Pascal's Wager

First, a note about football (since I'm watching MNF at the moment):  I LOVE defense!  Sacks, interceptions, forced fumbles, mega-hits, goal-line stands...  That's unrelated to the rest of this post, but I needed to share it.

Moving on, today we discuss a philosophical notion called Pascal's Wager, named after French philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal.  You may recognize this name from 8th grade algebra (his eponymous triangle is instrumental in polynomial expansion), and we engineers of course love Pascal the unit (a fairly small measure of stress or pressure; the yield strength of structural steel is 250,000,000 Pa; atmospheric pressure is roughly 100,000 Pa).  Pascal's Wager, interestingly enough, was not publicized until after his death, when many of his surviving notes were compiled into the Pensées, a collection of thoughts arranged in somewhat random order.

A disclaimer before I continue:  I'm not trying to convince you of anything or sway you from your beliefs.  I'm simply inviting you to glimpse my own spiritual struggle.

His wager, from note 233, is as follows:

1. God is, or He is not.  (this is a postulate! math rules!)
2. A game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
3. According to reason, you can defend neither proposition.
4. You must wager.  It is not optional.
5. Let us weigh the gain and loss in wagering that God is.  If you win, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
6. Wager then, without hesitation, that He is.

Essentially, his argument boils down to this:  If you assume God exists and live your life so as to please Him, then you are either right, and will be rewarded by heaven, or wrong, and you just die (and perhaps wasted a finite number of hours of your life worshiping a non-entity).  I arrived at this conclusion back in elementary or middle school and at the time it satisfied me.  The problem, for me, arose out of a couple things.  First, the religion in which I was brought up professes that one must have faith in God in order to be granted admittance to His Kingdom.  Sounds easy enough, except that one can't convince oneself to have faith.  That's part of the definition of faith (here's the definition my pastor supplied: "belief that is not based on proof").  So, with Pascal's Wager in mind (I didn't realize this concept even had a name until only a couple years ago), I felt like I had a gun to my head and no right answer.  It's not faith if I'm doing it out of coercion, and I can't convince myself rationally that God exists.

I'm going to interject a note here to keep you believers reading.  I'm talking about myself here.  I pass no judgment on your faith or religion so long as you don't go around trying to make people believe the same way you do.

So I have been thinking recently that since I can't force myself to be a believer, my options are either damnation until the End of Days or simply absolute and final death, which are both horrifying.  (I'm not going to touch how complicated this gets when we introduce multiple religions, but you can see it gets quite convoluted)  I read more on the subject, and found counter-opinions of Pascal's philosophy.  Richard Dawkins, a British scientist, argues that living for God and a religion will make one tend to live a less fulfilling and good life (he cites holy wars, forced conversions, bigotry based on religious tenets, etc.).  I'm not going to go that far, but I am reassured by this passage by Richard Carrier, which I ripped off of Wikipedia:


"Suppose there is a god who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. For all others are untrustworthy, being cognitively or morally inferior, or both. They will also be less likely ever to discover and commit to true beliefs about right and wrong. That is, if they have a significant and trustworthy concern for doing right and avoiding wrong, it follows necessarily that they must have a significant and trustworthy concern for knowing right and wrong. Since this knowledge requires knowledge about many fundamental facts of the universe (such as whether there is a god), it follows necessarily that such people must have a significant and trustworthy concern for always seeking out, testing, and confirming that their beliefs about such things are probably correct. Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven — unless god wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy."


Though the preceding passage was rather irreverently worded (Carrier is an evangelical Atheist), I tend to believe it.  I think it's hard to deny that there are religious fanatics who, either out of blind faith, or a cold desire to subjugate others to their will, commit acts of evil.  On the flip side, there are unwashed heathens who, though not living in accordance with any particular religious philosophy, sincerely wish to do good.


Let us simply always be ever willing to challenge our own beliefs regularly in order to ensure that they make sense and cause us to do good instead of evil.


In the future, I think I might discuss what differentiates good from evil (philosophers like me call this ethics) but right now I'm spent.


On another Pascal-related note, I've had some people ask me what a fractal is lately (generally after I explain to them that the blown-up-specimen-slide-looking pictures hanging in my living room are fractals).  Fractals are repetitions of a pattern, as on a snowflake, or in this case, appropriately enough, Pascal's Triangle.

Pascal's Triangle is also cool in that it looks like a bunch of Triforces.  Yes, that was a Zelda reference.

Videos

I've ripped a page out of the Tosh.0 Playbook.  I'm going to give you some commentary on a few videos I've seen lately.  Some hate, some humor.  Here goes:

Commercial One: Nissan Leaf






















Shame on you, Nissan.  You might have a leg to stand on here if our country weren't afraid of nuclear power. But as it stands right now, most energy in the US comes from fossil fuels (coal is number one; natural gas, number two).  So even if you buy the argument that human CO2 emissions are raising global temperatures and killing the polar bears, it's not as if buying a Nissan Leaf and plugging it into your coal-powered wall outlet in your garage is helping out.

Commercial Two: DirecTV

This commercial is an excellent philosophical critique of the dilemmas we all face in our modern society.  The spokesman articulates perfectly what we all feel: "I like the best... but I also like savings de money."

Video One: Big Girls Don't Cry

This one is just classic.  This is their performance on the Ed Sullivan Show.  Yes, it looks old and somewhat silly, but it's respectable and plain awesome in a way that's hard to describe.  An oldie but goodie.  What follows is an oldie but... er.... yeah....  Suffice it to say, I don't think these guys will ever be described as classic.

Video Two: Grammy Awards, 1990



Of course as usual, I will leave you with a detailed analysis of a pressing current event:

Apparently there's big money in bedbugs now.  Indeed, 250 people are on the waiting list for this year's Bedbug University North American Summit.  (We industry insiders just call it BUNAS).  For my part, I've been working on an invention called PsiBug that telepathically controls bedbugs instead of killing them, making them gently nibble away excess earwax and painstakingly clean your hair (among other chores that can be programmed in with the attached iPad or smartphone).  Expect it to hit the retail shelves in time for the Christmas shopping season!

Eldritch

I'd like to introduce the word of the month.  Bear in mind "word of the month" is not a commitment to provide a new word every month.  It just sounds better than "word."

Eldritch (adj): unearthly, alien, supernatural, weird, spooky, eerie

I think eldritch is an exceptional word that most people never get to use.  So I'm going to attempt to overreact to this by using it all the time!

Examples:
"Your cat let out an eldritch screech when I stepped on its foot."
"These shrooms are totally eldritch brah!"
"Math is eldritch."

Go ahead!  Enjoy this new and exciting word!  Try to use it in a sentence this week!

Religious Freedom or Whatever... Also Pirates

Icebreaker:  Is "religious freedom" an oxymoron?  Think about it....


In any case, the 1500 year-old war between Christianity and Islam has been in the news spotlight lately.  Two related (and now intertwined) events are the proposed construction of a large Muslim center near Ground Zero in Lower Manhattan and a certain church in Gainesville, FL whose pastor thinks it would be a good idea to publicly set alight a couple hundred copies of the Quran.  Note for the sake of truth:  As of today, it seems pastor Terry Jones has agreed not to proceed with the book-burning in exchange for a phone call from the White House (which he got from the SecDef) and the cancellation of the Ground Zero Muslim center project (which its developer adamantly claims he will not get).  Where this thing goes from here is anybody's guess.  Here are my thoughts, which I invite you to read and then argue with.


Everyone needs to chill the f*ck out.


Muslims: does it damage your relationship with God at all if someone halfway across the world from you sets a book on fire?  Does it hurt your family?  Does it cause you to lose money or food?  Will it cause your favorite sports team to lose?  How does this planned Quran-burning really affect you?


Christians: Are you f*ing serious?  I'm not disturbed by a redneck preacher in North Florida wanting to burn books they don't agree with.  That's not a new thing in the United States - we have always had a religious fringe that loves to scorch and squelch knowledge they don't like such as copies of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Origin of Species.  What bothers me are the hundreds of Qurans that people across the country have mailed to this guy to have him burn.  Do you really think this is the way to prove to people that your way is right?


These would be my thoughts if we weren't currently engaged in a war whose purpose is to establish a pro-US democracy in a Muslim Central Asia.  In light of the fact that we are, in fact, in such a war, here's an additional thought:


Are you out of your mind?  How does this burning help anyone's cause?  It doesn't reduce the number of Muslim  extremists in the world.  It doesn't make people any more attuned to the fact that these Muslim extremists want to kill them.  All this stunt serves to do is enrage Muslims everywhere, and it push the ones who were teetering on the edge right over from the Religious Zealot category into the Jihadi category.  Epic win for al Qaeda.

"We need to speak up against sin and call the people to repentance. Abortion is murder. Homosexuality is sin. We need to call these things what they are and bring the world the true message: that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.  Any religion which would profess anything other than this truth is of the devil." (From the Florida church's website)

Never in history have people with this kind of rhetoric ever produced anything but violence and pain.

As for the Mosque at Ground Zero, here's my message.  Quit trying to instigate.  Go build your giant Muslim center in a place a little less sensitive.  Grow up.  You don't see Americans building Statues of Liberty in Hiroshima or monuments to the courage of the US Cavalry at Wounded Knee.  And the Empire didn't build a palace on the ruins of the Jedi Temple.  That said, if you don't think a mosque should be built at ground zero, fine.  Keep it to yourself.  If you own the property, build whatever you want on it, in accordance with the zoning laws.  You bought that privilege when you bought the property.


Earlier today, Donald Trump offered to buy out one of the developers for this project for 25% more than it cost him.  Props to Donald for (a) trying to diffuse the situation in your own nonviolent, mature way and (b) raising the value of a chunk of Manhattan property by 25%.  The developer declined, which leads me to believe that his agenda is not making money (as it is with legitimate developers) but starting a commotion.  Shame on you.


I'm not going to delve much further into this subject because then I might start offering my views on religion and holy books and what not.  And as nobody in the world is restricted from reading this (potential employers or soul-mates included), I'd probably better save that discussion for a gathering over a few beers.  I might say something I regret.


Bottom line: everyone get over yourself.


Now, for pirates:


The US Marines just recently seized control of a German cargo vessel from Somali pirates, capturing nine of them in a raid that resulted in no shots fired or injuries to anyone (props to them for that).  Now the issue at hand is what to do with these nine delinquents.  International maritime law is ambiguous and its laws make trying and punishing piracy extremely difficult.  I offer the Miller compromise:  When pirates are captured, release them on the spot.  Tell them, of course that they are no longer welcome on that vessel and must disembark immediately.  In the middle of the ocean.  Done and done.

Some Quotes

Anecdote follows: I have always liked the quote "he who defends everything defends nothing."  It's one of those axioms that puts into words what has long been a nebulous thought of mine.  As I researched to find out the origin of this gem, I learned it was none other than Frederick II the Great (not to be confused with Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, who was, by all accounts, not as great).  The attribution of this quote to Frederick II makes sense to those of us who have ever had an interest in military history, as he is regarded by many (maybe just me, actually) as the father of maneuver warfare, which he developed in Prussia, using principles like interior lines to maximize his economy of force.  This evolved into German Blitzkrieg and American Airmobile and later Air-Land Doctrine.  Yet I digress....


As I was researching, I learned that old Frederick II (der alte Fritz, as he's known in the Sudetenland), has articulated plenty of other thoughts that generally provoke me to thought.  Here are a few:


"All religions must be tolerated... for every man must get to heaven in his own way."
See my first post, Postulate 2.  It follows that (2. b.) one ought to live and let live.


"If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one of them would remain in the army."
Forsooth... which is why I'm not cut out for the Army.


"The greatest and noblest pleasure which we have in this world is to discover new truths, and the next is to shake off old prejudices."
Amen.  Postulate 1.


"Religion is the idol of the mob; it adores everything it does not understand."
Right?  Perfect example of the latter half of this quote: Vanilla Sky... just make a nonsense film and claim it's artsy and deep and since people don't understand it they will love it.  Other examples include: (1) Every English paper for which I've ever received an A.  Seems the more nonsensical my work is to me, the more the teacher makes of it.  To those of you still in college: the best way to succeed in creative writing is to confuse your teacher. (2) The Fountainhead.  Not so much an example in itself, but filled with stories of nonsense that people think is great because they don't realize that they don't get it because there's nothing to get.


"My people and I have come to an agreement which satisfied us both. They are to say what they please, and I am to do what I please."
Well put.  Note to self: become King of Prussia.


"What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?"
So, I decided to start a blog.


"I begin by taking. I shall find scholars later to demonstrate my perfect right."
At least he's honest about it.


Finally, here's another important quote to me, brought to you by Creed, that shady old guy in The Office:


"If I can't Scuba, then what's this all been about?  What am I working toward?"

Welcome

I don't give a damn what you think of my blog.

That's not true, actually.  I haven't quite reached the level of self actualization that will allow me to concern myself with only myself.  I'd like to get there, but it isn't easy.  So, please leave me your comments as I begin this thing.  Then maybe I won't forget about it in a few weeks' time.

This blog is not special.  It is one of tens of thousands of stream of consciousness musings that are posted to the internet daily around the world, some more read than others.  It's special to me, though, because these are my stream of consciousness musings.  Please offer your thoughts so that I can consider them thoughtfully - or laugh at them.

My first musing will discuss my philosophy on life, which shall color all of my future publicized thoughts.  I've felt compelled to write down my philosophy lately in order to preserve it and refer to it, and so I can check back now and then and see if my course has changed.  Here goes:

Some facts or statements require no justification and are simply self-evident.  In math, we call these postulates.  In religion, a set of such statements might be called a creed.  Postulates are taken as truth because there is no way to prove them; it simply makes sense to accept them as the basis for more sophisticated arguments.  Here are my postulates.  Pay close attention, as they seem hard to follow for some people:

1.  Truth is good.
2.  Life is good.

From these postulates, I will derive one simple proof each.  In the future, I may derive further proofs for your amusement, but they may be excessively complicated.

1. a. The propagation of truth is good.


2. a. Death is bad.

These principles drive my life and are the basis for most of my frustration - because it seems certain people take issue with both.  Some people think the truth is offensive or out to get them.  Some people want to die so they can go to heaven or wherever.  The worst kind of people want others to die to hide truth (so far, I haven't had to interact with many of these people, which is good for me).

Thank you for your time.