Sunday, June 8, 2008

Knowledge

I would encourage the reader to peruse a book by Chuck Palahniuk called Choke. Mr. Palahniuk also wrote Fight Club, on which the movie by the same name is based. I won't discuss the plot at length. There is a section that describes the protagonist's experience as a boy walking with his mother and looking at the mountains. The protagonist describes his mother's wish to experience the mountains without the filter of perception. Take a moment to think about that. Read my post titled "The world on a diet" before you go any further, if you haven't already.

We take for granted that the world we absorb through our senses is rock-solid and immutable. We have words for everything. If it exists, it is a noun. If it is some sort of process, it is a verb. We have a slew of adjectives and other parts of speech to spice it up some. The world comes in a variety of shapes, sizes and colors. It is the entire basis for existence.

But this world, and the language that sustains it, is simply the world we can all agree upon. (Believe me, I am not talking about the opinions regarding society-- they are as varied as they come.) It is something that looks more or less the same to everyone and fulfills practical purposes.

A fish swims in the water. A fish is comprised mostly of water. It has no idea what water is, because water is everywhere and there is nothing to contrast it with. We look at fish swimming and see an agent moving freely and independently of its environment. We do this because we perceive the fish's shape and color. Without these perceptions, the fish (which is comprised mostly of water) is more or less like a lump in gravy-- a relatively small variation in the aquatic environment. Yes, it moves, but doesn't a lump in gravy move around when you take a spoon to it?

I had a discussion with someone about the expansion of the universe. The question was asked: what is beyond the edge of the universe? We can come up with plenty of guesses. Every one of those guesses will likely be a flight of fancy. It is about as far removed from our world of understanding as one can get. It was at this point that I developed three classifications in the realm of knowledge:

1. Knowledge that we possess. This is the entire body of scholastic work and/or scientific research accumulated throughout history. Ideally, this would be available to everyone, all of the time.

2. Knowledge we do not possess. This is information about the universe that exists but has not yet been discovered.

3. That which is unknowable. Structures and functions in all of reality need not necessarily have some sort of counterpart in the world of information. The unknowable isn't necessarily hidden-- it simply has no analog that relates to perceived classifications and meaningful language. An example of this is the concept of infinity. We can think long and hard about infinity, but we have no means at all of grasping it. We cannot think in dimensions beyond the four that make up the observable universe. And since all of space and time is a part of our ever-expanding universe, we cannot conceive of what might be beyond its edge. Some things are just totally outside the domain of knowledge and understanding altogether.

For most people, none of this is really a big deal, because they give little attention to knowledge, perception and understanding. With an entire cosmos to explore, they are still concerned with bling, sneakers and iPods!

Saturday, June 7, 2008

Time Wave Zero and the Love of Ideas

60s aficionados may know the name Terence McKenna. I won't go into a biography here as I don't want to get lost in the details of this fascinating man. Mr. McKenna once devised an idea that the passage of time and events in history are inextricably linked. He used symbols from the Mayan calendar to build a fractal pattern that coincides with periods of disaster throughout Earth's history. He referred to these periods of coincidence as singularities, and these singularities would give way to a phenomenon he called novelty (in which the world basically rebuilds itself until the next singularity). It is a very interesting idea with some scientific merit. I recommend you read up on it when you have some time.

I do not embrace this idea as fact in any way. Whether or not the space-time continuum is actually affected by events in history is a question that leads to much speculation, and I don't have any answers here. But it is an idea with its own merits, its own beauty, one to be savored and kept in the mind until it can mingle with other interesting thoughts to possibly give birth to another beautiful idea.

We live in a polarized society that demands immediate results (that we usually won't fight for ourselves) and has become complacent in its thinking. Say you are a pro-choice individual and a pro-lifer speaks up on his beliefs on the matter. Do you automatically blow those beliefs out of the sky, deeming them completely wrong and without weight because they conflict with your own? If you are a creationist, do you shake your fists at the cosmologists who have developed the Big Bang theory, regarding them as stinking blasphemers?

One of the big hurdles we as a race must overcome is the desire to cast as wrong any idea that comes into conflict with our own. Don't get me wrong... we must take a stand against a great number of things like pedophilia, rampant crime and rising oil prices. But outside of the things that directly harm people, there is a great deal of room for movement. Let our arguments be friendly and our words well-considered. An idea should be enjoyed like a fine wine is, whether you embrace it or not.

Sunday, June 1, 2008

God's Creation

I think it is appropriate to post this as my 6th article, as the number 6 has a certain meaning in the Bible.

Many people I work and socialize with are familiar with my study of the sciences. Sometimes, conversations turn to the issue of science and religion. Inevitably, the following statement is made: "I don't believe in any of the Big Bang stuff. God made humans; they didn't come from apes." Now, the argument regarding evolution and natural selection is one I will save for another time. The point I want to make here is...

The Big Bang is NOT the same thing as evolution!!

I have explained this to multiple people who come back a week later with the same understanding of the Big Bang that they had before my conversation with them. This is frustrating.

Look at it this way. Creation in the Bible is spread out among six days. Take days one and two and you are essentially looking at the creation and development of the universe, the stars, and the planet Earth. Days three through six deal life on Earth, with day six being the day of birth of animals and Man. The first two days are what we are talking about in the case of the Big Bang. It is the birth of the universe: all of space and time, and the conditions leading up to the formation of matter. Following the Big Bang is the formation of stars which group into galaxies. Later, planets form. The time scales involved here are arguable, and believe me, they do get argued.

The domain of life falls within days three to six. The conditions for intelligent life are forged on Earth on days three and four, with simpler life forms emerging on day five, and more complex ones (including humans) on day six. Now, if you believe that evolution did take place, it is somewhere in there. If not, then you don't. But there was no more Big Bang taking place during that time period, and that is that.

The very first thing to be created in the world was light (Gen. 2:3). This is entirely consistent with the theory of the Big Bang. We know that all matter began as energy (consistent with E=mc^2) in the form of photons, which are particles of light. There is enormous evidence of the Big Bang taking place. (One person mentioned to me that since this is man's physics and not God's physics, our observation must be flawed. I say that the laws of physics are God's very first creation, and therefore must be sacred!) I must add that I do believe that there is a God and that He created everything. People argue that a creation needs a creator. I will not argue this. But, after all, do builders not use tools to build things? The mechanism of creation is never mentioned in the Bible, yet we have found it with science. Fundamentalists decry this discovery as blasphemous and the work of the devil. Why? The dichotomy between science and religion is artificial. Shouldn't looking upon God's creation yield only truth? And beauty? There is nothing out there that defiles the Bible.

Question: Why should I care about all this?
Answer: Read post #5.

That Which is Truly Priceless

"Why should I care about history? That was then, this is now!"

When I hear such a statement being made, I cringe. People who say things like this also make statements like "Why in the world would I ever need to multiply by letters?" I think it is a sign of the times: the masses are so engrossed in their own lives and their own profits that they are stuck in them. There is no expansion of one's horizons or appreciation for the finer things in the world. Ever see the commercial with the dog who brings a stick to a boy, tail a-wagging, and the boy simply throws the stick in the trash? That is what I'm talking about. So long as people can stuff themselves with McDonald's food, play with their X-boxes and show off their bling-bling, they are satisfied... and they are going willingly into a condition of consumer slavery.

The typical answer to my opening question is "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." That much is certainly true. After all, if you stub your toe on the same loose board every morning, clearly you are not learning from the past. But I believe that this pragmatic answer just doesn't cut it. History goes far beyond a tool of wisdom. Our past tells us who we are and where we have been. It is wholly and entirely our identity.

Can you imagine waking up one morning with total amnesia? Would you want to forget your name, your loved ones, and your entire past? Doesn't sound good, does it? Now imagine this happening to everyone in the world. In general we have a blase attitude toward history, and it is leading to collapse.

I feel that history is second only to the individual soul in terms of societal value. Come on, people... before too long, non-caring will become non-thinking, and hasn't that process already started?