Concepts of Order & Disorder I

Fig. 1: Fine splitting of spectral lines which discloses the basis for electron spin.

Fig. 2: Two electron spin systems distinguished by their "spin excesses" to arrive at the degree of order.

One of the ongoing aspects of physics (and biology, e.g. in evolution) that challenges the faith of some is how order can arise spontaneously from chaos. What I want to do in the next series of three blogs is attend to this and show how it is not only possibly but probable – including through the use of examples.

Prior to the development of the area of science known as statistical mechanics, supernatural explanations were invoked to account for perceived order in the universe. Since no working physical models were available, religionists felt that it was incumbent upon them to provide the answers. In extreme cases, such as St. Thomas Aquinas and later William Paley, these ‘explanations’ were even used as proof of the existence of some supernatural deity. Paley, for example, invoked his Paley, for example, invoked his ‘watchmaker’ analogy as relevant to the universe.

Of course, religionists like Paley made several serious errors in their formulations. A major one was presuming that the universe tended uniformly toward a state of order. In fact, this isn’t the case at all. Modern astronomy along with plasma physics has shown cosmic order to be mostly exaggerated and where it does exist, confined to very limited systems. The giant relic structures of the Big Bang (discovered by the COBE mission in 1992) are neither orderly in distribution or form. Exploding and colliding galaxies aren’t ‘orderly’. Dark matter and energy, as we saw in earlier blogs, probably makes up 90-95% of the universe, and can’t even be detected directly, far less assessed for ‘order’.

The use of the order paradigm for the cosmos is now recognized as the byproduct of a bygone era: in which astronomers didn’t have access to the wide range of instrumentation available today. It also hearkens to an era in which the assumption prevailed that what one saw was what was actually there. The prevalence of dark matter and energy, of course, resoundingly refutes this.

Among the simplest useful systems to consider for degrees of “order” are electron spin systems. A fact of 20th century physics is that all electrons have a property called spin that’s either up (+½) or down (-½). The numbers are "spin quantum numbers" and the main thing to remember about them is that they refer to different directions in the atom, and differing energy states. (The plus state slightly higher than the minus). An atom can assume a net spin as a result of the spins of the constituent electrons. Helium, for example, has two electrons which are forbidden to have the same spin numbers at the same time and so the net spin of the Helium atom cancels out: (-½) + (+½) = 0

Observationally speaking, spin is inferred from hyperfine splitting of atomic spectral lines(see diagram). That is, the spectral line splits into two slightly separate lines of differing energy as shown (in the diagram, Fig. 1, the upper level has slightly more energy than the lower.)

For starters, let's say that there is a system consisting of eight atomic magnets. These atomic magnets exist temporarily in the state S(1) as shown at the top of Fig. 2 (i.e. each arrow denotes the net spin of the atom based on the sum of electron orientations within it):[1]
We want to find the degree of order applicable to the system. We can sketch the system elements like:

­ (Spin ‘excess’ = 7 up - 1 down = 6 up)

The degree of order, as well as information, is determined from what is called "the spin excess", or the net spin difference (up minus down or vice versa). The larger this number, the greater the degree of order, and the lower the entropy of the system. It’s easy to see from this that the state S(1) possesses the second highest order accessible to the system of 8 atomic magnets. (The highest would correspond to the case where all spins are in the same direction.)

By contrast, consider a second system which is in a state S(2) as shown in the bottom of Fig. 2:

We get: (Spin ‘excess’ = 4 up - 4 down = 0)

Which state would conform to the “equilibrium” or lowest order state, and generally also with the highest entropy.

In the thermodynamic study of chaos, similar approaches to equilibrium can be examined by permitting far from equilibrium changes. Given the right fluctuations, it’s even possible to generate self-organization from pre-existing chaos. The ultimate example is the formation of matter in the universe. From amidst a sea of pure energy, the ambient temperature cooled, re-setting the so-called Higgs Field f from a zero to a non-zero value. This re-setting of the cosmic thermostat enabled the production of material particles in a sudden and spontaneous breakdown of symmetry.

A mundane example is a two-dimensional Ising model for ferromagnetic matter. It contains magnetic domains for which the individual spin magnets can be subject to sudden reversals. For a simple example, think of an Ising model with 8 rows that look like the top of Fig. 2 - with 8 spins and all aligned up but one. Here the Ising model system, by virtue of undergoing spontaneous magnetization (say from a state in which 5 ups and 3 downs appear in each row), discloses a higher degree of order at the later time t(0) + t, where t could be in billions of years or hundreds of seconds. (Depending on the system). The reader should also note that each arrow can represent a region of indefinite scale size. For example, the depiction given above might conceivably represent the evolution of an (essentially) two-dimensional current sheet in a highly compressed magnetic region near a sunspot. The arrows would represent plasma flows and current densities that follow magnetic field lines.

Chaos theory, spurred on by a number of notable successes, sheds new light on the numbers. Particular offshoots of Chaos theory disclose entities such as ‘strange attractors’ that can actually spur a system toward an enhanced degree of self-organization. We call such a turning point a bifurcation. Bifurcations represent sudden, abrupt changes toward higher degrees of organization of a system. These include the sudden alteration of system development from equilibrium[2] (maximum entropy) to non-equilibrium.

One of the simplest examples of a non-equilibrium system is a simple chemical reaction of the form:

X + 2Y <-> 3Y

X <-> W

where X, Y, W are arbitrary reactants that meet the conditions. We note here that at equilibrium, detailed balance requires, with k1, k2, k3 and k4 the respective concentrations:

k1 xy^2 = k2 y^3


k3 y = k4 w

Similarly, a stationary state ‘far from equilibrium’ is disclosed by the concentration equation:

k1 xy^2 + k3 y = k2 y^3 + k4 w

or


k1 xy^2 + k3 y - k2 y^3 - k4 w = 0

Note that in such a state, far from equilibrium, it isn’t necessary for each separate chemical reaction to balance in both directions. Clearly, non-equilibrium discloses aspects of the system that are inhibited when it is at equilibrium.

Next: More complex examples of spontaneous order arising from chaos.

[1] In terms of probability, the more atoms oriented the same way the less the more "ordered" the state. Hence, higher entropy corresponds to the most probable state, defined by the minimal spin excess of zero. Thus, in the first instance we can always distinguish the more ordered state by its spin excess.

[2] By way of reference, the equilibrium state is regarded as a universal point attractor.

Fundies Desecrate Pagan Worship Site at AFA

Shown: Two Judgmental fundies - who condemned their brother to Hell- are now sent to that abode for their transgression. This is part of the "measure for measure" edict.

Even as news of the new pagan- Earth -nature worship site at the Air Force Academy came to light (see earlier blog, 'Kudos to the Air Force Academy') we now learn that the special site has been defiled and desecrated by a cross placed upon it. Readers can see the image of this atrocity in this latest story:

http://www.gazette.com/articles/academy-93565-longcrier-worship.html

The image of the cross defiling the pagan site was made by Tech. Sgt. Brandon Longcrier. Of course, this brings enormous pain to the many pagans, Druids, Wiccans and others who thought that for once they had been liberated from the small minds of their fundie peers, but evidently not.

Meanwhile a top official at the AFA has warned cadets that religious discrimination “will not be tolerated". Others have intimated it may not have been a cadet, but this is hard to believe. The Academy is ringed by security perimeters and guards and no one can just sashay in there. (Having gone to attend one function three years ago, where our entourage was searched at least three times. This was for a 'Jay Leno' appearance at the AFA Hall). So in all probability, let's cut the distractions and admit it was plausibly a disaffected Christian Fundamentalist cadet who felt it was his bounden duty to place a cross at the sacred pagan worship cite. He probably never remotely processed or thought how he'd feel if a Satanist - for example - placed a large Pentagram inside his church- or hung it over a cross therein.

What all this shows is that religious tolerance is a principle that can't be allowed to be an exception for some - like the Fundies - while all others must oblige. ALL religious believers must subscribe to the principle, or ALL are at risk of whatever violations and desecrations may occur. And, believe me, these sort of things can easily get out of hand and lead to a cycle of violence. Look at what's been going on in Kuala Lumpur and other parts of Indonesia - with Muslims burning Christian churches (just because they wanted to use the alternative name of "Allah" for their God), while Christians retaliated by dumping pork carcasses and heads in Muslim mosques. Of course, to the Muslim this is an insult of the highest magnitude.

The problem is that the Christian Fundamentalist zealots - and probably many of their Islamic Fundamentalist cousins, demand special dispensation from having to practice tolerance toward others - to refrain from judging and condemning beliefs and practices they don't like. But it doesn't work like that! Unless all deity-believers (because each of their god-concepts is relative to all others) partake in the exercise of tolerance, all are subject to reprisals, attacks and responses from those that they condemn or judge. No one can be an exception to the rule, therefore, no matter how twisted their interpretations of scriptures.

Another aspect of this, is that IF the Fundies' deity does exist, He will be extremely upset at them for violating one of His over arching laws - NOT to judge. We see, for example, from Matthew 7: 1-5:

"Do not judge that thou be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged; and with what measure you measure it shall be measured unto you.

And why do you look at the splinter which is in your brother's eye, but the beam in your eye you do not consider? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove the splinter from your eye', and behold the beam is in your own eye.

Hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye!"

Of course, to try to justify their condemnations and judgments the Fundies have resorted to all manner of twisting words and interpretations. They will do anything to try to escape not being able to condemn those that they despise. One of these tricks is to limit the definition and say that judging is allowed "if done from righteousness". In other words, if they "get right" with their Lord - or so they imagine, they can judge to their heart's content.

But Oxford religious scholar Geza Vermes isn't having any of this nonsense, as he notes in his monograph (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, p. 83) wherein he clearly references that an ancient Jewish maxim is being cited that - "to avoid being judged for one's own misdeeds, one must avoid judging others". No one can claim a superior righteousness to judge others, because that would effectively usurp an ability alloted only to God. (Since to judge in absolute certainty of righteousness requires an absolute insight and certainty into ALL human actions. Something no human can have, even if "saved" a billion times over. A point Christ himself made when he warned those who were aiming stones at a prostitute: "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". Subtly reminding these hardheads that only the deity could be in such a position of full rectitude- required for judgment).

So in this respect, the trenchant words of Matthew are extremely clear and there is no getting round them by any verbal elastic trickery or deceits. If one attacks his brother ....for whatever....without being fully righteous himself (e.g. removing all 'beams' from 'eyes'....e..g. becoming God) then he cannot judge. If he then condemns or asserts his brother will go to "Hell" because of his belief system or lack thereof, then he himself will be judged by the God he worships who will dispatch him to Hell.

The image shown depicts two judgmental fundie believers who perhaps learned that lesson a bit late! Now, they shall have eternity to repent!

Destroying 5 Myths About Atheists

Congrats must go forth for Susan Jacoby in her latest Washington Post blog,

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/spirited_atheist/2010/02/atheists_--_naughty_and_nice_--_should_define_themselves.html#more

wherein she effectively quashes five widespread myths that have circulated about atheists - including: 1)The "New Atheism" (e.g. as espoused by Richard Dawkins et al) is a wholly new phenomenon, 2) that atheists think all religious believers are "stupid", 3) that atheism is a "religion", 4) atheists believe that science explains everything, and 5) that atheists deny the possibily of "transcendent experience" and can't see beyond the material world.

One excerpt from Myth (2):


"One point, however, is indisputable: there is a strong correlation between simplistic fundamentalist beliefs, relying on a literal interpretation of sacred texts, and lack of education. As the level of education rises, the number of people who believe in materially impossible tales such as the creation of the universe in six days; the literal resurrection of the dead; and the Virgin Birth diminishes."

But most eloquent is at the beginning of her next-to-last paragraph:

"Speaking only for myself, I find that awareness of my inevitable extinction enhances rather than diminishes my life. This awareness makes me want to leave something behind, if only a piece of scholarship that will be useful to some seeker of knowledge in a library of the future"


Her biggest contribution in her WaPo blog is perhaps calling out Boston University Religious prof Stephen Prothero for attempting to foment or incite an atheist community split by heralding Jacoby (and other female atheists like Rebecca Newberger Goldstein) as espousing a "kinder, gentler atheism" - hence placing them at essential contretemps to those mean, nasty white guys ...like Sam Harris, Dawkins. and Dan Dennet.

What I'd like to do here is add my own top five myths on atheists, and show how I debunk them.

1. Atheists Deny God

This is perhaps the most popular myth, because on the surface it appears to make sense. Careful thought, however, might disclose how absurd it is. For example, one generally refrains from "denying" anything for which belief is withheld. Let’s take the example of alien colonies on the Chesapeake. Someone or group makes the claim, they exist, and are planning to siphon water to take to their planet.

Fair enough. I hear the claim, but in the next breath ignore it. It's of no concern to me because it is simply too preposterous to waste investing intellectual resources. The reason is that evidence-free claims can be regarded as false or spurious until such time a modicum of evidentiary basis is provided. If this is so, it follows there is even less reason to invest precious intellectual resources to deny the claim! Why the need?

Indeed, if one “denies” a specious claim, he’s already given it a plausible (if unconscious) underpinning. Any active expenditure of mental energy in denial presumes there is at least “smoke” (if not “fire”) to deny! On the other hand, if the claim is totally nonsensical, simple withholding of belief quite fits the bill and is more than adequate. As I noted in an article published in the Mensa Bulletin, March 1994:

"Let's be clear about what constitutes Atheism and what doesn't. The Atheist - to put it succinctly, absolutely withholds investing intellectual/emotional resources in any supernatural claim. Indeed the word Atheism itself embodies this definition: a-theos, or without god.”

What is happening here is not active disbelief, i.e. in making a statement “There is no god,” but rather simply passively withholding belief in a statement already made. Hence, the deity believer has made the positive claim. The ontological atheist’s is the simple absence of belief in it. No more and no less. It does not and never has implied aggressive rancor or a vehement and militant opposition to the beliefs. (Though yes, some militant atheists – or what we call “strong atheists” – do have such attitudes!)

Let me quickly add here that this withholding of belief is the more natural position, as opposed to advocating belief, which is unnatural. Consider a different context: a neighbor runs over and informs me that aliens have landed in his yard in a spacecraft. Until I actually go over and try to verify his claim I am under no obligation to accept it as a statement of fact. Thus, the default intellectual position is always skepticism, irrespective of the claim made. This again is because the onus is always on the claimant to make good, not the skeptic to “disprove” it.

2. Atheists reject morality

This is one of my favorites because it’s preposterous on its face. It’s also important because many otherwise sober people believe that atheists live by the rule “anything goes,” since we don't acknowledge any god. On many occasions in Barbados, I've been telephoned by religious types who ask: "If you don't believe in God what's stopping you from going out and raping, robbing, murdering or doing anything else? If you don't believe in God, then you don't believe in God's laws."

Invariably, I respond that decent, civilized behavior doesn’t depend on god belief or adhering to 'laws' of a god. Rather, it depends on rational and objective analysis of a situation, and sound decisions maximally promoting the welfare of all concerned.

As William Provine notes, people should be encouraged to think rationally and critically concerning ethics, not out of fear of some divine force, but to protect their own long-term self-interest[1].

In line with this, any persistent observer of human social interaction will note that the vast majority of people are law-abiding and decent folk who naturally practice a common-sense, utilitarian ethics similar to what has been described. No supernatural law or commandment ordains this behavior. Instead it is the conscious and deliberate recognition that the promotion of the welfare of others is directly linked to the one's own welfare. Compromise others' security, and you in effect compromise your own. Undermine their welfare and you also undermine your own. No god is necessary.

By contrast, religious morality is predicated on some formal codification of expected human behavior in terms of absolutist propositions, not subject to debate. The typical moral code of a religionist, whether Muslim, Pentecostal, Catholic or Jewish, isn’t subject to evolution or variation based on contingencies, or externalities. Thus, from this one beholds the Vatican still mandating its flock continue to reproduce - despite the planet being overpopulated. Now, under the name of their absolutist "natural law" they are pressuring exploding human populations to live in more and more desperate, unnatural conditions!

3. Atheism is a Religion

This claim is absurd on its face. The misplaced strategy, however, is always to attempt to place atheism within the same logical context as religion and then attack it on the basis of occupying an analogous “belief” spectrum. In the end, this is a fool’s errand.

For one thing it turns the very meaning and basis of religion on its head. We know all religions embody centralized beliefs or dogmas that issue from some sacred scripture or a body of theology based on scriptural interpretations.. Atheism has none of these, since there are no central propositions or beliefs with which all atheists agree.

First, atheists withhold belief, they do not invest it. This alone separates atheists from religionists or people of faith. Second, atheists make no positive claims for any transcendent existent that requires their worship or obeisance. They simply acknowledge no god or entity with which to build a religion in other words. Third, atheists maintain no sacred works, scriptures, or ancient artifacts, from which their “truths” are extracted.

They have no analog to a Bible, Qu’ran, Talmud or anything remotely similar. Instead, atheists pursue objective truth via open inquiry predicated on current science, which may provide fewer certainties or answers than if they merely placed their faith in a book. However, this doesn't mean they treat "science" as their god, because any hypothesis is always given falsification tests.

Fourth, atheists convene no regular rituals, services or ceremonies to honor, or propitiate any entity. By contrast, the centerpiece of 99 percent of religions is precisely some social ritual, for the purpose of assembling together like-minded believers toward a common goal. Moreover, their churches, synagogues, temples etc. dot the landscape, taking up room that could be used to house the homeless in each respective area or locale.

Perhaps most importantly, there is no "acceptance" of atheist principles from any “congregation” since there’s no homogeneous congregation to bestow it. Atheists often disagree on as many things as they agree on, precisely because no formal coda exists to fix beliefs within a uniform dogma. This means one is just as likely to encounter a wholly Materialist-Naturalist atheist as a non-material one.

4. Hitler was an Atheist.

This myth is intended to achieve exactly what it appears to do: slander atheism by association with the most monstrous human imaginable. If, therefore, Hitler can be painted as an “atheist” and if Hitler’s deeds were so cumulatively vile, it follows (in a bizarre sort of logic) that atheism can only produce vile deeds. However, technically Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Robert Payne notes [1]:

“Adolf Hitler's birth certificate records that he was born at six o'clock in the evening on April 20, 1889, and goes on to record that two days later, at a quarter past three in the afternoon, in the presence of Father Ignaz Probst, the boy was baptized in the local Catholic Church”

As is known from standard Roman Catholic doctrine, once one is baptized a Catholic, he or she technically remains a Catholic unless excommunicated, or until death. Payne later documents Catholic Church attendance by a number of Hitler's luminaries, including Gregor Strasser, Erich von Ludendorff and others (2).

While it is true that Hitler was probably no more than a nominal Catholic by the time of the invasion of Poland in 1939, this doesn’t mean he was an “atheist” any more than the two Columbine killers (who professed being “atheists”) as they threatened any peers that refused to budge from their faith during the 1999 Colorado killing spree. Obviously these killers merely postured unbelief, invoking the red-flag word “atheist”, as a vehicle for their anti-social acts or to garner more media attention.

5. Atheists Despise all religions

This simply isn't true. Atheists have great respect for those religions which are life-affirming, and which tolerate others rather than condemning them, or trying to employ spiritual apartheid or one-upmanship. In this way, Buddhism is perhaps the closest religion to atheism, especially as its goal of "Nirvana" is just nothingness, or what end the atheist also anticipates.

Elements of Christianity are also acceptable such as embodied in Science of Mind and Religious Science, and made popular in a number of books, e.g. Ernest Holmes Science of Mind. These sects have in common the unifying theme that evil is an illusion and each human can become a “Christ” unto himself (and indeed is an embodiment of divinity like Christ) and also that every material abundance becomes available once one acknowledges that he too, is God. Their import for the atheist is that they’re benign forms of Christianity that renounce the odious Heaven-Hell doctrine in favor of either cosmic unification or sequential, progressive reincarnation. They are also realistic in foursquare rejecting such latter day Fundamentalist inventions as "the rapture" - which, of course, denotes spiritual apartheid carried to an extreme. Thus, the righteous and "saved" get magically lifted up into their Lord's arms - while five billion Hindis, Buddhists, Muslims and non-saved Christians as well as all agnostics, infidels....get to be tormented by the "Anti-christ" (another fiction, but convenient to try to drumbeat the gullible and weak into the fold)

In addition, they embody esoteric forms that have much in common with Eastern religions such as Buddhism



[1] William Provine, ‘Evolution and the Foundation of Ethics’ (MLB Science, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1988, p. 25)

[2] Robert Payne: 1973, The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler, Praeger Publishers, p. 15

Time to Slay the "Thieving Geezer" Meme!

How it got started, who can say? Sometimes memes (ideas or beliefs that catch hold in the popular Zeitgeist) just have a way of infecting millions of brains because they sound so plausible on the surface. Anyway, the last time I reacted to this one was about a year ago, following an AARP Bulletin piece by Tom Brokaw- who suggested that seniors make greater sacrifices in their "entitlements" (like opting to forgo Social Security) for the benefit of the "Kids".

I called the AARP out for publishing this rot, and argued that it is a non-starter since most seniors I know can't afford to make any such "sacrifices". In addition, they're not receiving "entitlements" but rather a return on monies they already paid into Social Security via FICA or payroll taxes for many decades. Sure, the actual SS payments are generally significantly larger than what they paid in - but thank Richard Milhous Nixon for one decent thing he did - which was to introduce larger payments via the yearly cost of living adjustment(COLA). If not for that move, 90% of seniors would be below the poverty line, living off dumpster-retrieved cat food or tossed out kibbles.

In my own parents' case, they'd both have been living on the streets at the whim of strangers' charity - or having to live with one or other offspring, in conditions in which they may not fare well. In my case, I'd likely have been the most plausible one to do that, but they'd have suffered mightily from the perennial dry air and high altitude (over 6600') where I live.

Far better for them to have received a decent SS benefit, and lived on their own in dignity.

What the elder "sacrifice" mongers like Brokaw forget is that if those "entitlements" weren't there to provide that support, 8 out of 10 elderly would have to move in with those adult "kids".

But somehow, the image of rich, greedy old farts persists ....despite the fact that the AARP's own statistics show that only the uppermost quintile of seniors receive more than $50,000 a year in their retirement. The unlucky ones who don't hit that threshold are eaten alive by medical costs, and let's bear in mind Medicare only pays a fraction of those.

The latest contribution to this codswallop comes from David Brooks - the resident neo-liberal ensconced at The New York Times. Brooks does pay some lip service to how oldsters volunteer their time and energies to assist young 'uns (e.g. in tutoring, being a substitute parent etc.) but then in the next breath he writes:

"Far from serving the young the old are now taking from them. First they are taking money. According to Julia Isaacs of the Brooking Institution, the federal government now spends $7 on the elderly for each $1 it spends on children.

Second they are taking freedom. In 2009, for the first time in American history, every single penny of federal tax revenue went to pay for mandatory spending programs....As more money goes off to pay for promises mostly made to the old, the young have less control"


There is so much wrong with just these first two points that it boggles the mind. Consider the first paragraph. Not processed or mentioned is: 1) how many "boomerang" kids come back to live with their parents after they graduate college. Many of them return and stay for years, some decades. Brooks ought to be thankful the "geezers" have enough to cover their own expenses and these boomerang kids- who often just take and hardly give back at all.

There is also no mention that corporate welfare sucks up an equal $7 per adult, but that is off Brooks' radar. This welfare appears in dozens of forms that rarely see the light of day in the corporate mainstream press or electronic media - because these corporations are also beneficiaries of it! In many cases, the corporate welfare emerges as subsidies or tax breaks.

For example, right now as I write this, PhRma companies are permitted to leave all foreign, out of country profits off the table in terms of tax scrutiny. Other corporations, via defective laws passed in the 1990s are allowed to just hang shingles in some little dump in the Caymans or elsewhere, and escape tax liability at home. There was some talk during Obama's 2008 campaign of addressing this, but so far I haven't seen a thing and it continues. Then there is the 51 cents per gallon federal subsidy for the Big Ethanol producers. This is egregious at so many levels it is difficult to list them. One is that it destroys the whole "free market" and equal competition myth underlying it. (Of course, the Oil companies also still benefit big time from the Oil Depletion Tax allowance). Another is the fact that ethanol is less efficient than petrol, and one must use 1.1 gals. of the latter to obtain 1.0 gal. of the first. The waste in energy to produce ethanol (not to mention the volume of food wasted by using corn to produce it) is in the billions.

My point? Before you go off on the "geezers" take care of those corporate parasites first! Including all those defense contractors that have reaped enormous plum deals since the Reagan era.....based on $75 hammers, $300 toilet seats and so forth. No wonder our country first became world debtor during Reagan's tenure. Oh, and who can forget the choice contracts dealt out to Halliburton, Bechtel Inc. and others over the Iraq war - which itself was an ILLEGAL invasion according to the UN Article VI pertaining to the Nuremberg Laws, and which may end up costing us over $3 trillion - when all the war wounds, medical costs, PTSD effects etc. are factored in.

But oh no, it's easier to single out those geezers, who Brooks also has the absolute nerve to assert are "taking freedom". No, the U.S. and its embedded corporatocracy itself are taking "freedom" by turning the country into a permanent corporate-military war state - one which now spends 15 times more than the next ten nations combined, including the Chinese, Russians, India, etc.

To fix ideas here, it helps to go back to Eisenhower's great speech from April 16, 1953. These are the words then that ring most true now, and that the propagandists like Brooks and his cronies ought to consider :

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies- in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."

You processing that, Brooks? Is it seeping through that neo-liberal noggin? a nano-byte, maybe? THIS is where the real focus ought to be, on the incessant undeclared wars emerging from a contrived capitalist, corporate war-security state that feeds off them - making the military-industrial complex even more of a threat than it was when Ike warned us about it in his January, 1961 farewell speech. An M-I-C, according to former defense analyst Chuck Spinney, that can't even account for the $1.2 TRILLION it received in the late 1990s!

And now you want to take food out of poor seniors'mouths??? Just so we are clear on this, let me also provide a quote from the article: 'Stealing From Poor, Making Rich Richer':

"Social Security isn't broke, but millions of retirees who depend on it are, and many more would be broke without it. The average retired worker's Social Security benefit is just $922 a month--about $11,000 a year. Disabled workers average just $862.

One out of three seniors depends on Social Security for 90 to 100 percent of their income. Two out of three seniors depend on it for more than half their income. Even with Social Security, many seniors must choose between eating and heating, paying the mortgage or paying for medicine."

The preceding article appeared about two years before former Fed Chairman Allan Greenspan's term expired. It had to do with Greenspan's (then) recommendation to congress that cuts in Social Security be used to finance the ongoing Bush tax cuts. In other words, help the rich continue to be able to buy their yachts and Lexuses off the backs of poor seniors. Brooks merely takes this sludge to a new level, but he saves his best disinformation in the number three objection:

"Third, they (the old) are taking opportunity. For decades federal spending has hovered around 20% of GDP. By 2019, it is forecast to be at 25% of GDP. The higher tax rates implied by that will mean less growth and fewer opportunities"

Of course, Brooks has it ass-backwards. Research has shown higher taxes actually lead to higher growth, and lower debt as proportion of GDP. What has placed us into our untenable predicament has actually been: 1) the monstrous Bush tax cuts ($2.2 trillion in all - though they are set to expire in 2011, at least for those earning over $250 k a year. In truth, ALL ought to expire!) , and 2) launching wars with NO taxes to pay for them - something unheard of.

In their excellent book, The Indebted Society, James Medoff and Andrew Harless note(p. 23), going back to the start of the "supply side" bunkum in Reagan's first term:

"For the health of the economy, Reagan's policies turned out to be just about the worst thing that could have happened: investment did not increase, growth continued to stagnate, and the federal deficit ballooned to new dimensions .

In 1981, the year Reagan took office, the public debt was 26.5 % of the gross domestic product (GDP)....In 1993, the year that Bush left office, the public debt was a staggering 51.9 percent of the GDP."

The authors trace this nasty outcome almost entirely to: 1) the Reagan tax cuts, coupled with 2) $2.1 TRILLION in defense spending during his 8 years (fortunately, his 'Star Wars' boondoggle never got off the ground - as that would likely have added another $100 billion).

They also show that the supply side nonsense invented by Arthur Laffer doesn't work as claimed. Instead, they discovered (p. 87) that : "high tax rates are associated with higher productivity growth" There is a consistent and strong relationship.

"Trickle down" - the presumptive basis of supply side- therefore doesn't work, because as Medoff and Harless note, in a tax cut environment, the wealthy don't create jobs- they plow more and more money into speculative ventures to enhance their own personal portfolios, such as hedge funds, commodities futures, ETFs, or exotic betting in the credit markets.

What actually happens, then, is that the tax burden is shifted to the backs of the working and middle classes who can least afford it. (Especially now, as the AMT or 'Alternative Minimum Tax' claims more and more middle class folks). This assures increasingly higher taxes for those (lower, middle income) groups, while the wealthy see their tax benefits enhanced.

It is time people cease to feed at the propaganda troughs of those like Brooks and many others, who blame the elderly for stealing from the future generations. No! It is the capitalist- war profiteer national security state that is doing that - check Ike's April 16, 1953 message warning of the "Garrison state". And process it!

Kudos to the Air Force Academy!

Barely four years ago, Air Force Academy cadets who were Wiccans, pagans, nature worshippers or atheists had to endure a humiliating ordeal known as "Heathen's Run" - forced to run a gauntlet between bible-toting believers who smashed them upside the head and shoulders with their good books.

Now, thanks to Mikey Weinstein's interventions, all that has changed, and Constitutional protections have arrived for these minorities.

As reported in today's Colorado Springs Gazette (p. A3), an outside worship area has now been set aside for Wiccans, Druids, pagans, and other naturalists....while atheists are permitted to have their own freethought meetings.

Marking the area is a double circle of stones atop a hill on the AFA campus, designated for the group. As pagans know, the circular format of the stones is intended to convey the essential unity between Man and nature. As noted by Tech. Sgt. Brandon Longerier, quoted in the Gazette:

"Being with nature and connecting with it is kind of the whole point."

Indeed, and for Wiccans - long miscast as "Witches" or "warlocks" this holds equally true. The problem is that all these groups have been marginalized in a nation that gives way too much front stage area to fundamentalist Christians, who actually hold the real exceptional beliefs.

One of the AFA's chaplains, Lt. Col. William Ziegler, reminded local journalists that designation of the worship space is part of the Academy's ongoing efforts to foster religious tolerance. This was also the motivating force behind Mr. Weinstein's efforts, on learning that his son - a Jew- had also been subjected to the Heathen's Run. As he pointed out when organizing the move to take back the AFA from the fundie domination, no military should be ruled by a group of religious zealots. If it is, then the nation's military becomes no different from a Christian Taliban - out to enforce their values above those the military must defend in the Constitution.

As the AFA Chaplain also observed:

"It's about our committment as airmen to protect freedom and defend freedom. To me, this is a freedom thing".

Kudos must also go to AFA Superintendent Lt. Gen. Michael Gould, who has said his institution has made religious tolerance "a priority".

In most Earth-centered nature religions - as Cadet Longrier notes, it is the Goddess that is worhipped. (In some cases, multiple goddesses are worshipped, each representing a natural domain of our world).

Longrier and his fellows are also smart enough to cede that their goddesses are not believed to be actual beings, but rather "personifications of natural events that our human ancestors wanted to put a face on".

Interestingly, there also remains an ongoing effort in the Catholic Church to re-direct focus from a patriarchal, authoritarian male deity to a less uptight female one. The reasoning here is that a female deity would be more sympathetic to human needs, and suffering- more resonant with the theme of love, as opposed to punishment. The male image is too much like a white corporate CEO or dictator who has lost his moorings. At least - that was the reasoning a nun offered to me once. While some uptight Xtians may complain, they often overlook evidence that Jesus himself may have been a hermaphrodite, as a number of religious scholars have speculated- including Elaine Pagels.

Maybe one day, humans will mature enough to be rid of all gods - or goddesses. In the meantime, until that day arrives, tolerance must be allotted to all, especially since no human brain is capable of knowing for certain which god-concept may be the right one. All are relative, especially if none even represent an actual entity.

Exploring issues of causality

It is a remarkable fact that in many debates, religious as well as political, issues of cause and causality arise yet the debaters have little conception of what these terms mean. In this blog I want to explore issues of causality and how they can best be argued and assessed.

Much general confusion inheres in conflating efficient causality and regular conditionality – which is what “necessary and sufficient conditions” are really all about. (cf. Mario Bunge, Causality and Modern Science, pp. 33-34, 1979). The other part of the problem resides in extrapolating conditions peculiar to general traits for scientific laws into human domains.

I want to focus on the first of these for now.

The criteria of necessary and sufficient conditions was actually invoked originally by Galileo to replace the concept of efficient cause (ibid., p. 33). In this regard, it was recognized from early on that "efficient causation" was often too limited or narrow a concept to be practical or workable. As for “necessary and sufficient conditions” - they are really a statement of regular conditionality that exposes no real criteria for causal efficacy.

Nonetheless, in many venues they are about the best we can hope for in approaching a feasible discussion of causes. For example, Robert Baum, in his textbook, LOGIC, p. 469-70, correctly observes that n-s conditions are practical replacements (in logic) for causes. In other words, instead of saying or asserting "x caused y", one stipulates that a, b are necessary conditions for x to exist at all, and c,d are sufficient conditions for y to have been the sole effect of cause x.

Baum’s reasoning is clear (ibid.): because “cause” (generic) can be interpreted as proximate or remote, or even as the “goal or aim of an action” and is therefore too open-ended, ambiguous and construed in too many different ways. Thus, “cause” is too embedded in most people’s minds with only one of several meanings, leaving most causality discussions unproductive and confused. If my “cause” and your ‘cause” in a given argument diverge, then we will not get very far.

Because of this one uses the more neutral term “condition” and specifies necessary and sufficient ones. The latter terms are specifically meaningful in the context of determining causal conditions, and hence, causes. If one eschews them, then one concedes he is incapable of logical argument incorporating the most basic affiliation with cause or causation.

Given this, let's explore further the concept of conditionalness or conditionality. The goal is to see if or how we can drive n-s conditions toward a firmer basis, say of causal efficacy. Generally four characteristics are assigned for efficient causality: conditionalness, existential succession, uniqueness and constancy. The first, conditionalness is a generic trait of scientific law.

Thus, for example, applying conditionalness to the occurrence of large solar flares, I know I must include such factors as: steepness of the magnetic gradient in the active region, rate of proper motion of sunspots in the active region, magnetic class of said spots, magnetic flux, and helicity of the magnetic field. Each of the above allows a degree of determinacy in the prediction, once I make the measurements.

For example, the magnetic gradient: grad B = [+B_n - (-B_n)] / x

where the numerator denotes the difference in the normal components of the magnetic field (between opposite polarities of the active region) as measured by vector magnetograph and the denominator the scale separation between them. If I calculate grad B = 0.1 Gauss/km, then I know a flare is 96% probable within 24 hrs. In the case of existential succession, in the physical case of the solar flare I know that when the magnetic gradient spikes or steepens to 0.1 Gauss/km a flare is imminent to 96% probability – in 24 hrs.

Unlike conditionalness, the attribute of uniqueness (or high level determinacy such that a one-to-one onto mapping occurs between C(cause) and E (effect)) is absent from certain kinds of law – such as statistical regularities peculiar to statistical mechanics (e.g. the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution function) or the empirical- statistical correlations that show how sunspot morphology is related to the frequency of certain classes of flares.

It is also absent from those quantum phenomena (including the spontaneous inception of the cosmos) which are governed by quantum logic, not binary classical logic. This is why it is futile to get into arguments with people who merely use classical either-or logic and haven't been exposed to quantum logic. See also my previous blog on this issue:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/09/foray-into-quantum-logical-and.html

One example I gave therein was in a claimant who asserted: "No primary cause can be physical". The trouble is, that this assumption is based on a classical system of logic that is binary and uses binary {1,0} or (yes, no) operators. Thus, since a careless person- perhaps attempting to execute a "proof" of a creator, will assert all physical entities must be caused, he will make the classical error of applying this to the cosmos' origin.

But what if instead of classical mechanics and its deterministic provisions, quantum mechanics is incorporated, say at the level of quantum gravity? Can the proposition still hold? No, since we saw the binary{0,1}-valued observables may be regarded as encoding propositions about properties of the state of the system. Thus a self-adjoint operator P with spectrum contained in the two-point set {0,1} must be a projection; i.e., P^2 = P. Such operators are in one-to-one correspondence with the closed subspaces of H, the Hilbert space. But they are not in such correspondence with classical operators that one might assign to classical causality conditions!

Anyway, we move on. Uniqueness is a characteristic, but not an exclusive trait of causation. When one avers “uniqueness of causation” one really means “the rigidity of causation” as opposed to say plasticity which would be associated with human processes, influences, choices and outcomes. For example, plasticity was at work in the 2000 presidential election, embedded in the (disjunctive) plurality of proximate causes of why Al Gore lost Florida to Bush, and hence the presidency in the electoral vote count (though he did win the popular vote across the U.S. by 500,000). . Among these causes: i) 200,000 Dem voters bailed and voted Repub (bear in mind in the final count Bush only won by 537 votes), ii) Nader garnered nearly 50,000 votes - and they were claimed "taken from Dems" - though this has never been proven, and iii) more than 58,000 African -Americans were disenfranchised as documented by Greg Palast in the first chapter of his book, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy.

The distinguishing aspect of plasticity in causality is that a given outcome (say the potential election of Gore in 2000) could be attained by a whole range of alternative means. (E.g. Gore could have won in 2000 if Nader had not run, OR if Gore had fought hard enough for the purged votes to be reinstated, OR if he had fought for the 3,100+ butterfly ballot votes to be reinstated in Palm Beach County, OR if he had demanded all the votes in every county be counted- which the Miami Herald later showed would have won it for him). Note that the key aspect here is that the alternatives are not mutually exclusive.

If only “necessary and sufficient conditions” are to be regarded as antecedents in a casual connection then a simple causation is implied (which lies at the heart of regular conditionality):

If C, then (and only then) E

Again, this is justifiably applied in the context of totally deterministic – and “rigidly causal” examples such as occur in the scientific realm (Newton’s 2nd law: F= ma) but NOT human dynamics or processes. For the latter, the imposition of linear causal chains to describe events and outcomes is defective ontologically since it crafts an artificial line of development in a whole stream of causes (e.g. disjunctive plurality of causes).

As Bunge observes (p. 132) this amounts to a fabrication that may prove useful in terms of description or conveying complex information, say about the 2000 election, but it falls way short in arriving at the efficient causation we seek. The gist of all the preceding is that it is facile, naïve and utterly preposterous to over-extrapolate the“necessary and sufficient conditions” to human affairs and events. That will remain the case until such time the human agents and actors are at least as predictable as the particle of a gas are, say, in terms of their velocities in the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution.

The Problem of employing False Conditionality- Hence False Causation:

While the whole preceding section may appear to be a rarefied discussion, it actually has significant practical application: namely in ferreting out false causation arguments. Most of these, in fact, mistake a false conditionality for an efficient causation. Some examples from the past are really extreme, but I will point out just one - the classic used by mathematician Leonhard Euler on the French atheist Denis Diderot (who also, alas was innumerate).

Anyway, the story goes like this: on being informed of a new "proof for God's existence" Diderot expressed a desire to hear it, from Euler. Euler then walked toward him and announced (without cracking even a slight grin):

"Sir, (a + b)^n/ n = x, hence God exists! Reply!"

The poor Diderot, lost in any abstract math, was so stunned - the story goes- that he nearly lost his mind and senses and had to leave Paris.

However, had he even basic training in logic and the nuances of causation, he could have easily peered calmly at Euler, and informed him: "Sir, the so-called proof is nothing but nonsense that has nothing to do with the entity you are trying to prove. You have merely given a mathematical equation, nothing more - and hence, a false conditionalness which you mistake for efficient causation!"

Of course, any number of other examples can be substituted for Euler's false conditionality. For example, "God is two-dimensional in time" - proves efficient causation. Or "God is the uncaused cause", when in fact all that's being done is to insert a noun which hasn't even been vetted for the bare necessary and sufficient conditions for it to exist.

The point is that most such arguments fall because while they invoke some form of efficient causation, they don't use or deliver it. They deliver a fraud masquerading as it, which we recognize as a false conditionalness. Worse, asserting "God is a first cause" is actually and technically unprovable within an axiomatic system based on cause! (Of course, one may eschew such a system - but then he loses the ability to argue from or about "cause"!) This is directly from application of Gödel's Incompleteness theorems.

In this case the set of causal elements in the axiomatic system, call the set: Z ={C1, C2, C3,........Cn) has ONE element which is uncaused. It matters not whether it is C1 or any other. The point is, the proof of its existence can't be rendered from within the axiomatic system that uses the set Z for a causal argument. Thus, one will inevitably find at least one contradiction, and this contradiction means the system is incomplete, so the set must be also.

Look at it this way: say Z = C1 is equivalent to saying C1 is "the first cause of all Z". But if: Z = C1 were provable-in-the-system, we have a contradiction: for if it were provable in-the-system, then it would not be unprovable-in-the-system, so that "Z= C1 is unprovable-in-the-system" would be false. Again, it can't be provable in the system since C1 is an element from a presumed CAUSAL set. So, Z = C1 is unprovable-in-the-system is not provable-in-the-system (Z), but unprovable-in-the-system (Z). Technically, one would require a "meta-set" such that Z' = Z + k', the uncaused element- with Z purged of it. However, it can be shown that invoking such a meta-set leads to an infinite regression.

This shows why - before one interjects false conditionality- he or she had first better be sure Kurt Gödel isn't looking over his shoulder!

NO! To floating money market share values!

In The Financial Times of January 28 ('Markets & Investing' section, page 23) - about a third of the way down the page - there appeared a nondescript four column story under the header: 'Curbs on Money Market Funds'. As readers may be well aware, at the apex of the credit meltdown and banking crisis there was a veritable flood of investors toward safety, after seeing their investments in equities cratered. The first destination was money market funds, which are also the safest instruments available for most people with IRA or 401k holdings.

As risk enhanced, a sizeable proportion of these people then attempted to pull their cash out of money markets - leading to a near literal run on them, and causing at least one to "break the buck". For those who may not be aware, all money market funds trade at $1 share prices. The aim of all major fund companies (e.g. T. Rowe Price) is to maintain this parity. A fall below that means investors in the money market are losing money. (For example, in the case of the fund that "broke the buck" - the share price went down nearly two cents to 0.98. Thus, say for a person that may have held $100,000 there, the holdings subsequent were $98,000 - marking a $2,000 loss in what is purported to be an ultra-safe investment).

Why would people place most funds there? Mainly because within 5 years (or less) of retiring they don't want to risk their life savings (mainly tied up in their 401ks) in the equity -stock casino. The market meltdown of 2008, with so many losing up to 40% of their nest eggs, showed the wisdom of the conservative approach. Interestingly, the usual stock hawks in MONEY magazine, in a number of issues in the wake of the meltdown, for once concurred that saving money over time was preferable to trying to make up for not doing so by gambling in the stock market. Hoping to strike one big Bull Market run and high P-E ratio upswing and earn a return equal to all the hundreds of thousands that they ought to have saved in the first place.

Thus, those electing money market choices (which disdain also bond funds - since they can be littered with "toxic waste" - like collateralized mortgage obligations, IOS strips and inverse floaters) expect to preserve their principal and not lose it. Those who suffered the breaking of the buck, lost. Not a lot, but enough to savage confidence.

Now, according to the FT article, the SEC voted to require money market funds (which currently hold $3.24 trillion in assets) to disclose fluctuations around their standard share price of $1.00. This is further to be done on a monthly basis, with a 60-day lag. Implicit here is the demand to disclose what can be called the "shadow net asset value as manifested in any fluctuating share prices. The whole idea is to inform money market investors of any volatility in their holdings, which may not always be apparent to them from the Prospectus.

This is a good idea, make no mistake. Investors, especially conservative oldsters in money markets (where the bulk of their 401k money inheres) deserve to see any threats before their bucks are actually broken. So, kudos to the SEC on that!

Not so appealing is what the FT article also pointed out:

"The SEC is also to evaluate the merits of requiring a floating net asset value for money market funds rather than the stable $1 mark. Such action would involve substantial changes to the money market fund industry."

But WHY do that? This introduces the very element of phantom or variable asset value (that exists in stock holdings) to now intrude into the "safe" money sphere. It also markedly lets money market fund companies and managers off the hook, since if the share value is permitted to float, there will simply not be the same committment to adhere to the $1 value at all. Why not let it drop 5 cents, 10 cents? "It's heading south! Hell, let it! The SEC says we can do some floats!"

The victim is the money market fund holder- especially since money market funds are about the only safe (e.g. relatively fixed income) option afforded in most IRAs and 401ks. So, if floating share prices is now allowed, the money market investor may lose as much (theoretically) as if he were invested in certan "balanced" mutual funds, or index funds. Now sure, the float could also go upward, rewarding the investor, but once any variable share value emerges then we have speculation and propensity for market timing.

Obviously, money market investors will attempt to play it so they cash out at the highest floated share price, not the lowest. This then introduces the same sort of gamesmanship that occurs in the Wall Street stock casino. Even if money market fund managers and owners prohibit cashout until one actually needs to do RMDs (to satisfy the IRS age 70 1/2 requirement) - the losers will be those who have to withdraw when the floats are lowest value.

It is much fairer to ALL money market investors to keep the $1 share price as the standard, and thereby not turn the immense money market sphere into another speculation domain - to the detriment of all cautious savers- who may need all the money they can muster to live off a lifetime income stream via annuities. They chose not to speculate in the stock market, and they shouldn't now be compelled to do so in money markets. SEC, take note!