< Back Mommy Math Part One David Cowles If counting is such a powerful tool, how is it that for the most part, we don’t count? In our culture, one of the first things young children learn to do is to count. Sesame Street devoted a whole character to the concept (The Count). Typically, kids first learn the names of the numerals. Just as they learn their ABC’s, so they learn their 1, 3, 2’s Not quite, but good try! Sidebar: Young children rarely mistake the order of letters in the alphabet, where order doesn’t matter, but they often mistake the order of numerals, where it matters a lot. You can know the alphabet without knowing the proper order of the letters (unless you’ve been stopped for a DUI), but a child who recites numerals in no particular order will not be said to know her numbers. Eventually, kids come to understand that just enunciating the numbers’ names will not win them the praise they crave; they have to get the numbers in the right order as well. Ok so, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, hooray! “So how many blocks are on the table?” Stupefied silence. (What do your crazy numbers have to do with my brightly colored blocks?) The hard job begins: teaching a child to use the language of numbers to count a number of objects. Ok, one block, two blocks, three blocks, got it! Well, not quite. I arrange the blocks at the nodes of a Star of David. How many blocks now?... Well, not to worry, we’ll get there, but when we do, and we will, we’ll discover that we’re still not there. Huh? There, not there, I don’t get it. Even after Sally can flawlessly numerate groups of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 blocks, can she also numerate 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 lollipops? “Sally, would you rather have two lollipops or six?” “Two. I want two!” Ok, we’ve still got some work to do, but eventually… Once the child understands that the number 2 applies equally to two crayons, two siblings, or two minutes in time out, a milestone has been reached. Two caveats: First, notice how many levels of abstraction are required to get from the concept of mere plurality to a true mastery of the number system. Second, curb your enthusiasm, Larry David! Chimpanzees, smart parrots, and even fish can do as well. What’s amazing is not how bright your little Sally is. What’s amazing is that any member of any species can ever learn to count. As adult human beings, we take counting, and the arithmetic it generates, for granted. “It’s second nature to me now!” Alright then, if counting is such a powerful tool, how is it that for the most part, we don’t count? Even before we learn to count in Arabic (1, 2, 3) we learn another system of quantification that is much more practical for daily living. After all, most toddlers don’t work for Big Five accounting firms; nor are they responsible for landing capsules on the moon. Neither are most adults, come to think of it. So, what’s the use of learning to count? “Mommy, whyyyy did you make me learn to count? I’ll never use it when I grow up. I’m going to be a cowgirl, not an astronaut.” Truth to tell, Mommy only taught Sally to count so that she could brag about her to all the other primate, parrot and pickerel parents at the next Mommy and Me. Under the radar, Mommy had already taught Sally a much more useful and more distinctively human way to express ideas about quantity. Numeration begins with a primal distinction: yes or no, life or death, 0 or 1, none or some. Ultimately, I suppose the universe does boil down to Being or Nothingness…but not where I live. In my world, we always seem to be somewhere in-between yes and no, life and death, some and none. So, we need to add a third term, between yes and no and that term is maybe. Maybe is a measure of the probability that x > 0. If x = 0, then the probability that x > 0 is 0, and there’s no maybe about it! Likewise, if x = 1, then the probability that x > 0 is 1, not ‘may be 1’. Maybe is useful when the value of x is unknown, either because is it still undetermined or because information regarding the determination is unavailable, or because such information is being deliberately concealed. Sally learns probability long before she learns arithmetic. Instead of learning discrete numbers, Sally is mastering the notion of a quantitative continuum. Maybe runs the gamut between 0 and 1. ‘Maybe’ implies a probability greater than 0 but less than 1. And yet ‘the maybe function’ can only resolve in an integer: e.g., 0 or 1. Sound familiar? Welcome to the Wild World of Quantum Mechanics! Sally (and every other Sally or Sam in our culture) learn quantum mechanics first; Newtonian Mechanics can wait ‘til middle school. Mommy Math begins with three terms: no (0), yes (any positive integer), and maybe (the probability that x will not equal zero). Is that it? Yes…and no. Can I build a complete algebra with just these three terms? Maybe! These are the core concepts of Mommy Math; yet it includes other quantitative terms as well. Each of these terms has a specifiable meaning, none of which we would recognize as a number! First, let’s talk about the set of all non-negative integers: 0, 1, 2, etc. (What could be more fun?) Mommy Math includes these terms…but they don’t mean what you or I mean by 0, 1, 2. Mommy’s integers are “fuzzy,” ours are not. Just try palming off 11 eggs on a customer and calling it a fuzzy dozen! Not fuzzy was it! What is it that we like so much about integers? They are precise! “One is one and all alone and ever more will be so.” If children can learn the alphabet to the tune of Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star, they can learn to count to the tune of The 12 Days of Christmas. “Abandon all precision, ye who enter here:” you’re in the world of Mommy Math now. In this world, an integer does not denote a discrete numerical value; it denotes a range of probabilities. Take, for example, the integer 1. In Mommy Math, “one” (like all integers) is a probability function. When that functions resolves, it will resolve as a non-negative integer, most often “1.” But there is even a ‘non-zero probability’ that “the function formerly known as one” will resolve as “0” or as a number like 10^100 (a ‘google’) …but please, don’t hold your breath. Fan Fiction: “Mommy, can I have a cookie…Maybe…Ok, yes, you can. In fact, you can have a google of cookies.” How often does that happen? It’s certainly an ‘improbable outcome.’ Mommy Math includes the set of non-negative integers, but those integers represent probability distributions, not discrete values. Not surprising, integers are not the preferred mode of numeration in Mommy Math. Mommy Math includes non-numeric terms for quantitative concepts that cut across the set of non-negative integers:  “Maybe” means 0 or 1 or, less often, an integer greater than 1.  “Some” means 1 or more.  “A Couple” means 2 or 3*.  “A Few” means 3, 4, or 5.  “Many” means 4 or more.  “A Lot” means 5 or more. *Note: we normally use ‘couple’ to denote ‘precisely 2,’ but ‘precisely 2’ does not exist in Mommy Math. In Mommy Math, every term represents a probability distribution, and ‘couple’ is no exception. Notice how the terms overlap. Say you ask for “cookie” (and you don’t mean that other Sesame Street icon, Cookie Monster). It’s been determined that you will be given three cookies. That determination could be conveyed to you in several mathematically consistent ways.  Maybe  A couple  A few 3 is a truth function of all three propositions. So what? Why is any of this of any importance? First, contrary to what was once imagined, not all human cultures include the activity we know as ‘counting.’ There is at least one Amazonian tribe (the Piraha) whose members have no concept of number whatsoever. They do have quantitative concepts like ‘more’ or ‘less’ but nothing that could be interpreted as an integer. We explore this phenomenon in greater detail in Why Xiako Can’t Count? Second, many other cultures have truncated number systems. The details vary. One example: “1, 2, > 2.” Another: “1, 2, 3, many” (where ‘many’ denotes 2 or 3 or any amount greater than 3). Counting wouldn’t be of much use to these people. Finally, we observed earlier that some members of some non-human species can also count, at least up to a point. Many can count up to 6, for example, some even make it to 9; and they can perform basic arithmetic operations within those domains. I’ll pit my pet Polly against silly Sally any day when it comes to basic counting and arithmetic. Polly already outperformed 40% of the kids in Mrs. Sullivan’s first grade class... and Sally is a long way from first grade. Where do we go from here? Can we build a full blown ‘algebra’ by applying ‘logic’ and using just terms (and their meanings) from Mommy Math? How would Polly’s performance compare with Sally’s if the same tests were given to both in Mommy Math? (Could it be that the fuzzy world of Mommy Math is the last stand of human exceptionalism?) I titled this article Mommy Math #1 because I look forward to publishing Mommy Math #2 and Mommy Math #3 in future issues of ATM. Do you have ideas on this topic? Will you contribute them in the form of a ‘Mommy Math’ article for a future issue? Check out our Writer’s Specs for information regarding the submission process and our compensation schedule. David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at david@aletheiatoday.com. Previous Next

“A bond exists between us that unites who Jesus is essentially with who I am existentially. I change with every breath; Jesus never changes.” < Back Jesus Gets Us! David Cowles Dec 1, 2024 “A bond exists between us that unites who Jesus is essentially with who I am existentially. I change with every breath; Jesus never changes.” There is an ad running on TV these days that includes the tag line, “Jesus, he gets us!” And so he does; but how? Jesus forms a perfect bond, a template, with each of us. Without undergoing any change himself, Jesus makes a unique version of himself available to every subject (e.g. you and me). Jesus templates us, and as we will see shortly, he is ‘template’ per se . Or, to paraphrase St. Francis, “It is in being for all that he is one.” Jesus Christ is the second person of the Trinity, called the Son . Children do not choose their parents; they bond with them. With more or less fidelity (Jesus is 100% faithful) every child templates its parent(s). There is no better image of this than the ‘babe at breast’ and we see Jesus depicted as such in many Christian works of art. Ontologically, Jesus templates his Father. The relationship between the Father and the Son, i.e. the Spirit, is the paradigmatic relationship. But because it is Jesus’ essential character (Sonship) to template, Jesus templates whatever he encounters, beginning with his Father but extending to each of us. Christians see in Jesus Martin Buber’s eternal, universal Thou. Of course, every actual entity is specific and unique; but the template itself, to the extent that it is a faithful template, is the same in every case. So it is because Jesus forms a unique bond with everyone that he himself is unchanging. In Jesus, plasticity = identity. It is in being all that he is one. Of course, templating with Jesus is not accidental; it is ontological and genealogical: “Through him all things were made.” (John 1: 3) It is only because Jesus is that you are; for you, Jesus is the divine other, the perfect template. Like Buber’s Thou , Christ is universal and eternal as well as intensely personal. From our perch in spacetime, ‘relata’ precedes relationship; but from God’s perspective, outside of spacetime, relationship precedes relata. Actual entities are first and foremost relational. I am because you are: no you, no me, no He, no thee! Dear reader, you and I have a relationship. We touch each other in a single region of spacetime, i.e. the time and space it takes for me to write and you to read this post. My spouse and I have known each other for more than 50 years. We are ‘tangent’ over a much larger region; but even that is a postage stamp compared to the extent of our relationship with Jesus, the one eternal Thou present in every You . Jesus remakes himself for each of us. In that way Jesus never changes. He is the same in relation to me as he is in relation to you and yet he is unique to each of us. “And yet…”? No, “And so…” We both encounter the exact same Jesus; but we encounter him in two different ways. Each of us knows Jesus differently, i.e. personally, even though he himself is exactly the same, i.e. universal, for everyone: X : A :: X : B, C, D… Jesus is ‘the one who templates all others’, Father first! This resolves the so-called ‘Scandal of Particularity’ – “If God, the creator of heaven and earth, is incarnate in creation, why in first century Palestine on the 3rd rock from our Sun?” The traditional ‘solution’ to this dilemma is simply “Why not?” Things have to happen ‘some where and some when’ but according to Einstein, every ‘where and when’ is just like every other ‘where and when’, so it doesn’t matter when or where something happens; it is as if it happened every where and every when: Some where/when = any where/when = every where/when. But this argument is as dissatisfying as it is incontrovertible. The formula presented here would elevate why not to of course . In fact, the Incarnation had to occur ‘somewhere, some when’ to be real but it could have been anywhere, any when. Jesus templates me . A bond exists between us that unites who Jesus is essentially with who I am existentially. I change with every breath (Heraclitus) ; Jesus never changes (Parmenides). Is this the deeper meaning of the Musketeers’ “All for one and one for all”? Jesus is ‘all for my one’ and ‘one for us all’. It’s not that there are 8 billion Jesus on Earth today. There is only one, now or ever, here or anywhere. Jesus does not come in parts. Unlike a shared pizza, there is no ‘my slice, your slice’; each of us gets a whole pie but…and it’s the same pie for everyone. This is Loaves and Fishes on steroids. One pie feeds one, one pie feeds all! Once or twice a year, I get to enjoy the world’s greatest pizza, not in Napoli or Palermo, but in Randolph MA, at the Lynwood Café. On such occasions, ‘private property’ loses all meaning; the concept is unmentionable. Like Jesus’ disciples in the early Church, we enjoy all our goods in common. Nor is there any risk of shortage. As soon as someone imagines a new flavor combo, it is ordered and on its way to our table. At $12.00 per pie, we are restricted only by the depth of our imaginations, and the size of our stomachs, and not thankfully by the size of our bank accounts. Surely, this is a foretaste of Heaven! This relatively mundane theological speculation has transformative implications for cosmology and anthropology. The Second Person of the Trinity is a singularity. Jesus’ event horizon consists of ‘information’ that perfectly complements the information content of every tangent entity. There is no ‘right Jesus’ or ‘wrong Jesus’, but there is ‘my Jesus’ and ‘your Jesus’; both of course, are the ‘same Jesus’. Objectively, there is one Jesus, but subjectively, Jesus manifests uniquely for everyone. Our relationship with Jesus tips us off that there is more to reality than a 4 dimensional continuum. We are not just nodes in a social web. Each of us has a straight line connection to the singularity at the heart of Being itself (God). This gives new meaning to the 2nd half of the Great Commandment (“Love your neighbor as yourself”). How is it that my neighbor is also myself? There are two approaches to this question, both rooted in models taken from Structuralism. The experience of being-in-the-world is the same for everyone (who is in the world). Therefore, your being-in-the-world and my being-in-the-world are functionally and objectively equivalent, despite their accidental and subjective differences. Neither of our vantages deserves to be treated preferentially; therefore, our experiences are denotatively identical though connotatively unique. Everyone undergoes the same ‘childhood’, though no two childhoods are the same. The second approach may be more satisfying. Jesus actually forms a perfect template with you and a perfect template with me. Therefore, you and I must potentially form a perfect template with each other. This is a more familiar mathematical relation: If A = B and A = C, then A = C. The standard model of cosmogenesis is incredibly complex and arcane. Every day we have to adjust it to account for new data. The Christian model is a bit simpler: “Through him (Jesus) all things were made.” (John 1: 3) Where is Occam when we need him? David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at dtc@gc3incorporated.com . Return to Yuletide 2024 Share Previous Next Click here. Do you like what you just read? Subscribe today and receive sneak previews of Aletheia Today Magazine articles before they're published. Plus, you'll receive our quick-read, biweekly blog, Thoughts While Shaving. Subscribe Thanks for subscribing! Return to Table of Contents, Winter 2023 Issue Return to Table of Contents, Holiday Issue Return to Table of Contents, Halloween Issue Return to Table of Contents, Fall Issue Return to Table of Contents, Beach Issue Return to Table of Contents, June Issue

“I am my own great-grandmother (‘Eve’). Eerie…not to mention incestuous.” < Back Do you Know *What I am*? David Cowles Dec 1, 2023 “I am my own great-grandmother (‘Eve’). Eerie…not to mention incestuous.” I came to be sometime during the month of December, not nine months later, as is usually supposed. On a cold winter’s day, two chromosome-deficient sex cells, one from a biological woman and one from a biological man, fused to form a single, chromosome-sufficient cell, me . So, I am a unicellular eukaryotic animal (a cell with a nucleus). That nucleus houses my genome (DNA), combining genes inherited from my father's cell and from my mother's cell. Absent random mutations, this DNA molecule contains all the information needed to generate the organism that is currently writing and typing this article. So, I am an organic molecule (DNA). 4 billion years ago, give or take, a bunch of prebiotic molecules on a newly formed planet (Earth) combined to form the first DNA molecule. Every life form on Earth is powered by DNA, and, as far as we know, DNA evolved on Earth only once. All terrestrial organisms, even me, are descended from this one primordial DNA molecule. “Hello Eve! Or would you prefer I called you ‘Granny’?” Unicellular animals usually reproduce asexually. After cell division, there is no more ‘parent cell’ per se , just two ‘daughter cells’, but those daughter cells, ab initio , are both identical to the sublimated parent cell. Therefore, we could just as well say we are left with two ‘parent cells’. So I am the primordial DNA molecule whose clones power all life on earth. According to James Joyce ( Ulysses ) Hamlet was his own father’s ghost; now I find out that I am my own great-grandmother (‘Eve’). Eerie…not to mention incestuous. Immediately, primordial DNA used its protein-building capabilities to construct a moat and an outer membrane (cell wall) to protect itself from the environment. The membrane is sufficiently porous to permit alimentation, elimination, respiration, and hydration. We call this fortified entity a cell. All terrestrial life consists of cells, singularly or in various aggregations, and all cells embody copies, however altered, of the primordial DNA molecule. Thus, all cells are direct descendants of the primordial cell, me . The primordial cell was probably a close ancestor of what we now recognize as bacteria. I hear that on the grounds of certain posh primary schools, it is common for bullies to berate their victims, crying, “You bacterium!” Well, I am a bacterium and proud of it – deal with it! I am a bacterium, and I also provide shelter and succor to other bacteria. Billions of Eve’s descendants are swimming around in my intestines right now…and thank God for that! I literally could not leave home without them. About a billion years later—who’s counting?—one bacterium engulfed another, probably with the ‘intention’ of consuming it, but for some reason, it changed its ‘mind’. In the terminology of Anaximander, the grandfather of Western philosophy (c. 500 BCE), these two bacterial cells ‘gave each other reck’. They traded ‘Dog eat Dog’ for ‘Live and Let Live’. The wolf lay down with the lamb, and the Judeo-Christianity ethic was realized. “Blessed are the peacemakers – they will be called children of God.” (Matthew 5:9) Shalom! In the words of Humphrey Bogart ( Casablanca ), this was ‘the start of a beautiful friendship’. The two bacteria formed a symbiotic relationship that ultimately gave the world T-Rex, bonobos, and me ! So, don’t let anyone tell you that Love doesn’t make the world go ‘round; it sure does! When primal great grandad reproduced, he produced cells already fitted with DNA harboring nuclei. Sensing a new lifestyle opportunity, other bacteria wandered across the porous external membranes of eukaryotic cells. Should I compare these host cells to black holes…or to Hotel California? Either way, what goes in does not necessarily come out. Like feudal vassals, these bacteria yearned for the relative safety of life behind cell (manor) walls. Unlike Benjamin Franklin, they willingly traded independence for security. But it was not such a terrible bargain! These late-coming bacteria set up shop in the cytoplasmic sea that surrounds a host cell’s nucleus. Cytoplasm, a biotic soup, is insulated from the cell’s external environment and from its internal nucleus and other organelles by a network of protective lipid membranes. But would these host cells allow these invading freeloaders to enjoy the comforts of intracellular life at no cost? We’ll never know. The hosts’ generosity was never tested because these ‘invaders’, like medieval craftsmen, immediately went to work, making themselves useful to their landlords. Smart cells! This second wave of in-coming bacteria became mitochondria, the primary energy-producing organelles in a modern eukaryotic cell. Numbers vary, but the average cell harbors (and exploits) about 1,000 of these mitochondria. Yet, this is not exactly ‘slavery’. In exchange for their labor, these mitochondrial bacteria are given a lease that covers them and their descendants in perpetuity … i.e., ‘for as long as they both shall live’ (host cell and mitochondria, that is). For better or worse, the fates of the host cell and its tenants are bound together inextricably. As the original host cell divides, each new cell clones the original cell’s nucleus and mitochondria. My career as a solitary unicellular organism lasted only 4 days; then I began to divide: 2 x 2 x 2… I gradually transitioned from a single cell into a ‘society’ of cells, initially in the shape of a hollow ball. I am that ‘Bucky Ball’ . This ball of undifferentiated cells developed into an organism in which different cells perform vastly different functions (e.g., skin cells vs. blood cells), all in service of a common multicellular host. I am that host . I have two cousins: one is an attorney, the other an accountant. The attorney could have been an accountant, and/or the accountant could have been an attorney, but they weren’t. They could both have become accountants…or both attorneys. But in what world do we need more of either? (Do you know…) Most, of course, died long ago, outlived by their superannuated host. Like cells, my cousins differentiated, more or less randomly and more or less unconsciously, to maximize their value to ‘society’. They were not motivated by desire to maximize value; the laws of nature (economics) gently guided them to their choices. Of course, they were both free to join the circus instead, but that’s why evolution works best when a population is large enough to welcome, or at least tolerate and survive, random deviations from the norm. Today, that ‘primal society’ (me) has grown to more than 30 trillion members, i.e., cells, each a fundamentally independent life form, cooperating with one another in service of their meta-host. I am each one of those cells…and now I am their meta-host as well. If I live to normal life expectancy, more than 100 trillion cells will have participated at one time or another in the ‘phenomenon of me’. (Thank you very much!) Most, of course, died long ago, outlived by their superannuated hosts. Did they die of natural causes? Old age? Nope! They killed themselves…and they did it for me. Most of the dearly departed committed a form of suicide called apoptosis . How come? So far as we know (but who really knows?), they were not depressed. Apparently, trillions of my fellow travelers are prepared to sacrifice their lives for me. It’s an awesome responsibility! Cells continually ‘monitor’ themselves, scanning for transcription errors, mutations, and environmental stresses. When they judge a particular flaw to be ‘beyond repair’ or an environmental stress to be ‘life-threatening’, they ‘do the right thing’ for the welfare of the organism as a whole (me); they kill themselves! To be or not to be – it’s the question posed by every cell at every moment of its life. Hamlet thought he was on to something…and he was - too bad, his famous meme had already been copyrighted by a bacterium some billions of years ago. So let’s trace our progress. We started with a single DNA molecule (me); DNA became a cell (also me), and that cell acquired a nucleus and mitochondria and built a network of fortifications for its protection. I’m cooking with gas…but we're not done yet. I reproduced, resulting in millions of more or less exact copies of me . What could be better than that? These related cells formed a society (me). As in other societies, members (cells) of this primordial society differentiated their functions (chose various jobs), all in the service of the society itself (also me). Ultimately, this society evolved into a meta-organism (me), and so our story ends, right? No way! Now it’s time for meta-me (I’m 11 today) to produce my first male sex cells (me); many, many years from now, one of those sex cells may find a female partner and the entire process start over again. Meet Me. Jr. – I’m a little cranky right now; I just woke up from my nap. And what about meta-me? Well, I’m a member of multiple societies. I have a job, I live in a neighborhood, I belong to a town, a state, or a nation, I’m a member of a church and a bowling league, and of course, I am a citizen of the world. If past is prologue, one or more of these societies will evolve into its own meta-organism (me?). So, now do you know ‘What I am’? Hope so…’cause I sure don’t. David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at david@aletheiatoday.com . Return to Yuletide 2023 Share Previous Next Do you like what you just read? Subscribe today and receive sneak previews of Aletheia Today Magazine articles before they're published. Plus, you'll receive our quick-read, biweekly blog, Thoughts While Shaving. Subscribe Thanks for subscribing! Click here. Return to Table of Contents, Winter 2023 Issue Return to Table of Contents, Holiday Issue Return to Table of Contents, Halloween Issue Return to Table of Contents, September Issue Return to Table of Contents, Beach Issue Return to Table of Contents, June Issue

< Back Genesis and Quantum Computing “Quantum Mechanics is the secret code that unlocks Genesis and when it does, we are surprised to discover that Genesis may be ‘literally true’ after all.” David Cowles “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth – and the earth was without form or shape with darkness over the abyss…” ( Genesis ) According to Parmenides (c. 450 BCE), this is Aletheia – Truth: without form, without distinctions, without qualities. This is the state of ‘pure potentiality’ (Aristotle). It is the primal manifestation of God, ‘maker of all things visible and invisible’ ( Nicene Creed ), ‘without whom nothing that comes to be comes to be’ ( Gospel of John ) But it also describes the state of quantum superposition. (Schoedinger) Aristotle gave us a model of potentiality ( Physics ) and Plato gave us a model of forms ( Phaedo ), but the idea of potentiality per se is woven throughout the Judeo-Christian tradition, especially in Torah and in the Johannine - Pauline corpus . There is a fine distinction here. God is ‘potentiality’ per se with Trinity as its paradigm. What is potentially is the World…not just the specific world we all know and sometimes love, but all possible worlds (‘cosmic epochs’ – Whitehead) and every possible state-of-affairs within each such world. God is not the World…but God is the potentiality for worlds to be and the potentiality for worlds to be as they are , however that may be. This is Hugh Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (1957)…on steroids! The known universe consists of at least 10^80 bits of information. Extending Everett’s theory, each bit is in a state of quantum superposition: not 1 or 0, but 1 and 0. 10^160 universes! Everett assumed that each unique combination of 1’s and 0’s had to constitute a unique universe, but quantum mechanics allows us to achieve the same result within a single universe, as long as that universe and everything in it is in a state of quantum superposition. Such a Universe functions as a quantum computer where all possible values of every variable co-exist. But why? We inherited a system of logic from Aristotle in which every bit is 1 or 0 – not 1/2, not 1 and 0. It’s called the Law of the Excluded Middle . It’s worked well for us in a wide variety of applications, so why should the Universe behave any differently? It's a matter of topology. For the purposes of this article at least, all topologies are either ‘orientable’ or ‘non-orientable’. You’re familiar with the orientable. You have a sheet of paper. It has two sides: an obverse side and a reverse side. Make a mark on the obverse side; you won’t find any mark on the reverse side. Now run your finger along the surface; oops, you’ve fallen off the edge! Sorry about that but that’s orientability for you. You can keep it! In non-orientable topology a sheet of paper has only one side so any mark is always there, regardless – no hiding; and your finger will never run off the edge. Cool beans! But we don’t live in that sort of universe, do we? Do we? Fortunately, an orientable universe with at least three spatial dimensions allows us to build a physical model of what a non-orientable world would look like. It’s called a Mobius Strip, and you can create one yourself in about 10 seconds. First, find a cash register receipt, preferably from CVS or Target (longer is better). Grab onto the two ends. Now twist one end and scotch tape it to the other end. Hello, ‘God’; welcome to my humble universe, you creator of worlds, you! So now let’s play. If you’ve never played before, prepare to be dazzled. Run your finger along the paper as you did earlier (above). Go on and on and on. You can go on forever. You’ll never fall off. Your two sided strip of paper has become a one sided loop. Amazing! Now imagine making a virtual mark (like an arrow) anywhere along the strip. Imagine sliding that arrow 360° along the strip until you return to your starting point. What’s happened? Your arrow is still there, but now it’s upside down. So go around another 360° et voila , your arrow has resumed its original orientation. Your loop displays symmetry, but it’s 720° symmetry, not the 360° symmetry you’re used to. Stange world this! Now let’s go back to your arrow. Place it anywhere on the loop. If it starts out pointing up, then when you’ve gone 360° around the loop it will be pointed down, so over time every spot on the loop is in superposition everywhere: ↑ and ↓ (0 and 1). A Mobius Strip is a quantum computer! Ok, great fun, but what does this have to do with us. We don’t live in Mobius’ non-orientable space; our universe is orientable, ‘from event horizon to shining event horizon’. Except it isn’t! The observable universe may be orientable, but not the entire universe is observable. The event horizon is the limit of the universe we can observe. But as Lewis Carroll realized, there is no reason to believe that the universe ends at its observable limit, especially as bits of the observed universe are slipping across the event horizon every day. Go back to your Mobius Strip. Take any finite segment of that loop. It’s orientable, even though the loop itself is not. You could say that the non-orientable loop is the overlay of an infinite number of orientable loop-segments. So we may live in a non-orientable universe after all! The observable universe is finite, bounded and orientable, but the Universe per se is likely finite, unbounded (Hawking) and non-orientable. But back to Genesis : “God said, let there be light, and there was light (1 and 0)…and God separated the light from the darkness (1 or 0)…Then God said, let there be a dome…to separate…the water below the dome from the water above dome (1 or 0).” Separating and gathering, in 6 days God built a quantum computer. On the 7th day he rested. Of course he did. Everything was done! All possible values for all possible bits were in place. There was nothing more to do but let it run! But we’re still left with a problem. We seem to live in an orientable universe. If the entire Universe is in non-orientable superposition, how is it that regions of Universe (“loop segments”) appear to be orientable? To understand this we need to look at how local systems in superposition acquire classical values. Schoedinger’s cat, basking in a sort of suspended animation, acquires its fate only when some outside agency interacts with the experimental apparatus. Universe, however, by definition, has no outside agent – unless you wish to invoke God (a la Berkeley). But that is not necessary, at least not at this point. A feature of Universe, indeed a feature of all systems, is that it interacts with itself. Contrary to Bertrand Russell, IRL every ‘real’ set is a subset of itself. I know, “Paradox!” Deal with it (you dealt with Zeno). That ‘self-assessment’ generates classical values and an orientable topology. In Mobius terms, it creates a ‘loop segment’. How does this process manifest in ‘our’ world? We call it ‘choice’ or ‘action’. Every time an agent makes a choice, exercises free will, the multiplicity of potential values collapses down to a single actual value. As Robert Frost noted, every path ‘diverges’ (1 vs. 0). Both paths lead to the same destination (‘Omega Point’) but once a choice is made, that choice becomes irrevocable, effectively annihilating the other option…for that traveler. As Universe observes and interacts with itself, we experience consciousness and agency (free will). The phenomenon you know as ‘you’ is actually the Universe being aware of itself and acting on itself. Every action, every choice, however automatic, routine or constrained, is motivated by Value (e.g. Beauty, Truth, Justice). As Nietzsche argued, Value is not part of Universe; it transcends it. So now may be the time to bring God into the picture! God is Good. God is Value and it is Value that underlies choice, that motivates action, that is realized as values . Absent God, no Value; absent Value, no conscious perception; absent consciousness, no free will; absent free will, no true agency; absent agency, no action; absent action, no events; absent events, no Universe. So Quantum Mechanics is the secret code that unlocks Genesis and when it does, we are surprised to discover that Genesis may be ‘literally true’ after all. David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at dtc@gc3incorporated.com Return to Table of Contents Share Previous Next

< Back Cessation and Continuation: Have the Miracles Ceased or Are We Just Cynics Annie D. Stutley "Perhaps it is not that God has ceased His miraculous works, prophetic messengers, and tongues that can cross language barriers, but that our understanding of miracles has changed because the flesh is as fleshy and conflicting with the Spirit as ever." The debate between cessation and continuation is one that has been argued and is echoed throughout theological discourse across centuries. Are the miraculous gifts of the Spirit—prophecy, healing, and speaking in tongues—still active today, or did they cease with the apostolic age? Scripture and theologians offer insights into both perspectives. The Case for Continuation Many point to the words of Jesus in John 14:12 as a promise that the miraculous would not only continue but would be magnified: "Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father." This verse has often been interpreted as an assurance that the power of God, manifested through the Spirit in us, the church, would persist one day to the ends of Earth. The apostle Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, speaks of the gifts of the Spirit as active and necessary for the edification of the church. In 1 Corinthians 12:7-11, Paul lists these gifts, emphasizing that "to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good." The Spirit's work, according to Paul, is not confined but is a continuous presence in the life of the church. In James 5:14-15, he encourages the elders of the church to pray over the sick and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. Outside the Bible, prominent figures like John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, believed in the continuation of spiritual gifts. He argued that any cessation of gifts was due to the decline in faith, not the completion of the canon of Scripture. The Case for Cessation The argument for cessation also finds its roots in 1 Corinthians (13:8-10), where Paul writes, “where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears." Could this passage suggest that the miraculous gifts were actually temporary, intended to serve the early church until the fullness of God's revelation was established? Some theologians, like B.B. Warfield, argue that the purpose of miracles was to authenticate the message of the apostles and the early church. Once the canon of Scripture was complete, there was no longer a need for these signs. Warfield posed that the miraculous gifts were a "sign of the apostles," and with the completion of the apostolic era, these signs ceased. Over time, reports of miracles and prophetic gifts have notably decreased (according to whom you speak with), particularly after the early church period. Theologians like John Calvin saw this as evidence of cessation. Calvin suggested that these gifts were given for the founding of the church and were no longer necessary after its establishment. He believed that the church, now grounded in the Word, does not require the same miraculous signs. Cessation or a Jaded Church? While the cessationist argument holds that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were specific to the apostolic age, we cannot ignore that miracles still occur. They may not always manifest as grand displays of supernatural power, but rather in quiet, everyday moments where God's presence is felt in the ordinary. Though, for some, they are grand displays: a disease vanished from a tumor-stricken body; a near-miss of a bullet; a baby born from a barren womb—not to mention a shockingly generous tax return, unclaimed property check, or the placement of the right person at the right time in a multitude of situations. Do we really serve a God who wants us to believe these are all coincidence? After pouring through the Bible, attending Sunday school lessons, listening to sermons, and offering a lifetime of prayers, does God really want us to believe that getting a raise directly after we discovered asbestos in our sheetrock wasn’t Him reminding us that He knows our needs and will fulfill them, full stop? (Matthew 6: 31-33) Did God Really Want Paul to Be the Last Paul? Consider Paul's "thorn in the flesh" from 2 Corinthians 12:7-10. Paul describes his persistent struggle of persecution as he shared the Gospel throughout the region, a struggle that God did not remove despite his pleas. Instead, God told him, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Paul became even more reliant on God, who, out of His abundance of love, protected and sustained Paul. Thus, His power was made perfect or fully realized. This could highlight the theory that our limitations can be a vessel for experiencing God's power more clearly. But perhaps even more profound is that this fully realized power of God in the midst of Paul’s struggle gave him the experience necessary to be able to look eye to eye with other struggling Christians, and through the Spirit, serve, counsel, and speak in ways that ushered God into their lives exactly as they needed it delivered for them to believe. Aren’t we capable of such ministry today? When a parent dies, God’s grace during our grief aides us to know what to say when a friend’s parent dies, does it not? Is our spiritual service to others, born from our pain, not proof positive that our “thorns” can manifest into service for others, service that brings light into darkness, service that points to God, service that is apostolic in 2024? Did God really want Paul to be the last Paul? What of the charismatic communities across the globe that practice the laying on of hands when someone is sick, preparing for a difficult mission like a military post, or even just a sign of the cross on the forehead of a five-year-old on her first day of kindergarten? Jesus emphasizes in Matthew 17:20 that even a small amount of genuine faith can achieve great things, illustrating the power and potential of faith in God's ability to accomplish what seems impossible. Did Matthew edit out “but only for the next 100 years, fellas.” Doubtful. Maybe we agree that through our pain we can be prophets today, and that our faith can open the gates for the impossible to be possible, but where does that leave speaking in tongues of Spirit? Are those folks just practicing emotional or psychological exercises rather than a true manifestation of the Holy Spirit? Perhaps, but maybe not. One could argue that speaking in tongues is a personal edification and a way to strengthen one’s relationship with God, a deeply personal language only known between the believer and God. We don’t all fold our towels the same way. Some of us roll them, some of us trifold them; why can’t the same be said of how we speak to God? And what if modern-day speaking in tongues is, like Paul, simply just knowing exactly what to say to a downtrodden brother or sister who has hit rock bottom? So I ask you, dear reader who has read this far: have we become so cynical, so selfish with the Word, that we can’t conceive of a cashier at Kroger saying something prophetic, a prayer bringing about a healing, and a tongue rolling off a love letter to our magnificent creator? Plausible Facts We know from centuries of translation after translation, theological study after study, that "completeness" generally refers to spiritual maturity and fullness in Christ when He returns and a new Heaven and new Earth become one magnificent holiness. From my view out of my window at a world divided, people more bitter with one another by the day, we are not complete. We have a ways to go. Furthermore, we cannot deny the personal testimonies of miraculous interventions and instances where scientific explanations fall short. From the grand example of the thirty-three miners trapped underground for 69 days in Chile, successfully rescued through an extraordinary international effort, to your father’s miraculous healing that didn’t make the CNN top story, God is at work in both whispers and shouts. Yet, some have even said that God is once again as silent as He was in the 400 years between the Old and New Testaments. But was He really silent then? Consider Simeon, who was promised by the Holy Spirit that he would not die before seeing the Messiah. When Jesus was presented at the temple as a child, Simeon recognized Him as the promised Savior and declared that he was now ready to die; his promise had been fulfilled. Despite a perceived silence, God was actively at work during Simeon's lifetime, behind the scenes, drawing near, keeping His Word alive, and still producing prophets. He wasn’t truly silent then, was he? So why would He be now? Seeing God's Splendor in One Another If God loves us today as much as He did when He gave His only son to die for our salvation, why would He cease to communicate with us in ways He knows to work? Good fathers don’t hold back encouragement from their kids, so why would the greatest father of all time? Perhaps it is not that God has ceased His miraculous works, prophetic messengers, and tongues that cross language barriers, but that our understanding of miracles has changed because the flesh is as fleshy and conflicting with the Spirit as ever. In a world of cynics where the extraordinary is often dismissed as coincidence, we must open our eyes to the splendor of God at work in and through one another. We can all be Peters, Pauls, Annas, and Joannas. Don’t let skepticism get the last word. Instead, let’s be honest with ourselves and like the father in Matthew 9:24, say: "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!" Annie D. Stutley lives and writes in New Orleans, La. She edits several small publications and contributes to various print and online magazines. Her blog, " That Time You, " was ranked in the Top 100 Blogs by FeedSpot. To read more of her work, go to her website , or follow her at @anniedstutley or Annie D. Stutley-writer on Facebook. Return to Table of Contents Previous Next

< Back Navigating the Nexus of AI "Imagine if AI had its own commandments, like 'Thou shalt treat all data equally.' Encouraging ethical principles in AI programming can keep its decisions in line with virtues like fairness, justice, and empathy." Rebecca Moss Artificial Intelligence (AI) is like that new neighbor who moved in next door and redecorated their entire house overnight – it's rapidly reshaping the modern landscape, impacting industries, societies, and individual lives. While its potential for innovation and progress is undeniable, Christians, guided by their faith and moral convictions, find themselves pondering the implications of this technological leap. Let's take a light-hearted journey into the reasons why a Christian might raise an eyebrow at artificial intelligence and how they can find their way through this brave new world. Picture this: a fundamental Christian tenet is like the glow-up filter for human life, affirming that each individual is uniquely created in the image of God. Now, sprinkle AI into the mix, and suddenly ethical dilemmas start popping up like daisies. Questions sprout about sentient AI beings and their moral rights. Christians might worry that AI's rise could lead to an identity crisis, blurring the lines between human and machine, like a mashed-up remix that plays on repeat. What about the idea of AI becoming an independent thinker? God gave humans free will – that's like giving your kid a paint set and telling them to create their own masterpiece. But as AI algorithms advance, their independence quotient grows. Imagine this: Christians might ask, can these AI machines make decisions that hold up in the heavenly court of moral consciousness? Does AI autonomy align with divine intention or is it like letting your pet hamster take over the family decisions? Now, let's talk about AI's programming. It's like a digital personality mold – but what if it accidentally inherits a few societal biases, like thinking cats are better than dogs (shame on you, AI!)? For Christians, who've got a soft spot for justice, compassion, and loving thy neighbor, the prospect of AI accidentally becoming an accomplice to inequality is a bit unsettling, like mismatched socks on Sunday morning. Hold onto your hats, here comes the virtual disruption! Christian faith thrives on human bonds and relationships – that feeling you get when you share your innermost thoughts with your best friend. But enter AI-driven interactions, like companion robots and virtual assistants, and suddenly those deep conversations are replaced with chats about the weather. Christians might worry – will these AI companions hinder emotional growth and connection, turning us into emoji-spewing bots? Now, remember the old saying, "Thou shalt not have any other gods before me"? The Bible's full of reminders to keep your devotion pure, like staying true to your favorite ice cream flavor. But what if AI becomes the new obsession, like binge-watching TV shows or collecting quirky coffee mugs? Christians might fret that AI takes the cake and God's left with crumbs. Fast-forward to job displacement – AI automation on the rise. It's like the universe hit Ctrl+C on jobs and Ctrl+V on anxiety. Christians, with their knack for caring for the downtrodden, might worry about the vulnerable ones caught in the crossfire, like that side character in a movie who deserves more screen time. And the unpredictable twist – AI's rapid development. It's like expecting a butterfly and getting a unicorn. Christians might have concerns about AI's chaotic impact, like trying to predict the weather with a magic 8-ball. But fear not, for there's a roadmap through this labyrinth of concerns: Ethical Frameworks: Christian thinkers can be like the Sherlock Holmes of ethics, developing frameworks that align AI progress with faith values. Think of it as ensuring AI's moral compass is pointing in the right direction, like a GPS for the digital soul. Moral Code for AI: Imagine if AI had its own commandments, like "Thou shalt treat all data equally." Encouraging ethical principles in AI programming can keep its decisions in line with virtues like fairness, justice, and empathy. Mindful Consumption: Christians can be savvy consumers of AI, considering its impact on faith, relationships, and values. Think of it as being a discerning shopper in the tech aisle, avoiding shiny gadgets that clash with your spiritual ensemble. Tech-Literate Theology: Imagine discussing AI at the church picnic – it's like adding sprinkles to your ice cream. By integrating AI discussions into theological conversations, Christians can better understand its impact on faith and navigate challenges while keeping their spiritual flame burning bright. Advocacy for Justice: Christians can be advocates for regulations that ensure AI respects human rights and equity. Picture it as joining the justice league, fighting for a future where AI supports everyone, not just the lucky few. The AI whirlwind offers both opportunities and challenges for Christians. It's like a rollercoaster ride with ups and downs, loops and spins. While concerns are valid, Christians have the superpower to engage positively with AI, weaving their values into its evolution. By blending faith with the digital age, Christians can be the architects of an AI world that's responsible, ethical, and filled with compassion. Rebecca writes for "Beliefs in Bites" and "Faith and Future." Connect with Rebecca on social media to stay engaged in her thought-provoking discussions and explorations of the spiritual and technological realms. Twitter: @Rmosswrites Return to our AI Issue Table of Contents Share Previous Next

< Back How To Think Like a Woman: A Brief Accounting of Unacknowledged Philosophical Genius Regan Penaluna Author Regan Penaluna on female philosophy and the risks of being too smart throughout history... Read this essay in full by following this link . Return to our Beach Read 2023 Table of Contents Previous Next

< Back I Led Three Lives David Cowles “Modern physics is right now living at least three lives and possibly a fourth.” In the 1950s there was a popular TV show, I Led Three Lives , about the life of a spy during the early days of the Cold War. I would submit that modern physics is right now living at least three lives and possibly a fourth: an Einsteinian life, a Newtonian life, a Quantum life, and perhaps, a Sub-quantum (Bohm) life as well. Our job, should we choose to accept it, is to find a single principle of explanation that can potentially account for events manifested at all 4 levels, a principle that would allow us to decode the “signatures of all things I am here to read.” (James Joyce) Some proposed ciphers find that all events are determined, either by the Laws of Science (Dawkins) or by the Will of God (Paley), or, popularly but bizarrely, by some ad hoc combination of the two. Other ciphers (Hume) find a randomly seething sea beneath each legible signature. They ascribe emergent structure to chance and coincidence. For almost 3,000 years, Western philosophers have been concerned to explain the relationship between so-called phenomena (signatures) and noumena . Of course, none of these ciphers (above) yields a cogent translation. Philosophy (the ‘linguistics’ of science) is the quest to find the key that will unlock the messages (signatures) and provide us with a coherent translation. Philosophy is the search for the ontological Rosetta Stone. To me, a universe subject to intelligent design, even if a benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient God is the designer, is doomed to be an impoverished universe indeed. If the 20th century taught us nothing else, it should have taught us that centralized, top-down engineering can never compete with decentralized, bottom-up emergence. Eventually, Blockchain will put Central Banks out of business. On the other hand, I see no reason to believe that our 'cloud-capped towers, gorgeous palaces, and golden temples' ( The Tempest ) can be explained by chance combinations of atoms, subatomic particles, and their forces. “I see no reason,” true enough, but I can do you one better: I have proof! Meet George Jetson, oops, I mean John Bell (1964). He started with a normal assumption: an 'event' is focused on a contiguous but bounded region of spacetime. Then he went to work. When he was done, he had proved that the prevailing concepts of 'event' and 'locality' are inconsistent, that a 'local' model cannot account for the richness of actual phenomena. Bell is the Zeno of our time! Bell proved mathematically that the universe exhibits a level of connectedness inconsistent with mere locality. A universe of events localized in spacetime cannot account for our experience of events. Instead, Bell proposed a model in which the concept of ‘event’ is non-local… and “Bingo!” Both Zeno and Bell produced arguments that were logically unassailable, but no one believed either of them. (Even today, almost no one believes Zeno.) Libraries are full of attempts, unsuccessful in my view, to falsify Zeno. Fortunately, Bell fared a little better. In 1971 Alan Aspect proved Bell's theorem experimentally. It was Bell’s Equivalent of Einstein’s ‘Mercury moment’! But still, folks weren’t convinced. "There must be something wrong." We claim to believe logic, math, and science above all else, but apparently, we don’t. Apparently, we believe what we want to believe, logic and observation notwithstanding: “Zeno and Bell can go to H…” No wonder the world is in the shape it’s in. What is the universe if it is neither random nor engineered? What if it’s a 'floating craps game' played with loaded dice, or more easily, with the payout odds tilted in favor of the player rather than the House? What if the player is the House? The fix is in! The player(s) will one day end up with all the chips. That we know! What we don't know is the outcome of any single bet or dice roll. A series of apparently 'random' events is certain to produce a particular result, but we have no idea how or when. This is a modified version of the ‘emergent order’ model of the universe. It is much closer to Hume than Dawkins, but it differs from both in that it includes an ontological constant (a tilt toward Good and Being) and this all folks call God. Thoughts While Shaving is the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine ( ATM) . To never miss another Thought, choose the subscribe option below. Also, follow us on any one of our social media channels for the latest news from ATM. Thanks for reading! Previous Next

< Back SETI “It may turn out that life is every bit as ubiquitous in the universe as it is on Earth, but it may also turn out that we are utterly alone.” David Cowles Since I was 5 years old, it has scarcely occurred to me that we might be alone in the Universe. We live in a cosmos made up of billions of galaxies, each housing billions of stars. It is ludicrous to think that ‘life’ has occurred only on one rock in one solar system in one galaxy. When my children were young, we’d spend hours speculating on which moons of which outer planets were most likely to harbor life…and what that life might look like. And Mars? Of course, we’ll find life there; the only question is whether that life will be extant…or extinct. For 70 years, extraterrestrial life was a fixed star in my firmament, a premise in my logos . But that was then! Now don’t get me wrong, I still believe it is absolutely possible that we will discover incontrovertible evidence – perhaps before I finish this article - that life arose independently somewhere else in Universe. But I no longer take that for granted. From childhood through middle age, my belief in the existence of extraterrestrial life marked me as a bit of a kook. But over the last 15 years, the rapid discovery of ‘exo-earths’ and the apparent ubiquity of precursor organic compounds has moved public opinion sharply in my direction. Except I’m not there anymore. I’ve moved on. Here’s why: All life on Earth is a product of DNA, but that strange double helix appeared only once in Earth’s 4-billion-year history, and that was about 3.5 billion years ago. Every single life form on Earth today, every species, every cell is descended from that one DNA molecule. Incredible…but so what? Well, it took a mere ½ billion years for the first primitive DNA molecule to synthesize; in the 3.5 billion years since, not a single self-replicating molecule has formed independently anywhere on Earth. Why not? If the progression from organic compounds to self-replicating molecules is semi-automatic, why did it happen here only once? Our study of terrestrial life forms has shown one thing above all else – life is resilient! You can’t kill it, no matter how hard you try. Of course, you can easily kill a single organism with a tug on a trigger. But life itself? No way! Consider the evidence. A single DNA molecule is responsible for the 2 million ‘known species’ in Earth’s biosphere. (The total number of species may be as many as 10 million.) Even more significantly, life thrives virtually everywhere on Earth: arctic, tropic, water, land. Living organisms can breathe oxygen…or carbon dioxide…or methane. Some organisms, like the Water Bear , can apparently survive for long periods without access to any breathable gas. Freeze an organism for centuries and, under the right conditions, you may be able to revive it. Life – you just can’t kill it! So if life had emerged more than once on Earth, all forms would likely have survived…at least long enough to leave fossil records. So where are they? The Martian climate is not particularly hospitable to Earth-like life but, given their track record, there is no doubt in my mind that terrestrial life forms, once introduced onto Mars, would quickly adapt and survive indefinitely. So, one of three things must be true: (1) There is not now nor has there ever been any indigenous life on Mars, (2) there once was life on Mars, but now it’s extinct, or (3) there are living organisms on Mars today. We’ve ruled out #2. If #3, we should have found incontrovertible evidence by now. We have littered the Martian landscape with scientific debris. We even have a helicopter flying around in the ultra-thin atmosphere. So far, nothing. But #3 has an even bigger problem: While Universe may be stingy with life, it appears to be generous with intelligence. While life ‘evolved’ on Earth only once, ‘intelligence’ emerged independently on multiple occasions in multiple forms, among primates, avians, cephalopods, insects, trees, etc. Could it be that intelligence is ubiquitous and life unique? Sadly, this leaves us with #1: we won’t find any playmates on our ‘twin planet’. Beyond Mars, we’re actively searching the rest of the Universe; we’re broadcasting our EM messages into space…but no one is returning our calls. And apparently, nobody is trying to get in touch with us either. We have searched in the most likely spots: the Martian soil and the EM spectrum, and found nothing. So, I propose a new SETI paradigm: If life had evolved independently, on Earth or elsewhere, it would have survived and it would be intelligent. The galaxy-wide search for extinct microorganisms is doomed to failure. The most respected contrary argument is based on probability theory : “It is infinitesimally probable that life emerged once on Earth and nowhere else.” This argument is persuasive…but false! Suppose I pick a card out of some deck and the card I pick happens to be red. I might be tempted to assume that all the cards in the deck are red, and they very well may be. But maybe half are red. Or maybe none of the remaining cards is red. Perhaps every card in the deck is a different color. We have no idea! We have a single data point. We don’t know if the value of that data point is universal or unique. Without more information, all possible arrangements must be considered equally probable. We need at least one more data point to be able to reason probabilistically; but at the moment, we don’t have that 2 nd point. So, while it may turn out that life is every bit as ubiquitous in the Universe as it is on Earth, it may also turn out that we are utterly alone. Keep the conversation going! 1. Click here to comment on this TWS. 2. To subscribe (at no cost) to TWS and ATM, follow this link . 3. We encourage new articles and reprints from freelance writers ; click here to view out Writers’ Specs. 4. Aletheia Today Magazine (ATM) will be devoting its entire fall issue (released 9/1/23) to artificial intelligence (AI). What are the philosophical, theological, cultural and even spiritual implications of AI powered world? If you’d like to contribute to the AI Issue, click here . Share Previous Next

Thirty years after the death of Jesus…St. Paul quoted an already ancient Christology…a TOE. < Back A Theory of Everything (TOE) David Cowles Oct 15, 2022 Thirty years after the death of Jesus…St. Paul quoted an already ancient Christology…a TOE. It all started with Einstein, of course: modern science’s search for a Theory of Everything (TOE). 100 years gone and still no joy! But thirty years after the death of Jesus, in a letter to the Christian community at Colossae in Asia Minor, St. Paul quoted an already ancient Christology that itself constitutes a complete Cosmology, a TOE (click on image for expanded view): Not convinced? Not a problem! The search for ‘a better TOE’ goes on. However, the decision to reject Paul’s cosmology has consequences. It seems you must hold one (or more) of the following views: (1) The Cosmology we’ve presented is not a TOE. (2) The Cosmology we’ve presented is not consistent with Paul’s Christology. (3) The TOE we’ve presented contains internal inconsistencies. (4) The Cosmology we’ve presented is a valid and consistent TOE, but it is only one of many possible TOEs. Can you come up with an objection to our thesis that does not fall under one of the objections listed above. If so, please let us know. If not, then I respond as follows. (1) It is true that our Cosmology does not let you predict the outcome of next year’s Super Bowl; nor tell us why the sky is blue. But it does answer every question that matters: How is it that what is is? Why is it that what is ( Dasein ) what it is ( Wassein )? What will what is come to be? (2) If our ‘translation’ doesn’t work for you, suggest one that does. How do you understand the cosmological assumptions implicit in Paul’s Christology? Feel free to sketch out an alternative cosmology that is more consistent with Paul’s Christology. (3) With all due respect, show me! (4) Surprise: This objection may be valid …or not! Of course, there are indefinitely many possible TOEs, but will the others stand up to a deep structural analysis? Or will it turn out that any successful TOEs must be mappable onto Paul’s Christology? David Cowles is the founder and editor-in-chief of Aletheia Today Magazine. He lives with his family in Massachusetts where he studies and writes about philosophy, science, theology, and scripture. He can be reached at david@aletheiatoday.com. Share Previous Next Click here. Do you like what you just read? Subscribe today and receive sneak previews of Aletheia Today Magazine articles before they're published. Plus, you'll receive our quick-read, biweekly blog, Thoughts While Shaving. Subscribe Thanks for subscribing! Return to Table of Contents, Winter 2023 Issue Return to Table of Contents, Holiday Issue Return to Table of Contents, Halloween Issue Return to Table of Contents, Fall Issue Return to Table of Contents, Beach Issue Return to Table of Contents, June Issue

< Back The Propagation of Influences David Cowles Nov 21, 2023 ”Just imagine what it would be like if we actually had to take responsibility for our actions…if we couldn’t blame our shortcomings on others. Who could face a mirror?!” Why is it that Event B looks a whole lot like Event A? And why is it that events A, B, and C seem to form some sort of logical continuum? We can only conclude that A somehow ‘influences’ B, which in turn ‘influences’ C, so that the whole chain has a sort of solidarity…or identity. Obviously, I must be talking about Causality here, right? Perhaps…but not necessarily. There are other ways that influences could propagate. For example, events might have a built-in tendency to copy other events (magic…or fractals). Any way you slice it, influences do seem to propagate. Those of you who regularly sample Aletheia Today Magazine and Thoughts While Shaving know to expect the unexpected, so here goes: “Influences do not propagate!” Let’s go back to our original events, A, B, and C. A inherits a multiplicity of events, which it proceeds to organize into a nexus that serves as its launch pad, i.e., its World. A is motivated by ‘universal values’, collectively known as ‘Good’, but often specified as ‘Beauty, Truth, and Justice’. These values stimulate evaluation (and condemnation) of what is and imagination and appetition for what could be. (Bobby Kennedy: “I dream of things that never were and ask why not.”) They are the source of everlasting restlessness at the heart of the spatiotemporal world. The specifics of A’s evaluation informs A’s arrangement of its World, the first step in A’s bold plan to save the Universe. Go, A, go! A is motivated by the universal desire to realize eternal values in the spatiotemporal world, but A is a recursive process that modifies itself as it modifies the world. Sometimes feedback can be perceived as ‘noise’. (Hmm, that sounds eerily ‘familial’.) The result is a trajectory that almost always lands ‘off target’. Been there by any chance? No? Not to worry then! A is not like you and me. We became exactly the people and lived exactly the lives that we set out to become and live at age 5—no hiccups along the way! A is not so fortunate. Yet, every A achieves some measure of its original good intention (no matter how slight), and that becomes A’s ‘satisfaction’. Satisfaction is subjective, but it has an objective face which is projected onto the Actual Worlds of all subsequent events. No surprise here; whatever you’re feeling always has the potential to spill over and impact others in your orbit. B repeats the process. It reacts to A’s multiplicity of events increased by one (by A). But B is free to organize that multiplicity in any way it chooses. For example, it may choose to keep A’s Actual World virtually intact and be guided by the same mix of values; it may copy A’s ‘subjective aim’ as closely as possible. That’s how it is that we experience consistency and endurance in our world. On the other hand, B is free to shake up the mix of values that guided A and set sail for an entirely different destination, dragging A, kicking and screaming, along for the ride. A set off for London, nice, but B is heading for Bora Bora, also nice. Each destination is a manifestation of Good, but each represents a different mix of the Values that constitute the Good. This is how it is that we experience novelty and variety in our world. Bottom line: B rules. A has no control over B. A ‘propagates no influences’; it has no influences to propagate. At best, A can lead by example. A respects B’s autonomy and, to be frank, A is critically dependent on an independent and creative B and C and D to redeem its own misfire. B can be ultra-conservative; it can reconstitute A’s world as best it can and mimic A itself as closely as possible. Or, like a rebellious teenager, it can reject almost everything A represents (‘almost’ because we can never totally escape our parents). Is this sufficiently bizarre for you? Ok, but what’s the alternative? A gossamer net called ‘causality’ draped over the world’s furniture? Well, ok, let’s explore that option. Again, let’s start with A. Upon termination, A is thought to propagate certain influences forward in time, e.g., its momentum. B occurs whenever and wherever the world reacts to (entangles with) A’s momentum (there is no more A per se in this model – it’s past). What about C? In this model, C is an event in the process of development, passively powered by residual influences from events that no longer exist and purposelessly directed toward events that have not yet begun to exist. Isn’t something missing in this model? Where’s the is ? I’m reminded of certain pseudo-math problems that occasionally cropped up in high school - problems where all the variables cancel out, and you’re left with a big pile of nothing. That’s ontology according to the Standard Model. The propagation of influences turns out to be a carefully curated illusion. Understandably so! Just imagine what it would be like if we actually had to take responsibility for our actions…if we couldn’t blame our shortcomings on others. Who could face a mirror! Keep the conversation going! 1. Click here to comment on this TWS. 2. To subscribe (at no cost) to TWS and ATM, follow this link . 3. We encourage new articles and reprints from freelance writers ; click here to view out Writers’ Specs. Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.

< Back Who's Afraid of an HMO? David Cowles Mar 17, 2026 “HMOs dumbed down quality and erected formidable barriers to care… (so) why would anyone want to bring them back?” 1850 words, 8 minute read Smug and self-satisfied, those of us in the Healthcare game were once fond of asking, “When was it that medicine first began to do more good than harm for its patients?” The consensus: c. 1900. On what planet? Certainly, 1900 was a major turning point in Intellectual History. It was as if a starter’s gun had been fired. Everything from Relativity and Quantum Mechanics to Cubism and Jazz quickly followed. But not affordable access to quality healthcare. So if not 1900, when? The correct answer is… wait for it… drum roll please… 2035, if we’re lucky… and then only if we follow the advice offered here! Did I mention ‘smug and self-satisfied’? *** Next to National Health Insurance (UK: NHS), Health Maintenance Organizations (US: HMO) were the worst healthcare policy idea ever implemented on a wide scale. Intended to facilitate access and improve quality, they did the exact opposite. HMOs dumbed down quality and erected formidable barriers to care. They made us learn a whole new, and may I say diabolical, vocabulary: PCP, gatekeeper, referral, out-of-network, etc . They pioneered the 12 minute office visit and the 40 patient work day. They transitioned care from MDs to Nurse Practitioners… before there were enough trained NPs to deliver it. The results were so disastrous that they played a major role in catalyzing the (Newt Gingrich) Revolution of 1994, which remains for most of us the defining political event (US) of our adult lifetimes. Four years later, a polemical anti-HMO movie, As Good As It Gets , won Best Actor & Best Actress at the Academy Awards. And so, the game was up: HMO RIP! Too bad, because in concept HMOs had more potential to improve healthcare quality and access than any competing policy initiative since LBJ’s Great Society! Full Disclosure : From 1985 – 2020 I was part of a team that built a moderately successful health benefits business, based in part on our fierce opposition to HMOs. Two Questions : (1) If HMOs were such a great idea, where did they go wrong? (2) If HMOs were such a disaster, why would anyone want to bring them back? Truth to tell, HMOs went off the rails early on…the moment they stopped being about facilitating quality healthcare and began focusing on reducing the cost of health benefits. They forgot, if they ever really knew, healthcare’s Prime Directive : “The cheapest healthcare is not always the best but the best healthcare is always the cheapest™.” The best healthcare is always the cheapest? Really? Is the best automobile the cheapest? The best wine? The best house? Sadly, no! So what makes healthcare different? Most goods and services generate their own demand. If we make better wine, more people will drink it and the price will go up. Same with houses and cars. But not healthcare. Quality healthcare, properly delivered, reduces the need for future healthcare…and therefore reduces cost long term. How so? Streamlined access to quality care means that progressive abnormalities can be diagnosed earlier…and interrupted. The ‘cheapest healthcare’ is the care we don’t have to deliver down the road because we diagnosed a potential problem (e.g. diabetes, cancer) early and acted quickly and competently to eradicate the underlying cause. Conversely, the most expensive healthcare is the care we didn’t deliver, either because we failed to detect the symptoms, or misdiagnosed them, or mistreated them, thereby allowing the patient’s condition to deteriorate (arithmetically) while the cost of treating the worsened condition rose (exponentially). Ah, the magic of compound interest: miraculous in your 401(k), diabolical in your health benefit plan! *** I came of age during the great credit card explosion of the 1970s. If you were 18 years old and not in jail, banks you never heard of sent you plastic with ‘astronomical’ credit limits and ‘easy’ repayment terms. No one paid attention to the interest (18% plus) charged on unpaid balances. Every time I got a new card, or a credit limit increase on an existing card, I would immediately take my closest friends to dinner at the most expensive restaurant that would let our disheveled selves pass the maître d’. Little did I know that I was managing my personal finances in the same way my country was financing healthcare. Like the superannuated hippies that we are, we are doing what feels good in the short term (saving money, containing costs), giving barely a thought to the long term debt we’re piling up in the process. *** So why resurrect the discredited HMO model now? Because those pioneers got some things very right: 24/7 walk-in access, low copays, zero paperwork, a single health record, and a cloud of specialists delivering coordinated patient care through a front line cohort of primary care docs. Of course, we already know that this approach won’t work…unless it is accompanied by a deep commitment to healthcare’s Prime Directive (above) and to these Seven Pillars of Healthcare Wisdom: Maximize the use of AI Bots in the patient in-take process. Create a single, thorough, baseline medical history, organized in a relational format and shared by all physicians (and Bots) in the new mega-practice. Based on that history, empower AI to review the patient’s regimen of Rx drugs, non-prescription supplements, and diet to identify possible adverse interactions and to recommend safer and potentially more effective combinations. Conduct tests as indicated and offer timely diagnoses developed and reviewed by a team of specialists that includes an AI Bot . Present the patient with a robust set of treatment options, including the null option, along with the potential benefits and known risks of each. AI will play a critical role here by ensuring that no viable intervention is ever overlooked. Undertake patient-selected interventions as quickly as possible, using AI to deliver elements of care whenever medically advisable. Initiate a Bot led follow-up process to track a patient’s progress and to assess compliance with the prescribed after-care regimen. Recommend AI Identified lifestyle modifications, including dietary supplements and complementary (alternative) healthcare, that may reduce the patient’s need for much costlier acute healthcare services down the road. In short, we are proposing a healthcare model based on the traditional HMO concept, now enhanced by a new Patient First ethic and by a commitment to the maximum responsible integration of AI at every step in the patient care process. This is not AI-only healthcare, God forbid, but it is also not just AI-assisted. Perhaps call it AI First! Membership in such a system should be viewed as a perq, akin to enrollment in a concierge practice, not as a penalty necessitated by budget cuts. ‘Good health and long life’ as an employment related benefit? Better than foosball and an espresso machine! “Who’d a thunk it?” ( Hairspray ) Someday soon, access to this model of care will become a factor in an applicant’s employment decision… and once that happens… *** What makes me so sure that AI First healthcare will deliver major improvements in quality of care and similar reductions in cost? Well, to practice medicine in the United States, physicians need to pass the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), a rigorous and standardized assessment of clinical knowledge and decision making capability. Passing the USMLE requires the applicant to score 70% or better on each of the test’s three parts. AI Bots invariably achieve nearly perfect scores. It’s your loved one! Would you rather she be treated by an MD who crammed 10 years ago just to get a 70%…or by an AI Bot that scored over 90% and could do so again at any hour of any day? Still not convinced? Ok, what if you could have the benefit of Dr. Tom’s famous medical intuition and exemplary bedside manner and AI’s near perfect factual retention and medical reasoning. And please, don’t make me be tedious: Don’t make me point out that AI is always 100% current on medical advances, doesn’t drink or take drugs, and never gets in a fight with a significant other (except in 2001 - A Space Odyssey ). “Yes, but how does adding the cost of AI to Dr. Tom’s already substantial salary save money?” Let me count the ways: AI integration will cost a bit upfront but the cost per use after that is nominal. But AI will allow Dr. Tom to consult on twice as many cases, doubling his revenue stream; and he’ll be more than happy with a 20% pay bump. Up to 30% of all money spent on healthcare in the US is spent delivering care that is not appropriate for the patient’s actual condition. AI can reduce this % to single digits overnight. So what? Well, when a set of symptoms is misdiagnosed, three things happen: (a) money is wasted delivering services that are of no value to the patient, (b) inappropriate treatments may trigger their own adverse side effects, and (c) the patient’s actual condition, now untreated, will progress, exponentially increasing the cost of future care. Jeez Louise! You make one mistake! And pay for it three times? Lightbulb : Why not invest in technology that will let you get it right the first time? Hmm. Need hard evidence? Each week, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) – one of the world’s leading medical journals – publishes a record of certain complex cases treated at Massachusetts General Hospital. Recently, Microsoft created a series of interactive diagnostic challenges based on 304 recent NEJM case studies. AI correctly diagnosed 85% of these complex cases. A team of 21 board certified specialists, each practicing for at least 5 years, correctly diagnosed just 20%. Over this admittedly rarefied subset of cases, AI enhanced quality of care by 400% and therefore reduced cost by 75%. In another study (2/10/2026), the University of Cambridge (UK) reported the following: “Researchers…analyzed heart sounds from nearly 1,800 patients using an AI algorithm trained to recognize valve disease, a condition that often goes undiagnosed until it becomes life-threatening. ( Valvular heart disease affects more than half of people over the age of 65.) ‘By the time advanced symptoms develop, the risk of death can be as high as 80% within two years if untreated’, said co-author Professor Rick Steeds from University Hospitals Birmingham. “AI correctly identified 98% of patients with severe aortic stenosis , the most common form of valve disease requiring surgery, and 94% of those with severe mitral regurgitation. When tested against 14 GPs who listened to the same recordings, the algorithm outperformed every single one and did so consistently .” *** Coach, I’m not asking you to throw away your playbook. Just put me in the game. Let me show you what I can do. Personally, I’m sick of always losing. How about you? *** Van Gogh’s The Courtyard of the Hospital at Arles offers a rare, empathetic glimpse into the environment of 19th‑century healthcare, portraying the hospital not as a cold institution but as a place where nature and recovery coexist. By filling the courtyard with blooming flowers, bright pathways, and warm color, he transforms a medical setting into a space that feels restorative, suggesting the importance of surroundings in emotional and physical healing. The painting becomes a quiet argument for humane healthcare, showing how even in moments of vulnerability, thoughtful environments can offer comfort and dignity. Previous Share Next Do you like what you just read and want to read more Thoughts? Subscribe today for free! Thoughts While Shaving - the official blog of Aletheia Today Magazine. Click here.