Category: Uncategorized

The first edition of The Book of Genesis was written during a time when our survey of reality was quite small.  We now know that reality is  fantastically larger in size, so I’m wondering if someone should rewrite The Book of Genesis and give it a bit of updating.

¹In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

²And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

³And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

⁴And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

⁵And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

⁶And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

⁷And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

⁸And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

⁹And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

You see, we have a problem, right from verse 1.  Is God just the architect of planet Earth, and Genesis only the chronicles of creation for our local neck of the woods, or are we starting the story late, after God has done a whole lot of other work?  Wouldn’t it be better if we start with verse 3?  “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”

That might go better with our knowledge of The Big Bang.  But it also has some problems.  When the biblical authors mentions light, are they only talking about the visible spectrum?  It took mankind another few thousand years to learn of the existence of the entire electro-magnetic spectrum.  If the line was written now, would it say, “And God created space and time, matter and energy, and all the forces of nature.”

For many decades scientists thought The Big Bang was the beginning of all of creation, but now cosmologists dare to entertain a time before The Big Bang, with multiple universes, which makes reality a whole lot bigger still.  Because we all love to think in terms of cause and effect, shouldn’t the first verse of The Book of Genesis be something like:  “From out of nothing came something.”  Or maybe, “Reality is infinite in all directions of time and space.  Our existence proves the impossibility of nothingness.”  But this boggles the mind.

Any new editors of The Book of Genesis will need to thoroughly understand cosmology, because of our knowledge of creation is quite vast, and more than that, it has deep philosophical implications.  When our most distant ancestors wrote the first edition of The Book of Genesis they only covered their nano-tiny corner of existence, and pictured God manlike, able to trod Earthly paths.  Later writers and editors of the Bible pushed God up into the sky.  Does this mean, with our current knowledge about a universe 13.7 billion light-years across, that God has to stand outside of this creation?  Can God be smaller than his art?

The science of astronomy is going through a renaissance right now, and they know a whole lot about creation and how it evolved.  Fundamentalists may foam at the mouth when they hear the word evolution, but if you look at our knowledge of reality there is a common thread that runs throughout the history of everything that can only be thought of as evolving.

Absolute nothingness should have been the order no time and space.  Reality never should have gotten started.  But it did, and if you study the relentless development of our universe from Big Bang to Big Brains you will see a spooky force seeking greater organization.  This force is more like gravity than a deity.

To get just a taste of what I mean, read the Rare Earth hypothesis, based on the book Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee.  I’m sure theists will see this as the hand of God, and scientists will consider the same concept as one hell of a lucky streak for random events, but I wonder. 

How long has reality worked to create you and me?  How many universes and dimensions did it take to produce Earth?  If The Book of Genesis was rewritten to take in the knowledge within Rare Earth, with it’s ever growing list of almost impossible requirements to produce a planet with animals, the new Book of Genesis 2.0 would be far more inspiring than 1.0.  Theists who are too lazy to study more than one book of knowledge really need to get into science.  The trouble is, science takes reading dozens of books just to get a glimmer of what’s going on.

If modern scientists wrote The Book of Genesis today, they might condense what they know about the miracle of evolution down to something the size of The Encyclopedia Britannica.  But that would only get you Evolution for Dummies.  Some theists are all hung-up on mankind descending from apes, but hell, that’s almost the end of the story of evolution.  Even if you ignore where the Big Bang comes from, just getting from hydrogen to the rest of the periodic table of elements is a fairly long and complex story, a tale that is omitted from The Book of Genesis 1.0.

Every element beyond hydrogen took a great deal of stellar evolution to create, and that took billions of years.  Getting from tiny particles to stars is another long story.  After that is the evolution of heavier elements, so planets could evolve.  Getting to land, air and water is another epic adventure.  Then we must chronicle the rise of complex molecules, and then to the miracle transformation from inorganic to organic chemistry.  That gets us to a few billion years ago when this spooky force that I’m talking about, through apparent random events, came up with the beginnings of life.

At every step of this long evolutionary path, randomness chooses order over chaos.  Why?  There is no real reason to believe an even higher ordered force existed to guide this randomness.  If that was true we’d have to ask how it evolved first?  The only thing I can imagine about this reality after reading Rare Earth, is forces of nature have been trying to produce humans for a very long time, much longer than our 13.7 billion years in this universe.  How many eons of creating sterile universes did it take before one had this spooky force that keeps driving forward turning chaos into order?

And the absurd tragedy for this unknown force’s effort, is us,  a species hell bent on turning exterminating the beautiful order that this force took so long to create.  It took eons to evolve an Earth that’s capable of evolving complex life, and our western civilization is going to destroy our magical planet in a couple hundred years.  Go figure.

The purpose of the Old Testament was to teach about obedience to the will of God.  If you want to know the will of reality, I’d suggest studying science and the history of the universe from The Big Bang until The Book of Genesis was written.  If you want to tag it Intelligent Design, then go ahead, I don’t care.  Call that spooky force God, if you want.  But it’s no personal God. It doesn’t offer salvation or promise answers to prayers.  It doesn’t even care that we exist.  If it expects anything from us, I would imagine, it’s only desire would be for no one to break its extremely long lucky streak.

There is no afterlife or Heaven so far in this long chain of evolution, because all Creation does is create more order, and we’re apparently its mostly complex accomplishment.  It would be amazing if it could evolve spiritual beings and heaven.  Maybe us thinking of such a concept drives the spooky force onward towards such an even more complex ordering.  Who knows what future eons will bring.  Maybe immortal souls won’t happen in this universe, but might in the future, half an infinity of universes from now.  But it won’t happen if we fuck up this planet.

JWH – 5/28/9   

What’s with the new obsession with time travel?  By the way, if you haven’t seen the Lost Season 5 finale or the new Star Trek film, don’t read this, because I’m going to talk about concepts that will spoil the shows.  Is it me, or did the new producers of Star Trek just reboot the franchise, using time travel so their new actors for old characters wouldn’t be annoyed by having to live lives consistent with Star Trek’s history? 

I remember the summer of 1966, when NBC first ran ads for Star Trek, and how excited I was for that new season to start.  The 1966-1967 TV season was my all-time favorite.  I grew up and got married and eventually watched all the Star Trek shows through Voyager, and some of Enterprise.  I’m not a fanatic fan, but seeing the new movie stimulated many nostalgic rushes.  I wasn’t bothered by the changes in the new characters, and really liked that Spock was hooking up with Uhura, but when Spock’s mom died it rattled my brain because I wondered how they were going to fix the plotlines to all those classic episodes, so the Star Trek world that we know and love could unfold properly.  Evidently, we’re living in a new Star Trek universe.

But I don’t like time travel paradoxes.  If bad Romulan Nero goes back in time and destroys Vulcan, wouldn’t Spock 2.0 know not to be late in his future date to save Romulus, and thus piss off Nero for a second time, which would start the loop all over again?  Or will future history lessons on Romulus teach young Nero in school that one day he will travel back in time, destroy Vulcan and be killed by Captain Kirk?  That sounds like something Kurt Vonnegut would write.

And now, let’s turn to Lost.  Is it me, or did Jack and crew, murder a horde of people just to solve their own sniveling little problems?  I’m totally into the story, so I’m trying not to be critical, but I’ve just got to worry about the ethics.  Here’s the deal, if setting off Jughead, the H-bomb in 1977, seals up the mysterious energy source that will pull Oceanic Flight 815 from the sky in 2006, the TV show that we know as Lost never gets to happen.  (Are we expected to forget we ever watched it?) 

Ignoring the obvious time paradox, what about the murder of all the people on the island in 1977 that weren’t there by time travel.  They are dead, and they will have no future timeline at all.  And how many people and their timelines does this event avert?  How many people never get to come to the island after 1977?  And how significant might these changes be to the entire history of Earth?

I’m getting to hate time travel stories.  Time travel plotting totally hosed Heroes.  I’m worried about Lost and Star Trek.  Wouldn’t Star Trek have been much better if the new stories fit within the existing Star Trek universe? 

Finally, were there no line of command officers on the Enterprise?  There should have been dozens if not hundreds on a ship that size, so why does the punk Kirk get to go immediately to the Captain’s chair?  Weren’t there any career officers busting their butts for decades to be in line for command?  This new Star Trek reminded me of the old Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland movies where the high school kids get to throw together a Broadway musical in two weeks.  In other words, this new film feels like the Star Trek kids get to take over the Enterprise and save the world.

JWH – 5/17/9

I scratched my cornea and other parts of my left eye over a week ago, and I’ve been home with my eyes shut 98% of the time since last Monday trying to get the left eye healed.  I can’t watch TV, use the computer or read.  Sitting around without looking at things is very enlightening about how important sight is to my life.  I totally crave doing little things I completely took for granted before.  I can see out of my right eye, but it makes my left eye move, which hurts.  My eye is hurting, so I need to stop writing and go back to resting it. 

JWH – 4/11/9

When I read More Than Human during my teenage years over forty years ago it was a murky novel too adult for me to understand.  I’ve just finished listening to the Blackstone Audiobooks edition read by Stefan Rudnicki and Harlan Ellison, and at age 57, the story now feels crystal clear.  There’s a reason why More Than Human shares the #1 spot with Dune and The Demolished Man on the Classics of Science Fiction list.  The book is powerful and deeply psychological and reminds me more of Faulker than science fiction.  Theodore Sturgeon wasn’t you typical science fiction writer, he explored inner space rather than outer space.

More Than Human is a fix-up novel comprised of three related novelettes that cover several years of action.  They are “The Fabulous Idiot,” “Baby is Three” and “Morality.”  The novel is about several abnormal kids with paranormal talents that struggle to form a single being which they call homo gestalt.  I don’t want to describe the novel in detail, those can be found through the links I provide, instead I want to analyze the novel for what it says.

Theodore Sturgeon was interested in psychiatry and the inner landscape of the human mind when he wrote this book.  More Than Human came out in 1953 at a time when literature and film were obsessed with psychotherapy.   We had just gotten over a monstrous world war that killed tens of millions of people and left us with technology that could end mankind.  I think a lot of people were afraid of the future.  This is also the time of Joseph McCarthy and his witch hunt for reds, the Korean War, A and H bomb testing, the Rosenberg trial, childhood diseases, birth defects, polio scares, juvenile delinquency and other troubling stories filling the news.

The early 1950s represented a shift in science fiction publishing from the golden age pulps to the higher status of hardback and paperback publication, and Hollywood movie productions, pushing science fiction into the public eye just when everyone was thinking about the end of the world and hoping for a brighter future.  This time also coincided with the rise of many superhero comics, an interesting psychological expression of the times in itself.

From these influences, Sturgeon works to imagine what the next stage of homo sapiens will be like, but he comes up with the most bizarre origin for his new homo gestalt: damaged and rejected children.  Instead of a handsome Übermensch, Sturgeon assembles a group body made up of kids with wild talents and its head from a supercomputer like brain housed in a baby with severe birth defects.  The children’s group mind is tied together with ESP powers.

This is another reflection of the 1950s, when concepts of psi-powers thrilled the public and even overwhelmed the science fiction magazines.  Why was the generation just before the baby boomers so into psychic powers?  I think More Than Human is a very impressive novel, but hugely flawed philosophically.  The desire to be Slans begs for psychoanalysis.  I think all of 1940s and 1950s science fiction that dwelt on this topic culminated in 1961 with the publication of Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein.

Why does every imagined homo superior have psychic powers?  And are not psychic powers the same powers that gods have in myths and religion?  And in many books about Human 2.0 they also predict an indifference to killing members of Human 1.0 species, another god-like power.

Sturgeon leaves us thinking we need homo gestalt to solve the problems of homo sapiens, but the one specific example that occurs in More Than Human of homo gestalt helping a single poor man goes neglected.  I admire this novel for its writing, but I don’t like what it says.  I just don’t believe the next stage of human development involves gaining psychic powers.  Decades of science has shown there is actually zero ESP ability in human beings.  Nor is there any reason to believe we will evolve ESP abilities.  About the closest we’ll ever get to telepathy is the cell-phone and look what people do with that ability.

I think there’s a reason why Slan and More Than Human are not well known novels, and why Stranger in a Strange Land caused a lot of controversy.  I think the average person doesn’t believe in psychic powers and they don’t want to live in a world where those powers exist. 

The TV show Heroes is exploring this topic now, but the writers and producers don’t know how to deal with it topic philosophically.  They understand that the general public would probably want to exterminate those with abilities, but they want to make their Heroes acceptable, but their Heroes are like the crazy Greek gods fighting amongst themselves, seeming capricious and petty.  They save themselves and not humans.

I can’t think of any novel that explores homo superior ever coming up with a believable future in which psychic powers makes things better.  In the over half-century since More Than Human was published we have made the world much better.  Sure, we have mountains of problems, but we don’t have many of the terrible problems we used to have.  And none of these problems were solved with psychic powers.  Supermen can’t stop war, they can only oppress us.  Sturgeon knew this at the end of More Than Human.

JWH – 3/15/9   

I work in a College of Education and our students go on to become teachers, so we get Apple sales reps visiting every year and I met with a couple yesterday.  Apple Computers tries hard to own the K-12 market, but I don’t have any figures to show how successful they are.  We have three computer labs in our building and two are filled with Macintosh computers, with the assumption that teacher education students need to train on the type of computers they will see in their future jobs.  Actually, the PC lab is the most used.

My day job involves programming, web development, server management and computer support.  I’ve been working with computers since 1971, and I began working with Apple II computers in 1978 and Macintosh computers in 1984.  I admire Apple.  The Macintosh is a fantastic computer, but I just don’t know if it belongs in the school systems.

Every time I meet Apple reps I feel like I’m talking to two clean cut Mormons that have come to my door to sell their religion.  Apple people believe in their Macintosh and feel all kids should have one.  Apple Computers got a beachhead in the school systems with the Apple II machines and it was natural that teachers wanted Macintoshes when they came out.  The trouble is students leaving K-12 schools end up in colleges and businesses where Windows reign supreme.

Despite Apple’s excellent computers, the exposure to kids to Macintoshes throughout their school life, the overwhelmingly cool marketing campaigns, Apple has only gained about 1/20th of the market.  Why is that?  Macs cost too much.  I mention that to the Apple reps yesterday and they pooh-pooh that belief, but it’s true.  Several times in my life I was determined to buy a Mac but after pricing them at the Apple Store, and even considering my education discount, I always faced too much sticker shock and walk out.  I then go elsewhere and buy a Windows machine for half as much money.

The last time this happened I wanted to buy an iMac, but only the $1799 version was practical because of memory, DVD burner and 20″ screen.  I left the story and bought a HP with more memory and hard drive space for $498, and then bought an excellent Samsung 22″ LCD monitor for $222 and was completely happy.

Which makes me wonder why cash strapped school systems buy Apple computers?  And now with the economy the way it is, really, why do they buy Apple computers?  If schools bought parts, taught their students to build computers, and accepted Linux, they could have 3-4 times as many computers for their money, or just save a lot of money.  Isn’t the idea of going to school to learn?  Wouldn’t building computers and using open source software inspire a lot more learning than getting the easy to use expensive computers?

When the Apple II came out schools justified expending enormous amounts of money on computers because students would learn about programming and computer literacy.  They don’t universally teach programming in schools anymore, and computer literacy is a moot point since most tykes pick up computer skills before they start school.  Hell, if I ran a school I’m not sure I would have computers in the schools at all, but that’s a different rant.

Another issue about computers in schools is compatibility.  If 95% of society uses one kind of computer, why have kids study on the one that gets 5% of the market?  Of course, I wonder why 100% of everyone isn’t using the same kind of computer.  Can you imagine what our society would be like if Sony TVs got some stations and Samsung TVs got different stations?  Or if Fords had to drive on different roads than Toyotas.  Or if you bought a toaster and it only worked with wheat bread.  Or if you have a telephone that only got calls from telephones of the same brand?  I could go on and on with the examples, but I’m sure you get my point.

But if my point is made, why should Windows be the universal computer OS, even if it has already gained 95% of the market share?  We’re pretty close to having 100% hardware standardized on Intel chips and its clones, and it’s just the finicky OS that’s giving everyone fits.  You’d think the open source folks and Linux would have won the war by now, but they haven’t.  The momentum is with Windows.  It’s a shame we can’t (inter)nationalize Windows 7 and take it away from Microsoft and make it open source and give it free to the world.

And what’s so technologically hard about building a computer OS that everyone can write programs for, that wouldn’t crash, that wouldn’t get infected by viruses and malware, that would be easy and elegant to use, and be universal across all the countries of the world.  I mean, Unicode has already been invented, why not UniOS?

When I saw the Apple reps yesterday I told them I would find Apple more acceptable if their OS was sold to run on any Intel box like Windows and Linux.  I just can’t get behind endorsing one company as a universal standard.  Hey, Bill Gates, make Windows 7 open source.  Windows is less elite than Apple because it runs on computers made by anybody, but it still can’t be a world-wide universal standard if it’s sold by one company.

I think schools should buy components and build computers that can run any OS that the students want to put on them.  Make Windows 7 and OS X open source and let them compete with Linux.  Let the OSes battle it out for 10 years and then let’s pick the UniOS for the world standard starting in 2020.

JWH – 3/12/9