Twiddling the Dials of the Universe

26 May, 2010 | Brian |

There is a widespread ignorance about the scale of the universe in which we live. It's like someone in Nebraska asking, mouth agape, if you mean as unimaginably far away as New York City. These are the people who tell each other that algebra is something you'll never use in the "real world."

To all of you I say emphatically No, the universe is not fine-tuned for human life. There is not a magic set of basic constants that, if ever-so-slightly modified, would snuff out our fluttering candle flames. We already live in that universe. If you would care to vacation for a month on Saturn, you might see my point. The volume of the known universe is boggling: 4.1 x 10³⁴ cubic light years. The land surface area of the earth is 148,940,000 km². Don't even pretend you comprehend the difference in scale, because you don't. If you divide one into the other you just get another number that will make as little practical sense as the two you started with.

Put another way, the land surface area of the Earth is so small compared to the rest of the universe, that we might as well say 0% of the total available space. Let's be super-generous, though, and say that there are billions of other habitable worlds out there, which brings us to...I don't know, 0% of the total available space. Okay, let's pretend it's just barely above zero for argument's sake.

But have you ever spent February in the "fine-tuned" environment of northern Minnesota? You can't live there. Well, of course you can, but it is not what you would call habitation-friendly. That's what's common, though. We can't even survive well on most of our own surface area. About 75 percent of it isn't suitable! We cling to 25% of a scarcely nonzero number, and still we're killed off all the time by too-hot days and too-stormy weather.

So where is this universe designed for my benefit? I don't see it.

Dismembering Blaise, Part 3

30 Apr, 2010 | Brian |

We come now, lumbering, at last, to the final scene. The first part saw Pascal simultaneously demand and invalidate all evidence of divinity. The second part showed Pascal's forced choice requires an equal belief in zombifying witches and cruel resurrections for the sport of silver-clad brats in the year 3000. The third part highlights the absurdity of Pascal's dangled carrot: the great rewards or punishments that shall be dealt out beyond the grave. This kind of reasoning is not just wrong, it is immoral.

» Read more

Metaphors and Experience

25 Sep, 2009 | Brian |

I really do intend to finish up with Pascal's Wager, but right now I want to take a look at drawing unnecessary conclusions. I do not know quite what to call it. It's definitely a failure of logic - kind of like affirming the consequent but kind of not. The specific example I am thinking of is an atheist who says that religion is valueless. Given that (A) an atheist finds no fact in the existence of God, it follows that (B) religion is not based on fact. This is so far consistent. It breaks down when this hypothetical fellow goes on to assert that (C) religious practice - and spirituality generally - has no value.

» Read more

Welcome, Humans !

06 Aug, 2009 | Brian |

Alternate titles for this article: Monkeys On Parade!, The Nose Knows: Snouts in the Spiritual Community.

Taking a break from my cruel treatment of old B.P. to inspect a spongy, brain-like crumb [PDF] from EcoWorldly.com, which seems to be a limb of Green Options Media, who are dutifully Empowering Sustainable Choices for us all.

I am always very excited and happy to see research results like these, because it makes dualistic philosophies that much more unsustainable. Said another way, I get my ego stroked because I am right, which is a sensation I seek out with laser-focused determination. The laughable juxtaposition here is that I am ego-boosted to be classified as an animal. That's what this research really says. Elephants aren't revealed to be more like us. Rather, we are revealed to be among a class of creatures that also includes elephants. It's regarding this point that I think the article goes astray.

» Read more

Dismembering Blaise, #2

31 Jul, 2009 | Brian |

I continue from where I left off last time. In this episode, I turn my withering gaze upon Part Deux of Pascal's Wager, which is that belief in God is a forced decision. According to Pascal, I must decide which side of his false compromise I will throw in with. Well, that doesn't feel very exciting: betting which 0% probability will come true. My math skills may be insufficient for the task, but I somehow expect to come out the loser every time when faced with those odds.

» Read more

Dismembering Blaise

29 Jul, 2009 | Brian |

I know there has been a lot said in the world about Blaise Pascal and his Great Hedge against a bad roll of the cosmic dice. It is highly likely that I cannot add anything new, and probable that I cannot add anything worthwhile. (Was that funny?) Anyway, I have not seen a criticism of Mr. P's wager formulated according to my style of cogitation, and although that owes principally to my ignorance, I will nevertheless pretend otherwise and burden society with my thoughts on the subject.

The wager has three basic parts. (1) There is no evidence for or against the existence of God. (2) Belief in God is a forced decision. When you die, it's too late to change your mind; the consequences will be upon you. (3) Because we cannot discern which is the right choice, and the choice must be made, it is rational to choose whichever has the best risk/reward profile.

Now, let the massacre begin.

» Read more