Monthy Archive: February 2006
« January 2006 | Main | March 2006 »

If you read this blog, PLEASE sign in to my guest book on frappr. No personally identifying information is needed, so this is risk-free. Just provide a name (even a nickname), your zip code, and any statement you want to make ("hi" is sufficient).

If you want to know more about me, click here.

February 01, 2006

Books : January's books

This past month happened to be a slow month for TV, games, movies, DVDs, etc, so I spent a lot of time reading. Given that I don't blog on all of the books I read, I thought I'd at least post a complete list.

Endless Forms Most Beautiful
On Evolutionary Development (Evo-Devo)

Why Buffy Matters
Academic book on Buffy

Schrödinger's Kittens
Current understanding of Quantum Physics

TV Creators, Volume 1
TV Creators, Volume 2
Interviews with TV writers

Everything Bad is Good for you
The hidden benefits of modern media

A Place so Foreign
Collection of Short fiction by Cory Doctorow

Changing Church
A book on what's wrong with the American church (not recommended)

The Present Future
A book on what's wrong with the American church (recommended)

The First Five Pages
Book on Writing

Straczynski Unplugged
Collection of Short fiction by J Michael Straczynski

The Wisdom of the Crowds
Analysis of when, how, and why groups are sometimes "smarter" than individuals.

The Last Man Who Knew Everything
Biography of 19th century polymath, Thomas Young

The Mystery of Christ: The Liturgy as Spiritual Experience
A book by a Roman Catholic monk on what Christians should be learning from the cycle of the liturgical calendar. The author spoke at my previous (non-liturgical, very protestant) church, so I knew his heart towards God and was curious to hear what he had to say on this subject.

The Language of Life: How Cells Communicate in Health and Disease
Intercellular communication within organisms and colonies.

The Story of Christianity
I only read a few specific chapters in this (the book is more of a reference and I was looking for specific information.)

That's about 3250 pages of actual content (ignoring endnotes, indexes, etc.). Again, January was a rather light month for distractions, so I don't do this much every month.

Posted by Steven at 06:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

February 02, 2006

Observations : Yes, scientists can be wrong

Every so often I get into a scientific discussion with someone where I am asking them to cite the evidence for some position and I get in response some form of the statement that "the vast majority of reputable scientists acknowledge that this is true". Besides not actually answering the question that I asked, I have a problem with that argument since it is built on the assumption that "the vast majority of reputable scientists" can not be wrong.

But they can; and I was reminded recently of another concrete case where this was true.

I am already on record in this blog as not being a fan of Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. The introduction of the concept of "an observer" without adequately defining that term was (and is) in my opinion a great disservice to science. However, that still leaves the question: what's the alternative. Now back when Bohr and company were formulating their explanation, there were other options on the table. These other options however had one common feature – they made use of "hidden variables". While the details varied form theory to theory, they all relied on the idea that the crazy, counter-intuitive things that were being measured in the various experiments were actually side effects of some deeper process involving new attributes which we were not able to directly measure and that if we understood physics at the level of these un-measurable attributes, then what we say in the experiments would actually make perfect sense. I'm glossing over a lot here; but folks can read for themselves if they want to understand more.

So there was a brief period where Copenhagen Interpretation and several other Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics vied for acceptance in that free market of ideas that is (or is supposed to be) science. Then the "hidden variables" bubble was burst. John von Neumann, one of the greatest mathematicians of his day, who had an interest in the mathematics of quantum mechanics, developed and published in 1932 a proof that ANY "hidden variables" interpretation of quantum mechanics would produce inconsistent results. This proof swept through the physics community, sweeping aside all models that used hidden variables, leaving the Copenhagen Interpretation, with all of its unresolved issues, the only option.

For the next 40 years, every student of physics was taught that hidden variable interpretations of quantum mechanics did not work, and to say otherwise would be equivalent of saying that John von Neumann made a math error. At the end of those 40 years, the world was dominated by a generation of physicists who "knew" that the Copenhagen Interpretation was THE interpretation of quantum mechanics. Scientists who tried to get papers published that used hidden-variable solutions had them rejected by respectable scientific journals as being provably in error. It was completely accurate to say "The vast majority of reputable scientists acknowledged that this is true".

But they were wrong.

As it turns out, John von Neumann DID make a math error – buried in his argument he assumed something was commutative that wasn't and as a result his whole argument fell apart. Actually, not his whole argument – parts of von Neumann's paper still held and provide constraints on what forms hidden-variable interpretations could take; but as a proof that hidden-variables didn't work at all and that the Copenhagen Interpretation must therefore be correct, von Neumann was wrong.

This fact was discovered in the late 50's, and by then the inertia behind von Neumann's paper and the Copenhagen Interpretation was so great that it took a while for the error to be recognized by the physics community. Even today, many of the physics texts used by major universities continue to describe the Copenhagen Interpretation as the only way to explain quantum mechanics, and those physicists willing to even look at alternatives are in the minority.

I think this story is an important object lesson to aspiring scientists. The bottom line is scientists are not immune to hero worship, group think, and institutional inertia. "Everyone else believes this" is just not a valid argument.

Posted by Steven at 06:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

February 03, 2006

Life : My Book process

A rather mundane post; but it is what I was thinking about.

I read a lot of books, and over the years I have evolved a strategy for managing books in my life. There is a relatively fixed sequence of "locations" a book can be:

Amazon Wish List
This is a relatively new technique. It used to be that when a book came to my attention, either through a friend's recommendation or by being mentioned in some article, I'd write it on a PostIt™ and stick it in my wallet. Then when I next went to a book store (which in my life was typically within one or two days), I'd buy it. Since PostIt's in the wallet were not a "volume" solution, I tended to buy books soon after they were recommended, which tended to have a different and very undesirable effect on my wallet. Now, whenever I identify a book I want, I find it on Amazon and add it to my wish list, where it can stay indefinitely. When my "To Be Read" shelf (see below) starts getting empty, I place an order at Amazon to fill it up again, culling those books off the list which in hindsight I'm not really interested in. The other advantage of Amazon is that I can add books that have not yet been published to the list, so it’s a good way to keep track of "what's next" from my favorite authors. Right now I have 50 books on my Amazon wish list. This also cuts down on trips to book stores, which tend to be hazardous to my bank account.

To Be Read Shelf
Whether I buy them at Amazon or on one of my trips to a book store, purchased books end up on my "To Be Read" shelf. I like to keep twenty or thirty books there waiting for me. Right now I have nearly a hundred (it's actually the To Be Read shelves – plural). Books move off the To Be Read shelf onto my "On Deck" pile on my nightstand in groups of four or five.

On Deck Pile
On my nightstand I keep a short pile (four or five books) that will be the next books I read. My "rule" (occasionally broken) is that I finish reading all of those books before pulling down a new set from the "To Be Read' shelf. I used to do this one book at a time – when I finished a book I'd grab the next book I was interested in from the "To Be Read" shelf. The problem I discovered that there were lots of books I really did want to read; but which psychologically were never the #1 book I would grab next, and so they would languish on the shelf for months or years. By grabbing four or five, I forced myself to think a bit more about what I wanted to "get read" as opposed to just what I wanted to "read". This has also helped me maintain a bit more balance in what I read - another rule (also occasionally broken) is that I don't grab more than one book on the same topic (religion, fiction, physics, biology, sociology, history, etc.) at a time.

Current Book
Obvious

To Be Sorted Shelf
When I finish reading a book, I put it on my "To Be Sorted" shelf, and then when that shelf gets full, I sort the books into one of the three destinations described below. I find that by delaying this decision (not choosing as soon as I finish the book), I tend to make better decisions – I'm not as caught up in having just read it and have some hindsight on how much the book has effected me.

The there places a book ends up when I sort it are:

1. The Recommended/Reference Bookcase
Books that I end up recommending to other people (and therefore I want to keep on hand to loan out) and books that I refer back to get put in a special bookcase in my room, ready and waiting to be called upon at a moment's notice. The really good books I read end up here.

2. Long Term Storage
Books that I think I may want to read again, but I'm unlikely to recommend, get put into a storage box (clear plastic, so I can see inside) in my room; and when the box gets full, I put it out in the storage locker. On my trips to the storage locker I also tend to take a look at the boxes already out there and see 1) if in hindsight the bloom has faded off of any of the books I have stored - they got moved to the next destination, or 2) if I want to grab any to re-read – in which case they get put on my "To Be Read" shelf.

3. Donation
Books that I have read which I don't expect to recommend or re-read get donated – usually to the local library; but occasionally other causes. Books in Long Term Storage that I am not longer interested in end up here too.

As I said, not a very interesting post.

Posted by Steven at 05:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

February 05, 2006

Life : Next…

I know I'm jumping the gun a bit; but I'm already starting to think about what I'm going to do with this blog as it enters its second year of operation at the end of March. This started out as a bit of an experiment (as most blogs do), and the one year mark of anything is a good time to look back and make any mid-course corrections that are needed.

So first, I'll ask again, if you read this blog regularly, please sign up on the guest book on frappr. All you need to provide is a name (it can even be a nickname) and what city you live in. I know from access logs that there are over 20 regular human readers (not counting the various 'bots that cruise through here daily), only 10 of which have signed up on frappr. I'd also love to know who is generating so much traffic on this site from Sweden, although I'm pretty sure that is automated.

Second, if you have any suggestions or requests, please pass them on via comments. This remains my blog, and I obviously reserve the right to ignore any and all suggestions; but I recognize that there may be useful improvements I haven't thought of.

Third, if you have any topics you'd like to hear me hold forth on, let me know. I blog on what I am thinking about; but more than once your comments have gotten me thinking about something new.

Finally, just to put this out there for comment, there are two things I am at least thinking about doing next blog year. The first is to focus more on quality vs. quantity – producing fewer; but hopefully better written essays. My plan this year was to try and capture as many of the things I think about as I could, not spending a lot of time writing up any one of them (most of my posts are dumped stream-of-consciousness and go through a single editorial pass). What I have learned in the process is that I really like writing non-fiction, and would like to use blogging as a means to improve my skills in that realm. I think that will require spending more time in each post, which in turn almost certainly means fewer posts.

The other option I am considering is splitting this blog in two. There are things I'd like to say to a wider range of Christians, which is possible if I promote the blog more in the "godblogsphere". However, given that a minority of my posts are on my faith, I think folks who are looking for a "Christian blog" would quickly loose interest with Sighs and Musings. If I created a second blog just for my Christian posts (and perhaps cross-post pointers here), I could promote that other blog more to a specific audience. I haven't decided anything; but (as always) thought I'd share what I was thinking.

So, any suggestions? Comments? Opinions?

Posted by Steven at 07:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

February 07, 2006

Faith : Church History (Part 0?)

I must admit for many years after I made my decision to be a Christian, I had a rather typically Protestant view of Church History. Something like this: in the beginning, there was the Roman Catholic Church presided over by The Pope, who gradually made a mess of things until Martin Luther came along and the Protestants started cleaning things up. There were also those strange guys in Egypt, Greece, Russia, etc.; but they didn't matter – they were some kinds of Catholics, right?

Wrong.

I discovered how wrong I was after I met one of those "strange guys". I was working at a company that allowed an employee "bible study" club. We had a rather interesting mix of Christians from different backgrounds, including one guy who was Eastern/Orthodox. Now two things became clear to me very quickly – one was that this guy was definitely what I would consider a Christian. His love of God, and the common Spirit we shared was clearly evident. The other point that became clear quickly was that he knew Church History way better that I did. I'd bring up some point, and he would chime in "Oh yes, that issue was debated as such-and-such a council and they decided that…" Now a lot of the time I agreed with him; but in those times we disagreed, I had a hard time arguing my point because he knew who said what on the subject (both pro and con) throughout history. I might quote a Bible verse; but he'd come back with "Yes, but Clement of Alexandria said that that verse applied to…." and I'd be stuck – I had no idea if I should care what "Clement of Alexandria" said, or not.

So I started to research Church History on my own, trying to understand where various doctrines come from. I looked at sources from various backgrounds, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, etc. to make sure I got "all sides" of an issue. What I learned is that real Church History was a lot more interesting and complex than I had believed. I also discovered that for all of the Roman/Catholic doctrines that Protestants disagreed with, most Protestants continued to accept the Roman/Catholic version of history, not realizing that there were other ways to look at historical events. This in turn marginalized the role of the Eastern/Orthodox (as well as Assyrian, Coptic, and Oriental Orthodox) Churches in the minds of most Protestants - doing them a great disservice. I also discovered that there were "Protestants" (even successful ones) long before Martin Luther came on the scene.

Probably the most interesting thing I discovered was how little sense there is in various "conspiracy theories" one hears (things like the background of the DaVinci Code).

Early in church history, there were plenty of doctrines that were declared to be "heresy"; but those who disagreed simply went off and started their own independent churches – the central church simply did not have the power to force unwilling people to stay in the fold – the best they could do is excommunicate them and prevent them from teaching in "Christian" churches. I'll acknowledge that some groups (like the Arians) were persecuted for their beliefs by the early church; but my point is that we still have a very clear idea of who Arius was and what he believed – for as much as "the church" vehemently opposed Arianism, they did not manage to suppress the idea.

It was only fairly late in church history, and only in geographically limited areas that "the church" had sufficient power to try and eliminate ideas they viewed as dangerous; and by then independent churches in other parts of the world were too well established to have some kind of global conspiracy to suppress dangerous ideas or to modify scriptures as some people suggest occurred. As a result, there are actually fairly good records from the first century onward of the various doctrinal debates that occurred and the arguments made on various sides. The ability to look and make your own informed decisions remains quite possible.

Anyway, this is the first of what I hope will be a series of essays on various aspects of Church History. I hope you all find it interesting. I certainly do.

Posted by Steven at 06:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

February 08, 2006

Life : Olympic Apathy

In years past I have gotten very excited by the arrival of a new Olympic Games, planning strategies to maximize my opportunity to watch them on TV. I might skip hockey in the winter games (never my sport) or most of track and field in the summer; but the Idea of the Olympics had always captivated me.

However, two years ago, I found my ardor for the Olympics had begun to wane. I recorded everything I could (Tivo Rules!); but found myself fast forwarding through much of it. I still watched gymnastics (both artistic and rhythmic) and swimming; but I skipped (or rather watched at 8X) most of the rest.

Now a new Winter Olympics is upon us, and I am finding it hard to muster much in the way of enthusiasm. I'll probably watch the skating competitions; but I'm usually excited about the various sled and ski sports and I find I am not this year. Is it my age creeping up on me? Is it the acceptance of professionalism that has somehow "corrupted" the games for me? Is it a sense that for all its grand ideals, the Olympics has never really made a difference in the world? I don't know. I just know I am more interested in doing the things I usually do (read books, watch DVDs, watch TV shows, etc.) then I am in watching the Olympics this year.

Posted by Steven at 07:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

February 09, 2006

Faith : Church History, Part 1 – the worst month

I would have loved to title this essay "the worst day in the history of the Christian Church"; but the unfortunate truth is that in all of my research I have only been able to identify the month – October, 324 – on which the worst possible thing happened to Christianity. Somewhere in that month the Emperor Constantine, having assumed control of the entirety of the Roman Empire, issued a series of edicts which effectively made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire – making Christian leaders officials in the empire and allowing them to employ the empire's gold to spread the faith. On face value, that might seem like good news, but hidden within those edicts were the seeds that would produce a most dangerous crop.

To understand the consequences of this act, consider for a moment the first 300 years of Church History. For most of that time, Christians were a persecuted minority within the Roman Empire. There were a few emperors who were tolerant of Christianity; but most viewed the new faith as a threat and acted accordingly. From Nero (54-68) to Diocletian (284-305) most of the Roman emperors tried to wipe out Christianity – issuing edicts to seize property belonging to Christians and imprison torture, and even kill those who took a stand for their faith. While Nero's excesses are well known by most people Diocletian was actually the most horrific in his treatment of Christians.

The effect of this is that no one became a Christian in those days who was not absolutely serious about their faith; and in particular no one became a leader in the church unless they were willing to die. Of the 30 people who served as overseer of the Christians in the city of Rome prior to 305 (when Diocletian abdicated), half were executed. Likewise, of the church leaders who attended the First Council of Nicaea in 325, over half has spent time in prison for their faith.

Then Constantine changed everything.

Suddenly, if you wanted to get ahead in the Empire, you needed to be a Christian (or at least claim to be one), and a new route to power and influence within the empire was to become a leader in the Christian Church. Suddenly the church found itself overwhelmed with people who professed Christianity but whose actual interests and motivations were unclear. I'm not saying everyone who became a Christian in those days was a fake – as an example, one of Christianity's greatest theologians, Augustine of Hippo, converted to Christianity in the 300's. I am just saying that any objective examination of history would conclude that the percent of people claiming to be Christians who really had a relationship with God declined precipitously from 325 to 400, and remained low thereafter.

There were attempts to counteract that – tests were developed which people had to pass to become a Christian, and long waiting periods were established so that church officials had time to observe people before they were officially accepted into the church. But as anyone who has worked in industry knows, it is hard to maintain quality control when "management" is pushing for greater volume.

This was not the last of the indignities which Constantine inflicted on the church.

The Emperor Constantine by all accounts was someone who believed there was one right way to do everything and that everything had to be done the right way. Apparently after he became a Christian he was unhappy to discover there was no single agreed upon definition of Christian doctrine. In order to survive the various persecutions, the church in its first three centuries was very decentralized, with significant autonomy given to local leaders. When doctrinal disputes arose, they were debated (often by mail); but it was not unusual for leaders in different cities to believe and preach slightly different things.

In 324, the big issue which kept the letters flying was the "Arian Controversy". Now I'll not take the time here to explain what the issue was with Arius's ideas except to say that in 35 years of being a Christian, I have yet to see a situation where the distinction being debated mattered in any practical way. I believe strongly that Christianity could have gone along quite well without agreement on this topic. I'll also note that the debate was not about whether there was a "trinity" (as some who opposed Arius spun the debate); but about a very subtle detail of the nature of the trinity. Regardless, that subtle distinction was not something that Constantine could abide. So he ordered the church to convene a meeting to settle the Arian Controversy (note – this is the state ordering the church), with the promise that the empire would "support" (i.e. help enforce) whatever decision was made (thus allowing the church to define state actions).

The result of this was the First Council of Nicaea, and the Nicene Creed. Now I want to be clear here – I consider myself a Nicene Christian – I completely accept the decisions of that council and stand by the Nicene Creed as the most basic definition of what someone has to believe to be called "a Christian". The fact that most of the leaders who assembled in Nicaea were survivors of the Diocletian persecutions gives me assurance of their genuine faith. My issue is with how and why this council was called – that it represented an integration of church and state over an issue for which, in my opinion, tolerance would have been a better approach. The process continued for the next 56 years until after the First Council of Constantinople in 381 (also ordered by the emperor to resolve a debate about a variation on the Arian Controversy – so much for Nicaea settling anything). After that council, the empire not only made all religions other than Christianity illegal, they also outlawed any variations on Christian teaching other than those approved by the central church – those who persisted in following "heresy" were subject to state persecution of a kind that would have made Diocletian smile.

Finally, in November 324, Constantine laid the foundation for a new city of be built on the site of the old town of Byzantium which would become the new capitol of the empire. He called this new city "New Rome"; but it eventually became known as Constantinople – the City of Constantine. Now as one might imagine, moving the capitol from Rome to Constantinople was not popular with the citizens of Rome, and so Constantine's decree made certain assurances to the citizens of Rome, including the acknowledgement that Rome would remain the headquarters for the Christian Church. The wording of that decree by a secular emperor would have reverberations on church history for the next seven hundred years.

Bottom line – within a period of less than 60 days in 324, I believe the "Christian" Emperor Constantine did more harm to Christianity than all of the pagan emperors that preceded him. Oh, and for those people who dislike "organized religion", October 324 can fairly be considered the point when Christianity became such. The interesting thing is to look at what Christianity was like before 324.

Posted by Steven at 06:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

February 13, 2006

Books , Life , TV : Crunch Time Again

I didn't post over the weekend as I was too busy recovering from a personal crunch at work last week. A lot of things on my plate happen to all line up in the next few weeks, so I am living in interesting times. I'll probably be fairly busy one way or another until March 13th, so posts may be a bit less frequent for the next few weeks. Given that, I thought I'd just make a few random comments while I wait for the caffeine to take effect.

- One reason I am upbeat despite the workload is that some of it relates to my being able to do some teaching. There's a week of training being given by my department, and I am teaching the whole first two days of classes. On top of that I am preaching at church on Sunday, March 12th. Color me very happy (just ask Anne).

- I continue to not be drawn to the Olympics. Anne and I watched our recording of the Opening Ceremonies last night – nothing to write home about; although I did enjoy the ski-jumper and the dove that were animated with people's bodies. I'm pleased they are giving good coverage to curling this year. I'm not big "into" the sport; but find it interesting and the lack of coverage in previous years had always bothered me. I have the same feeling about Rhythmic Gymnastics in the summer games.

- A couple years back I realized I had never read anything by the great SciFi author Alfred Bester, so I picked up a couple of his books, and am now finally getting around to reading his first novel – the Demolished Man (which holds the distinction of being the winner of the first-ever Hugo award). I am quite impressed so far. Some of his techniques are "old hat" now; but one must remember that this is the book in which they were invented (kind of like watching Citizen Kane).

- Grey's Anatomy remains one of the best written shows on television. While this and last week's two-part episode were clearly written as Sweeps Month ratings fodder, they clearly show what you get when you ask an already great show to do something outstanding. Both episodes were a fugue on the subjects "what really matters" and "how people handle stress". What's interesting (that I learned after watching it) was that the first episode (last week's) was deliberately written to show the "masculine" point of view; while this weeks was meant to show the "feminine" point of view. In hindsight I can see it. The point I wanted to make though is that this is a show that actually tries to do things like that. Also, the bookend "shower scene" motifs (at the start of the first part and end of the second) were perfectly done - showing the difference between masculine and feminine POV; but also commenting on what we think matters vs. what does really matter.

That's all for now.

Posted by Steven at 02:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)