Archive for September, 2013

« Older Entries

Quote of the Day

Posted September 25, 2013 By John C Wright

I often feel as if I am the only man who ever read ER Eddison’s brilliant, lucid, lavish, daring and overdecorated and work of post-Homeric pre-Tolkein epic wonder, THE WORM OUROBOROS.

I was fortunate enough to come across this quote from the esteemed Mr Pierce Oka:

 At least we are in the august company of such men as JRR Tolkien and  ER Eddison’s Editor (say that five times fast). We few, we happy few, we band of readers; For he to-day that reads this book with me shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile, this book will gentle his condition; And gentlegeeks in England now-a-bed shall think themselves accurs’d they did not read, and hold their nerdhoods cheap, whiles any speaks, that read with us THE WORM OUROBOROS!

I have lauded the work before. Allow me to quote my praise from the Amazon.com page:

Read the remainder of this entry »

69 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Other

Lost in the Garden of Forking Paths

Posted September 25, 2013 By John C Wright

Despite the imposition on the patience of my loyal readers. I would be DELIGHTED for the opportunity to discuss this particular paradox of philosophy with someone (anyone) other than Dr Andreassen. I will say only that he has no interest in this kind of conversation, and that his persistence puzzles me. I intend no further answers to him.

A reader with the explosive name of Plutonium writes in with a cogent and coherent argument in favor of materialism.

Let examine the propositions:

1. All non-agent physical systems are physically decomposable into particles.

If by non-agent physical systems you mean dead bodies in motion, things like stars and atoms and clocks; and if by ‘decomposable’ you mean the one thing can be described and defined entirely in terms of the other thing with nothing left over and nothing unexplained, then yes. I agree with this without reservation.

2. All non-agent particles(particles not in an agent system) interact with other particles in specific, deterministic(Only one outcome) fashions.

If by this, you mean that dead bodies in motion, things like stars and atoms and clocks, given the same initial positions and moved by the same external forces will end up in the same end position in two different trials, then yes. I agree without reservation.

“1 and 2 are just the normal ‘physics’ assumptions. Tell me if you think these are bad.”

No, I am happy to speak with someone who seems to know what the normal assumptions of physics are. If you start telling me that Newton can predict Newton’s thoughts with mechaNewton, and that normal physics can measure beauty and checkmate and the width of the imaginary line dividing the sea from the sky at the horizon, I will strangle myself with that imaginary line.

3. The physical component of an agent system is physically decomposable into the same particles as the non-agent case.

If we restrict our case to the physical components only, then yes, albeit obviously the deterministic element falls out of this equation at this point.

4. These particles obey the same rules in the non-agent case as in the agent case.

Concerning external forces acting on the living body if it happens to be case where the deliberate and the non-deliberate body would react the same way, then yes. Various chemical reactions, molecular actions, gross physical motions such as the speed with which a man falls off the Leaning Tower of Pisa versus a wax mannikin, yes, all these are the same.

This seems to imply materialism (or effective materialism) to me.

I do not see why. There is some unspoken assumption you are making that I am not, or visa versa. Let us see if we can discover what it is.
Read the remainder of this entry »

108 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Reasonings

One more time, Sysiphus

Posted September 24, 2013 By John C Wright

Trapped in the Purgatory of an Endlessly Repeated ongoing conversation:

Dear Dr Andreassen, Out of a spirit of charity, despite the fact that you will not hear me this time any more than you heard me the last countless number of times, I will explain again.

I never disagreed with the idea that atomic motions can be predicted. That idea is absurd.

You say I did disagree. I assume this is because you classify the deliberate motions of Shakespeare’s body to be an atomic motion. In your words ” To wit, you disagreed that the motion of Shakespeare’s atoms can be predicted using only physical information. Which is not the same as saying they can’t be predicted, period…”

Your article of faith (it is not a position you have ever defended, only asserted) is that in the same way a carbon-14 atom in the stomach of Shakespeare has a rate of decay that can be predicted, or has four covalent bonds to form predictable chemical compounds, in just such a way as that, the motions of his pen hand and hence whether the play is a tragedy or comedy can be predicted.

Your thought is not only in error, it is unrelated to reality. No one in physics has ever put forward a theory of animate motions of playwrights. Physicists, including Newton, have put forward theories of celestial and atomic motions. Indeed, it was Newton’s great contribution to science that he combined the theory of ballistics, collisions  and planetary motion in to one theory of gravity.

So, you are arguing only that the motions of the hand are predictable in principle.

Read the remainder of this entry »

55 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Reasonings

Postscript to THE GLORY GAME — Is it SF?

Posted September 21, 2013 By John C Wright

The story of THE GLORY GAME contained no science fictional speculations at all. It was in that sense a very conservative book, dwelling on what was the same in human nature in all ages past and present. It could have been set in any setting with the same impact.

But if we define science fiction to include only those tales that have scientific speculation as the center of their plot, we are defining science fiction to exclude my genre, space opera, which is defined as an adventure story in a vaguely science fiction flavor setting.

The rule of thumb is a thought experiment: imagine the same story set in the present, on Earth, or in the historical past. Eliminate the scientific speculation present. If the story can still be told, it is not SF. In SF the speculation is the heart of the story. If you can tell the same tale on the sailing ship Enterprise or from the viewpoint of plucky rebels fighting the Roman Empire or the Spanish Empire rather than the Galactic Empire, then the tale is not SF properly so called.

On the other hand, this is a crisp and clear definition, very serviceable to fans of Analog, and other ‘Nuts and Bolts’ types, so I dare utter no protest against it.

The definition clearly works for Hard SF. Let us take three examples from Heinlein, Asimov, and Clark, by common consensus,  the hardest of Hard SF writers, or at least the most famous.

Read the remainder of this entry »

31 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Fancies

THE GLORY GAME, or, the Bitterness of Broken Ideals

Posted September 18, 2013 By John C Wright

Is it better to be good or look good?

I have been rereading some of the novels of Keith Laumer, a sadly under recognized master of the SF genre. As before, this is not a book review as much as a meditation prompted by revisiting a youthful pleasure. My bookshelf has all the same paperbacks I read when I was in school, in pristine condition, and placed in the same order. This bookshelf was first filled long ago enough that those authors were alive. None now are: Frederick Pohl, the last of the giants, passed away this month. Readers who wish to read reviews of modern books must patronize the journal of some man more prone to read modern novels.

In this case, the short novel involved is called THE GLORY GAME by Keith Laumer, published in 1973. The novel is well crafted, concise, without a wasted scene or word, and therefore has the clearest and most trenchant point of any tale I have ever read that is actually a tale and not a tract. The novel is so concise that the twist ending would not exist were it not for the last line, nay, the last four words.

I regret that I must reveal the those four words at the end to discuss them, so I would ask any reader to go out, buy and read the novel, and only then return here.

SPOILERS BELOW! YOU ARE WARNED!
Read the remainder of this entry »

90 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Fancies

On the Impossibility of Empirical Metaphysics

Posted September 14, 2013 By John C Wright

More of the same. This time, with no pictures of the Catwoman.

But then, on the hypothesis that parallel Newtonian universes are possible, how do I avoid drawing the implication that such universes that start out physically identical will continue to play out physically identically so long as the matter in them obeys Newton’s laws?

By examining the unspoken assumption being made. In real physics, as opposed to the make believe physics of materialism, the physicist assumes the past physical events define or determine present physical events as a metaphysical assumption, that is, as a the starting unquestioned axiom of his discipline. He discipline does not apply to people or animals and never has and never will and does not even pretend to do so.

Materialism, on the other hand, is a philosophical rather than a scientific theory, and starts from the axiom of ontological monism, or, in layman’s terms, the laws which apply to matter also must apply to the mind since there can only be one substance in the universe since the universe is one coherent whole. To posit two substances destroys the axiom of coherence.

So you ask about a Newtonian universe. We live in a Newtonian universe. Newton’s laws are a correct approximation for how matter behaves at speeds not near the speed of light. It is less accurate than Einstein’s theory or Quantum Mechanics, and they in turn are less accurate than a unified field theory, if such is ever developed.

Am I being clear? All physical theories BY DESIGN are partial theories. They explain the physical aspects of the universe and nothing else.

Read the remainder of this entry »

177 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Reasonings

The Parable of the Corn Ear Picture

Posted September 13, 2013 By John C Wright

Part of an ongoing conversation, or, rather, part of my penance for past sins.

The local village materialist says, as he has said so often before:

I am trying to take things step by step. Let us ignore Mechaspeare for a moment and concentrate on Shakespeare.

1. Collect his atomic information, making a list of numbers. Call it list A.
2. Perform classical-mechanics calculations upon list A. This creates a new list, list B.
3. Collect his atomic information again, making list C.
4. Compare lists B and C.

Do you disagree that list B is unique, that there is only one possible set of numbers we can get from classical mechanics and a starting position?

Do you agree that list B must either agree or disagree with list C?

Do you agree that if it disagrees, then Shakespeare’s atoms are not described by classical mechanics? (Please observe, I say nothing about the case when the two lists agree, that is a separate question.)

Please do not jump ahead into interpretations about what it all means. Just answer the questions.

Jump ahead? I am aghast at your chutzpah, sir. You want me to answer the questions without interpreting the questions. You should ask me whether or not I have stopped beating my wife. Or at least ask unambiguous questions.

We have discussed this many, many, many times. Your most recent question is more clever at hiding the hidden assumption which makes it a circular argument, but, no, list B is not unique, for the simple reason that the assumption at step 1 deliberately disregards the crucial information needed to perform the calculation at step 2.

Perhaps an analogy would help.

Read the remainder of this entry »

21 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings

Thinking of Catwoman

Posted September 12, 2013 By John C Wright

Part of a horrifically never-ending conversation. I am astonished that anyone is still interested in this topic. But, as it so happens, three people asked me the same question in the same day. I will answer all at once, if my powers allow.

I have followed this conversation with great interest for years, and I must admit that I sympathize with those who are confused by your position on brain atoms.

The atoms in your brain do different things if you choose to think about Justice rather than Catwoman. Right? And they’re doing different things because of your choice about which topic to ponder. If those two things are true, it sure seems reasonable to say that your immaterial choice resulted in physical motion of brain atoms, and since Newton’s laws don’t include a factor for immaterial choice, therefore Newton’s laws have been broken. Somewhere in the system, a particle went in a different direction than predicted by F=ma, because of your choice.

Incidentally, that is exactly what I believe. I think that rational thought is a literal supernatural miracle. I think that I’m on the same page as CS Lewis, as he described his argument from reason in Miracles (if I remember correctly).

Now, I think (please forgive me if I’m putting words in your mouth) that your point is that Newton’s laws are not violated in the case of rational thought, for the reason that the laws are not intended to apply to that case. In other words, it seems to me that you are agreeing that Newton’s laws do not describe the physical system of the brain, but you say that’s not a violation of Newton’s laws because they are not meant to apply to that system.

But I have virtually zero confidence that I have correctly taken your meaning.

Good question, indeed, an excellent question. I will try to explain as best I can.

The atoms in your brain do different things if you choose to think about Justice rather than Catwoman. Right?

Let us assume so for the sake of argument, right.

And they’re doing different things because of your choice about which topic to ponder.

No.

The word ‘because’ here is ambiguous. It is used in two different senses.

It is upon this distinction that my argument rests, and upon this distinction that the opposition flounders in confusion. I will try my best.

Read the remainder of this entry »

26 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings

Blaming the Praiseworthy; Praising the Blameworthy

Posted September 10, 2013 By John C Wright

By one of those quaint and curious coincidences, I came across three criticisms of apparently unrelated things, a novel, a dance video, and a literary manifesto, which betrayed to my recoiling gaze the moral vertigo distinctive of the modern age. I saw the pattern connected the unrelated incidents.

The first was a criticism of my own work.

It would be uncouth of me, indeed it would be insubordinate, to argue to a disappointed customer; and I do not intend my remarks here to be read in that light. Your humble author failed to please and amuse, and there the matter rests. I would not be so bold as to mention the matter at all, save that the anonymous critic inadvertently revealed one of the crucial clues to unlock the savage mystery of modernity.

I cannot repeat in this space the whole of the critique, since it is peppered with the boring vulgarities which sound so strong and manly to dull souls, but will instead extract the single sentence of interest to us here. Speaking of my heroine, the space princess Rania, of COUNT TO A TRILLION:

“Your beautiful anime space virgin waifu was the creepiest part of your stupid story.”

I am not current with Otaku (fanboy) slang. Various online urban dictionaries provided for my want.

“WAIFU: A term coined by Otaku for their 2D significant others; predominantly anime and video game characters. A Waifu, in contrast to a harem, is the love between one man and his one and only Waifu. You treat your Waifu with the utmost respect and courtesy….”

The example of respect and courtesy given (which I am not at liberty to quote) is that the fanboy does not commit the sin of Onan while gazing at the image of his idolatry. That is what passes for respect in the modern day.
Read the remainder of this entry »

79 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings

Amazing What you can find on the Web! Part Deux

Posted September 9, 2013 By John C Wright

It seems that the talented Mrs Sharp has also written an instrumental entitled ‘Deeds of Renown Without Peer’ inspired by THE GOLDEN AGE, and also by the Everness books, which I am glad someone read.

Oh, I am so flattered. It is lucky I get hate mail, otherwise I would be too proud by half.

https://soundcloud.com/ginadonahue/deeds-of-renown

Here is a general question: are there legions of songs written about van Vogt or Heinlein or Asimov stories posted all over the internet? I know anything made into a movie must have a professional soundtrack, such as SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES, or BLADE RUNNER, or the movie that was not STARSHIP TROOPERS but should have been.

13 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Only Posting a Link

I cannot make it, but…

Posted September 9, 2013 By John C Wright

If I were free, I would go.

Join Senators Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Rand Paul, along with many others, in taking a stand against the “train wreck” that is ObamaCare.

What: Exempt America from ObamaCare Rally
When: Tuesday, September 10, 2013, from 12pm to 2pm
Where: West lawn of the U.S. Capitol

Learn more and register to attend at ExemptAmerica.com

.

7 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Announcement

Amazing What you can find on the Web

Posted September 7, 2013 By John C Wright

I just came across a song called ‘The Walk from Bridge-to-Nowhere’.

I have no idea who wrote it or when or why, but it sounds like a sad and grim futuristic Texan kind of thing with more than a touch of humor and swing — in other words, exactly like the theme music Menelaus I Montrose should have, if he ever starred in his own show.

A show starring Menelaus Montrose! It could be called GUNSMOKING or WILD WILD OUTER SPACE or SECRETLY ROOTING FOR BLACKIE or perhaps STICKING MY SKULL WITH A NEEDLE TO MAKE ME SMARTER PROVES I AM NOT AS SMART AS I THINK I AM.

Anyway, give it a listen:

https://soundcloud.com/ginadonahue/the-walk-from-bridge-to

Read the remainder of this entry »

17 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Fancies, Only Posting a Link

Pray for Peace

Posted September 7, 2013 By John C Wright

Just a reminder to the faithful:

The Catholic Church has called for a global day of fasting and prayer on Saturday (Sept 7th) for peace in Syria and against any armed intervention, with Pope Francis scheduled to host a mass vigil on St Peter’s Square.

That is today.

9 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Announcement

Frederik Pohl, Rest in Peace

Posted September 4, 2013 By John C Wright

A giant has fallen.

If you notice any parallels between AGE OF THE PUSSYFOOT and my own COUNT TO A TRILLION, I can assure you that the Grandmaster was not cribbing ideas from me. The flattery of borrowing went the other way.

Go out any buy a Pohl novel to honor the man.

3 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Announcement, Fancies

Seamus Heaney, Rest in Peace

Posted September 1, 2013 By John C Wright

Lament. A great poet has passed into eternity.

I know nothing of the man aside from this magical translation of BEOWULF, which I listen to raptly and often.

Read the remainder of this entry »

7 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Fancies
« Older Entries