a consiousness being behind the universe.
Science has the basics down. But scientists are far from knowing everything. Just be careful not to go down the same road that you are busy condemning.
A blind belief in science is just as bad as a blind belief in religion.
OTOH how much can you really learn through rational and reasoned discourse on the subject of pink fluffy elephants?
:) (God == a bigger Santa Clause for adults.
This is one of the real keys! If it looks like a Santa Clause, smalls like a Santa Clause, quacks like a Santa Clause, then it's probable not real.
Seriously, we can draw some conclusions from "reproducibility," i.e. velcro works every time I use it, so I may as well start trusting it, but prayer works about as well as any placebo (in the same situation), so it's pretty safe to assume that vecro is real and prayer is a placebo.
Now this comparison gets a little sticky when we start talking about things with less evidence, like evolution, the big bang, quantum mechanics, etc., but we attempt to verify these things by maing verifiable predictions. Notice that religious predictins have tended to be a load of shit.
Now, I would like to make some comments about the book's topic (which I have not read). Why do scientific people want to call the universe a "mind?" This seems highly anthropomorphic. The universe may share some interesting properties with out minds, like an entropy driven system which produces effect which are roughly analogous to biological evolution (our thoughs process vs. universe's possible "evolution" of the laws of physics), but the diffrences seem to far far out weight the simillarities. You know little things, like the the fact that the speed of light would limit anything like "thoughs" which were spread accrost the universe.
I think we need to quit pandering to the religiious people with this "conshious universe" bullshit.. and get down to talking about the same stuff in a less anthropomorphic way. I understand that people want to make analogies, but I expect some real discussion about how entroy and boundery conmditions always leed to evolution like processes, not some vague bulshit aboutthe universe thinking (any kind of meaningful notion of thinking probably entails non-omipotence).
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Wrong! Consious has NOTHING to do with quantum mechanics! The definition of the experement IS what stops the regress. We define the experemental apparatus classically and say "the wave function collapses" when the classically described part of the system interacts with the part of the system which is described via quantum mechanics. If you describe Schrodingers cat (conshiousness and all) with quantum mechanics then the cat is alive and dead untill you open the box. I guess the cat is lucky that you can not describe it that well! :)
The point is "Quantum Mechanics talks about the results of experements!" The experemental aparatus is built into the most basic theory as the bra and ket!
The real problem that some educated people (einstein) have with Quantum Mechanics always that they think Realitivity dose "more" then describe the results of experements and they want Quantum Mechanics to do "more." The real question is "Are our ideas about physics doing more then predicting experements a load of crap?" The smartest physicists I've known say yes, i.e. we should not expect physics to do mroe then predict experements as predicting experements is the hart of the scientific method.
Now, people claim that Bomian Mechanics (when you pretend that there really is a phase space particl there) dose do "more" then what Quantum Mechanics dose, but I think you can prove that Bomian Mechnaics predicts nothing which Quantum Mechanics dose not predict, so people who are sticklers for the scientific method claim that they are no diffrent as theories.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
The first sentence in the article has now been changed to read, "In the new paperback edition of his book, ...", but from what I can tell from the ThinkGeek site, this still isn't right. The book is apparently still in the first edition from 1993, and the picture of the cover looks exactly like the book I've had all this time.
Forgive me, but I even checked the Boycotted Patent Abuser to confirm this. It appears to me that there has only ever been one edition, in paperback, published in 1993.
I hate to beat a dead horse, but why is Jon insisting on calling this book new?
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
I cannot believe
But nevertheless it is true.
I don't envy those poor scientists that have for centuries tried to demonstrate rationally something that is simply emotional. They often lose credibility when they try to mix up reasonning with vague opinions and become mistrusted by the scientific communauty as a result. It's a bit as if Linus was a Microsoft employee. Would you trust him?
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
The duality of our universe, in so many ways, is accepted by people. We have the Ying and the Yang, chaos and structure, etc. Wouldn't it make sense then that the meaning of life is that there is no meaning?
It is human nature to believe we are here for some other purpose. Arrogance plays a large role in keeping the human species from giving up. If we think we're here for a purpose then we'll continue to exist. What happens if we all thought it was meaningless?
-- taking over the world, we are.
I am not attacking your beliefs, but as an athiest I do not see how calling an elegant set of equations "god", or calling an improbable medical scenario, or a sunset, or a warm fuzzy feeling "god" helps us to understand the universe any better. Monotheists try to connect all these things by virtue of their all being part of "god". I say they are all part of "the universe". Is that different? Is "the universe" my "god"? This is unclear. The danger comes when religious thought prevents us from learning more about the universe. At best, it distorts ideas by holding us to unproven, irrational beliefs which are incompatible with physical evidence. This can paralyze people who try to believe in physical reality and god at the same time; those who say they understand both usually have done so by distorting the facts and ideas until they become internally inconsistent and useless. At worst, religion actively impedes scientific progress because of stubbornness and adherence to outdated modes of thought (I need not point out the numerous crimes against humanity committed by the catholic church.)
In short, I believe that when religion and science are at odds, science must win (because, while both methods of thought attempt to reveal truth, only science does so provably,) and that when there is NO outright contradiction, (For example, "God brought the universe into existance" vs. "The universe came into existance",) science will again win because the theist view explains nothing more; the difference is, in fact, irrelevant. "God did it" is nothing more than an easy way out--it tells us nothing we need to know--and implies that no further study is required.
Up until now I have discussed a relatively harmless kind of theism. Perhaps "god" created everything, but what about the devil? One way of looking at the world is to see some things as "godly", and some things as less godly, not godly, or even evil. This dualistic view is dangerous because it leads to divisiveness, prejudice, and hate. Even if two such dualistic-minded religious groups agree on something, they will always find a third to demonize and persecute. Often religious value judgements are based on old, outdated writings, which are, (among other things,) often sexist and anti-homosexual, and in my personal opinion contain little wisdom whatsoever. Something someone wrote a long time ago does not justify making value judgements today; in fact, it justifies nothing. No reasonable human being would actually believe that those words came direct from god--we just want someone or something to tell us what to believe because we are too lazy or stupid to think for ourselves, and many of us simply want to hate and to feel justified in doing so. I hope that science maintains a safe distance from religion, because dogmatism could spell the end of science, and indeed of the individual. I am not being overly melodramatic--what are we if we cannot think for ourselves anymore?
-- Religion is a major weapon in the war against reality.
As far as I'm concerned, the existence of life elsewhere in the universe is not really a sticking point in Christian theology (yes, some theologians might disagree). In a Christian worldview, there can really be only three different states in which a created entity can reside...
- Unfallen (e.g. Biblical angels and the like)
- Fallen and redeemed (humanity in the Bible)
- Fallen and unredeemed (e.g.Biblical devils/demons and the like)
So if/when we meet up with some extraterrestrial race, the question is going to be "which one of these are YOU?"As an aside, C.S. Lewis touched on topics like these in his allegorical Space Trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength). It's not hard sci-fi, but they're great stories! And if I remember correctly, he has an essay titled "Religion and Rocketry" (or something like that) in the book Of Other Worlds, edited by Walter Hooper.
Enjoy!
JimD
I just finished going throuh his Arrow of Time. It's as good as The Mind of God, but on a more practical physics level. Great stuff for a chemist to read, while trying to understand the True Science while we muck around stamp collecting (/sarcasm)
1984 was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.
I'm always amused by math/physics people who think they've "fathomed the mind of God". I'm not particularly religious, but it's quite obvious that if--according to the Bible/Torah/whathaveyou--God is an omnipresent being, then, by definition, an omnipresent being doesn't use human math or physics. Why not? Well, if you're simultaneously all nodes and each node, you don't need to add, subtract, multiply etc. nodes. You simply "know"--in a simultaneous way. There is no "here and there" for God, and "here and there" is the logical bedrock upon which all human senses and theories lie. When math and physics get beyond this primitive stage of generalizing and remote sensing vis-a-vis here and there, and begin to create a "simultaneous math", then I'll listen. There obviously must be "Eselbruecken" (crutches, crib sheets) to simultaneous math as it would undoubtedly be virtually incomprehensible to normal thinking. I'm fairly sure it exists, since many things beg it, such as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. So does meaningful progress on gravity theory, as well as many quantum phenomena that seem to defy point-to-point communication with simultaneousness. Wake me up when we get there....
--- WWSD? What Would Strider Do?
"I cannot believe," writes Davies near the end of the book, "that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is too intimate. The physical species Homo may count for nothing, but the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here."
This one paragraph turned me off the rest of this book. There is no meaning to life, no greater purpose, and no great answer to "Life the Universe and Everything". I dont understand how he finds it so hard to believe that the mind is the culmination of trillions of random events since the begining of the universe. Given a universe so vast it's incomprehensible, and a time span that could just as well be infinite, it would be rediculous not to believe that self consciousness would evolve by chance. 1,000,000 monkeys at 1,000,000 keyboards will eventually write the greatest book ever writen, but they still wont understand a work of english (or latin for that matter).
If I back up a minute and assume there is some purpose to the universe,that still doesn't mean it has anything to do with consious beings! Maybe "God" had a thing for big rocks and the purpose of the universe is to see what happens to all the rocks.
Come to find out, it was all about the mice!
------
www.chowda.net -- Student seeking summer intership. Chea... inexpensive programmer!
------
YouTube & Google Video -> podcast http://castcluster.blogspot.com/
> Science has the basics down. But scientists are far from knowing everything.
Certainly, and one of the wonders of science is that the more you know, the more you realise you don't know. Scientists are usually the first to admit that they know very little, in terms of all that could be known. I am astounded and frightened by the number of theists who profess to know the absolute truth.
> Just be careful not to go down the same road that you are busy condemning.
Here I have to disagree with you. Science and Religion are profoundly different things. Fundamentally, a religion is a particular belief system (e.g. I believe in one God, whose only begotten son, etc. etc.)
In contrast, Science is a methodology for obtaining particular beliefs. Its a sort of meta belief system. In other words, science tells you how to go about obtaining beliefs, but it doesn't actually have a specific set of beliefs it demands you believe in.
In particular, the beliefs generated by following the scientific methodology are theories that can be changed or even completely thrown away. A fundamental tenet of Science is that you must constantly test, refine and change the particular things you believe in. Hypothesis and the gathering of counter-evidence is the heart of science.
This seems a much more robust approach to gathering (useful) knowledge about the world, than hewing to some particular dogma. The ability to refine your beliefs in the face of new and challenging data is a huge strength and has enabled science to hugely improve the lot of people everywhere in the face of often murderous religions who would drag us back into the dark ages of witchcraft and spirit realms.
All IMHO, of course
Sailing over the event horizon
Davies attacks people for their tendency to fall to "unreasoned belief" but when makes his own decleration he says "I believe".
Reasoned or not without any conclusive evidence on any side it is not possible to hold a truly rational discussion. There is a very similar thread(s) in the anti-gravity article.
There are a great many forces at work in the universe that we do not fully understand or are not truly aware of. But just because we do not know them, or can not prove them, does not mean they do not exist.
There is nothing to prove or disprove an overriding cosmic consciousness. It is a fascinating discussion though, which this boook would appear to evidence.
OTOH how much can you really learn through rational and reasoned discourse on the subject of pink fluffy elephants?
chris
-- I need more coffee. It's Monday. There is no such thing as enough coffee on a Monday.
This is related to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. There's a very unsatisfying philosophical problem in quantum mechanics, related to the observer paradox. The Copenhagen interpretation is the classic "the multiple probababilities collapse when viewed by an observer", which works but seems bogus. The many-worlds interpretation (which Hawking says is "trivially true") is consistent with theory and observation, but disturbing to some people, since it involves each universe forking into all possible universes at some rate well below the femtosecond scale.
Physics has been thrashing around on this problem since the 1930s, and not much progress has been made, due to lack of experimental testability.
Science is prediction, not explaination - Fred Hoyle.
Davies is a decent pop-science writer and probably a decent scientist too - but mixing up philosophy (religion is just a subset) and physics doesn't make sense. The difference between science and philosophy is, that physical models can be empirically falsified, philosophical musings cannot (per definition). Occam's razor still applies: "If you can't explain it, don't explain it by means you still cannot explain..."
I read this and I have no idea what any of it means. I'm going to wait until The Mind of God for Dummies comes out. :o(
------------
a funny comment: 1 karma
an insightful comment: 1 karma
a good old-fashioned flame: priceless
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
"I cannot believe," writes Davies near the end of the book, "that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate ...
Aye, there's the rub. I too find many things difficult to believe. It is hard to believe that two clocks placed at different distances from the center of a graviational source will run at different rates. I find it hard to believe that a stream of electrons, one electron wide, aimed at a metal plate with two slits in it will produce an interference pattern on the other side of the plate. Pre-Renaissance Europeans had difficulty believing that the Sun was the center of the Solar system. Yet all of these things are true.
How do I know they are true? Have I seen these things for myself? Well, I have observed the motion of the Sun, Moon, planets and stars through the sky and they seem to strongly support Copernicus' theory. The others I have not observed for myself, but I have read the accounts of many others who have seen these things. I have, of course, also read many religious writings - including the Bible and Qu'ran (or Koran, if you prefer) - where people claim to have observed remarkable effects of God's existance.
The difference is that the scientists have given me experiments that I could (I have faith), given time and funding, duplicate to observe the same results they saw and reproduce those results consistently. No religious scholar that I am familiar with has given us an experiment that anyone with the time and funding could duplicate that would either allow one to observe the existance of God directly or observe effects that could only logically be attributed to the existance of a Supreme Being, at least not reproducably. (Besides, Peyote gives me a terrible hangover).
For example, a recent study of "healing" among cancer suffers at the shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe showed that the rate of "healing" was somewhat lower than the rate of spontanious cancer remissions in the general population (including those who do not pray or do not believe in God). Now, absence of proof is not proof of absence, so I will withhold final judgment. It is certainly conforting to think that death is not the end and that evil doers will be punished for eternity. I still like to follow the advise of that old Russian proverb that Ronald Reagan used to paraphase, "Trust, but verify".
I've read a lot of books on religion that all use the above argument to stake their claim about the existence of "God". They all sound as if it's not possible that humans may exist simply due to one of the infinite number of experiments of the universe gone mad. We all want to believe that there's more to us than what meets the eye...the truth may be hard to accept.
---------------
---------------
JavaScript tutorials scripts
"I cannot believe," writes Davies near the end of the book, "that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is too intimate. The physical species Homo may count for nothing, but the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of fundamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here."
Um, I'm sorry, but coming from an alleged supporter of rational thought, this sounds very out of place. "This can be no trivial detail" - says who, exactly? The burden of proof lies upon the one who makes the affirmative claim, so until this guy can produce actual evidence that we are "meant" to be here (aside from his nigh-religious clinging to this somehow mysterious and supernatural "meaning of existence"), I shall continue to believe otherwise.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
...don't try to pass a few books being written on the frontiers of science (pardon the euphemism) as a new trend of any kind. The hayday of the epistemological enquiries on the meaning of physical reality and the mind of God and all that, came with quantum mechanics (a subject which, need I remind, Einstein never believed in, and some will say, probably with some justice, never understood; you know, the ``der gute Gott würfelt nicht'' (``God does not play dice'') story). These glorious days are gone. The day you see Ed Witten (the current ``pope'' of fundamental physics) or some such person writing something about Life, the Universe, God and Everything, maybe that will mean something. But I don't think that will come.
Sorry to disappoint you but, no, there isn't any hidden spirituality in physics. Spirituality is an attribute of the human mind, not one of the world around us. I don't call a book crackpot when I haven't read it, but I would simply like to remind how Sokal made a point by publishing a paper on the hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Spirituality, hermeneutics, whatever, just do not apply to physics, any more than the color ``green'' does.
I am an atheist myself. I do not think science and religion are incompatible, however. In the same way that art is not incompatible with science. But trying to write a book about both seems to me very much like trying to explain Michelangelo's paintings in terms of quantum physics, or vice versa.
--
...more controversial than Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters Where God Went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes and Who is this God Person Anyway? (Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)
Mr. Katz is not trained in a technical field where saying things precisely is both norm and necessity, but rather he is a journalist. To many journalists precision is secondary to seemingly more lofty goals such as "style" or "sensationalism." Admittedly, Mr. Katz is worse than most in this regard. (Witness all the fuss over his loose use of the word "interactive" in his Oscars aricle). Then again, I would wager that anyone who has read /. for more than a week has divined this already about Mr. Katz and has set his User Preferences accordingly.
/. headlining. He would do much towards increasing his signal-to-noise ratio if he were to write rather than ramble--if he put more effort into the rudaments of communication, e.g. researching elements of his essays and paying some attention to the audience to which he his writing, it would save him from bathing in chagrin as frequently as he does. Journalism is very seldom profound, and in his haste to publish his essays here take on a slapdash, imprecise character that I (and probably most other /.ers) find tiring in articles that promise so much more. I'd love to see Mr. Katz spend 5x as much time on a single essay, put his heart into it, and publish here 0.2x as often. Even the most jaded among us has to admit that sometimes he does have something valuable to say--the difficulty is that these gems are so infrequent.
My impression is that Mr. Katz believes every jot and tittle he scribes is worthy of
It would be refreshing and an excellent exercise for Mr. Katz if he were to devote some effort to deconstructing the nature of verbal communication in this increasingly technical society. (That sounds like the name of a Katz article right there...). His essays typify the dichotomy between the technical and the non-technical, the analytic and the artistic, the realist and the impressionist. His writing has the pretense of profound knowledge but the attitude of an outsider, and as a consequence he often conveys to his reader an arrogance typical of those who believe that the non-technically oriented have somehow cornered the market on philosophy. He provokes ire primarily because, at a fundamental level, he underestimates the capaibilities of his audience, and his sloppiness costs him credibility in the long run.
It's sad: in trying to wear the two hats of journalist and philosopher he succeeds at neither, and he really does have some interesting ideas once in awhile.
I've had this in paperback on my shelf for years now! The publication information says copyright 1992, first Touchstone edition 1993.
It's a fine book, and I really have nothing against a review that appears seven years after publication. But Jon, this is a too important detail to get so badly wrong.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind