Work In Progress http://wip.powerblogs.com/ A work in progress en-us 2007-10-28T03:10+00:00 Choice and other oddities http://wip.powerblogs.com/posts/1193540798.shtml (First, a tiny bit of background information: the universe which we live in has some really strange properties. If you look up the formula for the force of gravity between two... Chris 2007-10-28T03:10+00:00 (First, a tiny bit of background information: the universe which we live in has some really strange properties. If you look up the formula for the force of gravity between two masses, you'll see that there's a constant there. (The value of that constant was discovered experimentally.) If the value of that constant were different, the universe would be very different. If it was much bigger, or much smaller, planets would never have formed. And the same is true of many other things. The formula for the force of attraction between electromagnetic charges looks the same but also has a constant. It happens to be much, much bigger than the gravitational constant, and it's responsible for the properties of all physical substances. Now, these constants aren't artifacts of the units we've chosen to measure things in. There's a fundamental relationship between the strength of gravity and the strength of magnetism, regardless of how you measure it, that changes everything. There are also the relationships of these forces to size, and other things; if these constant were different, chemical bonds would either be too strong or not strong enough for life to exist.)

I was thinking, recently, about the parallel universe idea that some materialists use to explain the universe. That is, that things are so strangely tuned to produce life as we know it because every possible configuration of physical properties (and outcomes) exists in some parallel universe. Only such outcomes in which sentient life came to be has anything living in it to ask why something so improbable came to be.

This does answer the question of "why is there life", but it's an explanation which explains too much. If you accept the multiple parallel universes hypothesis, you completely throw out any use of Occam's Razor.

(Occam's Razor is often quoted as "if you have two competing explanations for something, the simpler explanation is probably the right one". Apparently a better statement of Occam's Razor is actually, "never unnecessarily multiply entities".)

You'd think that anyone who's a fan of Occam's Razor would wonder about the theory that there are infinitely many entities. Why, then, do people who might otherwise like to invoke Occam's Razor go and accept something which is essentially its complete antithesis?

I think that the answer lies in personality. Some people simply can't stand oddities. The idea of something real which is arbitrary irritates them. It's the same phenomenon which is behind why people don't like human choice — when a human makes a choice, something odd has happened.

This is the same problem that Job had. Job's mistake was in thinking that the universe had a simple answer. In the book of Job, God answers Job out of the tempest and point out how strange the world is, and how little of it makes sense to human beings. Job is comforted because he realized that none of the world is simple.

So, apparently, some atheists try to avoid Job's realization by making the world simple.

]]> Parenthetical Praise http://wip.powerblogs.com/posts/1166469989.shtml In the introduction to The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis said that the book was a very imperfect work because it told only one side of the story. Presumably it should also... Chris 2006-12-18T19:12+00:00 In the introduction to The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis said that the book was a very imperfect work because it told only one side of the story. Presumably it should also have included the letters that an angel might have sent the main character's guardian angel, but Lewis decided against this because while he could write as badly as a devil, he could not write as well as an angel.

He did later put words into the mouth of an angel (technically, an eldila, which he may not have quite meant to be the same thing), and I think proved himself correct (Lewis is one of my favorite authors, I don't say this to knock him). What especially struck me about the way the eldila spoke was its use of what I call parenthetical praise. The style is very common throughout all human attempts at reverence. It's easily recognizable; the style is to take a sentence like:

"We can see that God must intend us to exercise our own will and judgment because he never criticized the us building houses because he knows best whether we should be wet or dry."

and recast it to:

We creatures of the Lord Most High (all praises and glory be to Him) can see that God (The Most Glorious Lord of All Creation, Alleluia! Alleluia!) must intend, with his divine and glorious will which overflows in Love, that we His creatures (thanks be to Him for our creation!) should exercise our own will and judgment, which he created in his glorious image that we may be like Him united in happiness and Love to His Glory, let all the nations sing his praises! because in all of His Words (let us rejoice for our ears hearing them is greater than all of the wine in the world, glory to God!) one reading in prayerful love of His glory and wisdom cannot find any criticism of our practice of building houses (Glory ot God for the creating for us wood, nails, wood glue, fiberglass insulation, and all of the other wonders of His world we use in houses, Glory! Glory! Glory! Alleluia! Alleluia! All Praise and Honor to His Name!) though surely God in his infinite Love (Praise be to Him!) and (Thanks to the lord for giving us, in his Holy and Wonderful Wisdom, conjunctions!) Wisdom (All Glory be to Him most High!) must sure know best (For who may know better than the Lord of all Creation, the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, He who knows the number of hairs on our head and without whose knowledge no sparrow every falls to the blessed ground!) whether we should be wet (Praise the Lord for giving us the wonders of Water, in which we see his Glory and Love) or dry (Praise the Lord for the miracle of water being contained in the sea, in the lakes, rivers, streams, resoirvoires, plastic bottles, and select drinking glasses, all of which he created in His infinite Love for us)! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! ...

I exaggerate a little, of course, but the style should be recognizable. When I see authors use it, I always remember something Lewis said in God in the Dock about how the fact that you can say a prayer while you're brushing your teeth doesn't mean that you should brush your teeth in church. The practice is somewhat reversed, but the point holds. When God told us to keep holy the Sabbath, he also told us to work on the other days. This sort of parenthetical mess seems to be trying to inject the Sabbath into every other day, and the result is that it's neither a very good prayer, nor good work. I wrote it, and I can't make heads or tails of the parenthetical version.

All of this stands in contrast to the way that Angels spoke in the New Testament. Consider the way that angels relate news in the beginning of Luke:

Rejoice, so highly favoured! The Lord is with you. Mary, do not be afraid; you have won God's favor. Listen! You are to conceive and bear a son, and you must name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David; he will rule over the House of Jacob for ever and his reign will have no end... The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will cover you with its shadow. And so the child will be holy and will be called Son of God. Know this too: your kinswoman Elizabeth has, in her old age, herself conceived a son, and she whom people called barren is now in her sixth month, for nothing is impossible to God.

Do not be afraid. Listen, I bring you news of great joy, a joy to be shared by the whole people. Today int he town of David a savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord. And here is a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger.

It's true that when the Angel's message to the shepherds was complete, a great throng of the heavenly host was suddenly there, singing, "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and peace to men who enjoy his favor." (Incidentally, if you read the footnote, it's not that peace is only for people who enjoy God's favor, but rather peace is for people, and an addition that human beings are favored by God; it's apparently much clearer in the original greek. I've also heard this translated as, "Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his people on earth.")

But the angel spoke clearly, and then moved on to pure praise. (It must also be remembered that the praise probably sounded much more musical in the original words, while we make do with very un-lyrical translations.)

The case of Jesus is even more striking. He spoke very plainly; I don't think that you can find anywhere in the bible where he interrupted himself to sing praises to God.

I think that this literary style is very unfortunate, it renders both the point being made and the praise of God far less effective. In many cases it leaves a bad taste in one's mouth for the praise, because one wanted to know what the speaker was saying, and the praise got in the way.

You can't rewrite old books, and I doubt that many new books are likely to fall praise to this tendency, but it's still a pity that people have fallen prey to it.

]]>