St. Valentine's Day

Another Valentine's day finds me alone. It really is not all that bad, I would rather find someone I can really connect with than just find someone for the sake of being in a relationship. Nonetheless, posted below is the lyrics to one of my favorite songs. I think it is appropriate.

Komm, Süsser Tod

(Come, Sweet Death)

I know, I know I've let you down.

I've been a fool to myself,

I thought that I could live for no one else.

But now, through all the hurt and pain,

it's time for me to respect!

The ones you love mean more than anything.

So with sadness in my heart,

feel the best thing I could do

is end it all, and leave forever.

What's done is done, it feels so bad;

what once was happy now is sad.

I'll never love again, my world is ending.

I wish that I could turn back time,

'cause now the guilt is all mine.

Can't live without the trust from those you love.

I know we can't forget the past.

You can't forget love and pride.

Because of that, it's killing me inside.

It all returns to nothing,

it all comes tumbling down.

It all returns to nothing,

I just keep letting me down.

In my heart of hearts

I know that I could never love again.

I've lost everything,

everything that matters to me,

matters in this world.

I wish that I could turn back time,

'cause now the guilt is all mine.

Can't live without the trust from those you love.

I know we can't forget the past.

You can't forget love and pride.

Because of that, it's killing me inside.

It all returns to nothing,

it all comes tumbling down.

It all returns to nothing,

I just keep letting me down.

Remember these things from elementary school?

During the sermon today, Fr. Way mentioned that despite being "an unrepentant technophobe" (his words), he recently accepted an invitation to FaceBook. I could write an entire post of how FB has declined since it opened to non-academic users (I am "an unrepentant elitist" in many ways), but I won't. After a great deal of searching, I managed to send him a friend request. For all its faults, FB is still addictive. As I was updating my profile, I rediscovered my old PhotoBucket account. Below is an image I uploaded a very long time ago.

(Sorry this is cut off: my HTML skills are not l33t)

This Venn diagram is what I use to categorize and systematically explore various philosophies. In particular, it helps explain the way I see the world around me. Keep in mind that this diagram, like all Venn diagrams, is purely schematic. There is no quantitative relationship between the size of a set as represented and its importance or actual size under any objective metric.

The fundamental conjecture underlying this diagram is that the entire universe can be partitioned into two sets: the world seen and the world unseen. The former encompasses everything that can be possibly be objectively measured. That is, not only what we can actually measure now, but anything we will be able to objectively measure in the future. It is the rational part of reality. The world unseen deals with things that exist but cannot be objectively measured. For example, how much a person feels any particular emotion is clearly not something that is objectively quantifiable. Personally, I believe there is a spiritual component to reality, and this falls into the world unseen. Even this first division allows some classification because some believe the set of the world unseen is void. As a side note, I further believe that the seen and unseen are coexistent and can influence each other, though not in a measurable manner (consistent with the definition of the unseen set).

Science is the systematic quantification of measurable quantities and therefore rules the world seen. Consistent with Gödel's Theorem, science can never span the entire set. That is, the difference set (seen)-(science) can never be void. Now, it is certainly possible that the contents of the minimum difference set are irrelevant, but this consideration is unimportant for the rest of this discussion. The world seen is extremely important because it comprises the vast majority of our day-to-day life. Rationality is critical for understanding the physical world and its importance cannot be overstated. Without reasoning and critical thought one drifts though life like a derelict ship without a rudder. Even those whose psyches are more emotion-based must in the majority of their lives make good decisions, and by construction, the rational is always the most reasonable (and virtually always the best decision in any given circumstance).

Religion deals primarily with the world unseen, but must inevitably overlap with the world seen at some point. Philosophies in which religion stays completely in the world unseen are extraordinarily unreliable because they are by definition arbitrary. As soon as religion specifies what should actually be done in the world seen, it has crossed the partitioning. Once the overlap with the world seen occurs, one is faced with three possibilities: (i) science is assumed correct and overrules religion where there is a disagreement, (ii) even if science and religion contradict, both are correct, and (iii) religion is assumed correct and overrules science. The second possibility is clearly unacceptable because it intentionally introduces a logical inconsistency in worldview. Thus, every viewpoint I have heard boils down to (i) or (iii). I argue that in case of contradiction, science must prevail. Science is self-correcting and always reflects the current state of knowledge about our world. To me, this implies that only religions consistent with reality within our observable purview can possibly be correct. Exploiting symmetry suggests that religion serves in the world unseen what science serves in the world seen. Indeed, the science/religion overlap suggests that religion can be viewed as an extension of science into a completely different realm unaccessable to pure science.

When we actually make decisions, we are nearly always caught between the two worlds. Religion can assist rationality by narrowing or eliminating variables to be considered. For example, Machiavellian ethics will certainly allow personal advancement, in accordance with a purely selfish rationality. However, we know the morals about not burning bridges and treating others fairly, etc. At some point the Machiavellian adherent will make a mistake and suffer the karma he has accumulated. It can be argued that he failed to consider all the possibilities and weight them appropriately and the outcome could have been logically predicted. Religion helps encode generations of experience into a moral sense that, had this person taken heed, could have foreseen the likely outcome and readjusted his strategy. Consider also the case of eugenics. Practitioners believed they were justified by science, at least as it was understood at the time, but we now know their error. Had they considered the principle of the worth of all humans they could have avoided the resulting horrors.

I have intentionally been rather vague as to what religion precisely I endorse. In fact, this is completely beside the point. In my own life I have taken Christianity as a basis and try constantly to test and refine what I believe. I believe there exists a kernel of truth. Very nearly everything has some truth in it, and my sworn duty is to separate the gold from the dross, accumulating as much of the former as I possibly can. But that process is reserved for a later post.

Happy Birthday

Well, I just got back home from a birthday party. Whatever images this brings to your mind, discard them. The birthday girl, Crocker, turned 75. Nevertheless, it was quite the fête. Held in the Lubbock Senior Center, there were perhaps 10 rows of tables (3 tables to a row) arranged around a large dance floor. By the time people finished arriving, the tables were pretty full (at six people per table, the maximum seating capacity would have been around 180 people, giving a reasonable estimate of 90-110 persons). There was a band playing country Western ... "music" ... for dancing. Most of the men there were cowboy-types with HUGE Stetsons.

I was surprised at the method by which I was invited. Crocker also attends St. Christopher's. For those of you unfamiliar with the format of an Episcopalian service, during the Eucharist one remains kneeling from the Sanctus through the post-Communion prayer. This means while you are waiting your turn to approach the altar and waiting for the rest of the congregation to be communicated. At St. Christopher's there is also a special anointing for whomever desires it. Anyways, I was kneeling in meditation and Crocker comes up and asks me if I dance with girls. Nothing could have been further from my mind at that moment. She then whispered the details of the part she was planning, intimating that she wanted young people present.

Consistent with her initial invitation, she was very keen that I would actually dance that night. While I do not know how to do that kind of dancing, I was willing to give it a shot. But who to ask? I knew only a few other attendees (from St. Christopher's), so I thought I would ask someone I know. Specifically, Nadine seemed to know what she was doing, but I just could not bring myself to ask her: she is Larry's widow. I know that seems like a stupid reason, but I just couldn't ask. Crocker did scold me a little for not dancing as she requested, and I did have to deceive her when I left, but all in all I think everything went well. It would be extraordinarily self-centered of me to believe that Crocker's enjoyment of her party had anything to do with me.

As far as the deceit, she asked me if I had to go, and I replied in the affirmative. I did not have anything I had to do, but I could not stay for my own internal reasons: I had my fill of the party and was ready to leave. Therefore, it was not a lie per se, but a social deception constructed with the best intentions.

In Memoriam

I found out this morning that Larry Beavers (not a pseudonym), one of my friends from church, died last night of a massive heart attack. He was not young (late 60s-ish), but what is especially tragic is that he just got married about two months ago. His death was not anticipated, and the suddenness is worse than anything. Most of my emotions are grief for his wife and relatives. Not because he is dead, we all will die, but because it was so unexpected. It is a weird sensation to know I will never see him again in this life.

Therefore, in memory of Larry:

Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine
Et lux perpetua luceat eis.
Te decet hymnus, Deus, in Sion
Et tibi reddetur votum in Jerusalem.
Ex audi orationem meam!
Ad Te omnis caro venie.

Kyrie eleison.
Christe eleison.
Kyrie eleison.

Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem.
Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem.
Pie Jesu Domine, dona eis requiem, sempiternam.

Agnus Dei qui tollis pecatta mundi, dona eis requiem.

Man that is born of a woman hath but a short time to live, and is full of misery.
He cometh up, and is cut down like a flower.
He fleeth as it were a shadow.

Agnus Dei qui tollis pecatta mundi, dona eis requiem.

In the midst of life we are in death. Of Whom shall we seek for succor?

Agnus Dei qui tollis pecatta mundi, dona eis requiem.

I am the resurrection and the life, saith the Lord.
He who believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.
And whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die.

The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures.
He leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul.
He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for His name's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil, for Thou art with me.
Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies.
Thou anointest my head with oil, my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life,
And I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me,
"Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord,
For they rest from their labors."
Even so, saith the Spirit.

Lux aeterna luceat eis, Domine.
Cum santis tuis in aeternam, quia pius es.

Requiem aeternam dona eis, Domine,
Et lux perpetua luceat eis.

+++

Athiesm is not Science!

Over Christmas, I ended up going to a Barnes & Nobles in Briarcroft. You can tell a lot about an area's demographic based on the books in the local bookstores. Since Denton's B&N is packed with excellent books in the science section, that was the first place I visited at this B&N. I was, however, extremely disappointed: at least half of the books were misplaced! For example, biographies of Charles Darwin belong in the biographies section, not in the science section. But the majority of the misfiled books were on athiesm. As the title says, athiesm is not science.

Atheism is a philosophy, even practiced as a religion. Science deals with how things work, philosophy deals with why things are the way they are. I want to make it very, very clear that I am not arguing against atheism itself. Although I am a Christian, this post is not about why I am not an atheist. What needs to be addressed is the common assumption that athiesm is endorsed by science, or worse, that science requires atheism.

The primary criteria of scientific hypothesis is that it must be testable and repeatable. Hypotheses on the nature or existence of God are well outside these criteria. At the end of the day, each person picks his philosophy with respect to diety(ies) for himself. What I find really irritating is that atheists in particular latch on to science and claim its objective validity for their own philosophy. Two ideas seem to be very common.

First, I have heard athiests claim now that science has explained human origins, vis evolution, religion is no longer necessary. Ignoring for a moment the fact that atheism is a religion, evolutionary studies within science propose logical explanations for how species came to be. They are not repeatable and hence do not carry the same weight as theorems of science. That does not mean that evolutionary studies are invalid: they provide much good insight into how the world works. But to make the claim that one knows how everything came to be is well outside science. This is a philosophical distinction, but it is important.

Second, it is sometimes said that religion is uneccessary because science will one day explain everything. This is not an error in and of itself, but it needs to be pointed out that this cannot be strictly true and it is an article of faith. I can very confidently say that science will never know everything and remain trustworthy because Goedel's Theorem applies. It states that no sufficiently strong formal system can be complete and consistent. This is a well-proven theorem, not a supposition. Science is a massive formal system that attempts to assign a truth-value to propositions. Goedel's Theorem states that if it is complete, it will be inconsistent (for example, allowing both p and ~p to be true). If it is consistent, there will be undecidable propositions, i.e., the truth-value cannot be determined. It may very well be that the undecidable propositions are not very interesting, but the fact remains that science can never know everything there is to know. Even to say that science will know all relevant facts is clearly a matter of faith, not science. The applicability of science to matters outside testability and repeatability is metaphysics.

Please note that I am not arguing against atheism here, but I do feel very strongly about people abusing the good name of science to promote their own religion (and that includes any religion, even Christianity). This is probably a sore spot for me because science is objectively true. When it is conflated with personal philosophies, those philosophies can be accepted with the same ring of truth, regardless of their actual merit. The objective truth is morally neutral and very powerful: it cannot lend its strength to weak, biased, human belief systems without resulting in harm.

Feliz Navidad Azul

I know it has been a while since my last post (13 days, actually), but I have a good excuse: the dog ate my homework. Not really, but the power adapter on my laptop went out, my desktop is on the fritz (it generates kernel oops like there's no tomorrow, even memtest died on an unexpected interrupt: the motherboard is failing), and I was out of town for Christmas. I have, however, revived my old Inspiron 1100 (the crapiest of a crappy series sold by Dell) through the power of Fedora Core 12 and am using it as my home machine for the time being.

You can call me a grinch, but I really do not like Christmas. I don't like anything about it. It would be very easy to make this post about why Christmas sucks so incredibly hard, but that's not what this post is about. The past few (nine) years have been turbulent, to say the least. This year my goal was to be more positive. Instead of tearing down others' rosy perceptions of this season, I wanted to celebrate it in a way that was meaningful to me. I have to say that while the basis of this resolution was already fermenting in my head, it was solidified when Bob snapped at me for being so negative, having been driven over the edge when I attacked Christmas. It was a wake-up call that I desperately needed.

One of my biggest beefs with Christmas is the rampant gaudy commercialism. Not having any money anyways, I bought no one gifts and received none in return. And that's fine with me. Even if it sounds weird, I am actually happier having received no presents: my best gift this year was that I got to spend a few days with my best friends. To sully that with cheap consumerism would be to slap a pricetag on the priceless. (In the interests of full disclosure, I did receive a box of See's candies from my parents a few weeks ago, but I think that was a combined birthday/Christmas gift.)

Christmas Eve was a bit comical. My friends, Carrie and Ashley, and a mutual friend, Johnathan, went to Ikea to look around for a bit (they also had Swedish meatballs, per their Ikea tradition, and I had lox, which is my Ikea tradition). I bought a stuffed toy weasel, whom I promptly named Yuki no Itachi ("Snow Weasel"), or "Itachi-san," for short. The name comes from the fact that it had started snowing outside. Our plan was then to see Avatar in 3D at a local Imax at 3pm. But, when we got there, the showing was sold out. All the Imaxes in the area are on the same showing schedule, so the next one we could get was at 7pm. We headed to Johnathan's place in the Plano area and stayed there until it was time to go to the theater. In Dallas, snow never really causes a problem because it doesn't stick. But it was sticking anyways. When we got out of the movie, the roads were all but impassible. It would have been a 45 minute drive to Carrie and Ashley's place, assuming all the roads were open. Rather than returning that night, we stayed at Johnathan's place and drove home Christmas morning.

On Christmas Day I sent some Christmas texts and called family members, but I could not summon the strength to make extended calls or texts. That is, there are a bunch of people from church whom I meant to call and did not. The day was more exhausting because of spending the previous night without meds or my CPAP. Even though I felt a little anxiety and psychological strain from the holiday, it was very manageable.

Much of Christmas Day and the next we all spent watching Bones (Ashley got one of the seasons as a gift) and I returned to Lubbock today. Now that I am not constantly bombarded with other people and activities, the emotional baggage of Christmas past is starting to catch up to me. I feel like I haven't solved anything, only delay the frustration, anger, guilt, and countless other negative emotions. But perhaps these feelings are immutable and the best I can do is bear the ill while concentrating on the good.

A word of encouragement

To lighten the tone a bit, I want to share with you something I have not had the chance to share with many people.

Rarely have I received verbal, explicit encouragement. This was particularly true during my time in college. But one time, at the end of my second year, my advisor asked me to do research for him during the coming Summer. He told me my salary, and after a surprised response from me, he said, "You're worth it, Grimes." That brought me to a dead halt, a lump rising in my throat. To the best of my recollection, no one had ever praised me for doing well before.

Fulminating during my college and graduate years, I entered my first postdoc position with a full-blown case of imposter syndrome. Thankfully, this is now under control. But any suffering is for naught if no lesson is learned. And one of the lessons here is to encourage our neighbors from time to time. False flattery is of no use: if it is not sincere and truthful, it will eventually backfire and cause more damage than the intended good.

There are other sources of encouragement, too. One that I hear nearly every week is found in the birthday prayer:

Watch over Your servants, O Lord, as their days increase.
Bless and guide them wherever they may be.
Strengthen them when they stand, comfort them when discouraged or sorrowful, raise them up if they fall.
And in their hearts, my Thy peace, which passes all understanding, abide all the days of their lives.

Whatever your views on religion may be, words are powerful things. Even if you remove references to God and recast the sentences in present perfect tense, it is still meaningful.

I am not one to get all gushy and insist on continuous empty feel-good platitudes, but that does not exclude legitimate expressions of emotion.