Thursday, December 27, 2007

The wild river

I went down to the wild river today
It is sometimes opaque turquoise, sometimes gray, sometimes blue. It is never the same.
today it was clear emerald green
with a mighty constant roar
and white foam bursting from the stolid rock
standing firm in the wild frothy midst.

The boulders and banks were covered in white snow
with dark green and orange lichen peeking through
and old growth evergreen forest dappled with white
silently and grandly standing watch
pointing courageously into the deep sky.

Behind them stood the frosted silent mountains
And i cried
because this is God's cathedral
this is God's music
this is sacredness
beyond culture and fashion
beyond fear whether I belong here or not
beyond my responsibility to clean it up
O God unnumbify me
awaken me to the grand mystery
of existence.

Thursday, September 20, 2007

The Metric System

My 10 year old asked me my opinion about whether we should keep the English System, or go to the metric system, and I realized I didn't really have an opinion about this. Upon reflection, I decided that I think the English system is the way to go, for these reasons.

Let's suppose that when measuring temperature, the normal range of air temperature in Degrees Fahrenheit at normal human occupied geographies is between 0 and 100. Just go with me. In Celsius that would be -18 to 37 degrees. There are roughly 55 degrees celsius in that range, a little over half the increments in fahrenheit. So, the normal range of temparature that humans deal with on a day to day basis is better mapped with more increments and more positive regular numbers by Fahrenheit.

This is true across the board. What is the metric equivalent of a gallon? There isn't one! Who honestly ever talks about decaliters or centilters or whatever? The arbitrary division of basic units by 10 doesn't map well to human experience. The units in the English system arose organically over time to measure things that human beings actually do. It is a bit of a mess, but it makes sense to us because there are units for things that we actually need units for. If you go into Canada, they measure distance in Km, but land is still sold by the acre. Why? It makes more sense to measure land that way than by the square meter or square Km.

The metric system was created by some scientists in the absence of thinking about how well it mapped to most of human experience. It is a wonderful experiment but I think the resistance to it is more than simple inertia; there is a reason that in some places like the US it is very much persisting.

Monday, August 20, 2007

Light has no speed

This is truly a random insight. I'm sure a real physicist will tear this down in a few seconds, but it makes a lot of sense to me.
If you mess with the math a bit on the equation e=mc2, then space and time at the speed of light shrink to nothing, and the person’s mass and energy expand to infinity.

If this is so, then from light’s perspective, its speed is infinite. Why then does light seem to have a measurable speed?

or, if the speed of light is a constant, meaning that if a ray confronts someone going the opposite direction, and its speed is the same for them as someone going the same direction as the ray, then it is that their concept of distance and time changes to keep the speed of light constant.

So from the perspective of the ray of light, its speed is infinite; that is, it gets from point a to point b instantly with no lapse of time whatsoever.

So the measurers of the ray’s speed relative to the light may “clock” it at appr 186,000 miles /second, mathematically from the light’s perspective it must move instantaneously, and the measurers must be at a complete standstill.

Thus from the light’s perspective, it is nonsensical to think of “measuring” its “speed”; it exists simultaneously at all points along its path between wooden statues of men. How long does it take a bridge to travel from one end to its other end? it exists simultaneously at both ends, its speed is infinite. It makes no sense to discuss its speed.

That is why it is perhaps wrong to call light a wave or a particle. A wave requires a substance through which to move; this is the antiquated idea of ether. Nor is it a particle. Radiation must be simply a bit of the "E=mc2" stuff liberated suddenly into 2 or three dimensions, existing simultaneously in all points, perhaps increasing its length or volume for some reason over time to give the illusion of speed.

For the light, which is "E=mc2" stuff liberated suddenly into 2 or three dimensions, to exist at all, it must exist over time. I believe it is this which gives it the illusion of speed.

now if E=mc2, then matter is energy kind of balled up; yet if we have knowledge of the things existence at all, something has radiated from it to speak of it to our senses.

Thus I theorize that what they are measuring is not light’s speed, but similar bursts of radiation reverberating at different times along the path of the light’s path. That is, it exists in its entire volume through time, existing simultaneously along its entire path, and perhaps its speed is simply its length growing longer through time. It really has no SPEED, only length through time. It is a particle of the "E=mc2" stuff whose mass is liberated or simultaneously spread. There is obviously no difference between what we arbitrarily call "matter" and "energy"; it is the same stuff occupying a different sphere of influence.

Why is m so much smaller than E? it is the same stuff, somehow trapped into a smaller sphere of existence. Yet even at that, it is the same thing, having simultaneous existence along all paths of influence. C, the supposed velocity of light, is simply the rate of increase of the liberated "particle"'s influence over time. It is not traveling, it is growing, its mass spread over a larger sphere over time.

Why does it do this?????!!!!!!

yet how can light be such and yet have a "wavelength" such that we seem to be able to measure a doppler effect if the source of the radiation is moving away from us or toward us?

It must be some kind of shape or wavelet pattern which exists throughout the liberated "E=mc2" stuff's volume simultaneously over time, perhaps really having to do with its rate of volume increase over time. However, its rate of volume increase must be "c", the supposed speed of light. The difference would be the distance gained and the time interval awaited to achieve its gain.

C = Volume of influence increase /time elapsed to acheive its increase.

If the "E=mc2" stuff (let's call it "Q") changes its volume of influence ("I") at the rate of C, then what would be observed as a shorter wavelength increases I at shorter intervals of time, faster, than Q which is observed as having a longer "wavelength". Time elapsed is "T".

So, C = I/T; I = CT; T = I/C

ha ha, I've solved the puzzle of what time actually is! At least in terms of physics.

So, Q = E = mc2

Q = m(I/T)2

Q/(IT)2 = m

wow! the mass of something is really nothing more than its substance Q spread over its sphere of influence over time.

My math ability stops about right here, unfortunately, although I know there are some great and profound things to be discovered beyond this point in manipulating the equations.

This doesn't seem to make sense when you stand back and look at what it is saying, but how else can you interpret it all?

The real problems are these:
1. what exactly is “influence” ?
2. what is this “Q”? expressed mathematically, it is I think this fervor over new “particles” is perhaps wrong; these are all just different manifestations of Q, which can only be understood in the framework of these equations; that is, they are Q influencing in differing ways.

The real problem becomes, exactly what is "influence"? m and E are really nothing more than differences in the amount of influence.

influence indicates relationship, and relationship is meaningless without some common ground of interpretation. In other words, light has "speed" only because the instruments measuring its presence are not influenced at one point in time, and become influenced at another point in time.

Perhaps influence can be understood as a portion of Q changing its I when it resonates with another portion of Q encountering it.


O God, teach what it means to hallow Your name
so many of the problems in my life stem from this
that my heart
from which flows all the streams of life
hallows the wrong things
and these things
having inadequate glory
produce no real hallowing
thus I know nothing in the now
of the hallowed.

O God, teach me the passion of hallowing Your name
show me substance to turn aside to
to snatch my heart from sin
to crush my heart with repentance
seeing not the horror of my guilt
but the hollowness of my life
We are worse than sinful
we are boring and colorless
but more, yes, there is the shame of it all
hiding under dark bushes
sewing leaves
that cannot hope to cover our vast guilt
our colorlessness
our straw-stuffed shirts.

Yet denouncing straw
does not change the soul
nor point to a greater glory
O God I seek Your face
Your presence
the presence
of the source of all souls
all minds all poetry all passion
all creation
mystery above all mysteries
I am weary of what is called "worship"
I seek God, the God who is real.
Yet I bow in humility
(as if I am so holy and so wise)
to participate in the community
of those who believe
to sing a song of praise
in the assembly
to remember Your excellence together
O God let hallowing increase
not mere singing
not mere dancing
not mere praising
dead repetition
no but hallowing
holy anger
holy fear
bowing the knee deeply
before Him who is greater
and far more humble
than we could ever know
more like a child
filled with more wisdom
power beyond the wildest imagining
of any technology
all good things find their meaning and source and end
in You O God
and I bend the knee
You are greater than me
greater than all
I know not what I have done
nor Who I seek
nor the place I am entering
I enter silent
with head bowed
if there is grace to enter
it is not of my merit
there is little of the child in me
little of the sage
there are a thousand turnings
to the whispers of the serpent
wrapped up around my soul
a thousand half eaten apples
lay strewn about my feet
millions of useless fig leaves
poorly sewn in haste in the dark
and wonder of wonders
it is YOU coming to seek me
calling my name
O God, do not ask what I have done
You know what I have done
I am so deeply sorry
Lord, I do not deserve these skins You offer
I am unworthy of this blood shed on my behalf
So I am thankful so thankful
I hallow this gift
treasure beyond treasures
to secure a wealth
beyond the resources of all all the universe combined:
to know the Maker of it all,
to whom it is nothing but a whim of imagination
called into existence with a word
I hallow this gift
wracked with weeping sobs
I offer my shamed and guilty self
on the altar
if You should accept me
and I kiss your feet
I cling to You
my only hope
my best hope
I hallow You above all creation.
So help me God.

vanishing point

Here is another for your enjoyment.
What are we doing with our heritage?
unmoored from transcendent purpose
we flounder in a world of increasingly meaningless
and more importantly unrelated information.
Our scholarship is only something to keep us occupied
we seek not truth but tenure
not wisdom but vocation
not understanding but a field of study.
We move about in unrelated tiny boxes
because we have eliminated transcendent space
between our worlds
that is, faith in a transcendent God
in whom all things find purpose and inception and end.
We scoff at teleology
and become rootless meat machines
afraid to do more than build a better refrigerator.
Like a vanishing point in a renaissance painting,
we need a focal point beyond and outside of our tiny dimensions
to give focus to the art of being and living
to bring perspective to the relationship we have
to others
and to the world around us.
Without it, our science will be nothing more than utility,
and the understanding that brought us the utility we now have
did not come from seeking utility,
but from seeking knowledge,
and the utility was subsequent.
It is perhaps easier to catch a butterfly,
not by chasing it or shooting it,
but by being near it and letting it alight on you.
We have no perspective of the relation between art and science,
because we allow no transcendent reality
to give focus
to bring relation between the two.
There can be no comprehensivity
without transcendence,
and transcendence is a messy world,
too scary for an existentialist subjective empirical society.
If we cannot all agree on it
it must not be real,
so let us go on seeking a better job
piercing ourselves to be more shocking more legitmate
more real
perhaps another deluge of information
will ease the pain of this fear and drown out the awful mystery of existence.

Whatever we choose to believe or ignore,
I have news for you,
there is a transcendent reality,
a personal God
beyond our tiny fears of what "personal" may reduce Him to,
and if you want to scoff at me
for focusing my life
outside the flat dimensions
of my existential reality
that is your business,
but I will say something for your sake
of the Medieval fresco your life has become.
Let us jump out the frame together
into the dangerous joy of a common faith
and put our lives together
into focus and relationship.

journal selection

Here is a selection from one of my journals; I hope someone enjoys it.
You are no theory
no mere unmoved mover
no mere philosophical necessity
You are the God who is REAL
the God of truth
the God who must be
the God who is my great and lasting passion
mystery of mysteries
hidden yet inevitable
perfect perfect perfect
is every thought
every time
every mercy
every revelation
every hidden thing
perfect and wonderful!
What is all of this You have done?
I will arise in wonder
and say I am in awe
of the great and beautiful mystery
of the gift of existence!
O whose hand has set this seed to take root
and to reach limbs high to the sky?
O whose hand has set matter and energy spinning
in what mystery of time and space and thought?
O who has plumbed the depths of reality
to understand the handiwork
of the God who is REAL?
Who arises to wonder?
Who arises to worship?
Arise all of you arrogant fools!
We all know nothing
but by the grace of the Almighty God of reality
Your ways are perfect from beginning to end Lord
I know nothing of what You will do!
But I know You are real
and I do fiercely and deeply love You
and I will say with my whole soul
that You are a God of excellence and splendor
a God of truth and reality
a God mystery and revelation
a God of surprises and present power
a God to whom creating the universe was but a trifle
but who will spend eternity in speaking wonders
to His bride in whom He has set autonomy and eternity
yet so as not to know all
in order to long for and ache and thirst
for God
as a lover for the presence of her love!

So do I long for You Lord
I lift my hands from the miry pit
and arise to triumph
in praise to You.

Saturday, July 28, 2007

Richard Dawkins

I realized after my last post that I have been thinking about Richard Dawkins a lot. If you haven't heard of him, you can read some quotes by him here.

As a Christian and a convinced member of the design science camp, you would expect that I would be feeling something negative toward these views. I admit that I don't think I could be close friends with someone that seems to breathe hatred towards me on account of my most cherished beliefs. However, in some ways we are far more alike than would be obvious at first glance.

Here is a man who is agreed with me on a very fundamental point: there is such a thing as truth! He is totally convinced that I am wrong, that my world view is absolutely askew. I am totally convinced that he is wrong, that his world view is completely off base from the root. We disagree on everything except for this: there really is some objective truth, a reality which explains existence.

It is actually refreshing to see someone who has firmly established in his mind that there is a true explanation for existence, and is willing to say so. I think the truth gets clouded and damaged when people try to be "tolerant" and "open-minded". I want to slap some people and say, "DAMN IT! WAKE UP! You can't believe everything, you fool!" I can absolutely guarantee you that Richard Dawkins is not open-minded, and I applaud him for it. I have spent a great many years forming my beliefs and thoughts, and I am not about to easily give over to every stupid whim of an idea that floats along. Open-mindedness usually means you hold no opinion dear and so you have not questioned things deeply enough on your own to hold your own thoughts. Richard Dawkins holds his own thoughts and so do I. We will probably never come to any agreement whatsoever, because I am completely and utterly convinced that he is WRONG. I flagrantly and proudly and abundantly proclaim that he is wrong, just as he does to me.

I'm not saying I "believe" he is wrong - that is a terribly wrong use of that word. I am saying that he IS wrong. Belief does not mean, I kind of weakly hope that my vague thoughts about the nature of reality are true, but I'm not sure. Belief means, I am thoroughly convinced that my view of the world is true. I have thought about this, read many books, reflected on many ideas, and fought and worked to understand TRUTH. You are going to have to work very very hard if you are going to convince me otherwise, and I guarantee you that you are not going to be able to persuade me on fundamental points. I believe what I believe, and I believe it very strongly and very deeply. I believe it, not because it is comforting or helpful or because I was raised that way. I hate these reasons for "believing" something. I believe it because I am greatly seeking truth. TRUTH.

There is actually truth. There is a real explanation for existence. No one is going to get anywhere in their life work if they have not become convinced on this particular point, and strangely, on this point, Richard Dawkins and I are on the same page. There is truth.

I think that is all I want to say with this post: doesn't anyone really believe in anything any more? We seem to live to only keep from offending one another, and this is a really weak basis for living. Offend me! I will love you for it. We may disagree, but that doesn't mean I don't respect you for having the courage to actually think deeply enough about the world to have something you can disagree with me about. I think we can be civil and strongly be convinced of what we do actually think the world is made of.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Music and the Long Now

I read a book a while back that my mind often goes back to, called The Clock of the Long Now. They are trying to build a 10,000 year clock, and the basic idea is to force us to think in terms of the impact of our work and our mistakes in a longer term sense.

We live in a world where the disposability of things is accelerating. Great mountains of work and data from only 20 years ago are unreadable by today's machines, or are readable only with great effort. I've had years of my best work on databases unceremoniously thrown out when new technologies came along. Our work and creative output seems to become obsolete in increasingly small frames of time. We look at culture from "the 70's" or "the 80's" as being hopelessly different and perhaps backwater to our present society. Do things really change that much in 30 years? The American revolution was only about 230 years ago, which in the scope of history is a tiny blip. Yet we look on those times as hopelessly alien and long ago to us, like a completely different epoch. We are surprised when their ideas and work retain their relevance to our society.

The idea that we could do some kind of work which has lasting impact on human history and society seems impossible anymore. Will anything I do today have any relevance at all even 20 years from now? We are at a moment when our information based society needs to address the extreme transience which it fosters.

So the redesign of the web which is much needed and which, perhaps as a futile exercise, I am working on, must address the requirement for permanence and document stability. This is one reason why I like XML and semantic tagging, because documents should be stored in a format which is possible for a machine to dynamically parse, but which a human can read. Any use of XML which violates the human readable part of the equation, as HTML really does, fails. Javascript and CSS get broken every time a new browser version is introduced. The web is impermanent.

But even if this document stability requirement were met, it would mean that our society, our "information society", depends on incredibly complex machines and a vast interdependent web of power and information lines, to exist. We communicate via immensely complex protocols and standards. We live in a house of paper perched on gossamer held together with dabs of glue and tape. We are at home with impermanence. I'm not sure this is bad; I once wrote a series of poems in the sand on the beach which were completely washed away by the tide, and life is surely like that. Perhaps we are wise to embrace this impermanence.

What does all of this have to do with music? Music is a great art form to look at when thinking about the relationship between the extreme present and the long term or even eternal. Beethoven said that music should be at once surprising and inevitable. It is fascinating to me that Brian Eno is on the board of the Long Now foundation, his work is to me pretty much the icon of ethereal impermanent almost ghostly one-time performances. In fact, I think Brian Eno coined the phrase "Long Now". How could MUSIC of all things relate to the long now?

I was thinking that a lot of pop music is very focused on the fashionable and present tense moment. This is not bad or evil, Bach carefully studied the Italian Baroque music of his time and even wrote in the style. Music is a cultural activity, and culture is wed to the present time; in my opinion when John Cage tried to destroy this connection, he ceased making music. (I still find Cage's work interesting, I'm not criticizing his experiment.) The music of Bach survives because there is a depth and a level of architecture and value to his work that transcends the Baroque or the German Lutheran society of his time. Look at the Art of Fugue; Bach wrote this specifically to take couterpoint as far as it could go, to teach future generations what music could be. There is an eternal sense to this music, it is no longer baroque - he wrote it thinking toward the long now. If human society survives 10,000 years, they will find a way to preserve the music of Bach just as we have.

If we are going to build and work toward the long now, we need to determine that we are going to work according to a high and deep aesthetic; the lesson we learn from Bach is that it is not necessarily permanence which speaks to the long now; it is greatness. We build to the long now when we do work that would be tragic to lose.

Monday, July 23, 2007

Science and Religion

So, I've been thinking about the relationship between science and religion. They seem to be very much at odds; the science-minded among us seem to think that the faith-minded among us are very naive and backward and stupid, while the religious, apart from being very frightened of the science-minded, seem to be content to ignore and belittle their cold and colorless stance. Yet I am noting, perhaps in both camps, at least among the more intellectual circles, a growing interest in finding some kind of common ground. Look at - a very anti religious site, which is seeming to come a bit toward a softer stance.

I've been thinking that it would be nice if the two could come to terms in a way that was not insulting either to science or religious orthodoxy. Yes, that's right, religious orthodoxy. When a fundamentalist says that the earth is 6000 years old, this is insulting to science. When Richard Dawkins says "And I am optimistic that this final scientific enlightenment will deal an overdue deathblow to religion and other juvenile superstitions" and writes books called "The God Delusion," this is insulting to religion. Yet it is equally insulting to both to think that we can find some vapid happy medium. I can't stand these overly simplified compromises; truth is a very singular thing.

It is the wrong question to ask, is science right, or is religion right? Is there some middle ground? Maybe God caused evolution? I am always irritated and bored by these discussions regardless of your perspective. Who cares if religion or science is right? I don't. I care what is TRUE. People always seem to snicker and shake their heads when I bring this up, as if I am a naive child - the TRUTH is an impossible standard to obtain. In the REAL world we have science and religion. The true thought leaders in these fields were not pioneered by such cowardly thinking; they were pioneered by people who believed in and sought truth. A wreckless and fearless abandonment to the pursuit of truth is the only thing that will really carry the day.

Let's consider this: what options are available to us, here in the 21st century, to interpret and understand the world? We have science, which believes (yes - BELIEVES) that the universe sprang into existence uncaused, and that life arose purely by the lucky kiss of chance plus time. I think we should all step back and look with honesty, and say, this is absurd. It's OK, it is absurd. Science shoots itself in the foot and loses its credibility when it refuses to admit its weaknesses.

Now, let's consider the considerably murkier waters of religion and metaphysics. The religious believe that an invisible super-intelligent being somehow masterminded all of existence, but remains so elusively invisible that we debate about whether or not He even exists.

Then there are the agnostic among us, who pretend that it doesn't matter and we can't know and perhaps shouldn't pursue this. The strange and mystic thing here is that almost no one really believes this; we all strive to know the answers to these things; we maintain an insatiable curiosity. This is in itself a huge clue to me.

So, no matter what, we are shut up to believing in something which is patently absurd. There is no choice. Life is huge and beautiful and tragic and crazy and impossible to explain. Science is inadequate and religion is just... WILD!

One of the things I love about my faith is that it directly embraces this patent mystery; it demands faith right up front. It out and out admits that it demands belief in outrageous things. This does not make it true, by the way, don't think I am saying that. But it does say things like, God exists, God became a man, that that man's chief play for power was to die, even that somehow God wrote a book, things like that. The religious believer should not and cannot shy away from the fact that he believes in things that are shocking and outrageous.

However, does this mean, that in seeking truth, we only believe the shocking and therefore science is all wrong? How could that possibly be TRUE? Are we to throw all sense out the window? That would be just a little too black and white and simple to really explain the world, wouldn't it? Just as reason alone cannot explain or color existence, so faith alone cannot only guide us. Perhaps God has created nature and given us minds. The scriptures, in all of their admitted strangeness and also their beauty, do not really advocate a 6000 year-old universe or any such thing.

I want to go back to something I said earlier. Religion, and not only religion, but religious ORTHODOXY, is crucial to our pursuit of truth, because if there is a God, surely that God can speak to the humanity He created, and He could speak to people all through the history of mankind. If it is not old religion, it is not ancient wisdom, it seems not to be as good. That is why I say, science and religious ORTHODOXY need to come to terms with their own patent absurdities and their own strengths and come to a place where they are set together without insult in the pursuit of the actual truth which is there.

Saturday, July 14, 2007

Human progress is more than technological progress

Futurists, people who try to imagine what the future will be like, often think in terms of technology. Judging the progress of humanity by technology alone is similar to judging the progress of history by wars alone. We have come a tremendous way in providing agriculture and domesticated animals so that we no longer have to hunt and gather to survive, nor create our own clothing or build our own personal shelters, and we have managed to create tremendous interdependent societies of commerce. Technology has afforded us this.

However, as technology empowers us more and more, the overarching problem facing us becomes less and less one of technical ability, and more and more one of imagination. This is where artificial intelligence research fails; it is not a problem of technology. We are awash in a world of computers and software, in which it is far more important to have imagination than to have better technology. What we really need progress in is culture.

I am a musician, and I find the current state of music culture very deficient. Thank God the music "industry" is faltering, and the internet is affording a new freedom and economy of distribution to emerge. I am eagerly awaiting the effects of the long tail effect (The Long Tail). I have always thought that we have plenty of Bachs and Mozarts and Stravinskys still walking around, but the supposed "market" is now uninterested in their genius; meaning, it won't sell in Wal-Mart. Academic "legitimate" music has evolved into a backwater of hyper-intellectualized bilge that no one, even the composers, wants to really listen to. On the other hand, pop music has evolved into a vapid wasteland of largely repetitive 2 dimensional tripe. What happened?

We have sunk almost all of our societal genius and effort and education into technology and capitalistic entrepreneurialism. (Notice how music is really viewed largely as being a part of "Youth Culture", and intelligent grown men and women are left with dead white-guy music if they want music that is listenable and intelligent.) It is coming time when the champion to emerge in the marketplace will not be the technologist or the venture capitalist, but the one with imagination. The iPhone, for example, is not a triumph of technology, it is a triumph of DESIGN - imagination. Note that the iPhone is an assemblage of a lot of existing technologies, but the assemblage alone would be no triumph at all. It is the tasteful and artful design of the whole which makes it a success.

I am a database designer. People often misunderstand what I do; they think I am a "programmer". Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the careful and insightful analysis of the complex work patterns of people, and the artful production of spare and functional and beautiful interfaces which are at the heart of my work. Thus it is very much true that it is not the technology which drives what I do, but imagination. I believe that more and more, as technology progresses, it will succeed in that it enables us to be more human, more imaginative, more collaborative. More than approaching a singularity in which humanity loses its control and personality, we are approaching an explosion of far greater individual empowerment and creative potential than the world has ever seen. This is a fantastic time to live!