The Limits of Mathematical Consciousness

       There are three kinds of people, the saying goes -- those that can count, and those that can't.  And that right there might well describe the limits of mathematical consciousness.  End of post.

       But let's hear from some other people before we let the subject go.  Albert Einstein, no slouch in the discipline of mathematics, has been quoted as saying, "Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

       Which is a good saying, I think.  Don't you?

       But there is a catch here: maybe Einstein didn't say it.  Researchers into the matter of correctly attributing quotations suggest that the quotation should be credited to a professor of sociology, William Bruce Cameron, who said something very like this in publications back in the 1950s and 1960s.   Should we accept the word of a sociologist on matters mathematical?

       Or maybe it was a physician who said this first.  Or a religious writer.  You can see the results of current research in a post at the website, Quote Investigator.  Maybe we should establish a quote of our own, that would go something like this: "Not everything that has been quoted is properly attributed, and not every idea that is worthy of attribution comes from an authoritative quote."

       You can quote me.  Or say it yourself.  Or find that someone has beaten us to the punch-line.

       Back to mathematics.  Benjamin Disraeli, a British prime minister of the 19th century, is famously quoted as saying, "There are three kinds of lies:  lies, damned lies, and statistics." (Statisticians, pollsters, accountants, economists, politicians, census takers, and actuaries, take note.)

       Once again, it is possible that Disraeli didn't say this, even though Mark Twain thought he did.  And neither of them was a professional mathematician, and thus may have lacked certain refinements of mathematical consciousness; but each of them had important things to say -- and think -- and the history of human consciousness would be poorer if either of them had not lived.

       John von Neumann, a twentieth century mathematician and physicist and logician of remarkable breadth and brilliance, said,  "There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about."

       Mathematical consciousness has enjoyed especial prestige since the days of Sir Isaac Newton and his disciples, for whom God was, among other things, a consummate Mathematician.  From that day to this Mathematics has been more or less the Handmaid of Science, or the Queen of the Sciences, depending upon whom you listen to.

       But there are limits.  It is by no means certain that all things, or all important things, are quantifiable; or that they "can be mathematically modeled"; or even that they can be mathematically symbolized.  Like life.  Or love.  Or liberty.

       Or dimensionality.  Or thought.  Or consciousness.  Or personality.  Or beingness.  Or even the wagging of a dog's tail.

       I think that mathematical consciousness, once it is self-aware, begins to wonder about meta-mathematical consciousness, and . . . much else.  It is good to welcome other voices, other possibilities.

*       *       *

Your thoughts are most welcome, even if they are limited!  (Or unlimited.)

What Conservatism Is This?

Guest post by Ben Carmack

Indiana, my home state, prides itself on being one of the most conservative and Republican states in the Union. In the past 50 years, Indiana has voted for a Democrat for president only twice. 

In such a milieu of conservatism, looking at a few stories in the newspaper in the last couple of weeks, I have been left asking, This is conservatism?

Gov. Mitch Daniels, the man many people wanted to run for president this year with the fiscal conservative seal of approval, is pushing two big pieces of legislation in his final year in office. In 2010, Republicans won big majorities in both houses of the Indiana legislature.

His legislative agenda? Right to work and a statewide smoking ban.

Union members and Democrats are doing all they can to resist right to work, as they should. As any good conservative should know, there is no "right" to work. If one offers one's labor for hire, one must accept the terms given by the employer. Often these terms can become inhumane, which is why we need government to act as economic umpire, ensuring workers' rights.

One hard-won right of the working class is the right to organize and to form unions. When workers can bargain collectively, they can cut deals that result in better wages and working conditions. They can fund training for one another, and increase the standing of their trade or profession, much like the old-time medieval guilds.

Protections and dignity for workers in an industrial system do not come from the free market. The free market will tend to enrich the most economically powerful, who tend to be the holders of property and capital, who in turn tend to be the employers and "job creators." However, if strong unions exist and are allowed to thrive, workers can be protected of their own accord, without coercive government intervention.

"Right to work" legislation takes away the right of private unions and private businesses to make arrangements that require would-be hires to join a union and pay dues as a condition of employment. It is active government intervention in the private marketplace to weaken workers' rights and place more economic power in the hands of the wealthy.

How can such government intervention be "conservative"? What values are being conserved? What noble traditions does "right to work" come from? Surely not any that we should want to continue. Do we want to go back to 19th Century factory conditions, when workers functioned essentially as industrial slaves? Do we want to "conserve" that?

Then there's the smoking ban. 

How can anyone call himself a conservative and support a state regulating the people's private vices? Human beings have been smoking tobacco for hundreds of years. They have breathed it and smoked it and inhaled it, often to excess, which has resulted in health problems in old age. The fact that some people over-consume and destroy their lives in old age does not make smoking tobacco a grave sin that the state must regulate. 

Tobacco smoking has its benefits. It is social. It is fragrant. It is relaxing. Do these benefits count for nothing? Does the bad behavior of marketers in the tobacco corporations outweigh the relative innocence of the product itself? Marketers are the problem, as they usually are, not the smokers, producers, waiters or convenience store clerks. 

Money men who only know how to generate revenue and are otherwise clueless about the life of the world are the real cancer of our time, not people who smoke tobacco in a restaurant or bar. I would hazard that the stress and dis-ease induced by mindless consumption causes far more death and destruction than any mere cigarette. After all, why were we at war in Iraq for 9 years if not to maintain an economy of mindless consumption?

Good grief. What's a conservative to do these days? Certainly not vote Republican.

After Christian Shenanigans, Santorum Is Anointed

      This is a combined post by 

Robert Heid 

and 

Dr. J. Michael Bennett (Doctor Future)

Robert Heid says:

       Thanks to Doc Future for calling attention to the article linked below, which tells us not only who the "Social Conservatives"  (read "Christian Right")  have "thrown their support behind," but the shenanigans which had to be used to accumulate that support.

       Link to : "Social Conservatives Back Santorum."

Doc Future says:

Evangelical Mafia Anoint Their Minion, 

Bully and Intimidate Their Christian Followers Into Compliance 

Rather Than Independent Analysis

       Our Christian "leaders" do not trust American Christians to discern and make their own informed decisions regarding societal matters -- Robert and I saw this first hand as witnesses at the "Values Voters Summit" in October, 2011 -- instead, they will do that decision-making for them, and send the edicts out to the masses, supported by intimidating guilt, and the support of corporate-sponsored Christian media!  I wonder how much money they expect to ultimately make for this -- the head of the Iowa Christian conservative group is reported to have demanded up to a cool million dollars from Santorum for his endorsement!   (Not that Santorum gave in to the extortion.)

       Our evangelical leaders have now collectively endorsed a  man who is:

       (1) a self-professed Knight of Malta (who formally swears to defend the papacy, Rome and the Maltese principality, and "defend the Christian faith" as their Crusader forebearers did, while wearing their own Crusader capes and swords), and 

       (2) an official endorser and campaigner for Arlen Specter, a strong Republican supporter of abortion (and author of the "U-turn bullet" theory in the Warren Commission).

       Apparently he has all the right pedigree to meet the high standards of our wizened (and well-compensated) representatives of the "Christian conscience" of America!  (Even though the Knights of Malta are well known for running the Nazi "rat-lines" to get the Nazi officers out of Germany and from the Nuremberg trials.)

 

       Why are our other Christian leaders silent about this?  Are they intimidated by these insiders?  Do they not care?  Dare they agree with their findings? 

Robert Heid adds:

       I predict that the "Social Conservatives,"  -- in this case apparently led by Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, and James Dobson -- are going to experience "blowback" over this, from several directions:

       Blowback from other conservative Christian leaders and rank-and-file who do still do not support Santorum.  Santorum ran a distant third and received only one vote in six at the Values Voters Summit.  (Ron Paul won the Values Voters Summit.)  Who took it upon themselves to reverse this at a private "summit meeting" in Texas?

       Blowback from the other Republican candidates who were shut out.  Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and others have a right to be lastingly resentful at the treatment they have received from these manipulative people.  Why should they "fall in" behind Santorum?

       Blowback from the primary.  Unless Santorum decisively defeats Romney in South Carolina, which I do not foresee, I think it is over for him.  And with that, the Christian leaders will have reduced their future significance to just about zero.

       And if Santorum does decisively defeat Romney in South Carolina, expect blowback from the Banks-and-Big-Business guild that created the Republican Party in 1856 and has owned it ever since.  They carefully chose and vetted Mitt Romney, probably as much as four years ago; they are funding him, running his campaign, and pre-empting the delegate-selection process as we speak.  They have made a heavy investment, and they are going to protect that investment.  One primary win does not a nomination make in the Republican party, unless it is a win by the heir presumptive.

       I'm sorry that the Christian Right is going this route, because they could have made a real  difference about many important things.  But with their love of war, love of money, false sense of power, and very bad choice of spokesmen and office-holders, I think they are out of favor with both God and man.

       For those of us who are their fellow Christians, this is going to be a shame, and we are likely to feel some of the blowback ourselves.  Who can trust us?  Who can count on our good judgment? 

The Truth Will Make You Free, But . . .

       I love the words of Jesus when He said, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."  For many centuries now, the people of good will have heard or read these words, and more or less ordered their lives by them.  They are good words.  Great words.

       Even the CIA discovered them!  Apparently they liked them so well that they have become the motto of that very secretive, very un-free organization.  (Which makes one wonder if they were sincerely -- or just cynically -- meant, at the official beginning of that organization in 1947.)

       So, "the truth can make you free."

       But, the truth can also get you in trouble, as the Master well knew.  And St. John, who wrote down the Master's words, knew for a fact that the truth could get you jailed, exiled, or killed by the political establishment.

       Naturally and spiritually, I am encouraged to see people in my own country, and around the world, and myself included, waking up to fresh truth and new insights.  May it be.

       But may I offer a word of prudence?

       The political establishments of the world are not likely to have warm, fuzzy feelings about this trend.  At least they never have before.

       It might be time to dust off the old Boy Scout motto, "Be prepared."  Or the Master's words about "Counting the Cost."

Three Good Reasons Not to Like the "Good Doctor"

Guest post by Hobbert Ryde


1

He accuses our very own Wealth Cartel of Dirty Money.

2

He accuses our very own War Cartel of Dirty Murders.

3

He accuses our very own Show and Tell Cartel of Dirty Lies.

I'd say that's reasons enough.  But wait, there's more.

4

Your so-called "Good Doctor" is All Wrong.

And that's good news for all the rest of us.  There aren't any bad guys over here; they're all over there.  I heard it on Fox News.  Hell, I heard it at church, and you don't get any truer than that, buddy.

I can personally tell you right now how I know that your so-called "Good Doctor" doesn't know anything.  All he was ever trained to do was to look at sick people, figure out what was wrong with them, and try to get them well.  What a brainless dweeb.  I mean, what could be easier than that?  That right there tells you he was just in it for the easy money.

And he's wasted a big part of his life taking care of women, and babies.

And a guy like that should be . . . President??

We need a man's man right now.  Somebody with real balls, like George W. Bush, or General Petraeus, or Rick Santorum.
. . 

(Psst! What's a "cartel"?)

*       *       *

Comments welcome.

The Outlook For The New Year

       I know that lots of good folks find it hard to believe their friends and relatives.  I have lots of friends and relatives who have a hard time believing me.  And come to think of it, I have a hard time believing them.  So let's just call it a wash.

       But would you take a few moments to follow this link to Paul Craig Roberts' post?

       Thirty years ago, Dr. Roberts was active in government.  In fact, he was a respected Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration.  His professional credentials (as a political economist) and his love for America are beyond any reasonable dispute.

       If you seriously disagree with what he has to say, I welcome your making a credible case for your viewpoint.  And always, comments are most welcome:  pro, con, funny, serious, or just plain otherwise.

The Resurrection Of The Constitution

       I write this for my Christian libertarian friends.

       In an essay published in 2002 Joseph Sobran wrote:   "In short, the U.S. Constitution is a dead letter. It was mortally wounded in 1865. The corpse can’t be revived. This remained hard for me to admit, and even now it pains me to say it."

       To me, Joe Sobran has the stature of a political prophet, and I take his words to heart.  He knows whereof he speaks:  "The corpse can't be revived."

       Nevertheless, I wish to offer two encouraging words about the Constitution's future.  But I begin, instead, with a meditation on Holy Scripture.

       It is written that the following words were spoken by the Lord of All Worlds, of whom it is also written that His words shall never pass away:

An evil and adulterous generation 

seeketh after a sign; 

and there shall no sign be given to it, 

but the sign of the prophet Jonas: 

For as Jonas was 

three days and three nights in the whale's belly; 

so shall the Son of man be 

three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

The men of Nineveh 

shall rise in judgment with this generation, 

and shall condemn it: 

because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; 

and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. 

The queen of the south 

shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, 

and shall condemn it: 

for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth 

to hear the wisdom of Solomon; 

and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

       The Lord of All Worlds here demonstrates His ability to bring all manner of disparate things together in one speech, in His one consciousness:  an Evil and Adulterous Generation (then living but now dead these past two thousand years); a disobedient but beloved Prophet; a remarkable Whale; Himself; the Heart of the Earth; the Men of Nineveh; the Queen of the South; the Judgment; the Wisdom of Solomon; and a Greater Than Solomon.

       He seems to be indicating that by some means known to Himself, He will bend Time and Space in such a way that at the Judgment, people of one generation will be able to confront the people of another. All of Reality, it would seem, will be able to perceive Itself with a remarkable clarity.  Interesting.

       May I suggest a further word of my own, which might, by some logic, follow from the previous words.

The Founding Fathers 

will rise in judgment with this generation, 

and shall condemn it:  

because they ordained a Constitution 

to protect, guide, and inspire you.  

They thought to restrain you 

from your lust for power and control over others, 

and guard your own liberties 

by defending the equal liberties of your neighbor; 

and you would not be restrained, 

and you would not be guarded.

       And to this I add a second word:  

The Constitution will have its day.  

       I truly believe this.

       The day of judgment is already upon us in the United States, as it is written:  Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision.  May the judgment fall first and hardest upon the usurpers of power and the deadly wolves; may the foolish sheeple learn from their circumstances and be spared the worst.  But come what may, if the precious rights and the holy vision remain in the hearts of a few, the spirit is preserved and the resurrection may come.

       Do I speak merely as a wishful thinker?  I do not.

       At the commencement of the Nineteenth Century, Napoleon Bonaparte was quoted as having said,  "All religions have been made by men."  And in the arrogance of his own self-anointing, he brought the scourge of war and death to all of Europe.  Nevertheless, he is also quoted as saying, "The Bible is no mere book, but a Living Creature, with a power that conquers all that oppose it."  Did he actually say this?  How would I know?  But if he didn't say it, he should have; because it came literally true upon his own head.

       In the middle of the Twentieth Century, in my father's day, Joseph Stalin said sarcastically of the Pope, "The Pope! How many divisions has he got?"  I'm not sure Stalin or anyone else ever got around to counting them, however few or many there were; but forty years later, in my own lifetime, they were enough to dismantle his entire Soviet empire.

       Courage, friends.  Napoleon's god was War, and the Bible defeated him.  Stalin's god was the Monster, and the Church defeated him.

       The tyranny of today is Mammon.  You cannot serve God and Mammon.  Against Mammon is the Spirit of the Lord.  And where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty.

       I believe that the Spirit of the Constitution will prevail.  In time.

*       *       *

       I first drafted this post a year ago, in December 2010, but never published it.  It seems appropriate to do so now, what with the latest kicking of the corpse by the Congress, the President, the Republicans, the Democrats, the Christians, the Jews, and the others.

       There is a famous essay by Albert Jay Nock, published in 1936 during another dark time for the people and their liberties.  Read  Isaiah's Job, and discover "The Remnant."

       And if you would like to form your own opinion of the validity of the Vision of George Washington, you can do so.