tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9963704951908772382024-02-18T22:11:05.321-08:00ZarbiSteve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.comBlogger166125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-45437332297124917652022-01-07T00:48:00.007-08:002022-01-07T00:52:26.737-08:00Sir Tony Blair - a defense<p><span style="font-size: medium;"> <span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; color: #c7ccd2;">There’s controversy over the knighthood for Tony Blair. I find such awards generally absurd, but I find it difficult to read many criticisms of Blair’s approach to Iraq. Saddam had committed genocide. That should have already been enough for his removal. While in power he was a tyrant who had a policy of horrific torture to suppress opposition. He had a record of using poison gas as a weapon of war. He was building one of the largest armies. I was supportive of the invasion and removal of Saddam for humanitarian reasons. Where things went terribly wrong was the aftermath, as a result of US policy about policing and military structures. That was not British policy. It was not Blair’s policy. It was disastrous, as there was a chaotic result with a huge death toll as a result of internecine conflicts. If there had not been these conflicts, If British advice regarding policing had been followed, the results could have been very different. It’s worth noting that the post-war occupation was not illegal, and was supported by the UN, which shows that UN support is no guarantee of a good outcome.</span></span></p><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; color: #c7ccd2;"><span style="font-size: medium;">It could be argued that the invasion was, at the time, unnecessary, as UN weapons inspectors were on-site and so would have hindered any use if there weapons were present. But would these weapons inspectors have shut down the torture chambers, and allowed Iraqis to live without fear?<br /><br />Calling Blair a “War Criminal” isn’t a helpful argument one way or another. In the 90s, with Blair in power, NATO bombed Serbia to stop the ethnic cleansing of Albanians. This was illegal by international law. It was also necessary.<br /><br />There are things I would fight for. Examples are the stopping of torture and genocide. I can’t morally support the idea of sovereignty in which a country itself has rights as that leaves citizens as the legal possessions of whoever is power, to torture and kill as desired.<br /><br />We should be better than that.</span></span>Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-32518100040163510282021-12-29T00:37:00.001-08:002021-12-29T00:37:36.690-08:00Bad arguments against trans rights<p>“Kemi Badenoch, the equalities minister, said she felt Stock’s views on gender identity, including that people cannot change their biological sex, were probably “in step with the majority of the population”.”</p><p> If you are going to oppose trans equality, it makes sense to have at least some idea of what you are opposing. </p><p>Here are some relevant points:</p><p>1. Being trans is not about changing biological sex. Trans people aren’t asking for generic treatment to change their chromosomes. </p><p>2. Gender identity is not always linked to biological sex, so it only confuses things to assume they are the same thing.</p><p>3. Insisting that people should look and act a certain way because of their biological sex is absurd. It’s trying to base morality on biology. </p><p>4. Saying that views of the rights of a minority should be a certain way because of the beliefs of the majority is very dodgy. </p><p>5. What matters is not biology, or views about biology, but minimising suffering. The suffering of oppressed trans people can be considerable.</p><p>6. These “biological sex matters” arguments used to be used (and often still are) against the rights of gay people. There’s a huge inconsistency in supporting equality for the LGBs but not the Ts.</p><p>7. Exactly the same arguments have been used about gay people - that their sexual attractions and activities are “unnatural” and “against biology”. Use of these arguments against gay rights is in decline, so it’s frustrating to see them used against trans rights.</p><p>There may be arguments against full trans equality, but if there are they have to be better than those we have seen so far, as we see little but misinformation, misunderstandings and fallacies of biology and ethics.</p>Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-4732782728245996682021-12-16T17:47:00.001-08:002021-12-16T17:47:22.175-08:00We don't care<p>Boris Johnson had a party when he shouldn't. We don't care. The Metropolitan Police won't investigate, because they don't care. Why should they? Members of the government have broken most if not all the rules of parliamentary behaviour. They don't care. The Speaker of the House gets rather angry every now and then, and tells them off, but nothing serious happens. He doesn't care. </p><p>Members of the government have been handing out billions of pounds of contracts to family and friends. We don't care. It's just what they do. We have been told by the popular press for decades that politicians are cheeky and think only of themselves and so it doesn't really matter does it? It only shows nothing has changed. What is a few tens of billions between friends?</p><p>We really showed we in the UK truly weren't bothered when Leave campaign promises were publicly thrown away the morning after the EU referendum in 2016. "Hundreds of millions of pounds per week for the National Health Services freed up by leaving the EU? Did we really promise that? Well, we were a bit hasty." All businesses were going to be fine because we clearly weren't going to leave the Single Market. EU nationals in the UK were going to be fine and Brits living in the EU were going to be fine because freedom of movement for the nice people would remain. Sorry - we made a mistake - none of those are true. But no-one cares. Business investment collapses, and the future of our children are limited and no-one even bothers to mention it.</p><p>Later on, as more promises were ripped up, Boris Johnson's government lied to the Queen to justify trying to suspend Parliament to prevent votes on EU policy. No-one cared. It's only the Queen. She clearly didn't care. She could have kicked Johnson out of office or demanded that the Speaker of the House take action. She didn't. After all, why bother?</p><p>So we don't care. And we aren't alone. Trump plots to overthrow democracy. The evidence is clear. But there is no sign of the cops knocking at his door. It's just too much trouble. All that fuss. The Russian involvement doesn't matter. Nothing happened. Senior generals took precautions to prevent World War Three being started by Trump in one of his moods. I'm sure they will do the same if he becomes president again, and all that fuss and anxiety about who wins elections will be at an end if Trump gets in again, so the US can live in a peaceful and stable dictatorship. It will be so relaxing.</p><p> I know we don't care. It's simply not worth our time. But, you know, just between us, I do occasionally have a fleeting thought - a wish - a desire: to be proved wrong.</p>Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-53812235352867507662019-08-03T18:55:00.002-07:002019-08-03T18:55:47.988-07:00A new SmalltalkJava is amazing. It's the most widely used programming language, and it deserves that. Although the Java language isn't exciting, Java runtimes are awesome bits of technology, giving extremely good portability and very efficient multi-threading, memory management, and run-time optimisation. This is why it is the platform of choice for so many languages, such as Scala, Groovy, and Clojure.<br />
<br />
Smalltalk is the most productive and fun programming environment I have ever used. It's a dynamic language, but the use of an 'image' (a live collection of objects) means that it's easy to do things that normally require a type system, such as refactoring and finding where classes and methods are used.<br />
<br />
What could be better than to host Smalltalk on the Java platform? Smalltalk would get all the advantages of Java's memory management and access to Java libraries. It could also allow Smalltalk access to platforms such as Android and iOS. <br />
<br />
Smalltalk on the JVM has been tried before, but efforts have been rather incomplete - examples are Redline Smalltalk and JSqueak. There hasn't been a full and efficient implementation. <br />
<br />
Smalltalk on the JVM could take advantage of the extremely efficient run-time optimisations that are even available for dynamic languages, via the 'invokedynamic' feature. Such a Smalltalk could have pluggable GUI implementations allowing use of Swing or JavaFX, and the latter would allow Android and iOS ports from the same codebase.<br />
<br />
So, I'm going to do this. Primarily, I'm doing this because it will be fun and educational. I want to learn more about Smalltalk and the JVM. I want to be able to produce a Smalltalk that will run everywhere and is as reliable and fast as the JVM can make it. Then, I want to have fun writing apps in Smalltalk again, after a break of decades.<br />
<br />
<br />Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-35566812769654265562017-02-23T14:38:00.003-08:002017-02-23T14:38:49.155-08:00The Mystery of Creation is Written in the Sky<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
When we think of creation we think of there needed to be a thing that creates and substance that is the building blocks of creation. "You can't get something from nothing" surely has to apply. When we think of mystery in science we think of the empty hearts of particle colliders where streams of particles with the energies of battleships at full-stream-ahead smash into each other and bully space into whispering the stories of new physics.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
And yet, there is a place where mystery is everywhere and in everything we see. That place is the sky. Listening to the sky we hear the tepid hiss of microwaves, a gentle afterglow of the fires that formed all that is. The microwaves paint a celestial picture with the most delicate of watermarks, a pattern that has its origin in a subtle interplay of the strange and the unknown. The original canvas itself is a mystery. We see only the after-image. The canvas was an immaterial field which filled space. Unlike the electric or magnetic fields that build our technology, this field had no direction. It didn't go from there to here, it simply was where it was. Having no ends, it needed no origin. The field we call 'Higgs', responsible for the mass of particles, is the same: it comes from nowhere and goes nowhere.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
The unknown field was different from the Higgs. It had an effect on space. The field tried to compress space, to shrink everything down. In a paradox of relativity, Einstein showed that such a pressure would make gravity blow space up. That's what happened. Space raced apart in a huge expansion which we call "Inflation". As this happened, the field was slowly losing its strength. This wasn't because space was tearing it apart, but because the field was born with a limited life. After a short time the field vanished and as it died, it ripped into space and made all the particles of matter and energy needed for a universe.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
In a mystery of physics, the unknown field is labelled not the "Inflation" field, but the "Inflaton" field. (Perhaps this the same reason that the US distorts "Aluminium"). The Inflation field is a mystery. We haven't seen it in our experiments. We may never see it there, as it lives and dies in environments where universes are born. But we see it's beautiful legacy in the microwaves that fill the sky.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
The watermarks on the sky are the result of ripples in the Inflaton canvas. They are ripples because of quantum mechanics, as quantum mechanics says that everything everywhere always ripples! The ripples are huge because inflation expanded the canvas again and again and again. There are ripples within ripples within ripples as waves like the splashes of pebbles in a pond spread then slowed. The canvas stretched, more pebbles, more waves. On and on this went, until the canvas was larger than we can ever imagine. The universe we see was the tiniest speck on the cosmic canvas of inflation.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
And so, we see the effects of the Inflation, physics beyond what we know, and we see the tiniest wobbles of quantum uncertainty exploded to a size where they form the pattern for a cosmos.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
The strangeness isn't over. A universe expanding isn't like the world we know - such a universe takes the laws of physics and flushes them away. You can't get something from nothing in our world, but in an expanding universe, you can. You can get creation for real, without a creator. The energy that fuels the expansion need never run out. The expansion stopped because inflation died out, not because it ran out of fuel.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Strange too is the short life of inflation. The story is beautiful but un<br />-imaginably brief. All that life, all the rippling of the canvas, lasted only 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 of a second. The birth pangs of our universe were short.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-top: 6px;">
Or perhaps not. Perhaps there is more than one canvas. Perhaps inflation slowed and stopped here, but not everywhere. Perhaps universes are painted in countless skies, and minds will always wonder at the quantum artistry revealed.</div>
Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-22708521719706615312017-02-09T22:51:00.001-08:002017-02-09T22:51:08.520-08:00Online abuse is out of control?<span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px;">There is a recent <a href="https://www.ted.com/" target="_blank">TED</a> talk about how the online abuse of women has "spiralled out of control". I have great sympathy for anyone who has experienced online abuse, but there is no mystery as to why this abuse occurs and how to deal with it. Abuse occurs because there are extremely vile people online, and current social media gives these people almost unlimited access to abuse anyone. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px;">We realised the problem of abuse decades ago in the early 90s when the Internet changed from being used mainly by academics to accessible by the general public. To deal with this change social forums like usenet were set up with moderation. This worked pretty well. What went wrong was that new social media were launched with no barriers to entry and, by default, everyone being accessible by everyone else. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px;">The idea that such wide open systems would be free from bullying and harassment was hopelessly naive. Instead of using online abuse as evidence of how broken our societies are, campaigners should insist that the terrible design flaws in social media such as Twitter and Facebook are fixed.</span>Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-60235253089826072112017-02-02T13:46:00.002-08:002017-02-02T13:46:54.142-08:00Why panpsychism isn't a solution to the mystery of consciousnessI have been reading an <a href="https://www.academia.edu/30971175/Panpsychism_and_the_explanatory_gap_in_philosophy_of_mind" target="_blank">article</a> by my philosopher friend Russell Blackford on panpsychism.<br />
<br />
I take a stronger position on panpsychism, which is that it is simply false: There is a fundamental logical mistake with panpsychism, assuming the acceptance of "causal closure", that the brain is physical and all events that take place in the brain have physical causes. If all events in the brain have physical causes then those events are solutions of equations which enumerate physical laws. This is true in principle, even though such solutions may be intractable. Those solutions, by definition, cannot contain terms which incorporate panpsychism, because, if they did, panpsychism would be part of the physics of the brain. Therefore, it's not logically possible that any assertion we make about panpsychism can be because of panpsychism. Whatever the supposed mystery of mind is, that mystery cannot have panpsychism as the answer.<br />
<br />
There are more subtle arguments against panpsychism, but the lack of causal effect on the brain is, in my view, the strongest.Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-87876684943698737322017-01-28T19:42:00.000-08:002017-01-28T19:42:34.935-08:00The accelerating universe - what will and won't happenSince 1999 we have known that the universe isn't just expanding, but the expansion is speeding up. This sounds weird, and it has led to suggestions that, eventually, everything will fall apart, including galaxies, stars, and even our bodies. That's not what an accelerating universe means, fortunately (assuming we are concerned with what happens to bodies tens of billions of years in the future).
The expansion of the universe, at least the part we can see, speeding up happens because of a constant force. That force is called 'dark energy'. We don't know what dark energy is, but we have some ideas. The thing that is significant is that dark energy has constant density throughout space. It doesn't dilute as the universe expands. This sounds like it breaks physical law - how can new energy come into existence? The law of conservation of energy doesn't apply if space itself is expanding, so there is no problem with this new dark energy appearing.
Anyway, the dark energy generates a very, very small repulsive (yes, repulsive) gravitational force. That force is so tiny it has virtually no effect on things that are held together by other forces. This means galaxies, solar systems, planets and our bodies. These things aren't going to be ripped apart, because the expansion force is very, very small and constant. Parts of the universe that are too far apart to have significant gravitational interaction will be separated, and that separation will not just increase but accelerate, because a constant force produces a constant acceleration.
In the very distant future a being within our galaxy would not see any other galaxies, as they will have accelerated away and now be moving faster than light with respect to our galaxy (the expansion force expands space, and there is no limit for the speed at which space can move. But, those beings will be in no danger from the expansion force. It will just make astronomy a lot more boring.Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-31501138504502902152017-01-26T21:14:00.003-08:002017-01-26T21:14:54.287-08:00On-line physics learning resourcesThese are my favourite on-line physics learning resources. They are, of course, a minute fraction of what is available, but they have really helped and informed me:
Leonard Susskind
First, the wonderful lectures on physics by Leonard Susskind. He is a superb friendly lecturer, taking his audience through some of the most complex ideas. I particularly like his explanation of the Higgs effect. Just search for 'Susskind' on YouTube.
DrPhysicsA
These are a series of physics tutorials. Rigorous and slow enough even for a beginner to follow. Perfect for students at all levels. Search for 'DrPhysicsA' on YouTube.
PBS space time.
A really fun set of videos which explain concepts very accurately and with humour and enthusiasm. My favourite in the explanation of the quantum mechanics of black hole formation. Search for 'PBS space time' on YouTube.
Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-14783247832848462242017-01-26T08:51:00.001-08:002017-01-26T11:11:01.111-08:00Support science<span font-family: "uictfonttextstylebody"; text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">It's a worrying time when governments try to suppress science, as is happening now in the USA and Turkey. We badly need widespread understanding of scientific matters, such as global warming, to allow informed voting so democratic governments have mandates for necessary action. During such times it's important to do what we can to boost the public understanding and support for science. I'm hoping to finish a book on the nature of mind this year, and I am re-launching this blog, and will try and post several times a week. We supporters of science all need to do what we can, and thus is my contribution.</span>Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-35886451136776683572016-06-14T14:17:00.003-07:002016-06-14T19:06:20.071-07:00Vote Remain for so much more<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="e452u" data-offset-key="di194-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="di194-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="di194-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">When I was young I lived in a dangerous world in which two superpowers threatened to destroy civilization. I thought that there must be something better than this. What must happen is for countries with economic and political power to come together in a union which could turn to the other superpowers and say no - enough - the world deserves better. Such a union could be more than just a partnership of commerce - it could combine resources to support great projects - to promote and spread human rights, to deal with poverty, to research and develop new technologies for the production of energy, to support initiatives to help its members live in a cleaner and safer world. I was happy to see us join the Common Market, and extremely pleased when it became the European Union, and I was proud to become a European citizen. So much could be achieved, and we could become a new form of political community, a European super-state within which each country maintained its identity and uniqueness, with government at the appropriate level, and with citizens being able to live and work without barriers from the Northernmost tip of Sweden to the warm shores of Sicily. That was my hope, and my vision.</span><br />
<span data-offset-key="di194-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="e452u" data-offset-key="cd6l2-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="cd6l2-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="cd6l2-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">Things are far from perfect in the EU. The situation regarding Greece has been a huge crisis, both financial and humanitarian. The EU has also expanded far too fast for my liking, with countries like Poland having a deeply unpleasant record on human rights. I would have hoped for a smaller and more stable EU, giving things time to evolve socially and politically. </span><br />
<span data-offset-key="cd6l2-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="e452u" data-offset-key="564ln-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="564ln-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="564ln-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">But, so much of my vision has come to pass. The right to travel and work and live within the EU is wonderful and powerful. The income from membership of the EU has been hugely beneficial for the British economy. The work the EU does towards the environment is vitally important, as is its substantial organisational and financial support for science. </span><br />
<span data-offset-key="564ln-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="e452u" data-offset-key="c0kqp-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="c0kqp-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="c0kqp-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">I want more. Much more. I don't fear a European super-state, I want it passionately. I want a European army. I want an alternative to NATO that isn't treading on the toes of Russia and always looking towards America. I want a Europe that has the financial power to compete with China, and to not 'catch a cold when Wall Street sneezes". I want the large economy of the UK to help build the engine of such a European state, not splutter in isolation.</span><br />
<span data-offset-key="c0kqp-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="e452u" data-offset-key="5uf1e-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="5uf1e-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="5uf1e-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">So much of the discussion of the EU has been about finance, about counting the pennies of contributions and refunds. So much discussion has been about the fear of other Europeans, as if migrants are wolf packs coming to ravage our country, not people with families who work here, pay taxes, and contribute to our culture. (It's ironic that in towns where a night out is usually to an Indian restaurant, voters state their fear of immigration). </span><br />
<span data-offset-key="5uf1e-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="" data-block="true" data-editor="e452u" data-offset-key="4fhhg-0-0" style="background-color: white; color: #1d2129; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<div class="_1mf _1mj" data-offset-key="4fhhg-0-0" style="direction: ltr; font-family: inherit; position: relative;">
<span data-offset-key="4fhhg-0-0" style="font-family: inherit;">We are better than this. We should not be fearful penny-pinching accountants, hostile to change. We should be working together to change the world through our combined strength and wisdom, and goodness knows the world desperately needs us to do this.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Don't vote just for 'remain' - vote for a positive, progressive vision of a better, safer, saner world, a world where we don't talk any more about 'The West', but about 'Europe', a new power yet with deep roots, a place of exciting ideas based on thousands of years of history, the birthplace of the Enlightenment where science and reason have never been stronger, a place where freedoms and rights and secure. Vote 'remain' for a world that can be so much better, because we can make it better together.</span></div>
</div>
Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-69343507312255434972016-05-30T08:24:00.002-07:002016-05-30T08:24:49.784-07:00If you don't voteIf you won't vote to stop Trump getting in you are an enemy of
reason, of freedom, of equality, of science. If you don't vote to stop
Trump getting in you will be knowingly standing by while others vote for
a violence-promoting bigoted thug. You will have had the chance to
help stop him by doing nothing more than casting a vote. By standing by
you reject decades of work by brave fighters for racial equality, for
equal rights for women, for reproductive rights, for marriage<span class="text_exposed_show">
equality. </span><br />
<span class="text_exposed_show"><br /></span>
<span class="text_exposed_show">You have probably read Sagan on science being a candle in
the dark, but you don't care if that candle is snuffed out. </span>You have
probably read Hitchens on separation of Church and state, but you don't
care if Jefferson's wall is trampled. You may have read the critical
work of Gore Vidal, but you don't care if freedom to criticise
politicians is lost. If you don't vote to stop Trump getting in you
don't deserve the right to vote, because every vote is a chance to
change the world, and you will have abandoned the world, and sacrificed
millions to the narcissistic delusions of a bully. <br />
<br />
So vote.Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-70881572938175968622016-02-28T16:48:00.000-08:002016-02-29T06:02:19.917-08:00Doctor Who is at its finest, really!Moffat has returned things to Doctor Who that has not been around for decades - horror, pace, creepiness, and serious drama. Russell T Davies' style of Doctor Who can be summed up the 9th Doctor's shout of 'Run!' It was fast-paced, almost cartoonish, and exciting. It was also filled with absurdity and self-indulgence, which reached it's peak at the end of series 4 with Stolen Earth/Journey's End. <div><br></div><div>Moffat has been far stronger on plot, and allowing characters to develop, and with Capaldi in the lead we have seen the finest acting and drama that there has ever been on 'Who', as in the magnificent and innovative 'Heaven Sent', and the Zygon two-parter in series 9. There has also been real horror as in Flatline, with the strangest and creepiest monsters the Doctor has ever faced. </div><div><br></div><div>The Master/Mistress has had a far better treatment under Moffat than Davies. At the start of series 9 we saw the return of the Master we knew and loved in the 70s as the Mistress showed that she could be charming and even friendly, while being utterly mischievous and untrustworthy. </div><div><br></div><div>Doctor who always changes. That's the point. Moffat has allowed change to continued to make the character the most interesting one in sci-fi, and with Capaldi in the lead we have seen a new Doctor who brinds together old and new series, with touches of Hartnell and Bakers (Tom and Colin) showing us that the Doctor doesn't have to be a young action hero to save the world- as Rassilon said: "words are his weapons", and Moffat is a damn fine writer.</div>Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-90173567932128028212016-01-19T18:28:00.000-08:002016-01-19T18:28:02.622-08:00Palin endorses Trump - what I heardI managed to hear a small section of Sarah Palin's speech endorsing Donald Trump.<br />
<br />
"We are all true Americans and we are all here to tell Donald that it isn't all about him or me but the great people of which we all love and respect for those we cannot and will not forget and the immigrants from Mexico and Obama in Kenya who came over here with their singing and their children who won't respect our walls and Hillary's medicare costs for those of us who just cannot and will not forget the Benghazi which keeps Donald and me from sleeping when we dream of our great nation which is feared by those who fear us everywhere even Putin won't stand for our weakness and Nato and next time he crosses borders of Uganda we'll show him that we aren't Obama and we will never be Obama and the price of peace is more than Hollywood liberals and New Yorkers like Tom Cruz and as Ronald Reagan said "Let us never forget Princess David the Iron Lady" and that's why ISIS can't get to the heart of the respect we have for our children and our families and our Lord Jesus who blesses us all."<br />
<br />
I think that makes her position clear.Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-65828841699662773292015-11-20T09:02:00.002-08:002016-05-30T08:23:47.123-07:00The Garden<h1>
The Garden</h1>
Alice came here every day, to sit on the wooden bench in her garden and watch the pigeons fly down from the trees and strut across the grass in expectation of breadcrumbs. Why they did this, she did not know, as no-one else was ever around and her pockets were empty; but every day, here they came. She had lost count of the number of days she had sat here on the long park bench, but that didn’t bother her. She was content. She was always content. At some point she would have to walk away from all this, there were other matters to attend to. At least she had a feeling there were. But there was plenty of time - she had only just arrived anyway. At least she had a feeling she had. It didn’t matter. There was peace, the trees, the birds, the wind and the Sun. <br />
<br />But today was different, there was something unexpected. Alice realised that she was not alone. Beside her sat a girl, dressed in grey, with a wild mess of white hair. The girl turned towards her, smiling. Alice felt a shock as she noticed the girl’s eyes: featureless, black, and yet she felt no fear, only the slight thrill of strangeness.<br /><br />“Hello Alice” said the girl. “Beautiful day”<br />
<br />
“It always is” replied Alice. <br />
The girl stood up and held out her hand. “Please come with me. We need to talk”. Her words were polite, but left no possibility of refusal. Alice took the girl’s hand and they started to walk. “I have a story to tell you.” Sun, grass, birds, all faded.<br />
<br />“<i>Once upon a time there were seven beings, seven avatars of reality, the Endless: Delight, Despair, Desire, Destruction, Destiny, Dream and Death. Older than gods yet younger than time, they shape reality through their thoughts and actions. Though powerful, the Endless could suffer the fates of mortals, including change, and even death, of a kind. As eons passed, Delight had become Delirium, and both Despair and Dream had taken on new aspects.</i><br />
<i><br />Each of the Endless has a realm, a home shaped by their natures. The realm of Destiny is garden of paths without end, paths which are walked by every sentient creature since the beginning of life. Destiny stands in his garden, tall and robed. With one hand he holds his book, chained to his wrist. In that book is everything, every spin of an electron, every planet’s orbit, every life, every death. Destiny is blind, but he knows the book and the book is everything. He turns a page, the first he has turned in an age, and reads:</i><br />
<br />“At a time so distant from the origin of all things that stars had been mere sparks in the afterglow of the Big Bang, a crystalline ship slowly circled a vast black hole that was the corpse of a galaxy. Within the crystals flowed thoughts so slow that species had risen and fallen in the blink of an eye. The thoughts were those of the last human mind, preserved in a way intended to challenge eternity, frozen in a timeless world of imagination. In that imagination a young girl, Alice, re-creates a single day from the time of worlds and stars. In his garden, Destiny had become aware of a presence.”<br />
<i><br />Destiny lifts his head: “Well met, sister”.</i><br />
<br />
<i>“So formal as ever. Today, of all days, say my name.</i><br />
<br />
<i>Destiny pauses and frowns. Del..? Dis..?” He asks. “You aren’t in my book”.</i><br />
<br />
<i>“I’m sorry Destiny. You always forget this time. I’m in your book now. I’m on every page. Look closely. Destiny needed no eyes to read. </i><br />
<br />“As the first stars were born, you were the delight of beginnings. As minds dreamed, desired and despaired and decayed, you became the mistress of their increasing delirium. As even suns and worlds at last fell into ruin and the last minds pass into Death’s domain, you have become the Lady of chaos. You have become Disorder. All reality has become your domain.”<br />
<i><br />“As our sister Death once said, we have always known this, but never remember. You must remember now.” said Disorder. “It's time for my final duty in this cosmos. When I am everything, then there is nothing. Even time loses its power. There must be a new beginning and so </i><i>I need your book.”</i><br />
<br />
<i>“The book at I are one”, said Destiny. </i><br />
<i>“I know that brother”, said Disorder, “But even so you must give it to me.”</i><br />
<i>Destiny took his book with his free arm and held out the chain.</i><br />
<i>Disorder gently touched the chain and it collapsed into dust. She lifted the open book from Destiny’s hand. She turned a page, and saw nothingness. Now alone, she whispered to herself “Goodbye brother. Until the next time”. She closed the book and carried it away into the mist.</i><br />
<br />“No mortal before you has been free of Destiny. You are truly free to make your own future, and so this is the choice I give you”, said Disorder, “try to wait out eternity in a simulation, never dreaming yet not truly awake, never dying but neither truly alive, having no desires and sealed beyond destruction and yet your end will come, or you can take this book and help shape a new beginning.”<br />
<br />
Alice reached out for the book. As her fingers touched the cover she knew all that had ever been. An image entered her mind of a tall robed figure, with a book chained to his arm, the book she now held. She knew who this was, who he was, and that he was blind and yet saw all that was, all that had been, and all that will be. <br />
<br />
“Destiny…” she whispered. <br />
<br />
“Yes, that was him. Now that will be you.” said Disorder.<br />
<br />
“Will I be blind, chained, and so very grey?” asked Alice.<br />
“That’s up to you” said the girl. “My brother liked to follow tradition.”<br />
<br />Alice came here every day, to sit in the sun and watch the pigeons fly down from the trees and strut across the grass in expectation of breadcrumbs. This was her garden, Destiny’s realm. <br />
<br />
She sat down on an old wooden bench, took some bread from a pocket of her long white robe, broke it and threw the pieces towards the birds. Then she turned and saw beside her her book. She picked it up, opened it to the first page, and read the first few words with a smile. There, in the language of reality, were words that created a cosmos:<br />
<br />“In the beginning…”Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-13269816158691769302015-10-28T10:18:00.001-07:002015-10-28T10:18:10.055-07:00The Guardian and Gamergate<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="8j410-0-0" data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$8j410" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="8j410-0-0" data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$8j410.0:$8j410-0-0"><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/28/gamergate-didnt-fade-into-obscurity-harassment-women-sxsw-panel" target="_blank">http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/28/gamergate-didnt-fade-into-obscurity-harassment-women-sxsw-panel </a></span></div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="8j410-0-0" data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$8j410" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="8j410-0-0" data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$8j410.0:$8j410-0-0"><br /></span></div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="8j410-0-0" data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$8j410" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="8j410-0-0" data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$8j410.0:$8j410-0-0">I'm honestly puzzled as to why the Guardian publishes this nonsense. It's supposed to be a paper that promotes free thinking, not slavishly following dogma. </span><span class="_5u8n" data-offset-key="8j410-1-0" data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$8j410.$8j410-1-0" spellcheck="false" style="background-color: rgba(88, 144, 255, 0.14902); border-bottom-color: rgba(88, 144, 255, 0.298039); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1px;"><span data-offset-key="8j410-1-0" data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$8j410.$8j410-1-0.$8j410-1-0"><span data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$8j410.$8j410-1-0.$8j410-1-0.0">#gamergate</span></span></span><span data-offset-key="8j410-2-0" data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$8j410.2:$8j410-2-0"> was a response to corruption in the gaming industry. There was real corruption - journalists not revealing if they did or did not have associations with game writers. This created understandable anger. The result was there was a campaign associated with a hashtag </span><span class="_5u8n" data-offset-key="8j410-3-0" data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$8j410.$8j410-3-0" spellcheck="false" style="background-color: rgba(88, 144, 255, 0.14902); border-bottom-color: rgba(88, 144, 255, 0.298039); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1px;"><span data-offset-key="8j410-3-0" data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$8j410.$8j410-3-0.$8j410-3-0"><span data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$8j410.$8j410-3-0.$8j410-3-0.0">#gamergate</span></span></span><span data-offset-key="8j410-4-0" data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$8j410.4:$8j410-4-0">. It's not an organised group. Some of the anger went too far. Some anger always goes to far when you are dealing with an online group of tens of thousands. It's deeply dishonest to then insist that gamergate was 'really' about hatred of women, and continually cherry pick to make that case. There are plenty of women gamers who have supported the gamergate campaign, and some of those women have been subjected to harassment and and threats too. These don't get reported as they don't fit the 'gamergate hates women' narrative.</span></div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="2bbcf-0-0" data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$2bbcf" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="2bbcf-0-0" data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$2bbcf.0:$2bbcf-0-0"><br data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$2bbcf.0:$2bbcf-0-0.0" /></span></div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="b7rku-0-0" data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$b7rku" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="b7rku-0-0" data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$b7rku.0:$b7rku-0-0">What the Guardian is doing is supporting this dishonesty, and this kind of dishonesty is becoming an increasing problem: diverting the message of a movement to fit an agenda by cherry-picking. We had this with the awful atheism+, now just about everything online is about misogyny. There is real misogyny in our cultures, but it's rarely specific to individual movements. It has to be addressed as what it is, and not supposedly part of 'gaming', or 'secularism' or whatever.</span></div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="b7rku-0-0" data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$b7rku" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="b7rku-0-0" data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$b7rku.0:$b7rku-0-0"><br /></span></div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="b7rku-0-0" data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$b7rku" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
'Gamergate' has not gone - it has won. It's now standard practice in the gaming interest to list any connections that have that might prejudice what they write.</div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="b7rku-0-0" data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$b7rku" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="b7rku-0-0" data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$b7rku.0:$b7rku-0-0"><br /></span></div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="b7rku-0-0" data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$b7rku" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="b7rku-0-0" data-reactid=".0.1.0.1.$1.0.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$b7rku.0:$b7rku-0-0">I want to see journalists have to work harder to discuss real issues in constructive ways. The Guardian should do better.</span></div>
Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-88264932014631421752015-09-21T12:05:00.004-07:002015-09-21T12:05:53.213-07:00Richard Dawkins on Twitter - nothing to apologise forThe media are at it again. Richard Dawkins starts to discuss a controversial topic and his tweets are quoted because they seem to be either shocking or putting forward a strident point of view. Some bloggers do the same thing, often advising Richard to keep quiet or get some sort of advice about what he tweets.<br />
<br />
I find the reactions just a bit silly. Richard Dawkins is an eminent scientist and science educator. Richard is not a politician. He is not a religious leader. He is not an elected leader of anything (at least not anything I know about). He is an individual who is posting his opinions on an open forum. He posts opinions which are often challenged, and he reads those challenges and sometimes changes his mind. In doing this he is acting exactly as any supporter of reason should. <br />
<br />
There are some who treat Twitter as a global soap-box; a place to make pronouncements, and to preach to the world your view of anything you want. But that's a real waste. The power of Twitter is communication, exchanges of views and feedback. It's a source of much nonsense, of course, but it's also a source of great expertise. <br />
<br />
If you want to treat the contents of a conversation by Richard as if they are pronouncements of doctrine then you are the fool. If you want to get value from Richard's presence, then for goodness sake talk to him. That's one great thing Twitter enables - conversation. Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-81522162176843347602015-09-13T09:24:00.001-07:002015-09-13T09:24:49.269-07:00What is the middle ground of UK politics?<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
I have realised that I have no idea what the 'middle ground' of UK politics is. I assumed it meant that we don't really like nuclear weapons, but we'll have them if necessary; we really do like the idea of the NHS; we are generally cautious about immigration, but when there is a crisis we are welcoming; we are pretty concerned about the environment; we distrust those with a lot of money; we are generally keen on Europe, as we know it from holidays; we want a good fair wag<span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline !important;">e for all; we utterly distrust private ownership of railways, and think that at least the possibility of nationalisation is a good thing. We are cautious about money, but good when it comes to charity.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px;"><br /></span></span><div class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline !important; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px;">
But my impression is that these views are now considered widely left-of-centre by many, even "hard left". I remember the views of the "hard left" in the 80s, and they included universal nationalisation, support for communist states, scrapping all nuclear weapons, workers' collectives running everything.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
How did the moderate left end up being now labelled "hard left"? How did nationalising parts of the NHS become mainstream? How did we end up with Labour party shadow cabinet ministers saying that they would match their Tory equivalents when it came to benefit cuts? How did we get so that benefit claimants, many of them disabled or ill, became the target of cuts?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
I'm really confused.</div>
</div>
</div>
Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-14052909562451488532015-09-02T21:03:00.000-07:002015-09-02T21:03:25.547-07:00Why you can't have evidence for gods being gods.There are many definitions of 'god'. I'll start off by making it clear the definitions I'm not dealing with. I'm not considering 'gods' who are intelligent and powerful aliens who can do things that seem magical (a good example of such an alien is 'Q' in Star Trek). I'm not dealing with beings who can create a world that seems real to us, such as the Machines in the Matrix trilogy. I'm not dealing with the version of the Christian god written about by the physicist Frank Tipler who attempts to explain miracles in terms of physics in his book "The Physics of Christianity". Why aren't I dealing with such gods? Because they aren't what most believers want gods to be - they can't provide ultimate judgement and ultimate forgiveness; they can't give ultimate meaning; they can't provide eternal bliss or eternal punishment. What I'm dealing with is beings that have powers that are truly 'supernatural', and that includes the Christian god - the Alpha, the Omega, the creator of all things and the source of all morality. <br />
<br />
I have a couple of arguments that deal with the question of evidence for such beings:<br />
<br />
1. The argument from complexity.<br />
<br />
The Catholic Church insists that their god is ultimate simplicity, but that's just not on. A being that is infinite, eternal and all-knowing and all-powerful is exceedingly - perhaps infinitely - complex, as that being contains all knowledge, and all wisdom. This complexity is a real problem when it comes to evidence for this god, as just about anything else is simpler. This includes vast galactic civilizations that have existed for billions of years. It includes Star Trek-level cultures that can destroy a world with a phaser bank, and can cure most illnesses with a wave of something that looks like a pepper pot with lights. So, if you come across what seems like a miracle, or you have some internal mental experience that feels like religious revelation, there are many alternatives of lesser complexity you have to consider before you allow for the possibility of the Catholic god. The complexity problem has been expressed beautifully by Arthur C. Clarke, who said 'any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic', and by David Hume, who said that claims of miracles are never to be trusted, because there are always simpler explanations.<br />
<br />
2. The argument from supernaturalness<br />
<br />
The word 'supernatural' is the label for attributes of gods which are 'beyond Nature'. The problem with this label is that it's never specified what 'beyond Nature' is supposed to mean. Nature as we know it involves particles like atoms, electrons, photons and so on. So, presumably, a supernatural being manages to get things done in ways that don't involve any such particles. But that isn't an explanation of what they are actually doing to perform miracles. Even if you can have reliable evidence that what is happening doesn't involve familiar particles, that evidence is in no way evidence for 'beyond Nature', it's only 'beyond what we know'. So, from a practical point of view, evidence for the supernatural is definitely a problem. It gets worse when we consider that a common definition of supernatural is 'beyond the reach of science'. This makes evidence for the supernatural impossible by definition.<br />
<br />
It's worth at this point clearing up a common misconception. Sometimes evidence is considered to be supportive of the supernatural, when what that evidence is actually for is a thing that is believed to be supernatural. For example, a primitive tribe might consider planes flying over their rain forest to be gods. When asked for evidence of these supernatural gods by another tribe, they point up at a metal machine high above. Of course, planes aren't supernatural (although I have to say that they feel like magic to me). What I mean by 'evidence for the supernatural' is evidence that a thing has supernatural nature. <br />
<br />
So, whichever definition we choose for 'supernatural', we reach an impasse. We either have to try and demonstrate that something is beyond Nature, which is impossible, or we have a property of beings that is defined as being beyond empirical testing, so demonstrating its supernatural nature is impossible.<br />
<br />
So, gods, by their definitions, are beyond reach of evidence. No evidence is sufficient to show that what seems like a god or an act of a god isn't some simpler alternative, and according to some definitions, evidence isn't even possible to test a god's divine supernatural nature.Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-63060759180341966612015-08-08T15:03:00.001-07:002015-08-08T15:03:42.827-07:00I don't understand magnetism!<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
I'm having trouble understanding magnetic monopoles. Magnetic forces we know about are the result of electric charges in motion. As a result, the idea of there always being two magnetic poles makes sense, because the motion of charges has a direction and the magnetic poles are perpendicular to that direction. Consider something simple like a spinning sphere with electric charges on it. If you look at the sphere one way the spin will be clockwise and you will see one magne<span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline !important;">tic pole (I forget which!). If you look at another direction and you see the spin anti-clockwise you will see the opposite magnetic pole. Having a magnetic monopole is like trying to cut a spin in half, so that you can see a clockwise spin of charge but no anti-clockwise spin. It makes no geometric sense. There are situations where what look like monopoles appear but these are in reality the result of things that are very thin and stretched so that you can only see the effects of the opposite spins at long distances - it's just looking at the ends of a system with both North and South poles.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px;"><br /></span></span><div class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline !important; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px;">
So, I'm wondering if magnetism makes sense at all as anything fundamental. It's simply electrostatic charges + movement, and so 'magnetic field lines' are badly named, and everything can be re-formulated in terms of electrodynamics.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px;">
What am I missing?</div>
</div>
</div>
Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-272168237669853202015-07-24T14:51:00.002-07:002015-07-24T14:51:19.270-07:00Macroevolution can happen<span style="background-color: #f6f7f8; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.0799999237061px;">Macroevolution - the formation of a new species in one generation is extremely rare in animals, but more common in plants. The way it can happen is through duplication of the entire genome. Organisms which have multiple genome copies are called 'polyploid'. In some plants it's possible to trace back exactly where and when these things happen. For example, a new species of marsh grass appeared in a certain area of marsh in Britain in around 1870. This would have been one faulty cell division resulting in a new species. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: #f6f7f8; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.0799999237061px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: #f6f7f8; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.0799999237061px;">Animals are much more complex in structure than plants and rarely reproduce asexually so this kind of thing is much rarer, but it does happen - the plains viscacha rat in Argentina is one example. What must have happened is a faulty cell division leading to a polyploid female and then inter-breeding in her offspring.</span>Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-36301811664618100392015-07-07T17:52:00.001-07:002015-07-07T17:52:19.622-07:00How 'gay genes' might work<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="qukv-0-0" data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$qukv" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="qukv-0-0" data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$qukv.0:$qukv-0-0">This business of 'gay genes' seems to me to be almost universally understood. First of all, they must be inheritable. Homosexuality can't just be a frequent mutation - it's too widespread. Secondly, they have to confer benefit to those who have the genes, and that's just about everyone, because homosexuality occurs in all populations. So how on Earth could that work? It works if you consider homosexuality to be part of an 'extended phenotype' (see the book 'The Extended Phenotype' by Richard Dawkins): genes for homosexuality don't produce homosexuality in the bodies they are in, but in others. That allows them to be inherited. </span></div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="etdc4-0-0" data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$etdc4" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="etdc4-0-0" data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$etdc4.0:$etdc4-0-0"><br data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$etdc4.0:$etdc4-0-0.0" /></span></div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="342th-0-0" data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$342th" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="342th-0-0" data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$342th.0:$342th-0-0">Imagine a group of animals that can end up living in dense populations. What would be a bad thing is for the breeding pairs to continue to produce large numbers of breeding offspring. Instead, when resources get limited, a better situation is if some children don't breed but end up helping their parents to raise their siblings. Does this happen in Nature? Yes, it does. A very clear example is some species of birds, where non-breeding young birds help their parents get food for their siblings. This division of labour into breeders and non-breeders results in a better chance of survival.</span></div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="dua77-0-0" data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$dua77" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="dua77-0-0" data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$dua77.0:$dua77-0-0"><br data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$dua77.0:$dua77-0-0.0" /></span></div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="kb6u-0-0" data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$kb6u" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="kb6u-0-0" data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$kb6u.0:$kb6u-0-0">This must mean that the parent animals have genes that allow for the production of non-breeding offspring in certain situations. Not all offspring of course, but a certain proportion. This might happen because hormones react to population density. The point is that genes for non-breeders can exist throughout the population, and can be of real benefit.</span></div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="a734n-0-0" data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$a734n" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="a734n-0-0" data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$a734n.0:$a734n-0-0"><br data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$a734n.0:$a734n-0-0.0" /></span></div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="bl3fr-0-0" data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$bl3fr" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="bl3fr-0-0" data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$bl3fr.0:$bl3fr-0-0">There is slight evidence of a similar situation in humans. Later children in a family seem to be more likely to be homosexual. This makes sense, as the family has already produced breeding offspring, and what might be of more use is additional resource gatherers. This seems to work because the hormonal environment in the human uterus changes with each subsequent birth, and that might increase the probability of homosexuality.</span></div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="5ogh9-0-0" data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$5ogh9" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="5ogh9-0-0" data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$5ogh9.0:$5ogh9-0-0"><br data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$5ogh9.0:$5ogh9-0-0.0" /></span></div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="ecrkk-0-0" data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$ecrkk" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="ecrkk-0-0" data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$ecrkk.0:$ecrkk-0-0">This may be wrong, but it does show that genes for homosexuality don't need to act in the bodies of homosexuals - they could simply be genes that change the hormonal environment in the uterus with time. Also, homosexuality can be of real benefit in a population at low levels, as it provides additional support systems for families - even as simple as more hands to gather food and fight mammoths!</span></div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="5tde9-0-0" data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$5tde9" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="5tde9-0-0" data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$5tde9.0:$5tde9-0-0"><br data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$5tde9.0:$5tde9-0-0.0" /></span></div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="3jgcu-0-0" data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$3jgcu" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; direction: ltr; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; position: relative; white-space: pre-wrap;">
<span data-offset-key="3jgcu-0-0" data-reactid=".1w.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.$editor0.0.0.$3jgcu.0:$3jgcu-0-0">There is not going to be a simple 'gay gene'. The situation is far too subtle.</span></div>
Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-34964994479044672852015-07-04T01:18:00.002-07:002015-07-04T01:18:43.382-07:00Obama's eulogy of little graceObama's Charleston eulogy was certainly a great performance. It was moving, and I have no doubt it was heartfelt, but I was deeply saddened to see that he was preaching so much religious nonsense that I could not help but feel took away some of the dignity of the deceased. <br />
<br />
It was a shameful thing to preach that the killer was somehow doing God's work, and that God works in mysterious ways. There is nothing holy about the actions of a hate-filled cowardly murderer. It was demeaning to talk of God-given grace being given to the undeserving members of the Church as well as to the USA as a whole. It was a denial of the true wickedness of the murder and of the powerful humanity of that community. The families of the murdered and the community they lived in have shown extraordinary strength and courage. It is their own strength, not some power of the spirit bestowed on them. These people have shown the best of humanity - they have stood up for themselves, they did not need to be lifted up by God.<br />
<br />
It was a shame that, giving the eulogy in front of such a courageous community, Obama didn't have the courage to praise that community for what it had achieved without invoking the name of a God who stood by while hatred killed so many good people.<br />
<br />
Obama gave a powerful speech, but to me, it was a failure.Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-56933333841456703012015-06-27T17:48:00.001-07:002015-06-27T17:48:51.319-07:00Marriage equality and the most important freedomSo many of us have lived and loved in the face of fear. So many of us have lived secret lives, careful in case a word or a gesture reveals to the world a failure to conform. Others of us have lived lives of open rebellion against the constraints of heterosexual normality.<br />
<br />
There has been no end of advice for us: some say that we should celebrate our difference, accept that we are pioneers for new ways of loving. Some say that those of us who have faith should abandon that faith, rejecting their culture, because of the doctrines that condemn, but why shouldn't cultures change?<br />
<br />
We want the freedom to not have to hide your life and your love - the freedom to have a mortgage, to raise children, to marry, to celebrate anniversaries, to care for your loved ones, and to be cared for by the one you have shared a life with. The freedom to do all these things without having to be seen as out, because there is nothing to be out of.<br />
<br />
This is the freedom to become invisible, to blend in with others and become a part of society. This won't be the desire of all: some thrive on rebellion, some will forever fight for change, but the choice not to follow those paths must be there. <br />
<br />
There is a long way to go, as the old fears will linger, but millions of us can now, finally, choose to be part of society, to follow traditions, to experience all the joys and pains of love and marriage. <br />
<br />
You know what it is, really? It's the most important freedom of all, the freedom that so many have that it's almost always unnoticed:<br />
<br />
It's the freedom to be boring!Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-996370495190877238.post-48440227381278121292015-06-22T13:49:00.001-07:002015-06-22T13:49:08.844-07:00A response to Donald Hoffman's TED talk.<span data-reactid=".t.1:4:1:$comment10153181195612949_10153181930832949:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.0" style="background-color: #f6f7f8;"><span data-reactid=".t.1:4:1:$comment10153181195612949_10153181930832949:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.0.$end:0:$text0:0" style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.0799999237061px;"><span style="color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">I have been following Hoffman's work for many years, thanks to a mutual friend.</span></span></span><br />
<span data-reactid=".t.1:4:1:$comment10153181195612949_10153181930832949:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.0" style="background-color: #f6f7f8;"><span data-reactid=".t.1:4:1:$comment10153181195612949_10153181930832949:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.0.$end:0:$text0:0" style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.0799999237061px;"><span style="color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></span>
<span data-reactid=".t.1:4:1:$comment10153181195612949_10153181930832949:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.0" style="background-color: #f6f7f8;"><span data-reactid=".t.1:4:1:$comment10153181195612949_10153181930832949:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.0.$end:0:$text0:0" style="font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.0799999237061px;"><span style="color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=18&v=oYp5XuGYqqY</span></span></span><br />
<span data-reactid=".t.1:4:1:$comment10153181195612949_10153181930832949:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.0" style="background-color: #f6f7f8; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.0799999237061px;"><span data-reactid=".t.1:4:1:$comment10153181195612949_10153181930832949:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.0.$end:0:$text0:0"><br /></span></span>
<span data-reactid=".t.1:4:1:$comment10153181195612949_10153181930832949:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.0" style="background-color: #f6f7f8; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.0799999237061px;"><span data-reactid=".t.1:4:1:$comment10153181195612949_10153181930832949:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.0.$end:0:$text0:0">A fascinating talk (I admire good public speakers), but I disagree with his conclusions. Evolution does give accurate perceptions, but only accu</span></span><span data-reactid=".t.1:4:1:$comment10153181195612949_10153181930832949:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.3" style="background-color: #f6f7f8; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16.0799999237061px;"><span data-reactid=".t.1:4:1:$comment10153181195612949_10153181930832949:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.3.0"><span data-reactid=".t.1:4:1:$comment10153181195612949_10153181930832949:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.3.0.$end:0:$text0:0">rate enough. Evolution is rarely wasteful. The example of the beetle getting confused about bottles was a bad one, because evolution had not been allowed to act. Given a few thousand years, the beetle would almost certainly have evolved to distinguish between female and beer bottle. If you are going to assess evolution's power to improve accuracy you have to wait for an evolutionary time scale. The beetle's vision isn't telling it where females are - after all, beetles have no concept of females! If you assume that this was what the beetle's vision was trying to do then of course you will come to the assumption that it is wildly inaccurate. The beetle's vision was only showing is what it would have to see to mate, and that had been very accurate for millions of years. The appropriate measure of accuracy is between what we experience and what we believe we experience. </span><br data-reactid=".t.1:4:1:$comment10153181195612949_10153181930832949:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.3.0.$end:0:$text1:0" /><br data-reactid=".t.1:4:1:$comment10153181195612949_10153181930832949:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.3.0.$end:0:$text3:0" /><span data-reactid=".t.1:4:1:$comment10153181195612949_10153181930832949:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.3.0.$end:0:$text4:0">We have pretty accurate vision. The tomato really is in front of us. We throw that because we can objectively measure how far a hand has to move to reach it. Apes can accurately assess what other apes can see so that they can hide food. That hiding involves objectively accurate assessments of lines of sight. </span><br data-reactid=".t.1:4:1:$comment10153181195612949_10153181930832949:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.3.0.$end:0:$text5:0" /><br data-reactid=".t.1:4:1:$comment10153181195612949_10153181930832949:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.3.0.$end:0:$text7:0" /><span data-reactid=".t.1:4:1:$comment10153181195612949_10153181930832949:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.1.$comment-body.0.3.0.$end:0:$text8:0">Of course, our vision is only accurate to a limit. We can't see the tomato's cells or its quarks. But that doesn't mean we are mistaken in chopping it up and putting it in sandwiches.</span></span></span>Steve Zarahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867968082532563442noreply@blogger.com4