Journal Entries
Partings
Posted Oct 29, 2004
On Monday, I heard of John Peel's passing. As Andy Kershaw said of him, he was the most important person in British rock music today. Many bands owe their existence in the public eye to Peel. Rest in peace, John. 
On Wednesday, our little dog, Rowan, reached a point where his life was no longer satisfying for him or for us. His legs no longer worked properly, and he was suffering significant pain. 
It was time, and we made that long, last trip to the vet's surgery. Fifteen years is a long time, now he's gone. 
Pattern-chaser
"Who cares, wins"
Discuss this Journal entry [4]
Latest reply: Oct 29, 2004
What's wrong with dogma?
Posted Oct 4, 2004
Dogma has a highly perjorative meaning. Why?
In any belief system, there are axioms, or dogma. Those who subscribe to the belief system must accept them, because the body of beliefs is derived from these axioms. If you don't accept the basis (dogma), then the derived reasoning won't be valid for you either.
If you don't accept that parallel lines never meet, then Euclidean geometry won't work for you. If you don't accept that Jesus is the son of God, then Christianity won't make much sense to you.
There is no reason why anyone *must* accept dogma for its own sake (or for any other reason). But, if you embrace any belief system, you must accept its dogma. If you can't do that, that belief system isn't for you.
So why the perjorative interpretation of the word 'dogma'?
Pattern-chaser
"Who cares, wins"
Discuss this Journal entry [12]
Latest reply: Oct 4, 2004
A definition of time
Posted Sep 30, 2004
Can we define time in a way that is not tautological? Many of the words we might choose to use have the concept of time embedded in them: hence my thought of tautology. Any grammatical structure with tense has our concept of time embedded in it, as do words and phrases such as "before", "after", "and then", "sequence of events", "during", "by now", "when" and so on. The list seems almost endless.
The only approach I can think of that *might* work is to withdraw from the real world, into the fantasy land of mathematics and physics. Time is an axis on a graph, a dimension akin to length, along which things have some freedom of movement. The 'now' in which people live is a point on this axis, moving at a steady rate in one direction: toward the future.
What *is* time?
Pattern-chaser
"Who cares, wins"
Discuss this Journal entry [7]
Latest reply: Sep 30, 2004
What is reality?
Posted Jul 27, 2004
This is the latest in a line of entries, but because you can't edit them, I have to post it anew:
Reality is what we perceive it to be. This is not an absolute statement, but it's as close as we can get, as the following paragraphs explain.
Axiom[1]: human perception is intrinsically subjective; objective[2] perception is impossible for us. [3]
We can understand the concept of objectivity. We can formulate objective hypotheses. But we cannot objectively verify their truth in the real world, as our perception is not objective. So the pursuit of *objective* - certain - knowledge is pointless (although the search for *knowledge* is not).
[More formally, this has to do with 'completeness': David Hilbert said around 1928 that if we are going to have any fundamental system for all of mathematics it must satisfy three basic requirements: consistency, completeness and decidability. Completeness means that if any statement is true, there must be some way of proving it by using the rules of your system. In this sense, objective science is incomplete, as objective truth cannot be proven according to its own (objective) standards.]
So what is left if we set aside objectivity? This is best answered with a brief thought experiment: Consider a group of creatures living in a reality that has objective existence, whether the creatures know it or not. Select a creature at random. What does it know of the reality in which it lives? It learns of this reality from its perceptions, so on what can its perceptions depend?
1. The reality in which the creature lives.
2. The creature's mind.
3. The mind(s) of one or more of its fellow creatures.
4. Some combination of the above.
5. None of the above.
Option 1 represents objective perception. What the creature perceives is dependent only on the external reality in which it lives. It has certain knowledge of its environment.
Options 2, 3 and 5 represent variations on the theme of solipsism. The creature's perceptions have no connection with the reality in which it lives. It has no certain knowledge of its environment.
I believe that option 4 represents the position in which we (humans) find ourselves, that our perception depends upon our minds *and* on the reality in which we live. We have knowledge of our environment, but it isn't certain (i.e. objective) knowledge. This, in my opinion, is the perceptual reality that lies in between Objectivity and Solipsism.
Abandoning our preoccupation with objectivity has benefits. For example:
+ To affect certain knowledge of an objective world is self-deception that muddies our thinking. Deliberate self-deception like this requires strong justification, and I can see none.
+ The illusion of certainty masks other possibilities. Any significant and new discovery will probably contradict current wisdom. If we *know* we are right, we discount - or fail to recognise - indications to the contrary, preventing any such discovery. Being aware of the fallibility of our perceptions improves our perception!
+ What we (subjectively) perceive has a probability of being correct. We can attempt to quantify that probability. Previously, it never occurred to us to consider such things: certainty is 100% probable. Learning to evaluate the accuracy of our perceptions will surely move our understanding forward.
So reality is what we perceive it to be. Probably.
---< o >---
[1] Axiom: an assumption or act of faith; a statement whose truth is accepted without proof.
[2] Objective: something whose truth is not dependent on people's opinions or conceptions.
[3] As axioms go, this one is relatively safe. Consider:
Hypothesis: human perception is intrinsically subjective; objective perception is impossible for us.
Analysis: If the hypothesis is true, then it is impossible for a human to verify; there can be no objective proof of the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is false, then an objective refutation ought to be possible. The solipsist view - that "I" am the only real thing, and all else is a figment of my imagination - has remained objectively unassailable for millennia. If there were an objective refutation for the solipsist view, it would also invalidate our hypothesis. No such refutation has emerged.
Conclusion: The evidence is not conclusive. On the balance of probabilities, the hypothesis is probably true.
Discuss this Journal entry [9]
Latest reply: Jul 27, 2004
Time for bed, said Zebedee?
Posted Jun 18, 2004
Look behind you, into the past. It's gone, remote, and you can't touch it. Turn round again: the future is also barred. Now is when you are. Only now, that slice of time of more or less zero magnitude, is when you are. Take hold of now, and stretch it until it reaches the edges of everything. Let now encompass all time instead of none. It's all a matter of perspective.
Late night musings recorded; time for bed. 
Pattern-chaser
"Who cares, wins"
Discuss this Journal entry [1]
Latest reply: Jun 18, 2004
Gone again
Researcher U131178
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."