- Details
- Written by: Rod Boyle
- Category: Ideas & Questions
- Hits: 1131
Recalling an interview with Stephen Fry, in which he denounces the existence of God because what God would allow a child to (...die of leukemia, suffer abuse, etc, etc).
And - on first reflection you would agree with him. Certainly it's fashionable to disagree with God - at least the God of Roman Catholicism - and even as such it's less the "God" than the interpretations and intermediaries they've appointed on the subject.
But - here I disagree - to even name "God" is to anthropomorphize him - make him in our image. This so that we may more readily understand him (or her).
This is by it's very nature absurd.
We can imagine - albeit poorly - what it would be like to be an ant. If we err it is more than like that we project too much of our own consciousness into the ant - imagining it capable of a bigger portion of consciousness than it has. Think of a popular cartoon starring Woody Allen. But an ant has a finite relationship to us - we can measure the difference in size, in our brains, in our relative scope of duties and perceptions.
No one would believe for a moment that an ant could in any way imagine what it would be like to be ourselves. The difference is too gross, if an ant could imagine being anything other than being an ant, most surely it would become that.
Now, compared to the breadth of the universe as we have perceived it - and the breadth, spanning billions if not trillions of light years, the age - billions of years - and these - to be sure - are no crude approximations of it's size or age, merely the upper bounds upon which we are able to measure them. It is most certainly much vaster and older than we can comprehend. Yet - in our arrogance - we think that we can understand it.
Understanding it, being able to predict and control it would make us Gods.
Clearly we cannot.
The difference in consciousness between us and the universe as we have so far perceived it is of an infinitude of orders of magnitudes greater than that of the consciousness of an ant versus ourselves.
If you take the universe to be conscious, a living organism of sorts - and if this is in fact this is the case, then are there other organisms out there on a similar scale? And - how would we know?
People know that they are a part of society (Most people. No, many people. Some people.) Do your cells know that they're a part of the ecosystem that is your body? Do your cells grieve the deaths of neighboring cells, and if so, of what business is it to you? Certainly no one pays attention to the deaths of their cells, which happens millions of times per day, nor could they be expected to and continue at the level of functioning expected of their organism. A certain callousness must accompany any increment in evolution, the countless daily deaths of my cells is of little to no consequence to the well being of the organism as a whole - in fact - take cancer for example - the death of your cells may be crucial to the well being of your organism.
In any event, while I appreciate his arguments against "God", I don't think they're valid. I don't argue that there is or isn't, only that if there is a God, or higher consciousness, than by necessity it's intelligence and motivations must lie beyond our comprehension.
- Details
- Written by: Rod Boyle
- Category: Ideas & Questions
- Hits: 814
You see the signs - some crazy old hippie camping out somewhere near 12 Mile, large hand-painted signs warning of human induced climate change, "The Anropocene", most people dismiss him. Last year his signs were 3 mile, he's a seasonal visitor.
Most people dismiss him as a lunatic.
I'm not so sure.
Every year we're breaking more and more heat records. Less and less precipitation. Milder and shorter winters.
Tomorrow, the next few days, forecast at 40 degrees Celsius or greater.
I've never seen it that hot out here. Even in Saskatchewan, or the Drumheller Valley.
Never, not once. And it's not even July. And it's going to get worse. Up to 50 degrees Celsius in Kamloops, if you can believe it. 42 in Nelson.
***
Note that "Climate Change" has almost entirely shifted - this is a "Heat Wave" - there's no mention of how Climate Change might have driven or impacted this. We hit new records - year after year, the classic climate change hallmarks - yet now, for some reason, it's off the table for discussion.
This Pandemic, it was just the toe in the door - there's a world of trouble coming. There's a theory of climate change that talks about "Tipping Points" - how - once past a certain tipping point, it's almost certainly irreversible, and the change will only accelerate. We're there.
Think of ball rolling down a slope. Predictable, you know when it leaves, you know when it arrives at the bottom. Simple formula.
But this, this is more a ball starting to fall off an incline, into the abyss, and the scientists, they've foretold it, predicted it, but were silenced, but there's good information out there that were at a critical time in human history. World history - not just ours - and that shit is about to go sideways fast.
And so lockdowns end, eat, drink, be merry, for the Pandemic is over but the end of the world is upon us...
- Details
- Written by: Rod Boyle
- Category: Ideas & Questions
- Hits: 834
I mean, the abundance of fringe theories regarding Covid. By which I don't mean the Wuhan Lab Leak theory, that was mine own theory shortly into the pandemic, discredited largely by Trump's support, and back again in fashion. Nothing destroys credibility like having an idiot agree with you. No, I mean the people that think it's all a hoax, an attempt by the government to seize control, "New World Order" and all that.
It is boggling to me that - given the abundance of news from various sources, people should choose to believe that it doesn't exist. That the lockdowns are an attempt by the government to control the populace. I mean, we have examples of countries that did it right - Australia, New Zealand. And how is it possible that politicians - whose intelligence ranges from minute to diabolical, depending on the country you live in - could orchestrate such a thing? I mean, to believe it's a hoax requires far more faith in government than believing it's legitimate.
Anyways, it's almost over. Breathe a sigh of relief. For the time being.
- Details
- Written by: Rod Boyle
- Category: Ideas & Questions
- Hits: 900
This, in the news a fair bit, museums across the world repatriating items of questionable provenance. But it raises the question - at what point does history belong to the world? Are the great pyramids "The History of Egypt" or are they part of the larger history of the human race? And, in politically unstable countries - such as Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, etc. - where conflict and change of government frequently threaten collections of importance and interest to the world - is it not them better off in an environment where it can educate more diverse audiences of global backgrounds? Consider the damage done by the Taliban, Looters in the Egyptian riots, etc. - does not their history - or - arguably OUR history - deserve better conservation and stewardship than said nations have provided? Would the Elgin marbles really have survived if left in the Parthenon?
Merely an argument in favor of larger thinking beyond geographical borders when it comes to the world's historical and artistic treasures.
- Details
- Written by: Rod Boyle
- Category: Ideas & Questions
- Hits: 986
Online, playing Chess VS Sven at Chess.com. It beats the endless well of Reddit.
I learned Chess in my early 20's from a friend, Milan. Which is to say I learned the basic moves, the "rules", and was largely self-taught.
A flaw which I passed on to my own children.
There was a reasoning I applied - that I should be able to "think it through" - but the game after only a few moves offers exponential outcomes and consequences, and the "think it through" requires a level of prodigal thinking that so far eludes me. Even after the first three pair of turns the game offers 121 million possibilities, and this number quickly expands to more possibilities than there are atoms in the universe.
I'm playing against a robot, "Sven", 1100 ranking, and it brings to my attention how poor my strategies are.
Nine, even Ten times out of ten I can beat him - but I am blindsided by how often I don't. How many "Blunders" - missing obvious consequences to stupid moves - "Mistakes", poor moves when better were available, the number of turns it takes me to finish up what should be a straightforward execution.
It's not about winning - in the right mood that's not the issue, it's about getting quick enough that these obvious stupidities are overlooked in the advancement of the game. That certain openings should be routine - and they for the most part are - but vary from the script, think for yourself and you're quickly in over your head. A missed fork, a straightforward "seized your queen", it's rare the game at this point that passes without some inadvertent or unplanned sacrifice - rare that I can see that the game developed without my helping stupidity, rare that it passes without a mistake or blunder or missed win.
It's good, it makes me think, and what I think most of all is that by teaching my children - simple enough - I probably inculcated a lifetime of prejudice against the game - I didn't go through and teach the advantages of setting up defenses, looking over the whole board, the unconscious recognition of better and worse moves, the ability to predict advantageous outcomes over trifling exchanges, in short, I taught them the rules and told them to think it through when - in fact - this can only take you so far, which is not very at all, you need to master established strategies without thinking, most of the game is wrapped up in memory and repetition of moves designed to advance and free your pieces, very little of it involves thinking - certainly at this level.
Anyways, my thoughts on Chess, the goal to defeat Sven without thinking or committing blunders, mistakes, 100% of the time, before advancing to play Nelson, who I can beat perhaps 50% of the time but who's wayward queen still forces me into dumb moves and entirely predictable outcomes, the overall goal to play a respectable game with a human opponent, practice, practice, and maybe time to watch a few explanatory videos...