Posts
No, not all progress. And it can be a very powerful engine for innovation. But there is progress it opposes. In particular, scarcity, or rather, the end of it.
Capitalism requires scarcity to work. If you have unlimited amounts of something, its supply is infinite, and its value is 0. No one would pay for something they can just effortlessly pick off of a tree. And because you can't make a profit off of it, capitalism will never attempt to end scarcity, and will oppose anyone who does.
And it has. Even though we don't have the technology to end physical scarcity (Well, not completely anyway. If it weren't for stupid political situations, we could easily feed every human on the planet.), there's no reason we can't end digital scarcity. Any kind of digital information is just a string of 1s and 0s and can be copied infinitely, for free. But capitalist forces such as the RIAA oppose that kind of thing tooth and nail.
The only reason that someone who wants it shouldn't be able to get it for free is that the person who made it couldn't get paid. I'm not saying that that person shouldn't get compensated for their effort, but the capitalist model clearly isn't be the most efficient way. And sometimes, people aren't looking for compensation. Look at the open source movement. People make programs and then give them away for free. Hell, that's what I did with AlDraw.
Although the end of physical scarcity seems like science fiction now, I don't see why it would be impossible, and technology like RepRap is gradually taking us in that direction. But if Star Trek style replicators were invented tomorrow, they'd encounter exactly the same resistance that digital copying does today.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Earth's 23.4° Axial Tilt is the Reason for the Season
Both literally and metaphorically.
Earth's tilt physically causes the season, including of course, winter. When the northern (or southern) hemisphere is pointing at the sun, the longer days and more direct sunlight make it warmer. When it points away from the sun, the shorter days and less direct sunlight make it colder. Hence the seasons. The solstices are when the Earth is pointing most directly towards or away from the sun and they mark the transition between days getting shorter and days getting longer.
Earth's tilt is also the cause for the holiday season. Wikipedia lists no fewer than 36 celebrations related to the winter solstice, from cultures all around the world. And it's hardly surprising when you think about it. Even before the discovery/invention of the calendar, I'm sure it was clear to people that longer days were warmer days. Also, when the sun was up determined when you could go hunting and get things done. So the reversal of the shortening day must have been extremely important.
Among that list from Wikipedia are some holidays you might recognize. Saturnalia, Yule, Hanukkah, Christmas. Christmas isn't really any different from the others, and most of our celebrations of it don't have much of anything to do with Christianity. The Christmas tree for example, has roots in a pagan celebration.
Also, the date of Christmas has nothing to do with the story of Jesus's birth in the bible. The bible never gives a date, and it says that the shepherds are in the fields with their flocks, which they would only be during a warmer time of year. Most likely, the early church selected the date of Christmas to match a Roman holiday.
Jesus isn't the reason for the season, Earth's 23.4° axial tilt is.
Earth's tilt physically causes the season, including of course, winter. When the northern (or southern) hemisphere is pointing at the sun, the longer days and more direct sunlight make it warmer. When it points away from the sun, the shorter days and less direct sunlight make it colder. Hence the seasons. The solstices are when the Earth is pointing most directly towards or away from the sun and they mark the transition between days getting shorter and days getting longer.
Earth's tilt is also the cause for the holiday season. Wikipedia lists no fewer than 36 celebrations related to the winter solstice, from cultures all around the world. And it's hardly surprising when you think about it. Even before the discovery/invention of the calendar, I'm sure it was clear to people that longer days were warmer days. Also, when the sun was up determined when you could go hunting and get things done. So the reversal of the shortening day must have been extremely important.
Among that list from Wikipedia are some holidays you might recognize. Saturnalia, Yule, Hanukkah, Christmas. Christmas isn't really any different from the others, and most of our celebrations of it don't have much of anything to do with Christianity. The Christmas tree for example, has roots in a pagan celebration.
Also, the date of Christmas has nothing to do with the story of Jesus's birth in the bible. The bible never gives a date, and it says that the shepherds are in the fields with their flocks, which they would only be during a warmer time of year. Most likely, the early church selected the date of Christmas to match a Roman holiday.
Jesus isn't the reason for the season, Earth's 23.4° axial tilt is.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Chance vs. Luck
Chance exists. Luck does not.
What's the difference?
Chance is merely unpredictability. Things happening for little or no reason. Bad things happening to good people. Winning the lottery, or getting cancer.
Luck is chance that takes sides. Chance that can be swayed by a charm, or a ritual or that's just attracted to some people over others.
It's more complicated in that people can get lucky, but they can't be lucky. Getting lucky just means that, by chance, something fortunate happened to you. You pulled the lever and got the jackpot. But being lucky would mean that you would actually be more likely to get the jackpot than other people who are not lucky.
What's the difference?
Chance is merely unpredictability. Things happening for little or no reason. Bad things happening to good people. Winning the lottery, or getting cancer.
Luck is chance that takes sides. Chance that can be swayed by a charm, or a ritual or that's just attracted to some people over others.
It's more complicated in that people can get lucky, but they can't be lucky. Getting lucky just means that, by chance, something fortunate happened to you. You pulled the lever and got the jackpot. But being lucky would mean that you would actually be more likely to get the jackpot than other people who are not lucky.
AlDraw on SourceForge
Back in August, I said I was working on improving AlDraw. And I have been. Slowly, but surely.
And now, it's on SourceForge. https://sourceforge.net/projects/aldraw/
AlDraw-src.jar is, as your might have guessed, all the source files. AlDraw.zip is contains an executable jar, among other things. All you need to try it out is java installed on your computer.
I'm still calling it a beta version. I've made significant progress, but there's still a ways to go. Particularly on the new features front. I've added hardly any of the features I've been wanting to. Most of my efforts have gone to the code design and usability goals. And fixing the things I broke while refactoring.
But it's in a workable, usable state now. Go try it out! And if you know Java, take a look at the code and tell me if it still looks like a total mess. It's released under GNU GPLv3 so you can copy, modify and redistribute it nearly however you like.
And now, it's on SourceForge. https://sourceforge.net/projects/aldraw/
AlDraw-src.jar is, as your might have guessed, all the source files. AlDraw.zip is contains an executable jar, among other things. All you need to try it out is java installed on your computer.
I'm still calling it a beta version. I've made significant progress, but there's still a ways to go. Particularly on the new features front. I've added hardly any of the features I've been wanting to. Most of my efforts have gone to the code design and usability goals. And fixing the things I broke while refactoring.
But it's in a workable, usable state now. Go try it out! And if you know Java, take a look at the code and tell me if it still looks like a total mess. It's released under GNU GPLv3 so you can copy, modify and redistribute it nearly however you like.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Belief
The English language (and all natural languages) are sloppy, ambiguous and vague. But they still tend to work surprisingly well. It doesn't work very well when a specific, technical meaning needs to be discussed. That's why scientific, engineering and medical fields have all sorts of specialized words that mean something different from the way they're frequently used in everyday speech.
This also applies to philosophy. It's hard to have a deep philosophical discussion when you use a word to mean one thing and someone else uses the same word to mean something different. So, here's my small contribution. My take on what the word "belief" should mean in a philosophical context.
A belief is something that is held to be true.
Not something that is held to be true without evidence. That's faith. It's common in ordinary speech to use the two interchangeably. But I feel when precision matters, these definitions are the best readily available.
The biggest reason for that is that frequently, it doesn't matter why something is believed, only that it is believed. In such a situation, a more general definition is better. As far as I know, there's no better word for "something held to be true" than belief. Faith, trust, knowledge, etc. are similar but all more specific. Belief is good for it's generality.
Another reason is that it's not always so cut and dried if a belief is faith, trust, etc. What if the belief is held for a reason, but a bad one? What if there is evidence supporting the belief, but more evidence against it? Is it faith, is it trust? Well, either way, it's still a belief.
This also applies to philosophy. It's hard to have a deep philosophical discussion when you use a word to mean one thing and someone else uses the same word to mean something different. So, here's my small contribution. My take on what the word "belief" should mean in a philosophical context.
A belief is something that is held to be true.
Not something that is held to be true without evidence. That's faith. It's common in ordinary speech to use the two interchangeably. But I feel when precision matters, these definitions are the best readily available.
The biggest reason for that is that frequently, it doesn't matter why something is believed, only that it is believed. In such a situation, a more general definition is better. As far as I know, there's no better word for "something held to be true" than belief. Faith, trust, knowledge, etc. are similar but all more specific. Belief is good for it's generality.
Another reason is that it's not always so cut and dried if a belief is faith, trust, etc. What if the belief is held for a reason, but a bad one? What if there is evidence supporting the belief, but more evidence against it? Is it faith, is it trust? Well, either way, it's still a belief.
Friday, October 22, 2010
The Beginning of Time
A frequent point brought up in theist-atheist debates, for obvious reasons, is the beginning of the universe and along with that, the beginning of time.
Either time had a beginning, or time stretches back into infinity. Neither one makes sense to me.
There's an argument that time can't be infinite, which I disagree with. I don't think it's a logical impossibility, but intuitively, it makes no sense to me. I mean, it can't go forever. At the same time, time having a beginning makes even less intuitive sense. What came before the beginning of time? It may not be a valid question, but intuitively, it doesn't seem to make sense that it's an invalid question.
I think this is a situation where our savannah-evolved, monkey intuition fails us. It works very well with situations we deal with commonly, like where an object will hit if we throw it just so. But outside that realm, it simply doesn't work. Intuitively, time doesn't slow down, and length doesn't contract for an object moving quickly, because it's not perceptible at the speeds we move at.
I think the beginning of time is the thing. It doesn't seem intuitive because it's completely out of our experience. We can't rely on our intuition or our gut-instinct, because they can't handle this situation. Instead, we have to rely on science and math.
Either time had a beginning, or time stretches back into infinity. Neither one makes sense to me.
There's an argument that time can't be infinite, which I disagree with. I don't think it's a logical impossibility, but intuitively, it makes no sense to me. I mean, it can't go forever. At the same time, time having a beginning makes even less intuitive sense. What came before the beginning of time? It may not be a valid question, but intuitively, it doesn't seem to make sense that it's an invalid question.
I think this is a situation where our savannah-evolved, monkey intuition fails us. It works very well with situations we deal with commonly, like where an object will hit if we throw it just so. But outside that realm, it simply doesn't work. Intuitively, time doesn't slow down, and length doesn't contract for an object moving quickly, because it's not perceptible at the speeds we move at.
I think the beginning of time is the thing. It doesn't seem intuitive because it's completely out of our experience. We can't rely on our intuition or our gut-instinct, because they can't handle this situation. Instead, we have to rely on science and math.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Blasphemy Day: Bad Faith
Today is Blasphemy Day. In honor of that, here's some blasphemy: There is no god. Jesus was just a man. Mohammed was not a prophet. A cracker cannot turn into flesh. Thunder and lightning are not caused by Thor or Zeus. Heaven and hell do not exist. Sex is a good thing. The presents under your tree weren't left there by Santa Claus.
Doubtlessly, you believe at least one of these things. Which is why I support Blasphemy Day. Because something you believe is blasphemy to someone. The price you pay for being able to express it is that others can express something that you may disagree with or find personally offensive. To oppose that is to oppose the very concept of free speech.
And so here's another piece of blasphemy: Faith is a bad thing.
In this context, by faith, I mean belief without reason. The word is sometimes used to mean something more like trust. A common arguing technique by some believers is to deliberately confuse the two separate meanings. ("You have faith that your brakes will work, which is the same as my faith in god.") Let me be clear, I am talking about belief without reason. If you have a reason for believing something, it's not faith.
Why is faith a bad thing? Because it's fundamentally irrational. You can't draw a map without first looking at the territory. Something you believe by faith might be, by pure chance, correct. But given all the different mutually exclusive things you could believe by faith, that chance isn't very good. If you're actually interested in having your beliefs be correct, faith is a very bad approach to take.
Now, evidence can be misleading. People believe things that are incorrect, but with backing evidence all the time. For example, scientists at the end of the nineteenth century believed in luminiferous aether and with good reason. Light's a wave, it has to travel through something, right? But by always evaluating new evidence, you can correct your mistakes and make your beliefs closer to the truth. With faith, there is no such recourse.
Faith is a bad thing, but what's even worse than faith is the belief that faith is a good thing. Human irrationality is a bad thing, but it's an inevitable thing. We are not rational beings by nature, and a certain amount of irrationality is to be expected. But it is not to be desired. We must strive to be as rational as possible, because that is the only way we can progress. It is the only way to correct our mistakes and fix them.
Promoting faith as a paramount good is perhaps one of the most evil things religion has ever done (well, ok, crusades, pogroms, fatwas, etc. are pretty bad too).
Doubtlessly, you believe at least one of these things. Which is why I support Blasphemy Day. Because something you believe is blasphemy to someone. The price you pay for being able to express it is that others can express something that you may disagree with or find personally offensive. To oppose that is to oppose the very concept of free speech.
And so here's another piece of blasphemy: Faith is a bad thing.
In this context, by faith, I mean belief without reason. The word is sometimes used to mean something more like trust. A common arguing technique by some believers is to deliberately confuse the two separate meanings. ("You have faith that your brakes will work, which is the same as my faith in god.") Let me be clear, I am talking about belief without reason. If you have a reason for believing something, it's not faith.
Why is faith a bad thing? Because it's fundamentally irrational. You can't draw a map without first looking at the territory. Something you believe by faith might be, by pure chance, correct. But given all the different mutually exclusive things you could believe by faith, that chance isn't very good. If you're actually interested in having your beliefs be correct, faith is a very bad approach to take.
Now, evidence can be misleading. People believe things that are incorrect, but with backing evidence all the time. For example, scientists at the end of the nineteenth century believed in luminiferous aether and with good reason. Light's a wave, it has to travel through something, right? But by always evaluating new evidence, you can correct your mistakes and make your beliefs closer to the truth. With faith, there is no such recourse.
Faith is a bad thing, but what's even worse than faith is the belief that faith is a good thing. Human irrationality is a bad thing, but it's an inevitable thing. We are not rational beings by nature, and a certain amount of irrationality is to be expected. But it is not to be desired. We must strive to be as rational as possible, because that is the only way we can progress. It is the only way to correct our mistakes and fix them.
Promoting faith as a paramount good is perhaps one of the most evil things religion has ever done (well, ok, crusades, pogroms, fatwas, etc. are pretty bad too).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)