Search Results

< Back Veni, Vidi, Vici David Cowles Aug 23, 2022 Who’s the hero now, Julius Caesar…or you? Last week we met the Piraha , a tribe located in the Amazon Rainforest. We saw how different their language is from ours, and we explored how that language influences the way they experience the World. We will spend some time with the Piraha in upoming issues of TWS and ATM. We study cultures like the Piraha to help us see our own cultural influences more clearly. Knowing the Piraha’s view of the world is shaped by their language will help us understand how our language shapes (or distorts?) our own world view. We know about the Piraha because of the work of several anthropologists who lived with the Piraha for years at a time. Like all contemporary anthropologists, these pioneers paid close attention to Star Fleet’s Prime Directive . Those of us who were once children will recognize it instantly: “Look but don’t touch!” In other words, do not disrupt the culture you’re studying…any more than absolutely necessary. Most of us have never visited the Amazon and probably never will. Still, there are opportunities for us to learn how culture, especially language, influences our perception of the World. If you’re over the age of 60, you probably learned some Latin somewhere along the way. If so, you may have started your classical career with Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars . The Latin is relatively easy – as easy as any Latin can be! And the swashbuckling tale of Caesar’s military campaigns is supposed to appeal to tween and teenage boys. For those of us exposed to Latin, it was our ‘first contact’ with a civilization other than our own. And, cool beans, since time travel is not a thing yet; we don’t need instruction on how to behave from Captains Kirk and Picard. We already know how to behave in Rome: “Do as the Romans do!” Nonetheless, this early experience of ‘first contact’ will prove valuable when we meet the multiple civilizations running rampant in Andromeda. Instead of learning about our contemporaries, the Piraha, third hand, we can eliminate the ‘middleman’ (sic) when we study the Ancient Romans. We meet them directly through works like Caesar’s. Consider the difference: in Caesar’s Gallic Wars , a Roman tells us, and shows us , how Romans think. In the case of the Piraha, we are dependent on the testimony of anthropologists who are not themselves members of the Piraha community. So, Hail Caesar! But what do we learn from his Gallic Wars ? Utter nonsense! Veni, Vidi, Vici – I came, I saw, I conquered. Even if you don’t know Latin, you may know these three words. Now imagine you’re a hormonal 12-year-old and this is your introduction to how another culture views the world; wow! If you entered adulthood expecting such a ‘Caesarean experience’, you were probably very, very disappointed. According to Caesar, we amble onto life’s stage at will, we assess the situation with clear eyes, and we immediately and confidently take change. Sound familiar? I didn’t think so. Truth is, you didn’t come, you were ‘thrown’; you didn’t ‘see’, you were impressed upon; and you certainly did not ‘conquer’. At best you might be able to say that you were not conquered. Help me out here, classicists! What’s the Latin word for ‘I was not conquered?’ Remember the words of John’s Gospel, “The light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it.” (1: 5) Approaching the world with a ‘Caesarian attitude’ is a recipe for disaster…for you and for the world. The truth is, you were thrown into the world half-blind; you groped your way around in it; and so far at least, it has not destroyed you. So, who’s the hero now, Julius Caesar…or you? Image: Libby, Alexandra. “Julius Caesar” (2017). In The Leiden Collection Catalogue , 3rd ed. Edited by Arthur K. Wheelock Jr. and Lara Yeager-Crasselt. New York, 2020–. https://theleidencollection.com/artwork/julius-caesar/ (accessed August 23, 2022). 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 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 Beholding the Gift of Messiah Donna Bucher "Fully beholding the gift of the Messiah enables me to see Him in the daily moments not only of Advent, but each and every day of the year." Clinging to Emmanuel brought me through many dark seasons; but the Holy Spirit invited me into a deeper connection with the blessings of the attributes gifted to me in the Messiah. Prophecy not only foretells his coming, but it fills us with wonder as we unwrap the exquisite gift of God with us. My current Bible reading plan includes reading through the Books of Isaiah and Micah along with the Gospel of Luke, throughout the month of December. Though many seasonal favorites greet me there, beholding the gift of the Messiah with fresh spiritual eyes reveals new delights. For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6) While the prophet Isaiah speaks of the Messiah’s joy and victory in Isaiah 9:3-5, moving into verse 6, the prophet speaks of the birth of the Messiah. Reminding Israel, the victorious Messiah would be a man, but not only a man, a child, and not only a child, but a Son. Though in theory, an angel or God without humanity would suffice for a Messiah, neither option qualified the Messiah to be Savior and High Priest: the child must be born. Understanding for the first time, Isaiah’s unique usage of the Hebrew literary tool of repetition, I saw both Christ’s humanity and deity. “For unto us a child is born” speaks of His humanity, while “unto us a son is given “, speaks of the gift of the eternal Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. The marvelous truth of Jesus as the child, marks the starting point of his humanity. As the Eternal Son, he has no beginning and no end, and thus was “given” at a determined point in time. Beholding the gift of the Messiah as both fully human and yet fully God embraces us with the glorious truth of Father God’s provision of a perfect, infinite Being to offer a perfect, infinite atonement for our sins! Emmanuel, God with us. Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14) Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Isaiah includes five attributes attached to the fuller meaning of the identity of the Messiah. In keeping with semitic tradition, the names given to each person spoke of their character. “His name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6b) Meditating on these powerful traits of the Messiah took my understanding of Emmanuel to a deeper level. The Messiah is Wonderful. The glory and power of the incarnation coupled with all He has done and continues to do for me overwhelms me with sheer wonder and amazement. The Messiah is my Counselor. He knows and provides for all my needs. In counsel with the Father and Holy Spirit, He guides my life for my good and God’s ultimate glory. The Messiah is the Mighty God. “By Him and for Him all things were created.” (Colossians 1:16) As creator God, He is worthy of all my worship and praise. The Messiah is the Everlasting Father. Jesus, the author of all things as a member of the godhead, He literally possesses eternity. Jesus is “before all things, and in Him all things consist” (Colossians 1:17) He is “the author of my eternal salvation”, (Hebrews 5:9) and the “author and finisher of my faith.” (Hebrews 12:2) The Messiah is the Prince of Peace. Specifically, He is the conduit through which I have peace with God and man. Fully beholding the gift of the Messiah enables me to see Him in the daily moments not only of Advent, but each and every day of the year. Emmanuel offers me his Wonderful power and Presence when all around me appears languishing in ruin, he is my Counselor when I have lost my way and need wisdom, when my strength fails along the hard paths, he is my Mighty God, when this world’s pain, sin, and evil overcome me, he speaks eternity into my heart as my Everlasting Father, and when life’s tempests and satan’s attacks pour fear and turmoil into my heart, my Prince of Peace calms every storm. Yes, the Messiah came to redeem us from sin and an eternity in hell, but he came also as our Emmanuel: God with us, yea, God united to us. His coming redeemed us, uniting us with him, that in every action of our lives we begin, continue, and end in him. Perhaps the greatest gift in the Messiah is the union from which flows his comfort, enlightenment, protection, and presence both now and for all eternity. Donna is a passionate creative, writer, poet, speaker, retired missionary, CASA volunteer, experienced counselor and hospice and palliative care support personnel. Founder of Serenity in Suffering blog, and author of the Serenity in Suffering newsletter on Substack, where she shares articles, resources and counseling designed to help readers grow personally and find spiritual intimacy with Christ; ultimately finding purpose in the trials they face. Return to Yuletide 2024 Previous Next

< Back Chaos and Causality David Cowles Sep 14, 2025 “Accomplish as much as possible, experience as intensely as possible, but change as little as possible!” According to the theory of Cause & Effect , the occurrence ( Dasein , that it is) and the character ( Wassein , what it is) of an event are the product of past events. This is Determinism . A defining characteristic of Determinism is the system’s radical sensitivity to the smallest micro-perturbations . Because all fuzziness has been removed, minor fluctuations can cascade through the system resulting in major, often catastrophic, macro-differences . At the other end of the spectrum, it is conceivable that events occur randomly and have no relationship whatsoever to one another. This is what we normally think of as Chaos . While Chaos and Determinism are connotatively opposite, they are denotatively synonymous, i.e. there is no way to distinguish one from the other experimentally. While A may or may not ‘determine’ B, there is no way of predicting B by observing A because variations in A, even those below detectable levels (hidden variables), can wreck huge, macro-phenomenal changes in B. In the words of ‘60s Hippiedom, “Whatever happens, happens!” But in spite of our nostalgia for the Summer of Love, few of us live our lives today according to the Hippie creed. Between Determinism and Chaos , there are a variety of possible ways to account for perceived relationships between events; some of these alternatives even support some species of predictability. For example, many would argue for a version of causality that stops short of absolute determinism. Prior events predispose future events, but do not guarantee them. Unaccounted variables, noise, or God forbid, ‘free will’ can always disrupt the apple cart. ‘The best laid plans of mice and men’ and all that…but most often events do flow from A to B more or less as expected: If A, then B…with a probability of X. However, such models are dangerously oversimplified. Life is not billiards; if anything it’s more like Craps. IRL, A and B are fields that fill spacetime; but both fields are often steeply focused into small regions of the Universe (e.g. inside the circumference of a sphere). Even then, however, perfect predictability is never achievable. But back to billiards. While the momentum of B at T₂ may be overwhelmingly influenced by the momentum of A at T₁, the relationship is never absolute. Other factors may and do interfere, e.g. slight irregularities in the felt, an unexpected puff of air, a so-called ‘act of God’, and/or the intervention of an ‘intentional agent’ (e.g. you). Furthermore, many As typically converge, and impinge, on B. Marx called this phenomenon, ‘Over-determinism’. These influences may be conflicting or reinforcing. In our earlier, primitive models, causality was all or nothing, depending simply on your point of view. Our later models are more intuitive…but still imperfect. In certain domains, the causal model of events works tolerably well. We’ve been to the Moon and back after all. But 500 years ago, the Ptolemaic model of the Universe was working…tolerably well. There’s a vague sense that a more aesthetically satisfying model of relationships among events might be possible but what might such a model look like? 100 years ago, British philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead, faced the same dilemma. He developed an alternative model to account for the sense we have of continuity among events. Importantly, his model makes no room whatsoever for the classical notion of causality. According to Whitehead, every event is causa sui and sui generis . In the spirit of Sartre’s Neant , events are totally free; in a departure from classically Western versions of theism, events themselves are solely responsible both for their Dasein and for their Wassein (above). But while free, current events are totally immersed in a sea of prior events. (Each of Europe’s many wars occurs in the context of its prior wars and is, in a sense, merely an expression or an extension of that context.) Every event assembles itself but within guardrails that transcend it. Think of the Universe as a very large, very complex set of Legos . We’re talking 4 figures (dollars, pounds, or euros) for the Deluxe Edition. On the plus side, Junior will never tire of playing with this toy – no more than God tires of being ‘the maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible’. ( Nicene Creed ) On the flip side, he’ll still be playing with blocks and living over your garage…well into his 30s. In this admittedly imperfect analogy, each Lego corresponds to the ‘superject’ of a prior event, the ‘objective immortality’ of a ‘settled matter of fact’. It is a hallmark of the Deluxe Edition that no two Lego pieces are identical but can be put together in innumerable configurations. These are what muggles call causes . Junior builds civilizations with these blocks, limited only by his imagination and by the available assemblies. Each block has multiple ports for other blocks to plug into and multiple ‘arms’ it can use to latch onto other blocks. A set of IKEA-like schematics accompanies the set and illustrates just a few of the various ways blocks may be put together to build coherent structures. Perfectly free and unconditioned, every event occurs in the context of a specific configuration of prior events, i.e. its own unique Actual World: “What is actual is actual only for one time and only for one place.” (Eliot, Ash Wednesday ) The schematics lay out all the ways blocks may be put together. In our analogy, the schematics assume the role of Eternal Objects (or Values) in Whitehead’s system. These transcendent values include Beauty, Truth, and Justice. Every event is a reaction of the Whole to the Whole, driven by a primordial appetition for the Good, i.e. for Beauty, Truth, and Justice. But without Causality , how do we account for the remarkable uniformity we find in nature? I mean, a proton is a proton is a proton…for 10^32 years! Our overwhelming sense of continuity has several independent sources, none of them related to Causality. First , all events are motivated by the bundle of shared values (above) that lead naturally toward a convergent future. Second , while the content of all future events is entirely undetermined, the qualities of the Omega event are certain, i.e. the material realization of the conceptual Values. Solidarity does not compromise Creativity; it empowers it. Beauty, Truth, and Justice are served by continuity and the intensity of experience is massively enhanced by stability. Imagine Beauty without harmony (order), Truth without knowledge (wisdom), Justice without precedent (law)! The creative urge characteristic of the Universe as a whole seeks to realize Eternal Values (objective reward) while maximizing intensity of experience (subjective reward). God regularly attends motivational workshops. One of the best is co-hosted by Abraham and Job . God knows all about ‘doing well by doing good’. Each event serves its own subjective interests (intensity of experience) as it meets the objective interests (realization of value) of the Wide World Web. The interests are not necessarily in conflict, but they are distinct. They both depend on stability. You can’t high-jump if you’re standing in quick sand. Therefore we assert the following proposition: “All events conserve as much of their inherited Actual Worlds as possible consistent with their overriding objectives of realizing Eternal Values and maximizing Intensity of Experience.” The Federal Reserve famously answers to a ‘Dual Mandate’ (jobs, inflation) but Gaia answers to a ‘Triple Mandate’ (intensity, value, solidarity). Events are not caused, they are motivated and curated - motivated by appetition for the Eternal Values and curated by the hierarchy of ontological imperatives (above). What we experience as Causality is simply the Curation of Novelty. Therefore there is a Prime Directive, a meta-ethic: “Accomplish as much as possible, experience as intensely as possible, but change as little as possible!” In this model, qualia are conserved without the phantasm of causality…and Occam’s Razor is respected in the process. Fourth , we treat events as though they were points in spacetime; they are not. They occupy regions of space and periods of time. (Note: Every event is a World Wide Wave but that wave is concentrated in a defined region of spacetime known as its ‘location’). At that location each event is holistic. If A is normally followed by B, then A and B are simply aspects of a single event. ( Normal = always, absent external interference.) But we don’t see things that way! We turn events into movie reels. We break them up into static frames scaled to the perceptual requirements of our human anatomy (frames are projected at a maximum speed of 10 frames per second). We practice ‘ontological vivisection’. Sometimes we affix labels like intention or tone , or cause and effect to various sequences. But these are all just facets of a unitary phenomenon, i.e. the event per se . Finally , we are mesmerized by the concept of Causality itself. Events transform their worlds. It is possible to track the unfolding of events by following the trail of transformations, the gradual flow from lower levels of entropy to higher levels. There’s nothing wrong with this, as long as we don’t confuse ‘flow’ (Heraclitus) with ‘cause’ (Laplace). It is also possible to walk the process back, to focus on what is now and track through an imagined sequence of quantum changes, one following another, until you’re willing to say you’ve reached their ‘origin’. There’s nothing wrong with this either, again just as long as we don’t confuse ‘sequential’ with ‘causal’. Bottom line, we don’t need Causality to account for Solidarity. In fact, the notion just gets in the way. The ‘triple mandate model’ set forth here, and ultimately derived from Whitehead, provides an account that is a better fit, both aesthetically and empirically, than the clunky mechanics of cause and effect. *** William Blake’s The Ancient of Days (1794) shows a radiant, bearded figure—Urizen, Blake’s embodiment of reason—leaning from a glowing sunburst and stretching a giant compass to measure the dark void. The image blends biblical creation with cosmic geometry, portraying the act of shaping the universe as both a divine and a mathematical event. 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.

“I am what the Universe sees when it looks in the mirror.” < Back I Seem To Be a Klein Bottle David Cowles Jan 15, 2024 “I am what the Universe sees when it looks in the mirror.” A Unicorn could exist in our world…but it doesn’t. A Klein Bottle (KB), on the other hand, cannot exist in our familiar 3-dimensional space, and yet… I seem to be a Klein Bottle . To exist in our 3-D world, KB would have to pass through itself, which is topologically impossible. A Klein Bottle is an example of a ‘non-orientable’ object. That’s a 3-D object with a 2-D Möbius strip embedded in it. And in English? It’s a bottle that won’t hold water. (Note to self: DO NOT USE when decanting wine, especially if the wine is red, and you’re standing on a priceless oriental.) KB can’t hold water, or wine, because it has no inside . That would be a problem for any ‘bottle’, wouldn’t it? A Möbius strip is a ‘strip’ that has no obverse/reverse sides. i.e., no front or back. If it were a coin, it would always come up ‘heads’ (because it doesn’t have a ‘tail’.) So, non-orientable objects, be they strips of paper or glass bottles, have no ‘sides’ - no inside, no outside, no upside, no downside. But what does that have to do with me? Clearly, I do have an inside and an outside. Clearly? Well, it’s hot outside; I’m anxious inside. While the ‘heat’ may be a product of global warming, I experience that heat internally via my subdural nervous system. My skin is a membrane that separates the internal from the external for me, right? Well, sort of. Skin is a membrane, but it is also part of a dissipative system: it does not so much wall off the inside from the outside as it regulates the traffic – the way Customs is supposed to operate on a national border. The defining characteristic of a Klein Bottle is that it cannot hold water…or wine. Certainly, that’s me! Pour a 1982 Lafitte down my gullet…please, and then watch: soon it will emerge from my other end…with no notes of tobacco or cassis. But this still leaves one apparently insurmountable problem: a Klein Bottle can’t exist in 3-D space. But do we really live in three dimensions? Didn’t Einstein show that we actually live in 4-D spacetime? And didn’t Aquinas (and Hawking?) argue that ‘time’ is another name for ‘motion’? And what is motion other than a measure of the discontinuity between some figure (e.g., me) and some ground (the world)? 100 years ago, a biologist by the name of D’Arcy Thompson ( On Growth and Form ) suggested that an organism could be regarded as a Klein Bottle if its perpetual motions were taken into consideration. For him, motion is a 3-D analog of time . Jean-Paul Sartre’s signature contribution to Western philosophy was his recognition that ‘everything ( etre ) is outside ( hors )’, always; literally, ‘nothing ( neant ) is inside ( dedans )’, ever! The sun is shining; I feel the sun’s heat on my skin, and I feel my internal body temperature rising. I am becoming feverish. I am beginning to hallucinate. Does it help to know that all this is external to ‘me’? My body, its temperature, my fever, even my hallucinations…all ‘outside’. Or is this a time when I’d trade the wisdom of the ages for a cup of water? (Sorry, Job!) So if the sun, its heat, my skin, nerves, and brain are all ‘outside’, what’s ‘inside’? If they’re not me, what is? Now, if you’ve been paying attention, you already know the answer: ‘Nothing’ ( neant )! Nothing’s inside. In the words of Odysseus, I am Nemo , ‘nothing’. In fact, I am the active negation of whatever is ( etre ). To paraphrase Robert Oppenheimer, “I am Death, the destroyer (and creator) of worlds.” My role as Neant is to destroy worlds, but only so that new worlds may emerge. I am (or I am a reflection or manifestation of) the primal unrest at the core of Being. I am aware of X, which means that I am aware of X not being me. Everything I am aware of, I am not…by definition, or I wouldn’t be aware of it. Awareness implies separation. So does self-awareness ( aka consciousness). I am self-conscious to the extent that I make myself an ‘other’, i.e., to the extent that I view myself from the outside-in. When I view myself from outside, I effectively turn the universe inside out. What was in is now out and what was out is now in. That’s the essence of the Christian doctrine of incarnation: incarnation turns the universe inside out. The whole becomes its own quantum element. To borrow an idea from Jacques Derrida, consciousness inserts differance between the knower and the known, even if the known is the self. So I can be both the knower and the known, separated by ‘differance’, which Derrida defines as a quantum of ‘difference’. Derrida bravely fights a war on two fronts: on one side, Zeno, arguing that all motion is impossible; on the other side, Newton and Leibniz, arguing that spacetime is continuous. Zeno throws ‘pussy’ (arithmetic) down a proverbial well, while Newton assumes the role of ‘Little Tommy Stout who pulled pussy out’ (with calculus ). For Zeno, spacetime is granular. He understood Planck long before Planck was born. For Newton, spacetime is continuous; for him, a quantum of difference is infinitesimal (infinitely small). Derrida marries the two: ‘Differance’ is minimally small but not infinitely small. Here, Derrida recalls Sartre. Being is existence without essence. ‘To be’ is pure; it is unadulterated by any qualifiers. Differance is what comes from abstracting existence from essence. Remember the Real Number Line? Take any two points on the line, call them A and B; between A and B there will always be an intermediate term, C, right? Not according to Zeno! And not according to Derrida. For Derrida, B > A (or A > B) but there is ‘nothing’ separating them: A ≠ B but A – B = 0. In the Odyssey , Polyphemus asks Odysseus his name. Our hero replies, “ Outis ” ( Nemo in Latin), meaning ‘nobody’. Cyclops is a nominalist; he mistakes the name ‘No One’ for the reality of ‘no one being there’. Like many of us today, he fails to draw a straight line: “if someone is saying ‘no one’ to me, then someone must be here, saying it.” Does this remind you of the physicists who clearly hear Fiat Lux but deny there is ‘anyone’ saying it? But this is not the end of our story. Outis has a secondary meaning: ‘everyone’. Being ‘no one’ means that I am also ‘everyone’. (Math analogy: the null set ø is a subset of every other set.) If I were ‘someone’, then I could not be ‘anyone’. I could not be ‘anyone’ because I’d already be ‘someone’, and I could not even be myself since I am ‘no one’. Confusing enough for you? Because I am ‘no one’, nothing, I can be ‘anyone’, anything (consistent with the physical limitations imposed by the universe): “I know who I am, and I know that I can be whoever I want to be.” (Mae Jemison, Astronaut) If I can be anyone, then I am everyone. Odysseus is everyone, as is Leopold Bloom in Joyce’s reprise. Because I am not actually any thing, I am potentially every thing. I am a bottle that is ‘no bottle’. I am in the form of a bottle, but I lack the functionality of a bottle. I am made in the image of ‘bottle’ but not in its likeness. I ‘look’ like a bottle, but I don’t ‘act’ like a bottle. Is this separation of form from function what’s called ‘crisis’ in psychology, spirituality, and philosophy? When you are a baby and trying to figure out the world around you, nothing is more baffling than a mirror. There are people in the mirror who look like Mommy and Daddy but aren’t; there’s a baby in the mirror who might be you but isn’t. If you’re on track for Oxbridge, you might notice that the mirror is like a ‘window on the world’ but a window that looks inward rather than outward. If you’re really clever, you might even think to call it an ‘indow’. So, next time your little niece points to the mirror and shouts, “indow, indow,” don’t correct her. She knows the difference between an indow and a window; she’s just smarter than you. Deal with it! While a mirror is not itself a non-orientable object, you and the mirror together form a system that functions like one. Right and left are ‘reversed’ in a mirror. In your ‘orientable’ world, objects display 360° symmetry: what goes around comes around. In my ‘non-orientable’ world, what goes around still comes around…only in reverse. But don’t give up! What comes around needs to go once more around to get us back to ‘the way we were’, i.e., how things were at the get-go. Non-orientable systems display 720° symmetry (vs. 360°symmetry). The image of my image is myself. So I am a Klein Bottle; like a mirror, I reflect everything but contain nothing. I am a topological twist...a knot in the fabric of being. Through me, the Universe gazes back upon itself; through me, Universe is conscious of itself. I am what the Universe sees when it looks in the mirror. 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 . Click above to return to Winter 2024. 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 Check the Date David Cowles Apr 14, 2022 You can’t resist the urge. You peek back at the front cover. Is this really a book about Eastern Europe c. 1000 A.D.? I am currently reading a book called AD 1000 by Richard Erdoes. It is a survey of Europe at the end of the first millennium A.D. In a general section on ‘the Slavs’, we read that “they were fierce and cruel in war…on the attack they were clumsy but in defense stubborn and unyielding.” And specifically, re the Russians: “What these Rus had in their minds from the beginning was to control the overland route to Constantinople, golden Miklagard, where all the riches of the world could be gotten…it was a watery road down the great rivers to the Black Sea…” You can’t resist the urge. You peek back at the front cover. Is this really a book about Eastern Europe c. 1000 A.D.? Thank you for reading! Thoughts While Shaving is published each Tuesday and Thursday. To subscribe to our newsletter, complete the form below (bottom right) and never miss a Thought! 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.

"In our zeal to project our conceptions of The Ideal Woman onto this enigmatic first-century figure, we’ve strayed a bit from the little we do know." < Back Re-Imagining the Magnificat Tawnie Olson Dec 1, 2023 "In our zeal to project our conceptions of The Ideal Woman onto this enigmatic first-century figure, we’ve strayed a bit from the little we do know." Considering how important she is to Christianity, it is surprising how little information the New Testament provides about the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is despite the fact that, even during Jesus’s lifetime, people held strong opinions about her. According to St. Luke, Christ’s preaching was once interrupted by a follower who shouted: “Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you!” To which Jesus gave the quelling reply, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it!” (Luke 11:27,28 NRSV). Over the centuries, Jesus’s suggestion that Christians focus on our relationship with God, rather than speculate about Christ’s earthly family, has been widely ignored. Theologically, artistically, poetically, and musically, we have not been able to resist filling in the enormous gaps in the Gospels’ accounts of Mary with our own ideas about what a woman worthy of bearing the Son of God must have been like. Sometimes, in our zeal to project our conceptions of The Ideal Woman onto this enigmatic first-century figure, we’ve strayed a bit from the little we do know. Sandro Botticelli’s Madonna of the Magnificat, for example, portrays Mary as a stylish blonde Florentine aristocrat, surrounded by refined angel/courtiers as she coolly pens the Magnificat with one hand and dandles the infant Jesus in the other. It is a beautiful painting, far beyond my ability to praise adequately, but somehow, I just can’t imagine the woman it depicts giving birth in a barn. To finish the Re-Imagining the Magnificat, click here . Image: Madonna of the Magnificat, Sandro Botticelli. (Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons ) **This is a republication without modifications from blog.oup. Canadian composer Tawnie Olson is inspired by politics, spirituality, the natural world, and the musicians for whom she composes. She is the winner of the 2018 Barlow Prize, a consortium commission for The Crossing, Seraphic Fire, and the BYU Singers, and the 2021-2023 National Opera Association Dominick Argento Chamber Opera Composition Competition (for Sanctuary and Storm, libretto by Roberta Barker). She is currently working on a new piece for Grammy-nominated Sandbox Percussion, funded by a grant from the Canada Council for the Arts. Return to Yuletide 2023 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 Loaves and Fishes III David Colwes Aug 1, 2025 “…The evangelists outlined an economic doctrine challenging today’s Liberal (capitalist), Marxist (socialist), and Islamic (iqtisad) models.” Earlier we explored the event known as Jesus’ ‘multiplication of loaves and fishes’ ( Loaves and Fishes ). We deepened our dive with Loaves and Fishes II . Today we will review Jesus’ miracle again, this time from the perspective of 20 th century economic theory. All four canonical gospels include a ‘multiplication narrative’. Since these books were written by different people at different times with different objectives for different audiences, this degree of consistency is unusual and somewhat of a surprise. Matthew and Mark each include two different ‘multiplication accounts’ and it is in the relationship between these two accounts that we find the deeper meaning of the events themselves. The ‘devil’, as usual, is in the details. Check out the numbers. Jesus fed 5,000 pilgrims from just 5 loaves but a few weeks later he needed 7 loaves to satisfy 4,000. What’s going on here? Inflation? Entropy? Are people getting hungrier? Or was Jesus slowly running out of power? That’s a big fat ‘no’! It’s Providence. A ‘miracle’ does not vitiate nature; it contextualizes it. The ‘miraculous’ supplements the natural, but only as needed . Here, in each case, the need is defined and the resources fixed; it is the power of Triune God, operating through the non-Archimedean substructure, that bridges the gap! In quick sketches the evangelists outlined an economic doctrine challenging today’s Liberal (capitalist), Marxist (socialist), and Islamic (iqtisad) models. According to Islam, for example, Allah created the world with just enough resources to go around: economics is a zero sum game. Anyone’s accumulation of wealth is at the expense of others’ basic needs. Capitalism and socialism allow supply to vary (grow), either in response to demand or as a result of public policy. Christian economics, however, is cut from different cloth entirely: the world is inherently bountiful and there is always more than enough to go around…if only we would distribute it properly. Poverty is never a matter of insufficiency; it’s always a function of injustice. Sidebar : Communism attempted to level out the distribution of wealth, but it did so at the expense of production. The Judeo-Christian model addresses production and distribution together; it understands that neither can be optimized in isolation. It anticipates John Rawls’ model ( A Theory of Justice ) that seeks an algorithm that maximizes production consistent with a distribution pattern that satisfies the needs of every individual. In the Gospel accounts, resources are scarce, but many are fed; in both cases the process of distribution per se creates significant surplus. In fact, it is possible for the surplus to exceed the initial supply. Is this Keynesian? Or Christian? These Gospel narratives enshrine a fundamental economic doctrine: You can have your cake (surplus) and eat it too (bread)! Seen from this perspective, economics is not such a ‘dismal science’ (Carlyle/Malthus) after all. Puzzle : With an economic platform like this and a track record to back it up (e.g. manna in the Wilderness), how is it that YHWH ever loses an election? (Ask Winston Churchill following WWII.) Yet c. 1000 BCE, the people of Israel chose Saul to be their king, replacing a 250 year old theocracy with YHWH ruling directly through the mitzvah of Oral and Written Torah executed by short term, ‘lame duck’ Judges designated ad hoc and only as needed. Joshua’s platform (e.g. Sabbath days and years and the total redistribution of productive property every 50 years ) was enough to motivate the proletariat of Jericho to overthrow their rulers, tearing down the regional capital’s impregnable wall in the process, but it failed to satisfy Israel’s nationalist ambitions. The forces of nihilism and despair have a heavy lift: How do you persuade people that the sky is falling when it manifestly is not? And yet they succeeded…and they continue to succeed, even today. We are suspicious of good fortune: “There’s no such thing as a free lunch, it’s too good to be true, and of course, beware of Geeks (and Greeks)…” Sidebar : I spent most of my adult life working in an enterprise whose essential function was to give people money that they would not otherwise have had. Yet we struggled to make ends meet! No one will take Yes for an answer; we’re much too sophisticated for that! Israel’s fledgling monarchy behaved as central governments do everywhere…and exactly as Judge Samuel had forecast (1 Samuel 8): Corruption, conscription, confiscatory taxation and the hyper-concentration of wealth. As a result, Israel was conquered by foreign powers, its capital (Jerusalem) sacked, its prominent citizens exiled to Babylon. From there, the prophet Ezekiel plotted the restoration of theocracy; channeling YHWH, he declared, “I will be King over you.” (Ez. 20: 33) Although the exiles were returned to Jerusalem, the restoration of theocracy would be delayed another 500 years… until the coming of Christ. Ironically, it was the Roman governor of Palestine, Pontius Pilate , who officially certified the restoration of theocracy when he wrote atop the cross, “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews,” and later confirmed it: “What I have written I have written.” By this action, Pilate effectively executed ‘regime change’, dethroning King Herod, making him a ‘rump ruler’, a king in title only. The 1,000 year reign of Israel’s secular kings was officially over; the Kingship of Christ was duly recognized by the reigning secular authority (Rome). 500 years later, Rome itself was sacked. 500 years from the end of theocracy to the fall of Jerusalem; another 500 years to Jesus’ birth, death and resurrection; 500 more years to the fall of Rome. But back to the task at hand. All 4 Gospels confirm a common data point (x, y, z): 5 loaves, 5,000 people, 12 baskets of surplus. But in Euclidean geometry, one data point by itself is…one data point; it tells us nothing beyond itself. Mark and Matthew give us a much needed second data point: 7 loaves, 4,000 people, 7 baskets. There is only one straight line running through both data points. With these two points in place, we can interpolate and extrapolate to cover every allowable combination of ‘supply, demand, and surplus’. Christian economics is not some vague utopian dream; it’s rigorously quantitative. Jesus does more with less (5,000 pilgrims fed from 5 loaves vs. 4,000 from 7). More significantly, feeding more from less creates more surplus. Of course, this is exactly opposite to what the other economic systems (above) would have predicted. They are based on the assumption that less supply (5 loaves) and more demand (5,000 pilgrims) will necessarily result in less surplus; Jesus proves them wrong. But what about the numbers themselves? Do they simply offer a general illustration of a vague economic concept? By no means! They are precisely determinative…and that’s how we know that the numbers are intentional. We are dealing with two variables: efficiency and bounty. If the first event has an efficiency of 1.00 (5k fed from 5 loaves), then in the second event, efficiency is reduced to 0.57 (4k fed from 7 loaves). In the first case, the bounty (surplus) is 12 while in the second case it is 7, a premium of 1.71 (12/7). So what? Well, the greater surplus (1.71) divided by the reduced efficiency (0.57) = 3, and there’s nothing vague or haphazard about that. It’s ‘3’, and why 3? Because 3 represents God’s Triune nature and Trinity is the paradigm of all process. God’s Providence is not vague; it is specific. There is a 3x multiplier built into the created world. Cast your bread upon the water and it will return 3 fold! Colloquial wisdom says, “Everything comes in 3’s.” This time, colloquial wisdom is correct! A triangle (3 sides) is the simplest closed polygon. Likewise, God is ‘simple’ (one substance per Aquinas) but also Triune (3 persons per Nicaea). God is Being and Being is Process; therefore God is Process; God is Triune, so Process is Triune; therefore ‘3’ is the universal multiplier. Christians, always count by 3’s! *** James Tissot, Multiplication of the Loaves , 1886–1896. Watercolor over graphite on gray wove paper. Brooklyn Museum, New York. 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 Genesis Wins Nobel Prize David Cowles Traditionally, Nobels are awarded only to ‘living recipients’ and only for work completed in the preceding year. In its statement, the committee said it felt an exception was needed in this instance “in order to right a grievous wrong.” Stockholm, Sweden – October 2030 . The Nobel Committee has just announced the winner of this year’s Nobel Prize in Physics. The prize has been awarded posthumously to the authors and editors of the Old Testament Book of Genesis in recognition of Genesis’s groundbreaking contribution to our understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe.’ Traditionally, Nobels are awarded only to ‘living recipients’ and only for work completed in the preceding year. In its statement, the committee said it felt an exception was needed in this instance “in order to right a grievous wrong.” ***** In 2000, Pope John Paul II apologized for the Church’s 17th century mistreatment of Galileo Galilei. Today, the Nobel Committee reciprocated by acknowledging that throughout the period known, ironically, as ‘The Enlightenment,’ the scientific establishment systematically misread Genesis. Science banished Genesis from the ‘academy;' but like all events, this event turned out to be a double-edged sword. There is no doubt that religious faith was undermined…but so was faith in science. Enlightenment science (were I in a more cantankerous mood, I might have written, ‘enlightenment science, an oxymoron,’ but I’m not) split our world in two. In place of the traditional consensus that both science and theology have something to contribute to our understanding of Being, we now have two ‘armed camps’ (in some cases, quite literally) – one composed of people who dismiss theology, and another composed of people who dismiss science. Often the science that wins a Nobel Prize is so complicated and arcane that only a handful of experts can understand it. Not this time! The ideas contained in Genesis can be understood and appreciated by almost everyone: “… God said let there be light and there was light.” We recognize this as the event we call the Big Bang: the emergence of energy (waves) and massless particles (photons). “God then separated the light from the darkness.” Prior to the Big Bang, ‘universe,’ if you can call it that, was a state of maximal entropy, which Genesis aptly described as: “…without form or shape with darkness over the abyss and a mighty wind.” Does this conflict with the Judeo-Christian doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, that the universe was created out of nothing? It does not! The Big Bang is the birth of order, and order is what being is. What else could being be? ‘To be’ or ‘not to be’ - ‘that is the question’ and the primal distinction; it is the foundation of all order. Later, the Gospel of John reprised Genesis by explicitly linking being and order through the concept of logos. You could read the first chapter of John as a commentary on Genesis. Without order, there literally is nothing (nihilo). Creation is the creation of order. Therefore, all creation is ex nihilo… it has to be! There isn’t any other way for it to happen. Any process that is not ex nihilo is not ‘creation.’ Creation requires a Tabula Rasa (‘a blank slate’). To create is not to modify, not even to ameliorate; to create is to bring a thing into being ex nihilo. Creating is not rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. To create is to bring into being de nuovo the chairs, the boat, the ocean, the planet, the cosmos – all ex nihilo – all from nothing. True ‘creation’ is always creatio ex nihilo. At the Big Bang, maximal entropy (chaos) becomes minimal entropy (order). That’s what Big Bang is! A phase change – the emergence of order. Instantly, maximal disorder (entropy) becomes maximal order (negentropy). The Big Bang begins the process of distinguishing order from chaos, light from darkness. The sudden reduction in entropy manifests as energy, i.e., light. Residual entropy is what we call darkness. The distinction of order (negentropy) from disorder (entropy) is the primordial distinction, the first step in the evolution of a universe that has given us such wonders as the Grand Canyon, Disney World, and the Big Mac. On to Step Two in the ‘genesis’ of the cosmos: “Evening came and morning followed – the first day.” Entropy tends to increase over time. Stephen Hawking suggested that entropy might even be time. Time is Duration (present) plus Sequence (past, future). Sequence, states of lower entropy following states of higher entropy, is the substructure of time. From sequence comes ‘interval’ and ‘duration’ which Genesis designates jointly by the word ‘day.’ B happens after A and before C. The gap between A and C is their ‘interval’ and that interval is the ‘duration’ of B. Sequence, interval and duration are inextricably linked. After temporal distinction (sequence, interval, duration, ‘day’) comes spatial distinction. Space is a rotation of time. According to current cosmological theory, there can be only one temporal dimension, but there may be an unspecified number of spatial dimensions. The emergence of space is both caused by and required for the emergence of mass. Turns out, mass and space are synonymous (Higgs). No mass, no space; no space, no mass! In the Genesis account, ‘massive particles’ manifest as dry land, earth, sea, vegetation, and animals, including conscious life forms such as human beings. Now, compared to a college textbook on cosmology, this account might seem a bit ‘spare.’ Certainly, there are things we know today about Cosmogenesis that even the celebrated and now properly, if belatedly, recognized authors of Genesis did not know. But consider this: for 2,500 years, Genesis was our most comprehensive and plausible theory of Cosmogenesis. So, congratulations to the Nobel Committee: job well done…if long overdue! 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

< Back A Universe From Nothing David Cowles I’ll take the wisdom of Yogi Berra over that of Bill Clinton any day: Whatever is, is! In 2012, renowned physicist and cosmologist, Lawrence Krauss, published A Universe from Nothing . The avowed purpose of the book was to debunk the idea that some sort of transcendent entity (e.g., ‘God’) is necessary to account for the universe as we experience it. Krauss subtitled his book: Why there is Something rather than Nothing . Of course, this subtitle implies a question that Krauss did not need to spell out for his readers. Anyone who might be tempted to read a book like this is already well acquainted with it. In fact, it was probably the first question serious thinkers ever asked, and it is still as relevant and thought-provoking today as it was 3,000 years ago. At least since Parmenides (b. 515 BC), Western philosophers, theologians and scientists have struggled with the subtitled question. To answer it, we need to define our terms, but that should be easy: even toddlers know the difference between ‘something’ and ‘nothing’. Or do they? Is a dream ‘something’? How about an illusion…or a delusion? How about a unicorn? A squared circle? How about virtual particles that we ‘know’ exist but that, according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, must annihilate one another before they are directly detected (i.e., measured)? Turns out, Being is not as simple a proposition as we might have supposed; but what about Nothing ? Is empty space nothing? How about a perfect vacuum? What about quantities outside the Planck scale? How about the ‘potential’ my parents and teachers saw in me as a child, but that was never realized? Krauss offers us three possible definitions of ‘nothing’. He begins with the notion that ‘empty space’ is ‘nothing’ and he shows, convincingly I think that so-called empty space inexorably spawns virtual particle pairs, radiation, and various space-filling ‘fields’: “Empty space can have a non-zero energy associated with it, even in the absence of any matter or radiation… The gravitational ‘pressure’ associated with such energy in empty space is actually negative… The energy of empty space (nothing) gets converted into the energy of something.” The problem with Krauss’ argument is that it is a bit too convincing. On closer examination, it turns out that ‘empty space’ is never really empty. It cannot be conceived without its virtual particle pairs, its ‘pressure’ (albeit negative), and its radiation and fields. We do not begin with empty space and then suddenly flip a switch and ‘create’ these constituent phenomena; these phenomena are part of whatever empty space is. ‘Empty space’, then, is clearly not ‘nothing’. Krauss admits as much: “… It would be disingenuous to suggest that empty space endowed with energy…is really nothing. In this picture, one must assume that space exists and can store energy…” Actually, though, Krauss’ empty space argument is odd for a quite different reason. Sir Isaac Newton believed that space was a passive receptacle that (logically at least) preceded whatever might populate it. Few, if any, cosmologists believe this today. Einstein taught us that space and time are aspects of a single reality: 4 dimensional spacetime. Now, modern cosmologists seem to be of two minds, either: 1. Spacetime is not a primary (substructural) property of cosmos but rather a secondary (emergent) property; or, 2. Spacetime is an illusion, pure and simple, and does not exist. A summer 2018 special edition of Scientific American showcases both points of views. The issue is titled A Matter of Time but, as we now know, space and time are aspects of a single 4-dimensional reality, so the same arguments should be applicable to space. In this issue, Craig Chandler ( Is Time an Illusion? ) argues that time, if real at all, is an “emergent property” of the cosmos, not its substructure: “Space and time are secondary concepts…” But Chandler has a foot in both camps: “… Many in theoretical physics have come to believe that time fundamentally does not even exist.” He synthesizes these views using a ‘block’ model of spacetime: “Spacetime is like a loaf of bread that you can slice in different ways, called either ‘space’ or ‘time’ almost arbitrarily.” According to this model, spacetime is a 4-dimensional loaf . If you slice it vertically, you get slices of time. Everything that happens at a given ‘moment’, no matter where it happens, is captured by that one slice. On the other hand, if you slice it horizontally, you get slices of space. Everything that happens at a given ‘location’, no matter when it happens, is captured on that one slice. Slicing the loaf diagonally reveals the effects of relativity. Astonishingly, this apparently 21st century idea is nothing new. The so-called ‘father of Western philosophy’, Parmenides, had essentially the same idea 2500 years ago: “… What-is is ungenerated and imperishable…unbeginning and unceasing…whole, single-limbed, steadfast and complete; nor was it once, nor will it be, since it is, now, all together, one, continuous…” In other words…a loaf of bread. In contrast, Krauss’ argument seems to rely on the discarded Newtonian model (above). Krauss grudgingly acknowledges these objections to his theory. But then he asks an even more intriguing question: ‘What if not even empty space is presumed to exist?’ What if we use ‘nothing’ to define the ‘state of things’ (whatever that might mean) before even empty space appears? “… The rules of quantum mechanics would apply to the properties of space and not just to the properties of objects existing in space… Should one consider the possibility of small, possibly compact spaces that themselves pop in and out of existence? … As Stephen Hawking has emphasized, a quantum theory of gravity allows for the creation, albeit perhaps momentarily, of space itself where none existed before…” Just as Krauss first argued that virtual matter, radiation, particle fields and negative pressure emerge spontaneously in empty space, now he argues that empty space itself emerges from an even more primitive state of being (or should I say ‘non-being’?). In this spirit, he titles his tenth chapter Nothing is Unstable . He does not mean by this that everything is stable but rather that instability is ‘ontologically substructural’, i.e., a fundamental characteristic of ‘Being’ itself. It applies to ‘nothing’ as well as to ‘something’. This argument is so challenging that the arguments against it do not come from physics, but from linguistics and philosophy. Contemporary scientists who dare wade into the waters of philosophy are invariably influenced by three men: A.J. Ayer, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and John Austin. (Or if they are not so influenced, they certainly should be.) These three pillars of ‘analytic’ English philosophy (first half of the 20th century) argued that many, if not most, problems of philosophy stem from an imprecise use of language. While the three men’s views and methods differ widely, they were all laser focused on the way language is employed to frame philosophical problems. Collectively, they argued that terms used to describe everyday events (‘ordinary language’) do not suddenly acquire new and different meanings just because they are applied to cosmic and metaphysical phenomena. Red is red is red. Let’s apply that insight to Krauss’ assertion that “nothing is unstable”. Something is unstable if it possesses or exhibits the quality known as ‘instability’ (or lacks the quality known as ‘stability’). But how can the quality of instability, or stability, be possessed or exhibited by ‘nothing’? Only an entity that is ‘something’ can possess or exhibit qualities, instability included. There are no disembodied qualities, at least not where I live. “Look, there goes green arm in arm with damp as usual?” – not so much! Therefore, the sentence ‘nothing is unstable’ is (in the parlance of analytic philosophy) meaningless . By stating that “nothing is unstable”, Krauss implicitly acknowledges that his pre-existent ontological reality (‘nothing’) is really ‘something’ after all. But then what could we say about it? Perhaps we could speculate that it is something that exists solely in the mode of pure potentiality; but that is still ‘something’ – all of which works to defeat Krauss’ argument. Another lion of early 20th century English philosophy, Alfred North Whitehead, built his complex and comprehensive “Philosophy of Organism” around just three undefined terms: one, many and creativity. Perhaps Krauss’ ‘nothing’ is Whitehead’s ‘creativity’, the restlessness that lies curled up, like Kundalini, at the base of Being. Finally, Krauss offers us a third version of ‘nothing’. This version does not allow for potentiality or quantum fluctuation; it applies the definition of ‘nothing’ in the most rigorous possible way. Krauss rejects this version as ridiculous, and he claims that philosophers and theologians who insist on applying this definition are acting in ‘bad faith’: they’re simply refusing to engage in the debate at any level. In the parlance of the playground, they have picked up their ball and gone home. However, this is precisely the view of nothing that contemporary Italian philosopher, Emanuele Severino advances. Often called a Neo-Parmenidean, Severino holds that all being is eternal. Whatever is cannot not-be, nor could it ever not-have-been, nor could it come-to-be; it just is: “… It must be said of everything that, precisely because it is not nothing, it cannot become nothing (nor can it have ever been nothing), and therefore it is and reigns eternal. Everything is eternal.” Here I’ll take the wisdom of Yogi Berra over that of Bill Clinton: Whatever is, is! In any event, kudos to Krauss. He dared to take on the toughest of all problems in philosophy and ultimately, he had the courage to admit that he could not prove his hypothesis: A Universe from Nothing. Bottom line, being is, nothing isn’t, whatever is not can never come to be and whatever is, cannot cease to be. “That is all ye know on Earth, and all ye need to know.” – Keats. 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

< Back The Probability of Being David Cowles Sep 26, 2024 “The Matrix (or the Multiverse) takes the place of God…while Marvel Superheroes occupy the space once reserved for the miraculous…” Growing up in the 1950s meant growing up in a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance. As a student in a Catholic elementary school, we were taught to place a great deal of emphasis on the unique: things that did happen, and/or can happen, only once. For example, your own birth and death. Jesus’ incarnation and resurrection. The miracle stories that populate scripture and hagiography (the lives of the saints for those of you not blessed with a parochial school education). At the same time, we were living in an era that was learning to respect science in a whole new way. Not even Sister Mary Therese could be oblivious to the atom bomb, the suddenly ubiquitous automobile, or most importantly, television. The tension between these two epistemologies was not spelled out for us. I doubt any of our teachers understood it. We were left to figure it out for ourselves. And so we did; it’s called ‘the 60s’: Rock & Roll, LSD, and ‘Civil War’. Even today, we live in the shadow of positivism: “If I can’t measure it, it doesn’t exist; if I can’t repeat it, it didn’t happen!” By extension, if a tree falls in a forest and is only heard once, it never fell. Of course, no one other than A.J. Ayer has ever lived like this. We simply say, “ Stuff happens; deal with it!” In recent decades, intellectual activity has concentrated on discovering heuristic principles that span different worlds: the mechanical and the biological, the mental and the physical, the very, very small and the very, very large. Let’s just say, “We’re working on it.” Today, I’d like to suggest that we expand our horizons just a bit. I’d like to replace our either/or ontology (above) with a 6 category scheme based on various probabilities of being: The Infinitely Probable (Universal ) : Things that must exist. Today, it is generally thought that this is the null set (nothing is necessary). However, it has been argued that God, for example, fits in this category. Possibly, the Good. Or Beauty, Truth, Justice, etc. Anyway, P(x) = 1. The Indefinitely Probable (Repeatable): Things that have been observed to exist, or that can be inferred to exist from things that have been observed to exist, and that can be made to exist again by faithfully recreating specified initial conditions. Current thinking puts ‘the emergence of life’ in this category. The physics is deterministic; the math is ‘hyperreal’ (it involves numbers that are larger than any real number but less than infinity). P(x) → 1. The Definitely Probable (Actual): These are things (events) with a well-defined probability of existence (occurrence). The physics is causal, the math is ‘real’, i.e. it involves ‘real’ numbers. 0 < P(x) Ɛ R < 1. The Infinitesimally Probable (Unique): Things that may exist but have an infinitesimally (є) small probability of existing, e.g. the specific combination of genes and experiences that constitute the person known as ‘You’. This is the realm of ‘one offs’. The physics is chaotic, the math ‘hyperreal’ (it involves numbers that are smaller than any positive real number but greater than 0). P(x) → 0. The Virtually Impossible : Things that are infinitesimally probable but occur more than once. P(x) ≤ є²; ergo, P(x) ≈ 0. I can say with confidence, “There will never be another you,” at least not in finite spacetime. The Absolutely Impossible : Things that cannot exist. A squared circle. A particle that goes faster than the speed of light without going backwards in time. These are things that are precluded by the nature of cosmos, language, mathematics, or logic. P(x) = 0. Neither physics nor math apply. Young people growing up today are exposed only to the Indefinitely probable (science) and Definitely probable (history). They are at a disadvantage. 70 years ago, our cosmic map was more expansive; it also included the Infinitely Probable (e.g. God) and the Infinitesimally Probable (e.g. miracles). Lacking those categories today, our culture has substituted Science Fiction. The Matrix (or the Multiverse) takes the place of God, the Infinitely Probable, while Marvel Superheroes occupy the space once reserved for the miraculous, the Infinitesimally Probable. We are poorer for our progress. Keep the conversation going. 1. Click here to contact us on any matter. How did you like the post? How could we do better in the future? Suggestions welcome. 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 Prologue David Cowles Nov 1, 2021 It takes roughly 100 years for the bleeding edge discoveries of science to be fully integrated into the popular psyche. For example, Newton’s 17th century discoveries did not become common knowledge until the 18th century. And this is great news! 20th century science produced three absolutely revolutionary discoveries: relativity, quantum mechanics, and non-locality (Bell’s Theorem). Today, a “what you see is what you get” view of the world is entirely untenable. But don’t tell that to your neighbor: popular culture is still firmly rooted in 19th century mechanics. But if past is prologue, the 21st century will see these insights integrated into public consciousness. Science, which plunged us into the so-called Enlightenment, will provide a tunnel out of that Dark Age into something brand new…and unpredictable. Exciting times! It takes roughly 100 years for the bleeding edge discoveries of science to be fully integrated into the popular psyche. For example, Newton’s 17th century discoveries did not become common knowledge until the 18th century. And this is great news! 20th century science produced three absolutely revolutionary discoveries: relativity, quantum mechanics, and non-locality (Bell’s Theorem). Today, a “what you see is what you get” view of the world is entirely untenable. But don’t tell that to your neighbor: popular culture is still firmly rooted in 19th century mechanics. But if past is prologue, the 21st century will see these insights integrated into public consciousness. Science, which plunged us into the so-called Enlightenment, will provide a tunnel out of that Dark Age into something brand new…and unpredictable. Exciting times! 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 Everything is Interesting…What Went Wrong? David Cowles Jun 21, 2022 Childhood today could be and should be utopian, but it isn’t. Not even close! Why? How did we screw things up so massively? Back in the day, acquiring knowledge was difficult. First you had to spend 1,200 hours a year in a classroom, sitting up straight and listening to the most exciting stuff in the universe (How does the world work? How did we come to be? And why are we the way we are?) made as dull and boring as humanly possible. Then, if you were a glutton for punishment and wanted to know more about something, you had to spend hours in a dusty library, searching for the book that would tell you just exactly what you needed to know. For two years in high school, I spent most of my Sunday afternoons at the Main Branch of the Boston Public Library, a 30 minute drive, each way, from my home, a far cry from Google. Knowledge is information and information is created whenever a unique event occurs. Information, broadly speaking, is the difference between what actually happens and what might have happened. I could have used these exact same words to define another word, an adjective, ‘interesting,’ so: Information is Interesting! Ok…what’s the big deal? Well, this for starters: when we say that information is interesting, we’re not saying that this or that piece of information is interesting; we’re saying that all information, by definition, is interesting. We’re also saying something else. We’re saying that anything interesting must contain information. Something is interesting only to the extent that it might have been other than it is, and of course ‘to be’ is other than ‘not to be.’ As Hamlet noted, ‘to be’ and ‘not to be’ form the ultimate contrast. To be is to be information, pure and simple. Creatio ex nihilo . 20th century physicist John Wheeler famously said, “it from bit.” What we call ‘objects’ (its) are really just packets of information (bits). Grammatically speaking, in the sentence ‘Information is interesting’, ‘interesting’ is not an adjective modifying ‘information;’ the two words are synonymous. All information is interesting, and whatever is interesting, to the extent that it is interesting, consists of information. So, just imagine how great it must be to be a kid today! Classrooms are smaller and less constricting; many teachers work hard to make their inherently interesting material fresh and inviting; and libraries…well, the greatest library in the world (at least since Alexandria, RIP) is at the fingertips of most five-year-olds. Lest you think I exaggerate, I have firsthand experience to back me up: my five to ten-year-old grandkids know about things that I could never have dreamt of at their age, and some things I still can’t wrap my head around. Plus, and this is the really surprising part, they know what they know in astounding detail. There was nothing I knew in such detail when I was their age. So, to be young today must be to live in Utopia. Everything is interesting and information (the subject of all interest) is readily available. To be young today must be to live in Utopia, right? Obviously not! Childhood today could be and should be utopian, but it isn’t. Not even close! Why? How did we screw things up so massively? Challenge : Where did we go wrong? What can we do to fix it? In 300 words or less, tell us your idea(s). We’ll print the best ideas in our Fall Issue (9/1), with proper attribution of course. Email editor@aletheiatoday.com to take the challenge. Be sure to put “Childhood Challenge” in the subject line. All submissions must reach us by 8/1. 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 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.