I wager that no higgs will be discovered.

String theory is just too elegant and appealing not to be most likely.

Also, the world will not end on Wednesday.

Not because relativistic particle collisions frequently occur in the upper atmosphere, anyway, but because...

a Wednesday?

Why not Sunday morning?

 

 

No, my money is on vibrating strings, M-theory, 10 dimensions, infinite universes, scale invariance....folded time.

Not that Wednesday will prove that  but, only strengthen the likelihood that particles are given mass

by something other than the Higgs.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You know, I've been zen sitting.

Some of you might wonder why someone like me would do that.

Some of you, might not.

 

I don't know why I sit but it has something to do with the universe and waving good-bye to the rational. Ironically, I'll use rational discourse to make my vague point. Always a bad idea. If I take a reductionist point of view and deconstruct by saying that if mind is an extension of matter then the mind is the last port of call for just about everything. The difficulty is that leaves us with a conundrum;  self-reference. A mind or minds refering to the mind about the mind. It's like the pot calling the kettle black. You see, self-reference is a bit of a paradox which, simply put,  goes something like this...

 

The object 'I' is not seperate from the subject 'I'. Ergo, neither object nor subject can claim a seperate and distinct existance yet the distinction is made. I suspect that distinction is erroneous. I also rather think of it as a glitch or a minor irony rather than a full blown parardox. Perhaps I've missed the point. Anyroad, a little example...

 

There is a lovely webcast by Robert Bryanton that demonstrates the tenth dimension. It delivers an epiphany by emphasizing the confines of human form, gently guiding us into profound a priori knowledge that our concept of the physical universe is restricted, and here's the fun bit,  because we consider ourselves distinct entities ( hey, objects ). And that, ladies and gentlemen, hits the nail on the head....

 

Dimensioning is scale invariant. The truth, yes folks - truth, is that we just don't know the nature of the beast...ah, another ironic paradox. That's because we're stuck in human form, restricted in the routine of senses, perceptions and cognition.  Four dimensions and that's your lot;  backwards- forwards, up-down, side-to side, before and after. So - where do all these other dimensions come from? Well, who observes the four dimensions? The fifth, naturally. And the fifth? The sixth, of course, ad infinitum. Who guards the guards? All a lovely blend of scale invariance, self-reference and paradox.

 

I like to think of it like this... 

We cannot say for sure that we are big, nor can we say we are small. We cannot say we are not flat, nor can we say we have breadth. We cannot describe or define, in totality, past and future, let alone the present. We cannot say that our present does not include past and future. Time folds, like infinitely intricate origami fractals ( nice ).  Our world is a construct. Merely a product of the senses. A thing of our own making.

 

Can you start to see the zen link?

No? Neither can I.

 

And what of the old chestnut, the atom? Quarks and gluons...one point particles. Packets of waves we find empty. And emptiness itself?.... Full of potential, virtual energy. A quanta? A one point particle. Our universe? A one point particle. The megaverse? A one point particle. All waves on a one point planet. All planets on a one point wave. Scale invariant.

 

Horton Hears a Hoo.

 

When I sit, I sit hard. Daily. Up in the early morning to sit. To bed late at night, because I sit. When I sit, I sit properly, in the correct posture. I concentrate and focus, hard, on nothing but breath. It is a matter of life and death. When pains arise, and they do, I continue to sit. When panic and fear arise, I continue to sit.  The same as with doubt, hate, love and joy. Why? Why not? Now do you see the zen link? No? Neither do I. 

 

 

Have a nice day.

 

 

god

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I've been away for awhile and neglected many. For this, I am sorry.

 

I've looked in on many of you from time to time on; spaces, bebo, wordpress and so on. Some have come, others are sadly gone without trace. But Mangawitch and Chris...ever solid, always there, a bit like Death and Kaos ( or Ronnie Soak for Pratchett fans ). This is re-assuring.

 

For those that know me, know that my primary interests have been cosmology, evolution and religion. It will be no surprize then when I say that the magisterium of science encompasses that of religion. It must be so because the story science tells predates the origin of religion some 13.7 billion years. The assertions of science provide the best evidence.

 

So, that said  - what are we to make of consciousness and compassion? They are, no doubt,  products of the selfish replicator that is some 4.5 billion years old. But what of our experience as a collection of these replicators, these genes, as individual organisms? What is the experience of your consciousness - as you? Me of mine?

 

Science, or the rational mind, tells us much in the way of knowledge and, despite appearances, is profoundly intuitive. More importantly, rationality provides us with a method of thinking that favours empiricism - evidence. It is that method of thinking that allows us to contemplate, in awareness, our condition. That is to say, our consciousness, or as Descartes said, " I think therefore I am. "   It is self-knowledge. Whether one accepts this as logic without the need for evidence or as self-evident, it is essentially a statement of fact. A priori or a posterii.

 

Awareness of the self in this way allows for obvious, simply and direct observations; I think, I feel, I believe. And although I may live in ten dimensional megaverse ( but the dimensions and number of universes is probably infinite ), I am predisposed to behave as though I exist in only four. Another observation is that, being a temporal creature of evolution, I cling to thoughts, feelings and beliefs of the past and present. I ruminate about the future. To my evolutionary advantage, this aids in my survival  but at a cost. And that cost is suffering. That is second to second, minute to minute, day to day, year in year out suffering. That suffering is proportional to the amount of permanence and validity I attribute to those things external and impermanent; thoughts, feelings and beliefs.  

 

Suffering is the attachment or validity I give to the past and future. They do not exist. A moment hence does not exist. The moment gone does not exist. Only now, now exists and then is gone.

 

And while I sit, in the moment, thoughts, feelings and beliefs that come to my awareness, I greet and welcome all.

 

 

god

 

 For those of you that might be interested, here are 6 links about Islam. They are simply part of my ongoing research into the nature of Islam.

 

 

The first links are to The Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights as agreed by the Islamic Council, London, 1981.  When you read the Declaration, the word 'Law' is Shari'ah Law;

 

http://www.salaam.co.uk/knowledge/cover-11.pdf
http://www.salaam.co.uk/knowledge/12-20.pdf 

 

 

The second is two links to A Model of an Islamic Constitution as agreed by the Muslim Council of Europe, 1983. It draws on the principles of the 1981 Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. The first link is part one of the constitution. The second link leads to the remaining parts; 

 

 

The third link is to the Constitution of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), 2002. It is a document that sets out the structure of the Council. Adherence to Shari'ah is touched on in pages 12 and 14. Affiliation with other groups for the advancement of the aims of the MCB are mentioned on page 15;

 

 

 

 

The fourth link is self explanatory. See 4.2.3, Gay Rights;

 

 

 

 

And last, The Declaration of Human Rights. All Articles are unconditional. For example, Article 5;

 

 

 

 

 

god

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Mangawitch

 

A thorough and admirable response you provided in the last blog on your site ( re Flitna and extremism )...well said. A bit hard on John Henry, I thought, but there we are. I'm not going to whip a dead horse but only add this comment as a reflection since  that blog;

 

I reacted badly to Flitna, frightened. I judged Islam without consideration for the humans who practice it. My fear overcame me, casting aspersions on those I've never met.  Prior to Flitna, I had taken part in several public debates on aspects of religious belief without ever consulting a muslim in a non-adversarial manner. This came to my awareness because of you. So, thank you.

 

Since your blog, since Flitna, I have been meeting,  privately,  with two Imams and administrators of two local mosques. I have done so not in a polemic or dialectic ( well, mostly ) stance but in the spirit of openess, free inquiry and discussion. I have also been in correspondence with the Muslim Council of Britain. We have now scheduled community training in my area as an education platform to open up Islamic dialogue.

 

Mangawitch, though my fear has abated my sadness remains. Of the muslims I have had kindly talks with ( now considerably more than four ), roughly just less than half say they would fully support Shar'ia law if it was the prevailing British government , for the reason that it is in the Qu'ran and Hadith. Thankfully, violence in any form holds no truck with the rest and they show enough free thinking to cherrypick the good bits. But for those that uphold the Qur'an, Hadith and Shar'ia law in its entirety as an ideal form of government, the Imams were explicit - adultery, theft and homosexuality under such a desirable government and law are punishable by amputation and death. These are the opinions of people I've taken the trouble to befriend, not google-video, not livelink, not youtube, not the news, the radio, etc. but the people I've spoken to, locals. Men in the street.

 

Something I've learned, Mangawitch, is that if I  want to do anything about this, I must  engage and participate in frank, open and  peaceful discussion with those around me. At best, this will aim to keep the peace by demonstrating peace. It may have the added advantage of, at least, diluting fundamental violent practices within Islam.

 

That said, and to put it crudely, Islam is a new religion ( born about 632 CE with roots back to pre-judeo-christian desert tribes ) and perhaps has not had sufficient time to be absorbed and diluted, such as the Church of England.  The volatile and fundamentalist aspects of Islamic practice, by my experience, are merely held back and latent by about less than half the muslims who have been kind enough to share openly with me their beliefs, hopes and fears. It is touching yet bizarre that of those muslims, the Imams expressed a particular concern for my well-being as my non-belief in Allah will result in me going to hell. Now they know me, they are responsible for me.

 

Mangawitch, like all, I am struggling with this, with my own prejudices,  and the prejudices of others, and how far they are willing to take them, and what I or anyone, can or should do about it. You are absolutely correct, the problem is extremism in all forms but, there remains something about Islamic practitioners that wish to follow the letter of the law that are of concern.  There are many. I think all that I am saying is that any religion, particularly Islam, should not have the shroud of respect that would preclude it from a thoughtful considered critique that asks questions, through scientific surveys and research, like just how violent it's believers are willing to go, views on ethics, values, homosexuality - all in an attempt to quantify and qualify what our fellow humans are upto? And further, what, if anything, should be done about it.

 

I stand by my last comment to you and here generalize it...the problem is religion.

 

 

god

 

 

In the beginning there was no beginning. It's always been that way. Some universes live, some die. Of those that live, some live long, some do not.

 

There's  this one universe I know of that came about  the usual way, from nothing but potential energy. Hot and tiny at first, it's actual energy spread and cooled.  As it spread, it's energy congealed into packets and collected lots of names like quark, gluon, graviton and photon. These packets grouped themselves into clusters of packets. The clusters got names too, atom, star, planet, galaxy.

 

One cluster, some atoms that smattered some planet surfaces, funnily enough, came up with a good trick. They got themselves zapped by some strong sunlight. That made them have a particular shape so that only others of the same shape could lock together with them. And here's the best bit, they could unlock themselves and re-lock with another individual. They replicated. Of course, they had no choice in the matter. They didn't know what choice was. In fact, they didn't know...anything. Well, not yet anyway.

 

Eventually, they got to know a little bit. Not that they knew this. Oh, it was only tit-bits at first like motion and moving things, 'Ooh, was that a leaf rustling or a dimetrodon!'. Not that they were aware of what was going on in their nervous system. It was just that things that moved were of importance. 'Cause all those that didn't think that, and there were many I can tell you, are gone. 

 

As the days passed, those who thought motion was important increased in number. They got better at it, to the point where at the water hole, some individuals could actually simulate in there heads some unpleasant motion, thus avoiding the actual occurance. They now had a strategy to predict. When they replicated, they could pass on these survival strategies.

 

The bodies of the best replicators would die and rot away with each generation but their strategies lived on. Their strategies were called upon by their progeny. Their progeny, having learned to imbue all moving objects with possible intention, yearned and called back to their ancestors through song, language, dance and ceremony to ensure the strategies survived that, in turn, ensured the survival of progeny.

 

Throughout that planet in smatterings of tribes, strategies through that divination survived. Divination became folk religion and, in turn, became the formal religions that world experiences today. Well, their 'today', not mine. Some of them are aware that religion is a natural phenomenon. Most are not. In fact, some that are aware of religion as a natural phenomenon do not accept it as so. Do not or can not? Ah, that's free will for you. Or is it?

 

 

god

 

 

By the way, that particular universe is older now, raising it's own young. That's nice.   

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animal are treated."  M. Ghandi

 

"We can be very sure there really is a single concestor ( ancestor ) of all surviving life forms on this planet." 

R. Dawkins ( from the Ancestor's Tale, and which forms the basis of today's blog ) 

 

 

Trace our ancestory and you'll find that all species are united in one common ancestor that lived some 3.5 billion years ago. Such is the joy of modern evolutionary genetics, molecular biology and paleontology.

 

Often, the conventions for the purposes of classification are as misleading as they are informative. For example; I classify myself as human, a primate, homosapien. Genetically, this is less clear cut and, from a gene's point of view, only a concensus. In  other words, most of my gene's would agree to the statement that 'I am human' is more or less, true. Others would, rightly, disagree because they have stronger links to our nearest cousins, the Bonobo and Chimpanzee. So in that way, I am correct in saying I am, at least in part, have more in common with a chimpanzee than with another human. And the only reason a social distinction occurs between me and a Bonobo is because the intermediataries of the evolution that joins me to other primates are dead. Had they survived, I doubt that the spurious notion that humans are quite seperate and superior would be so prevalent. It follows that the same argument applies to all species.

 

follow our ancestry back to homoerectus, then back to 3 million years ago ( mya ) to australopithicus. It is there we meet our first common ancestor  ( like the famed Lucy ) that links us to Chimpanzees and Bonobos. Go back to 6 mya. There, Chimpanzees, Bonobos and Homosapiens are joined by another common ancestor that links us to other primates, such as Gorillas. Back to 14 mya and our little primate band will meet our common ancestor that unites us to Orang Utans, then Gibbons...further back to 25 mya our group meets the same ancestor of Old World Monkeys. We placental mammals march back in time to 140 mya to meet another common ancestor, and that of the marsupials. Back, back , back to 310 mya, we meet the common ancestor of human and bird, a mammal-like reptile. Back further still, to 440 mya to that creature that unites all those animals that have gone before to our cousins, the Fish.  Back to 600 mya, to our common ancestor, a Worm. To 900 mya, the Sponge. To 1.5 bya, the Fungi. To 1.9 Bya, Plants. To 3.5 bya, to Protobacteria.

 

There are many more ways to die than there are to live. Natural selection sees to that. In the face of all the universes that have existed but now extinct, in the face of all those that exist, in the face of all those life progeny that ever lived but have long since gone extinct...it is truly remarkable and improbable that I have been born, let alone contemplate the nature of my 3.5 billion year ancestory on one 4 billion year old planet in only one 13.7 billion year old universe. I delight in such a unique experience.

 

 

god

 

 

 

Life;

the salient points

off the top of my head

that is part of an organsim

that is comprized of some 10 trillion cells ( 10^13 )

that are made of cytoplasm and nucleii

that are made of chromosomes

each made of a DNA molecule

that resembles a twisted ladder, the double helix,

that is made of rungs and rails.

 

One segment of a DNA strand is a gene.  

Within a gene, the rungs are called base pairs because they are bonded in the centre via hydrogen. 

This includes part of the rail ( or backbone of sugar phosphate ).. 

Each rung is made of one of four chemicals; A, T, G, C (adenine, thymine, etc, collectively called purines).

As you climb the ladder, a sequential code emerges ( ACG, GCA, AAG and so on - referred to as codons )

This code is a single gene's unique signature.

During replication, the DNA strand splits lengthwise, down the middle of its' rungs, to form it's code messenger (mRNA ).

Each code is faithfully transcribed, translated then reproduced into the next generation.

 

As for mutation, this is an infrequent occurance and

is an infrequent random alteration in the transcription of the genetic code.

The number of complex organisms that are derived as a consequence of mutation are near infinite.

The actual number of surviving progeny of mutants is very small indeed

when compared to that colossal number of those mutants that might have survived had they not been checked by natural selection.

 

Organized complexity of organisms is a result of continuous, random, discrete changes in the genetic code from one generation to the next over a very long period of time - geologic time - since life began on earth some 3.5 billion years ago.

It is the process of cumulative selection.

Evolution.

There is no designer involved in the process, as a designer would require equal or greater complexity than that which it created.

 

How did the first replication get started?

I'm not sure but astrobiologists might have a clue to the answer.

For example,

Saturn's satellite, Titan, has methane and nitrogen.

Methane and nitrogen, blasted with UV, fragment to create organic compounds required for life in Titan's atmosphere.

A vital missing ingredient is oxygen. Probably in the form of liquid water.

And some high charges.

Then, you might have the genesis of replication.

 

It's a start.

 

 

 

 

Curious

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why are you attracted to certain people?   Why are you attracted to those attributes?            For Mangawitch, the attributes she finds attractive in a man are strong and gentle arms that provide safety,  protection and well-being. And a healthy bank account to supply more than just the basics.   For Chris, the attributes he considers women might find attractive in a man is the ability to purchase not only basics ( shoes ) but more than just the basics ( chocolates and perhaps extravagant shoes, too ).   For Sariel, the attributes he considers women find attractive in a man is the ability to provide for all eventualities and even whims ( the moon on a stick ).    So, in this sample size of three ( two men and a woman ), if we discount for a moment gender and consider only their notion of attractive male attributes, we have a scale of that might set the scene for natural selection, in action. The scale can be viewed as  utilitarian ( or the other end of the spectrum, sexual selection, I'll explain ). The utilitarian scale ranges from, say, 1 to 6. Six being the least utilitarian;   1 - strong arms to provide protection and well-being 2 - able to buy chocolate 3 - able to buy shoes 4 - able bank balance 5 - able to buy diamond 6 - moon on stick   As I said, the scale can also be seen as one of sexual selection, with the moon on the stick attribute ( even though it may not be an actualized attribute, in fact, particularly if it is not an actualized attribute but remains an ideal attractor ) as a driver of the development of any increase from strong arms. The greater the move towards sexual selection ( moon on stick ) the less utilitarian  selection occurs ( strong arms ) from one generation to the next.   There are easier examples than this. Like Peacocks. Sexual selection makes their tales big. Utilitarian selection keeps them from getting too big. A really big tale means you get eaten before you can reproduce, thereby not replicating genes for really big tails. Still, and here's the point, in trials where artificially really really big tails were glued onto peacocks, the peahens went for them instead of the smaller utilitarianed tailed guys....sexual selection over utilitarian selection. The difference in range of attribute is known as discepency selection.   Sexual selection left unchecked by utilitarin selection is runaway evolution, a kind of positive feedback loop. In this context, I find Sariel's attribute of the ability to get the moon on a stick, incredibly poignant. You see, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldron were the first men to stab the moon with a stick. They possess strong arms and ample bank accounts to purchase copius shoes, chocolates and diamonds. ( Whether their strong arms could actually provide emotional solice is another matter. Personally,  I think providing emotional solice and well-being is quintessential to a meaningful existance - I digress ) So - why were their doors not knocked down by battalions of suitors? Surely, they could provide the moon on a stick and well able to pass on genetic material. Also, is the 'ablility to buy ' a major moving force, attribute, in sexual selection among the human population ( I think it is ) and is it approaching a critcal point of runaway positive feedback? If so, crucially, what factors will keep it in check because, rest assured, one way or another ( natural selection or environmental change ), it will be kept in check. Are there sexual factors/attributes that counter this ( strong arms maybe )? This is some of my rational for asking the questions;               Why are you attracted to certain people?     Why are you attracted to those attributes?               I'm Curious.