Raymondism

Quote on Pandeism (泛自然神論 ...很怪的譯名)

2011-05-08T05:32:00.000-07:00

Since God is not a being, he is therefore not intelligible... This means not only that we cannot understand him, but also that he cannot understand himself. Creation (of the Universe) is a kind of divine effort by God to understand himself, to see himself in a mirror. - Jeremiah Genest, John Scottus Eriugena: Life and Works

Book Report: Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett

2011-05-02T05:48:00.000-07:00

Not too recommended. Although he has some very valid arguments, quoting very valid experiments and thought experiments, he had delivered his points with a drag-on factor of larger than 2.0 (my meaning of saying that he could have written the book in 200 pages while he did it in 400).

His thesis (of his so-called Heterophenomenology view of consciousness) is too controversial to have it concluded in so briefly written chapters in the end of the book. But his references to other subjects (of which he believed were supporting his argument) (such as his evolutionary view of consciousness and meme’s evolution) are quite satisfactory in summarizing the entire field of study.

But I assume there should have books that are a lot more concise in summarizing the field, while the nature of the consciousness is still seems to be in a battlefield of discussion.

Book Report: The Quantum World by Kenneth W. Ford

2011-02-15T07:40:00.000-08:00

This book, The Quantum World by Kenneth W. Ford, had a subtitle: Quantum Physics for Everyone. Apparently it lives up to this phase… to a certain extent. If one had Physics 101 in university, one should have no problem understanding the material. One with high school physics, I am not too sure, but can give it a try. Yes, it is a popular science book, so no technical math required, but it still needs critical and abstract thoughts, plus interest in the subject, in order to finish it.

For familiar readers on this kind of books, this is a good all rounder that rounds up everything on the field of quantum physics… without too much of deep touch. A good summary book.

For people who haven’t read anything on this kind of books, of course, I truly recommend people, who considered themselves enthusiast of advance thoughts, to try to acquire the basic concepts of the following terms (from any source possible):-

- Probability wave (that is how particle exists)

- General relativity (some of the greatest thought human is capable of conceiving)

- The uncertainty principle (and try to learn that people are mis-using it in other fields all the time)

- Mass-energy equivalence (that famous equation)

- String (the rubber band)

Once you know all these advance concepts, you will start to appreciate how Fung Shui and Fortune Telling really works, haha.

DM-620 Mobile Armor Prototype

2009-08-09T03:50:00.000-07:00

Design Note

I did promised myself to start drawing during my exile, so here you go. And as I love my ex (Ducati Monster) so much, I promised her that I will turn her into a transforming mobile armor so I can wear around.

In conceiving of transforming mobile armor of this size, there are several problems that needed to be tackled with:-

i) Power source – I have to be realistic. The ‘Ironman’ type unlimited power source engine with an unexplained physics is, simply put it, hard to convince anyone. While at the same time I always want to avoid using miniature nuclear reactor as engine for the risk of nuclear melt down. With a mobile armor, I always think that some sort of fuel cell engine is good enough for limited combat radius. I am assuming technological advance will make hydrogen fuel cell engine small and powerful enough for the job of powering a mobile armor. Stay as is for now, and let me do some more research on fuel cell, that I might revise design after this prototype.

ii) I would have guessed that the most challenging technology for this particular mobile armor would be the nanotechnology fusing mechanism that is required for the breaking up of the two tires. Nanotech fusing of materials shouldn’t be a big problem as long as nano-bot technology can be produced. But based on the current slow research process of nanotechnology, I might think that something like that may not be achievable until the year 2050… (One interesting aspect is that once nano-bot technology is achieved, people will argue that, by that time, we cannot rely on any type of armor for protection, as nano-bots can easily eat up armor plating. (note: the most current nano-bot technology was shown in the movie “The Day the Earth Stood Still” where nano-bots like storm blowing while eating up buildings.) Obviously by then, there should be ways for counter nano-bot measures… which need separate development program in itself).

Note there is nothing new in motorcycle-transformed mobile armor (remember the anime Mosepeda 20 years ago? Or western countries called Robotech). I do not want to keep the whole-wheel approach in designing motorcycle-transformed mobile armor as the wheel will simply be a inactive mass not adding any function in the armor mode. So I break the wheels up (and looks more cool as well) and make it useful for armor protection purpose.

iii) The miniature motors and retractable sub-armor shouldn’t be much problem, I think, based on the current fast development of robotics technology.

The purpose of this armor will emphasize in mobility rather than protection. I am still trying to develop a proper anti-gravity system (or a combined type of inertia compensation system) to make things light and floating. But I think I just put it in for now…

The Tragedy of Ball (RB-79)

2009-08-05T01:12:00.000-07:00

It was well known, even before the battle of Jaburo during the One-year-war, that RB-79 Ball was nicknamed “Flying Coffin”. Although historical technical review had revised opinions in praising its mobility and long range fire power, it was in close combat that it was the most deadly, to the pilot unfortunately.

As similar to all inferior weapon tactics, such as the one the Allies used against superior German tanks in WWII (that Sherman tank units were ordered only to attack German Tigers if and only if having a 5 to 1 numerical superiority), Balls were deployed in packs. It was performing well on hit-and-run tactics for supply convoys. But for close combat operations during the major space battles during the One-year-war (Jaburo and A Baoa Qu), in a 3D battle filed pack operation of Ball units literally meant deadly friendly fire due to close quartering, and easy target for enemies. The more than 80% pilot death rate (estimated as no record can be found) for a Ball pilot in those battles had elevated this weapon to the status of ‘Kamikaze’ weaponry.

I strongly object all later historical commentaries in the effectiveness of Balls deployment during the One-year-wall:- I see it as a cover-up approach to neglect the high death tolls by using such ineffective weapon for major battles (and no further weapon development for Ball during the next decade proved the fact as well). It was simply incorrectly deployed, asking a fighter type weaponry to perform the task of MS, which saw limited contribution in space battle. The Ball pilots who died should deserve better judgment on what they were given as their weapon: simply a flying coffin.

More on RB-79 Ball:-
http://gundam.wikia.com/wiki/RB-79_Ball
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RB-79_Ball

Free-Will Is Not Possible If There Is an Omnipotent God (a.k.a. How can we have free will if God know everything ahead of time?)

2009-07-31T01:00:00.000-07:00

I had been having this kind of thoughts inside my head for the pass decades, like squash balls bouncing around inside my head. And since I recently have time to start recording my thoughts (for this ‘exile’ period that I am in now), I think it is a good idea to put these flying squash balls in writing and let them rest one by one, once and for all.

The topic sentence above supposed to be a simple logically valid proposition. Although so many theologians and thinkers had written on the subject, which makes me think that this issue had been resolved about a hundred years ago, I still find people in general nowadays (even after the year 2000 C.E.) do not know (or at times do not care) exactly what they believe in (of course in particular for those monotheist of Judeo-Christian origins). I try to work out a more layman approach to the issue with clear explanation as follows (and at the end I will propose the solution to this question, which I hope can be easily understood). (note 1)

Definition A: Free-Will – the free choice of a person, of which he could choose from choices A, B, C and so on, that the resulting final choice and consequence in the future is unknown to the present for ANY being (and that is why people should be held responsible for their action, based on Christian belief).

Definition B: Omnipotent God – The single all powerful god who is all powerful, and ALL KNOWING, who created the entire universe of which we are part of it.

If the above definitions are accepted, than it logical follows that there will only be 2 scenarios:-

1) That there will be free-will, but God cannot be omnipotent, as by definition, the future events resulting from free-will’s choices are unknown (even to God). In this case God has to be ignorant to future events, and hence by definition he is not omnipotent.

2) That God is omnipotent, and therefore he knows everything, including the future events resulted by any so-believed free-will’s choices. Therefore there will not be free-will. In this case, the free-will as sensed by human beings are said to be an ‘illusion’ for us to believe in, and help us to exist.

Of course, I have heard of other seems-to-be logical arguments, mostly from Christians, to explain that the concept of Free-Will and an Omnipotent God are compatible. The argument is like this:-

3) Because God love us so much, he is willing to allow us to have free will, while although God has the power to know everything, he is willing to sacrifice and selectively not to know our future choices, etc.

Well by this not-quite-logical statement, you probably can find out the fallacy in it, that at the end, no matter what God’s motive is, he is still in an ignorant situation about the future. So instead of calling him an All-knowing God, we have to call him an All-knowing-but-selectively-ignorant God, of which, is not omnipotent by definition.

So what should we resolve it? As particularly for Christians who believe in both Free-Will and an Omnipotent God, the solution in fact is quite simple (but unfortunately a lot of Christians do not care to understand). It goes like this:-

4) God created the universe, and with it God created everything, including space, time, the system of logic, and mathematic rules, and all laws of nature. Therefore by definition, God is over and above all natural law and logical rules. Although the concept of Free Will and an Omnipotent God appears to be logically contradicting to each other, this contradiction only appears at our human level, within this particular universe that we are in. Over and above, there will be higher level of reality that only God can conceive of. At that level (which is outside our universe and logic system), these two concepts, Free-will and Omnipotent God, will be consistent to each other. To the simple imagination, we just need to think that reality is much much more complicated than we think, and the complexity requires some sort of above, or super-logic system to work. I believe that can be conceived as in order to create the logic system of our universe, a more complicated system is required by a creator if there is one (or I would call it the creator’s tool). (note 2)

In fact, this sort of higher level compatibility between Free Will and Determinism, I believe, is similar to a particular branch of Islamic explanation, although different in words concepts. After all there is nothing new to it.

I hope now we start to see that, anything concerning metaphysical concepts (including that of God) is unknowable, because at the end we are sitting inside this universe talking about something that is outside this universe (by definition). And that is why this kind of question, in practice, is considered to be resolved 100 years ago, as we should be now busy in studying other questions that we can obtain answers on (like cognitive science, etc). I believe religious people should start to know by now that they should stop arguing things using logic, but in fact what they need is faith. Because in the realm of metaphysics, only faith works for humans, nothing else. (note 3)

For me, being an Agnostic, of course, I neither believes in free-will nor an omnipotent god (while on the other hand I do believe in faith, which is a major mechanism for human survival). Hence, I would like to quote below one of my favorite quotation by Walter Agard (a Greek historian). This quote is explaining on the Greek’s belief in determinism, and I got it from one of his books somewhere:-

‘Even if everything is determined, we have no way of knowing what the total pattern is, so we must act on our own best judgment; free will is, therefore, a necessary illusion. Apparently wise men attain some insight into this pattern (or are given it by the gods), but all of us have the freedom to disregard such insight, follow our own desires, and suffer the consequences.’

Note:

1) My argument had been narrowed down from full range determinism to the type of determinism that has an omnipotent god as a creator, for a full determinism–free will compatibility would complicate the issue at hand, and I wish not to touch for the sake of simplicity of the issue.

2) One interesting subject is that based on the current study of quantum mechanic, there has been suggested that there are a lot more universes other than ours. Of course such multiverse scenario is in the realm of theoretical speculation, which will not affect the issue at hand (i.e. even if there are multiple universes, Christian can still believe that God created all of those universes, etc…)

3) There are other arguments involving the motive of Free-will as definition. In my opinion, I am using a consequence approach, and therefore consider the motive-approach argument as more or less word plays.

Utilitarianism – Most Likely, You Believe in It

2009-07-19T04:10:00.000-07:00

In a city like Hong Kong, with so many people believe in the democratic system, I am always very amused by the fact that a lot of people do not exactly know what they are believing in (although they claim that they do know what they believe in, that what makes it interesting).

Take Utilitarianism, for example. It is a simple ethical belief, which says that, an action is right as long as it tends to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number. In many respects, a democratic society is working based on that principle (and that is why we want everybody to vote right?) However, not a lot of people realise (or care much), that under such system, the minority group will only have as much right as the majority group is willing to give. For my friends in Hong Kong, I would say a majority of them are utilitarians (without consciously knowing it).

One famous criticism of Utilitarianism is the scenario of the train-and-tracks. It has many versions that most people had probably read about before, but my favourite version is as follows:-

There are two railroad tracks of which one of them is closed down for maintenance while the other is operational and trains will be running on that track. At the moment, there are 10 kids playing at the operational track and 1 kid playing at the inoperative track. A train comes suddenly with insufficient time for the children to run off to safety. You are at the junction where you have the control lever to decide that: i) if you do nothing, the train will run into the operational track where the 10 kids are playing and kill them all, or ii) if you pull the lever and divert the train to the maintenance track, only 1 kid will be killed and all the other be saved.

You might think that this scenario is so hypothetical that has nothing to do with real life, but I say that otherwise. Many real life situation are just like that:- you are dealing with a majority group and a minority group, and what is the right action for the entire society, usually is the course that benefit the most (although it may be the fact that, the single kid on the inoperative track knows that the track is inoperative, and therefore he is safe to play on that side. So he is doing a smart and right thing, while being killed off). Unfortunately, our society, most often than not, believe that the minority group are either wrong, or can be ignored (eg. Look at the Tibetian activist in hk), or on the other hand, for the poor people, the society will want to care for them to the extent that it is willing to (not that the poor people can fight for their right at all).. That is the essence of democracy, whether you like it or not.

My recommendation? Study more on what the minority is thinking about and what kind of situation they are under, before we make any judgement.

(Note: there are some other more interesting criticism on Utilitarianism, such as the ‘utility monster’. Look up the web if interested)

Overly Criticising Architects

2009-06-11T04:24:00.000-07:00

Well supposingly the more critical you are towards the world, the more suffering you need to endure. Why? Because the world is a mess and will continue to be a mess, and the more we are critical towards it the more we can’t stand it, and the more we have a hard time living in it.

But we architects are being trained for our entire life to be critical. We have to be critical or we cannot be a good architect. In particular, architects should have his/her own vision towards society and humanity. And exactly for that, we believe that the world ‘Should Be’ exist in such and such a way. Any other way would be considered to be wrong, and we should correct it. Especially for an architect, we have the sacred duty to correct, and build a better environment, societies, humanity, and world.

So at the end we criticise things, and unfortunately we criticise people as well (as people is a major part of humanity). We believe that people should act like such and such, or else it will be wrong. Hence, architects, deep inside, are very critical on things and people in general.

As a friend, an architect would be an extremely boring person. He/she would explain to you that things work this way because of these reasons, but in fact they shouldn’t be, and they should be that way instead. What it is now is wrong, and we should fix that in order to have a hopeful future for humanity. Same things should be applied to people. People should act this way and that, otherwise humanity will not be saved. Jee… how boring.

So at the end in people’s eyes, architects are full of attitudes (or in more descriptive wording, should be ‘full of s___’). They will keep boosting about the recent research that architects are the most attractive profession in mate-searching (for female searching male I believe), and ignore the fact that the architect profession has one of the most high divorce rate among other professions (I read it somewhere, don’t know if it still current, but I assume yes).

In short, architects are overly criticising idealistic egoistic visionaries, who believe things and people should exist in certain ways, while never quite learn the fact that things and people will never exist in those ways. (Look! The world is still a mess, had been a mess for the recorded history, and certainly will continue to be a mess in the foreseeable future…) And on personal level, they are a bit too much sometimes.

So the above are obviously generalised observations on architects. Am I supposed be assigned the guilt of over-generalisation? Or to make it simple, may be I am just describing about myself only?

(p.s. my English is not good at all. Is the title ‘Overly Criticising Architects’ grammatically correct? Or should it be ‘Overly Critical Architects’ or ‘Over-criticising Architects’? Please advise.)

E = mc^2 for Layman

2009-05-29T04:28:00.000-07:00

Of my conversations with friends, at times I would bring up the subjects of science and astrophysics. Not that I am particularly an expert on those subjects (in fact I am such an amateur), but I guess I am just too much of a boring person to think of any interesting subject to talk about. On the other hand, I also want to share things that are truly beautiful, of which is worth knowing.

The equation E = mc² is this kind of thing. It is the most famous equation in human history (and I contribute the main reasons of that being the equation is very short, and it is discovered by the crazy dude name Albert Einstein), and it is beautiful. It is also easily understood by layman without much math or physics background. So please let me try to explain here to my friends who haven’t had a chance to know it yet, so as to enjoy beautiful things.

E = mc² literally read as “E equal m c square”, where E represents Energy; m represents mass (or matter); and c represents the speed of light (which is very very large, about 3×10⁸ m/s). The equation will then be: Energy equals Mass times the square of Speed of Light. So what exactly is it saying?

In simple English, it means that matter and energy are interchangeable (matter is only a form of energy, and energy is also a form of matter). And the way they interchange is that, you only need a tiny bit of matter, if change it into pure energy, and you will get a very very large among of energy (as by the equation, you time the tiny mass with the square of Speed of Light, which is very very very large).

Let me give an example: if we can convert the matter of 5 pieces of M&M chocolate beans (which weight around 1 g) into pure energy, based on the equation E = mc² , the resulting energy will be equal to around 21.5 kilotons of TNT-equivalent energy, which is about one Hiroshima/Nagasaki size atomic bomb. That literally means that 5 M&M chocolate beans contain enough energy to wipe out and vaporise a small city.

Of course, at the moment we do not have the technology to convert M&Ms into pure energy, but we do have the technology to convert Uranium or Plutonium into energy by an inefficient way of radioactivity, and here comes nuclear weaponry (It actually explained it, but the Manhattan Project did not need this equation to work back then).

So what is the beautiful part about it? (and if someone associate the equation only with nuclear weapons in a conventional and humanitarian way, one may even find the equation ugly, but of course we shouldn’t). The most beautiful part of the equation, of course, is the Speed of Light. Why not some other relationship instead of the square of the speed of light? It takes a super genius to figure it out our universe in fact works this way. I don’t know if that make sense to you, but I found it extremely beautiful that we can start to understand the structure of our universe in such a specific way of comprehension.

(side note: a friend of mine think that Albert Einstein is an asshole, based on the fact that how he ignored and mistreated his families. The judgement appears to be justified, only that being a super genius for our civilization, I think he earned all the right to be an ass to his family somehow…)

Flying Spaghetti Monster

2009-04-18T04:31:00.000-07:00

Dear my beloved Christian friends and families,

I think I do owe you an explanation, as I put my religion belief as Flying Spaghetti Monster on my Facebook.

If anyone knows me a bit, you would probably know that I concur with all religious beliefs. Being a pretty much completed Agnostic myself (no, not a Skeptic), which is tragic enough, to me the system of faith is as valid as the system of logic or rational reasoning (that is deduced from the fact that intuitive knowledge should be as valid as empirical knowledge). To make it simpler: if you tell me “I believe in the Christian God, and God created the universe”, your statement should be as valid as a scientist's statement saying that “I believe in the high probability that the theory of Big Bang is correct and our universe begins with a process of probability wave collapse resulting in a Big Bang, and there is nothing before that (or nothing in the sense of any tangible ideas in our universe) because Time itself is created by the event.” (the definition of validity should be based on its benefit to humanity, but should be dealt with in another essay so that I can stick to my subject at hand).

I have many Christian friends and family members, who benefit greatly from their belief, and live a rich and successful life, that I am proud of you. It is no question that religious beliefs are a major element being part of humanity that makes us human.

On the other hand, let’s go back to the subject:- Flying Spaghetti Monster (further info can be found at Wikipedia, of course, don’t forget to donate to them once a while, haha).

Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is a parody religion. In this religion, its belief is that there at one point of time a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe and human beings. And since It created us all and It is so almighty and all knowing and kind to us and love us, we should worship It and it is a valid religion. The most powerful proof of Its existence is based on the logical argument of ‘Intelligent Design’ – that when we look around us, our world, plants and animals, and human beings, we are such a wonderful living creature with so complex a biological structure that it is impossible for us to conceive that there is no creator who created us. Hence, our own existence proves that Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, and It, being the almighty creator, created the universe and us.

Why is there such a parody religion? It is originated during around 2005, when there was a Christian community requesting the high school somewhere in the States that their science class should teach the theory of “Intelligent Design” alongside with the theory of “Evolution”. Hence, the school board was holding a hearing on this case, and the creator of FSM (a guy named Bobby Henderson) created this religion to protest with the board that the theory of FSM should be taught in science class as well.

Although the parody religion of Flying Spaghetti Monster is mostly used by Atheists to counter Christian beliefs, we have to know the actual intention is that FSM is countering the “Intelligent Design” argument only. The “Intelligent Design” argument is indeed a fallacy arguing, with false logic, that our existence proves the fact that a Christian God exists. And if we teach this in science class, we will be literally teaching false logic in logic class. The intention to mix up the system of logic to the system of faith will result in disaster consequence. Science provides us with a tool to create things that based on logic, reasons, and empirical knowledge. It allows us to build machines and technology, and without it, not only we cannot build cars, we can’t even build solar power or do ecology studies that safe our future. Science study theories that are probable, but not final truth (as science consistently proved previous theories to be wrong and continuously doing that). There is always a probability that the theory of evolution is totally wrong, and science allows this probability. It is if Christians can confirm that there will always be a probability that God does not exists, than we can start to consider teaching the theory of Christianity in science class.

On the other hand, we can see that FSM is a valid argument against the theory of Intelligent Design. However, it is weak for atheists in arguing against Christian belief. As I mention earlier, intuitive knowledge is considered to be valid by so many philosophers (although subject to conditions), to use an argument of intuitive knowledge (that God does not exist) to counter another intuitive knowledge (that God exists) does not work. We all know that there will never be any kind of logical proof that an atheist can produce to prove that God does not exist. Hence, don’t be alarm when you see FSM. We only want to leave science alone as it is. If anyone wants to argue with logic, we might probably argue whether we should abandon science and go back to the Stone Age for the sake of the universe… that sounds to be a more convincing logical argument.

Best Quotation - On War

2009-03-06T04:38:00.000-08:00

In a war:-

At the beginning when people start the war, they would say ‘There are things more important than human life that worth one to fight and die for’.

At the end when people want to end the war, they would say ‘In this world there is nothing more valuable then human life itself’.

- quoted from Yang Wen-li, Legend of the Galactic Heroes (銀河英雄傳說) - a novel by Yoshiki Tanaka (田中芳樹)

Ethics

2008-11-29T04:00:00.000-08:00

Yes, I just learnt that my own view on Ethics can supposingly be categorised as "Subjectivist - Emotivist - Consequence Theorist".

The good thing about reading philosophy is that you found out everything that you can think of as some very good idea or principle by yourself, had actually been thought of in detail many years ago by someone. So instead of think it all over again, you just need to read what had been thought of (... yes I m lazy) so that we don't have to re-think the whole thing again. More important, there usually were even better ideas and principles that those dead people (or some alive) thought of that can enrich your life.

Based on the almighty “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” (HGTTG), the planet Earth itself is actually a large computer built trying to solve the problem of “Life, the Universe, and Everything”. In this regard it is very true. Look at the chain of thought starting form Socrates/Plato to Kierkegaard/ Heidegger that seems so certain that it is a continuous process of computation on trying to find a solution to “Life, the Universe, and Everything”. So we should hope that the planet Earth won’t be demolished soon…