Ool's Blog

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Politics

leave a comment »

When have you last heard of an ism that’s good? Socialism, capitalism,
conservatism, progressivism, liberalism, libertarianism…

They all reek of dogma. The only isms you should go for is realism and
pragmatism, and that’s because those two aren’t exclusively and not
even predominantly political terms.

But isms blind you. They talk not of what is but present a platonic
ideal of what should be. That’s why I’m so opposed to striving for or
calling any system socialist or capitalist or anything. They blind you
when you run away from them and they blind you when you seek to come
close to one.

Sane people steer clear of political isms. Social, capital, conserva-
tive, progressive… Sometimes just cutting off the ism makes you look
at the ideas that they represent in a much more relative, pragmatic
fashion, learning that it depends on context whether they represent a
good tool to tackle a certain problem or not…

Written by ulrichschreglmann

April 18, 2010 at 2:34 pm

Fundamental Physics.

leave a comment »

If you think that we may someday reach a fundamental level of understanding.

I think we never will.

Not because we lack the resources, which we may or may not, but because there is no level that is ever fundamental.

The most fundamental understanding we already have today.

Or at least *I* have it. And it’s exactly what I keep talking about.

In the most simple terms it’s like this: There’s a phenomenon. Why did it occur? Ah, it seems to be causally linked to these phenomena. But why did they occur? Well, they seem to occur within this causal pattern with even more subtle phenomena. But why do those phenomena occur? And so on, and so on, and so on.

You either follow a never ending network of causality between ever new phenomenal patterns or you encounter at some point phenomena that don’t seem to be causally connected to anything and just happen. Once you encounter those you can come to the conclusion that they do, indeed happen for no reason or that they are causally connected in ways that you cannot fathom. But even assuming the latter you’re only back to chasing an infinite causality along an infinite causal network.

Well, if you assume that some phenomena happen for no reason then you can stop asking questions about a phenomenon’s past. The question “why” means “for what reason,” and if you assume that there are none then there is no “why.” If you assume that even if you can’t find any reason for the moment there might still be one you’re still stuck with why the infinite network of cause and effect exists. It could be caused by something but that just means there’s an even bigger network into which the infinite network is embedded. What about the whole thing of all causal connections, no matter how big it is? Well, if it’s *all* causal connections that there are then it cannot have a causal connection to anything outside it any more. So the whole entirety of phenomena and causal patterns between them has no cause.

And that’s the only fundamental metaphysical law you can be sure of. Everything altogether can’t have a reason because there’s nothing else by definition.

What else do you suggest would be a fundamental understanding? So we’ve discovered the hot, dense state that the Universe used to be in and we call it the Big Bang. Well, why did the Big Bang happen? Apparently our matter was caused by initial imbalances in the energy distribution of the Universe in its initial stages. Well, why did those imbalances exist? Even if you explain them through even earlier imbalances you haven’t really answered anything. Either you can infinitely regress in your causality or you can postulate at some point that this is just the Universe the way it was for no reason.

It can be fun to dig ever deeper, looking to see what else will turn up. But don’t expect ever to hit bottom! Or, if you hit bottom, you’re left with explaining why there’s a bottom there. There’s never any final answer that way.

The only final answers there are are: The principle of cause and effect exists for no reason, everything altogether exists for no reason, therefore its particular shape has no ultimate reason other than internal consistency if cause and effect sticks to the laws we’ve figured out. And that’s the way it is, the way it was, and the way it always will be, no matter how primitive or how technologically advanced we are.

Physics is interesting. It provides us with a certain amount of control over our environment and a reasonably good life. So, by all means, let’s keep exploring! But don’t expect it to ever provide you with salvation from existentialist uncertainty! Cosmologists who claim they could explain it all any day now are bullshitting you and maybe even themselves.

Written by ulrichschreglmann

April 18, 2010 at 4:08 am

Dark Matter.

leave a comment »

It occurs to me that if we had space telescopes floating in interplanetary
space for detecting gravity waves then it wouldn’t be all that hard to ac-
tually see that stuff—at least the dark matter that is irregular in shape
and rotates around itself or each other…

This is one of those fields in which we know we are virtually blind but
know theoretically how to construct eyes for ourselves. It would be a
revolution comparable to the introduction of the radio telescope last cen-
tury. The only problem is, gravity telescopes don’t work unless they’re
suspended in weightlessness and span huge distances…

But if we had them we might even figure out why galaxies are clustered
like the skins of bubbles in space. What force is driving them away from
the center of those spheres of seeming emptiness…?

Written by ulrichschreglmann

April 4, 2010 at 1:35 am

Religion

leave a comment »

It’s funny how the word “fearing” generally holds negative connota-
tions of helplessness and victimhood or danger and aggression (de-
pending on whether you’re the person feeling the fear or the one in-
stilling it).
But add the word “God-” and it suddenly turns into a virtue and both
the fearer and the fearee into an all-around good individual.
Religion has established the Stockholm syndrome thousands of years
before there even was a city of Stockholm…

Written by ulrichschreglmann

April 4, 2010 at 1:20 am

Posted in Philosophy, religion

Tagged with ,

Romantic Relationships.

leave a comment »

You know, I’ve just been thinking about the nature of romantic relation-
ships . The
big picture is, of course, ultra-depressing, because it’s all about
spawning new life before we die.

But then, the big picture of almost everything is ultra-depressing, so
maybe that’s not the best way to look at it.

Then I was thinking about the prototypical male and female perspective
on sex, love, and romance. Men want to trick women into short term sex,
women want to ensnare men into a lifelong contract of exclusivity. It’s
more complicated than that, of course; these are just very broad brush
generalizations.

But then I was thinking about how you measure achievement in relation-
ships. If you do it very long term then it becomes hard to measure
whether you’ve reached your objectives in life, because sometimes there
are days when you can’t stand each other, there are days when you’ve
just so gotten used to each other that it’s nothing.

In the end it’s a little unfair to women, because they can only claim
success on the deathbed, whereas the achievement for the man, no matter
where the relationship goes in the future, is simply, “I tapped that.”

Written by ulrichschreglmann

April 4, 2010 at 1:06 am

The Theory of Relativity.

leave a comment »

If the Theory of Relativity failed you would find phenomena that
are different depending on which frame of reference you happen to be
in – as in “if I move to this side or as I fall down this gravity well
I can measure different quantum phenomena as when I’m floating around
at this speed over here.”

As long as no empirical evidence has been gathered to that effect the
Theory of Relativity is airtight. The moment you find phenomena of
that sort it suffers the same fate as the Newtonian model – being con-
sidered a practical approximation. But to my knowledge that hasn’t
happened yet so far. Whether it’s merely for lack of opportunities
to have laboratories at vastly different speeds and orbits in space we
don’t know at this point…

It’s interesting how little we know about the forces that hold our
galaxies together. There seems to be as much ignorance about them to-
day as there was ignorance about the Solar System in Newton’s days.

Written by ulrichschreglmann

April 4, 2010 at 1:03 am

Anthropic Principle.

with 2 comments

Combining the weak anthropic principle with the concept of
infinity one comes to the conclusion that one’s existence is, indeed,
inevitable. So is one’s everlasting future, like it or not!

I think that’s why I’m going to call what I used to call “quantum im-
mortality” “anthropic infinity” instead. It leads to the same conclu-
sions but without the need for the many-worlds interpretation of the
Uncertainty Principle. Even in a totally deterministic Universe the
extrapolation of causal infinity would lead to anthropic infinity, as
well as certain unavoidable aspects of indeterminacy, such as the
existence of everything altogether and its particular observed pat-
tern, beyond the inevitable requirement of an observer.

Written by ulrichschreglmann

April 4, 2010 at 12:58 am