The Grand Unified Theory of Music

Hay! Took a bit of a hiatus this semester to concentrate on music and other things, but here is a sample of some of the stuff I have been working on.

Perfect Tempos

When I set out on this research project my goal was no less then to understand the twelve tone tonic system and the mysterious force within it. Though I have admittedly fallen short of this goal, I believe the research and contemplation has still deepened my understanding of music, and perhaps may be the beginnings of ultimately achieving my goal.
"The two most basic elements of music are sound and time." So said W. Ronald Clemmons in his book Sounds in Time, and I doubt there is much serious disagreement on this fact. We could think of music as a mathematical abstraction on a parchment or “score”, but still what this would be representing is the mathematics of sound in time. Time is of course fundamental to sound it self. It is what unites our musical spectrum as well as forming the distinctions within it.
The distinction of two different tones is fundamentally a distinction in time. It is a distinction of the rhythmic pulse of sound within the tone; a faster pulse gives us a higher frequency or pitch, where as a slower pulse gives lower frequency. The same principle of course is at play in the extreme bass of our musical spectrum, where the rhythmic pulse is slowed to the point that it is no longer called tone but beat. However it is essentially the same phenomena we encounter in the treble region, beat and tone are just different was of looking at the pulse of music.
We often think of beats as having divisions and subdivisions, but any frequency bearing tone played within an underlying rhythmic structure can be seen as a pulse within a pulse.
Although it is easy to think of these elements of music, in a purely analytical fashion, as belonging to a single united spectrum of time and sound, they usually seem quite distinct in music as we actually encounter it. This is because composers generally avoid the dialectical area of the spectrum where the distinction becomes “muddy” (though vibrato can, on occasion, create a sort of flirting between the regions, if not actual meeting). Still there is a single interval that runs throughout the spectrum, let us call it the tonic interval. It manifests the most fundamental mathematical relationship that the human mind can grasp, that of doubling or Halfling (depending on which direction you are going.) We see this principle in the tonal area as the octave. We see it in the rhythm section in the basic form of the notes, whole, half, quarter etc. The adjustment of this interval is made in the tonal section by use the twelve “keys” within the interval (Major, minor or modal dose not really concern us here, as these refer only to how the tonic interval is internally divided.) It is made in the rhythm section by use of the more flexible* concept tempo.
This brings us to the main focus of this paper, the alignment of these two principles, key and tempo. Clearly these two principles can be aligned but for demonstration purposes let us take A4 at 440 Hz. The next tonic down would be 220Hz and the next 110Hz and the next 55Hz and the next 27.5Hz and the next 13.75 Hz (we are now getting below level of human hearing) and the next 6.88Hz and the next 3.44Hz or approximately 206 cycles per minuet. We have passed from the realm of tone through the “muddy” region and have come at long last to the domain of rhythm (that is if you are slightly demented). However, I would prefer to work with 103 or even 52, but this just underscores an important point. We are not talking about there being a perfect tempo for each key but rather there being perfect tempos for each key. It is now important to state that when we say “perfect” we are not meaning to imply that they are the only or even the best tempo for that key, merely that they are the tempos that align perfectly with the tonic interval and thus cause the least pan spectral dissonance. Music though is not meant to be perfectly consonant; indeed if it were perfectly consonant it would not be music.
So how do perfect tempos and pan spectral consonance affect the aesthetic and therapeutic aspects music? I am afraid this is a matter deserving its own paper, a paper I have not yet done enough research to write but hopefully soon I will have.
In the mean time here is a table of perfect tempos for the western twelve tone tonic system.


A = 206, 103, 52
A# = 219, 109, 55
B = 116, 58, 29
C = 123, 61, 31 (tonic)
C# = 130, 65, 32
D = 138, 69, 34
D# = 146, 73, 36
E = 155, 77, 39
F = 164, 82, 41
F# = 173, 87, 44
G = 184, 92, 46 (dominate)
G# = 195, 97, 49


* I am not including microtones in this assessment; theoretically the interval is fully flexible throughout the full spectrum.

A vote for McCain is a vote for Hillary!

As far as I know Obama has not yet officially made this his campaign slogan, but perhaps it is so obvious he does not need to. Earlier this year many of the GOP faithful flocked to the poles to vote for the candidate they thought would have the best chance at beating Hilary - John McCain (I guess because of his supposed popularity with independents). But the Dems foiled this cunning plan by deciding that an intellectually challenged nobody with a terrorist sounding name would make a better candidate than Hillary (well I can't argue with them there). So now the best chance for Hillary to become president is for McCain to get elected.

The Hidden Tariff

What is the real albatross around the US economy's neck?
It is not free trade, per se, or the lack of tariffs on foreign goods, but rather it is more the internal tariff on domestic goods and services.
It is employment tax. The annoying little tax that increases the cost of labor in the US by 10% - 15%.
Asking the American worker to compete in a vastly overstocked global labor market is one thing, asking him to do it at a 15% handicap is too much to ask any one.
So what do the politicians propose doing about it? Well it generally ranges from the outright insanity of raising the tax, to the bizarre enigma of pointless semantic shuffling.
The fact is the tax does not need to be manipulated, massaged or reduced, it simply needs to be eliminated.
Now one could debate whether or not the government should be in the dole business at all, but presuming the program should exist, it makes much more sense to fund it by spreading the cost equally between foreign and domestic goods, with a graduated consumption tax.
This would not only give the American manufacturer an equal shot at his own market, but also be more competitive abroad, not to mention allowing solvency as we move from a production to consumption weighted economy.It is not free trade, per se, or the lack of tariffs on foreign goods, but rather it is more the internal tariff on domestic goods and services. It is employment tax. The annoying little tax that increases the cost of labor in the US by 10% - 15%.

Greetings from the Silent Planate…

Or perhaps the planet they wish would just shut up? I personally don’t have a problem with SETI, after all if there are what we call “civilizations” near by I suppose it would be neighborly to say hello. But this fascination many materialists have with the proposition of extra terrestrial life is quite beyond me.Somehow, it seems, the six billion members of their own spices not to mention millions of other spices on their own home world is not enough to keep them from feeling lonely.But even stranger is their assumption that any alien civilization of fairly advanced technological capability would be both benign and interested in communicating with us.

The Mile High Club

Next month a bunch of crazies will descend on Denver Colorado, the next month a similar but different bunch will descend on St. Paul Minnesota. The strategy of each seems pretty clear, to pick of on of their opponents weak states from last time.
The only problem with this strategy is that someone forgot to check to see if the target states matter. If the election goes as it did last time, flipping Colorado wont give the Dems the election. Of course it is highly unlikely that things will go exactly as they did last time, but still why not go for a state that would have made the difference, like Ohio?
Since the GOP is the defending champ I guess you could say they are just looking for insurance, but still would not Pennsylvania have offered them much greater insurance?
So why did the Dems pick Denver? Maybe it’s the beer.

Reactionary Weekly indorses Chuck Baldwin for U.S. President!

I was hoping for Alan Keys (yes, I know he is Roman Catholic and yes I am OK with that) but Mr. Baldwin is at least a step in the right direction.

The Devil’s playbook

It has been said that the Devil has not added anything to his playbook in millennia. Of course one wonders how we would know such a thing. It is true that he seems to pretty much stick to two or three plays, but then since we have not shown that we are willing to consistently defend even these simple tricks, why should he show us anything else until we do?
The US presidential election is now in full swing and the evil one is once again trotting out his old “choice of evils” fallacy.
If you think Sen. Obama would make a good president, then do not let me dissuade you from voting for him; indeed I would not even know where to start. Or if you think Sen. McCain would be an excellent choice for president, then I suppose there really is nothing more to say on the matter. But most the people I know think neither of these things. Many if not most people, it seems, will be trying to choose the “lesser of two evils”. It has been said that choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. This is true only if there is some other choice available which is better. The best of all available choices must be by definition good, for it is taking one in the best possible direction one can go. If one will not choose the best route because there might be a better one, then one can take no route at all. Indeed, if we had a runoff system and it came down to McCain and Obama then I would dutifully determine to the best of my ability which one best manifested The Good and vote for him. But that is not the situation we have. Regardless of what any one tries to tell us, we have many choices, some probably worse than McCain/Obama some (at least at first glance) look a good deal better, and if you do not think any of the names on the ballot would make a better president than yourself, you can just write your own name in. We have many choices, so in this case choosing the lesser of these two evils is in deed choosing evil; and if we continue choosing evil, we will not only get the evil we chose but our choices will continue to be evil, and the lesser will continue to get worse.

Dick in the Dock Part 11: Dawkins loves the little children…

Once an organism (and perhaps especially one of Homo sapien parents) reaches a certain, apparently arbitrary, level of development Dawkins apparently ceases to think it is expendable and thinks its well being very important. At least he thinks it is important to protect them from religion. Thus his notorious statement about religion being child abuse. I do have to agree with him to a certain extent; that is, I do think that man-made religious systems are child abuse. But then I believe there really is a God, which such systems would be an abomination to. However, since Dawkins does not, what is he fussing about?
In order for something to be abused, it must presumably have some proper use. So we must ask, what is the proper use of children, that is, what are they for? Well, according to natural selection, the purpose of children is to propagate their parent’s genes. So then anything which interfered with this purpose would be abuse. Now Dawkins complains that Roman Catholics fill their children’s heads full of a bunch of nonsense. Be that as it may, it is tough to argue with results. There may not really be a nasty place called purgatory where you will have to go if you engage in homosexual acts or use birth control, but you know what? Catholics have a lot more kids than atheists do.
After blathering on about children for most of the chapter (and making very little if any sense) Dawkins abruptly switches gears, and starts talking about how important the Bible is as a cultural basis and literary work. That it certainly is, but it is that only if one excepts its truth claims. Here I must pause to make a distinction, many people confuse “truth” with “reality”. Truth is that which deals with the immaterial, the rational, the metaphysical. Reality is that which deals with the material, the empirical, the physical. Now I can read J.R.R. Tolkien’s works without having to lend too much credence to the “reality” of the events being related, but I have to give at least some credence to the Truth of the paradigm, or it becomes pure gibberish. The Bible is like this but even in a more profound way. The Bible claims both supreme Truth, and that the Word was made flesh, Truth and Reality where fused. This proposition must either be regarded as true or false, if it is true it is True, and if it is false, then it is worthless as literature or any thing else.

Dick in the Dock Part 10: No species is an island, well actually every spicics is.

Dawkins spends yet another chapter demonstrating why atheists cannot be moral. And as usual it gets back to the lack of moral absolutes. For example, Dawkins does not think there is anything wrong with abortion. This is because he supposes it is all about developed central nervous systems. And after all numerous vertebrates with as developed a central nervous system as a six week old human fetus are killed every day by humans for more or less uncritical reasons*. Of course if we were to take this central nervous system argument seriously, it could be argued either way. One could just as easily say that these animals have as developed a central nerves system as a six-week-old human fetus and should therefor be protected. But the point is that arguing from something analog such as central nervous system development can never bring one to a meaningful moral determination. A newly conceived zygote may be no more biologically sophisticated than a carrot, which just about every body concedes would be acceptable for me to eat. Yet Prof. Dawkins would no doubt take offence if I regarded him in the same manner. But can he give any definite point that distinguishes “us” from “them”? Many of his ilk like to use natural birth, but if he is using central nervous system development as his distinguishing principle, this event is inconsequential.
What then does separate us from our lunch? Well if we are to be moral about it, we must have a definite principle to apply, that is to say, an absolute. And the only real absolute available to us in this matter is the species. Either an organism is able to mate and produce fertile offspring with me or they are not. Some may argue that this is actually not as absolute a standard as it appears, on account of so called “link specimens” (linking two otherwise separate groups by being able to mate with both) but if such specimens exist then the so-called “linked” species would in fact be one species. And there would still be a definite point where the links became extinct and the groups became separate species. However, nature does not seem to be much in favor of such links. Most organisms live in well contained yet internally integrated species, particularly of importance to us – our own, since all organisms out side our species are equally not us. Lest there be any objections from the LGM, this is not to say that we should necessarily view all organisms outside our species as lunch, but rather that we should view no member of our own species as expendable.


*One could consider eating critical, but sense other food sources are often available; I would have to consider it not quite.

Dick in the Dock Part 9: It is written.

Dawkins does not think much of the Bible, but that is supposedly not his point in this chapter. His point is supposedly that nobody actually uses the Bible as there moral absolute anyway. Well I don’t know about that, I practice every day (except on Shabbat) so that when I see an Amalekite I can smite him!
But what Dawkins really dislikes is moral absolutes of any kind, regardless of where they come from. He prefers to think of morality as evolving. Again, this is simply behavior patterns, not morality. In order for there to be morality there must be a free moral agent and a moral ought. One could base their morality on natural selection, but that would simply make natural selection the moral absolute.
Dawkins tries to get his “morality” from the Zeitgeist. But what does it mean to be filed with the Zeitgeist? It means simply to blow with the wind, or rather to chase it. For one’s own arbitrary opinions, prejudices and inclinations would be part of it, with no principle by which to know which to cultivate which to eliminate, just a statistical average which is always changing. Eventually, of course, natural selection will weigh in on such matters, but that is still not making any moral pronouncements (unless you think we “ought” to survive, but then that still requires a moral absolute external to the Zeitgeist).
Dawkins did say something I agree with though - “If there are moral absolutes…they are available to every one, even without scripture.”
Well, as someone who does believe in moral absolutes, I think that is true. I think the source of such absolutes must be God, Who is accessible to all, and is manifest in the things that are made.

“I have a bad feeling about this.”

That is what I was saying to my self in the theater while waiting to see the new Indiana Jones film. It is also probably what Harrison Ford said to Gorge Lucas after reading the script. The special effects are of course amazing. You almost feel as if you are in the nuclear fire ball, unfortunately the script is so bad you almost wish you were. In the 1985 documentary From 'Star Wars' to 'Jedi': The Making of a Saga, George Lucas said, “Special effects are just a tool, a means of telling a story. A Special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing.”
He must have thought no one believed him, why else would he devote most of the rest of his career to proving himself right?
There is of course lots of action in Crystal Scull, and it is mostly boring. Even with The Arc* making a cameo, the opening sequence failed to impart any gravitas. 
Lucas does toss us an exposition bone every once in a while. (Exposition is the part of the script where he has to write something besides “they fight”.) But if we peace them to gather is there actually a skeleton there? Let alone any meat. It seems the basic idea is that some inter-dimensional extraterrestrials came to earth a few thousand years ago to teach some ancient Americans (of course they were not ancient at the time) how to farm and build a giant temple around their hyperspace ship. But then one day some conquistadors showed up and cut off one of the hyperspace dudes' head, and since they were one of those collective consciences things, it shut them all down. But before the conquistadors could get very far the natives caught up with them and berried them and the scull in an elaborate tomb complete with booby traps (of course what else would they do with it?) The hyperspace dudes home world apparently sent some scouts to find out what happened, but it is not clear why it took them centuries to get here, or why they apparently could not keep their ships in the air once they got here. Enter the soviets (the Nazis were unavailable) that want to capture all alien gobbledygook for their own nefarious psychobabble and what not. Does any of this make any since? Of course not. Does it matter? Not really. Because that is not what the movie is about any way. 
It is about Indy finally marrying Miriam Ravenwood, oh, and by the way they have a son. Which means Indy and Jr. have to spend thirty minutes of screen time very awkwardly “bonding” with Indy supposedly not knowing that the kid is his son, and an even more awkward “we are all going to die” scene where Miriam tells him (However, I did like the bit where Indy has to grab onto the snake to save his life). I must say Miriam looked pretty good after all this time. But this only served to make that bag of bones, DR. Jones, look all the older. I wonder if when they go out together people say, “Where did she dig up that old fossil? Yah, yah, I know, it’s not the years, it’s the mileage.

*Apparently it is kept in the same warehouse as all the area 51 stuff, and apparently security is so tight that any one with a dozen or so guys can break in loot the place.

You must remember this…

Well, after seeing The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, I must say, it was unnecessary and a bit disturbing. But upon further reflection there is definitely a mystical connection between Caspian and Susan. I mean you don’t just blow on a girl’s horn and pretend nothing has happened. What? I’m just saying Caspian had already kissed her by deputy.
Susan’s horn is probably one of the greatest under utilized mythological symbols in all of literature. “If you put it to your lips and blow, I think where ever you are help of some kind will find you.” Sounds pretty neat, almost makes the Horn of Gondor sound like tin whistle, But then you realize the only time she ever actually uses it is when a hearty scream would probably have done the same job. Father Christmas did not mention Caspian, but then it is probably one of those things like no one ever quite being able to remember exactly what Aslan said. And at least in this instance there was time for history to become legend, legend to become myth…well at least maybe history to become legend. But in any case it seems the horn is primarily a symbol for prayer. Susan seems to have a rather materialistic mindset, so it is not surprising that she was answered in kind. Caspian on the other hand had something more supernatural in mind and lo! that is what he got.

Dick in the Dock Part. 8: Moral Fortitude

In this chapter Dawkins talks about morality and how it evolved. Or rather behavior patters and social “norms”. Morality as morality is somewhat more elusive. If we were to take natural selection seriously (and it seems apparent Dawkins does not) it offers us a fairly stark morality: self-preservation and procreation, and a concentric chauvinism to one’s self, one’s clan, one’s race and one’s species. Any thing outside this is by natural selection, “immoral”.
Dawkins does attempt to demonstrate that much of what we consider to be “moral” at least at some point was connected to this principle but may now be a “misfiring”. But this is precisely what he thinks religion is aswell. Yet for some reason (or perhaps more likely no reason) he thinks that some of the misfires are good and some are bad, why? If he has an explanation, he certainly does not bother to share it with us.
Of course the very concept of a “misfiring”, assumes on some level an absolute standard. And any absolute standard in the realm of what is traditionally thought of, as “morality” must come from God. I must admit, I thought Dawkins would come up with some lame argument as to why this is not the case, but in fact he essentially capitulated. That is probably because Dawkins is not much of a fan of moral absolutes any way. He instead prefers what he calls “utilitarianism”.

Al: Mummsy, can I shoot Prof. Dawkins now?
Mummsy: No dear that would be wrong.
Al: But we can use his meat to feed these starving children.
Mummsy: Well, I guess it is all right then.

The problem of course is that utilitarianism is hogwash (that's American for “rubbish”). It is simply a shell game with ends and means. But if the end does not have an absolute backing up its validity it is no more a grounds for morality then anything else.

Dick in the Dock Part. 7: Don’t get Cocky!

In this chapter Dawkins attempts to give a Darwinian explanation for the origin of religion. This probably would have gone better if Dawkins had not demonstrated a complete ineptitude regarding biological evolution by natural selection on the first page. First he tries to tell us that every thing in the biological world is there for a "reason" because nature "selected" it for survival. But this could only be the case if evolution were "finished", which by definition it cannot be. (I bet T. Rex thought he was the last word in evolution, until that asteroid hit.) According to Darwinism, there will always be "random" mutations, and it will take nature time to cull them. But even under the reasonable presumption, that every widely disseminated characteristic within a species is useful, Dawkins analogy of peacocks and bowerbirds is ridiculous . Does Dawkins really think the peacock's tail is there to attract peahens? Maybe he is old school, and thinks females are just silly things, and there is nothing even "natural selection all mighty" can do about it*. But those of us that do not live in Dawkins fantasyland realize that if the peacock's tails served no real purpose, nature would have long ago selected the peahens that chose the more sensible less extravagant mates.
Unfortunately Dawkins “meme” theory does not go much better than his pea theory. This really is too bad, because I for one would really like a good explanation as to why people seem so universally eager to chase after superstitious nonsense. Like Saul of Tarsus, I am simply baffled, does not nature teach? Is not it manifest in the things that are made? Cannot it be accessed through simple philosophy? Yes, yes and yes, but still people seem to prefer silly lies to the simple and elegant Truth.
Dawkins proposes that children just believe every thing their parents tell them, don’t swim in crocodile infested waters, sacrifice a goat to bring the rains, it is all good to the mind of a child. I do not necessarily agree with this premise, but even if we except it, for argument sake, I still don’t see how the whole sacrifice a goat thing got started in the first place? Even if we can chalk it up to a random meme mutation, certainly this would seem to be one that nature would select against, in favor of more scientific tribes, who realize that sacrificing a goat don’t got didly to do with bringing the rains, and thus have a little extra chow on hand when the dry spell does come.

* Obviously I do not think even Dawkins is silly enough to actually think a peacock’s tail is there to attract mates, but if he is going to treat us as if we were, then turnabout is fair play.

Dick in the Dock Part. 6: “The Centerpiece” (babababom)

This chapter is supposed to be the centerpiece of Dawkins' book. So I would think Dawkins would at least make a serious attempt to justify the title here, right? Come on, I should know him better than that by now. He instead tries to convince use that God is "statistically unlikely", but if that is all he can do (if he could have even done that) then God cannot by his definition be a "delusion". In order for that there would have to be a probability of zero, and there would have to be "strong contradictory evidence" not, no evidence (and I am still not sure what Dawkins thinks such evidence would look like if there were some). But since this is Dawkins' "centerpiece", for the sake of augment I will pretend that the title was actually, "God is statistically unlikely, and I want to have more sex". 
First Dawkins tries to "raise our consciences" with Darwinism. He is apparently trying to free us from the design vs. random chance dialectic, with his supposed synthesis, natural selection. The problem with this Hegelian maneuver is, there is no distinguishable difference between design and natural selection. Design is natural selection, natural selection is design...the sleeper has awakened! Really, does Dawkins suppose that a nomadic hunter-gatherer in Sub-Saharan Africa went home one day and designed an electron microscope? All human technology and culture, is a product of evolution by natural selection. Some might want to distinguish this process as "artificial" selection, but that refers only to the initial criteria, not the process itself (and "inelegance" can really be seen simply as a measure of the process' efficiency) and any criteria must plug into some lager paradigm or else be, by definition, random. But since the whole point of this little exercise is supposedly raising our consciences, I suppose we should consider how consciences might effect the matter. It seems not at all. If we throw the proposition of "free will" in there we now get an effect, but it is wholly negative. Free will can only choose to follow the normal path or depart from it, it cannot improve upon it. Given this rather undesirable nature of free will, theologians have often questioned why God gave it to man in the first place? The stock answer is, of course, that God did not want a universe populated entirely with robots. As unsatisfying as this answer may be at times, it is at least viable given that there is a God Who has consciences and free will of His Own. However, purely mechanistic natural selection must see these things as benign anomalies at best, which are usually malignant, and if in fact they do have a degree of complexity, then they would surely drain resources from legitimate functions; so then, even at there best they would be somewhat malignant.Thus the "consciences" that Dawkins was attempting to raise, it turns out, is just a useless anomaly, possibly malignant, that natural selection has not yet corrected...there, feel better now?*

Then Dawkins has the audacity to compare the Darwinian hypothesis with sound science like general relativity. He probably thinks he can get away with this because most people do not seem to understand the difference between fact, theory and hypothesis. Many Darwinians like to tout that biological evolution is a fact, and so it is - a fact that was observed at least as far back as Moses the Hebrew. But facts are not what science is about. Science is about understanding the facts. Facts are the beginning of science they are not its end, and to this end there is a certain method. A hypothesis attempts to encompass all known phenomena in a coherent paradigm. However, many hypotheses might describe the same set of phenomena, so a good hypothesis is distinguished by its aptitude for becoming a theory. A theory makes definite predictions that can be tested and verified. Obviously the observed phenomena that went into the initial hypothesis have very limited value as theoretical predictions. The Darwinian Hypothesis does make a couple of predictions that could be theoretically useful, they are: that life can spontaneously come from none life, and that simple life forms may in time evolve into more complex ones. Admittedly, the life molecule experiment poses some significant challenges, and as some would point out that to properly conduct these experiments could take millions of years. So I am willing to acknowledge tentative theory status while the experiments are being conducted. But to take this tentative theory and compare it to good, solid science like general relativity, that can be truly tested any day of the week, is just absurd. 
Dawkins then tries to use the Darwinian hypothesis to explain the greater complexity in the overall universe. This is rather critical to him, for it is that complexity that begets the biological complexity. He does this by making some rather bizarre suggestions. One of which is that there is some sort of Aseitic quality to Euclidian geometry, if he has an argument for this proposal; he certainly fails to mention it. Then Dawkins suggests that the primordial nature of the universe is not really as complex as it seems, because there are possibly other combinations of fundamental factors that could lead to life. This is in fact plausible. However, it does nothing to decrease the complexity of the universe we are in. (would Dawkins think that the human genome is any less complex because there are other arrangements of DNA that can lead to life?) However, the numbers of fundamental universes that can lead to any sort of significant complexity (much less life) are almost certainly a tiny fraction of potential paradigms. But even given that the fundamental nature of the universe allows for the formation of complex elements and chemical compounds like DNA (which is a pretty enormous gift) there is still a lot of primordial complexity to account for. For example, matter itself. Why not anti-matter? Or more to the point, why any significant excess of either one? There could be an undetected reason why nature would prefer matter to anti-matter, but that would simply point to an even deeper, more primordial complexity. But possibly even more astounding, is the fabric of the dimensions themselves. Intricately and precisely formed at the most primordial level to produce galaxies, stars, planets etc. Had they strayed but a little, our universe would be filled only with enormous black holes or puffy clouds of helium floating in sea of hydrogen. In fact our universe is hemorrhaging complexity, and has it seems, almost from the beginning. At the one end particles (each one a victory over statistical improbability) decay, while at the other black holes gobble up vast amounts of untold complexity, lost forever to a singularity. Our universe gains localized areas of relatively high complexity only by sacrificing its overall complexity. Dawkins' crane goes up, only because an enormous counterbalance goes down.
Parallel universes are great fun, at least in fantasy novels like C. S. Lewis' Narnia Chronicles. However, until we actually locate Mr. Ketterly's rings or something of that nature, they do not really have anything to do with science. The only one that might come close would be Sagan's old favorite, the oscillating universe. It can at least to some existent be disproven, and it pretty much has been. However, at the moment, the cosmic cascade and " magaverse" smorgasbord have about as much to do with science as Prof. Lewis' Wood Between the Worlds.
Dawkins also appears to have difficulty conceptualizing. Of course when it comes to absolute nothing, most people do. But then most people do not write books demonstrating this difficulty to the world. Dawkins supposes that it is statistically more likely to get something simple form nothing then it is to get something complex from nothing. However, there does not seem to be much scientific data to back up this claim. Apparently there is not a lot of grant money earmarked for studying nothing (unless of course you are a modern art major). But even if unlimited resources were available, it would still be rather difficult to study nothing, being trapped as we are in this apparently impenetrable bubble of something. Perhaps the problem is best illustrated mathematically. Try getting from zero to one using only multiplication; it is exactly as easy to get to a hundred or a million or a sextillion or any number in-between. (Hint, it can’t be done.)

* Carl Sagan use to say "we are a way for the Cosmos to know itself" but why would the Cosmos want to know itself? (The answer is within the problem.)

Dick in the Dock Part. 5: Chapter 3

In this chapter Dawkins addresses some of the “classical” arguments for the existence of God. As I have never been particularly impressed by any of these arguments, I would probably make a poor apologist for them.
The exception, of course, is Pascal’s wager. Dawkins makes a hash out of it, supposing it is about existential cookies. How did princess Leia put it? “If money is all that you love, then that’s what you’ll receive.” Well, if existential cookies are what you love, then don’t make silly wagers with them. But if you happen to be interested in true absolutes, meaning, value, purpose, then God is the only game in town. That is what Pascal’s wager is all about.

Dick in the Dock Part. 4: Chapter 2

In this chapter Dawkins gets around to defining the other element in his title proposition "God". Basically his definition is, "There is a super human supernatural intelligence that deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us."
This definition if fine with me, but how exactly could such a proposition be a delusion?
The only meaningful difference between this God, and Einstein/Spinoza’s "God" (which Dawkins apparently does not have a problem with) is consciousness.
But like the color conundrum, consciousness is not something that can be scientifically examined. I suppose that trees might have consciousness, it is probably not exactly like my consciousness, but then I do not suppose that God's is either. In fact there is no reason to suppose that those entities I encounter in the proposition "external reality" that look a bit more like what I see in the mirror then trees do, have what I call consciousness. In fact there is no experiment I can perform that can determine whether anything besides myself is conscious or merely an anomaly within my own conscious. To do so I would have to become it (or it become me) in which case its consciousness would be mine.

This problem is further demonstrated in the great prayer experiment. Had the experiment yielded "positive" results (and subsequent experiments confirmed it) it would have indicated that "God" was just a force of nature, that humans could manipulate like any other, having no free will of "Its" own. In deed the very fact that one would attempt to experiment scientifically with something indicates that one supposes the thing operates in a consistent, indeed mechanistic, manner or else the experiment would be useless.

In this chapter Dawkins also attempts to explain why he is for SETI, but not apparently, the C of E. It's the old Drake Equation. The DE is a series of factors all multiplied together. Obviously if any of the elements is zero the result will be zero. And currently all evidence points to one of the factors (fl to be precise) being no greater than zero. So there is still really no reason for Dawkins chauvinism.

Dick in the Dock Part. 3: Chapter 1

Dawkins spends most of this chapter trying to convince us that Einstein was not a theist. I would have found this a lot less boring if I had ever thought Einstein was a theist, which I have not (at least not in Dawkins sense). But whether or not he was an atheist, if reports are accurate there is little doubt that he was a blasphemer. After the 1918 expedition to test the general theory of relativity yielded positive results Einstein is rumored to have said "If the results had been negative, I would have felt sorry for the Lord* but the theory is correct." Certainly it is difficult to reconcile such a statement with a genuine belief in God, it is also difficult to reconcile with a genuine belief in Science .
I do not know if there was a hand writing on the wall, or if Einstein was shown the unified field theory before he died, but he did not make any significant scientific discovery after his statement about general relativity…hum.


*Presumably “God”

Dick in the Dock Part. 2: The preface.

The preface is pretty bad, but then, my hopes were not high. I would recommend that if Prof. Dawkins wishes the 95% of Americans, whose acceptance he seems to covet so, to think he is anything but a pompous bag of fish and chips, he should avoid fraises like "intellectual elite". However, he does make one important statement in the preface, he defines one of the key elements in his title proposition. He defines delusion as "a false belief, held in the presence of contrary evidence." So if Prof. Dawkins is to earn his title, he must in this book demonstrate that "God" (yet to be defined) falls into this category, we will see.

Dick in the Dock. Part 1

Last Friday our old friend Richard Dawkins was on the Alan Colmes show, and of course it featured the usual drivel. One caller did get the better of Prof. Dawkins, actually getting him to curse. Good o'l Alan caught it before it polluted the otherwise pristine airways of New York. But I must say I am rather disappointed in Prof. Dawkins. I mean really, when we fly a professor all the way from Oxford, we do not expect to hear curse words we can here from any NJ Gangster, we expect to hear rubbish! And when Prof. Dawkins is talking that is usually precisely what we hear. He did make a few snide attempts at irony, but I am afraid it went over most Americans' heads. I am afraid the American callers did not do much better than the British ones, but at least they were not much worse. However, the American call screeners were obviously not as well trained; they actually let some calls that bordered on legitimate questions through. Of course without proper follow-up even the best question is worthless; Dawkins will simply spew his mindless drivel, in response, unchallenged. As of course he did. He also kept making vague references to his book (the one with “God” in the title). He seems to think that the answers to all the questions he fails so miserably with on the air are somehow in there. Well, I doubt it, but to be fair I suppose I should checkout a copy from my local library and give it a look-see. Perhaps a full report will be forthcoming.

Behold the Power!

It seems Republicans, lots of Republicans, have been voting for Hillary. Why? Because they are dido heads and Rush Limbaugh told them to. I am sure this must make Mr. Limbaugh feel powerful. But just to put Limbaugh in his place, I herby command Republicans and Independents not to vote for Hillary in the upcoming primary in Pa. We will see who has the true power.

More of Our Exclusive Interview with A. L. Brackett!

RW: One of the main functions of the House of Representatives is to raise revenue, what sort of tax plan would you vote for?

A. L. Brackett: It would have to be a complete overhaul; all current taxes should be done away with and replaced with a Distributist system.

RW: How would that work?

A. L. Brackett: Well, a revenue tariff would be fine and of course all corporate property would be taxed. I could also go along with an excess personal property tax but the personal exemption would have to be fairly high, at least forty acres.

RW: And a mule?

A. L. Brackett: (laughs) Perhaps the modern equivalent, some sort of motorized vehicle, one per person should do.

RW: Could such a plain be revenue neutral?

A. L. Brackett: It could be, but I do not think it should be. The federal government is taking in much more money then it should for its constitutionally mandated function. The federal budget should be about half what it is now.

RW: So what are your thoughts on the war in Iraq?

A. L. Brackett: Obviously it was a mistake, what to do about it now is not really my concern because I am not running for president.

Reactionary Weekly Exclusive!

A. L. Brackett announces his candidate for Arizona’s first congressional district and Reactionary Weekly has an exclusive interview.

RW: First off, why do you want to represent this district in congress?

A. L. Brackett: Well, first off, I don’t! But I want someone who is devoted to the principles of legitimate government to do so, and so far it looks like it is up to me.

RW: Do you really think this district wants a radical revolutionary like yourself, rather than a traditional “bring home the earmarks” kind of guy?

A. L. Brackett: Last I checked “this district” was not registered to vote. The people who are can decide for themselves.

More of our exclusive interview with A. L. Brackett coming soon! And feel free to submit your own questions via the comment function below.

Raiders of the Empty Box

If there were a Gorge Lucas talking doll, nine times out of ten when you pulled the string it would probably say “think outside the box”*.
Ironically the fact that he needs to repeat this phrase so much indicates it is not something he actually does.
In preparation for the upcoming film, Indiana Jones and the The Kingdome of the Crystal Scull. I decided to watch the bonus material disc for the Indiana Jones “trilogy”.
As I did so one thing became clear to me, Gorge Lucas has not lost his touch; but rather it seems more likely that he never had much real talent to begin with. The script for “Raiders” was written by a mirepoix in which it seems Lucas was the celery. The film was directed by Spielberg, the character was realized by Ford, and John Williams gave Indy his most enduring quality. Even Jones’ name (probably Lucas’ most significant contribution to the project) was not entirely his creation.
Lucas does have a real talent for marketing and promoting…especially himself. The problem came when he actually began to believe his own propaganda. He actually started believing he was the one producing the cinematic art. Instead of surrounding himself with truly brilliant talent, who could turn his barest husk of an idea (which he had probably raided from some comic book or cereal any way) and turn it into something worth watching over and over again. He began surrounding himself with yes-men, trained seals, honking and clapping at his insipid drivel for their lousy peace of fish. As a result very little true art has come out of Lucasfilm since "Raiders" and I expect none from the new film. But no matter how empty Lucas' art box may be, there is another box he never thinks outside of, the box-office. I am sure that, thanks to Lucas' true talent, that box will be full.


*The other 1/10 would probably be “poodoo”.

Rushing to Judgment

Well John McCain seems well on his way to winning the Republican nomination, and this has "conservative" talk show host Rush Limbaugh a little upset. It seems some people think John McCain has the best chance at beating Hillary Clinton. Mr. Limbaugh seems rather perplexed by this strategy; he does not seem to think there is much difference between Senators McCain and Clinton. And I suppose this means that for once there is something that Mr. Limbaugh and I agree on.

E.T. Phone Dawkins?

Following up on last week's article, I visited Prof. Dawkins website. I found it interesting that he has a link to the SETI Institute, yet I could find no links to organizations investigating the possibility of large aquatic reptiles in the water ways of Scotland, nor any to those looking into the possibility of diminutive aerial humanoids. Does Prof. Dawkins have some evidence of E.T. that I am not aware of? if so I would like to know what it is.

NOTE: God is technically an extra terrestrial intelligence (although He is also extra cosmic as well), so you could say that technically SETI is looking for God, but I wonder what they would do if they found Him?

If You Say So

Have I nothing better to do than point out all the nonsense Professor Dawkins has to say when ever he gets on the telly? Well yes, actually I do. But if Dawkins insists on getting on the telly and saying it then I suppose I should do my part and point out that it is largely nonsense.
Recently Professor Dawkins was on a programme called "Have your say". The programme of course featured the usual suspects, things like who kills more people, theists or atheist, and other such drivel no thinking person cares about. Then of course Prof. Dawkins has to go through his rigmarole, comparing God to fairies and the lock ness monster because one cannot prove they do not exists, but there is no positive evidence that they do. Some might consider this a straw man, but I do not think such a comparison is even relevant enough for that. However Prof. Dawkins did say something interesting at the end. He said that he thinks the question of whether or not God exists is "very important". Does he consider the question of whether Nessy or Tinkerbell exists equally "important"?

Princess Chastity and the Horny Toad.

Princess Chastity glided gracefully across the prairie her long red hair flowed behind her like a brilliant flame caught in the wind. Her sparkling blue green eyes seemed to flirt both with the bright sky above as well as the lush grass beneath her dainty feet, and her fair skin glowed with delight to show the morning sun, whose rays had decorated her with delicate freckles, the exquisite art more lovely than any wrought with mortal hands.
Presently she came upon a horny toad.
"Hay, how’s about giving us a kiss?" said the Horny Toad.
"Oh, are you a noble prince who has been placed under a transmorphic spell by an evil sorceress?" ask Princess Chastity.
"What’s that got to do with it?" replied the Horny Toad, "Look, are you going to kiss me, or do I have to find another beautiful princess?"
"But there are no other beautiful princesses in this story." said Princess Chastity.
"Like there are an abundance of other horny toads?" said the Horny Toad, "now how’s about less jawing and more kissing."
"But it is not very pleasant to kiss a horny toad." objected Princess Chastity.
"And I suppose you think it is some great fun to kiss a knobble prince?" said the Horny Toad, "Look sweetheart, the fact is you are going to have the lion’s share of the cuteness no matter who your kissy partner is. So your best bet is to just use him as a means to vicariously enjoy your own beauty, and I can assure you I'll enjoy you at least as much as any old stinking noble prince."
And so it was that Princess Chastity kissed the horny toad and they lived happily ever after.
THE END