Archive for the ‘philosophy’ Category

Atheism vs agnosticism

Saturday, August 23rd, 2008

I used to describe myself as an agnostic, but now I describe myself as an atheist. What changed was not my faith (or lack of it) but what I understood those words to mean.

I used to think that the meanings were as follows:

Atheism: I believe there is no god.
Agnosticism: I neither believe nor disbelieve in God.

But I know think that the following definitions are more accurate:

Atheism: I do not believe that there is a god.
Agnosticism: I have no opinion about the existence or nonexistence of God.

Specifically, I don't think that there is a god but would rather avoid describing myself as having any sort of "belief" one way or the other, because that word carries some implication of "belief without (or despite) evidence". While it's impossible to ever prove with certainty that there is no god (or indeed to prove with certainty anything other than "I think, therefore I am") I think that there is a great deal of evidence that there is no God. I'll take a look at some of this evidence tomorrow.

Apostasy

Friday, August 22nd, 2008

There have been several moments during my life that particularly influenced me towards atheism.

One of these was when I first started learning about science. Scientific explanations seemed to me to be much more satisfying and believable than those of the bible. For a while I thought that this was because the people who originally wrote down the bible were not sophisticated enough to understand the science so it was written down in terms they might be able to understand on some level - that the bible was a simplified version of the truth that we would eventually figure out for ourselves. I had precedents for this concept - I had computer manuals which give strict instructions like "don't remove the floppy disk from the drive while the light is on" but I later discovered that you can remove disks during the time between when the save operation completes and the light goes out (the instruction in the manual was less efficient and less accurate but easier to understand and more difficult to screw up).

The second of these moments was probably when I was told the story of "doubting Thomas". Nobody ever seemed to be able to explain to me exactly why being skeptical was a bad thing (other than the usual "God works in mysterious ways" rubbish that I always found totally unconvincing).

The third was probably when I tried to read the Old Testament. This must have been during secondary school as well. I got as far as the story of the Tower of Babel. In the past when I heard this story it had been presented as a kind of "just so story" about the origins of the different languages. But when I read it for myself I realized that this God was a real dick! Rather than celebrating the great achievements of his creation, he scrambles their language out of fear and jealousy! ("...now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language..."). At that point I was so disgusted I gave up.

The fourth was at university when (while debating a Christian friend) I came across a site called "Who Gives a Fish" (which now longer seems to exist). This linked to some extremely compelling arguments that all of Christianity is bunk. After reading that (and failing to find the refutations to it that I would expect to find if it were false) I no longer had any desire to be infected with this particular meme.

That I ended up an atheist despite my religious upbringing seems to me to be quite damning evidence against God - surely if there were something to it at least the people who started off religious would stay religious.

I never believed in Jesus

Thursday, August 21st, 2008

I used to think of myself as a Christian, back in primary school and the early part of secondary school. I was brought up in the Church of England. My first primary school was a C of E school, meaning that we had prayers in morning assembly and (one or twice a week) the vicar would come and tell us bible stories. For a while I went to Sunday school every week. I found this very boring and I'm sure I always used to say "It's Sunday - why do I have to go to school?".

In secondary school one day they handed out little red Gideon bibles to everyone in my year. I recall observing with horror when some of my classmates mutilated their copies. I read mine every day for probably the best part of a year. I don't recommend it - the writing style is really rather awful (I eventually gave up because it was so unreadable rather than through lack of faith).

Even amongst all this religious upbringing, I don't think I ever believed that the stories about Jesus and all the other bible stories were ever more than stories. They were just too ridiculous. In fact, I don't think it even occurred to me that there was anyone who ever thought of them as anything other than parables - certainly none of the religious people I knew ever gave me the impression they did. In fact it wasn't until I got to university that it sunk in that there were people who actually believed in the literal truth of the bible! This may seem strange to my American readers as this point of view is quite common here but I suspect it is the exception rather than the rule in England.

Different kinds of truth

Monday, August 11th, 2008

I used to think that the truth was just that - The Truth, singular. That there was just one "Platonic" set of true mathematical facts. I no longer subscribe to this point of view - what's true depends on who you ask.

First there are some basic truths that we have to agree on to have a discussion about anything, like "if A is true, and if A implies B, then B is also true". If we don't accept these basic logical principles as true the consequences are simply that we can't deduce anything, or that we have to accept that everything is true, or that nothing is true. We accept these truths because if we didn't what we get is a rather limited and boring set of mathematics, useless for doing anything interesting (like modelling the real world) with. Those who would deny them can't be disproven, but they can't be reasoned with either. So these truths just have to be admitted as axioms.

Next there are empirical truths like "the sky is blue" and "2+2=4". These can be thought of as facts about the universe we live in. We know they are true because we can see that they are. One could in principle do mathematics without such facts (just using pure logic) but most mathematicians generally accept these truths as well as it makes mathematics more interesting (and definitely more useful).

Sometimes mathematicians envisage mathematical objects which cannot exist in our universe - objects which are infinite in some sense (not necessarily infinitely big - a perfect sphere is infinitely smooth, for example, and the real number line contains infinitely many points). Infinity is a very slippery thing to deal with precisely because infinities are never directly observed in the universe. How can we say anything about infinity then? Well, mathematicians have developed techniques like "epsilon delta" (for every delta you can name, no matter how small, I can name an epsilon with such and such a property). These arguments break down in physics (nothing can be smaller than the Planck length or the concentration of energy required to confine it in that interval would cause a black hole) so they are purely mathematical in nature. Nevertheless they form a consistent and beautiful theory, and they do turn out to be useful for approximating physics, so we accept them.

But when infinities start to get involved, things get very weird - you start to find that there are multiple different versions of mathematics (multiple different sets of "true facts") which are consistent with themselves, consistent with our universe and interesting. Two of these are accepting and denying the "Axiom of Choice" (AC). If we accept the AC it allows us to prove things about infinities without actually constructing or defining them. This has some very weird results (like being able to disassemble a sphere into 5 pieces, move and rotate them and end up with 2 identical spheres of the same size as the original with no gaps). But denying the AC also gives you some weird results (every set can be put into order). Each are just as "true" but give different sets of mathematics. Currently mathematics including the AC is more popular as it seems to provide greater richness of intellectual territory.

As mathematics develops, it seems likely that more of these "interesting" axioms will be discovered (some of which might already have been assumed in some proofs) and that mathematics will fracture into increasng numbers of "branches" depending on which axioms one chooses to accept and which to deny. In fact, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says that for any axiomatic system of mathematics there will be "obviously true" statements that can't be proved from these axioms, in other words that the "bulk of mathematics" (though not necessarily the bulk of interesting mathematics) is found at the leaves of this metamathematical tree.

There are other branches of mathematics whose "truth value" is currently unknown to human mathematicians. For example, many theorems have been proven under the assumption that the Riemann hypothesis is true. We think it probably is but nobody has been able to prove it yet. The volume of work which assumes it makes it one of the most important unsolved problems.

Evolution of morality

Sunday, May 11th, 2008

In my university days I would often have philosophical debates with religious friends. One of them once tried to convince that, if there was no God, there would be no reason to "be good" - that the root of morality had to be spiritual in nature.

As reasons for believing in Gods go, that one seems to be a particularly bad one. Most atheists don't go around raping and murdering people.

My friend presented me with a thought experiment. "Suppose you could kill someone you didn't like, in such a way that it would be provably impossible for anyone to find out it was you - would you do it? A Christian wouldn't, because it's against the wish of God, but an atheist would have no such compunction." Well, first of all it's ridiculous to speculate about an impossible hypothetical situation - no matter what form the proof took, it's impossible to be sure that no mistake was made and that you could never be found out, so as far as you can tell there is always an element of risk. Also, my friend was effectively arguing that the only reason he wouldn't kill is because someone (God, if no-one else) would always find out and dole out punishment. Avoiding a potential punishment seems to me to be the least moral reason for avoiding murdering people - the golden rule is a much better one.

My friend could not conceive of how a sense of morality could have arisen in the human race by evolution alone. But after a small amount of though I realized that there are many evolutionary advantages to helping the other members of your community. If you help your community, the community as a whole is strengthened. The other members of this community are likely to share more of your DNA than members of rival communities. So any advantage to your community improves your DNA's chance of surviving and reproducing. Thus, communities with a sense of morality will tend to be favored by the evolutionary process over communities with no sense of morality.

It isn't just individual survival and reproduction that drive evolution - groups of related individuals exhibit all prerequisites for evolution as well (variation in hereditary characteristics producing survival and reproduction advantages) so social behavior can evolve just as well as body shape.

In order to evolve, social behavior does not have to be encoded in DNA. Ideas can (and do) evolve and propagate just as genes do. The human mind provides an environment that is fertile for memes to breed and evolve. This is good, as speeding memetic evolution gives a survival advantage for our species (arguably, it the one thing that has allowed us to be so spectacularly more successful in control and adaptation than any other).

But just as we apparently have some "junk DNA" in our chromosomes which is reproduced faithfully but doesn't actually do anything useful, we may have accumulated some "junk memes" as well. Perhaps these aided our survivability in the past but now serve no useful purpose. I'll leave you to speculate as to what these memes may be.

The Land of Infinite Fun

Saturday, May 10th, 2008

I've only read one of Iain M. Banks's books Excession) so far but hopefully I will get around to reading some more, because the guy has an incredible imagination. One concept in particular has stuck with me:

Technically, it was a branch of metamathematics, usually called metamathics. Metamathics; the investigation of the properties of Realities (more correctly, Reality-fields) intrinsically unknowable by and from our own, but whose general principles could be hazarded at. Metamathics led to everything else, it led to the places that nobody else had ever seen or heard of or previously imagined.

It was like living half your life in a tiny, stuffy, warm grey box, and being moderately happy in there because you knew no better. and then discovering a little hole in one corner of the box, a tiny opening which you could get a finger into, and tease and pull at, so that eventually you created a tear, which led to a greater tear, which led to the box falling apart around you. so that you stepped out of the tiny box's confines into startlingly cool, clear fresh air and found yourself on top of a mountain, surrounded by deep valleys, sighing forests, soaring peaks, glittering lakes, sparkling snowfields and a stunning, breathtakingly blue sky. And that, of course, wasn't even the start of the real story, that was more like the breath that is drawn in before the first syllable of the first word of the first paragraph of the first chapter of the first book of the first volume of the story.

Metamathics led to the Mind equivalent of that experience, repeated a million times, magnified a billion times, and then beyond, to configurations of wonder and bliss even the simplest abstract of which the human-basic brain had no conceivable way of comprehending. It was like a drug; an ultimately liberating, utterly enhancing, unadulterably beneficial, overpoweringly glorious drug for the intellect of machines as far beyond the sagacity of the human mind as they were beyond its understanding. This was the way the Minds spent their time. They imagined entirely new universes with altered physical laws, and played with them, lived in them and tinkered with them, sometimes setting up the conditions for life, sometimes just letting things run to see if it would arise spontaneously, sometimes arranging things so that life was impossible but other kinds and types of bizarrely fabulous complication were enabled.

Some of the universes possessed just one tiny but significant alteration, leading to some subtle twist in the way things worked, while others were so wildly, aberrantly different it could take a perfectly first-rate Mind the human equivalent of years of intense thought even to find the one tenuously familiar strand of recognisable reality that would allow it to translate the rest into comprehensibility. Between those extremes lay an infinitude of universes of unutterable fascination, consummate joy and absolute enlightenment. All that humanity knew and could understand, every single aspect, known, guessed at and hoped for in and of the universe was like a mean and base mud hut compared to the vast, glittering cloud-high palace of monumentally exquisite proportions and prodigious riches that was the metamathical realm. Within the infinities raised to the power of infinities that those metamathical rules provided, the Minds built their immense pleasure-domes of rhapsodic philosophical ecstasy.

That was where they lived. That was their home. When they weren't running ships, meddling with alien civilisations or planning the future course of the Culture itself, the Minds existed in those fantastic virtual realities, sojourning beyondward into the multi-dimensioned geographies of their unleashed imaginations, vanishingly far away from the single limited point that was reality.

The Minds had long ago come up with a proper name for it; they called it the Irreal, but they thought of it as Infinite Fun. That was what they really knew it as. The Land of Infinite Fun.

It did the experience pathetically little justice.

I think that is my idea of heaven - it would be sort of like doing maths with brain orders of magnitude more complex than my own.

No competition

Saturday, May 5th, 2007

I've never really liked competing with others. As a child I would often refuse to play party games even at my own birthday party - I preferred to just sit out and watch instead. I suspect that this is because I actually have a fiercely competitive nature, and don't like the feelings that this nature inspires in me (the feeling that I must be better than others, regardless of their feelings, lest I be marked the "loser".)

For the same reason I've never really liked sports (playing or watching) and I suspect I would do better at work if on being told that I will be ranked against my peers my natural inclination was not to think "well I just won't play that game then - I'll just sit it out and do my own thing".

During one electronics class at school, I was helping one of the other students understand something that he was having trouble with. Another student advised me that I should not help him because we were to be graded on a curve, and helping one student implicitly hurts all the others. I don't want to live in a world where nobody helps anybody else - life isn't a zero sum game.

I think competition is overrated as a motivator for human accomplishment anyway. The great works of art of the world weren't created to prove their creators superior to all the other artists, and I think most of the accomplishments in academia happen in spite of the great competition for funding (and publish or perish rather than because of it.

I also suspect that the software industry could have achieved much more were it not for the duplication of effort caused by having competing companies solving essentially the same problems (particularly because of the exponential increase in complexity caused by having to interoperate). Different ideas should be allowed to compete on their own merits rather than on the merits of the companies that sell them.

Having a free market with competition to provide the best prices/best customer service/least environmental harm seems like a good idea in theory but from the individual customer's point of view, their only power is to take their business elsewhere. So my choice is between the supermarket that's close, the one that treats their employees well, the one that's cheap or the one that has the chocolate muffins I like. And (other than writing a letter that is likely to be ignored) I don't really have a way to tell the other two supermarkets why I'm not choosing them. The system only works on the aggregate level - individual consumers with requirements different from the profitable herd are basically screwed.

What's the answer? I'm not sure. Clearly some forms of competition are necessary (since communism didn't work out so well) and some people do great things precisely because of competitive pressures. But I think I would like to see a shift in policy towards rewarding cooperation and "absolute performance" and away from rewarding "performance relative to competition". Unfortunately that's rather more difficult to set up than a free market - in some disciplines (like computer programming) absolute performance is extremely difficult to measure absolutely (almost any metric you choose can be gamed). Also, if different factors become important (for example if we as a species suddenly decide than environmentalism is important) we all have to agree to change the metrics to take this into account, whereas in a free market we just have to have enough consumers decide "environmentalism is important to me - I will choose the environmentally friendly product even though it is more expensive".

The future of language

Saturday, April 14th, 2007

I think that as global communication improves the language barrier will gradually disappear. This is not to say that there won't be different languages (at least for a good long while), just that everyone will be able to understand each other. Probably a few of the more obscure languages will die out, a few others will be kept deliberately alive although their speakers will have fluency in the "mainstream" languages as well. Some words will disappear, others will migrate between languages. Techniques for teaching language will improve so that the remaining languages will be spoken and understood by everyone. Perhaps eventually these languages will become (effectively) a single language that everyone speaks.

Then we'll make contact with aliens and have a language barrier again just as we've forgotten all our techniques for effectively living with it.

Metascience: the nature of the laws governing the universe

Sunday, January 22nd, 2006

Given what we know about the laws of the universe so far, I suspect that there are not too many of them - i.e. that when we finally figure out how to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity, the resulting "theory of everything" will be conceptually quite simple - perhaps just a few lines of equations when written down in their simplest form (although they might be rather difficult to do actual calculations with).

But what if there are exceptions to these laws of physics? What if there are a finite number of points in spacetime where these equations do not hold, and events happen that are not predicted by these laws? We couldn't do science with these directly - as each of them would only happen once, any experiments around them could not be repeated. There is a great deal of evidence pointing to the existence of one such point - the one the exact moment of the big bang at the beginning of the universe.

I got this idea from thinking about the classification of the finite simple groups. I won't go into great detail about what that actually means, but a very simple introduction follows in the next paragraph for the curious.

A group is just a mathematical object consisting of a set of things and an operation (e.g. addition or multiplication, call it "*") which takes any two of these things (e.g. a and b) and generates a third thing, a*b = c. This operation must also have certain special properties: (a*b)*c = a*(b*c), an "identity" element I such that a*I = I*a = a and an inverse element a-1 for every element a such that a*a-1 = a-1*a = I. The simple groups are just groups with particular properties - kind of like the equivalent of prime numbers for groups, or the chemical elements in chemistry - they can't be broken down into smaller simple groups.

Mathematicians wished to classify the finite simple groups, to find the equivalent of the "periodic table" for them. It turned out to be a rather big job - the result is the biggest theorem in mathematics (so far), consisting of some 15,000 pages in 500 articles by 100 mathematicians over a period of 28 years. It turns out that the simple groups can be classified into 18 different families (each of which is infinitely large). However, strangely there are 26 solitary finite simple groups (called the "sporadic groups") which don't fit into any of these 18 families! The largest of these has 808,017,424,794,512,875,886,459,904,961,710,757,005,754,368,000,000,000 elements, which can be thought of as a group of rotations of some object in a space with 196,883 dimensions.

I wonder if the universe works the same way. If it does, perhaps a theory of everything could be made much simpler by including such "sporadic events". By adding a finite number of sporadic events, it might be possible to change the theory of everything from an analog of the "18 families" form to a form analogous to the definition of a finite simple group. In so doing, one could predict when and where these sporadic events occurred (or would occur). We could seek out evidence for the sporadic events predicted to have occurred in the past. For sporadic events in the future, we could go to the place they were predicted to occur at the time that they were predicted to occur and perform experiments to observe them directly and gain evidence for the simplified version of the grand unified theory. Presumably if that were to occur, any alien species who had also achieved our level of scientific knowledge would be there too. I hope that by then we would be mature enough not to go to war with them over who gets to observe it. It would be kind of like the physics version of a pilgrimage to Mecca.

This might make a rather good science fiction short story.

Overreactions to terrorism

Wednesday, September 14th, 2005

I do not understand why a terrorist exploding a bomb which kills (say) 50 people is considered so much worse of a crime than (say) a serial killer murdering 50 random people for non-terrorist reasons. The objection people have to terrorism is, after all, the killing rather than the motive. If Al Qaeda pursued non-violent means to their ends instead of violent ones, they would not be nearly the enemy of the US that they are (in fact, their requests might even be taken seriously if they could persuade the US government to listen to them without violence).

I guess the point of taking terrorist crimes more seriously is prevention. Serial killers generally work alone, so once you have arrested one the stops. But if you arrest one terrorist (or he dies in the explosion he causes) there is always another to take his place. So in order to put an end to terrorism, the US government is attempting to eliminate all the people who could become terrorists, even if they have done nothing wrong. The trouble with that plan is that you have to turn this wonderful free country into a police state to do so. It is not enough just to arrest people who attempt to create or buy explosives or who contribute financially to terrorist causes, you also have to arrest people for the books they read, the photos they take, the websites they visit, the people they talk to and the things they say. You have to spy on everyone to find out if they have any sympathies for terrorist organizations. You have to completely gut the concepts of free speech and privacy which are some of the most important principles upon which the country is based. Already such rights are being eroded, and terrorism is showing no signs of disappearing. And instead of abandoning these dangerous and ineffective policies, the US government is trying to expand these anti-terrorist activities and erode more rights in the process. I think most people would (if they thought enough about it) rather take the freedoms we have along with a small chance of being killed in a terrorist attack than live in the world of 1984 but be safe from terrorists. As with all law enforcement it is a question of balance. I for one am more afraid of being arrested on suspicion of terrorism charges than I am of getting killed by a terrorist, which means that the balance has swung too far to the side of fascism. In fact I was in two minds whether to post this lest it be interpreted as supporting terrorism.

Here is what I think the government should do instead: treat terrorists as the criminals they are. There is no need to implement any special policies like deporting people to countries where they will be tortured, or imprisoning people indefinitely without trial, or removing judicial oversight from surveillance operations, or requiring libraries and bookshops to hand over their records. None of these things were needed in the past when it was just normal criminals that were being dealt with, so they should not be needed now. All that is needed is a sensible set of laws and the ability to enforce these laws. If we need laws against things like "possession of explosives with intent to murder" or "financially aiding a criminal organization" then so be it but no laws should be made limiting free speech or evading the checks and balances that have evolved to keep the system fair and just.

At the same time, the US government should be more open to considering the points of view of any political group who feels they have a legitmate gripe, even terrorist ones such as Al Qaeda (there is no point excluding the terrorist ones because any such organization will just split into two groups - a "political" one which does not officially endorse terrorism, but which secretly funds it, and a "military" one which blows things up). The idea is that if a group is given the same amount of attention whether or not they commit terrorism, there will be no incentive to commit terrorism. And there is still a definite incentive not to commit terrorism - namely that if you do so, your followers are liable to get arrested. Also, no-one should ever be left feeling that terrorism is the only option they have to get their point across.

And once you have your enemy sitting at the same table as you and prepared to talk, the war is half over.