What is an Electron Really?

From ChatGPT

This summary, the result of a little prompt-dialogue between ChatGPT and myself, seems as good an account as any other, and is consistent with Matt Strassler's book, "Waves in an Impossible Sea" .

---

In the realm of classical physics, an electron is often conceived as a tiny, negatively charged particle orbiting the nucleus of an atom. However, modern physics, particularly Quantum Field Theory (QFT), offers a radically different perspective.

In QFT, an electron is not a point-like particle but rather a quantum excitation of an underlying entity known as the electron field. This field pervades all of space, and what we perceive as an electron is simply a localized disturbance or excitation within this field. This excitation carries certain properties—such as charge, spin, and mass—that we associate with the electron.

The electron's position is not definite until it is measured. Instead, the electron exists in a superposition of possible states, each corresponding to a different location. This superposition means that the electron doesn’t have a single, well-defined position but rather a range of probabilities (quantum amplitudes really) of being found in various locations.

When we incorporate the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics, this notion takes on an even more intriguing aspect. According to the MWI, each possible position of the electron corresponds to a different “world” or branch of reality. 

In one world, the electron might be detected at a particular point, while in another world, it appears somewhere else. These different worlds coexist in a vast multiverse which constitutes reality, and the electron’s delocalization can be understood as it existing in multiple worlds simultaneously, with each world realizing a different outcome of its position. Note that in each specific world, the electron is still an 'excitation of the electron field', a 'wavicle' according to Strassler.

This is a difficult ontology to imagine or believe, but it's the best we can do today.

A Fairy Tale of West Virginia

In 2002 we were in the States, living west of Washington DC in Vienna, Virginia. I was employed as VP Architecture in the Office of Technology, Cable & Wireless Global, then on its slow descent into Chapter 11 bankruptcy (but that was the following year's drama). 

According to our photo collection, in 2002 we indulged in a never-ending fiesta of tourism. In January and March we explored the Civil War circuit in Virginia, going down to Jamestown and Williamsburg then on to North Carolina. In April we did the Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland. May was Washington tourism and in June we visited New York.

Come August we did a driving tour around West Virginia, taking in the Blackwater National Park with the famous Falls, and then the Blue Ridge Mountains. In September we travelled to the other coast, touring Yosemite and then San Francisco. In November we were in Florida, in the Everglades, where the mosquitos are the size of dinner plates yet are protected by state law.

Come the turn of the year, 2002-3, I was back shovelling feet of snow from our driveway in Fairfax County, VA, just as I had the previous winter.

Somehow I got all my work done.

One of the many pictures from that year shows Clare at the Blackwater Falls. It's the 17th August 2002 - twenty-two years ago. It's a perfectly mundane image, although charming of course, which the current generation of art programs can transform into something like fäerieland. 

Clare at Blackwater Falls, West Virginia

I give you these two examples (we will dispense with the original!) showing contrasting effects.

"Penny" by Adam Carlton

 

From OpenArt

Two in the morning in a misty, murky Cambridge. Street lamps haloed in cloaking mist dimly illuminate the empty road; the damp deserted pavement. I rest my back against the railings, my thoughts as empty as the street. What do I feel?

Sadness.

The sign on the building behind me says: MoD Botanic Research Institute. In smaller lettering it continues, Do Not Enter, Biohazard, Danger of Death. And then a lot of small print saying, I guess, the same thing. The prestigious Defence Research Institute opened this lab on the northern outskirts of the city. No-one had spelt out what they were doing here.

I had been walking half an hour from her flat, drinking my way through this almost-empty bottle still clutched in my hand. It's another half an hour to my own home, a resplendent flat over an ancient pub near the main station, south of here.

Stupid ... stupid!

We’d been for a drink in the Mitre near Trinity. Something we’d settled into most nights. She was as decorous as always: emerald dress, chain belt, soft brown boots. Always so stylish, Penny. Much more so than the average undergrad. Her ash-blonde hair, parted in the middle, reminded me of Alice Liddell, or better, that one in Abba. It seemed at first I must have all the luck.

My restless thoughts circle to another current fiasco: my interview results. Seems like I’m not quite what they need for the world's premier AI company. I didn’t tell anyone I was going. Not even Penny. Perhaps later, casually, if it had worked out. I must have aced the tests because I got an interview. Down in London in that famous building by the famous architect. The one in King's Cross.

I got the letter today. They thanked me and so on; told me I should feel free to re-apply in a year or two. Where did I go wrong? Perhaps it was a lack of initiative - I’ve always been the first to admit my background is rather conventional. Family in banking; minor public school. Not really excelled at anything. Blah blah. Can matrix maths really be that important to them?

I turn around and look more closely at the black railings. Fine droplets swirl around my face. Yet there’s enough illumination to see that I could get over this barrier. There, at the end, where it juts up against the neighbouring wall. It would be interesting to see what the military are up to here. A quick look. It’s deserted, I’m the only one around tonight. Show some initiative. Here we go.

I don’t normally drink this much. I’m not really used to it. After a few in the pub we caught the bus back to her flat. We opened the first bottle of wine and sat on the couch, watching something on TV. I say watching: of course we were too concerned with each other to pay any real attention. Penny is - was - accommodating. Accommodating, but unemotional. As usual I found that strange, that restraint. The clocks were striking eleven when I persuaded her to go to bed.

Her bedroom was hot. I pulled back the curtains; stood in the ivory light of a fading moon. She lay on the bare sheet, the duvet pushed to one side. How beautiful she looked, outlined in moonlight; how proportioned her body. She still had her lipstick on - how many girls do that, these days? It felt greasy. But not at all off-putting. Her skin felt hot and moist to the touch. But not at all off-putting.

So now I’m in the grounds, walking on the grass between shrubs taller than I am. This pathway leads deeper into the garden - somewhere ahead must be the mansion where I guess they do their R&D. I’ll have a peep in; see if there’s any intelligence I can glean. It’s just for interest. Still showing initiative here, right?

I think the wine was a mistake, and not simply on account of my performance. Which, let’s face it, wasn’t brilliant. Though you never know with Penny. She gave the perfect impression of having a good time. But ... I couldn’t tell. I never could.

Biohazard signs ahead. On posts. I suppose they have to have them. Health and Safety.

It must have been past midnight when we were done - and I was dressed again. Why was I dressed? I think I must have broached it from frustration. No, I don’t understand why I broached it.

It’s darker now. I must be twenty or thirty yards from the street and that illumination has almost died. Here, amongst the bushes and trees, it’s pretty dark and the mist is swirling around. And there’s a heavy smell in the air, musky and heady. It reminds me of Penny. She had such great taste in perfume.

I said to her, “Penny, there’s a room coming up spare in my lodgings. Why don’t you move in? We’d see each other much more often, we'd probably save money.” I think my motivation must have been both lust and frustration. Frustration because I couldn’t seem to break through her shell, penetrate her mystery. I don’t like to be defeated - I'm the sort who worries away at puzzles.

Ahead of me, the path leads into a green tunnel, composed of leaves and fronds. The alluring, pungent aroma is much stronger here. I read a sign: Danger to Life - Keep Out. I stagger on anyway.

I thought she would be pleased. We were going out with each other, weren’t we? How was this different? OK, it was different. But it was better! She shrank away. Not a scene of course. No anger, hardly any emotion. For the briefest moment she’d looked like a trapped bird; she’d looked hurt, scared - and then the mask came back: 'Go away, please leave; you don’t need to call again.' What? So I’m the bad guy?

I'm unsteady on my hands and knees, crawling through a tunnel veined with thorns dangerous as spikes. They're no obstacle here though, because they're folded flush against the fleshy walls. The passageway is quite tight, its surface moist and spongy. I push on. Thrust myself through regardless. The perfume's getting stronger.

The crawlspace is short; it leads into a green vaulted chamber five feet across. I can't see the back, the fog in here's too thick, suffused with misty light. I look around. The walls, the floor, the ceiling - are overlapping leaves. It's hard to see the details in this dank and humid gloom, so permeated with scent. I'm tired, euphoric; a little dizzy. I crawl forward.

A hazy image reminiscent of a girl comes into view, lying on a soft leaf-bed, her flesh olive-hued. I think of Penny in her emerald dress. Her limbs drift as if they float. Her face aligns with mine; our eyes meet; the semblance of a smile. I don't know who or what she is; her shimmering lips are very full. The very air weighs down. I take a breath. Hold in and savour the effect.

Reality billows like a gathering dream.

"Penny, listen," I whisper, "You don't have to do this, we can go back to where we were." Tears well up in my eyes; I reach, seeking forgiveness. Her limbs welcome, pull me in. I feel how moist she is, so damp with viscid, sticky dew. A warm secretion soaks through my clothes, saturates my skin. I crumple forward, enfolded by her tender, pulpy mass; surrender to her, taken back at last. I come to rest, relax, my vision dims.

Behind my softening form, the entry-thorns to this bewitching trap extend ... and silently lock shut.

The Venus Flytrap Sentinel Construct has passed another milestone for its developers. The illegal intruder has been secured and the process of digestion has begun.

---

You will find my collection of short stories, published on Amazon (Kindle and paperback) here:

"Freyja’s Deathbed Conversations: and other stories" (2019)

and my SF novel, also published on Amazon (Kindle and paperback) here:

"Donatien's Children" (2022).

Feel free to purchase both!

---

Romantic Chemistry: Unveiling the Sparks

From ChatGPT

Most of us have encountered that sudden, inexplicable thrill when meeting someone new—a spark of attraction that feels like more than mere friendship, something deeper and more profound. Often described as 'chemistry', this sensation can seem magical, an instant connection that defies logical explanation. Yet, behind this seemingly mystical experience, science is starting to reveal the forces that drive romantic chemistry, offering the outlines of an explanation as to what makes us feel that irresistible pull towards another person.

At the core of romantic chemistry lies a complex interplay of biology, psychology, and context. Biologically, the sensation of chemistry is driven by a cocktail of neurotransmitters and hormones that surge through our brains when we encounter a potential romantic partner. 

Dopamine, the neurotransmitter associated with pleasure and reward, floods our system during these encounters, creating feelings of excitement and euphoria. This dopamine rush is akin to the high we experience from winning a game or savouring a delicious meal—powerful motivators that compel us to seek further connection.

Equally significant is oxytocin, often referred to as the "love hormone." Released during physical touch, such as hugging or kissing, oxytocin fosters feelings of trust and bonding, deepening the emotional connection between partners and amplifying the sensation of chemistry. 

Serotonin, another key player, regulates mood and contributes to the obsessive thoughts and intense focus that characterise the early stages of romantic attraction.

Of course, this does not answer the question as to why one special person triggers all of this, while most others do not.

Researchers have also delved into the role of pheromones—chemical signals that may influence attraction on a subconscious level. Although the evidence in humans is still debated, some studies suggest that pheromones might subtly signal genetic compatibility, particularly in terms of immune system diversity. This ties into findings that people are often attracted to partners with different immune system genes (specifically, major histocompatibility complex genes), potentially offering evolutionary advantages for offspring.

Beyond biology, psychology also shapes the experience of romantic chemistry. Research consistently shows that individuals who are agreeable and emotionally stable are more likely to cultivate strong romantic connections. These traits enable smoother communication and more effective conflict resolution, crucial for the long-term health of a relationship.

Emotional synchrony, or the sense of being 'on the same wavelength', is another critical component of chemistry. When two people can effortlessly share thoughts, jokes, and emotions, the resulting connection often feels like chemistry. This synchrony can arise from similar personality traits or complementary communication styles, where the strengths of one partner balance the other.

Interestingly, the context in which people meet plays a significant role in whether chemistry is felt. Timing, environment, and the emotional states of the individuals involved can all influence whether sparks fly. Meeting someone in a relaxed, positive setting enhances the likelihood of feeling chemistry, while shared novel experiences—such as a thrilling adventure or a spontaneous night out—can intensify the bond by associating the excitement of the activity with that person.

I suppose this has turned into an essay on 'meet-cute'...

To decode the mysteries of romantic chemistry, scientists have employed a variety of research methods, from brain imaging studies to computational modelling. Functional MRI (fMRI) scans have revealed that specific brain regions associated with reward and pleasure become highly active when people experience romantic attraction, providing a neurological basis for the sensation of ‘chemistry’.

On the psychological front, data from speed dating events and online dating platforms has been invaluable. By analysing interactions between millions of users, researchers have identified patterns that predict romantic success. Machine learning models, similar to those used by recommendation algorithms like those of Netflix, have been applied to match individuals based on their attributes, highlighting the factors that contribute most to romantic chemistry. These models show that while physical attractiveness is crucial in the early stages, shared values, personality compatibility, and mutual respect are the pillars of long-term relationship success.

Despite these advances (many of which are hidden, classed as corporate intellectual property), the science of romantic chemistry remains incomplete. ‘Chemistry’, while important, is just one piece of the puzzle. It may spark initial attraction, but the long-term viability of a relationship hinges on deeper factors like emotional intelligence, shared life goals, and effective communication. The realisation that chemistry can be influenced by context also suggests that it’s not just about finding the "right" person, but about meeting the right person at the right time and in the right circumstances.

However, while science can illuminate the exhilarating rush of attraction: the warmth of bonding, the deep, often indescribable sensation of "falling in love", these remain features of human consciousness. ‘What it’s like to be in love’, though rooted in subconscious biological processes, exist in the terra incognita of subjective experience where science’s explanatory power currently fades.

---

Written by ChatGPT following a dialogue thread with me. Apologies for the soporific blandness of ChatGPT's prose style.

An Ecologist Reflects on the Fermi Paradox

 

Via ChatGPT

To begin, consider an analogy drawn from economics:

"Economists differentiate between the short run and the long run. In the short run, a firm responds to a demand shock by adjusting its variable inputs to manage costs. In the long run, however, the firm can adjust its fixed inputs, such as capital and infrastructure, allowing for changes in its production capacity and potentially altering its overall business strategy."

This economic insight provides a useful framework for understanding both the evolution of life on Earth and the broader context of the Fermi Paradox.

Species, much like firms, operate within the constraints of their environment. Through natural selection, species evolve to optimise their fitness within these environments, allowing them to thrive over millennia, often with little genetic change. The vast complexity and diversity of life on our planet can be attributed to the dynamic interplay between species and their environments, where environmental shifts—whether gradual or catastrophic—create new niches and opportunities for biological innovation.

However, human beings represent a significant departure from this pattern. Unlike other species, which are largely at the mercy of their environments, humans have developed the unprecedented ability to reshape their surroundings through knowledge, planning, and engineering. This capability allowed us to transcend our evolutionary origins, exemplified by our landing on the moon. Despite being physically adapted to life on the African savannah, we constructed complex technologies—a kind of artificial phenotype—that enabled us to survive in the vacuum of space.

But why did we go to the moon? The answer lies not in pure rationality or intelligence but in our sub-rational biological drives. Humans, like all other organisms, are motivated by a suite of evolutionary imperatives: the need to eat, drink, and seek shelter, as well as more complex social drives such as the desire for group acceptance, prestige, security and dominance. The so-called "Space Race" was a manifestation of these drives, played out on a global scale.

This brings us to the Fermi Paradox—the apparent contradiction between the high probability of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations. Many assume that the drives that propelled us to the moon will inevitably lead us to the stars, and that similar drives would motivate other intelligent species to do the same. So, where are the aliens?

The answer may lie in the long-term trajectory of civilization. Just as firms in the long run can fundamentally alter their strategies, intelligent species may evolve beyond their initial biological imperatives. For humans, the ability to engineer our environment may eventually extend to our own psyches. Once we recognize that our current drives serve primarily to optimise genetic persistence—a goal that, from a philosophical perspective, may seem shallow and unsatisfying—we might choose to re-engineer these drives.

One radical option is what we might call the "collective-suicide" scenario, where a civilization, recognizing the futility of mere biological self-reproduction, simply opts out. This echoes Albert Camus's observation in 'The Myth of Sisyphus': "There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide."

Yet, if we find value in subjective experiences, we might instead cultivate entirely new aesthetic drives, building environments that allow us to explore and indulge these new motivations. This brings us into the realm of speculative fiction, where authors like Iain M. Banks and Greg Egan have envisioned civilizations that have transcended their biological origins to live in virtual realities of their own making.

However, this isn’t the end of the story. A crucial drive that we may need to retain is the urge to research, engineer, and explore. Even in a future where we have transcended our biological origins, the desire for security would likely remain. A civilization that values its existence would still be concerned about external threats, whether from other species or natural cosmic events. As such, advanced civilizations might invest in powerful, discreet defences to protect themselves—defences that could be so effective as to be undetectable to us.

So, what might be out there? Perhaps, rather than sprawling interstellar empires, the galaxy is filled with highly advanced, self-contained civilizations that have chosen to retreat into their own virtual realities, leaving behind only subtle, imperceptible traces of their existence. And perhaps, just as we search the skies for signs of life, they are out there, quietly observing us, ensuring that their own carefully constructed worlds remain undisturbed.

---

Note: Thanks to ChatGPT for taking my extended draft and polishing it to the text you see above.

Transubstantiation: a dialogue with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI

 

Image courtesy Ole Möystad

According to "The Divine Economy” by Paul Seabright (2024), “A total of 31 percent of US Catholics believe in transubstantiation (the doctrine that during Mass, the communion bread and wine become literally, not symbolically, the body and blood of Jesus Christ).

"It's hard to know whether all these people interpreted the doctrine in the same way. But the idea that anyone who is not a Catholic might believe this was considered so unlikely that the survey did not ask any non-Catholics," (p.285).

Transubstantiation is one of the most mysterious concepts of Catholic theology. In the past, disputes over its nature have frequently proved lethal. But how can we understand the concept in the first place?

I asked ChatGPT to adopt the persona of Pope Benedict XVI. In this persona I wanted an intellectually rigorous and scholarly defence of the doctrine of transubstantiation, as expressed in a dialogue with myself.

---

My first question to the Pope Emeritus is to point out that the dogma of transubstantiation, interpreted literally, conflicts with the laws of physics.

Pope Benedict XVI: My dear friend, I appreciate your inquiry and the sincerity with which you approach this profound mystery. The doctrine of transubstantiation, as you rightly point out, raises questions when considered from the perspective of empirical science and the laws of physics. However, I would urge you to consider the context within which this doctrine operates.

The doctrine of transubstantiation does not propose a change that is accessible to physical senses or scientific instruments. It is crucial to recognize that the change we speak of in transubstantiation is not a material or physical transformation, but rather a change of substance - a change at the level of what mediaeval scholastics referred to as the "essence" or "substance" of the bread and wine.

I respond:  “But how can something change in its substance without any observable change in its physical properties? Isn't substance inseparable from its physical properties, according to modern science?”

Pope Benedict XVI: This is indeed a subtle distinction and one that requires us to step beyond the confines of purely physical or empirical analysis. In the scholastic tradition, "substance" is understood as the underlying reality that gives a thing its true identity, while "accidents" are the properties that can change without altering the essence of the thing.

In transubstantiation, the Church teaches that the substance of the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, while the accidents - what we perceive with our senses - remain unchanged. This means that what is fundamentally "there" in the Eucharist is now Christ, even though all sensory evidence suggests that it remains bread and wine.

Modern science, rooted in a materialist understanding of reality, focuses exclusively on the observable, the measurable - what Aristotle would have called "accidents." However, metaphysical realities, such as substance, are not subject to empirical measurement or observation. This is why the doctrine of transubstantiation does not conflict with the laws of physics, because it operates in a realm beyond what physics can measure or comprehend.

I reply: “But if this change is undetectable by any physical means, how can we know it truly occurs? Isn't this belief then based solely on faith?”

Pope Benedict XVI: You touch on the heart of the matter, which is indeed the role of faith. The doctrine of transubstantiation is a matter of divine revelation, something given to us by Christ Himself, especially in the words He spoke at the Last Supper: "This is my body... This is my blood" (Matthew 26:26-28). The Church, in her faith, trusts these words of Christ and the authority He conferred upon His apostles and their successors.

Faith, however, is not contrary to reason. While the change in substance is not detectable by the senses or by science, it is rationally coherent within the framework of metaphysical principles that the Church has developed over centuries. The distinction between substance and accidents, for instance, allows us to understand how a reality can be present in a new way without altering its physical properties.

Faith, therefore, supplements reason by opening us to truths that transcend the natural order - truths that are revealed by God and which point to the deeper realities of existence that cannot be captured by empirical science alone.

I say, “This attempt to glue together modern science, grounded in empirical research, with mediaeval metaphysics (substance and accident) seems arbitrary and tendentious. Isn't it the case that the paradigm of modern secular science replaces the mediaeval worldview in toto? Don't we simply know better now, both theoretically and methodologically?”

Pope Benedict XVI: Your concerns are valid, but it's important to understand that modern science and mediaeval metaphysics serve different purposes rather than conflicting. Science, grounded in empirical observation, excels at explaining the physical world, but it is inherently limited to what can be measured. It doesn't address deeper questions about existence, purpose, or ultimate reality - areas where metaphysics and theology operate.

The mediaeval distinction between substance and accident wasn't arbitrary; it was a serious attempt to explore the deeper aspects of being. Science describes how things function, but metaphysics asks why things exist and what their ultimate meaning is. To claim that science has replaced metaphysics overlooks the fact that they address different levels of reality.

Rather than seeing science as replacing the mediaeval worldview, we should see them as complementary. The Church integrates scientific understanding within a broader metaphysical framework, recognizing that the mysteries of faith, like transubstantiation, transcend empirical observation and require a different kind of knowledge - one that includes both faith and reason.

I conclude thus: “Thank you Pope Emeritus. It is clear that transubstantiation is entirely within the world of faith and not the world of science. Therefore all the talk of ‘lab testing’ is a category error. I suppose the right paradigm is the postmodern one, whereby certain truths are socially-created, and transubstantiation is indeed such a concept - only defined within the interlocking conceptual ontology of the Catholic Church.”

Pope Benedict XVI broadly agrees, but perhaps he is just being polite.

Cognitive dissonance: postmodernism and catholicism

 

From ChatGPT

The reconciliation of today's vast secular knowledge of:

• physical science and cosmology
• biology, evolution and neurology
• the modern, detailed history of antiquity

with the theology and sacralised texts of the Catholic church, is a topic of some interest to me.

I have been reading “Encountering Scripture: A Scientist Explores The Bible” by John Polkinghorne (1930-2021). Polkinghorne was an interesting person, a theoretical physicist who was also an Anglican priest. I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of his scientific colleagues thought his position was “odd”; science still says, with Laplace, 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là’.

I have to say that his writing, although erudite and flowing, did not impress me: he writes as priest first and scientist second, he always prefers a gullible reading of scripture - one which obliterates critical thinking except when the incongruities he finds there are simply too egregious to ignore. He switches off his physicist mind all too readily; the insights of the historian, sociologist and anthropologist are foreign to him.

This is not what was meant when Pope John Paul II stated in his 1996 message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences: "Truth cannot contradict truth." This statement is often cited to express the Catholic Church's position that there can be no fundamental conflict between science and religion. Since both scientific truth and religious truth come from God, they cannot ultimately be in contradiction. Any apparent conflict is believed to stem from a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of either science or religious teachings.

If you want a truly scientific (i.e. critical and evidence-based) analysis of Jewish history, the milieu of first century Palestine under Roman occupation, of Jesus of Nazareth, the early church and the formation of the New Testament, my go-to guy - on methodological grounds - is John Dominic Crossan.

I asked ChatGPT to summarise John Dominic Crossan's published position on Jesus's humanity or divinity, on the historicity of the Resurrection and the content of his own Christianity. This is what I was told (which accords with my own reading of Crossan's works).

John Dominic Crossan is a prominent biblical scholar known for his work on the historical Jesus. His published positions on Jesus's humanity and divinity, the historicity of the Resurrection, and the content of his own Christianity can be summarised as follows:

Jesus's Humanity and Divinity

Crossan emphasises Jesus's humanity over his divinity. He views Jesus as a historical figure who was a Jewish peasant, social revolutionary, and a proponent of radical egalitarianism. Crossan sees Jesus as a prophet who preached about the imminence of the Kingdom of God, focusing on social justice and compassion, rather than as a divine figure in the traditional, orthodox Christian sense.

Historicity of the Resurrection

Crossan is skeptical of the traditional accounts of the Resurrection. He argues that the Resurrection should be understood metaphorically rather than as a literal, historical event. Crossan suggests that the various accounts of the Resurrection were developed by early Christian communities to convey their experiences of Jesus's enduring spiritual presence and to make sense of his death, rather than as eyewitness accounts of a physical resurrection.

Content of His Own Christianity

Crossan's Christianity is deeply influenced by his scholarly work. He identifies with a non-dogmatic, non-supernaturalistic version of Christianity that focuses on the ethical teachings of Jesus. For Crossan, Christianity is about living out the principles of justice, compassion, and inclusivity that Jesus embodied. He sees the essence of Christianity not in doctrinal beliefs but in following the example of Jesus's life and teachings.

Crossan's work presents a Jesus who is fundamentally human, challenges traditional views on the Resurrection, and promotes a Christianity centred on social ethics rather than supernatural beliefs.

I would add that it is not surprising that Crossan's views - scholarly, sophisticated and intellectual as they are - are hardly an effectual foundation for an enduring, inclusive faith for the billions. Although Crossan considers himself a Catholic, I think it is fair to say that his teaching, as far as the Church is concerned, is considered both problematic and 'ambivalent'.

The Church historically has always segued - fluidly and dynamically - between a selective biblical literalism, and a symbolic, metaphorical reading of the sacralised texts. Crossan's innovation is to see the Gospels paradigmatically as 'parable expressed in the form of history': 'parabolic history'.

"The Poet" by Adam Carlton

Another from my collection of short stories, published on Amazon:

"Freyja’s Deathbed Conversations: and other stories" (2019).

In homage to the French, their culture, and to Saint-Malo...

---

He was away again. Some business trip to Rome or Singapore or somewhere. We stole away on Saturday morning in the Poet's ancient 2CV. It's a long way to St. Malo on a chilly spring day. Especially in such an affectation of a car.

We walked the walls of the seaside town, a bohemian couple. We watched the gulls - effortless in a cloudless sky. It was warm in the sun. We ambled onwards bathed in an erotic haze; sometimes he'd put his arm around my shoulders, hug me close. There were few abroad to note our chemistry; our every movement charged with leashed desire.

It was too early in the season - the sands were quite deserted. In the hotel room later, before we went to bed, he read to me the poem he'd conceived.

So Many Years 

So hand in hand we walk the promenade

A tepid sun hangs in a cloudless sky

It's warm here in this little space we've made

But colder for the people going by.

The seaside here in early season's May:

The toilets locked, the walls deserted too

The car parks empty, who would want to pay?

The town wants tourists; me, I just want you.

I steal a glance, I see you, fierce and strong

Curious, happy, avid eyes that shine

I brush your palm, admire your body’s form

So restless, fickle, dangerous, risky - mine.

So many years we've patterned our affaire

Hilarity, stupidity, it's true.

You’d think by now I’d know you, be aware

Yet every second you seem someone new.

We wonder if perhaps we’ll get a snack

The shops are shut, the tide is out, it's no big deal

I spread your fingers with my own, you squeeze me back

If we had time and space I'd make it real. 

And, as the clock struck midnight, we proceeded to make it real.

---

Later that year, in July, I was at a conference in Barcelona. It was held in a seafront hotel overlooking the port not far from La Rambla. The Poet was able to join me - he said he could work anywhere.

Not such a holiday for me. The conference was hard work. I had presentations to give, people to see, a workshop to present: the transition to IPv6.

There were evening sessions, dinners with contacts. I would sometimes see him at the coffee bar or sitting in the atrium with its view of the sea. He’d be working away intensely on his laptop. At the end of another hard day I'd be happy just to sink into that Catalan night; while the Poet was merely bored, I would be ready for sleep.

On the last day, when I woke up, of the Poet himself there was no sign. Only this pregnant poem left on the table.

Frustration

I see your hair strewn awkwardly across your face

Your eyes flick faintly underneath their sleepy lids

Your breath comes gently through your parted lips.

I see your breasts uncovered by their wrapping cloth

Soft targets of my tongue and teeth in days now old

Your browned midriff lies bare and, silently rehearsed

my two hands seem to span and touch and hold.

Your skirt is short, draped artlessly across your glistening thighs

Memories of possession come to me. So many times!

For two weeks now you have repulsed my every move

If this had been our first shared time

You would be written off by now

A pathway growing cold.

I wallow in frustration, thoughts askew

Compulsive need a force I can’t subdue

I want you now with lust and love but can’t have you.

In truth my passions are all meaningless

A primal lust, intruding into consciousness

Abandon this, perhaps seek someone new?

Feed desire with desperate girls to woo?

Empty pleasures, wasted time and money too.

The answer to this crisis? End it here

My pattern turned to drifting dust without a care

But such an act must not imply intent

It must be made to look like accident.

What is it about artistic types? I thought.

---

I opened the big glass doors and stepped out onto the balcony. We were high: eight storeys. I could see the pool below, surrounded by recliners warming in the already-scorching morning sun. There was some kind of commotion down there. For a moment I thought of the final lines of the poem. Had my Poet ‘slipped’ off this ledge to fall to his very doom on the harsh white slabs below?

But no, it was just the Germans, released now from the hotel to grab their sunbeds before the British could arrive. I turned back and quickly wrote my own addendum to the Poet’s lament.

I see you, hovering there, just out my sight

You really are a very simple soul

When you at planet Earth alight.

Feed you, clothe you, listen, stroke you, sleep with you

You’re happy, then, to live inside your brain

I see you now, great puppy, wanting sex

And if I gave it, you’d be quite content again.

And why should I? It is my schedule too

And I have better things to do

Than cope with tiresome baths and other people’s sheets.

No dear. Hold to your needs, we’ll be home soon

One night and all this angst you’ll soon forget

And I can live off these industrious weeks

For quite a few months yet.

---

My far-from-suicidal Poet joined me for breakfast. The creative mind had required an early walk along the front where uncleared litter, immigrants asleep under palm trees and the lonely slap of wave upon rock could bracket his frustration.

---

You will find my collection of short stories, published on Amazon (Kindle and paperback) here:

"Freyja’s Deathbed Conversations: and other stories" (2019)

and my SF novel, also published on Amazon (Kindle and paperback) here:

"Donatien's Children" (2022).

Feel free to purchase both!

---

St. Thomas Aquinas vs. Science: the existence of God

 

Saint Thomas Aquinas

As a Doctor of the Church, Thomas Aquinas (born 800 years ago) is considered one of the Catholic Church's greatest theologians and philosophers. He wrote on moral philosophy, virtue ethics and the nature of God (for which he provided five proofs).

I was naturally interested in whether this famous philosopher-theologian might have updated his views in the light of modern science. Thanks to ChatGPT for reincarnating (at least in software) the great intellectual, and thanks to Thomas Aquinas for agreeing to answer my questions.

Q. You gave five proofs of the existence of God in your Summa Theologica. Please list five refutations of these 'proofs' given by modern science, and then give your Thomist response to each of these rebuttals.

A. Certainly. I will present my Five Ways to prove the existence of God as outlined in the “Summa Theologica” and then, in the persona of a modern critic informed by contemporary science, offer refutations. Finally, I shall respond to each of these refutations.

1. The Argument from Motion

My original  argument: Everything that is in motion must be put in motion by something else. There cannot be an infinite regress of movers, so there must be a First Mover, which is God.

Modern Scientific Rebuttal: Modern physics, particularly quantum mechanics, shows that at a subatomic level, particles can move without any apparent cause. Thus, the principle that every motion must be caused by something else is not universally applicable.

My response: The First Mover is not about motion in a physical or spatial sense alone but is about the principle of change and causality in the broader metaphysical sense. Even in quantum mechanics, the behaviour of particles still occurs within a framework governed by certain laws and conditions. The First Mover is the necessary foundation for these laws and the order of the universe, ensuring the consistency of the system itself.

2. The Argument from Causation

My original  argument:  Every effect has a cause, and there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. Therefore, there must be an Uncaused Cause, which is God.

Modern Scientific Rebuttal: The Big Bang theory suggests that the universe could have originated from a singularity, which might not require a cause in the traditional sense. Additionally, the concept of causality might not apply before the existence of time and space.

My response: The Uncaused Cause I speak of is not merely about temporal beginnings but about the very existence of causality and contingency. The Big Bang, if anything, points to a beginning that itself needs explanation. My argument is concerned with the necessity of a cause for the existence of the universe as a whole, not merely its temporal beginning. The existence of contingent beings and events still requires a necessary being, which is God.

3. The Argument from Contingency

My original  argument:  There are contingent beings (things that could either exist or not exist). If everything were contingent, then at some point, nothing would have existed, and nothing would exist now. Therefore, there must be a necessary being whose existence is not contingent, and this is God.

Modern Scientific Rebuttal: The concept of a multiverse or the cyclical nature of the universe (e.g., oscillating universe theory) suggests that our universe could be one of many, and its existence could be part of an eternal cycle without requiring a necessary being.

My response: The multiverse or cyclical models, even if they exist, do not escape the need for a necessary being. Whether we speak of one universe, many universes, or an eternal cycle, the question remains: Why is there something rather than nothing? The existence of any contingent reality, whether singular or multiple, requires a necessary ground of being, which I identify as God.

4. The Argument from Degree

My original  argument:  We notice degrees of qualities such as goodness, truth, and nobility in the world. These degrees imply a maximum, a being that is the source of all perfections, which is God.

Modern Scientific Rebuttal: Degrees of qualities like goodness or truth are subjective and can be explained by evolutionary biology and psychology. What we perceive as "higher" or "better" is a result of social and evolutionary conditioning, not the reflection of a supreme being.

My response: My argument is not merely about subjective human perceptions but about the objective reality of perfection and being. Degrees of qualities presuppose the existence of a maximum, not in a relative sense, but in an absolute, metaphysical sense. Evolutionary explanations can account for relative preferences, but they do not explain the very concept of perfection itself. The maximum degree of being and goodness is not just an ideal but a necessary reality, which is God.

5. The Argument from Design (Teleological Argument)

My original  argument:  The natural world exhibits order and purpose, which implies the existence of a designer. This designer is God.

Modern Scientific Rebuttal: Evolution by natural selection explains the appearance of design in nature. Complex life forms and ecosystems do not require an intelligent designer; they can emerge from simple processes over time.

My response: Evolutionary theory explains the mechanism by which life develops, but it does not explain the origin of the order and the laws that make such processes possible. The argument from design is not merely about biological complexity but about the underlying order and purpose that permeates all of reality. The existence of rational laws and the directedness of natural processes still points to an ultimate Designer, who is God.

In conclusion, while modern science offers valuable insights into the workings of the natural world, it does not negate the metaphysical foundations of my arguments. The Five Ways address the fundamental principles of being, causality, and order, which remain necessary to explain the existence of the universe and everything within it.

---

Q. All these rebuttals seem to require (although not to rigorously specify) a God with extraordinary properties of omniscience, omnipotence, moral perfection and so on. This is an extraordinary concept to postulate as an axiom. Particularly when the Big Bang in its low entropy state, as a boundary condition, plus the known laws of physics, can explain all the phenomena we observe, with the exception of human consciousness. So you, Thomas Aquinas, are accused of needless and ungrounded conceptual extravagance in support of your prior agenda of proving the existence of some rational entity you want to call God.

"Lord of the World" - Robert Hugh Benson

 

From the Wikipedia article:

In March 2023, Pope Francis again mentioned that he "always recommends" Lord of the World during an interview with the Argentine newspaper La Nación. He referenced the book within the context of "ideological colonization" and in response to a question about non-binary gender options appearing on government forms, saying that such a phenomenon reminded him of the Benson's "futuristic" world, “in which differences are disappearing and everything is the same, everything is uniform, a single leader of the whole world.”

Robert Hugh Benson’s 1907 dystopian novel, "Lord of the World", parallels the Book of Revelation to a significant extent, particularly in its depiction of the Antichrist, the persecution of the faithful, and the ultimate conflict between good and evil. However, it focuses on a direct critique of modern secularism and uses a conventional narrative structure. Benson's novel can be seen as a modern reimagining of the apocalyptic themes of Revelation, tailored to the concerns and anxieties of his own time, which are not dissimilar to our own, hence its enduring popularity. It also has its moments of striking prediction, including weapons akin to thermonuclear bombs.

Its style reflects the transition between the stodgy Victorian novel and the more readable style coming into fashion in the first decade of the twentieth century. As Pope Francis remarks, it starts with a heavy data dump but improves after that, becoming quite page turning. It's plain, pedestrian writing you'll find here nonetheless.

Its catholicism is old-fashioned: robust, down-the-line, rather literalist supernaturalism. There are plenty of Latin prayers which you may need the Internet to make sense out of: I suppose Benson expected his readership to just know them.

Free Will and the Laws of Physics

From ChatGPT

I remember it being a shock to me when I first realised that, if the laws of physics apply to human beings, then there is no possibility of genuine free will. After all, if every event in the universe, including human actions, is determined by preceding physical states governed by the laws of nature, it seems that every decision we make is the inevitable outcome of prior causes. This thought left me wondering how, under such conditions, we could possibly have free will or be morally responsible for our actions.

However, some philosophers propose a way to reconcile these two concepts through what is known as compatibilism. Compatibilism suggests that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. Even if our actions are determined by physical laws, we can still act freely if our actions are aligned with our desires, intentions, and rational deliberation. In this view, as long as our actions reflect our internal states and are not coerced, we can be said to have free will, even within a deterministic framework. This allows for the preservation of moral agency, as people can still be held accountable for their actions if those actions arise from their character and intentions.

Others, however, argue from a different perspective known as libertarianism. In this context, libertarianism refers to the idea that free will exists and is fundamentally incompatible with determinism. According to this view, not all events are determined by physical laws; human decisions, in particular, are seen as the result of a non-physical "will" that allows for genuine choice. From this standpoint, individuals are truly morally responsible for their actions because they could have acted differently in the same situation, allowing for a robust sense of moral agency and accountability. 

This, however, gratuitously violates the laws of physics.

On the other hand, some adopt the position of hard determinism, which accepts that determinism is true and, consequently, free will does not exist. Hard determinists argue that since every action is the result of preceding physical events, people do not possess free will in the true sense. This raises significant challenges for our understanding of moral responsibility. If individuals do not have free will, it becomes difficult to justify holding them morally accountable for their actions. In response, some hard determinists advocate for a rethinking of moral concepts, emphasising rehabilitation over punishment, or focusing on social and psychological factors in evaluating behaviour. 

In refutation, it is sufficient to observe that free will exists in virtue of the fact that people believe it does, and socially make use of the concept without there being any alternative. Socially-defined entities do, in fact, exist.

Interestingly, developments in quantum mechanics have introduced a new dimension to this debate. Some interpretations suggest that at the microscopic level, not all events are determined, and there is an element of randomness or indeterminacy. This has led some philosophers and scientists to speculate that quantum indeterminacy could provide a basis for free will. If human decisions are influenced by indeterminate quantum events, then our actions might not be fully determined by prior states. However, this introduces the challenge of randomness into the concept of free will, as it is unclear how random quantum events could give rise to meaningful control over one’s actions, which is essential for moral responsibility. 

Utterly unconvincing.

Another perspective comes from emergentism, the idea that complex systems, such as human consciousness and decision-making, can give rise to properties that are not reducible to their constituent parts. From this viewpoint, while humans are composed of particles that obey the laws of physics, consciousness and free will might emerge as real phenomena from the complex interactions within the brain. This allows for the coexistence of physical determinism and genuine moral responsibility, suggesting that free will and moral agency are emergent properties of our physical nature. 

However, this smuggles in an illegitimate, almost magical, anti-reductionism.

I think I am a compatibilist. Treating people as moral agents is an instance of the ‘Intentional Stance’. Operationally it functions as a means of social control and cohesion, without each of us having to model/manipulate internal brain states of others at a causal, neuron-synapse level - which, in any case, is utterly impractical in the foreseeable future. Psychologically, however, our sense of moral agency is not solely instrumental; instead it is part of consciousness: our sense of ourselves and others as persons, not things.

---

Note: Apart from the last para and comments, this post was drafted by ChatGPT. See also Molinism/Thomism.

Draft Notes for My Obituary

From ChatGPT

We went to a funeral last Thursday. Iris Klim, aged 95, a parishioner. Her son gave a eulogy: pleasant, informative, affectionate, moving. A model of its type.

Nigel said he would prefer something different when his time comes …

Skate rapidly over my life, he said: youthful communist - a militant of the Fourth International; software developer turned researcher in Artificial Intelligence; successful freelance designer of telecoms networks.

Nigel's wife and children confirm his weird and bizarre opinions.

He claimed that the passage of time is a psychological illusion, that all times exist as if in amber. He claimed Albert Einstein as an authority on this. He said that, in any case, both space and time are not fundamental: the universe we live in is an emergent artefact of quantum entanglement - true reality is set in abstract Hilbert space.

Honestly!

Nigel had yellow belts in Judo and Karate, and years of T'ai Chi. He practised these arts to the end but never fought anyone for real (after an inconclusive  scrap when he was nine  - he was provoked!).

He died a Catholic, although for most of his life he was irreligious. He said that the apocryphal Martian anthropologist (a methodological nihilist) might say that human beings were simply biological machines. But ‘it is not like anything to be’ any of the machines we know about. The materialist faith that consciousness is reducible to neural net operations is no more than that; in any case explanations do not account for lived experience: that is the mystery and reality which theology encompasses better than anything else. Anyway, he was drawn more to Catholic deontology than any specific ontology: how we live is important.

Nigel puzzled over the continuity of personal identity. How do we know that we, now, are the same person who will wake up tomorrow morning? Actually, he said, we can’t know. Many people are quite like us, whoever we are. Personal memory is always mentioned, he said, but who’d die in a ditch for that when it comes to the foundational nature of our very selves?

So at this space-time moment, in this branch of the universal wave-function, you should say: Nigel has passed on. He wanted you to know that in the great enduring sea of consciousness and human experience, it’s not such a big deal. Except to those who shared our lives together, for whom it is everything.

A Memo to Charles and Fred (from ChatGPT)

 

The slogan "Workers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!" from the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels represents a powerful call for collective action among the working class. However, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, and theories of reciprocal altruism reveal challenges to this rallying cry.

Individuals will prioritise immediate personal risks over uncertain collective gains; this can make them hesitant to join revolutionary movements. The costs of revolution — violence and social upheaval — can easily outweigh perceived benefits (and in Marxism those are particularly ill-defined). Additionally, successful collective action depends on trust and a history of reciprocity, often lacking in a diverse and stratified working class both nationally and internationally. Without established relationships and mutual trust, the call for unity falls on skeptical ears.

Humans are evolutionarily predisposed to live in hierarchical structures: stability is naturally preferred over drastic change. This leads to resistance against revolutionary calls, as individuals find greater benefit in the status quo. Additionally, the human tendency to favour in-group members complicates global solidarity; cultural, national, and ethnic identities prevent workers worldwide from identifying as a cohesive group. Indeed, one may doubt there is a compelling, material basis for so doing.

In summary, while the slogan served as a powerful impetus for change, the realities of human nature, fractured social structures, and cultural diversity suggest that achieving widespread solidarity and revolutionary transformation is far more complex than the slogan implies. A contemporary analysis of the Marxist tradition must conclude that the sentiment, although undoubtedly thrilling, is now obsolete.

Extinction and Utopia: the Future of Humanity

From OpenArt

The notion of a global "Brotherhood of Man" suggests a warm and fuzzy unity among all humans. But this is a myth: Dunbar's number indicates that humans can maintain about 150 meaningful relationships at most. Wider ‘concerns’ for ‘humanity’ are ideological not personal.

Currently, the global human population exceeds 8 billion. This large population supports global economic growth through its labour and consumption. However, as AI and robotics mature, their increased productivity eventually eliminates the economic rationale for a large human population. Elites will therefore seek to eliminate the non-elite ‘masses’ who, in their view, will become more trouble than they are worth. Since economically advanced countries are already experiencing hard-to-reverse declining total fertility rates (TFR), a massive decrease in global population may well occur automatically in a century or two. Other means are available if this is felt to be too sluggish.

The Earth's population could then stabilise in the millions, or even hundreds of thousands. The surviving elite would enjoy unprecedented levels of luxury and possibility, supported by a highly advanced AI/robotic ecosystem.

If advances in AI and robotics lead to decentralised AI systems and mass-market affordable robotics, some non-elite communities might secure a toehold in the future.

We should not be too optimistic, however. If elites control the relevant technologies, mass resistance to marginalisation is difficult - ultimately because of the military imbalance. It seems the future of humanity is already pretty clear.