What I'm Reading

From OpenArt

“Absolution Gap” by Alastair Reynolds: This science fiction epic throws us into a future where humanity has colonised countless planets. Reynolds crafts a vast and intricate space opera, delving into themes of technological advancement, engineered religions and an existential fight for survival against the Inhibitors. 

“Who Killed Jesus?” by John Dominic Crossan: Shifting gears completely, Crossan's book takes a historical and critical look at the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. He dissects the various Gospel accounts, contrasting 'prophecy historicised' and 'history remembered' in the context of the political and social climate of first-century Galilee and Judea. This work would certainly be controversial amongst those with traditional religious convictions. In his conclusion, Crossan explains how reason and faith - correctly understood - cannot and should not be taken to contradict each other: historical and sacralised readings (parable expressed as history) each have their own validity.

“Fools, Frauds and Firebrands” by Roger Scruton: Renowned philosopher Roger Scruton takes aim at various intellectual movements and ideologues in this collection of essays. Scruton, a champion of conservatism, critiques figures like Jean-Paul Sartre, Michel Foucault and Slavoj Žižek,  arguing against their views on reason, morality, and society. This is a battle which will be fought forever.

“The Culture series of Iain M. Banks” by Simone Caroti: This analysis of Iain M. Banks' justly-famous science fiction series delves into the utopian society of "The Culture." Caroti explores the series' themes of post-scarcity economics, artificial intelligence, and how people spend their time within this highly advanced civilization. An interesting point of comparison might be with Reynolds' "Absolution Gap" mentioned above – how do these two fictional universes grapple with similar questions about humanity's future? Caroti's book is not so well-written, but better in content, than Paul Kincaid’s rather moralising take on the same subject (Iain M. Banks: Modern Masters of Science Fiction).

Despite their vast differences in subject matter, all these books grapple with big questions about humanity, society, and our place in the universe. Scruton and Crossan, though likely from somewhat opposing viewpoints, both engage in critical examinations of established (and orthodox) narratives. The science fiction books explore different facets of humanity's potential future, with Reynolds presenting a more dystopian outlook compared to the utopian Culture envisioned by Banks.

Things I forgot inside one year

Amazon link

Chapter 8 (as well as chapter 6)

Scruton demolished Slavoj Žižek (with faint praise) and Lacan far better than I ever could. How could I have forgotten!

"Christian Atheism: How to Be a Real Materialist" - Slavoj Žižek

Amazon link

This is what comes from listening too much to Marginal Revolution:

"I am very much enjoying his new book Christian Atheism: How to Be a Real Materialist. Slavoj is one of the very few CWT guests (can you guess the others?) who can handle pretty much any question about any area, and have something fresh to say in response."

So I bought it, I'm in the process of reading it, and I thought of Iain Banks's response in an interview with Jude Roberts:

JR: Have you read any work by Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, or Emanuel Levinas (or any other continental philosophers)? If you have, what did you think?

IB: The little I've read I mostly didn't understand, and the little I understood of the little I've read seemed to consist either of rather banal points made difficult to understand by deliberately opaque and obstructive language (this might have been the translation, though I doubt it), or just plain nonsense. Or it could be I'm just not up to the mark intellectually, of course.

Slavoj Žižek as a writer reminds me of the output of a current LLM. The text flows felicitously enough but one senses deeper understanding is not there. He unwisely has a chapter on quantum theory, and despite it being checked over by a math professor, it's plain he's operating at the level of a reader of popularisations: those little errors keep creeping in.

Through the forest of abstractions, the endless references to Lacan and Hegel, sometimes an interesting insight emerges but mostly it's - in the space of ungrounded abstractions - just a rearrangement of the scenery.

It turns out that Roger Scruton was well ahead of me...

---

Here's an example of the kind of mistake.

“A minimum of time always elapses between a quantum event and its registration, and this minimal delay opens up the space for a kind of ontological cheating with virtual particles (an electron can create a proton and thereby violate the principle of constant energy, on condition that it reabsorbs it quickly enough, i.e., before its environs “take note” of the discrepancy). THIS is how God himself – the ultimate figure of the big Other – can be deceived; by a swarm of “ones” which escape its grasp…” (p. 112).

So much for charge conservation.

"Surface Detail": reassessing Iain M Banks

Iain Banks: (1954-2013)

"Dying. She’d be revented [re-incorporated], she guessed, in theory. She’d been backed up; everything up to about six hours ago copied, replicable. But that meant nothing. So another body, vat-grown, would wake with her memories – up to that point six hours ago, not including this bit, obviously – so what? That wouldn’t be her. She was here, dying. The self-realisation, the consciousness, that didn’t transfer; no soul to transmigrate. Just behaviour, as patterned. 

"All you ever were was a little bit of the universe, thinking to itself. Very specific; this bit, here, right now. All the rest was fantasy. Nothing was ever identical to anything else because it didn’t share the same spatial coordinates; nothing could be identical to anything else because you couldn’t share the property of uniqueness. Blah blah; she was drifting now, remembering old lessons, ancient school stuff."

From “Surface Detail”, Iain M. Banks, p. 518.

As good a description as you'll get as to why twins do not feel that they are each other (apparently) and why we should be unimpressed by the likely prospect of re-incarnation by our descendants as software avatars, humanoid automata or protoplasm.

'It's not the same'.

I have been re-reading 'Surface Detail'. I see from searching previous blog posts here on Iain Banks that I have been rather sniffy, condescending and patronising about him and his work: rather the teenager. Although most of what I wrote had a point, I take back the attitude.

Having written fiction myself now, I know how hard it is: I am not fit to clean his boots, etc.

I imagine that within a decade we will be able to read a not-entirely-awful next Culture novel. Pastiche but not too bad. The AI-reventing of Iain M. Banks will not, of course, actually be the esteemed author...

---

Requiem aeternam dona ei.

Maths Areas Ranked by Coolness (most to least)

Georg Cantor (Wikipedia)

Maths areas ranked by coolness: the most cool at the top: my subjective judgement.

1. Transfinite Set Theory: Bigger than infinity is still a mind-blowing concept.
2. Complex Analysis: The beauty and power of the imaginary unit and its applications make it a strong contender for the top spot. Holomorphic functions in complex analysis have surprising properties, like being infinitely differentiable.
3. Abstract Algebra: Exploring elegant structures and operations like groups, rings, and fields, feels like entering a new mathematical universe. Its generalisation to Universal Algebra leads to foundational computer science concepts.
4. Real Analysis: Taking calculus to the next level, dealing with abstract concepts like continuity and convergence. Leads to the wonderful Calculus of Variations, a foundation of theoretical physics.
5. Topology: Point-set topology, also called general topology, is the foundation of most branches of topology. It studies the basic properties of shapes and spaces by focusing on how close points are without relying on specific distances. It defines concepts like open sets, continuity, and connectedness, forming the essential toolkit for exploring the geometrical nature of mathematical objects..
6. Differential Geometry: Bending space and time with the power of calculus? Sounds pretty cool for those who enjoy the physics connection.
7. Number Theory: The timeless elegance of prime numbers and their mysteries remain fascinating. The extraordinary conceptual depth you get starting with the simple notions of the object 0 and the unary operator s, combining thus: (0, s(0), s(s(0)),...).
8. Linear Algebra: Essential but the practicality might overshadow the coolness factor. The link with Quantum Theory might boost the coolness a little - Hilbert Spaces.

---

This list - very subjective - came from a dialogue between Gemini Pro and myself. I studied most of these at undergraduate level excepting Number Theory (an option I didn't take) and Differential Geometry (not offered). I have forgotten almost all of the maths I studied at university...

I would like to add formal logic to the list: predicate calculus; modal logic, lambda calculus. I'm not sure the mathematicians would allow it entry, but if they did it would be very, very cool.

A Modern Take on Catholicism

From OpenArt

So this is an argument I hear sometimes. You may find it as thought-provoking as I do.

---

”Perhaps you have heard of John Dominic Crossan? He is a bit of a hero of mine. He used to be a monk and a Catholic priest. He fell out with the hierarchy, left the priesthood, got married. He’s a leading researcher in the Historic Jesus programme.

"His position is not mine. He wants to revert to the teaching of the historical Jesus as best we can determine it. But Jesus preached his apocalyptic thesis of the very imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God in very precise historical circumstances: those of a febrile, pre-revolutionary Jewish agrarian society disintegrating under the Roman yoke [see note at end]. His personal, authentic teachings are less directly applicable - in their difficult entirety - for the ongoing civilisations of subsequent eras. I doubt Dr Crossan has a workable programme.

"From one angle I could appear a mere cultural catholic but that is not the case. I'm not invested in ‘theology-as-factual’ at all, of course: no-one of any sophistication could be a Biblical literalist. I have, in fact several takes on Catholicism. 

"Firstly, the existence of the church itself, a significant social force for 2,000 years. Institutionally the church fosters certain ethical stances which, taken in the round, are prosocial (not the reactionary stuff, for sure, which comes from substituting institutional doctrine for the founder’s original message). We'd miss it, or something like it, if it wasn't there - in its vast inertia it is a bulwark against far more profoundly stupid and/or dangerous ideologies.

"Secondly, I would argue that in the purely secular domain the big issues: life, death and points in between, are not addressed well. A culture founded upon individualism has consequences: there are no emotionally-compelling commemorative processes or rites of passage which come close to those offered by the Church.

"Thirdly, the real message of Catholicism is emotional, not rational. The religious experience is at heart an emotional one: God - the concept of God - is mysterious and will not be limited and bracketed by human theorisation. John Henry Newman said, "It is not by logic we believe, but by a multitude of separate converging reasons, by testimony, by habit, by disposition, by growing experience...".

"In our present dominant ideology of secular rationalism (of a very shallow, bounded, biased kind, one should add) the deprecation of collective emotional experience is a felt lack for many people, including myself.

"You will argue that despite all that, the elephant in the room is that the Catholic paradigm is bogus and illusory; I respond thus: it is in the nature of the cultural artefacts humankind has come up with to justify and make sense of existence that they should be equally without a truly compelling foundation. It suffices that they do the job of socialising our young people well and codifying our best ethical morality: Catholicism does a fair job in this.

"In truth Nihilism is the only well-founded philosophy: we're all just atoms and the void; everything is pointless. Period. And in that philosophy the first part is true and the second part is not: as a framework for living it is useless.”

---

Note

"The historical Jesus can be retrieved only within the context of first-century Galilean Judaism. The Gospel image must therefore be inserted into the historical canvas of Palestine in the first century CE, with the help of the works of Flavius Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls and early rabbinic literature. 

"Against this background, what kind of picture of Jesus emerges from the Gospels? That of a rural holy man, initially a follower of the movement of repentance launched by another holy man, John the Baptist. 

"In the hamlets and villages of Lower Galilee and the lakeside, Jesus set out to preach the coming of the Kingdom of God within the lifetime of his generation and outlined the religious duties his simple listeners were to perform to prepare themselves for the great event."

[From: Vermes, Geza (2010). The Real Jesus: Then and Now. pp. 54–55].

Nihilism as a Luxury Belief

"The Nihilist" - from OpenArt

The "Whatever Works" Guide to Nihilism as a Luxury Belief

Have you ever wondered why some super-smart people believe in stuff that just seems...well, pointless? Like the whole "life has no meaning" thing? That's nihilism, and it turns out, it’s a luxury belief.

Here's the deal: Imagine a giant button that blows up the sun. A true nihilist wouldn't care if they pressed it or not. Why? Because according to science (Schrödinger and his equation), everything is predetermined anyway, free will is an illusion, and life itself is meaningless. Sounds depressing, right?

So why aren't all scientists nihilists? Because life is messy! We all have these "core beliefs" that act like life lessons – like not touching a hot stove (ouch!). But then there are the bigger picture beliefs, the vaguer ones that seem cool, make you part of your crowd... until they hit you where it hurts.

Take healthcare, for example. Maybe you and all your friends believe everyone deserves equal access (socialism!), but then you get stuck on a super-long waiting list for an operation you desperately need. Suddenly, that fancy belief in everyone being treated the same gets tossed out the window in favour of getting you healthy ASAP!

Here's the key takeaway: these "luxury beliefs" are often formed when things are chill. But the moment life throws a curveball and emotion kicks in, logic steps up and says, "Hey, that belief might not be working for you anymore, ditch it!" It's like you have a personal belief upgrade system.

So, back to the scientists – they might understand that science backs nihilism, but they're still human. They have desires, wants, and a need to belong (like bonding with their fellow scientists!). That's why the science they teach is often contradicted by the values they champion.

Here's the bottom line: There can be no one-size-fits-all answer to life's big questions. What matters is finding what works for you in the situation you're in. Don't be afraid to ditch those trendy "luxury beliefs'' if they stop serving you. Life is messy, and your beliefs should be flexible enough to keep up!

---

So the above essay of 350 words is what Gemini Pro v.1.0 thinks a sixteen year old girl would like to read about the topic. Useful because I have no idea how to write for that demographic. 

Here's the essay I actually wrote and which I asked Gemini to translate for me. 

---

Nihilism as a luxury belief

Nihilism can be taken to be saying that the laws of physics apply without qualification to human beings themselves, who are no more than complex structures of molecules. Life is inherently meaningless; human conceptions of purpose and significance are illusions.

If a nihilist was given a contraption with a button and was told: “If you press this button the Sun will go nova and the Earth will be reduced to molten slag,” the nihilistic should be indifferent. Press or not press, it doesn't matter. There's no free-will anyway: in principle Schrödinger's equation predicts what will happen (or at least the probabilities of possible outcomes).

The premises of nihilism are undoubtedly correct: Schrödinger's equation does in principle determine the fate of the multiverse - and that includes what we call living creatures and all living things. So why is every enlightened and educated person not a nihilist?

---

Human beings live their whole lives immersed within dense ideologies. There are core beliefs which are reinforced by painful encounters with reality: don't touch hot stoves; don't insult enormous guys with tats. But most beliefs are much more abstract - less anchored in immediate personal interests - held to signal adherence to the values of your tribe.

In the late 1980s I was a soft-socialist. I believed in egalitarianism and the British NHS. Insofar as I thought about it at all, I was opposed to the queue-jumping involved in private medical care.

Then I developed a painful medical condition for which the NHS had a year-plus waiting list. My company health plan would allow me to have the operation immediately and I could resume work, in comfort, in less than a couple of months. Naturally I went with the company scheme… and updated my luxury belief in health-egalitarianism. David Hume wrote in 1740, "Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” How true.

Luxury beliefs are ideas and concepts, true or false, that we absorbed when our directly self-interested passions were subdued or otherwise engaged. As soon as we hit a situation where our interests are actively involved, and therefore where our drives and emotions come into fierce play, then rationality fires up to fill out the fix-plan. If that involves jettisoning luxury beliefs - so be it.

To be consistent, physicists should be nihilists but their social position (intellectual elite, academic) mostly makes them committed liberals, the ideology of their tribe.

---

If nihilism is completely inconsistent with the drives and passions which define our humanity, what should we believe?

In every situation in which each of us finds our own self: we should believe whatever works for the best. Figuring that out is, of course, the hard part. It might take a lifetime.

(450 words).

"The Lessons of History”

"The Lessons of History”  by Will and Ariel Durant

From "The Lessons of History” by Will and Ariel Durant (p. 45).

---

"History has justified the Church in the belief that the masses of mankind desire a religion rich in miracle, mystery, and myth.

“Some minor modifications have been allowed in ritual, in ecclesiastical costume, and in episcopal authority; but the Church dares not alter the doctrines that reason smiles at, for such changes would offend and disillusion the millions whose hopes have been tied to inspiring and consolatory imaginations.

“No reconciliation is possible between religion and philosophy except through the philosophers' recognition that they have found no substitute for the moral function of the Church, and the ecclesiastical recognition of religious and intellectual freedom."

The paradox is here plainly set out. My emphasis added.

Exactly the same paradox plays out in the physicist's visceral rejection of the personal implications of what they research and teach.

---

You don’t need to be a historian or physicist to understand the heart of the issue. Here’s Joni:

"We're only particles of change, I know, I know. Orbiting around the sun. But how can I have that point of view, when I'm always bound and tied to someone..."

From the title track, "Hegira", by Joni Mitchell.

Exactly right. This is why no-one really and truly believes in nihilism. How could you live your life on the basis that you are a collection of fundamental particles shaped by local, historical boundary conditions within the vastness of the timeless universe - and that is all that can be said about you, and everyone and everything else?