Should be studying... instead I'm listening to Nickelback and stumbling upon this hahaha
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Crash course in philosophy
According to the philosopher Jagger, you can't always get what you want...
House MD
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Reason as the foundation of the universe?
I believe in reason. If I could have a religion in this world, it would probably be reason and logic. I also believe in the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and yes natural selection. I believe in evolution. Up until now, I never saw a contradiction between these beliefs. However, I recently read an article about a speech pronounced by the Cardinal Ratzinger (the current Pope) over 10 years ago and suddenly, my belief system started to develop internal contradictions. This is even more ironic considering that I don't believe in religion or in God. So, in that case, how can a religious argument make me, not doubt my previous beliefs, but somehow make me reorganize them. Well, I have to hand it to Ratzi (I think Ratzinger sounds cooler than Benedict... besides the fact that there were I don't know how many Benedicts before him so that makes him just another one in the pile, Ratzinger makes me think of a rat of the type that you find in the movie Ratatouille... cute, adorable and witty... but anyway, leaving aside the sacrileges and coming back to the subject at hand). Here is the excerpt of his speech that managed to shut up the die-hard scientist with a constant rebuttal in me (for a moment in any case):
La question qu'il faut poser ici, va à vrai dire plus en profondeur : il s'agit de savoir si la doctrine de l'évolution peut se présenter comme une théorie universelle de tout le réel, au delà de laquelle des questions ultérieures sur l'origine et la nature des choses ne sont plus permises ni même nécessaires, ou si de telles questions dernières ne dépassent pas au fond le domaine de la recherche ouverte aux sciences naturelles.
Je voudrais poser la question de façon encore plus concrète. Tout est-il dit avec un type de réponses tel que nous le trouvons par exemple chez Popper dans la formulation suivante : La vie comme nous la connaissons consiste en des "corps" physiques (mieux des processus et des structures), qui résolvent des problèmes.
C'est ce que les différentes espèces ont "appris" par la sélection naturelle, c'est-à-dire par la méthode de reproduction plus variation ; une méthode qui, de son côté, fut apprise selon la même méthode. C'est une régression, mais elle n'est pas infinie... En fin de compte il en va d'une alternative qui ne se laisse plus résoudre simplement par les sciences naturelles ni non plus au fond par la philosophie. Il en va de la question de savoir si la raison ou le rationnel se trouve ou non au commencement de toutes les choses et à leur fondement.
Il en va de la question de savoir si le réel a surgi sur la base du hasard et de la nécessité (ou, avec Popper, suivant Butler, du luck et cunning [heureux hasard et prévision]), et donc de ce qui est sans raison, si, en d'autres termes, la raison est un produit latéral accidentel de l'irrationnel et est finalement aussi insignifiant dans l'océan de l'irrationnel, ou si reste vrai ce qui constitue la conviction fondamentale de la foi chrétienne et de sa philosophie : In principio erat Verbum - au commencement de toutes les choses il y a la force créatrice de la raison. La foi chrétienne est aujourd'hui comme hier l'option pour la priorité de la raison et du rationnel.
Ouf you got me there Ratzi! So natural selection is based on random variation and adaptation. True. Natural selection is the basis of evolution. True. Evolution explains the origins of man. True. Man is a rational being. True (in most cases). Random variation, through its unpredictable nature and its reliance on chance alone, is the antithesis of reason. True. Therefore, reason was born from a lack of reason and is the accidental byproduct of an irrational universe. Based on that premise, Christianity is the embodiment of reason for it presents a world created by a rational being as opposed to an irrational universe who developed reason only as a side project.
Weeeeeeelll the beginning is good, my problem is with what follows next. You know, like the lack of an actual tangible and rational proof of your rational being? Or the lack of rational premises to your arguments? Anyway, leaving old arguments aside, Ratzinger is right on one thing. The main question here is whether reason is at the basis of the world. In a sense, this can seem a bit of a superfluous question for, pardon my familiar language, who the hell cares if the intent of our being here is rational or not as long as we are here, we are functional and we are rational and able to understand our origins. That would be judging the question a bit too quickly. In the same logic we could say why should we try to understand the functioning of the universe or of black holes or even the origins of the universe because it really doesn't affect us or our present condition. Because it's a mental exercise. It satisfies our natural curiosity. So bear with me here.
Anyway, coming back to the question at hand, is the origin or the universe rational or irrational? Well, if we accept evolution and quantum mechanics as some of the basic theories explaining our world, then we must also accept the conclusion that the universe spans from irrationality. This is further supported by chaos theories and the second law of thermodynamics which propose the increase of entropy as the universe evolves. Therefore, the universe is not organized and cannot be the product of reason. Reason is a glitch that somehow got inserted into the fabric of the cosmos and brought us, rational beings, at the top of the evolutionary curve. And you know, that does not diminish in any way the power or the appeal of reason. If it's not the basis of our origins, it is what got us here. It is what makes us special and different from the other components of nature. Note that this does not make us better than the rest of the food chain, for decisions made based on cold hard reason may end up being atrocious and make us seem more inhumane than a worm. And anyway, that pertains to another discussion.
Therefore, Ratzi, I disagree with your conclusion and your assumption that Christianity is rational because it proposes a rational view of the creation of the universe is preposterous if only for the reason that you assume that the universe must be rational from beginning 'till end. It is not. Sorry. But you get brownie points for trying!
As a side note (and I promise that with this I'm done), the ending of the article is really touching:
La tentative pour redonner, en cette crise de l'humanité, un sens compréhensif à la notion de Christianisme comme religio vera, doit pour ainsi dire miser pareillement sur l'orthopraxie et sur l'orthodoxie. Son contenu devra consister, au plus profond, aujourd'hui - à vrai dire comme autrefois - en ce que l'amour et la raison coincident en tant que piliers fondamentaux proprement dits du réel : la raison véritable est l'amour et l'amour est la raison véritable. Dans leur unité, ils sont le fondement véritable et le but de tout le réel.
The purpose of humanity is love and reason and in Christianity they form a whole. It's cute actually. And it kind of got me thinking that maybe a cold hard (true) reality is not preferable to a loving and caring (fake) reality. I know that in a previous post I talked about how humanity doesn't need Christianity anymore because its lessons have been absorbed into popular culture and the legal system (charity, the concept of not stealing or killing, social care, etc.). But maybe a society that believes too hard in the survival of the fittest can regress from these principles and go back to a caveman-like social and political organization. Anyway, I don't really have time to get into this, but it is a fascinating question that is worth exploring.
And that concludes my article. Happy Easter everyone!
La question qu'il faut poser ici, va à vrai dire plus en profondeur : il s'agit de savoir si la doctrine de l'évolution peut se présenter comme une théorie universelle de tout le réel, au delà de laquelle des questions ultérieures sur l'origine et la nature des choses ne sont plus permises ni même nécessaires, ou si de telles questions dernières ne dépassent pas au fond le domaine de la recherche ouverte aux sciences naturelles.
Je voudrais poser la question de façon encore plus concrète. Tout est-il dit avec un type de réponses tel que nous le trouvons par exemple chez Popper dans la formulation suivante : La vie comme nous la connaissons consiste en des "corps" physiques (mieux des processus et des structures), qui résolvent des problèmes.
C'est ce que les différentes espèces ont "appris" par la sélection naturelle, c'est-à-dire par la méthode de reproduction plus variation ; une méthode qui, de son côté, fut apprise selon la même méthode. C'est une régression, mais elle n'est pas infinie... En fin de compte il en va d'une alternative qui ne se laisse plus résoudre simplement par les sciences naturelles ni non plus au fond par la philosophie. Il en va de la question de savoir si la raison ou le rationnel se trouve ou non au commencement de toutes les choses et à leur fondement.
Il en va de la question de savoir si le réel a surgi sur la base du hasard et de la nécessité (ou, avec Popper, suivant Butler, du luck et cunning [heureux hasard et prévision]), et donc de ce qui est sans raison, si, en d'autres termes, la raison est un produit latéral accidentel de l'irrationnel et est finalement aussi insignifiant dans l'océan de l'irrationnel, ou si reste vrai ce qui constitue la conviction fondamentale de la foi chrétienne et de sa philosophie : In principio erat Verbum - au commencement de toutes les choses il y a la force créatrice de la raison. La foi chrétienne est aujourd'hui comme hier l'option pour la priorité de la raison et du rationnel.
Ouf you got me there Ratzi! So natural selection is based on random variation and adaptation. True. Natural selection is the basis of evolution. True. Evolution explains the origins of man. True. Man is a rational being. True (in most cases). Random variation, through its unpredictable nature and its reliance on chance alone, is the antithesis of reason. True. Therefore, reason was born from a lack of reason and is the accidental byproduct of an irrational universe. Based on that premise, Christianity is the embodiment of reason for it presents a world created by a rational being as opposed to an irrational universe who developed reason only as a side project.
Weeeeeeelll the beginning is good, my problem is with what follows next. You know, like the lack of an actual tangible and rational proof of your rational being? Or the lack of rational premises to your arguments? Anyway, leaving old arguments aside, Ratzinger is right on one thing. The main question here is whether reason is at the basis of the world. In a sense, this can seem a bit of a superfluous question for, pardon my familiar language, who the hell cares if the intent of our being here is rational or not as long as we are here, we are functional and we are rational and able to understand our origins. That would be judging the question a bit too quickly. In the same logic we could say why should we try to understand the functioning of the universe or of black holes or even the origins of the universe because it really doesn't affect us or our present condition. Because it's a mental exercise. It satisfies our natural curiosity. So bear with me here.
Anyway, coming back to the question at hand, is the origin or the universe rational or irrational? Well, if we accept evolution and quantum mechanics as some of the basic theories explaining our world, then we must also accept the conclusion that the universe spans from irrationality. This is further supported by chaos theories and the second law of thermodynamics which propose the increase of entropy as the universe evolves. Therefore, the universe is not organized and cannot be the product of reason. Reason is a glitch that somehow got inserted into the fabric of the cosmos and brought us, rational beings, at the top of the evolutionary curve. And you know, that does not diminish in any way the power or the appeal of reason. If it's not the basis of our origins, it is what got us here. It is what makes us special and different from the other components of nature. Note that this does not make us better than the rest of the food chain, for decisions made based on cold hard reason may end up being atrocious and make us seem more inhumane than a worm. And anyway, that pertains to another discussion.
Therefore, Ratzi, I disagree with your conclusion and your assumption that Christianity is rational because it proposes a rational view of the creation of the universe is preposterous if only for the reason that you assume that the universe must be rational from beginning 'till end. It is not. Sorry. But you get brownie points for trying!
As a side note (and I promise that with this I'm done), the ending of the article is really touching:
La tentative pour redonner, en cette crise de l'humanité, un sens compréhensif à la notion de Christianisme comme religio vera, doit pour ainsi dire miser pareillement sur l'orthopraxie et sur l'orthodoxie. Son contenu devra consister, au plus profond, aujourd'hui - à vrai dire comme autrefois - en ce que l'amour et la raison coincident en tant que piliers fondamentaux proprement dits du réel : la raison véritable est l'amour et l'amour est la raison véritable. Dans leur unité, ils sont le fondement véritable et le but de tout le réel.
The purpose of humanity is love and reason and in Christianity they form a whole. It's cute actually. And it kind of got me thinking that maybe a cold hard (true) reality is not preferable to a loving and caring (fake) reality. I know that in a previous post I talked about how humanity doesn't need Christianity anymore because its lessons have been absorbed into popular culture and the legal system (charity, the concept of not stealing or killing, social care, etc.). But maybe a society that believes too hard in the survival of the fittest can regress from these principles and go back to a caveman-like social and political organization. Anyway, I don't really have time to get into this, but it is a fascinating question that is worth exploring.
And that concludes my article. Happy Easter everyone!
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Random rant/comment/musing
Korean wannabe Backstreet Boys, but the choreography is nicely timed with the song and the water part is just amazing! So overall, yeah I guess it's pretty cool (well obviously I think it's cool cause otherwise it wouldn't be here).
Aaaaaand, just because this is an amazing song (yeah I'm starting to repeat myself) and it kind of resonated through part of my day.
As a side note, I wonder if it looks suspicious if you wear a scarf all day long (at home as well as outside), everyday, for one to two weeks? Hmmm well I guess this theory will get to be tested in the following days. Here's to hoping people are innocent and without a sense of observation... (deep down I really don't care... what I got in exchange was waaaaaaay worth it)
Aaaaaand, just because this is an amazing song (yeah I'm starting to repeat myself) and it kind of resonated through part of my day.
As a side note, I wonder if it looks suspicious if you wear a scarf all day long (at home as well as outside), everyday, for one to two weeks? Hmmm well I guess this theory will get to be tested in the following days. Here's to hoping people are innocent and without a sense of observation... (deep down I really don't care... what I got in exchange was waaaaaaay worth it)
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Eu cu cine votez?
Ca si in Romania, alegerile in Canada fac circ degeaba si cheltuie bani fara ca sa rezolve mare lucru (se mai pot asemana si cu unele comisi de pe aici... Comission Bastarache anyone?). In orice caz, federalele se apropie à grands pas si in seara asta am avut traditionalul Débat des chefs care in general se poate descrie ca si o arena cu patru papagali care o tin fiecare cu placa lui si repeta aceleasi strofe uzate.
Michael Ignatieff care a tot dat in Harper cu avioanele lui si cu "mega-prison-urile" pe care vrea sa le constuiasca.
Harpy (how we so affectionately call him) care se facea ca ploua cand i se punea o intrebare embarassanta si o tinea cu dezvoltarea economica si cu bugetul lui care ar fi rezolvat totul, dar doamnelor si domnilor, vedeti, opozitia ni l-a blocat deci nu e vina noastra ca in momentul de fata nu facem nimic (totusi, simpatia mea merge la el pentru ca imi imaginez ca au cam curs apele pe el in seara asta... poate de aia tot bea apa. On the other hand, sunt gata sa pariez ca avea calmante in apa aia ca altfel nu stiu cum a reusit sa-si pastreze zambetul toata seara cand toti ceilalti sareau pe el ca si cainii infometati la un ciolan pe strada).
Apoi il avem pe Gilles Duceppe care ne-a facut un curs de istorie si care ne-a plimbat de la al doilea razboi mondial pana la repatrierea constitutiei si cum Quebecul saracul a suferit in toate astea (totusi, a facut poante bune, deci nu a fost completely useless. "Bien sur que le Quebec se tient débout à l'UNESCO, c'est parce qu'il a pas de siège pour s'assoir" hahahaha trop fort!).
Si, in sfarsit, Jack Layton care e super cute cu bastonul lui cu tot si care la un moment dat am ajuns sa-l vizualizez facand tururi in jurul celorlalti trei candidati cu zambetul ala putin naiv al lui si cu o pancarta pe care scrie "Vote NPD". In orice caz, tipul lua orice ocazie pe care o avea ca sa-si vanda partidul (daca a ajuns pana sa ceara la fidelii Blocului sa voteze pentru el ca sa-l dea jos pe Harpy...).
Intr-un fel imi aduce aminte de scheciul lui Florin Piersic despre castravetele. De fapt asta se aplica la toti patru candidati... Vorbim de cultura? Ah dar o stabilitate economica favorizeaza cultura si partidul conservator s-a luptat pentru stabilitatea economica in Canada. Da, eu sunt mandru de valorile canadiene, iar eu si partidul liberal suntem pentru a le proteja impotriva americanizarii ceea ce domnul Harper nu o face cu planurile lui de a construi mega-inchisori. Oamenii nu ar trebui sa aiba dreptul sa vorbeasca franceza la locul de munca in Quebec, ar trebui sa fie o obligatie. De ce ati dat 6 miliarde la industria automobila in Ontario cand la industria forestiera din Quebec abia i-ati dat cateva milioane? Si de ce Quebecul este singura provincie care nu a semnat constitutia (*pentru ca sunt prosti, aroganti si incapatanati, de aia*)? Familia este importanta pentru noi si de aceea trebuie sa votati NPD iar eu sunt mandru de originile mele montrealeze si NPD-ul a incercat intotdeauna sa protejeze limba franceza in Canada, deci votati NPD. Poftim doamna Paillé? Sunteti in somaj? NPD-ul considera ca aceasta situatie este inacceptabila si va face tot posibilul ca sa va amelioreze conditia, deci votati NPD. Iar crastravetele este un fruct dicotiledonat de culoare galben-verzui, el face parte din familia curcubitaceelor, are tulpina in forma de vrej, se inmulteste prin seminte si are 98% apa. Gata!
Poate ca pana la urma ar trebui sa votam cu tanti Muguette Paillé...
Monday, April 11, 2011
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Metaphors
As a little drop of water added to a quantity of wine is completely dispersed and takes on the color and taste of wine, as red-hot iron becomes like molten fire losing its original form, as air when it is inundated with the sun’s light is transformed into total splendor and clarity so that it no longer seems illuminated but, rather, seems to be light itself, so I felt myself die of tender liquefaction, and I had only the strength left to murmur the words of the psalm: “Behold my bosom is like new wine, sealed, which bursts new vessels,” and suddenly I saw a brilliant light and in it a saffron-colored form which flamed up in a sweet and shining fire, and that splendid light spread through all the shining fire, and this shining fire through that golden form and that brilliant light and that shining fire through the whole form.
Umberto Eco - The Name of the Rose
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)