My dad - the TV star!

Everyone saw my dad on The New Inventors last night, didn't they? He was awesome! Don't forget to vote for the People's Choice Awards: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s2570802.htm.

If you just so happened to be washing your hair when he was on, you can download the episode or watch it on iView http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/program/372000

Hooray for atheism!

I am pleased to announce that I have (possibly without success) argued the case of atheism with a non-Christian. In fact, I think Josh might not even be a religionist, so much as a divinitist. I think he's on drugs actually, but I do remember him from high school as being a very very nice person.

Hooray! It's not just Chrisitianity that I disagree with! It's all sorts of other nonsense as well!

Joshua thinks it's funny - the entire universe is not explained at all, but then people want something within it to be inexplicable for them to believe in anything mystical, divine, or transcendent! Otherwise they won't have a bar of it! There's no evidence!


Brent at 11:19am May 17
the universe is inexplicable on its own special level that requires no further inexplicability. The extent of the lack of explanability of why and how reality is does not suggest that anything more mystical or divine happens. The universe is unclear, but it is real.


Joshua at 6:15pm May 17
What? Is there not a universe? Do you know its source? Can there be in your reckoning anything that *could* suggest mystical or divine happening? I say the entire thing is that! You say it is what? "real" what does that mean? Did the universe say to you in the morning "I am real"? No, you call it that, thus the basis for its so called reality is in... Read More you not the universe. Without this ascription you give it "this is real" "this is reality", it has no more to say for itself than does a dream or a film, both of which can be believed on their "own special level". You dislike the concepts "mystical", "divine", fine - then what are we to say of this reality? What vantage point do you hold to say ("the universe"'s) "own special level"? It implies awareness of levels other than the universe does it not? Such awareness has gone under names like the "mystical", "divine", "transcendent", I don't see why any of them shouldn't be permitted. They are no more questionable than "Being", "reality".


Joshua at 6:43pm May 17
I mean by "no more questionable", they are no more "brimming with wonder" to me anyway. And yet the latter are regarded as commonplace and "scientific" expressions, like "truth". I would suggest Religion and Science (or Materialism/ so called "Rationalism") are two forms of worship, one explicit the other implicit, but what the ultimate difference ... Read Moreis I don't know. Both are founded upon ignorance, yet they are to be commended if it is by wonder that they attract their disciples for at least this means awareness of ignorance, as Socrates said, he was only wiser than his fellow men in that he *knew* he did not know. This wonder points toward our nature which is not bound by the universe, or the 'known', or 'appearing' thing.


Brent at 11:14pm May 17
i didn't say not permitted. I said not required. And yes. The universe does tell me that it's real. Look. *tap* *tap*. You can bang it. It's there.

Religion is founded upon a certain level of ignorance and making up the rest. Sciencee is founded uopn a certain level of ignorance and a desire to uncover the rest.

I dislike terms like divine and mystical because if those levels of reality are really really like, say, this table *tap* *tap* is really real, then they function on such a ridiculously inconsequential way as to be meaningless. It adds nothing to the universe that there may or may not be some level of hocus pocus floating around out there obvserving, eternally fascinated by the spinning of atoms like a high undergrad transfixed by the lights...... Read More

People put too much weight onto nonsense like "You can only know that you dono't know anything" because look, *tap* *tap*, this really exists. This.


Joshua at 10:47pm May 18
You can't bang it when you're not there!

And speaking of "hocus pocus", what do you think about the "dark energy" and "dark matter" they say is, "floating around out there", making up the vast bulk of the universe? Does it wield no "consequential" or "meaningful" power over the remaining 'known' universe? Does this dark stuff have nothing to do ... Read Morewith your table? I reckon saying that 96% of the universe you observe is made of "dark energy" and "dark matter" is a massively *uncertain* level of ignorance making Alice's Adventures in Wonderland look worthy of reviewer-remarks like: 'naively sober', 'much much too common-sensical', and 'it's so dry, I fell asleep'. As for the "desire to uncover the rest", well one starts to wonder if it isn't perhaps a bit ambitious from the vertex employed til now!

96% dark energy and dark matter makes the remaining 4% that we "know about" (ha ha) sound almost like it must "function in such a ridiculously inconsequential way as to be meaningless"(!)


Joshua at 7:46am May 19
It was actually "Alice's experiences in Wonderland" that I wanted to say above, but the eventual structure of the sentence didn't suit that formulation, at least not without some confusion as "reviewer-remarks" would imply the book. I mention it because the word "experiences" better holds the terrain I am trying to address.

When I say "from the ... Read Morevertex employed til now", I am indicating then a potential change in vertex which may be beneficial to science but perhaps, to which it has been blind, or in which it has trodden very uncertainly namely the nature of experience involved in scientific judgments, which in a background, or more general sense, we may call consciousness. It may seem like a philosopher's trick to say "You can't bang it if you're not there", but it contains a scientifically significant truth - and it's not different to those things going on in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass which might seem like play but are also serious.


Brent at 10:23am May 19
1) Parentheses much? What feature of unknown material implies divinity?

2) "You can't bang it if you're not there" is not a truth, it's an axiom. Which I don't agree to accept. I agree to the axiom Cogito Ergo Sum. I'm here: I insist that I do. I'm from the same substance as that which I hit, and I have the sensations of doing so, so the things I ... Read Morebang are there too.

Science is doing just fine. Any system of rational thought which replaced science would have to be have so many features of science that it would really BE science, which is, really the central feature of science, that it evolves.


Joshua at 12:01pm May 19
"What feature of unknown material implies divinity?" is no different, essentially, to asking "What feature of known material implies divinity?", to which I would answer beauty. And yet one suspects that the calling of the material "known" is highly dubious given the acknowledged 96% backdrop of "unknown"; if, for instance, I was familiar with but 4... Read More% of the alphabet it would be outrageous to even call this familiarity "knowledge" of the alphabet without serious qualification, for it would amount to "knowing" but 1 letter. Is it knowing? Is analysis of the letter Q, analysis of the alphabet, or even of the letter Q *as* a letter?

In the mystical tradition of science (say, Pythagoras, Plato; and more recent time Newton, and I think to some degree Einstein) there is no anomally between the beauty of creation and its scientifically appreciated order - the two are one. And the latter proceeds in direct correspondence with awareness of the former.


Joshua at 12:12pm May 19
Anyway I can't force divinity down anyone's throat, I am just saying that there is a fine tradition of science which doesn't neglect or treat hostilely this level, on the contrary, it is animated by it and doesn't see the wonder of science as at all in tension therewith but as a natural emanation of it - it is a wonder, first of all, that there should even be an order that is intelligble, but partially, to man. Without wonder science cannot begin.


Brent at 12:18pm May 19
"Without wonder science cannot begin." This is completely correct.

I also accept that there are fundamental things about the universe that We haven't even begun to understand.

Einstein wasn't into the mystical side of science, people always make that mistake.... Read More

For me beauty is appreciating what IS, that this beauty exists inside what I understand as being this universe.
Write a comment...

twilight and twilight fans

Okay, so the more I read about the Twilight series, the more I realise I'm so not alone in being obsessed by it - the books, the movies, the audiobooks, edward, rob, jacob, bella, alice... I even read comments about the actors. But seriously, it seems like people with all levels of education are totally into Twilight - I laughed out loud at one fan's defense of the actors, about how they're real people with real lives, and about how we should stop expecting them to actually be like their characters, and all the celeb palaver, etc.

"People need to stop putting actors on pedal stools".

HA HA HA HA! ROTFL! Is that like some kind of shroom that makes you rush intead of hallucinate? Or like a racing rocking chair? AbsolUTEly LMAO!!!

Big boy now

In cycling news - I made it, although barely, around the 100km Ballarat ride on the weekend. Lucien is a machine finishing 2 hours before us, and Daniel made it through on pure boyish energy.

Also in cycling news - Tali's off his training wheels and loving it.