This Web-log is devoted to the pursuit of reason in science. The author seeks to inform those who read "The Quantum Menace" about the pitfalls of modern science, including but not limited to: subjective reality, mysticism, and irrationality.
after looking through the keywords used to find my site, i'm startled by how i get at least one person a day searching for "homo floriensis." this amuses me since i really don't have much about the flores man. i did a quick google search for "homo floriensis" and apparently i came up 4th on the list, bested only by the london times, theage.com, and Raritan Valley Community College: Science & Engineering Department. hrm......
at jordan's behest, i have officially posted.
-Ross
(sorry guys, i've been swamped and forgetful as of late. chrimmus break is neigh so posting should be more frequent soon.)
Somehow my hotmail account magically increased from 2 MB to 250 MB...that's awesome...other than that I'm reminicing with some old school snoop dogg (yeah...doggystyle..1993...good times)...adios people
-Ross
The title pretty much sums up my feelings about this article: Click Here to read it.
It appears our "Arafat is Dead" Party is soon at hand.
-Ross
nothing to post as of late...that and i'm a bit busy and lazy...started reading "Diary" by Chuck Palahniuk...great book...reading his books makes me lament the passing of reason from America's mind, but his talent as a writer is without bounds...i suggest you all check out some of his books and website: http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net
adios senoritas,
Ross
sorry for the lack of posts as of late, i've been a bit busy. soon i shall post something about homo floriensis (flores man) that has recently made news. that should be interesting. i'll just leave you all a link to one reason why france as it stands now, is in complete opposition to America and our values as rational beings with rights.
Check it out here.
-Ross
Well, ladies and gents, I, Ross, finally have a job. That's right, a J-O-B. I got the undergraduate research job I previously spoke of. This should be pretty nice. I get to sit on a computer and fit curves for various data runs. Huzzah! I'm on my way to not being broke as a joke.
-Ross
Well, I've been reading some more of Auberon Herbert and my world is rumbling beneath me. I can't stress how similar his ideas are to Miss Rand's. Miss Rand created an entire philosophy while Mister Herbert created more of a political ideology. I can't find any information on whether he was an influence on Miss Rand or not. I implore you all to read "The Right and Wrong of Complusion by the State." Check it out here in pdf form. Read the title essay first, it's not too long but it'll knock your socks off.
"I will explain yet more fully what I mean. Under a system of the widest possible liberty, each man thinks and acts according to his own judgment and his own sense of right. He labors as he will, making such free bargains as he chooses respecting the price and all other conditions that affect his labor; he is idle or industrious, he spends or he lays by, he remains poor, or he becomes rich, he turns his faculties to wise and good account, or he wastes possessions, time and happiness in folly. He is, be it for good or evil, the owner and possessor of his own self, and he has to bear the responsibility of that ownership and possession to the full. On the one hand he is free from all restrictions placed on him by others (except the one great restriction that he, too, in all his doings shall respect the like liberty of all men), and on the other hand he is dependent in everything on himself and his own exertions. He must himself meet and overcome the difficulties of life. Just because he is a free man, he must carry his own burden, such as it is, and not seek to compel others to bear any part of it for him. The really free man will neither submit to restrictions placed on himself, nor desire to impose them on others." - Auberon Herbert
Adios.
I found this great site through TalkReason.org today. Read it here. It's purpose is to debunk the claim by many Cysts and IDiots (that's Creationists and Intellegent Design advocates) that the universe was designed by an intellegent being because many biochemical processes are "irreducibly complex." One example being a biochemical pathway with many different proteins and removing one of them would destroy the overall function of system. Cyst Michael Behe claims that since this is true, then intellegent design is fact. One problem with this is that his example, a mouse trap, IS reducibly complex. Cysts claim (without scientific proof) that such "irreducibly complex" systems simply come into existence. John McDonald, however, uses logic and science to show how one can reduce the example of the mousetrap. This is no way proof against creationism or intellegent design. For that I shall divert you to TalkOrigins.org. This represents the superiority of Logic and Reason to irrationality; this is the essense of life. Irrationality can never conquer Reason.
"The mousetrap illustrates one of the fundamental flaws in the intelligent design argument: the fact that one person can't imagine something doesn't mean it is impossible, it may just mean that the person has a limited imagination. Behe's evidence that biochemical pathways are intelligently designed is that Behe can't imagine how they could function without all of their parts, but given how easy it is to reduce the complexity of a mousetrap, I'm not convinced. (Of course, the reduced-complexity mousetraps shown below are intended to point out one of the logical flaws in the intelligent design argument; they're not intended as an analogy of how evolution works.)" - John McDonald
Valete Amici et Inimici,
The Menace
Here's a fresh new t-shirt design I just photoshopped. (Thanks to Jackson for the concept.)
Click Here.
Enjoy.
Update: I've made the back part of the shirt. Check it out here. (Thanks again Jackson.)
Update 2: I've added a link to my cafepress.com store, which includes the Rock the Gaza shirt for all y'all. If anybody has a request for a specific variant of this shirt, just tell me.
Feel free to use these however you like. They are not copywritten and I don't care if you print your own t-shirt from these. Tell me what you think of them.
It appears Quantum Menace is also the name of a hip-hop group. I can't find any information about them except an mp3 of theirs that I found on passthemic.com. Download it here if you like.
[If this does not satiate your thirst, try this. You'll probably need Winamp to play it.]
My brother tipped me off to a cover of John Lennon's "Imagine" by A Perfect Circle.
Listen to it here.
I've been thinking about aestetics lately. What makes a piece of art "good"? I definitely have some problems with some of the lyrics of this song, but A Perfect Circle turned this into quite an amazing piece of music. Maynard's voice is an instrument in and of itself. He could sing about rancid feces and make it sound good. My main question is: does every single part of a work have to be "objectivist" to be good art? [by "objectivist" I mean every bit of it conforms to Ayn Rand's Romanticism] Fight Club has a horrible nihilistic message to it, but it's very well written and has a very intriguing, intricate plot. To this day, it is still one of my favourite books. Their are many artists who I despise philosophically, but will never stop listening to their music, or reading their books, etc... Tool, for example, is one of the greatest bands (in my opinion). They are philosophically bankrupt, but that doesn't stop me from listening to them and watching them in concert.
I'd like for y'all to comment on this. Tell me what you think of art.
For those of you who get this, I salute your Nerd-dom.
-The Menace
Come in here, boy. Have a twinkie.
I found a few little articles that most people probably don't know about and I know many people don't want them to exist. Check them out here, and here. I find it hilarious when people crusade to get fast food and such wiped off the planet without realizing the source of the "problem." It's not greedy corporations pushing their food into peoples' gullets. No. What goes into someone's gut is their own choice (assuming they do not infringe on the rights of others or are having their rights infringed upon.) I haven't seen anybody crusading to have that guy in the Guinness Book of World Records stop eating lightbulbs and bicycles. Why do they crusade against fast food and snacks? Because some corporations exist to provide affordable sustainence for the masses. They see profit as evil. They seek to debase the metaphysical nature of economy, free markets. Capitalism in specific. [I shant waste time explaining how obvious this is, instead I beseech you to read "Assault on Integrity" by Alan Greenspan and "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand, et al. in its entirety.]
Update: Read this speech by Francisco D'Anconia from Atlas Shrugged.
Here's a nice little zinger about how the U.N. fits science to its evil agenda. Find it Here. Check out Junkscience.com. Scroll down a bit until you see the Global Warming section (it's after the "The Green Eco-Imperialist Legacy of Death" thanks to "Silent Spring.") This Global Warming section has some interesting stuff on it. My favourite is how in the 1950's the Global Mean Temp. was 14 degrees C and in July 2004 it's 14.3 degrees C. Fantastic. What does this say? Well, frankly, the Global Warming that is so important to the Left and Eco-Imperialists doesn't exist. The Global Temp. rises and falls due to seasonal changes but there is no evidence that we are all in the hole that eco-idiots claim we are. Take a look at the spike in these graphs. That's El Nino. Not even the Great El Nino knocked our Global Mean Temp. more than 1 degree C. Sometime soon I should have a big essay on this. For now, check out Junkscience.com and Capitalism Magazine's articles on Global Warming.
The essential purpose of science is to study reality as we can detect it. Scientists build upon the ideas of their contemporaries and predescessors to focus on the nature of reality. Before the telescope, the stars were merely dots in the sky of various intensities. Perhaps some people thought them to be huge balls of fire, maybe even some of them happen to be large collections of such stars with planetary systems. My point in this being, they had no proof of what exactly stars are until the advent of the telescope and spectroscopy. Now we can take a basic telescope and a diffraction gradient to see a crude absorption spectrum of various stars (thus loosely showing the chemical characteristics of said star.)
What does this have to do with anything, you may ask? Before scientific proof of the nature of stars, people were left to ponder various theories and devise various methods of proof. This does not mean that every theory is just as valid as the next. There is one specific answer due to the objective nature of reality. Theories do not change reality, no matter how hard somebody fights. If something is unknown, that's where science comes in. Scientific methods must be used exhautively until the solution is found. If the desired results are not found, then the hypothesis is wrong, or your instrumentation is insufficient. This is something I see as a huge problem both in science and everyday life. How so? The existence of a supreme being.
This is a very touchy subject to most people. People have killed and died over this subject throughout much of human existence. Let us look at this objectively.
I found a disturbing site the other day (find it here.) This site says that regardless of what scientists do, no matter how much technology goes into science, scientists will only find "[they will be] greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting [on the proof of a god] for centuries." What proof have they to sustain this? Rob Yule breaks it down into three proofs: the beginning, intellegent design, and rebellion. I'm completely appalled by this. Not that he believes in a god and avidly pursues to prove his thoughts, but that his only arguements are completely subjective and mostly deviod of logic.
1. Evidence of Beginning: He talks about how the big bang is the first proof of god. "If the universe has a beginning, it has an originator. If it has an originator, it is dependent, not self-sufficient, and we are accountable, not autonomous beings." There is no doubt in the big bang theory. There is, however, no evidence whatsoever that shows what sparked this beginning. Yule, like many people, says that the only possible explaination is a god. Until we have found exactly what sparked it, this explaination is merely one out of many explainations. No matter how much somebody believes in something, that doesn't make it true. The only solution to this is for scientists to continue their pursuit of an explaination. Could they find that a god or gods created the universe? Sure. Could they find that the universe was created by collisions between other-dimensional branes? Yes. My point being: we do not know without proof based on physical evidence.
2. Evidence of Design: This I shant spend much time on, being that the only way to prove this is with undeniable evidence for a god. Mr. Yule says that since the universe (more specifically human existence) is so delicately balanced that their must be some intellegent design. This has just as much weight as those tortillas in Mexico with Jesus doing a boogie dance on them. There are definite causes behind everything. To look at a complex system and say the only possible way for it to exist is by the will of a deity without a study of what causes lead to the system is folly. This can be proven only by proving that a god or gods created the universe, more specifically, tracing the cause of every effect back as far as possible.
3. Evidence from Rebellion: This is one of the most rediculous things I've seen. Yule says, after assuming his subjective and unproven points to be true, that since people don't believe in a god, that in it self proves the god's existence. "'The real proof of God is the agonised attempt to deny God', concludes philosopher Erich Frank (Philosophical Understanding and Religious Truth, [London, Oxford University Press, 1949], p. 43)." This is a matter of logic. A diety has not been explicitly proven to this day. To say that it is proof of a god that people deny this unproven god is irrational.
I implore everyone to pursue the nature of existence. This is the focal point of science. I, however, implore you to pursue this in a rational way, that is, in such a way that no contradictions exist, for contradictions do not exist in objective reality. For more on this I shall direct you to the Ayn Rand Institute. This is not to say that in reality a god or gods exist. What I'm saying is that without explicit proof of such, it is folly to use irrationality and unprovable theses to prove something that may or may not exist. [Note: my point is not to discredit any particular religion or belief system, but to implore the use of reason in science as well as everyday thought.]
I would like you all to check out some essays by the late Auberon Herbert. You will find them here. Having studied Objectivism for nearly a year now, I stumbled upon this man's works in the HBList. I have no idea why most Objectivists have never heard of him before. So far, he has proven himself to be nothing less than a grade-A, hardcore badass. If you don't want to read his essays, at least read the biographical essay about him at that site. More updates and posts about Auberon shall follow since I will be studying him this entire semester.
Sorry for the lack of Science posts as of late. I've been a busy and battling a cold. Hopefully tonight or tomorrow I'll post some goodies about Lewis Little's Theory of Elementary Waves.
-The Quantum Menace
(by the way: check out pizzaidf.com. These soldiers would appreciate your support very much.)
Well, I'm not posting anything of intellectual merit today. Instead, I've photoshopped a nice little picture that I find most appropriate for this upcoming election. Enjoy.
I've stumbled upon some research I find quite interesting. Having talked extensively with friends about how language shapes a person's ability to think, some scientists have studied an Amazonian tribe who have three numbers in their language: one, two, and many. Visit it here. This provides very concrete evidence supporting language as the tool of cognition.
What does this have to do with anything, you might ask? This is one out of many examples against cultural relativity and the like. Many colleges will teach you that everybody is the same and languages are equal. This means that Southern Drawl is equal to Latin. This means that Black English Vernacular (ebonics) is equal to Ancient Hittite. Aside from the obvious contradictions, these researchers provide an indepth look into this.
"What these experiments show, according to Gordon, is how having the right linguistic resources can carve out one's reality. 'Whorf says that language divides the world into different categories,' Gordon said. 'Whether one language chooses to distinguish one thing versus another affects how an individual perceives reality.'" If you have no word for something, you have no concept of it. Albert Einstein would be unknown, and physics as we know it would not exist, if the German language did not have words for energy, relativity, velocity, spin, etc... Cultural Relativists adimately argue against how one language can be superiour to the other. They can.
When this comes down to whether a society survives due to scientific breakthroughs, languages are not equal. There is a reason why this amazonian tribe is an amazonian tribe living in squalor without the chance of advancement. They have no concept of any number greater than two. This means they have no complex mathmatics to explain the world around them. (For those of you who don't know, Mathematics is the essential link between a scientific concept and reality.) This is why they will never advance beyond that of a barbaric hunter-gatherer state without outside help. No matter how hard they try, (as the study shows) they will never excel without a system of numbers in their language.
"Language is the blood of the soul into which thoughts run and out of which they grow." -Oliver Wendell Holmes
-The Quantum Menace
Having read through several Creationist websites recently (hereby refered to as C-ist, or cyst,) I have decided to rant a bit about a fundamental flaw in cyst.
Many cysts say "well, if evolution really happens, why haven't we evolved dramatically from cavemen thousands of years ago?" My answer: Cerebral Cortices. Once our lower-evolved ancestors began to stand upright, more blood was needed to keep our brains functioning. The result of this is our outer layer of brain matter, the Cerebral Cortex. This is what gives us the ability to reason. Reason is the highest incarnation of evolution. This reason (and our apposable thumbs) led to perhaps the most essential part of human existance, tool-wielding.
We humans have no natural mechanism for survival besides our minds. We have no wings to fly away from predators. We have no gills to live under water. We have no claws, beaks, etc... that animals use to continue life. We, however, have the ability to make a tool for anything. Is a rhino charging at you? No problem. Shoot it. Need to eat a beast eight-times your size? Easy. Sneak up on it with a machete. Anything you need done requires our ability to reason, not a beak, or a gizzard, or fins, etc... This does, however, create a very misguided supposition by the cysts. "We haven't evolved substantially (or at all) in the entirety of human existance, thus Evolution is wrong, thus we do not come from monkeys, thus something (most specifically, someBODY) keeps us this way.) Evolution may have a few problems; most theories do. This does not negate the horde of emperical evidence that supports Evolution, and most certainly does not mean the irrational rhetoric of cysts is correct. I shant go into detail of the evidence for Evolution; it's everywhere.
My point of this rant is that Humans (more specifically, few key traits we possess) are the "pinnacle" of evolution. Don't take this as me saying that we are and will always be the highest form of being. It is possible for some unknown species to surpass us in physical traits, but evolution stops with the advent of reason and tool-wielding. By stop, I mean we humans no longer evolve in the sense that most animals do. Our intellegence and tools increase exponentially over time, but because our essence of existance is the control of nature, we no longer have the need to evolve.
The descendants of giraffes had shorter necks. Their food began to raise higher and higher, thus creating the need for longer necks. Those without sufficient neck lengths went without food. Now we have highly specialized horse-beasts with gigantic necks. This is evolution. Because we can think, "hey, I can't reach my food, let me get a ladder," we have bypassed the need to evolve. This is why we as organisms have not evolved significantly in quite some time. Our ability to reason has eliminated the need to evolve substantially.
Next time a cyst asks you: "Well, if Evolution is right, why haven't humans evolved since the Garden?" Look them square in the eye and say: "I don't need to."
"To achieve, you need thought." - Ayn Rand
-The Quantum Menace
Welcome to The Quantum Menace. I hope this outlet shall become a valuable experience for both myself and those who wish to join my quest for reason in Science. From time to time I may talk about politics, but my focus shall be Science. I encourage anybody to comment and will be willing to allow posts by anybody that I deem relevant.
"To preserve one's mind intact through a modern college education is a test of courage and endurance, but the battle is worth it and the stakes are the highest possible to man: the survival of reason. {from "The Comprachicos"}" - Ayn Rand
-The Quantum Menace
ARCADIA
EGOist.blogspot.com
Great Site by a Friend about Terrorism
James Randi Foundation - Million Dollar prize for proof of the supernatural (never been awarded)
My Amazon Wishlist
Take a Swim at Azure Waters
TalkReason.org
The Quantum Menace Store
