Christopher Hitchens

R.I.P. (in the many senses -- at some point, will bring forth truth issues, both small 't' and large 'T' -- paraphrasing one comment, he launched avalanches of words/concepts that disallowed precision of a measurable sort)

Also, am trying to maintain a prayerful, and respectful, mindset (never got a chance to discuss my points with him) while traversing his broadly ranging work.

The guy was so right on so many things. What a viewpoint! To wit: When the King saved God. Many burned, on the several sides, of this issue.

He came over here, like all of the others. It's been 400+ years now. And, we still have so much to learn. 

Remarks:

10/01/2015 -- His Ten Commandments.

01/22/2013 -- T-issues will migrate to issues of science and religion. -- The site referenced in a below Remark took down my comment about dreaming of Hitch (ah, can't believe that he's in heaven?). Yeah. So, here it is: Hitch (in one, he was scrunched in a public place (as if not wanting to recognize the new reality tht flowed around him), as I walked by him, he grabbed my notebook (as in EOJ material), and started to browse it; later, he and my college roommate visited me at my desk talking about a new school that they were involved in -- perhaps Hitch saw the peripatetic need, at the same time, Hitch sized me up, and I showed him the writing on the wall which is there for all to see, after they left, my whole work area went through some type of transformation, I had met several people there after they went to the wider expanse).

05/30/2012 -- See dreams of Hitch comments at the It is or it is not post. These were written at the Daily Hitchens site (and deleted). They'll be re-posted here at some point. Recent Krauss tribute. Nice. Hitch was a lot of things: he comprehended beyond the ability of most; he thought that our knowledge ought to enhance our awareness of being alive, in all of the meanings. Krauss asks, what would Christopher do? Support Dawkins, we might say. Because Hitch was, we'll use him as a focal point for arguing T-issues.

05/03/2012 -- We'll start a 'meme' discussion, Either / Or. 

03/29/2012 -- Interesting video on self-transcendence. Pay attention to the last three minutes.

01/31/2012 -- Blind or delusional.

01/25/2012 -- Margaret Kimberley's take (quoted several places: example).

01/19/2012 -- Notice the comment of someone dreaming of Hitch's state (this can raise a whole lot of discussion, eventually). Just ran across this debate, in 2008, between Christopher and his younger brother, Peter, at Grand Valley State University. Interesting.

01/15/2012 -- Hitch motivates a series: It is or It is not. Hitch lives on. In more ways than one.

01/13/2012 -- Thinking about Hitch, and the wide-range of topics with which he was involved, will motivate several themes this year. Here is the first one (see the Aside -- to be expanded). Now, coming here will be a discussion of Tis (as in, it is so) and Taint (as in, it ain't so). Guess which will be assigned to which side of the argument? Some would say, and so it is (the operational stance that moves its definitions along as it learns -- you know, the business leaders (yes, Jamie, you and your ilk) think that they're smart for learning how to broaden their pockets and how to increase the flow into such -- world-class jerks, actually).

01/02/2012 -- We'll look at what might be an oxymoron (or almost so, as a whole lot of discussion will ensue about this): atheistic scientist. There are two words here of various meanings. The former denotes a position on a question that may very well be unanswerable; yet, one does have a right to conjecture that God is a man-made creation (ah, creationist thinking?). So, it would be a working hypothesis. Now, unanswerable? Yes, in the terms of falsifiable-ness, cannot be phrased publicly sufficiently to allow tests (and, as in, don't fall for all the contentions about 'literalness'  as being necessary to resolve the thing personally). The latter term ought to have connotations dealing with testable-ness, repeatable-ness, and much more. Too, a moving platform, albeit with a more firm basis in the future from current work, hopefully. To an end? Ah, just as we see no end to the horizon, why ought we see some limit to that which is (may be) unanswerable? Call it what you will. Your recognition of such, nor whatever name you apply, really has no effect whatsoever, except in a limited sense. As, the hubris of the atheist is (can be) as much of an issue as is the idiocy of the fundamentalist. Remember, our states of knowledge are becoming increasingly wrapped within our lens, filters, and what have you; do not all of these have their foundations in mathematics (quasi-empiricism) and our prowess at material manipulations (uncertainty, et al)? By the way, consider that that which is unanswerable (and unknown) may very well have an 'echo' feature which we can understand, and use for our (collective) benefits. Granted the signal may come from our conscious being (oh yes, we'll have to consider essence as opposed to property), yet from whence that?

12/22/2011 -- Remembering, Christopher, at the clear-thinking oasis.

12/20/2011 -- Apropos quote from Paul Wallace: Both the closed-hearted scientism of atheist hardliners and the narrow creationism of religious fundamentalists kill our strange and beautiful world by flattening it beyond repair.

12/17/2011 -- Mocker meets the Mockee, one might say. That theme would offer much to discuss. We'll collect the several of these that Christopher's views might have brought to the fore. Too, as a focal point, the t-issues become very interesting. Perhaps, Hitchens was an angel in disguise.

12/17/2011 -- Our import underwent, and remarked on, the barbarism of waterboarding; power needs its carvers.

Modified: 10/01/2015

Either / Or

Context: See Tru'eng anew, focus going forward, mathematics.

---

Of course, we'll have to give a nod (actually, many) to Kierkegaard's thinking on the subject. He has been mentioned before, this same context.

One has to wonder what Soren would think of the modern concept of memes. We'll look more closely at one way the idea has been used on the web (The Daily Meme -- it's nice to see the attention, some, of course, still criticize the notion).

---

First, though, here are a couple of posts that deal with the subject. Both of these are from the early part of 2012. Hitchens features, to boot.

• It is or it is not -- One thing that attracted people about Hitch was the breadth of his grasp of what had been said (written) about these topics (over time and cultures). Of course, Hitch had his own twist and was able to reign (in the mix). As in, most had to be removed (or remove themselves) from his presence in order to regain their critical mindfulness (that is a story to tell). Essentially, the theme is choice. Some choices seem to be more 'smart' (whatever that is) than others; definitely, we're more aware now of the cultural influences. Not forgetting, mind you, the nature (genetic) part of things.
• Blind or delusional -- How to know which is which? A stack of credentials and a large collection of accolades? Ah, is that so? Success by an accumulation of money (oh yes, we see that thing raise its head a lot)? Of course, we always can fall back to the 'proof of the pudding' argument. Which is? The eating (somewhat). Now, with this, we get down to an operational mode. One might say, arguing from effectiveness. Our problem is that money accrual seems to have taken on immense importance (it's easy to see why, folks, as we have always been lame at evaluating hot air - which money is, even with its purchase/power qualities). 

---

By the way, the attempts at evaluation are meme-based (we'll have to characterize this further).

---

The existence of 'truth engines' is a fact, both in a natural and a memetic sense. In the former, we hope that science can help us learn how this works so as to be put to use for the benefit of all (not the favored few). In terms of the later, all sorts of questions abound (just look at the criticisms of the use of memes -- understandable, I have talked how it allows a look at what is really metaphysical without seeming to do so). Yet, that the meme has properties that are amenable to our poking around (after all, we do 'read' them -- naturally, the metaphoric scheme has computational flavor -- as we process these things) needs to be addressed. We'll put some attention there.

Remarks:

06/25/2015 -- ACM Communications had an article (Created Computed Universe) that suggest that our computional prowess ought to lead to agnosticism rather than to anything else. Of course, my initial remark: So many modern minds conjure and contort in order to introduce what is not much different than what some knew many millennia ago in the desert.

01/05/2015 -- Renewal, see Context line.

11/03/2014 -- Related to this are questions like: is math created?

01/22/2013 -- The site referenced in a below Remark took down my comment about dreaming of Hitch (ah, can't believe that he's in heaven?). Yeah. So, here it is: Hitch (in one, he was scrunched in a public place (as if not wanting to recognize the new reality tht flowed around him), as I walked by him, he grabbed my notebook (as in EOJ material), and started to browse it; later, he and my college roommate visited me at my desk talking about a new school that they were involved in -- perhaps Hitch saw the peripatetic need, at the same time, Hitch sized me up, and I showed him the writing on the wall which is there for all to see, after they left, my whole work area went through some type of transformation, I had met several people there after they went to the wider expanse).

12/13/2012 -- Is it time to move beyond the Turing Test?

11/08/2012 -- Wonderful new blog: Engineering Memes.

08/04/2012 -- Nice look at either/or. We'll start to look at why 'decidable' is going to be an important concept. Nods to Turing.

06/20/2012 -- Yes, Hitch, and his new friend, again.

Modified: 06/25/2015

It is or it is not

I would have used 'tis and tain't but for the taint that might come forth. So, what is this about? Well, we're going to look at issues raised by a growing set of people, such as the late Christopher Hitchens. You see, this type of discussion is central to truth engineering, especially as it relates to T-issues.

--

As well, we see both sides of the arguments claiming to know. On the one side, it's phrased in terms of having fact at hand (to wit, discussions at the Dawkins site), as we expect with science (except, evidence has become increasingly wrapped within computational/mathematical modeling that requires us to put into place the necessary filters/lens, etc. -- recursive issues) as it has evolved in the past few centuries. On the other side, there are statements about material obtained via various types of means, with revelation (whole slew of sacred literature) being one of these.

So, it's like a fence for the reasonable folks. There are two sides, yet one may (ought to be allowed to) waffle on both sides (actually, operational effectiveness may require us to do just that). Too, nuances come into play on both sides. All of this is relevant to the discourse, however we are using an 'engineering' ontology, so that means the following assignment.

• It is not -- argues this: any claims that might have theistic leanings are basically bonkers, as in delusional (look it up on Google). We can wrap ourselves in the Mystery (see Krauss, et al) or Evolution (see Dawkins) or ... 
• It is -- the converse, in a sense: there is a whole lot to look at here as this is an age-old issue. From our viewpoint, though, we'll just say that there exists a meme (or set of memes) that follow Anselm's argument of the ontological nature. Or, in other words, we have times when something outside of the human limits (mind you, only offering the use of a symmetric entity to which we can project) has a role to play in our decision processes. For now, the use of  'meme' means that we can draw benefits (potentially quite remarkable -- hence, the motivation) without taking the discussion to the nth degree (that cannot currently be resolved for many folks - okay?).  

Before we proceed, there needs to be a statement of a disclosure nature. That is, on which side is the blogger? Well, it may be that using 'It is not' as the basis for argument may imply something about that. But, then, again, that question will remain unanswered, for now, in an attempt to be balanced. 

---

Now, again, one might ask if an a-theist (some say, the 'It is not' side) can claim to be scientific (and that might imply a position on the part of the blogger). You know, science does not provide answers in an ultimate sense. There is always a provisional platform that grows in size. Too, that increase in size does not diminish what is not known (at least, from the viewpoint of the less strident mind). If science cannot at this time disprove the meme (or its metaphysical analog), how can one claim to make the decision via science? 

---

On the other hand, if one were to argue for the 'It is' claim, why does it have to take the ultimate leap to describing what exactly is being labelled? You see, the meme would be an operational flavor; nowhere within the context of its use would there be any requirement to subsume the essence (that which is labelled) within some limited sensibility. Look, if science has increasing boundaries, so too will this argument.  

---

Okay, we'll be going back and forth on this. Mind you, the meme mentioned above is a type of closure. As a joke, one could say it deals with compactification (use any sense that you want). Yet, the issue is that we have to assume closure, in many cases, since we have undecidable regions (in both time and space) lurking. You know, we do that anyway with our common sense. Lots of times, it works. 

With computational complexity being a core issue with 'truth' (only one of many other things, so don't leap too far in trying to extract implications here), we cannot use the 'omniscience' approach (though, one wonders how the 'It is not' side is going to look at this -- we'll look at this later) that seems to underlie some notions (those who ponder such things do not know how we can know the truth behind any modern situation with having our arms around the whole thing -- oh yes, some have taken mathematics as the basis meanwhile ignoring quasi-empirical issues). I say 'underlies' as it seems to be that we have a basis moving about down there. Truthfully? Many seem to just jump right over the matter; my hope is to show that they're straddling the fence when they do so.

That brings up the first requirement. Show that there is a fence. At the same time, discuss the symmetry related to this fence's dynamics.

---

How long will this take? Why would there be a rush? Mankind has fought over these matters for thousands of years. My interest is trying to set a framework that will allow increased insights (as well, will provide for some interesting discussions and experiments).

Remarks:

01/22/2013 -- The site referenced in a below Remark took down my comment about dreaming of Hitch (ah, can't believe that he's in heaven?). Yeah. So, here it is: Hitch (in one, he was scrunched in a public place (as if not wanting to recognize the new reality tht flowed around him), as I walked by him, he grabbed my notebook (as in EOJ material), and started to browse it; later, he and my college roommate visited me at my desk talking about a new school that they were involved in -- perhaps Hitch saw the peripatetic need, at the same time, Hitch sized me up, and I showed him the writing on the wall which is there for all to see, after they left, my whole work area went through some type of transformation, I had met several people there after they went to the wider expanse).

05/30/2012 -- See dreams of Hitch comments at the It is or it is not post. These were written at the Daily Hitchens site (and deleted). They'll be re-posted here at some point. Recent Krauss tribute.

05/04/2012 -- Alan's 100th. We need to look at Computability in the World.

03/29/2012 -- Interesting video on self-transcendence. Pay attention to the last three minutes.

01/31/2012 -- Blind or delusional.

01/15/2012 -- Jobs, labor, and disrespect.

01/15/2012 --  Hitch lives on. In more ways than one. ..., One might say that this is the middle way (variously characterized throughout our history on the planet). From the viewpoint of product development, middle out is the only way that finds success.

Modified: 01/22/2013

Nitty Gritty Truth I

As a way of introduction, these NittyGrittyTruth posts will be about George Edward Kimball, III who passed away in July of this year. And more, these will look at George's impact upon the planet's inhabitants.

George, the penultimate iconoclast, had an American pedigree that dates back to the beginning of the stirrings that coming to this side of the pond brought forth in the hearts of those who left their old countries yearning for a better life (albeit at costs (detrimental impacts on the already resident populace, et al) that are yet to be figured). His pre-boomer experiences are telling, to boot. And, his luck was that the prior generation had started to describe (modernize and retell about) the ‘void’ which will figure prominently in these post.

In a sense, as George W (not Bush, definitely) was a constellation for us to ponder about over the ages, so, too, can GEK III (how we’ll refer to the wonderful fella) be more than a splash as was HST who blasted out further than his basis. GEK III’s basis was solid to which fact we’ll pay a lot of attention.

George was a good kid (we'll explain this, to boot), the quintessential world citizen. In short, the America in which he was born let him down, as it has all the rest of us. Of course, HST, et al, were very much capable of pointing out those failures. America? Where the likes of Newt is listened to? Sick at the core, GEI III might say (might be paraphrased as saying) as he, creatively, demonstrated these problems, if we looked closely.

The dreams of our childhoods? Well, we found out that they were fantasy propagated by old men and their machinations. Understanding this was a major leap forward for George albeit such knowledge is painful to hold. His humor was a try to abate that deep insight, one could say. Note, please (as an example), his cheeky take on the classic American boy with his toys in the picture in the Alex Belth article, tin badge and all.

That some jerk happened to be acting out what he had seen in the movies, or on TV, and that George’s head was in the wrong place at the wrong time set loose dynamics that he had to learn to control. We’ll look more closely at those types of things, as it is essentially what we all face everyday.

This old medic will tell you that the health industry failed us, and was not its progress largely American-based, too boot? We exported our dim ways (to wit, Japan’s lost generation, and much more -- say the 'mistreatment' of returning veterans).

As GEK III might say, it was not those who work in any of these areas that is the problem (albeit that some might be characterized as faulty - to be nice). He knew the importance of the human spirit. Rather, it was the system that de-evolved (actually, was never let to evolve). But, those topics are another whole story, and we’ll get technical, from time to time.

George’s efforts at attaining balance were, essentially, thwarted all around in ways that will be interesting to analyze. Of course, when has the world ever been healthy for its kids (yes, even those of the upper-upper have their issues)? Our task? Build such a world. An immense military-industrial complex as the foundation? Perhaps, if the side of it that stresses world health, the capabilities of the Seabees, and such. Naturally, there would be some policing (had I been in Lawrence at the time, I would have voted for GEK III).

Mind you, swimming in the void and looking for structure is daily dilemma of us all. Hopefully, the people that we know, and the sub-systems (alluding to the fact that no system is it) that we encounter, will be more an assistance than a hindrance. GEK III was solid, in many ways, as his friend will tell you. One comment talked about his metaphysical stature (we’ll delve there, too – we ought to have some comments on what St. Peter and GEK III had as a discourse).

This series has no planned end. The topics will be wide-ranging, as was GEK III’s mind. Some words that seem to come to mind, or apropos to the undertaking, would be from JC’s ‘Man in Black’ and BD’s (BZ’s) ‘Chimes of Freedom’ (which, for GEK III might relate to some tales of those naturally-based methods of which HST was so fond). Yes, GEK III has many lessons for us all.

Remarks:

04/23/2015 -- George at Beats in Kansas.

01/22/2013 -- The site referenced in a below Remark took down my comment about dreaming of Hitch (ah, can't believe that he's in heaven?). Yeah. So, here it is: Hitch (in one, he was scrunched in a public place (as if not wanting to recognize the new reality tht flowed around him), as I walked by him, he grabbed my notebook (as in EOJ material), and started to browse it; later, he and my college roommate visited me at my desk talking about a new school that they were involved in -- perhaps Hitch saw the peripatetic need, at the same time, Hitch sized me up, and I showed him the writing on the wall which is there for all to see, after they left, my whole work area went through some type of transformation, I had met several people there after they went to the wider expanse).

07/06/2012 -- Today, we have the one-year remembrance of George Edward Kimball III (GEK III). 

12/23/2011 -- Void? Excuse my laziness. Of course, I meant 'existential despair' with many senses. There are analogs that could be of use, to boot. TPD has a good (fairly modern and without the claptrap coming out of bad psychology) take on what this means for talent. Can we really bottle up our insights? How many have used drugs, or alcohol, to grasp at creativity, for instance?

12/16/2011 -- Did Christopher Hitchens understand America as it could be?

12/13/2011 -- See NGT II.

12/09/2011 -- Some have used 'bad ass' in reference to GEK III. We'll go into that: the motivation, the mis-characterization, the meanings behind the mis-quote, ... 'archetypal' would be a very much better way to approach this subject.

12/09/2011 -- George's remarks about editors applies. Yet, from time to time, typos (and the like) will be corrected since these posts will be written without use of a high-falutin' tool.

Modified: 04/23/2015

Myth of the monolithic

Venturing on T-issues, somewhat, let's lay out a few concepts, to be handled further later (the usual punt). In certain discussions (say, Hitch), the use of 'monolithic' comes (or can come) about. But, the term projects (embeds) itself geometrically. As in, some structural affair that is part of our getup comes to fore (we're only human after all -- also, think Brouwer).

---

Ah, earlier, we ventured upon 'symmetry' as necessary for these discussions, as it is an essential property. If there is anything monolithic, it's that we, as humans, span something that is polar at its extremes (to be defined), yet integrated when seen in its own being. And people just exult themselves on finding what they think is the 'highest' peak.

Aside: little ants running around Creations Mystery (hint here is that I'll give Krauss the benefit of the doubt (and will get back to this) -- the only issue that he needs to consider is the self-referential nature of what he is doing and its basis -- okay? Lawrence -- those thinking of computability are chasing part of the problem) and trying to collect all of their little truths into the large Truth (never to be). The peaks? Even having the thought of 'highest' will prevent one from attaining the state.

--

So, why this? Well, it has to do with trying to understand that against which Hitch railed? Of course, we have all of those silly humans playing their games, putting on their ritualistic garments and messing up our stage (yes, the world is linear and Hilbert). But, it's their right to do so. Again, being human, there are social norms which keep peace in the large.

Actually, either/or would argue for a basic respect for other's thinking, as long as they're not trampling on the rights (ah so, what are those? -- unfortunately, that is an unsettled question in modern America) of others (get it?). If the thing were done correctly, would not my rights then be protected if I'm looking out for my neighbor and he/she is looking out for me -- the bro-hood thing approximated in the military context? We do not need the 'big brother' (who assessed that he is adult enough for the responsibility?).

---

Now, it must be said that this line of reasoning is not suggesting that there is not Something behind that which Krauss labels as Mystery (his capitalization). It is just that the Something is more than we can comprehend -- we've known that for many 1000s of years, folks.

Just what is the problem? Power! People poking their nose, for a myriad of motivations. It's way more than the glass-house. As I've said with CEOs, we clean their damn diapers (yes, Jamie, you, too). That is, they crap on the world; we're supposed to think that the crap is the best smelling thing. Wait! Sorry, fell off the wagon here, for a moment.

In other words, idiotic, childish (all sorts of characterizations) behavior on the part of supposed adult humans (Hitch was right to rail against this -- clergy? you guys are the biggest pokers -- unfortunately, that use of 'poke' has more connotations now than we ever thought possible).

---

So, I'll retract the sarcastic remark about rituals. Dress up all you want; don't try to get me pulled into the thing, though, okay [me, in this case, substitutes for 'we' in order to prevent notions of royal selves -- rephrased, don't try to gather into your fold those who have their own fold - you see, flock (as in, those of a fold) fracases are the problem]?

---

So, finally, we'll have to rephrase a whole bunch of stuff in order to get out of the knee-jerk mode. Science has tried to use mathematics for this. It is not sufficient. First of all, there is the computer issue. Secondly, it's not as 'intuitive' (not knocking Luitzen) as we might like (as von Neumann said, we don't understand it, we just get used to it -- ah, so! ... equational yada yada).

How long will it take? There are certain steps that will be necessary (I'll be bold enough -- audacious -- to attempt an itemization -- at some point) that will be more clear when the basis is better known (meaning that there is a lack now? ...).

Remarks:

06/25/2015 -- ACM Communications had an article (Created Computed Universe) that suggest that our computional prowess ought to lead to agnosticism rather than to anything else. Of course, my initial remark: So many modern minds conjure and contort in order to introduce what is not much different than what some knew many millennia ago in the desert.

02/09/2013 -- This year, we'll get more into t-issues. Plenty of people are looking at science/religion topics. Too, Dawkins was quoted as saying that the existence of God ought to be subject to a scientific test. This can be arranged, given the right framework. Perhaps, I'm too old to see it, but its day will come. And, with its advent, we would not have an explanation, necessarily (as in, no monolith - lose that idea). The benefit? Progress of a nature not seen due to the dampening related to not allowing the broader views. Mind you, science getting into religion may help root out all of those accumulated bits of dross which are so problematic (too many to name here, but I would attempt such an enumeration if there were interest).

08/04/2012 -- Nice look at either/or. We'll start to look at why 'decidable' is going to be an important concept. Nods to Turing. 

07/23/2012 -- Didn't mention one aspect of the new thrust, yesterday. Essentially, I'll be pulling, from 45 years ago, some work into modern jargon as the work's focus is apropos to the discussions.

07/22/2012 -- Now looking at applied mathematics, from several senses. Some of it will be computationally oriented. Yet, we have to know what is behind the use. Do you not see? So, we'll have to look at why particular decisions have been made over the past century or so. Prof Osgood looks at that briefly within the context that he is covering. Another domain would deal with our basic problems of cosmology and quanta (large juxtaposition there, however the thinking is the same -- of course, same boundaries that are inherited by being humanly constrained). So, let's put out one notion, to be discussed. The whole thing of the 'monolith' seems to revolve around a deeply held idea that there is some overall, universal, frame of reference. After all, we use the earth to base some types of relativistic calculations. Unconsciously, we do the same thing with ourselves (yes, hubris abounds is about the only fact that we can see at the moment) as we push our cosmological, and other, knowledge far beyond any type of reasonable basis.

07/08/2012 -- Watching Prof Osgood's lectures, up to 15, which is half-way, and will continue to the end (at a faster pace, hopefully). Why is this important? These types of mapping (classically, most date from the period of expansion in the late 18th/early 19th century) move 'something' from space to space in order to help resolve calculation (in the classic sense of computing to a result that is usable). In the case of this class, Fourier Transforms, the approach's deal with the core of how we know. That is, signals (either from nature or from our interpretation - as in sensor/lense/filter, etc. -- okay?) are processed until noise is diminished. Now to the crux:

• Prof Osgood uses distributions to proof theorems at a fairly high-level. Of course, this looks powerful, magical, and is useful. 
• The ease comes from carefully defining what is necessary (or, I might add, essential). Yet, residue (to be discussed further) must be there at various places. Are these not of significance (pun intended)? 
• Part of the magic deals with quasi-empirical concerns about which we will always pay attention. That is, from whence the fact that mathematics can (and does, in many, cases) work? 

06/26/2012 -- T-issues will be addressed from time to time. In the meantime, one person to read about is Elijah who continues to have much appeal to this day. Too, going back to the lecture series that is much more interesting than those Ben did earlier this year, we see a demarcation early in Lecture 11, after Prof Osgood clears up some issue about the Central Limit Theorem's proof (using techniques discussed in the lectures), where the Prof talks about things talked about so far (problems solved) were correct, but not of use. Why? Mainly, there are issues related to special techniques (mostly ad-hoc) and to redoing foundational views. And, we're talking, in this case, about something that is 200+ years old, has had a lot of attention by smart people over all of this time, and deals with things that are, at least, amenable to analysis. Too, the synthesis involved doesn't make grand assumptions. Now, similar types of methods have been applied all across the wide horizon of advanced cognition (as in science and more) and practice, yet, how firm can we call the basis? Not as developed as we would like to believe (when we can believe politicians, perhaps, that'll be the day). Not enough for all of the wool-pulling that I've seen. But, we'll continue in the effort to make this plain as is the sun in the sky at noon (on a clear day).

06/21/2012 -- Yesterday's remark mentioned some difference between the processing of the language of mathematics and a natural language. We talk about God (and much more) in the latter. One thing different is the 'functional' nature of mathematics (wait, let me explain, before PTIME, I hope). Yet, people's reactions to words can be approximated in that same manner (note, some type of limit required). We'll get to it. As an aside, the universities are offering their courses on line. Example: Prof Osgood's look at Fourier's work. Notice, please, that there are 300K reads for Lecture 1. Lecture 2 has 100K while Lecture 30 has reduced to 10K. But, look at Lectures 28 and 29 with only 6K reads (some people jumped to the end, methinks). As the Prof says, these things are hard and take a lot of work. Mathematicians? They do their own work. Politicians (kings, et al)? Others do their work for them.

06/21/2012 -- Listened to a math professor, by video yesterday, talk (in the context of a fairly complicated application area -- which is used quite a lot) about his having to qualify statements as he talked about things as it seems to be an interminable activity. Why? Any statement (provable, type) needs to be explicit. Yet (my put, here), that it's processed through human cognition brings in the implicit (you see, that's the key). The use of 'monolith' denotes physical being (oh, you will tell me that applying 'Monolithic' to God does not say something about Being, with some notion of physicality -- let me remind you of a major conflict over the past 1200+ years on just this subject -- hopefully, I won't have to be specific here -- oh yes, I will, at some point). Now, if the statements are processed by a system (as in, code), we still don't get our arms around the whole thing (hence, all of the holes in the cloud-ish types of things).

06/20/2012 -- Also, hidden beneath the above is the fact that several human traits are going to become more important, and better used, than we've seen before. In fact, part of the knee-jerk is recoiling from these since they are universally found, not just given to the 'gifted' (that class, who throughout our history (and even before the recorded type) have used their talents to 'lord' it over others and to, basically, run the world as they have seen fit). All this leads me to start to think of STEM (what it might mean, in the several senses).

06/20/2012 -- Now, after all of that, why pick the monolith? Well, more reasons than that it played a role in 2001 (yes, the movie, old stuff). But, true, 'monolithic' would be only one attribute. Would not all attributes be encompassed by the Unknowable? Oh? You ask about the negative ones? By symmetry, we would have a way to view anything 'negative' in another light. Actually, since we're dealing with Being (define as you will, but know that in doing so, you're trying to limit that beyond limit), we have to be careful with words. And, it's already been said that mathematics doesn't carry us any further; it, too, is language based, in part. After all, those who interpret systems do so in a manner not dissimilar to reading. Just because there may be more density in the approach (as in, what meaning may be in a simple symbol) does not change that fact. But, another aspect comes to fore. Computing. And, it is a fact, now, that systems can be processed artificially, almost ad infinitum given sufficient energy. Therein is another problem (nod to Turing).

Modified: 06/25/2015

Science, religion, or spirituality?

Science and religion is one sentence? There, I said it. Ah, that feels good. For awhile now, I've been punting by referring to something called T-issues as the means to subsume all things related to the controversy under a future topic (TBD, in other words). Some see those two as not being sufficient; bringing in spirituality can change the tone of the argument.

---

Today, at last (or, finally), I ran into a site that looks appealing from several senses. We'll ignore some of that discussion, for now, but I can talk about how I got to the site. The WSJ had a review of Neil Shubin's book. WSJ actually referred to Blake's little poem. That Neil presents such a grand sweep that is comprehensible is remarkable. Many who have tried this approach have done so to further some argument. Neil seems to be mainly trying to describe how things unfolded, over the eons, through his understanding. One can always, while reading these things, wonder about the author's underlying belief system (yes, a universal trait, even if it is vehemently denied; science can be as much of a religion as any other such system) and its influence.

So, I went to search (isn't that the modern way?) about Neil and to collect things to read about him or by him. One thing that I notices was that he was going to be talking at a Jewish Community Center. Okay. So, I went to look for statements about his beliefs by others or himself. That led me to this site.

scienceandreligiontoday.com.

From a quick browse, it looks to have a marvelous mixture of topics. So, then, I decided to make it, for now (let's refer to to the subject as S/R), the center of focus for dealing with T-issues (and t-issues) in the contexts related to truth engineering. For instance, S/R can serve as one of the start-off points for browsing on any of the multitude of subjects related to the topic. If the S/R frameworks (such as this one) have not addressed something, then the search (discussion) can go elsewhere. If that occurs, though, one might wonder why the topic has not come up.

---

Shubin's large view brings up some interesting points about maintaining cohesion under such a task. Surely, throughout the exposition, one would expect to find inconsistencies. Except, that broad views do peanut-butter over things, so that any contradictions would be smoothed. But, then, how to smooth would not be resolved. Yes, in retrospect, we could agree on the harmony within the message; yet, it would be easy to argue, yes, but let's look at it this way.

One cannot find such understanding going the other way. That is, who understands quantum physics? If you say that you do, please be aware of it mathematical basis. von Neumann, himself, said that we cannot get understanding. Rather, we get used to something. Which, by the way, seems like inuring one's mind rather than getting a grasp of the situation.

That little bit there, large/small - sensible/nonsensical - et al, brings up the major topic: to believe or not to believe (albeit, science requires all sorts of beliefs).

So, either/or is the situation'l choice. At some point, perhaps, we'll have an effective way to deal with the subject. Methinks that the computational, our little genie gone awry, will force the issue.

Remarks:

02/09/2013 -- This year, we'll get more into t-issues. Plenty of people are looking at science/religion topics. Too, Dawkins was quoted as saying that the existence of God ought to be subject to a scientific test. This can be arranged, given the right framework. Perhaps, I'm too old to see it, but its day will come. And, with its advent, we would not have an explanation, necessarily. The benefit? Progress of a nature not seen due to the dampening related to not allowing the broader views. Mind you, science getting into religion may help root out all of those accumulated bits of dross which are so problematic (too many to name here, but I would attempt such an enumeration if there were interest).

02/09/2013 -- Since front pages change quite a bit with feeds, here are two posts to start with: What Believers and Atheists can teach each other (a rabbi talks to a science writer), Is Atheism increasing at the expense of Theism? (love the comment from Cornell: I can’t see God, as he doesn’t personally wave hello to me when I ask him to, therefore he must not exist).

01/22/2013 --  Put two comments relating to blind or delusional. Both ignored. Ought to have referenced by dreams of Hitch (in one, he was scrunched in a public place (as if not wanting to recognize the new reality tht flowed around him), as I walked by him, he grabbed my notebook (as in EOJ material), and started to browse it; later, he and my college roommate visited me at my desk talking about a new school that they were involved in -- perhaps Hitch saw the peripatetic need, at the same time, Hitch sized me up, and I showed him the writing on the wall which is there for all to see, after they left, my whole work area went through some type of transformation, I had met several people there after they went to the wider expanse). 

Modified: 02/09/2013

Patris et filius

This post continues a series or two. It is partly motivated by the day (06/17/12) where fathers are remembered, by some. And, the coming first anniversary of GEK III's passing motivates.

---

The three of this photo, in a sense immortalized by the techniques that both represent our prowess (and portend so much), are now gone on to the wider realm after leaving us within a few months of each other.   We can think of several labels for this collection, each with its own significance: tres hombres, three spirits, a trio of liberals, fathers, sons, and more. The one that will be the focus for awhile? Father and son.

Aside: It is an issue of either/or that allows comment about the 'realm' and more; one wonders what twists of phlegm-ish expectorants might be heaved this way as a result of the comment's impact.


---

Tres hombres, Three Spirits, Trio of Liberals

The photos used in this composite are somewhat concurrent in time (we'll get to that below). In fact, two subjects of the photos were on the same campus within the same period. Each person was mind-ful, with differing talents that are of interest to the subject. And, each played roles after the moment caught by film that bear some attention.

---

Ah, the innocence of the times of those photos. The time? It twas before either Presidents Ford or Carter. And, it was after the youngsters began to exhibit troublesome behavior on a mass scale, from the Free Speech movement onward. Now, mind you, put your mind, for a bit, away from the cloud (and its analogs; in other words, lose, if you can, the notion that we are at some peak of knowing-ness) and consider a subset of what became known as the 'boomer' generation. No one had any idea of what was going on (by the way, at some point, we'll put in links to songs that hinted, yet didn't deliver ..., art's purpose and limit) and do not now [know] in retrospect. And, when I say en masse, it is correct, as things mushroomed.

One telling thing, though, was the peaceful nature (record-breaking assemblages, sometimes peaceful); true, a lot of the focus was anti-war. And, it was mostly of the young (but, not altogether).

Aside: One might characterize some war as up-wellings of this same sort. We can go into that whole cycle, in depth, as we look at 1000-year influences that recur (again and again). Incidentally, have you thought of the Magna Carta (June 15th, sealed) lately? A lot of war is exploitation, though. Again, serfs as cannon fodder for their lords (who don't get their hands dirty).

---


All through history, there have been movements. In fact, in the physical sense, itinerant groups of people have always been a reality. There were more motivations than we want to go into here (economics plus, okay?). Yet, the power that became associated with the flow (time of the photo, okay?) was an existential affair that just welled because it could. The time was right. And, the time captured above was precursor to lots of 'flowering' that we see happening around the world.

Aside: Power to the people suggests that 'people' can be more than the 'elite' would like us to consider. Ignoring the T-issue, for now, people can be said to have much more potential than many are allowed (or have the opportunity) to develop. We've gone into that (search on 'new royalty' and other musings about 'lords' who like to lord (yes, pun) it over others) quite a bit (Hitch didn't 'lord' so much as trim down egos - certain types, that is).

---

So, in these remembrances, not all of the three can be included in each of the groupings that we can conceive. Yet, though one or two may have membership (we'll get to all this eventually), the other was (others were) not inimical to the ideas being put forth. There are many factors to consider, like Hitch's duty of self (autodidact, in a sense) implicit in his arguments . In fact, the relations, of the blogger, to each varies, too. Two were personally known. The third is associated via a set of measures (think about Kevin, for an example) and more.

---

Where are we now in relation to that time (of the photo)? It wasn't innocent for all (after all, we're talking two Yanks and a Brit, here - the new world's master and the older one who is still looking for wisdom); nor was it as innocent as it may have looked to some. Many seem to want to go back; others seem to think that they missed out by not being there (by the way, there?). Yet, when one considers the current problems (and looks at the players and the plays), they seem to be of the same ilk. Of course, we have better ways to message (and media up the wazoo); with the cloud, zombies can be anywhere, not necessarily 'altered' in any normal sense; no, they're just in a state that is a natural response to that which is coming as stimuli (another theme, of importance); and more. Who will be mind-ful of the younger sets? Will they be able to be so?

---

This post is a mere first step, a slight onset. Let's end with a couple of adages. There's nothing new under the sun (yes, technologists barf at this). And, the earth is round, but the world is flat (ah, as the barb said, a stage -- if you must, it's that interminable set of linear-izers that we all carry around (source for our conflicts that are based on sizing up (Hitch was good at that) each other) -- t-issues say that it's much more than that -- we'll get there).

Remarks:

10/13/2015 -- "God" as name or predicate? How about Being?

08/03/2015 -- George as inspiration of computing and existentialism.

04/23/2015 -- George at Beats in Kansas.

12/20/2014 -- George's birthday (1943). But, it was innocence, that of youth. That generation bifurcated, later, as is always the case (in all sorts of polarities - too, it split into many pieces). If we would look back at the boomers (and their times, flowers and all - my position, on the leading edge, not of but riding the waves of their impetus), they were the first to bring large numbers to the surge that we can observe with the change-of-cohort guard several times a century. There was, then, the emergence in other than the U.S., but here it (that energetic thrust - so sadly, not understood at all) played out more fully. ... How many "springs" have we seen of late? How many fruit'ed? Luckily, many do not outgrow their youthfulness (there are ways to characterize this, many of which bring derisive reactions - does not reduce the dynamics, though) and play their "adult" roles without losing their soul. Too many (one by the initials of DC - never reflects, ah - guy, you missed the scene?) let their responsibilities freeze that which brings them life (as in, ..., here goes, ..., no matter what role you play now, or your attitude, or your power, or your supposed gifts, or ..., you are still a "child" of ..., God, ...). ... I was lucky enough to catch GEK III in some of his boyish, innocent, ..., moments. ... Ah, how do we bring back the wonder back ...?

02/08/2014 -- Two years (02/09/2012), more on Truth Engineering (and, the hombres).

12/20/2013 -- George's 70th. So, looking at the tres, there is a sequence: personal, state, world, with various mixtures, thereof.

07/09/2013 -- Was there a time when father knew, whether all or most of the time? Many sons railed against that, GEK III, for instance. Some sons had absent fathers, who were no more than some ideal without any material substance. Some sons even followed their fathers. All sorts of positions along an axis. However, there is something new, now. An insidious overlay is threatening us; its origins come from advances in prowess that are less understood than those who practice think is so. Have we left serfdom to a feudal lord behind in order to be wrapped in a more dense veil?

Closer than a shadow

07/07/2013 -- Two years ago (07/06/2011), for GEK III. No comment, as of yet, on his FB page. Of course, social media, and its uses, are new to us. As a culture, we have a day, in late May, where many visit the graves of their families. Or, re-look at their ancestors. Let's do a slogan: Ancestors - closer than a shadow.

02/09/2013 -- One year ago, for CTS Jr. So many current events, and extant beings, are creating an ever-increasing stack of things to remark about. Why does the time and energy line seem to be tangent to this stack's principle curve (see, on FB, Engineer Memes)? Perhaps, the clue is to not bother with those superficial elements (as does social media, say FB, et al); rather, look at the more universal properties (yes, we are able, given effort) that are seemingly (as in, as far as we can know) endless.

10/13/2012 -- Truth and the senses.

07/06/2012 -- Today, we have the one-year remembrance of George Edward Kimball III (GEK III).

06/26/2012 -- Beyond words, for now.

06/20/2012 -- Will start to look at the basics.

06/17/2012 -- Need to bring in the father figure issue. Guys know that some play this role, beyond the family. It's inevitable. Part of the fabric of our being (in many more senses than the George Michael's song look -- see, I warned of this). Look, people, authority figures are 'father' figures (even if female -- the military knows this -- did you run across a 'mother' figure when you were in the service?); Hitch knew that we would have to deal with that in order to 'free' our minds. Of course, we'll visit this again.

06/17/2012 -- Again, innocence? The build-up in troops in southeast Asia was large by the time of these photos. For what? We ask now; ought to have asked then (still)? And now, all sorts of things are going on under the guise of America. We can ask: which America?

06/16/2012 -- Is it comical to use 'innocence' as Nixon was in office at the time?

Modified: 10/13/2015