Joseph F. Smith had a classical understanding of time, and that is important

In 1918 Joseph F. Smith had a revelation on the Savior's visit to the spirit world and the redemption of the dead. Leading up to this revelation he had many questions weighing on his mind brought on by recent family deaths and his own reckoning with mortality.

While explaining his thinking leading up to the revelation Joseph F. Smith said,

25 I marveled, for I understood that the Savior spent about three years in his ministry among the Jews.... 27 But his ministry among those who were dead was limited to the brief time intervening between the crucifixion and his resurrection; 28 And I wondered at the words of Peter—wherein he said that the Son of God preached unto the spirits in prison... and how it was possible for him to preach to those spirits and perform the necessary labor among them in so short a time. (D&C 138:25-28)

Part of what made Joseph F. Smith ask his questions in the first place was the fact that he could not see anyway for the Savior to have sufficient time to preach to so many people who had already died. Without realizing it Joseph F. Smith had certain implicit metaphysical assumptions that determined what kinds of questions he would ask and what kinds of answers he would look for. Joseph F. Smith operated with a certain subconscious understanding of time that created a paradox that necessitated an answer.

If Joseph F. Smith had lived much later in our day and had asked the same question, "How could the Savior do more in three days than he had done in three years on Earth?" he would have different options available to answer this question regarding time. But for him, this question presented an unresolvable paradox. If members of the Church did not have the benefit of Joseph F. Smith's revelation and asked the same question today, a number of people would probably invoke the principles of relativity and relative time.

Possible answers could have included things like, "The flow of time is different in the spirit world.", or "Time is only something relevant to mortality, so the Savior was not bound by time constraints in the spirit world." Any of these answers would have lessened the urgency of resolving the three day time constraint on the Savior, and could have possibly lead Joseph F. Smith to consider his questions differently, or even a different set of questions.

Because of the proliferation of Einstein's theories of relativity we have a very different fundamental understanding of time than people previously had. Generally we do not even realize the immense difference in how we collectively understand time compared to even 100 years ago. The idea that time can flow at different rates, or that time is relative to the observer, has so permeated our society that major Hollywood movies can use the idea as a crucial plot point and we do not even consider how strange a concept it is for time to flow differently or fail to grasp the relative nature of time. Even the concept of time travel is a relatively modern concept that we do not realize entirely depends on certain crucial ontological concepts of time that have only entered our collective consciousness in the past 100 years.

For Joseph F. Smith his subconscious concept of time worked very differently from ours. He was not acculturated to a relative or even a dimensional understanding of time. For him time was the same for everyone, everywhere including the spirit world, and, even though it was subconscious and unintentional, how he understood time was central to the paradox that he faced. If he had a different subconscious concept of time then his approach to the question of how did the Savior accomplish in three days what he did not manage to do in three years would have turned out differently. Perhaps he would not have pondered the question in the same way, or he would have gone looking in different directions for different answers to resolve the issues that weighed on his mind.

My point is, when Joseph F. Smith was faced with certain questions, the ones that were the most paradoxical for him and presented the greatest challenge, were the ones that were only present because of how he subconsciously viewed time. The implicit cultural assumptions he unintentionally held placed boundaries on the kinds of questions he would ask, and the kinds of answers he sought. His ontology (his fundamental understanding of the nature of existence) informed the structure of the questions and paradoxes he faced.

In this case the unstated, and unintentional, prepositions of Joseph F. Smith lead him to a question that could be answered by revelation. In fact, his assumptions about the nature of time made his questioning possible. If he had a different understanding of time then he may not have been forced to reckon with his uncertainty in the same way. So his subconscious assumptions on the nature of time were beneficial and greatly simplified the issue he was considering. But it does not always turn out that way.

Quite often we are faced with paradoxes or questions we cannot find an answer for. Frequently the paradox only exists because of the subconscious, unintentional choices we have made in understanding the world. Many times I see people of faith asking some form of the question, "How does XYZ work if ABC?" or, "How can XYZ be true when ABC is true?" For them these are paradoxical questions for which there is no solution. But quite often the paradox only exists because of unstated assumptions they have made without even realizing it. Many such questions, such as the relationship between science and religion, are entirely dependent on subconscious assumptions we have made regarding the nature of science, scripture, authority, and revelation (not to mention epistemology, language, metaphysics, and God himself).

Sometimes the answer to someone's question simply requires the right information with an acceptable explanation. But other times the paradox lies entirely in unstated assumptions the person has made. These are the most difficult to address, because recognizing our own unstated assumptions about reality, and identifying them as the source of our confusion, is perhaps one of the most difficult human tasks in existence. It is easier to change someone's behavior than it is to make them realize that the intractable paradoxes that seemingly have no resolution are the result of unintentional assumptions they have made about the nature of reality itself. And the most difficult of these already difficult conflicts are the ones that are most closely bound to someone's identity.

In summary, I have used the example of Joseph F. Smith and the questions he faced about the spirit world to point out certain assumptions he had about the nature of time that may be very different from our assumptions today. Using this, I introduced the idea that the assumptions we unintentionally and subconsciously make can, in part, determine the types of questions we ask, and what we might consider to be an intractable paradox. Some questions can be answered through discovering new information, but other more paradoxical questions can only be resolved by considering what underlying assumptions we have unintentionally made about reality. Addressing these more paradoxical questions is a difficult endeavor that takes patience, experience, and practice. But by first recognizing that these unstated assumptions exist we can be more aware of assumptions that make some questions seemingly unanswerable, and ultimately give us a path towards resolving these paradoxes. Sometimes finding the answer to a question requires realizing that we are asking the wrong question.

Beauty and the Beast as Moral Philosophy

Over the past few years it has become fashionable to provide criticisms about Disney movies and "Disney Princesses". Some of these criticisms are in jest while others definitely are not. While social commentary can be leveled at just about any part of our society, sometimes we do ourselves a disservice by only looking at what is wrong, and never what it right about a story.

Because my children, like many others, like to listen to Disney songs and watch Disney movies I have had plenty of time to hear and ponder on the content of various Disney movies. Something that struck me about Disney's Beauty and the Beast is that almost the entirety of people's assessment of the movie centers around Belle. In discussions about the movie the Beast, though a major character, is interestingly enough treated like a plot device to challenge Belle, and not as an individual to be empathized with despite having the greatest character growth. If we consider the personal growth of the Beast we find the story of a man finding his humanity.  

The origin story of the Beast is what sets up the moral of the tale. He is someone who has all the material things he would ever need. The Beast has control over his domain and no one will challenge him in his desires. Because of this he did not treat those around him with humanity. To him they were nothing more than objects that can be treated or mistreated according to his whims. This is shown symbolically when the enchantress shows up and he refuses to help her even though it would not inconvenience him in any way to help her. Because of his objectification of everyone everyone around him literally become objects in his house, and he loses his humanity and is transformed into an inhuman beast. This forms the main tension between the Beast and Belle and her father, Maurice.

When Maurice arrives at the Beast's castle he is the first and only human to enter into the life of the Beast that resists objectification. Normally the Beast would have treated Maurice like everyone else, as an object, but Maurice resists being objectified because of the very human traits of self-sacrifice and love for his daughter. Because Maurice cannot be objectified this enrages the Beast who casts him into prison and treats him inhumanely.

When Belle arrives at the castle she, like her father, resists objectification and offers to take the place of her father. This self-sacrifice demonstrates a defining characteristic of what it means to be human. The Beast did not demonstrate the bare minimum of self-sacrifice and for that he was cursed to lose his humanity. But both Belle and Maurice resist objectification because of their self-sacrifice and love.

Confronted with the reality of Belle staying in the castle, the Beast invites her to better quarters and thus begins his journey back to humanity. As their relationship develops there is constant tension between his beastly nature and her very real humanity. She resists his anger, violence, and all attempts to force her to bend to his will, all of which are beastly and not human characteristics. She is surprised to discover that the objects in the castle are all people, but they, like the Beast, have lost their humanity. Even though they personally exhibit characteristics of self-sacrifice and love, because they did not resist the objectification by the Beast they too fell under the curse. Their personal human characteristics were not enough to save them because they allowed the Beast to treat them as objects and not as humans.

Even though Belle can resist objectification, it is not possible for her human nature and his beastly nature to coexist. This comes to a head when he reacts violently to her entering the most personal and private part of his life. She finds that at the center of his private chambers a place containing his human insecurity which is symbolized by a fragile and dying flower. But his violent and inhuman reaction to his own weakness causes her to flee. 

The only thing that prevents her from leaving for good is because he follows her and demonstrates his first real human action of self-sacrifice. In protecting her from the wolves he is injured. In response to this very human action Belle responds with humanity and takes him back to the castle and stays with him. The Beast's transformation back to humanity began when Belle showed self-sacrifice and took the place of her father. The first part of the Beast's transformation finished when he finally reciprocated with his own self-sacrifice.

Here we have a contrast between his beastly nature and her human nature. But just as his beastly nature will ultimately prompt a beastly and violent response by the towns people, Belle's human nature prompts a human response from the Beast demonstrating that no one is beyond salvation as long as they are treated with humanity. Human actions beget more human actions, and beastly actions beget more beastly actions, but humans can always choose their humanity over being a beast.

After this event Belle exhibits the other part of human nature which is love. Just as she first showed her humanity through self-sacrifice she is the first to show her humanity through her love for the Beast. Because the Beast has regained a portion of his humanity he can he can now share his library with Belle, which symbolizes human learning and wisdom, demonstrating a reawakening of his humanity. During his process from beast to human he has to relearn all the things that can make him human, such as cleanliness, manners, dressing, dancing, music, and all artistic endeavors.

When his transformation back into being human is almost complete he again lets Belle into his most private place. The place where he originally transformed into a beast and lost his human identity. The physical location in the castle where this took place symbolizes his innermost and private thoughts and desires. There he is lonely, violent, and without control countering the complete control he exhibits in the rest of the castle. But with Belle entering she brings humanity literally into his private quarters and figuratively into his private thoughts. It is there that he realizes that if he is to ever be human then he has to release her from his control. Human nature is something that an individual can choose to show, but it is not something that can be controlled. The very act of trying to control human nature destroys the humanity of those who are controlled.

In the way Gaston attempts to control Belle's love we find the contrast between the Beast and Gaston. The Beast had lost his humanity, but found it again and thus knows he cannot control Belle without destroying her humanity. Gaston on the other hand is extolled as being the paragon of manliness, but that belies his true beastly nature. In order to have the love of Belle, Gaston tries to control her, but that very act denies her humanity and prevents there being any love between him and her.

In the end the Beast can only complete his transformation back into being a human when Belle freely returns his love. It cannot be forced or controlled because that freedom is fundamental to human nature. Before that can happen the Beast must wrestle figuratively with his inner demons and literally with Gaston. In a symbolic final fight where Gaston displays his true beastly nature, and the Beast demonstrates his new human nature, Gaston is cast down and dies, but first mortally wounds the Beast.

Here the Beast displays the human traits of self-sacrifice and love, and in response Belle freely gives him her love allowing the curse to be broken and completing his human transformation.

From this perspective the story of Beauty and Beast is a very human story about a man rediscovering his humanity. Belle, the heroine of the story, demonstrates her moral character by maintaining her humanity even when everyone around her has lost theirs. The story teaches that the part of us that makes us human are things that cannot be controlled or forced, they must be freely given. Only when we freely demonstrate self-sacrifice and love can we find our humanity and separate ourselves from the beastly nature found inside each of us. And that is the story of Beauty and the Beast.

What stays the same when science changes?

"Science always changes so there's really no way know what is correct. Years from now everything we think we know could be wrong." -- Anonymous Internet Philosopher

That statement is so generic and I have seen so many countless permutations of it that I have no practical way of counting them. Every single time I have seen statements like that it is a subtle way for the person to say, "I don't want to talk about this anymore and no matter what you say I won't listen to you." This post is not for people like the anonymous commenter, but for people who have sincerely asked the question, "If everything in science can change, then what can we trust?"

So in the midst of the constant change of science what stays the same? Or does anything stay the same?

Let me give an example (I may have shared this story a few years ago). One day I was talking to an acquaintance and he asked me "What if it turns out that gravity isn't real?"

My response was simple, "Rocks still fall down. The Earth continues going around the sun. Gravity doesn't change."

What he was really trying to ask was, "What if gravity doesn't turn out to work the way we think it does?"

There is a difference between the two questions. One deals with what we observe, the other deals with our explanation of why it happened, and how we can predict future events. The former never changes, the latter can change.

One of the earliest explanations of gravity (that we know of) came from Aristotle. His explanation was standard explanation for almost 2,000 years. When Galileo first measured how objects accelerate due to gravity, and Riccioli confirmed his theory and made refinements to his measurement, the universe did not suddenly snap to conform to the new understanding. Things fell towards the Earth as they always had. Their motion remained the same. If you dropped a stone one day and then dropped another the next day the same thing would happen.

These basic observations are the things that do not change when science changes. Over 2,000 years ago Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth and also proved that it was a sphere. Since then our understanding of the shape of the Earth has not changed drastically. We still call it a sphere or a globe, but we have also found that it is not perfectly spherical. It bulges slightly at the equator. Our understanding of the shape of the Earth will change and grow as we make more observations, but our new observations will not change our previous observations. We will still view the Earth as roughly spherical.

What will NOT happen is we will wake up one morning and find that the Earth has been a flat disk all along. It won't suddenly become a doughnut shaped object. So when we say that science will change it means that our previous observations will only become more refined.

This brings us to the age of the Earth, which is almost always the topic that prompts the comments like the one I started with. In the years to come there will be changes and refinements to our understanding of the age and formation of the Earth, but just like the globe, we won't suddenly wake up one morning and find that scientists have figured out that they were wrong all along and that the Earth is actually 6,000 years old.

When changes in science come the changes must explain and agree with our previous observations. If we change the way we view the formation of the Earth, or how life evolved, what won't change is the rocks and fossils we analyzed previously. There are plenty of ways that our understanding of evolution may change in radical ways, but what won't change is the fact that it took millions of years, and that we have a part in it. Any new explanations we have must explain the evidence we have and what we currently observe.

Our explanations will become more refined and there may even be major shifts in our understanding, but the evidence will stay the same. Too often we fall into the trap of wanting the evidence to fit our worldview, but we must first make sure our worldview can accommodate the evidence.

The sentiment expressed by the quote at the beginning is a wish that in the future evidence will be found that makes everyone else conform to the worldview of anonymous, rather than a desire to find a worldview that accommodates all the evidence.

Science Requires Positive Evidence

Finding explanations to what we observe is the essence of what science is. At the simplest level is it looking at the world and making sense of why we see what we see.

The science comes when we seek explanations in a systematic way. We take what we have observed, find an explanation that fits what we have observed and then, and this is the hardest part, question our assumptions to see if we should change our explanation, or more likely, expand our explanation.

While I have written this as a simple processes, understanding this process requires applying the process of science to the process of science itself. In the end you end up with a greatly expanded understanding of how not just science works but also how we interact with the universe.

Explaining this is not something that can be done in a single blog post, or even a single book, but it is a lifetime of learning. What I can do is provide examples of how science is either properly or improperly applied. Here I will give one example of a misapplication of science.

A few years ago an asteroid, that we named ʻOumuamua, from outside our solar system passed through our solar system. This was the first asteroid to be positively identified as having an unbound orbit. It was something that got a lot of attention and there were a few ideas proposed, such as gasses venting from the inside, or even we had measured its shape and mass incorrectly because it was spinning rapidly, or any number of possibilities.

Two astronomers at Harvard proposed the idea that ʻOumuamua was actually a spacecraft from an alien race. Their argument rested on the fact that as ʻOumuamua began its journey out of the solar system its velocity was not changing as we would expect. Its velocity was consistently too high. This would mean that there was something giving ʻOumuamua a push on its way out.

There is nothing wrong with proposing that something is evidence for extra-terrestrial life, it is after all an open question in science. But their motivation for their conclusion was flawed. Their argument rested on the fact that our measurements of ʻOumuamua's motion did not fit with our other measurements of its properties. Put simply, there was a difference between what was measured and what was calculated for its speed.

The problem with the alien spaceship theory was that there was no positive evidence pointing towards that idea. There only existed uncertainty in how it's motion could be explained by our other measurements of ʻOumuamua.

In the measurements of ʻOumuamua there was some uncertainty of its dimensions, spin, composition, and mass. ʻOumuamua's motion was not outside the possibility that it was just an asteroid and nothing else, just unlikely. Thus its motion did not constitute positive evidence for ʻOumuamua being an alien spacecraft.

Something is positive evidence iff its presence, or our knowledge of it, can only be explained by the proposed theory. That is, if the explanations needed to accommodate the new observations break our current understanding and theories at a fundamental level.

In the case of ʻOumuamua the difference between the measurements and calculations did not fundamentally break our understanding of physics. It didn't even make it exceptionally difficult to find other explanations that did not require it to be an alien spacecraft. Hence it could not count as positive evidence for it being an alien spacecraft.

If, for example, ʻOumuamua had been emitting regular radio signals with a defined pattern, then that would be positive evidence. In our understanding of physics there is no way for a hunk of space rock to make radio signals with a regular pattern. But to have its motion be slightly off from what we calculated, that is not positive evidence. Therefore not only is the idea not supported by the evidence, but proposing the idea was not supported by the evidence.

The critical thing that separates new scientific ideas from normal speculation is that there must be positive evidence first. This is a minimum bar to separate science from non-science. Finding evidence of aliens is perfectly within the realm of science, but we must be careful because not all things can be positive evidence for aliens.

Why the Theory of the Multiverse is Unscientific

Note: I wrote this in another place in response to someone's question. We were discussing this video about the theory of multiverses that was posted to YouTube a few days ago.

Sean Carroll explains that there are two possibilities, either the branching is infinite or finite (I think that covers just about everything).

With infinite branching there would have to be an infinite amount of energy and time, because with an infinite amount of branching drawing from a finite pool of energy, at some point the energy would be exhausted. So there would have to be an infinite amount of energy. I heard Sean Carroll make exactly this argument at a talk a few years ago.

By his own admission, if there were an infinite amount of energy and time then ALL possible universes will be seen. This includes our current universe, complete with 13+ billion years of existence, AND it would mean that an exact copy of this universe exists except in that universe Harry Potter, Hogwarts, and magic are all real and part of the universe. There also exists a universe that consists of ONLY the room you are currently in, complete with computer/phone/tablet that give the appearance of you interacting with the outside world, but the outside world doesn't exist. And whenever you leave the room that universe will cease to exist.

Again these are all arguments that Sean Carroll makes himself.

But this means that there exists a universe like our own where there is no such thing as the multiverse and it behaves as if there were only one timeline and absolutely no branching. There would also exist a universe that looks exactly like ours but the multiverse exists just as he describes it.

But how do we know which one we are in? Because if we go looking for evidence and don't find it then we don't know if we are in the universe with no multiverses, or if we could be in a universe where it is impossible to detect the multiverse. Either way we can never know until we find evidence to conclusively show it one way or the other. But that evidence does not exist. So by his own logic, if the branching is infinite, and there is an infinite amount of energy, then we can never know if multiverses don't exist, or if we just haven't seen them yet. Either way the universe remains the same and the concept of multiverses means nothing.

Next, the second possibility he brings up is a finite amount of branching. This solves the infinite energy problem, but without an infinite amount of energy there is only one universe, even if locally it functions like a multiverse. (By local, that can mean just on earth, or within the visible universe 13+ billion lightyears away. On these scales the room around you and all the galaxies 13+ billion lightyears away are all considered local.) A locally branching multiverse would go against our current understanding of physics, but it would still be possible if and only if the things making it possible are beyond our current ability to understand, calculate, or observe.

In the video he admits this (starting at time 14:40) where he says "but the details hinge on quantum gravity, cosmology, the theory of everything, and all that stuff." He is essentially saying that there exists something that we don't know about right now that makes the multiverse work. This is essentially a scientific variation of the God of the Gaps argument. It comes down to "there is no other way for this to work, so there is something, we don't know what it is, that makes it work." You can call it quantum gravity, cosmology, the theory of everything, God, Bob your neighbor, magic, a lazy dog, or anything you want it doesn't matter. It simply is a "thing" that makes it possible for his idea to be correct.

But again, we have nothing that specifically points to a multiverse, so it doesn't matter what you call the thing that makes it possible, because in the end it is something undefined to support something unproven. You could just as easily say, "The magic of Harry Potter is real but the details hinge on quantum gravity, cosmology, the theory of everything, and all that stuff" and be just a scientifically valid. Which means not at all.

"But! There is MATH behind it!"
That's nice. You can put math behind any idea. It doesn't make it real.

There is no evidence that points us specifically towards a multiverse. There is no physical motivation other than to resolve a paradox that we made for ourselves. The paradox does not come from the universe. It comes from how we think about the universe. We do not resolve a paradox that we made ourselves by insisting that the universe change to fit our ideas. Our ideas must change to fit reality.

Objectivity, Quantum Mechanics, and Bad Logic

Recently I read a paper where some physicists were testing interesting repercussions of quantum mechanics. Their work made eye-grabbing headlines such as Objective Reality Doesn't Exist, Quantum Experiment Shows. That's quite a bold claim considering the long history in philosophy specifically on the question of subjectivity vs. objectivity. Seeing them confidently dismiss objectivity I knew I had to see why they were so confident of their conclusions. Unfortunately the physicists walked naively into a well known philosophical topic, like a knitting club into a Black Sabbath concert.

So let us take a look at what lead them to their conclusion that objective reality does not exist. This may get a little technical, but stay with me.

They designed an experiment that could specifically test objectivity (O), locality (L), and free will (F). They point out that previous proofs have established L and F, and LF together, so if they test OLF then the experiment can establish or undermine the idea of objectivity (O).

In their paper the physicists defined objectivity as the existence of "observer-independent facts, stating that a record or piece of information obtained from a measurement should be a fact of the world that all observers can agree on—and that such facts take definite values even if not all are “co-measured”." Thus they are testing whether a measurement creates an objective fact for everyone or if the result depends on the observer.

Locality means each measurement must happen in such a way that the result only depends on local factors and not on any other measurement in the experiment. (In technical language the future light cone of one measurement cannot be in the past light cone of another measurement.)

The last assumption is free will. The people in the experiment must be free to make their choice and not have their choice predetermined in any way, either by the first measurement or any outside factors.

In the experiment they have someone (who they call Alice) who is given a choice. In a lab Alice has a friend making measurements of individual photons. The friend can turn on a detector, thus choosing to measure any photons that come through, or turn it off, thus choosing not to make any measurements.

Alice can check what her friend measured, but cannot know before hand if her friend even had photons to measure. So Alice might check on her friend and find they didn't make any measurements because no photons passed through the lab.

Alternatively Alice can check to see if a photon went through the lab and that her friend could have possibly measured it. But Alice cannot check if her friend actually measured it and check if a photon went through the lab (in technical language Alice can measure whether her friend is entangled with a photon or not).

So there are four possibilities. The friend can choose to measure and Alice looks and confirms that her friend made a measurement. The friend can choose not to measure and Alice looks and confirms that no measurement was made. The friend can choose to measure and Alice doesn't look but establishes that her friend is entangled with a photon that could have possibly been measured but doesn't know if her friend measured it. Or the friend chooses not to measure and Alice doesn't look but checks if her friend is entangled with a photon.

In the actual experiment the physicists didn't have someone checking in on their friend. Instead "Alice" was a series of polarization filters and a detector, and the friend was a separate set of filters and a detector.

To make sure they were measuring what they thought they were measuring, the physicists set up their experiment such that there were two sets of detectors, "Alice" and "Bob", each with their own "friend". The photons measured by the friends were entangled which means what one measures will be the compliment of the other. This symmetry allows for easier checking for statistically significant results.

What the physicists found after running their experiment for a few months is that collectively their assumptions were being violated. That is, OLF all together were not consistent with what was being measured. Because both L and F, and LF had been proven through other proofs that meant that O was the weak link.

If OLF all together was true then regardless of whether Alice or Bob checked if their friends made a measurement, or checked if they could have made a measurement, then there should have been confirmation that a measurement was made either way. If Alice and Bob never checked directly on their friends but only measured whether they had an opportunity to make a measurement then they could know just from that whether their friends made a measurement.

But their results showed that neither Alice nor Bob could tell if their friend had made a measurement without actually looking at their friend. They could not infer from the mere possibility of a measurement that a measurement had been made.

This sets up a paradox. The friends can make a measurement and know definitively what state the photon is in, but for Alice and Bob it is as if a measurement had never been made. That is, there is no way for Alice a Bob to know that a measurement had been made without actually measuring their friends.

The "facts" created by their friends (i.e. what they measured) cannot transfer to any other observer without a real transfer of data. If a measurement is made, that measurement does not somehow change the fabric of reality such that we can know that something was measured, even if we don't know what the result was. That information only stays with the first observer and does not transfer in any way to any other observer without the second observer observing the first. It is like there is no master list of all interactions and measurements in the universe that someone could hypothetically look at.

But the major assumption is that once something has been measured, that fact is established and everyone in the universe should, in principle, be able to agree with it. But Alice and Bob cannot establish if a measurement even took place, thus for them that fact does not exist. The interpretation given by the physicists is that two realities exist concurrently. One where a measurement was made, and one where it was not made. This, they conclude, shows that what is "reality" depends on what measurements were made by a subject. Hence everything is subjective and there is no objective reality.

Now the physicists do not make their boldest claims in their paper. They keep it strictly technical and straight forward. I can find nothing to disagree with in their paper. I may not know the technicalities of their set up, but their experiment is not something so unknown that it makes their work suspicious. It is an experiment that would probably be talked about in an undergrad physics class. So their set up is standard and well known. Their methods are standard and well known.

I find nothing wrong with their conclusions in their paper. But like I mentioned at the start, they walked naively into a well known philosophical topic, like a knitting club into a Black Sabbath concert.

In their writings outside their paper they make conclusions that are not logically backed up by their research, nor even backed up by logic at all. Their experiment does show something interesting that there cannot be a "master list" of the states of all particles in the universe. That is, when an observer makes a measurement, that does not change the universe in such a way that anyone else can know that a measurement was made, let along know what the value was.

This shows that all observers are independent subjects. Each of our observations are our own. But this does NOT disprove objective reality.

In setting up the experiment, even just as a thought experiment the physicists had to assume "objective reality". They first had to have "observers" that could be established as observers. They had to have photons and everyone agree, objectively, as to what a photon was, and how to measure it. All of these are objective and are necessary for us to even have the concept of subjective.

David Hackett Fisher, a famous historian, wrote an entire book berating historians for their use of egregious logical fallacies. Even though his book was directed at those of his own profession, its concepts apply to all areas of academic study. It should perhaps be required reading for anyone getting a PhD. In his book he takes a moment to comment on "subjectivity" vs. "objectivity".

"'Subjective'" is a correlative term which cannot be meaningful unless its opposite is also meaningful. To say that all knowledge is subjective is like saying that all things are short. Nothing can be short, unless something is tall. So, also, no knowledge can be subjective unless some knowledge is objective." -- Historians Fallacies by David Hackett Fischer, Footnote 4, page 42-43.

Essentially these physicists, though very gifted, stepped out of their field of study and made a freshman level mistake of logic. In their hyperbole they jumped to an illogical conclusion. As one of my philosophy professors might say, "They abused the fundamental definitions of the words such that the words had no meaning." They showed that subjective knowledge is a thing and then extended that knowledge to encompass all knowledge. They fell victim to my favorite logical fallacy.

Without thinking about it they set up an objective experiment to show that objective reality does not exist.

Normally this is the point where someone would say, "Don't step out of your own field!" but I think that is also a fallacy. Instead I say, "Before jumping to conclusions try to think critically about your conclusions to see if they make sense. If you think you have come to some major conclusion that entirely overthrows everything we know, 99.998% of the time you messed up somewhere."

Zeus and Aristotle: Explanations of Lightning

A while back I was reading some comments on a blog and someone threw out a statement that made me stop and think for a moment, but definitely not in the way the commenter intended. I wasn't particularly interested in the conversation due to the contentious nature and general lack of epistemic humility, but for some reason his comment interrupted my skimming and made me ask, "Wait, how do you know that?" The statement in question was taken as plainly obvious by everyone involved that even in a contentious online debate no one called him on it and questioned his characterization of historical thought.

It was something so taken for granted that if I tried to question his assertion I would instantly be denounced as ignorant, petty, and "changing the subject" even though his underlying assumption was central to his whole argument, so I chose not to say anything.

As this particular commenter was launching into an elaborate explanation of why his views were right and everyone else's were wrong he stated, "When ancient Greeks 'explained' lightning as coming from Zeus, they were wrong." It was this comment that made me stop and think, "Yeah, but how do you know that is how Greeks explained lightning?"

In context he was using that statement to establish a line of reasoning that went something like this:

• People in the past were ignorant and believed in mystical, religious explanations of natural phenomena.
• As science advanced we had less ignorant explanations of natural phenomena.
• We are enlightened now with our scientific explanations of natural phenomena so we can ignore all the mystical mumbo jumbo of religion.

For him there was an obvious progression from ignorance to enlightenment and the beliefs of the Greeks formed the first data point. But the problem was, how did he know that his first data point was correct?

To put it another way, his argument rests on the idea that people in the past were incapable of making rational, well thought out, scientific arguments, and that now through the redemptive, mystical power of science mankind has been transformed into a blessed state of rationalism.

But all that depends on his first data point being correct.

So how does he know that the Greeks relied on mystical explanations of natural phenomena? On a similar note, how do we know that people today don't rely on mystical explanations for lightning? If you ask the average person on the street today what causes lightning would their answer typically be any more or less educated than the average person's understanding in ancient Greece? What about the average college educated, or the ancient Greek equivalent, person's answer?

So how would an educated Greek respond to the question of what causes lightning? Fortunately we can actually have an answer to that because we have some of the standard science texts from ancient Greece! In a 1965 article by H. Howard Frisinger in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society entitled “Early Theories on the Cause of Thunder and Lightning” Dr. Frisinger briefly the different theories of how lightning worked that were taught by various Greek philosophers.

All of the views of how lightning worked were based on the standard Greek physics of the four elements, earth, water, air, and fire. The theories taught by the Greeks, and the answer that your average educated Greek would give, generally attributed movements of air to be the cause of thunder (just like we teach today), and the motion or effects of fire (sometimes aether) as it interacted with the water and air in the clouds. There was debate about what came first the thunder or the lightning, and there was debate about whether or not one caused the other or if they were entirely separate phenomena.

The most widely accepted theory came from Aristotle who wrote that both thunder and lightning are a result of motions of air colliding with objects, such as clouds or other masses of air. If there was sufficient fire in the clouds then a lightning bolt would be formed, and depending on the purity of the fire you either get a defined bolt or a diffuse flash of light in the cloud. He made his arguments by looking at the evidence, such as when a local temple was struck by lightning, or how lightning was know to burn some kinds of materials but leave others unblackened.

These theories were put into the standard science textbooks of the day and would have been expected reading for an educated Greek. Just like today there would have been people who had no idea what the standard "scientific" explanation of lightning was. Then there would be people who were exposed to people who were educated and they might hear the explanation or ask for it. Then there would be educated people who had read extensively, but maybe not books on the weather. Then there would be people who had studied those things specifically and would be considered very knowledgeable on the subject, with a very select few who would be called experts and authorities. Just like it is today.

But all these ancient theories relied on the idea of the four elements! Where our ideas today do not! Surely that proves the point that we have progressed from ignorance to enlightenment!

On the contrary, it shows that ancient Greeks did not rely on mystical, religious explanations of natural phenomena to the extent that people like the commenter think they did. The educated Greek would not likely appeal to Zeus as an explanation for the cause of lightning. They gave natural explanations. These theories, books, and explanations were considered standard and authoritative up until the 1700's when new technologies made it possible to explore electricity and lightning through direct measurements.

Before that people did what they have always done, they gave rational explanations based on their understanding of the universe. In many conversations, and from students that I teach, and even from some of my professors I have seen expressed the idea that as a whole we have progressed from non-rational thought to more modern, enlightened, and rational way of thinking. Certainly our understanding of the universe has drastically changed, but when I read historical materials I find no evidence that that has happened.

There has not been the assumed progression from less rational to more rational thought as is commonly asserted by those who promote science and eschew religion. The evidence does not support that theory.

The Fundamentals of Philosophy

This is by no means a comprehensive introduction to philosophy, but it contains the basics. This is not what you would get by taking an intro philosophy course, mostly because at no point in any philosophy course would you typically get an introduction like this. These topics would be covered but never in a simple systematic way.

If physics is the study of how things move, and how the universe works, then philosophy is the study of how we think, and how we view the universe.

There are three main branches of philosophy: Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics.

Metaphysics deals with how we fundamentally understand how the universe works, and what makes up the universe. This sets what we consider to be "allowable". This includes things like whether matter is made up of atoms, strings, the four elements, or plum pudding. But it also includes how we view consciousness, the mind, and how we think.

If you want to know the metaphysics of a person then ask them to define, or describe consciousness. The answer they give will not tell you anything about what consciousness actually is, but it will teach you about their metaphysics.

Metaphysics can be broken down into several (sometimes non-exclusive) broad categories. Dualism is the idea that there are two (or dual) components to reality. The material, or physical world, and the world of "the mind" or spirit, or rational thought. Monism is the idea that there is only one nature and both matter and the mind derive from the same source. Materialism is the idea that everything is the result of the fundamental laws of physics and the interactions of particles. Materialists deny that "the mind" is a separate thing apart from the firing of neurons in the brain. Materialists are by definition monists, but not all monists are materialists. One example of non-materialist monists are Mormons. Classical Christianity, Islam, and a few other worldviews are fundamentally dualist.

Epistemology deals with how we know, and know about the world. Perhaps Professor Truman G. Madsen, who spent five decades dealing with philosophical questions, put it best when he said, "There are really only five main modes that have been appealed to in all the traditions, philosophical or religious: an appeal to reason, an appeal to sense experience, to pragmatic trial and error, to authority—the word of the experts—and, finally, to something a bit ambiguous called 'intuition.'."

Science falls squarely under the umbrella of epistemology. If anyone gets into a discussion about what science fundamentally is, it ultimately rests on an endorsement of a particular epistemology, and nothing else. On a fundamental level, science does not have a preferred metaphysics* or ethics.

Logic is a subset of epistemology, and is not synonymous with it.

Ethics deals with what we value. Your ethics determines how you interact with other people and animals, and occasionally things. This area of philosophy is usually the messiest and most contentious.

Ethics is strongly related to Aesthetics, since what we value is generally what we find beautiful, and what we enjoy is what we value.

A huge portion of religion deals with ethical questions.

These three, Metaphysics, Epistemology, and Ethics are all related to each other, and mutually supportive, and occasionally at odds with each other. That is, our metaphysics determines our epistemology and ethics. While our epistemology informs us of our metaphysics and ethics, while our ethics reveals our metaphysics and epistemology. One cannot have a particular metaphysics without a corresponding epistemology, nor ethics. Because once one is set the others will automatically be defined.

The short descriptions I have given above are by no means exhaustive, nor are the examples I gave all there is. The key is to know that there are these three parts to philosophy, and they are interconnected, related, codependent, reinforcing, and co-determining. They are also by no means static. The particular metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics of someone will definitely change over time.

Also it is possible, and very likely, for someone to have a particular metaphysics, epistemology, or ethics, and not be able to explain or articulate their thought, any more than most people could give a complex breakdown and accounting of their diet, including any and all nutrients. It is also possible to have the particular implementation of one of the three be incompatible with the others (people who smoke may also exercise).

But generally the position of any one of the three will determine the other two. The interrelationships are complex and usually take a great deal of effort of understand.

Most changes in someone's philosophy are subtle and almost imperceptible, but if there is a major shift in one of the three then that will precipitate a reevaluation of the other two.

Doing philosophy correctly can help uncover your own particular metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. It can show how the particular implementations may be incompatible. For example, if you really believe that everyone is created by God (metaphysics), then that should determine how you treat them (ethics).

We may not realize it but our ethics (and by extension our metaphysics and epistemology) are revealed by our aesthetics. Think about what movies, TV shows, books, stories, blogs, or news articles you like to consume. The kinds of entertainment we like, or the fictional characters we identify with, act as a litmus test for our ethics.

What art is hanging on your wall? Is it realistic, like photographs, or hyper realistic paintings? Or is it abstract? What is the subject matter? All these things can reveal how you fundamentally view the world, and how you think about knowing the universe.

Just as asking about how one views consciousness will reveal their metaphysics, what one surrounds themselves with, or their aesthetics, reveals their ethics, and ethics is codependent on their metaphysics and epistemology.


*I stated that science does not have a preferred metaphysics. That is not entirely true. Because science, as an epistemology, requires a corresponding metaphysics and ethics. It's just that the metaphysical and ethical demands of pure science are minimal. Most pronouncements regarding what we "should do" because of science, actually have nothing to do with science as an epistemology. When people make an appeal to "Science", or Science™, they are always, without realizing it, bringing a particular metaphysics and ethics along with them. Their assertions don't actually have much to do with the epistemological method known as science.

Please Don't Point Out Logical Fallacies

Pointing out logical fallacies is pointless. Though it is useful to study logical fallacies so that you can analyze your own thinking and make adjustments, but to point out the logical fallacies in someone else's thinking is entirely counter productive.

If you are in a disagreement with someone, by definition they do no view you as an authority on the subject and thus they are unlikely to accept your analysis of whether or not their thought process is fallacious or not. The reason why they think the thoughts they do is because they think their thought process is right, and no one likes to be told they are wrong.

The whole reason why they are disagreeing with you in the first place is because they think your thought process is out of order. So if you attempt to point out an error in their thinking they are not disposed to begin an introspective analysis of their thinking. Almost by definition, your thinking is in error, so any attempt to point out an error in their thinking will be rejected immediately. Thus it is pointless and counter productive to point out the fallacies in someone else's thinking.

This does not mean that you never point out logical fallacies, just do not expect the person you are critiquing to respond positively. It is also justified for certain egregious misuses of logic and reasoning, but not as a tool to convince those afflicted, but to warn those who are unconvinced and can be swayed by your reason, that is, those who have not taken a position yet.

But it is a very good idea to study logical fallacies so that you can improve your own thinking. A good place to start is by analyzing what other people say and see if you can pick out the logical fallacies. First start with arguments you disagree with. Those are the easiest. Next you move to arguments you have no opinion about one way or the other. This allows you to dispassionately assess the arguments. When you are comfortable with those you can move on to arguments that you naturally agree with. Those are the hardest arguments to analyze, with the exception of your own arguments. It takes a lot of humility to analyze your own thinking for fallacies.

Some good fallacies to start with are perhaps the most famous ones such as ad hominem, slippery slope, or the post hoc fallacy. Once you can identify fallacies in arguments that you already disagree with, then you can try moving on to something more difficult. Just remember that pointing out a fallacy in someone else's argument is (almost) never productive. I can think of one, and only one, case when I pointed out someone's fallacious thinking and it actually made an impact on them, and they admitted that I "got them" and for a moment their defenses were down and I was talking to a human being. Unfortunately it did not last.

Remember the point of studying fallacies is to eventually analyze your own thoughts and learn to remove fallacious thinking. When you do that then you can begin to build convincing arguments that can sway people to your position.

That it Exists: How Consciousness is Fundamental to the Cosmos

Recently I came across an article that was written as a response to a broader discussion regarding the nature of consciousness and the mind. The scientist writing the article took the position that all mental activity, and therefore all subjective experience, is just neurochemistry. That is, all thought can be reduced down to the motions of molecules in the brain.

His point was that we can trace neural pathways in the brain, and because we can do this we have discovered the source of consciousness. In making this assertion he was arguing against the possibility of consciousness being a separate entity apart from the measurable neurochemistry in the brain. His reasoning was that there was no evidence that human consciousness operated independent of the neuron activity in the brain. From a scientific stand point he has a very strong argument. There is no evidence that has ever been measured of human consciousness operating independent of a human brain. As he put it, "default hypothesis must be that brains cause consciousness." There is nothing to prove otherwise.

In making his argument that there is no evidence for consciousness independent of a functioning brain, he gave the following challenge in the form of a question.

"Where is the evidence for consciousness being fundamental to the cosmos?"

We must acknowledge that we have not yet observed free floating consciousnesses in the universe. We cannot look through a telescope, or in a particle accelerator, or in a microscope and observe a consciousness apart from the neural activity in our brains. So what evidence is there for consciousness in the universe?

That it exists.

Right now as you are reading this you are aware of your own existence. That fact alone is evidence that there is at least one consciousness, and that it is fundamental to the universe. You may also realize that you cannot observe, experience or measure my consciousness. You can observe the effects of my consciousness in how I act and talk, but you cannot directly observe my consciousness. (As a side note, if you were to insist that yours was the only consciousness in the cosmos and that everyone else were just clever machines then you would be slipping into the philosophy of solipsism.) So when the author of the article asked what evidence there was for consciousness being fundamental, the evidence is that it exists.

While his arguments may seem modern with their emphasis on neurochemistry, this argument is actually quite old and has been debated as far back as the ancient Greek philosophers. I can tell someone is a conscious being because of the way they act. I can observe their actions and how they react to language and conclude that they are an independent thinking being. All we have done with modern neuroscience is to do the exact same thing, but now with fancy equipment. It's a bit like inventing a car or an airplane and then concluding, "Now we have solved the puzzle of human motion! We now know how humans move!"

No, all we have done is take the same fundamental problem and wrapped it in a new shinier, more complex skin.

We have not solved the problem of consciousness. We still have not observed consciousness. We can observe the motions that result from consciousness, but we have not observed someone's self awareness. We may be closer to solving the riddle of human consciousness but we have not yet done it. Until then the idea that "brains cause consciousness" is not the "default hypothesis". To insist that "brains cause consciousness" is to assume a conclusion for which there is no evidence, while our own self-awareness is evidence that our consciousness is independent of our own neurochemistry,

Until we know what consciousness, or self-awareness, is, and not just its effects, we cannot say that we have no evidence of consciousness outside the measurable motions of neurochemistry. But we do have evidence that consciousness exists. Just think about it.

Escaping the Paradox: Heaps, Pirates, M. C. Escher and Language

There is an ancient paradox that goes something like this:

Imagine you have 10,000 grains of sand. If you had that much sand you would call it a heap of sand. Now imagine you remove one grain of sand so that you have 9,999 grains left. Is it still a heap? Yes, it still is a heap.

Remove one more grain of sand. Do you still have a heap of sand?

Keep removing single grains of sand. Each time you do you still have a heap of sand. When you are left with only two grains of sand is it still a heap? No? At what point did the heap of sand stop being a heap? Was it with three grains? or more?

That is the paradox. 10,000 grains of sand are definitely a heap, and if you take away one it is still a heap, but if you keep taking away single grains of sand when does it stop being a heap?

This paradox has plagued philosophers and students for over 2000 years and it keeps discussions going in introductory philosophy classes, which provides much employment to professional philosophers. But before we resolve this paradox I wanted to write a little about the art of M. C. Escher, because some of his most famous art can also be paradoxical. Below is his famous drawing entitled "Waterfall".

Image from www.mcescher.com.

What is paradoxical about this image is that the water at the "bottom" appears to flow "up" until it reaches the "top" where it falls "down" to begin the process all over again. Additionally each bend in the stream appears to be directly over another part of the structure, thereby creating an apparently impossible structure. This paradox, or optical illusion, how ever you want to call it, both confounds and delights all who see it.

While most people consider the work of M. C. Escher, appreciate it, perhaps hang a copy in their house or office, very few stop and take the time to consider why it is a paradox and ultimately escape the paradox.

If we just consider a single part of the image, say just the waterfall part, or one of the bends, by themselves there is no problem, nor a paradox.

Removed from the larger context these constituent parts are not paradoxical. So how did these individual parts go from non-paradoxical to paradoxical when put together?

The answer is that the paradox only exists because we assume more than there is in the image. The image itself is only a two dimensional collection of lines and shading that all together we interpret as a waterfall, a stream, and a brick structure with columns. The structure does not exist in three dimensions. The collection of two dimensional lines and shading create an image of what we interpret to be a three dimensional structure. If the structure really was three dimensional then it would defy the natural order of the universe, but it is not, so it does not.

The paradox only exists because we take each individual part, the waterfall, the bend in the stream, and we can imagine a real three dimensional structure like that, but when we try to fit the imaginary three dimensional parts together, we fail, and thus we have a paradox.

But if we remember that we are only looking at two dimensional lines and shading which only imply flowing water, columns and a brick structure, the paradox does not create a problem, and definitely does not trigger an existential crisis. If we do not make the leap from representation to actuality what we are left with is an interesting picture that does not break the laws of physics and geometry.

So now we can return and resolve the heap paradox. The reason why it creates a paradox is because each individual part is logical and non-paradoxical. There is nothing illogical about considering either 10,000 or 9,999 grains of sand to be a heap of sand. So if we have 10,000 grains and take away one we still have a heap. Much like a single bend in the stream in "Waterfall", it does not create a paradox. But it we then group a series of individual bends together we are left with a paradox.

With the drawing the paradox was created by mistaking a 2D representation for a 3D reality. In the heap paradox the mistake is extending words and language beyond their representations. In this case extending the definition of the word "heap", which is by definition inexact, to mean an exact value. Yes 10,000 grains of sand can make a heap because 10,000 grains of sand would be hard to count and thus for all practical purposes we cannot distinguish between 10,001, 10,000 or 9,999 grains. Hence we use the inexact term "heap".

The heap paradox only remains a paradox if we commit an equivocation and alter the definition of the word to mean an exact number. An exact number implies an exact boundary between "heap" and "not heap", which did not exist in the original definition.

So should we insist on the eradication of all paradoxes from our language? Heavens no. These paradoxes, much like the drawings of M. C. Escher add richness to our language and are the basis to our humor and entertainment. But if we forget the nature of language we might be confronted with a paradox and conclude that the nature of reality is broken, when it is only our understanding that is limited. We must remember that our paradoxes are rooted in a misuse of language. If we remember that then we can escape the paradox and it can be humorous and entertaining, but if not, then, like Frederic in The Pirates of Penzance, we will be slaves to a misuse of language.

The Heavens and God: Contain Vs. Sustain

"But will God really dwell on earth with humans? The heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!"

There was a small translation oddity that I noted while reading in 2 Chronicles in a passage where King Solomon is dedicating the temple in Jerusalem. At one point in the dedicatory prayer King Solomon asks if God will dwell on the earth, because if the heavens themselves are insufficient for God then how much more is a simple temple insufficient for God. This is where the translation gets interesting.

In 2 Chronicles 6:18 records, "The heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain you." [emphasis added]. Here the Hebrew word translated as "contain" is יְכַלְכְּל֔וּךָ. But if we look up how the word, its root, and derivatives are used in other verses we get a different sense for the word. The general meaning of the root word is "to comprehend, contain", while various roots are also translated as: endure, maintain, provide, provided, provided them with sustenance, provisioned, sustain, sustained, and sustainer.

The general idea is that the primitive root implies a measured container that can be filled with a certain amount of stuff. But in a figurative sense it implies providing a measured amount of sustenance, hence passages such as Genesis 45:11 are translated as "I will provide [וְכִלְכַּלְתִּ֤י] for you there, because five years of famine are still to come. Otherwise you and your household and all who belong to you will become destitute." Or Nehemiah 9:21 which reads, "For forty years you sustained [כִּלְכַּלְתָּ֥ם] them in the wilderness; they lacked nothing, their clothes did not wear out nor did their feet become swollen."

While the root form of word is translated as "contain" or "hold", for example, 1 Kings 7:38 reads, "He then made ten bronze basins, each holding [יָכִ֣יל] forty baths and measuring four cubits across, one basin to go on each of the ten stands.", all other variants of the word are translated as "provide", "sustain", "maintain" or some other variant of a similar concept, except for three instances relating to the same question asked in 2 Chronicles 6:18. Two of those are from the dedicatory prayer as recorded in Chronicles and Kings, and the other is uttered by King David when he is commanded to prepare to build the temple, the language of which is later mirrored by his son King Solomon.

It just seemed a little odd that a word which is almost always translated in the figurative sense as "provide", "sustain", "maintain" or some other variant, would be reduced to the literal sense as "contain" in the three cases where it refers to God. I just wonder on what basis the translators decided to go against the common definition of the word for those three verses and insert "contain" instead of "sustain". If we instead translate יְכַלְכְּל֔וּךָ as "sustain" we see that it changes the sense of the verse in such a subtle way that it can imply something very different about God.

"But will God really dwell on earth with humans? The heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot sustain you. How much less this temple I have built!"

In the first case the verse implies an extraphysicality to God which belies a particular view of God as incorporeal. While the second case simply implies that the heavens themselves are insufficient to sustain the majesty of God, and that an insignificant building would do no better. The first makes a metaphysical judgement on God, while the second merely casts judgement on the heavens and the temple. It is easy to see why so many modern Christians would not question the first translation, but the question to ask is if there is a basis for those ideas in the Bible, in the original autographs, or if those where ideas were introduced later and no one stopped to ask if they were correct, or if they fit with other, plainer scriptures.

Sometimes there are subtleties in translation that cause original meanings to be lost, and new ones to appear. Sometimes it is a small and seemingly insignificant thing, and that is why we must be careful not to take a particular word, or verse and draw conclusions from that which may not be correct.

Deep Study and Exhaustive Searches

"For mortals, therefore, the gospel is inexhaustible, because 

'the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.'"

-- Neal A. Maxwell

Today I wanted to write about two seemingly unrelated topics, the Book of Mormon translation and plastic surgeons per capita in the the United States.

A few years ago I started a personal project to compare all quotes from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon with their corresponding Biblical texts. When I started I did not know what I would find and what I would learn. I decided to compare the texts side-by-side and keep track of all the variation that I found. From seminary and other places I had heard comments about there being differences between the two but I had never gone through systematically to compare.

It took me a while since I was going through verse by verse, word by word, comparing the two texts, marking the differences, similarities and formatting both into a side-by-side presentation. There were subtle nitpicky things that I had to deal with. I learned a lot, not just about Isaiah, but about other things like html formatting, Hebrew grammar, and where I could find many different Bible translations. I discovered that I liked the New International Version of the Bible better than the King James Version. I began to see patterns in the text and understand better what Isaiah was talking about.

Also by forcing myself to find and keep track of each variation in the text between the Bible and the Book of Mormon I learned to recognize interesting patterns in the variations. Some where minor, some were significant. While working slogging through the comparisons, and noting the most minuscule of variations, and at one point I remember clearly thinking, "These variations are not random. They are not mistakes. There is a reason and a method to them."

All of it taught me something about how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. Occasionally I read speculations by members of the Church about how they think Joseph Smith accomplished the translation, whether it was a tightly controlled translation, a loosely controlled translation, or even maybe Joseph Smith just drew on language that was common to him in order to render the text of the Book of Mormon.. Based on what I have learned many of the proposed theories are untenable. Before, when I read the different speculations I had to evaluate each one based on the quality of the argument. But after much deep study and personal familiarity with the Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon I can easily dismiss most of them as inconsistent with what I know about the text.

Based on my study I can say that there were two major influences to the text of the Book of Mormon that we have. The "translation" process, which was more revelatory than anything else, that came through Joseph Smith was a very, very, tightly controlled process, down to spellings, individual word placements and the rendering of certain phrases. There was no room for personal interpretation or variation on the part of Joseph Smith. But, and this should teach us something about God, everything else after that was left entirely to the discretion, the personal competency, hearing ability and handwriting ability of the scribes. If there were errors introduced by one of the scribes, those errors were not corrected. Once the revelation had been given, God did not attempt to correct what Joseph and Oliver had done. The translation process was in fact a two step tight-free translation process. It was tight in the initial revelation, and free and uncontrolled thereafter.

I can say this because I have spent time studying the text and keeping track of thousands of variations. I would not expect anyone to idly accept what I have to say just because I said it, because I only reached my conclusions after much study and an exhaustive search all quotes from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon. It was only after becoming familiar with the subtleties of variations in the text that I was able to some to my conclusions. There are other things that I learned that are difficult to explain because they would only make sense to someone who has also gone through the same experience and has seen the same things. There is some knowledge that is only available after studying a subject deeply.

So how does this relate to plastic surgeons per capita in the the United States? I'm glad you asked.

Recently I took a comprehensive look at all plastic surgeons in the US listed on the American Society of Plastic Surgeons website. There were a a few news stories circulating citing a story from 2007 that which found that Salt Lake City had more plastic surgeons than any other city and was therefore the "Vainest City in America". While many people questioned that conclusion and attempted to rationalize away or attempt to explain why the article from 2007 listed Salt Lake City as #1, I could only find one or two people who actually questioned the data. The problem was, in order to question the data you would need to have your own data and be able to demonstrate a different conclusion and most people have neither the time nor the inclination to gather that data. But I'm weird like that.

There is something about looking at all 1407 cities, towns and villages that had a least one plastic surgeon that allowed me to begin to see patterns in the data. By doing an exhaustive search I was able to learn things that I would not have learned otherwise. This includes things that have nothing to do with plastic surgery. For example, I learned how convoluted the system of government is in states like Pennsylvania, Maryland and Massachusetts. I also learned about how the US census aggregates their data. I also learned that Hawaii only has one incorporated city. I learned about little out of the way places like Edina, Minnesota, and Crestone, Colorado. There are things that I learned that I would not have learned if I had not done an exhaustive search. There was something about going through every single city that allowed me to see things that I would not have seen otherwise.

There are some insights and knowledge that are available only after deep study and an exhaustive search. Some of these truths are not easily communicated with those who have not also studied the topic deeply. In some cases the knowledge and insight can be stated in clear language, but others will not understand until after they have also put forth the effort to study it out in their minds and consider to its fullest extent.

This is a principle of learning that is careful, ponderous, slow, and takes great effort. Many in our modern world think that if the answer is not quick, easy, readily available, and effortless then it is not worth considering. But anyone who has learned something to great depth knows otherwise, and knows that the depth of knowledge is inexhaustible.

Parallel Lines and Broken Symmetry

Broken Symmetry

When I took this picture I was trying to capture the vanishing effect of two parallel lines. But the road wasn't quite straight, and the effect is interrupted by nonsymmetric elements such as the break in the green plants on the left and the log a little beyond that. There are further subtle imbalances that make the image just slightly asymmetric.

There is something in our nature that looks for this symmetry and balance in the universe and tries to find meaning in it. Some have taken this to the extent that they think that the only true forms are the ultimate reality in the universe. Everything, they assume, is a reflection of the perfect forms. It is in a sense a very comforting approach to the world since it appeals to that part of us that looks for perfect conformity to what we know.

But this approach seems a little odd to me since it fundamentally assumes that the true reality of existence is not found in existence. That reality is only a reflection of reality. That the universe does not adequately demonstrate what it is.

Recently I was attended an astronomy seminar where we discussed recent progress in the area of cosmology. One researcher mentioned how she had been trying to fit certain data to a Gaussian profile, but after an insightful question by a colleague she readdressed the problem with a different approach. She found that the data would fit a slightly asymmetric Gaussian, which would explain in some small way why the universe appeared the way it is.

And this brings us back to parallel lines and broken symmetries. Sometimes in our search for meaning we think that everything; the universe, each other, what it means to be perfect, or even God himself, must conform to our ideas of what is perfect and proper, or what appeals to our sense of balance and symmetry. But if we look hard enough we will see that nothing ever conforms to what we think things should be like. Everywhere we look the universe will remind us that what we think is perfect and symmetrical is not how things really are. Even though it did not turn out the way I wanted it to, I like the picture I took because it reminds me that in reality there are no parallel lines.

Knowledge: The Stuff of Rational Thought

Recently I was involved in a comment thread under an article about religion. I know, it's not a very smart thing to do, but there was one commenter who was berating everyone for their lack of rational thought, while at the same time exhibiting a distinct lack of rational thought. I couldn't resist. I called him out on his fallacies and I was rewarded by being called "muddled-headed" and a "moron". He has yet to respond to my further inquiries. But he did give me substantial fodder that may result in 2-4 blog posts.

"Rational thinking is not dependent on knowledge."

This statement came from one of his replies. From one perspective this seems like a non-controversial statement. Someone's ability to think rationally, the actual mechanism of thinking, is not dependent on knowing certain facts and data. For example, if I wanted to give all of my students a pencil I could rationally plan that out and get the pencils. My ability to rationally think through that problem does not depend on my knowing how many students are in my class. Even if I think there are 15 students, when in reality there are 150, knowing the incorrect number of students may change the way I approach the problem and may cause problems, but that does not impact my ability to rationally think through the problem.

On a larger level, if I thought that the American Revolution was all about "Taxation without representation", and then after reading some books I acquired more knowledge about the causes of the revolution I might change my views about what caused the revolution, but that won't change my ability to think through the new data and reach a new conclusion.

Also, if someone is presented with some new data, it would seem that their ability to incorporate that knowledge depends not on having the knowledge, but on their ability to reason and think through the data. Thus it makes sense to say "Rational thinking is not dependent on knowledge."

So far that statement seems perfectly logical, but if we think about how we actually interact with knowledge and data, that formerly rational statement begins to unravel. My response to that statement was, '"rational thinking is not dependent on knowledge" is akin to saying "breathing is not dependent on air".' Just as breathing requires something there to be breathed in order to make sense, rational thinking requires knowledge in order to work. Knowledge is the stuff that is rationally thought about.

But the connection is deeper than that, because there is some knowledge changes the way we think. This happens both on an individual level and on a societal level. As pointed out by Thomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, there comes a point where certain data does not fit with our paradigm forcing us to change the way we think about the world. But we may still argue that even a paradigm shift does not change to underlying processes that make our thoughts rational.

For anyone who has learned something profound, we know that what we consider to be rational thought changes throughout our lives. There is certain knowledge that when obtained changes the way we interact with the world. It in effect changes our rational thinking. These experiences are usually profoundly personal. These are the moments when old knowledge takes on new and added meaning, and connections are made between seemingly disparate facts.

In these special cases rational thought does not operate passively on our knowledge, but knowledge and rational thought become co-operative, evolving simultaneously. The original statement given above assumes a certain staticity and independence to rational thought, as if it could operate in a vacuum. But this view leads to an ontological quandary that cannot be resolved without additional data and an evolution in our manner of thinking.

Using the Proper Method of Proof

A while ago someone left a comment on my blog challenging me to use Baye's Theorem to find the probability that the Book of Mormon is a historical document. At the time it struck me as odd that some one would insist on using Baye's Theorem to prove a historical fact. But it prompted me to do some reading on Baye's Theorem and I found that there are a whole group of people who try to use Baye's Theorem to prove all sorts of things (there are also a great number of people who say they are wrong in doing so).

The reason why he insisted on using Baye's Theorem stems from the fact that all things pertaining to numbers and math are incontrovertible, at least to rational minds. The thinking goes that no rational person can deny that 1+1=2, and by extension, if something can be proved using math then no one can say otherwise (we'll just ignore the incompleteness theorem for now).

So there is a general feeling that if something can be proved or disproved, or found probable or improbable using math, then no one can say otherwise and every rational person must accept the same conclusion. Thus the thinking goes, "If person X is a rational person then they will apply math to problem A. X applies math to A and reaches conclusion Q. If X accepts Q then they are rational. If X rejects Q then they are irrational."

So when the commenter left his comment challenging me to use Baye's Theorem to find the probability that the Book of Mormon is a historical document his thinking probably went something like this, "I am a rational person and I know the Book of Mormon is not historical. Therefore if someone else uses math on the question of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and they are rational, then they will come to the same conclusion that I did." (I would be surprised if he actually thought that.)

The tendency is to consider something we know to be true, and because we think we are thinking rationally, we conclude that if someone else uses a rational thought process they will always come to the same conclusion. If they come to a different conclusion then we tend to conclude that they are irrational, especially when there is *math* backing us up.

So I was challenged to use Baye's Theorem in the hope that I would come to the exact same conclusion that he did. Fortunately that is not how proof works. As Aristotle put it:

“It is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.”

Sometimes people try to describe this and say, "The truth is messy." or "Proof in history/religion/field-of-study-that-is-not-based-in-math is messy." I prefer not to think of it in that way. Understanding the different methods of proof requires a certain level of humility and maturity of thought. When humility, maturity and direct experience with the subject matter are achieved then any proof is easy and flows naturally. It is only pride, immaturity, and inexperience that make any proof hard.

When we have gone through similar mental processes and have had similar experiences then arriving at the same conclusion is easy and natural. If not then proof is hard, if not impossible. This is perhaps what Wittgenstein was thinking when he wrote:

"This book will perhaps only be understood by those who have themselves already thought the thoughts which are expressed in it—or similar thoughts.... Its object would be attained if it afforded pleasure to one who read it with understanding."

If we are to prove something to anyone else we must recognize that it is not so much about the method of proof, for no single method can be used for all truth. You can't throw math at everything and think it constitutes proof. I think there is something inherent in all intelligence that requires personal experience for any proof to be accepted.

Priesthood Authority and the Concept of Stewardship

I met a man once who said that before he did anything he would say "Si Dios quiere" [God willing]. He explained that if he said that and God did not want him to do it then he would instantly be struck down, because God didn't want him to do that. This included every mundane thing he would do such as leaving his house to walk down the street. In every aspect of his life he claimed that he would say "Si Dios quiere" in order to receive validation for all of his actions no matter how mundane they be. You can see the obvious problem with this because it essentially justifies everything he does, no matter how immoral it may be, because if God doesn't strike him down then "God wills it." It essentially turns God into a rubber stamp to validate whatever that man does, be it immoral or just normal mundane life decisions like what to have for breakfast.

The problem with that way of thinking is that it removes the possibility of free will. While there are some Christians who may argue that we do not have moral agency, or the ability to choose right from wrong, this is not true for Latter-day Saints. From an LDS perspective the ability for us to choose is fundamental to our identity. As the Lord told Enoch:

"Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;" (Moses 7:32)

The idea that we are free to choose what we are to do is also reinforced in the Book of Mormon when Samuel the Lamanite stated,

"For behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge and he hath made you free." (Helaman 14:30)

This statement is by no means the only one in the Book of Mormon that makes it clear that we can act for ourselves. In more modern revelation we are told,

"All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light." (D&C 93:30-31)

 In talking about the Constitution of the United States a revelation tells us that it was established,

"That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment." (D&C 101:78)

Whenever members of the Church teach about the Plan of Salvation we mention that before the world was created, we, as spirit children of God, were given the choice to follow God and Jesus Christ or to follow Satan. The crux of Satan's plan, and the reason why we ultimately rejected it, was that it would take away our agency, or ability to choose. As explained in the Book of Moses,

Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down; And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice. (Moses 4:3-4)

Given the strong language surrounding our ability to act (i.e. "otherwise there is no existence") from an LDS perspective we cannot get around that fact that we have our agency and it cannot be taken away. Many if not all members of the Church would acknowledge our ability to choose and act for ourselves and we would never think about applying the unreasonable standard of Divine oversight into all of our decisions as presented by the man I mentioned at the beginning. We may say it is silly for that man to always say, "Si Dios quiere", before he does anything and then expect God to either validate his decision through inaction or express His Divine disagreement by killing him. But what we may not realize is that while we would be repulsed by the thought of applying this standard pf Divine oversight to ourselves, we regularly apply it to the prophet and apostles and sometimes to all the leaders of the Church. Basically we have a modified version of "Si Dios quiere" that only applies to prophets and apostles. We think that if the prophet were to take one step out of line then, "Zap!" he's dead.

This is commonly the image that is brought up whenever anyone quotes Wilford Woodruff when he said,

"I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty." (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, sel. G. Homer Durham [1946], 212–13.) 

It seems that whenever this quote is brought up people, both inside and outside the Church, use it as proof that God personally reviews and approves everything every prophet says and if they will say something that is a product of the prophet's culture and limited personal understanding (or something that is "false" as the critics would say), then "Zap!" the prophet dies. This is the idea that if Brigham Young, or Joseph Smith, or any other prophet says something then whatever they said must be taken as absolutely true. No exceptions. Because God reviews each and every single decision, statement and action of the prophets (and apostles), and if anything is found to be out of line then, "Zap!", we have a new prophet.

The problem with this is that it removes all possibility of free will on the part of the prophet or apostle. Unfortunately it is not just critics of the Church who hold this position but also faithful members of the Church who hold this position. We strenuously defend our personal agency but when it comes to Church leaders we sometimes fail to see that they have the same measure of agency and freedom that we do.

So how do we reconcile the fact that Church leaders have their free will and God does not use the "Zap!" method of Divine oversight with the fact that the same Church leaders can speak authoritatively for God and can determine the practices, policies, and administration of the Church? In order to understand how these things can be reconciled we need to understand how priesthood authority is related to the concept of stewardship.

As the Lord explains in one revelation,

"It is wisdom in me; therefore, a commandment I give unto you, that ye shall organize yourselves and appoint every man his stewardship; That every man may give an account unto me of the stewardship which is appointed unto him. For it is expedient that I, the Lord, should make every man accountable, as a steward over earthly blessings, which I have made and prepared for my creatures." (D&C 104:11-14)

In the wisdom of the Lord He does not micromanage all the affairs of His kingdom. He gives stewardships to His servants and they are given the charge and authority necessary to fulfill the task assigned to them. The Lord sets the bounds of His stewardships ("All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it") and expects His servants to make wise decisions regarding the things placed in their charge.

In the Book of Matthew we find the parable of the talents, which is applicable to our current discussion.

"For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.... After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.... For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." (Matthew 25:14-30)

The lord of the servants did not personally oversee and approve each decision of his servants. As a matter of fact he left them alone and only afterwards did he demand an accounting of them. The Lord uses the same method to govern His Church today. Each Church leader is given his keys, authority and commission in an orderly and clearly defined way and is expected to act in such a way that the kingdom of God is made to increase and be firmly established. As the Lord explains in another modern revelation,

"I, the Lord, have appointed them, and ordained them to be stewards over the revelations and commandments which I have given unto them, and which I shall hereafter give unto them; And an account of this stewardship will I require of them in the day of judgment. Wherefore, I have appointed unto them, and this is their business in the church of God, to manage them and the concerns thereof, yea, the benefits thereof." (D&C 70:3-5)

The pattern that the Lord uses, and has used in all ages of man on the earth, is to give His word (or in same cases His Word) to man, and the revelations and commandments constitute a basic document which set the bounds of the stewardships given to His servants. I should emphasize that all decisions must be kept within the bounds that the Lord has set. We, including the Church leaders, do not choose the content of the revelations nor the conditions of the covenants we are under.

This gives both us and the Church leaders an incredible amount of freedom, and a corresponding amount of responsibility, in what we can do with the kingdom of God. The key to remember here is that the decisions regarding administration of the kingdom should be made by those who hold or are delegated the necessary keys, or power of the priesthood. If there are no specific instructions or prohibitions in the revelations then those who hold and exercise the priesthood keys are free to make decisions according to their wisdom and understanding.

These decisions may range from setting the minimum age at which young men can receive the priesthood, to giving advice about proper and modest attire, to determining how tithing money is to be used. In all these things those who are given these stewardships will be held accountable for their actions ("an account of this stewardship will I require of them in the day of judgment"), but their ability to make decisions, and even mistakes, will not be taken away from them.

Just as God was willing to send us to earth to learn by our own experience to know the good from the evil, and that freedom is not abridged for us, those who are call to be leaders in the Church are not somehow a class apart to which the laws of agency do not apply. They are also free in the sphere or stewardship in which they are placed.

Quite frequently the imagery of the Church as a bride and our Savior as the Bridegroom is used to explain the relation between Christ and His Church. In this sense we, as members of the Church, covenant to hearken to Christ and keep His commandments as He hearkens to the Father. This relationship is reflected in the structure of the priesthood. None of us access the things of God by ourselves, not even the commandments, covenants, ordinances or revelations, but are dependent on another, be it priesthood leader or angel we are all dependent on an intermediary. This method is not an accident because as Alma taught,

"These ordinances were given after this manner, that thereby the people might look forward on the Son of God, it being a type of his order, or it being his order, and this that they might look forward to him for a remission of their sins, that they might enter into the rest of the Lord." (Alma 13:16)

It is done in this way to show unto us our weaknesses that we may learn that we are dependent on Christ for our salvation.

Now there may be some who would feel uncomfortable knowing that their Church leaders do not actually operate under the "Zap!" system of Divine oversight, or that their Church leaders may say something that is not 100% historically correct, or is informed by the biases and prejudices of their day. But God does not choose perfect people to be His prophets, but He does choose those who will do what is asked of them. If we are concerned that the prophets and apostles may tell us to do things to our detriment, then we should realize that this is precisely why we need to have faith in God. There are ways to judge whether or not a prophet is a true prophet or not, and we should seek our own confirmation (God is not interested in having blind followers), but ultimately we must choose to follow God and His stewards.

Now God does not leave his servants entirely to themselves. He does offer counsel (His name is "Man of Counsel" after all, not "Man of 'I make mindless, free-will-deprived, automatons out of my prophets'") and provide direction but everything else is left up to the stewards to decide. This means that sometimes God will correct his servants, but He will decide when, how and what needs to be corrected.

So what is there for us to do? How are we to live our lives? What will all this look like with each member of the Church having dominion over their own stewardship? Well, it will look, function and work exactly like it does not, but without the perception that Church leaders somehow lose their free will when they become Church leaders. God does not operate under the "Zap!" system, but He does counsel His servants in all they do. And for everyone, whether or not we are a Church leader or "just a member" we are all given the same charge,

"Behold, this is your work, to keep my commandments, yea, with all your might, mind and strength." (D&C 11:20)

[End note: I am well enough aware that this will not answer every question someone may have in regards to priesthood authority, and I am sure that some will judge it to be woefully inadequet, but it will answer some questions. There are other things to consider, such as priesthood keys and how they work, charity, both for other Church members and for Church leaders, especially for Church leaders. I find that most of the problems that critics of the Church, both within and without, have with Church leaders stems from uncharitable feelings towards Church leaders or a failure to humbly consider that we are all in this together and that they too are called to make mistakes so that they can learn by their own experience. This does not mean that whatever they do is good and above reproach, but if there is to be reproof, it needs to be done charitably and with tenderness.]