Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in drakvl's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]

Wednesday, February 11th, 2009
10:42 am	Don't take this update as a sign of things to come. Just wanted to point out that, according to the Colbert Report, the Counterterrorism Calendar -- a personal daily calendar -- has, on each day, a mention of a big terrorist event that happened that day. There was only one day in the entire calendar for 2008 that had nothing listed: March 18. Excellent -- they do not suspect I am the Antichrist! Current Mood: giddy Current Music: Beatles "With a Little Help from My Friends" (in my head) (Comment on this)
Wednesday, October 18th, 2006
9:13 am	What? An update? You don't say! You might be asking yourself, what might cause this guy to update, if not identity theft or being well on the way to his Masters? Well, first, tell me if the following sound familiar. Limited interests or preoccupation with a subject to the exclusion of other activities; repetitive behaviors or rituals; peculiarities in speech and language; socially and emotionally inappropriate behavior and interpersonal interaction; problems with nonverbal communication; and clumsy and uncoordinated motor movements . . . People with AS lack the natural ability to see the subtexts of social interaction, and may lack the ability to communicate their own emotional state, resulting in well-meaning remarks that may offend, or finding it hard to know what is "acceptable". Inability to modulate one's voice properly; having a stilted or bouncy walk; a tendency to interpret things literally; an inability to engage in banter. Would you say this sounds like me? Well, it looks like I might have Asperger's syndrome! Hiram: remember how you said I'm like a more extreme version of you? Ya might want to look into this. ;) (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Tuesday, November 8th, 2005
8:43 am	The Mathematics of Intelligent Design Trying to see how dynamical systems is used in the discussion of evolution vs ID, I did a quick websearch, and found a paper (http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Dembski.html) by William Dembski, a statistician (or maybe information theorist) who writes papers in support of ID. Here's what the relevant paragraphs had to say: "This argument, by employing the universal composition function, is perfectly general. In particular, it answers the attempt by complexity-theorists to account for the origin of information in terms of dynamical systems (for popular accounts of this enterprise see Levy 1992 and Waldrop 1992). Complexity-theorists, especially the Santa Fe Institute group, continue to hope that information can be gotten on the cheap. ÒLook at all those amazing fractal patterns,Ó we are told. ÒThe incredibly intricate Mandelbrot set is generated by so modest a complex function as h(z) = z2Ê+Êc.Ó To state the matter in this way, however, is misleading. The function h(z) = z2 + c is simple enough, and even simpler to write down. And granted, it is the crucial element in constructing a graphic depiction of the Mandelbrot set. But that is the point: It is the graphic depiction of the Mandelbrot set that has to be explained, not its existence as an abstract mathematical object. And this graphic depiction has to be constructed. Pixels on a computer screen have to be assigned coordinates representing complex numbers. The function h(z) = z2 + c has to be iterated with respect to those coordinates. The trajectory of those iterations needs to be tracked to see if the trajectory stays locally bounded or heads off towards infinity. Given these trajectories, a color has to be assigned to the pixel, black if the trajectory stays locally bounded, white if it heads off to infinity. All of this must be programmed. All of this is information far exceeding the information inherent in simply writing down Òh(z) = z2 + c.Ó The function h(z) = z2 + c is never the function that produces the pretty graphic depictions of the Mandelbrot set we see in books on fractals. Any function that produces a graphic depiction of the Mandelbrot set will be a complicated algorithm employing a complicated set of input data. Any such algorithm f applied to a data set i can be conjoined as an ordered pair (i,f), and then evaluated by the universal composition function U to produce a graphic depiction of the Mandelbrot set j. But by itself the function h(z) = z2 + c is too information-poor to produce this graphic depiction of the Mandelbrot set j. Once we examine the precise informational antecedents to j, the illusion that we have generated information for nothing disappears." Personally, I had never argued for dynamical systems giving rise to increased complexity through the Mandelbrot set, preferring instead to use the Chaos Game (http://www.jgiesen.de/ChaosSpiel/ChaosEnglish.html). But I'm up to the challenge. Basically, what Mr. (and it's proper to use "Mr." and "Ms." for Ph.D.s in America over "Dr."--which is reserved for medical doctors--thank you very much) Dembski is saying is that the Mandelbrot set is not contained in the [family of] complex quadratic function h(z) = z^2 + c, but that it comes partly from the algorithm used to generate the set. So let's analyze that algorithm. In dynamical systems, often a mathematician (unlike a mere grad student, such as myself *weep*) will take a function, plug in a number, and plug the output of that function right back in -- a process called iteration. There are some points which go to infinity under this process, and others which stay finite; the functions x^2 + c are no different. The Mandelbrot set is constructed by taking the set of c values for which 0 goes to infinity, and the set of points for which 0 stays finite, and taking the boundary between the two sets. The set 0 is chosen because it's important for determining whether the Julia set at c is connected or (completely) disconnected. The key piece of this puzzle is iteration. In this case the iteration is not on the forefront; so to work with it more hands-on, let's look at the Mandelbrot set as the set of points for which 0 is outside of the Julia set for that point. The Mandelbrot set could then be considered the collection of all Julia sets--or, to be more practical, all Julia sets of c, with |c| less than or equal to 2--and a function from this disc of radius 2 to the set {0, 1} whose values are determined by whether or not 0 is in that Julia set (which is nothing more than the process "look to see if 0 is in the Julia set"). To get from x^2 + c to the Julia set of x^2 + c, we simply repeatedly iterate the complex plane, and keep only those values that don't go off to infinity. Now, I'm no information theorist (having only a BS in math, so far), but from what I see, the only place information is added by the algorithm is in iteration or "looking at 0." (To be fair, there is also code which cuts off the algorithm after so many iterations, for otherwise the algorithm would run forever; but this is not actually part of the construction of the Mandelbrot set, so I find no problem ignoring it.) Now, iteration is often interpreted as modelling the passage of time; so is Dembski saying that information is added by the passage of time? If that's the case, then his attempts to discredit evolution can easily be handled by noting that the increase of information he says is found in going from "lower" to "higher" evolutionary forms is the result of the passage of time; after all, reproduction and natural selection are merely iteration, and modification of the system at each iteration. Current Mood: hungry (Comment on this)
Thursday, November 3rd, 2005
4:37 pm	The Poincaré Conjecture -- proven?! Today in topology class, the professor mentioned that someone has submitted a proof for the Poincaré conjecture, which is still undergoing scrutiny, but by all appearances, it seems to be true. Read more about it here: http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/000702.html I find one of the responses funny - the one by the guy claiming to have proven the Goldbach conjecture (every even number bigger than 2 is the sum of two primes) and the twin primes conjecture (there are infinitely many primes p such that p + 2 is also a prime). I just like the idea of these two major problems being solved in a thesis paper. Oh, those crazy number theorists! Current Mood: amused Current Music: the tv (Comment on this)
Monday, October 24th, 2005
7:51 am	Why fact-checking is, in general, a good idea. In the comments section of a recent online news article (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3157331%2C00.html, originally posted by puripnon), someone asked, "What have the Arabs done?" Having taken a course in the history of mathematics, I felt obliged to answer. Well, someone responded to my reply: "#38 reveals pure myth which has been totally debunked by historians in recent decades. It was the Arabs who destroyed the great library at Alexandria and burned all literature apart from the Koran. In those days the destruction of Jewish centers of learning was so complete, the Jewish scholars feared knowledge of the Biblical language would be lost to future generations. That's why they added notations to Hebrew to preserve the pronunciation (vowels and cadence). As #39 noted, it was later more secular Moslem (not Arab) states who helped preserve learning. But during the horrible destruction of the Arab conquests, learning was destroyed, not preserved." Thank goodness for those more secular Moslems! -- wait a second . . . And yes, I did take the time to point out that Islam describes the religion (whose followers are Moslem), whereas "Arabic" describes the ethnic group. It's always fun being "corrected" by a dumbass. Current Mood: smug (Comment on this)
Sunday, October 23rd, 2005
6:30 pm	Some ideas in the direction of the formation of the perfect society. To make up for my last entry, I here provide one more serious, in spite of how the subject line sounds. I was thinking earlier about academic specialization. Given the amount of information in the various fields of study, it is obviously necessary; but -- and I'll admit here and now, the following assertion is made for purely selfish reasons -- the information must at some point be made into a coherent whole, and specialization makes this difficult. This is why I believe that skilled interpreters are vitally important for society -- in-betweens in discussion who can clearly communicate the ideas between two groups. Or maybe all the groups would have their own interpreters, and they'd send out the interpreters to meet and discuss ideas. I just realized that I never really had anywhere I was going with that. However, having recently heard Kansas's "Carry On, Wayward Son" again, I've decided to flesh out some Zelda fanfiction I've started on. (The idea is to write fanfiction masquerading as sociology papers; and one idea was songfic based on Wayward Son, describing Dark Link's loss of sanity.) Current Mood: creative Current Music: "Ramblin' Man"--the Allman Brothers Band (Comment on this)
10:14 am	A Call for the Protestation of Mole Day In chemistry, Avogadro's number is the amount of molecules of a substance in a gram of that substance; its value is roughly 6 * 10^23. A mole of a substance is one gram divided by this value. At some point, someone decided to take this value and make a (joking) holiday out of it; with this I have no problem. However, it was decided to use the 10^23, while completely dropping the 6, making today, 10/23, Mole Day. The thing is, however, the 10 comes into play only because we use a decimal system, so that the 6 is far more important than the ten. I recommend using the notation 6 E 23, which IIRC is engineering notation for 6 * 10^23; in this case, Mole Day would fall on June 23. Edit: It's been a while since I've taken chemistry, so my definition of a mole may be wrong. However, since the relevant value is Avogadro's number, of which I am certain of the value, this does not affect my argument for June 23 as being more deserving of the title Mole Day. Current Mood: geeky (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Monday, September 12th, 2005
9:01 am	Clarification: why I felt it wrong for Israel to be in Gaza A few days ago, I put up a post about Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. I shall now try to explain why I feel the way I do on the whole Israel-Palestine situation, and it mostly has to do with my distrust of the military. First: apparently, necklaces with the image of Palestine were considered contraband. This isn't even like Americans wearing flag pins, which I'm guessing is more nationalism, a "celebration of the greatest country in the world." Where one is from and grew up is part of one's identity. These people weren't allowed to express the idea, "This is where I'm from"? Second: reports of the Israeli military being jackasses to Palestinian civilians, including a report of an Israeli soldier having an apple stand torn down, with the soldier claiming it was done in the search of a terrorist (looking for the link; if I can find it again, I'll edit this journal entry to include it). Now, the military -- any military -- has had assholes in it. For instance, there is a movie, Casualties of War, based on actual events, about a troop of American soldiers in the Vietnam war, who are denied a weekend on the town, so they kidnap, rape, and murder a Vietnamese civilian. And it was a Roman soldier who, against orders, killed Archimedes, one of the greatest mathematical and scientific minds of all time. And in typing all this, I have reminded myself of the events, very much bumming myself out. Current Mood: sad Current Music: none playing (Comment on this)
Monday, August 15th, 2005
11:15 am	Why I hate PETA A while back, I revealed how I'm vegetarian, and spoke on that topic some. Today, I shall talk on why I do not like that infamous organization, PETA. My main reason for not liking PETA is that I do not believe the are living up to their name; a better name, I think, would be "People for the Moral Treatment of Animals." My reason for thinking this is that I distinguish morals from ethics by saying that ethics are those beliefs a person comes to on its own, whereas morals are imposed on a person (a POV which made so much sense when I read it in When HARLIE Was One, that I took it, and made it my own). Personally, I believe that no person has the right to impose personal ethics on another person, especially when those ethics carry some risk. When I became vegetarian, I realized there was some risk that I would not get sufficient nutrients, and I accepted this risk. It seems to me obvious that it is not right to force such a risk on another person (or indeed animal). I also feel that PETA is too strict. Ignoring the fact that they promote veganism, the strictest variant of vegetarianism, which does not allow the use of eggs or dairy, they still have one website in which they promote protection of the jellyfish, an animal with no brain, therefore no capacity to feel pain: "This summer, if you care about animals, avoid animal exhibits like jellyfish at the beach." To their credit, the only argument of theirs I could find regarding the protection of sea sponges was ecological in nature -- to wit, that they are "[b]ecoming scarce." Current Mood: pensive Current Music: traffic outside (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, August 3rd, 2005
9:31 am	Thoughts on the Asimov-Clarke agreement For those who have not heard of it, the Asimov-Clarke agreement is an agreement between Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke which states that Asimov is the best science fiction writer (with Clarke being second best), and that Clarke is the best science writer (with Asimov being second best). Personally, I do not find this to be true. For those of you who know me, you might find it shocking that I would say this, but I do not think Isaac Asimov is the best science fiction writer. My reasoning goes as follows. A science fiction writer is a writer of science fiction. The science fiction part of it entails an aspect of artistry, but an sf writer is also a writer, and this carries with it an amount of craftwork. That is to say, I believe that a science fiction writer should be judged not only by the artistry and imagination of the story, but also by the technical writing skill of the work -- that is to say, both by the content and the form. Now, I agree that Asimov's stories are the best I've read, particularly in the way they incite the imagination of the reader, and for this, I will readily agree that Isaac Asimov is the best science fiction storyteller who ever lived. However, I believe that the way Samuel Delany uses the form of his stories to mold the content (such as in Dhalgren) is indicative of an excellent writer, and it is to him I would award the title of best science fiction writer. Say what you will, but I feel that Asimov would have been proud of how I was able to put my hero-worship aside, and address the issue through reason. To return to the issue of the interplay between form and content: as I wrote above, I currently consider the ability to use the relationship between form and content to further expression of whatever ideas the author wishes to express to be the ultimate measure of technical writing skill, and I am currently of the opinion that this ability is the defining skill of the poet (see, for example, Ginsberg's America, ee cumming's l(a, or Millay's I will put Chaos into fourteen lines). This is not to say that I believe poesy to be the highest form of written expression; rather, I view it to be like a flavoring, where one puts in just so much of the poetic skill as the work needs, without overpowering the other ingredients. Current Mood: satisfied Current Music: None (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Thursday, July 28th, 2005
1:17 pm	Speaking out against evolutionary theory and life origins theory I will give Creationists credit where they deserve it: current scientific explanations for how we got here go against common sense. In fact, this is sort of the reason I like the idea, because I can see in the mathematical concepts behind these theories why that which would otherwise seem so obvious -- namely, that something so intricate and complex as life could not develop on its own -- is wrong. And though the Creationists are wrong in fact, the Darwinists are wrong in tact, for we are asking people to believe the idea based on arguments the understanding of which requires specialization in a particular field of science. There are two questions I believe need to be answered in addressing this problem. First, just to get a list on paper so we have something to work with, I ask: why do we believe evolutionary theory and life origins theory are the best scientific explanations for life as we know it? And second, I ask: having made a list of reasons, how can we explain these reasons to, say, someone who only has a high school diploma, or even to someone who dropped out of high school? Current Mood: contemplative Current Music: none (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Thursday, July 21st, 2005
10:43 am	Anti-zionism vs Anti-semitism The question of the relationship between Anti-zionism and anti-semitism is a complicated one to answer (see, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Zionism). There are those who claim that the positions are identical; there are those who claim otherwise. (For the record, I am of the latter group.) Now, if they are indeed different, surely they must be close enough to be easily confused, for otherwise would there be any serious disagreements as put forward on the wikipedia discussion page? The problem, then, is to find an analogous pair of concepts which are more clearly distinct. I believe I have found them, after reading the article Among the Believers. I believe the question of anti-zionism versus anti-semitism is close to that of nationalism (insofar as it means "the doctrine that one's national culture and interests are superior to any other") versus patriotism ("love of and devotion to one's country"). I am of the opinion that anti-semitism is the dislike of a particular culture, whereas anti-zionism is comparable to the revulsion some might feel when confronted with a red-blooded American sheep who thinks that other countries exist only to serve the US. Now, it is not the idea of Zionism I object to; it is, rather, the actions, in response to the Gaza pullout, who call themselves Zionists that I find disgusting. I realize that it is unfair to judge all Zionists by the actions of a few obsessed enough to risk jailtime for The Cause, but emotions are not rational, and are difficult to overcome in the search for objectivity. According to the article "Among the Believers," one of the more extreme Zionists, Benny Elom, is trying to get (presumably American) Christian conservatives to put the question of Israel's border on par with "gay marriage and family values" (the article implies that these are Elom's own words). And ya know the type of Christian conservatives who he's trying to target? Only such upstanding folk as James Vineyard and Jerry Falwell. Though other Christian conservatives join the movement on their own free will, such as Southenuh Earl Cox, whose story, according to the article, goes as thus: "Four years ago, I didn't really know any Jews. Didn't much like them, either," he admits. But a trip to Jerusalem a few days after the start of the second intifada in 2001 started a "transformative process." Within months, he was back in Israel with a "message from God" and a sweeping pro-Israel marketing campaign that included funds for terror victims, TV and billboard advertising, and "awareness-raising" trips for conservative American opinion-makers. Now he's moved into a Jerusalem hotel for the year and launched a self-funded radio show, spending millions of his own money to give Israeli politicians a bully pulpit in the Bible Belt. Am I the only person here reminded of Lee Strobel? My main point is this: the Gaza strip may have been the Jewish ancestral homeland, but much more recently, it was the homeland of Palestinians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Days_War), who lost their homes and property. Granted, even more recently, it has been divided up amongst different people of different ethnic groups, and I'm not suggesting just kicking them out on the street. I just have a habit of getting annoyed at people who can only see the world in black and white. Current Mood: annoyed Current Music: in my head: "Shades of Grey," Billy Joel (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Sunday, April 10th, 2005
4:24 pm	My favorite proof in mathematics. For those who have no desire to hear about math, bear with me; I will resume my usual non-mathematical philosophical ramblings in May, preferably after finals. I would describe what initially drew me to mathematics, but that event is beyond my memory; however, I suspect it has to do with being praised for what skill I had shown early on in the area of maths (and that my fate might have been sealed by a presumed precocity of mine for memorizing multiplication tables is something I am now finding somewhat worrisome). Another event which may have helped push me toward becoming a student in math was the time I exhibited an skill at accepting information -- in this case, from Square One, a PBS show dedicated to teaching primary- and secondary-school mathematics (oh, how I have longed for a spinoff series dedicated toward explaining more clearly concepts I struggled through in undergraduate and graduate level mathematics!) At the time, my sister was enrolled in high school geometry, and that night she was working problems involving finding the value of one angle of a triangle given the values of the other two. Well, a few days before that, I had seen on Square One that the sum of the angles was always 180 degrees; and though I was only in fifth or sixth grade, I took for granted that the problem was one of simple arithmetic. Thus, in the manner of most great heroes, I used deceit and subterfuge (in this case, hiding the simple bit of information I recalled) to achieve renown (in this case, showing up my sister, and impressing my mother and sister). However, what I do remember is one of the most beautiful proofs I have ever seen, and it is beautiful because of its simplicity. In mathematics, there is a structure known as a group, which is just a set of objects, and a method of combining two of those objects to represent some other object in the set, according to some rules. For example, all the numbers, together, form a group under addition. Think about it: add two numbers together, and you get another number; if a, b, and c represent numbers, then (a + b) + c = a + (b + c); there is a number, 0, which does nothing to any number it's added to, and here 0 is called the identity element; and every number has a counterpart which cancels it out under addition -- that is, every number has an inverse (such as, 2 and -2). For generality, let's say we don't know what group we're working with; all we know is that it's a group. Well, that tells us only that there's an identity element (let's call it 'e'); and for any object -- picking one at random and calling it 'a' -- in our group, there is another object (call it 'b') which cancels out a; that is, ab = e. However, note that 'a' cancels out 'b,' as well! And there we have it: if 'b' is the inverse of 'a,' then 'a' is the inverse of 'b'! I find it beautiful in how the proof is achieved just from shifting focus from the 'a' to the 'b.' Next time, I shall address the issue of the relationship between science and math, and between science and religion, in a Christianity-friendly manner! Current Mood: creative Current Music: the music does not play right now (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Friday, April 1st, 2005
2:41 pm	It's April 1. Yay. I'm currently in the third floor computer room of Lockett, after stopping by the Student Health Center. The mole I have on my left shoulder appears to be growing, so I set up an appointment. Le sigh. And on a different note, April is apparently Mathematics Awareness Month, so what better way to kick it off than by talking about math? My first entry shall be from the website of Charles W. Hart, a member of the Fellowship of Christian Magicians. The page in question is http://chuck.charleshart.net/Mathomagic.php. "Mathematics is found in all of life, and much of magic uses math as an underlying principle. When the underlying principles are understood, a routine can be modified to fit a particular event or theme. When a trick is based on mathematics, or even has a mathematical component, then knowing the math gives you that ability to change your routine." The author then goes into a card trick called "Last Two Cards Match." Hint: the number of letters in the phrase is important. "For a Gospel message, use six pairs and the words 'Jesus, Lord, Son of God.'" And there we have it, folks! A Christian using knowledge his audience lacks to make the audience think God is at work, when the phenomenon can be explained by science and/or mathematics! Oh, and if you're wondering, the April Fool's joke is that I actually won't be using this month as an excuse to bash Christianity (no matter how tempted I am to indulge in stereotyping), because I aspire to Asimovian objectivity. There really is such a thing as Mathematics Awareness Month, and it really is April. Edit: However, having read further, I see that the site gets more insidious. After going into a prop which mathematically allows him to force one of four choices, he writes as follows: "I then pose this question: When we read the gospels, just who is this Jesus? There are three possibilities: he is a liar, a lunatic, or … just who he said he is: the Son of God - the Lord. I have three tags: Liar, Lunatic, Lord - and I assign these labels to the three balloons by using the dartboard to force the color for each (obviously forcing the 'Lord' to the center). Running the needle through all three cylinders pops 'Liar' and 'Lunatic', but not 'Lord'." (His placement of punctuation is unchanged; I merely changed double-quotes to single-quotes, as should be done with quotes inside a quotation.) Current Mood: mischievous Current Music: in my head: "Benny and the Jets," Elton John (Comment on this)
Monday, February 14th, 2005
9:52 pm	Happy Victory over Day! Your LJ Valentines Day LiveJournal Username First Name Age Will send you a dozen roses lapwolf Will tell you they love you puripnon Will ask you out to dinner ratherfreakish You will meet at the bar later sang_et_mort You will end up in bed with jon_raleigh Quiz created by xxriotgurlxx at BlogQuiz.Net LiveJournal Memes at Blog Quiz Apparently, Jon's pretty busy tonight. Also, it would seem he's due over here some time soon for a three-way. In other news, there's a new fundie on the circuit. Watch out, Brother Jeb! Current Mood: rockin' Current Music: The Cure, "Just Like Heaven" (VH1 Classic) (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Sunday, February 6th, 2005
3:46 pm	On brooms; the anti-Objectivist; and shameless advertising for an artist Before there were dirty floors, Were there brooms? After the edit I made to my evolutionary theory post of a while back, I read through the pdf I linked, and the seventh myth listed on that pdf got me to thinking: if there were no dirty floors, would there be brooms? I'm not talking about an issue of motivation -- that if there were no dirty floors, maybe people wouldn't build brooms. I'm saying, if a person has a construction of some sort of straw wrapped by a wire around the end of a wooden stick in such a manner that it resembles what we (you, the reader, and I, the writer) would call a broom, but which is not used to sweep a dirty floor, would it still be a broom? Or, if you will allow, I would like to use what I call the argument from palm frond: if a palm frond is cut loose, and used to sweep away dirt, is it then a broom? and if it is afterwards used as a fan, is it still a broom? Oh, and for the record, I would like to state in reference to the evolutionary theory pdf's usage of the word "myth" that, as a mythology buff, I am mildly annoyed by its popular usage to describe something which is merely untrue, much as I am annoyed by the similar usage of the word "fiction." And for those who would so vulgarize the phrase "science fiction," I ask that you at least not do so in my presence. Why I hate Objectivism The short answer: Objectivism was founded by someone who didn't understand the logic she was using. The longer answer: Objectivism tries to apply the rather black-and-white Aristotelian system of logic to the much more colorful spectrum of human experience. For example, here is a site which describes relativity and quantum mechanics as "corrupt philosophies." The basic argument of Objectivism as presented on this site is: 1. Things are what they are. 2. There is only one reality, namely the way things are. 3. Knowledge is obtained by reasoning in accordance with how things are. 4. Man has capacity to reason and use logic. 5. Knowledge is objective and attainable by man. The flawed reasoning lies squarely in the first two steps. The problem with step one is that identity holds only for one instant in one place, because the universe -- and everything in it -- is a dynamic system. If, for instance, you combine HCl (hydrochloric acid) and NaOH (sodium hydroxide) in a beaker, you will produce H20 (water) and NaCl (salt) -- neither of which is HCl nor NaOH. The problem with step two is that things may be the way they are, but the way they are is very intricate, and we know so little about how it all works, to the point that strict Aristotelian logic is insufficient for coming to any useful conclusions about the way things are. Soon after that, the site claims that relativity theory "denies objectivity of knowledge" (which is untrue; relativity theory claims that physical properties vary according to reference frame, not according to the person in that reference frame), and that "quantum theory denies identity itself" because "particles do not have definite properties" (which is absurd; just because an electron doesn't have a definite spin doesn't make that electron any less that electron). To sum up, Ayn Rand would apparently have us believe that we are all denizens of Neverland, where people never grow up -- for otherwise, the height of a person would be an indefinite property. Talk about your fantasy world. (For bonus points, name the logical fallacy I just used!) Attention All Artists! Are you interested in working on a webcomic, but you don't have any really good story ideas? Well, you're in luck, for I have plenty of great ideas, but I can't draw! Be warned, however. If you would be uncomfortable working on a project which pokes fun both at Christianity and militant atheism, and which mildly pokes fun of anime and furry fans; if you would be uncomfortable working on a project which would have you drawing images which could be construed as pornography (as a result of my rather fucked-up sense of humor); if you would be uncomfortable drawing pictures of real (to the characters) and imagined (by the characters) violence; if you would be uncomfortable working on a project which supports homosexuality and consentual kink (and nonconsentual kink only in fiction); or if you've never read any of the comics by Rumiko Takahashi, at least in translation, then, for your own sake, do not apply. The website can be found here. Also, guys: help fight prostate cancer -- masturbate! (Warning: that last link is to a porn linksite.) Current Mood: contemplative Current Music: "Stay," by Shakespear's Sister (Comment on this)
Wednesday, February 2nd, 2005
6:39 pm	Thirtysomething will be right back after these messages. You Are 30 Years Old 30 Under 12: You are a kid at heart. You still have an optimistic life view - and you look at the world with awe. 13-19: You are a teenager at heart. You question authority and are still trying to find your place in this world. 20-29: You are a twentysomething at heart. You feel excited about what's to come... love, work, and new experiences. 30-39: You are a thirtysomething at heart. You've had a taste of success and true love, but you want more! 40+: You are a mature adult. You've been through most of the ups and downs of life already. Now you get to sit back and relax. What Age Do You Act? Current Mood: rocking Current Music: in my head--"Paradise City" by Guns n Roses (Comment on this)
Friday, January 21st, 2005
8:48 am	So I guess I'd be a goth, except that I listen to classic rock? You scored as Winter. You are WINTER. You're more introspective, thinking deeply, feeling deeply. You love nothing better than to enjoy one on one time with those who are important to you. You are cautious, and sometimes second guess yourself. Dreams, though you have them, are a luxury, because life is not a plaything. </td> Winter 70% Fall 40% Spring 30% Summer 25% What Season Are You? created with QuizFarm.com Current Mood: loved Current Music: the music has fallen silent (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Wednesday, January 19th, 2005
8:29 pm	Country: 0%. I'm pure! You scored as Classic Rock.. Classic Rock. </td> Classic Rock. 75% Indie 63% Indie Rock 58% Britpop 54% Punk and Pop Punk. 50% Hardcore 42% Emo & More 38% Mainstream 33% Industrial 21% Hip Hop and Rap 17% Ska 13% Country 0% Music Recommendation created with QuizFarm.com Current Mood: nauseated Current Music: Dido, "White Flag" (oh, the irony! -- help me) (Comment on this)
Tuesday, January 18th, 2005
10:45 am	My new schedule. Due to some trouble I had last semester, I had to overhaul my schedule. So behold: my new schedule! T Th 12 - 1:30 MATH 4025 Optimization Theory and Applications 1:30 - 3 MATH 4039 Introduction to Topology 3 - 5 MATH 7999 Communicating Mathematics II MWF 12:30 - 1:30 MATH 4038 Mathematics Models in Engineering Current Mood: clean Current Music: the humming of an air conditioner (Comment on this)