The Lumpy Universe

Particle Entanglement

2010-03-06T10:31:00.002-07:00

Particle entanglement is a phenomenon in quantum physics whereby two electrons are somehow associated with each other in a way that does not seem at all intuitive. The two electrons of such a pair have opposite "spin". If the spin of one of the electrons is reversed, the spin of the other will also reverse - regardless of the separation between the two. This seems rather strange to us.

Perhaps it's a phenomenon of additional dimensions. To illustrate, consider the 2-dimensional world called Flatland. As a 3D being, you are able to observe Flatland without being observed yourself. Let's say you take a piece of tubing and fashion a circle out of it, and drop it into the plane of Flatland. The circle residing in the plane of Flatland will appear as a solid circle to the Flatland inhabitants on the outside of the circle, or as a solid circular exterior wall to inhabitants inside the circle.

Now tilt the circle so that the plane of the circle is perpendicular to the plane of Flatland, and the plane of Flatland bisects the circle. The intersection between the circle and Flatland will now consist of two points. The size of the points is the cross-section of the tubing from which the circle is constructed.

Picture the situation where the two points are moved apart. This results in enlargement of the circle, or perhaps an excursion of the circle up and down relative to the horizontal plane of Flatland, but the two points are still physically connected in the larger 3D universe.

Add spin to the tubing from which the circle is constructed, but not to the circle. To the observer in Flatland, the two points they can observe will be spinning in opposite directions. If the Flatlander somehow grabs one of the points and reverses the spin on that point, the spin on the other point will also reverse.

So there you go. Maybe the key to understanding entanglement is by venturing into additional dimensions.

Prayer Works

2009-10-29T07:21:00.003-06:00

Like many of you [many of none, perhaps?], I have had prayers answered in ways that are, well, a blessing. Some of them are quite interesting and unique experiences. Let me share one.

I was in the process of disassembling the outside of my house - it wasn't originally built quite right, but that's a different story. As I was prying off the trim at the top of the wall, I couldn't get it completely off because the drip edge on the roof was in the way, and I didn't want to damage the roof. I pried the bottom edge out and could see the nails holding the trim, but I needed some way to saw through or cut off the nails. Since I don't own a reciprocating saw, I thought of using a hacksaw blade to saw through billions of nails. Right. That would take forever. Then it occurred to me to use a pair of bolt-cutters that my wife had bought at a yard sale many years before. I knew right where they had been stored - in the garage. So I went to grab them.

They weren't there.

If you know anything about our garage, you would understand. I looked and looked, but couldn't find them. Well, I was a little discouraged. I was trying to get the wall finished before winter, and it seemed like there were just too many things slowing me down.

It occurred to me I ought to pray about it - pray for assistance to find them. I resisted at first, but finally became so frustrated that I stopped where I was, closed my eyes, and said a brief prayer asking for assistance to find the bolt-cutters. I probably didn't pray with a lot of faith, but I did it. I opened my eyes, and discovered I was looking directly at the the red handles of the bolt-cutters. Not near them, not above them, not below them. Right.At.Them.

Needless to say, I was pretty thrilled and grateful.

Rational Faith

2009-10-21T05:53:00.003-06:00

I was watching BYU Television the other day and saw a broadcast of a 1997 BYU Education Week presentation by S. Michael Wilcox on faith, hope, and charity. [The link above is to the audio.] He explains why faith is rational.

Let me say that again - faith is not irrational, as many assert, but is in fact rational.

Hebrews 11:1 states that faith is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". The point is made that the foundation on which faith rests is not emotion, but is in fact evidence. The presenter identifies three types of evidence which serve as the basis for faith: authority, reason, and experience.

Here are examples of the three with respect to faith in, or a testimony of, the Book of Mormon:

Authority: testimony of the 3 witnesses

Reason: Joseph Smith, an unschooled farm boy, could not have made it up.

Experience: I've read the book on a more-or-less daily basis for 15 or 20 years, and have noticed a dramatic change in my life as I've attempted to follow its teachings.
Faith increases as we act on it, building layer upon layer as we go.

What does it mean to act on faith? My description (not from the presentation) is that we extrapolate some future outcome of some planned or anticipated action on the basis of our faith - that is, on the basis of authority, reason, and past experience. We take the action, and when it yields the desired and expected result, it adds yet another experiential component to the "structure" that is our faith.

Faith can also be enhanced seeking additional understanding of a topic, which contribute both by way of reason and authority. However, it is of limited benefit if no action is taken and there is little or no experiential component to one's faith.

The Cost of Green Jobs

2009-10-09T05:09:00.003-06:00

The Obama administration has promised that the economic recovery can be greatly aided by switching to renewable sources of electricity, such as solar and wind. What they aren't telling us is that the cost to build these facilities greatly exceeds the cost to build coal and gas fired plants. The excess money that is needed for green projects is money that won't be available for other things - the opportunity cost of going green. Those "other things" represent other jobs that won't be created. One estimate is that each green job is created at the expense of two other jobs.

In other words, if the money were invested in things we really want and need, and which would have a higher return on investment, more jobs would be the result.

This Bridge Will Fail

2009-10-08T04:40:00.002-06:00

When an engineer designs a bridge, he has to pay attention to fundamental principles if he wishes the bridge to serve its intended purpose. For example, most of the forces exerted on a bridge are due to the earth's gravitational pull on the bridge itself and on the vehicles that traverse the bridge. If engineers were like modern-day politicians, they would choose to ignore gravity as being "old school", out of fashion, irrelevant to the modern age, modern materials, and modern design methodology. And their bridges would fail.

Wait, you say, what is the point? The point is that politicians are trying to convince us that a government-run health care system will somehow be immune to the laws of economics and human behavior. There are reasons why socialist enterprises are sub-optimal - it isn't about intentions or intelligence or compassion. This bridge will fail.

It's In the Nature of Eggs to Break

2009-10-08T04:33:00.003-06:00

An old saying states that it is in the nature of eggs to break, the point being that the observable behavior and characteristics of any thing are a natural outgrowth of their composition.

So why do I bring up this obvious principle? Because we are currently being bombarded with hollow promises about how government-provided health care will solve all our problems and create no new ones. In reality, the so-called public option will behave precisely in a manner consistent with what it is. If you want to know how well it will work, simply look at other government-run enterprises such as VA health care, Medicare, Social Security, the US Postal Service, Amtrak. Why are they not shining examples of efficiency and innovation? It's because of how they are structured, not because they weren't created with the best of intentions. It's in the nature of eggs to break.

Servant or Ruler? You Choose...

2009-10-05T19:56:00.003-06:00

There are two kinds of government actions - they can serve the people or rule the people.

Most of the governments throughout history have been predominantly the ruling type, and most today are the same. Back in the middle to late 1700s, there was a group of guys who thought the world would be better off turning the equation around to create a government that would serve the people. That is the real significance of the American Revolution.

There are some key words in the Declaration of Independence that point out this fundamental principle: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.." There it is, right in plain sight. Just and legitimate government cannot have any power not delegated to it by the people on the basis of their natural rights. So, this principle is the foundation upon which rests the Constitution of the United States.

This principle was so well understood that many fought against the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution - it was redundant, and they feared that it would give the government an excuse to regulate that which the government had no right to even consider regulating.

Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, agricultural subsidies - all so-called entitlement or "Robin Hood" programs - clearly violate this principle because they take by force the property of one person and give it to another person - not something you or I can do without risking arrest and jail time. When our federal government engages in this type of behavior, the less it is a just and legitimate government and the more irrelevant our Constitution becomes, given that the foundation on which it rests is being chipped away.

What are the consequences of diminishing the Constitution? Each chunk taken out of the foundation weakens the structure, until it collapses and becomes irrelevant. At that point, you have no rights except those granted by government. That means you are no longer free, but a vassal of the state.

There is a lot of debate about the involvement the federal government should have in a reformed health care system. Know this - the so-called "public option" or the single-payer system, undermine the Constitution and threaten its destruction.

2009-08-29T10:50:00.003-06:00

For most practical purposes, there are two types of people in the world: those who practice "win-win or no deal" (WWOND) and those who practice "win at any cost" (WAAC). Freedom only works when the majority consists of WWONDs. Government intervention is required to keep WAACs in check, given their propensity to lie, cheat and steal. When the government is run by WWONDs, the efforts of government are directed precisely that way. When the government is run by WAACs, kiss you freedom goodbye.

Has Capitalism Failed?

2009-07-31T20:49:00.002-06:00

Would I even ask the question if the answer wasn't "no"? Capitalism has failed only in the same sense that the laws of physics have failed when an airplane crashes. Let me explain.

Capitalism is another name for economic freedom. So, is freedom bad? Can it fail? No, it isn't bad - it's the pinnacle of human advancement. But not everyone is capable of living in a free society. When freedom is thrust upon those who cannot abide the rules of freedom, the society is doomed to fail. When those living in freedom lose the ability or desire to live according to the rules of freedom, the social system can't work and it will soon degenerate to some other form, such as socialism.

So, the astute reader asks, what are the rules of freedom? A simple expression of the economic rules, or The Rule of economic freedom, comes from Stephen R. Covey - "win-win or no deal". This means that in any transaction, both parties must win or the parties will choose not to do the transaction. If someone is in a position, for example, to make a killer deal in which someone else loses, they will refuse to do the deal.

That takes character.

A corollary is that one must abhor the "something for nothing" mentality. The focus is on providing value in return for any compensation received. It doesn't matter if you can't specifically identify who is losing in a deal - if you are gaining something without providing proportionate value in return, it's win-lose and you don't do the deal.

And that also happens to be the difference between self-interest and greed. The greedy person seeks gain at the expense of others. The greedy person prefers to take rather than give. The self-interested person, on the other hand, seeks gain only to the degree that he or she is able to provide value to others, and will always err on the side of giving more than they receive.

That doesn't mean that a person cannot become wealthy. Some people have great talent and can use that talent to acquire great wealth without ever engaging in win-lose transactions.

Why is the free America failing? Because we are failing as individuals. We lack the character necessary to live as free people.

What happened to our character? That's your homework assignment for today - tell me why the character of the American citizen is not what it needs to be to live as free men and women.

Is Science Infallible?

2007-01-20T05:32:00.000-07:00

A recent editorial in a local newspaper contained the following statements with regard to the proposition that humans are the driving force behind global warming -- the theory of anthropogenic global warming, or AGW:

"...the science on global warming is beyond debatable, it's irrefutable..."

"To claim that it's still debatable is tantamount to doubting the hazards of smoking."

There's a syllogism hiding in there:

a. A scientific consensus cannot be wrong.
b. The scientific consensus is that humans are causing global warming.
c. Therefore, humans are causing global warming.

For the purpose of this argument, I'll give the writer a pass on "b" for now. But what about that first assumption? Can the scientific consensus be wrong? If so, under what conditions?

A Brief History of Astronomy

A long time ago in a kingdom far away, people used to watch the night sky and wonder what it all meant. Some began keeping records of the motions of shiny things in the sky. It became obvious that everything rotates about the earth. Were they wrong? Yes, they were. Why were they wrong? Were they stupid? No, they weren't stupid. They were dealing with limited data, and converged on the simplest theory that agreed with the known data. Ockham would have been proud.

Ptolemy to the Rescue

Then it was noticed that some of the shiny objects didn't behave quite the same way as the rest. Sometimes they went faster, sometimes they went slower. It was decided that these were planets rather than stars. But the paths of the planets' motion threw a monkey wrench into the simple geocentric system with circular orbits. Ptolemy's response to the new data was to propose a system in which the circular orbits of the planets included little loops call epicycles. Eventually, the Ptolomaic system became the order of the day. Was it right? Again, no.

Why did he get it wrong? Once again, he came up with the simplest theory based on known data. He did the right thing, but got the wrong answer.

Was he stupid? I hardly think so. The geometric calculations required to arrive at the system of circular orbits with epicycles to match the observed data are beyond the ability of most people living today.

Part of the reason he got it wrong may have been the political influence of the "Church". It was politically incorrect to even think that the earth was not the center of the universe. And they took their political correctness very seriously back then. It was a matter of life and death.

Copernicus Saves the Day

About 1500 years later, along came Copernicus. He successfully promoted the revolutionary idea that the earth was not the center of things, but the sun. But guess what? He -- and the new scientific consensus he helped create -- got it wrong. Again! His system put the sun at the center, but retained the circular orbits with circular epicycles.

Was he stupid? No, he wasn't. He did the best he could with what was known then, and provided a theory that was a better match for ever-improving data. It also defied the scientific consensus of the day. It took great courage, intelligence, persistence, and hard work. But it was still wrong.

Galileo was a supporter of the Copernican system. Was he stupid? No, he clearly was not. He was an expert in mathematics, kinematics, and astronomy. He was more right than the previous consensus, yet he still got it wrong. Doh!

Oopsie! Keppler Saves the Day

Then came Keppler. He spent a lot of time and energy defending the Copernican system against the lingering geocentric consensus. Working with the ever-more-precise observations of Tycho Brahe, he eventually changed the orbits of the planets from circles to ellipses and eliminated the epicycles. Finally, someone got it right!

So What?

It is apparent that the scientific consensus can be wrong. What are the causes of an incorrect consensus?

First, let's reject outright the notion that the originators of wrong ideas might have been stupid. Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Galileo were not stupid. Here are some ideas that can be gleaned from the history of astronomy:

1. Insufficient data -- you do the best you can with what you've got. If you don't have much data or the "right" data, you will most likely come to the wrong conclusion.

2. Political influence -- when the powers-that-be say that the correct conclusion is "A", it is difficult to buck the trend and say "B".

3. Inertia -- the longer and more widely an incorrect idea is accepted, the more difficult it is to overturn.

Could AGW (gasp) Be Wrong?!?

Is it possible that the consensus that humans are causing global warming might be wrong? Let's see:

1. Insufficient data:

We're dealing with extremely limited temperature records, to the point that many researchers spend all their time trying to come up with temperature proxies -- like tree rings and ice cores -- that can be used to fill in the gap from the beginning of the planet to, oh, about 100 years ago. Pretty big gap.

The earth's climate system is so complex that it will be a long time before we really understand it well. Everything affects everything else. Anyone care to write the equation for that?

Because the data is so scarce, ridiculously complex and arcane statistical methods are employed in an attempt to pull "signal" out of the noise. Are the methods valid? Who knows?

2. Political influence:

One word: algore.

Another word: Hollywood.

The news media would not publish a story about how the earth's climate is robust and stable. That's boring. But give them catastrophe and alarmism and you will be famous!

Another word: lawyers

Political opportunity -- why else would the UN care?

3. Inertia:

Propose a research project to the National Science Foundation that might suggest that humans are not the cause of global warming. Will you get the grant? Sorry. It might be interesting, but since it doesn't agree with the consensus it would be a waste of money.

Write a paper exploring the correlation between variations in solar irradiation and climate change on earth and other planets. Will it get published? Sorry again. Why publish something that is obviously misguided, even if no factual, logical or statistical errors can be found?

Suggest in any public forum that perhaps the idea of anthropogenic global warming needs a little more work. Sorry. You will be shouted down with, "There's a consensus, stupid!"

Follow the Greenback Road

It is also informative to follow the money. There can be found all sorts of nasty business conspiring to perpetuate the idea of AGW, things like carbon traders, lawyers, and the disposition of research dollars. It's ironic that AGW skeptics are often accused of being corrupted by money from "big oil."

Enough Already -- Wrap It Up!

The bottom line is that a scientific consensus can be wrong, and the theory of anthropogenic global warming exhibits the characteristics of of an incorrect consensus. That doesn't prove the theory's wrong, but it does suggest that we shouldn't be taking drastic action just because there's a consensus.

It also suggests that a discussion of the science is always appropriate, even if there is a consensus.

The Erroneous Consensus

2006-12-30T14:34:00.000-07:00

Ever wonder how there came to be a consensus on anthropogenic global warming in spite of the paucity of evidence? Here's one theory. Follow the link above to read the original article that inspired this version.

The peer-review system for accepting papers to be published and for approving requests for research grants constitutes a feedback mechanism that is intended to drive research, and ultimately scientific consensus, toward conclusions that are supported by objective data. This peer-review system provides a mechanism for filtering out subjectivity that naturally occurs by virtue of the human nature of researchers. It also tends to amplify previous results. This filtering and amplification is accomplished by the clustering of approvals and grants around previously-obtained results, which creates a peak that "automagically" converges on objective reality.

When the data are of sufficient quality and quantity, the output of the system is correct. A lack of data on a particular topic usually results in a corresponding lack of output or conclusion for that topic. However, the system appears to be susceptible to the creation of erroneous output through the injection and amplification of extraneous signals when the data is sparse and/or contains no clear signal. Example: a favorite pet theory of a prominent researcher might "get legs" because the reputation of the researcher constitutes an extraneous signal into the system. This susceptibility constitutes a hazard -- when a political motive exists, the system can be exploited by the deliberate injection of an extraneous signal into the system on a subject for which the data is sparse.

In order for an injected signal to "take", it must be helped along at first. This is accomplished by subtle means that might not be intentional, and which, to succeed, are not detected. One such method might be the improper selection of arcane or complex statistical methods that coax an erroneous result from sparse or noisy data. Regardless of the method, once even a tiny peak appears in the output signal -- in publications and research -- it will, in the absence of strong data to refute it, be amplified over time and eventually become an erroneous consensus.

The greater the inertia any consensus acquires, whether erroneous or correct, the more plentiful and clear the data must be to overcome it. Inertia comprises many components, including the number of publications, the number of researchers in the field (spending), and may even include public perception. At some point the inertia becomes so great that the only refutation necessary for contrary positions is a simple, "There's a consensus."

Case in point: AGW, or the hypothesis that humans are harming the earth's climate to an appreciable extent. The data for establishing or refuting AGW is extremely sparse, both spatially and temporally. The political motive is the accretion of political power and wealth. Thus, the system is susceptible to manipulation through the injection of an extraneous signal, which signal is something on the order of "humans are bad for planet earth".

This political signal was initially amplified by the fact that it aligns with local maxima, figuratively speaking, which are that the physics of the absorption and re-radiation of escaping terrestrial heat by atmospheric CO2 supports the hypothesis, and that human fossil fuel consumption adds CO2 to the atmosphere. The earth's climate system is far more complex than that, but once the hypothesis has been nursed through the feedback control system of peer review a few times, it takes on a life of its own and we eventually get hockey sticks, tipping points, and "There's a consensus".

It is my observation that there are not enough data to support the conclusion that humans are destroying the earth's climate. The consensus that this is so is an erroneous one, and it should be recognized as such.

Scientists need to be cognizant of the metascientific process and how it can be manipulated in order to achieve political ends, and refuse to play the game. However, it is not clear there is any turning back on the subject of AGW without some breakthrough of sufficient magnitude to wipe the slate clean. Any researcher who will not play the game according to the AGW scenario will simply not be allowed to play.

In other words, we have passed the metascientific tipping point on AGW.

Homework Answers

2006-04-15T09:42:00.000-06:00

So, no homework was done. Here's a partial answer.

1.355E11 gallons = annual gasoline consumption in the USA (2002)

2.71E12 lbs = carbon dioxide produced from said gasoline consumption (@20 lbs/gallon)

6.48E15 lbs = total current atmospheric carbon dioxide by weight

0.00042 = proportion due to gasoline consumption in USA

Pretty much underwhelming, eh? So let's park all our cars and walk everywhere, or use bicycles. Will it make a difference in atmospheric carbon dioxide? No, the effect will not even be measurable. We may get a lot healthier, but the climate won't change. Sorry.

More homework solutions:

440 = gallons of gasoline consumed annually by Maxima

8800 = lbs of CO2 produced annually by driving Maxima

0.00000000000136 = annual Maxima contribution to atmospheric CO2

I obviously don't make a difference. But what if "everybody" did it? Okay, let's divide the planet into households of four people each, and the breadwinner gets to burn 440 gallons of gasoline:

0.0022 = how much if everybody in the world did likewise

One-fifth of one percent. I'm okay with that. Everybody get out there and drive!

More Hot Air

2006-03-18T09:04:00.000-07:00

Have you heard we're having a bit of global warming? There's quite a bit of funny business going on about which the average person knows nothing. Here's an example.

We've been hearing on the news that atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at a record level of 381 ppm (parts per million). How do we know this is a record? Because we measure the CO2 content of ice core samples drilled in Antarctica and elsewhere, giving us a snapshot view of what the atmosphere was like hundreds of years ago.

But hold the presses! It turns out the CO2-in-ice measurements produce values between 160 and 700 ppm, sometimes going as high as 2450 ppm. Apparently, numbers that are too high are discarded because they are too high. (This is science?!?)

Sometime last year a Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski of Poland testified before the United States Senate that measuring carbon dioxide content of ice core samples is not valid for a number of reasons, most of which result in lower readings as the CO2 escapes from the sample.

Just thought you would like to know (more here).

This is somewhat reminiscent of the hockey-stick temperature graph that was created using tree-ring data (and other stuff). Then a pair of Canadians discovered that if you fed random numbers -- okay, that's an oversimplification, they used "red noise" -- into the program instead of tree-ring data, it produced the same hockey-stick temperature graph. Doh!

Anthropogenic Global Warming -- NOT

2006-03-15T04:42:00.000-07:00

Do you believe humans are to blame for global warming? One of my favorite reasons not to believe is represented by the following news item from Reuters. (I've seen the same information in a NASA press release, but I didn't save a copy before it got yanked.) I've added some bold for emphasis.

Mars Getting Warmer, May Have Quakes

Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:39 PM ET

By Jill Serjeant

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The climate on Mars is showing a warming trend and recent images have shown the first evidence of seismic activity on Earth's neighbor planet, scientists said on Tuesday.

...

Malin [NASA, Michael Malin, principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera] said images of Mars' southern polar cap showed that scarps formed there are retreating at "a prodigious rate" of about 10 feet per Mars year. Mars years are nearly twice as long as Earth years.

The images, documenting changes from 1999 to 2005, suggest the climate on Mars is presently warmer, and perhaps getting warmer still, than it was several decades or centuries ago just as the Earth experienced its own Ice Ages. Malin said scientists had no explanation yet as to why Mars might be warming.

...

So, there you have it. Ice caps on planet earth are melting because of human activity. Why the melting of the ice caps on Mars? Anybody's guess, apparently.

Let me offer a politically-incorrect clue: both planets receive energy from the same source, the sun. If the solar output were to increase, both planets (as well as the seven others we know about and one we sort of know about) would experience a warming trend.

Just a thought.

When you mesh that with the amount of carbon dioxide produced by human activity, we begin to look pretty insignificant. Most people don't realize, for example, that permanently shutting down all motor vehicles in North America would not make a measurable difference in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide. It doesn't even come close.

Go ahead, do the math. Somebody's counting on you not doing it. The word algore mysteriously appears in the 8-ball window...

More Creation

2006-03-04T08:25:00.000-07:00

Well, it's been a month since I've posted anything. I guess it's time to try again...

One of the things I wonder about often is why the "traditional" account of the creation, as spoken of by the LDS, differs from the written accounts. I assume that so-called orthodox Christianity doesn't likely understand the difference between a spiritual creation and a physical creation, but the LDS really ought to.

Today's reading was from Abraham. Here is the sequence of events in his description of the creation:

(Oops, sorry for the interruption. The phone rang, and the caller ID said "Acupuncture Ass". No kidding. That's gotta hurt! Better there than the face, though...)

Formed the heavens and the earth
Created light, separated it from darkness
Created expanse between waters under the expanse and waters above the expanse
Separated dry land from the great waters
Prepared the earth to bring forth plants
Organized the stars, sun (I know, it's a star), and moon
Prepared the waters to bring forth fishies and birdies
Prepared the earth to bring forth animals
Went down to organize man [but did what?]
Rested a bit
Caused a mist to water the earth
Formed Adam from the dust of the earth
Planted a garden in Eden
Created Eve from Adam's rib (we're told this is figurative)
Created the beasts and fowls, and brought them to Adam to be named

Hmm. Sure sounds like Adam got here -- in the flesh, anyway -- before the animals.

Let's try Moses (not from Genesis, but similar):

Created light, separated it from darkness
Firmament between waters beneath and waters above
Water and dry land separated
Earth brings forth plants
Stars, sun, and moon
Waters bring forth fishies and birdies (what do birdies and fishies have in common?)
Beasts and cattle and creeping things (that's creeping, not creepy)
Rest a bit
An explanation is inserted here that all these things were created spiritually, that it hadn't rained yet, there was "not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air"
Mist to water the earth
Adam formed from the dust of the ground -- first man and also "first flesh"
Garden planted (first physical plants on the earth?)
River to water the garden
Beasts and fowls formed and brought to Adam to be named
Eve formed from Adam's rib

The "traditional" order of creation appears to be consistent with the possibility that macroEvolution might have been employed by God in order to create life on this planet, since it begins with lesser life forms and progresses up to homo sapiens. However, I don't think that matches the physical creation. My reading of the physical creation mixes up the order.

If anyone is still reading this post clear down to here, get a life!!!

The Fall

2006-01-25T21:10:00.000-07:00

In Sunday School last Sunday, one of the questions had to do with the negative effects of the fall of Adam--and Eve, I might add.

Being of slow wit, I only thought of this response today: "VEGETABLES!"

Well, the record says they only ate fruit before the Fall...

Grace and Works

2006-01-25T20:57:00.000-07:00

One of the conflicts between LDS and "orthodox" Christianity arises on the subject of Grace vs. Works. My opinion (worth little) is that much of the conflict arises because we LDS fail to accurately represent LDS doctrine regarding Grace, and focus almost entirely on Works.

I believe that Grace--pure Grace and nothing but Grace--offers everyone a free ticket into at least the Telestial Kingdom, a kingdom of glory, complete with immortal body--Salvation, as it were. One might argue that it's a free ticket into the Terrestrial Kingdom, given that many would have to go well out of their way to get demoted to the Telestial Kingdom.

That said, it is possible to reject part of the package deal and go instead to Outer Darkness. But you still get the resurrection courtesy of Grace, albeit a less glorious resurrection. However, I doubt that few ever get into a position from which such rejection is possible.

Works come into play for those who aspire to the Celestial Kingdom, or Exaltation. It is still a gift, courtesy of Grace, but is only offered to those who perform sufficient Works to become eligible for greater glory, including receipt of higher priesthood ordinances. I don't think anyone can say they earn Exaltation by their Works, but they do qualify for it thereby.

It is unfortunate that the concept of Exaltation was erased from the record as part of the Great Apostasy. But hey, how much more difficult would it have been to keep the masses in spiritual and political bondage otherwise?

Funny Religious Comments

2006-01-14T17:07:00.000-07:00

I heard a couple of funny comments recently.

The first was by a person expressing their apalledness at how non-Christian was the statement made by someone else: "If Jesus could hear you say that, he would be spinning in his grave!"

The other was description of how enthralled the audience was for Steve Jobs' presentation at MacWorld, which went something like this: "You would think he was showing them Jesus' bones or something."

News flash! Jesus' grave is still empty, and his bones are not available for show and tell, given that he is using them. Permanently.

Thoughts on Evolution

2006-01-07T06:37:00.000-07:00

The Theory of Evolution is a hot topic these days. Unfortunately, most of the talk is just that. Anyway, I wanted to post some thoughts (just more talk, I suppose).

The part of Evolution that bothers me is the notion that one species of life form can evolve from another species. Some call this "macro evolution".

In my way of thinking, there are two types of genetic variation. One is the variation with which we are all familiar--blue eyes and green eyes, black hair and brown hair, that sort of thing. The other is a type of variation that results in a new species. I'm only talking about the latter.

Part of the problem is that we don't see it in nature. When was the last time your dog had a litter of kittens, for example?

Part of the problem is that genetic mutations don't seem to ever result in beneficial changes to an organism (not counting comic book super-heroes).

Part of the problem is that "survival of the fittest" always results in reduced genetic diversity, not increased genetic diversity. Nature kills things it doesn't like.

Part of the problem is that genetics are quantum in nature. You can't have a fraction of a gene. An organism can't evolve by added 1/1000 of a new gene each generation. This quantum nature acts as a barrier to evolution in the same way that digital data transmission is more immune to noise than analog transmission.

Could all possible combinations of genetic material result in viable life forms? I doubt it. There are probably a discrete number of "stable" states of DNA, which greatly increases the barrier to evolution. I believe this is the main argument of Intelligent Design (which I think is badly named, because it isn't about design but rather it is about the improbability of macro evolution).

There is a difference between taxonomy and genealogy that seems to be widely ignored. It is good and valuable to understand the structure of living organisms and to develop a system of classification. But it seems a huge leap to say, "Species B evolved from species A" on the basis of similarities in structure and in the absence of any evidence that evolution actually occurred. There's some circular logic hidden in there--"evolution is true because of similarities of structure, because similarities of structure result from evolution".

I shared a table at a dinner with a researcher in academia who went off about evolution. "I know it's true! I've seen it in the laboratory!" I believe he cited the case of fruit flies evolving over time. But in the end, they were still fruit flies. They weren't frogs or beetles. The flies evolved in ways that are supported by the structure and nature of genetics, but not in ways that are not.

There's the statistical problem. If the chance of life evolving unaided from inorganic materials is 0.0000000000001 (which number is many, many orders of magnitude greater than reality, but I didn't want to type all the zeroes), then the probability of it not happening is 0.999999999999, which is practically indistinguishable from certainty. How is it that we are supposed to believe that the passage of a great amount of time--say 15 billion years--makes a highly improbable event probable? Isn't it still highly improbable?

Okay, there is maybe a theoretical solution to the statistical problem, in that you could assign a time span below which evolution would be impossible, although its computation is extremely difficult--if not impossible--and would require data not available to us.

The concept is something like this: if you roll a dice every second for a year and graph the number of "streaks" of varying sizes, you will get a curve that matches the statistical probability. There is, however, a maximum streak size, dictated by the total number of rolls--you can't have a streak greater in length than the total number of rolls of the dice. Any streak of lesser size is mathematically possible. So, if we could figure out the number of genetic mutations per unit of time that result in a viable organism, and the total number of variations required in order to arrive at homo sapiens, and if we knew how long life has been evolving on earth, we could then determine whether evolution was inside or outside the bounds of possibility. But don't hold your breath on this one.

Our Irrational World

2006-01-07T05:14:00.000-07:00

The creation of the blogosphere is an interesting phenomenon. In some ways, the world has grown considerably smaller. In other ways, we have moved further apart.

To me, one of the most disturbing things is the large number of blogs that purport to promote a particular perspective, yet contain little or no logic--all heat and no light. Their purpose is to attack, harass, intimidate, and mock other people and other positions.

If you feel strongly about something, you ought to be able to discuss it in a calm, rational and civil way. Invective is no substitute for communication.

If you feel strongly about something but don't know why, perhaps your time would be better spent listening, reading, and thinking.

If you feel strongly about something but can't articulate your position very well, use your blog to develop the ability to express your ideas in a clear and cogent manner.

NSA Spying

2006-01-03T10:18:00.000-07:00

Just a couple of comments on the whole NSA spying thing:

1. Why does everybody call it spying on "domestic" telephone calls? I distinctly remember that the program involves spying on international telephone calls--you know, the kind that cross national boundaries. When I make a phone call from the United States to a foreign country, it isn't a domestic phone call--it's an international call. That's how it shows up on my phone bill, anyway.

2. To expose the double standard of the mainstream media: where was the outrage when the Clinton White House had illegal possession of the FBI files of a number of political opponents? Isn't that domestic spying without a warrant?

Go figure.

I don't want this blog to be dominated by political garbage. Unfortunately, the signal to noise ratio out there in MediaLand is rapidly approaching zero, and it's hard to resist the urge to attempt to inject a little bit of signal into the noise...

Nasty Virus

2005-12-31T10:56:00.000-07:00

There are some nasty viruses going around. Some of them infect humans, and others infect computers. I've spent all my spare time the last couple of days trying to get rid of a virus of the computer variety, while family members visiting from afar have been struggling with the other.

We caught a case of Look2Me on one of our computers, and it's hard to eliminate. When you mark its executing file for deletion on the next startup, it renames itself and escapes the executioner. I've found some tools on the Internet that are supposed to help. Wish me luck!

The irritating thing is that my security software, which shall for now go unnamed, doesn't offer any help. It attempts to delete the files, but when you visit their website for more information on this specific parasite they claim it isn't a parasite and so they won't help you get rid of it.

Hellooo! If it wasn't installed intentionally, downloads other parasites, and consumes 100% of your CPU, it's BAAD, and they ought to help out.

How do non-computer-geeks deal with this kind of stuff, anyway?

Intelligent Design and Creationism

2005-12-27T20:12:00.000-07:00

The most common argument against intelligent design is that it is just the Biblical account of the creation in disguise. Having read Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box, I am surprised at the claim. The point of intelligent design, as I read it, is not that God created life. The point is that it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, that life evolved unaided from inorganic materials.

If any group wishes to characterize the intelligent design folks as Biblical creationists pretending to engage in science, then that group really ought to provide some evidence that the motives of the intelligent designers are different from what they have stated them to be.

Merry Christmas!

2005-12-25T18:03:00.000-07:00

Merry Christmas to all!

Today we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, who came to earth two millenia ago to do the will of the Father. He played an indispensable role in the conflict between good and evil.

What is good? A few of the characteristics of good are truth, light, beauty, peace, joy, power, and freedom. Evil is the opposite, with error, darkness, ugliness, conflict, misery, weakness, and bondage.

Beware the counterfeits of good. Error may sound like truth, may be presented as truth, but yet is still error. Dim light may be used to advance evil, but it fades to nothing in the presence of the true and glorious light. Beauty is simulated with pretty, peace with compulsion, joy with pleasure, power with tyranny, and freedom with license.

Without Jesus and the role he played, we would be forever trapped by evil, we would be resigned to dwell eternally with it.

But Christ fulfilled his mission, and did so gloriously. He bridged the bottomless pit that we may safely cross into his presence.

Gloria in excelsis deo!

Quantum Mechanics II

2005-12-23T08:58:00.000-07:00

One good example of how statistics comes into play in quantum mechanics is with the famous dual-slit experiment that we've all done in high-school physics.

I remember Mr. Van Orden trying to set up the experiment for us. The primary challenge for us was creating the dual slits through which to shine the red light. The idea was to hold two razor blades together to scribe two very fine and closely-spaced lines through the carbon on a soot-blackened microscope slide. As I recall (and you know how poor recollections can be after so many years), he finally offered an A grade to anyone who could succeed in making the slits on the slide. Well, that was motivation enough for us, and I was the fortunate one who finally succeeded.

Once we had the slide, we shined a red light through the slide, and observed an interference pattern created by the interaction of light waves after passing through the two closely-spaced slits.

This experiment can also be duplicated using electrons instead of photons.

The curious thing is that if you send one electron or photon at a time through the the apparatus, you still get an interference pattern that builds up over time. That doesn't seem right, since photons and electrons are so small that they must go through either one slit or the other, not both. The accumulated result over time should be two bright lines on the detector (photographic film, for example).

One of the theories proposed to explain this is that the entity (photon or electron) takes all possible paths through space between the emitter and the detector, and where it shows up on the detector is based on the statistical probabilities of the infinite paths it has simultaneously taken.

To the average man on the street, this is nonsense. Same thing for women and children.

What I think is really happening is that the photon or electron grows in size when it leaves the emitter. Think of it as a spherical blob of jello. If there is nothing between the emitter and the detector, the blob is consumed by a single molecule of the detector upon first contact with the detector, which will be on the straight line between the emitter and the detector. Think of a tennis ball hitting the wall, and which piece of fuzz on the ball makes first contact with the wall.

The blob cannot be detected by more than one molecule of the detector, because the act of detection requires the whole blob--this is a basic limitation of measurement. So the first detector molecule contacted by the blob, being thirsty for jello, sucks in the whole blob and you end up with a tiny point on the detector.

Now, send the blob through the two slits. Think of the blob squeezing through both slits. It doesn't need to ever really separate into two pieces, because the front part can rejoin on the back side before the back of the blob has gone through. Or perhaps the blob is a five-dimensional blob (more on this some other time), and it may appear to split in our four dimensions but really doesn't. Anyway, the act of passing through the slits causes it to become misshapen have strange undulations going on.

When it hits the detector, the first part of the blob to hit the detector, as before, causes the whole blob to be sucked into a single detector molecule, again making a point on the detector. But now the shape of the blob is strange. In fact, the shape of the blob is probably pretty much the same as the interference pattern that results after many blobs have been through the two slits.

If we could know precisely the shape of the blob at every instant in time, we could with precision tell where each photon or electron would strike the detector. But since we can't know that--it's far too small--we use statistics to establish the probability that it will hit the detector at any given point. So, we are using statistics to desribe the action of something that is too small to measure. It isn't the case that the reality at really small scales is a basket full of statistical probabilities.

The Barrett Report

2005-12-23T08:26:00.000-07:00

One of the most astonishing cover-ups by our federal government is happening as I write this. Here's my summary. (I believe the first article on the subject was here at the Wall Street Journal; see also Tony Snow's piece here.)

Independent Counsel David Barrett was given the task of investigating a case of possible tax fraud agains Henry Cisneros, a Clinton cabinet member. Along the way, he discovered evidence of two very disturbing activities of the Clinton administration:

The Clinton Department of Justice was actively interfering with the investigation, including spying on the activities of Barrett.
The Clinton administration was using the IRS to harrass political opponents. The victims of these attacks fell roughly into two categories: women who "had the goods" on Bill Clinton as a result of his philandering (e.g. Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, etc), and conservative foundations and think-tanks that opposed policies and philosophies of the Clinton administration (e.g. the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, etc).

The Barrett Report is finished and ready for release. However, several Senate Democrats are making sure that nobody ever sees the finished product. They've hammered out a deal with a few naive Republicans that ends up redacting all of the incriminating evidence against the Clinton administration.

Maybe we should contact our representatives in Washington and insist that the American people have a right to know exactly what it was that David Barrett uncovered.

PS If the MainStream Media weren't biased, this would be front-page news every day until the full release of the Barret Report. Unfortunately, they're too busy concocting absurd schemes with which to attack the Bush administration.

PS2 Given the role John Kerry has played in the cover-up, we should be (more) grateful he is not now the President of the United States.

On Quantum Mechanics

2005-12-22T06:49:00.000-07:00

No, "Quantum Mechanics" is not the name of a reindeer pulling Santa's sleigh.

A lot of people get a thrill out of quantum mechanics because it violates so many common-sense notions that seem to hold true in the "big" world. I've never really liked it, however. And lately I've done some reading that makes me think we got it wrong.

The aspect of quantum mechanics I don't like is the idea that sub-atomic particles don't possess definite states, such as energy and position, but instead possess probability distributions of state.

After reading some of the ideas of Carver Mead, I'm of the disposition that perhaps the use of statistics is a response to the physical limits of measurement. That is, the nature of matter imposes a size threshold below which we cannot measure. It may be a good method for making predictions about sub-atomic behavior, but it probably doesn't represent physical reality.

[And I may be simply re-stating what Mead has written, but without the math. I tend more toward the philosophical approach.]

My suspicions are somewhat corroborated by the idea that statistics are employed at the macro level not to describe specific mechanisms or facts, but rather to bound or contain them. It could be that the use of statistics to describe sub-atomic behavior is a way to bound or enclose the behavior that we can measure, but it really doesn't tell us what is going on inside the black box, or beyond the limits of detection.

I just don't like the assertion that probability is reality at the sub-atomic level.

More later...

The Attack Media

2005-12-22T06:11:00.000-07:00

The current coverage by the Main Stream Media (MSM) of the NSA spying on international telephone calls is shocking and alarming. Not because of the spying, mind you. Every president in recent history has conducted warrantless electronic surveillance of international communications for the purpose of national security. And well they should. More on that later.

What is alarming and shocking is the pretense by the MSM that this is something new and disturbing, and that laws have been broken and impeachment is next. It's as if they feel some obligation to see Bush impeached because Clinton was impeached, thinking that a strange sort of moral equivalency will thereby be obtained.

I'm not a lawyer (IANAL), but my first impression on the subject is that of course it is legal and prudent for the United States to monitor communications that cross our borders. Do we not maintain the right to inspect all other traffic that crosses our borders?

There are plenty of posts out there detailing the history of this type of spying: Jimmy Carter's Executive Order on the subject is here, and Bill Clinton's on warrantless physical searches is here. Check out the Powerline for a rational discussion of the subject.

Death Penalty Logic

2005-12-21T05:57:00.000-07:00

Is the death penalty wrong? Some say it is, asserting that it lowers the State to the level of the criminal. In other words, when the State executes a murderer, it is committing murder.

That assertion opposes not just the death penalty, but any punishment that might be imposed by the State.

Let's say a person is guilty of embezzling money from his employer. What punishment should he receive from the State? Perhaps he should be fined. But wouldn't that be the same as the original theft? Okay, so throw him into prison. But wouldn't that be the same as kidnapping?

What they are really saying is that the State has no authority to dispense justice.

Crank It Up

2005-12-13T21:20:00.000-07:00

It's time to start blogging!