Does God have a meaning?

 Lets discuss in epistemological terms to begin with.

First and foremost comes the Semantics. Semantics is the study of meaning. If we say, “this is a window” it would mean that the window has a “meaning” associated with it. We can then talk about its “existence” and discuss whether we “know” that “this is a window”. In other words, a word should have at least a semantic “meaning” before we can even talk about its “existence” and speculate about our “knowledge” of it thereafter.

If there is a window within my reach and I am not blind, I may claim in great certainty that “I know this is a window”. Or if I am not certain, I may say things like “I am not sure if that bright thing on that tower 2 km. from here is a window reflecting the sun, or a mirror’”. Hence we can speculate about observable things on their meaning and sometimes test our knowledge later even if our knowledge was not full beforehand. We could do so because we associated a “meaning” to a “window” to begin with.

So a word alone, such as “XYZ” does not mean anything, the word “God” included. Therefore God needs a meaning just like other words in our native tongue. If we can’t associate a “meaning” to God the discussion is over.

Even “un-knowableness” requires a “meaning” of, what we don’t know. Hence without a meaning associable to God, we cannot even begin a discussion whether “Joe is an agnostic”.

Lets now discuss the notion of whether we can find God in quantum realm.

I am assuming we all have sufficient knowledge of Quantum Physics. In a nutshell quantum realm is currently beyond our directly observable and measurable Universe. Quantum Physics is the science of studying “very small” particles or strings that fluctuate and make other particles. What we know about them is we can’t measure their position or momentum at the same time and they fluctuate. Also when we make an observation on them their wave function collapses (more on wave function is a little later). But the good news is we can indirectly confirm our assumptions about quanta. We developed technologies such as Laser beam, and MRI based on Quantum Mechanics.

You see, quanta moves around and change their position and can even appear to co-exist in two places at the same time (see double-slit experiment, entanglement). We know these by indirect observations. So each quantum has a wave function, a probabilistic wave that defines probabilistically where about it can or it is likely to be going as a path in space-time fabric. When an observation is made the wave function collapses, i.e. one of the harmonics of the wave becomes reality and we cannot say with certainty which one beforehand. This knowledge depends on overall probability profile of the wave-function and how all harmonics of the probability wave for different paths overlapped to form the resultant wave function in space-time (see Feynman’s sum of histories).

Considering that we are all quanta implies that there is a finite (non-zero) probability that all of my particles, my atoms, protons, neutrons, quarks, etc. can go through that solid wall in front of me (don’t try this at home). According to Quantum Physics even if it is miniscule there is a finite probability that this can happen. But the fact is, and this point is critical for religious to understand, if that happens the wave function still has to collapse.

In other words we should have the sensation that we are going through the wall. Macroscopically we shall be intact, it was just the coincidence that all of our particles agreed to collapse on this weird wave function at a particular point in the history of our Universe. We still have “meaning”, because our information making us was preserved during our weird voyage through the wall. It is weird because it had tiny probability to happen, but it was not impossible, never.

It is important to note that quantum does not bear information. We have information only when a quantum’s wave function collapses and all the information about a foam of quanta is smeared onto the fabric of reality. We observe this as a macroscopic matter or as a form of energy (both often lead to the same). Or if information falls inside a black-hole some speculated that it could have been smeared onto its event horizon, Hawking predicted and confirmed with observation that information may even leak from it (Hawking radiation). Lets not drift too much.

So if God is an entity residing in the quantum realm it does not and cannot have information/orderness therefore it cannot have intelligence, since information is a necessary (but not sufficient condition) for intelligence. I am not sure if this idea would appeal to anyone.

If on the other hand God has information and/or intelligence then this requires that its wave function must have collapsed already, it is “already outside” the quantum realm.

If God is outside then we are entitled to ask these questions:

• God is outside our observable Universe.
• God is somewhere in our observable Universe but we haven’t observed it yet. 
• We have observed God but we haven’t qualified it as God.
• God does not exist.

The problem with the first three is, either way we need the assistance of semantics in order to qualify say Andromeda galaxy as God or even what we haven't observed is God.

We know that for instance Andromeda has finite set of matter and energy that are measurable to a degree of certainty. We also know that Andromeda is a galaxy hence has a meaning based on properties common to other galaxies. But unless we know what God's meaning is, we cannot be sure if Andromeda is in fact God.

This leaves us with the third option.

User Interface Development Tips

My over two decades long background is in real-time/server side programming. 


Nowadays I am working almost entirely on GUI products. I am building a Visual Studio like IDE at work. On the other hand MiniBluebox, the home-grown project I develop part-time also involves user interface design.

For years I had the usual conviction that "GUI programming is dumb". But I found that it is actually the opposite. It is equally hard if not harder than server side programming, not necessarily in programming terms though.

The hardest bit may involve a mindset change, a realisation in full humbleness that no matter how smart you are, your usability perception as a developer is a much smaller component than what users usability expectations are. 

You need to get interaction design right, and that often involves user engagement. It is not something you can imagine and expect it to work for everyone.

The ultimate tips I may disclose are, 

1. Get as many field trials as possible. Be humble and let users be brutal in their criticism. Make sure your product website attracts feedback from users. Be an observant and listener. Try to understand what makes them happy or stressed out and then groom out the UI accordingly.
2. There may be tensions between usability and performance. Almost always favor usability if performance penalty is bearable.
3. Don't be scared of cutting out controls. Think this way if I remove this button or replace it with a slider control what would happen. Would that make my user happier. 
4. Make sure to sketch out user personas. Will plumbers, house-wives, executives, game players be using your product. What is the persona or personality that will likely be using your product. There will always be tensions between their usability expectations. You need to come up with a persona that would serve all of them reasonably well. But your persona may be dominated by just one of them. This is more of an art form or a Director's job than a Developer's it may sound. But it is the extra mile that would make a difference. Draw cartoons of him/her. Try to imagine them in their daily life. Try to imagine them, what is crossing their mind, when they sit down before they start your program.

Finally my best kept secret is this and rather than being a mere tip deserves to stand on its own right:

Your ultimate design criterium should be to make users happy about themselves when using your product. They shouldn't feel stupid or unconfident.

Say NO to Indoctrination

Please don't indoctrinate me with religion. Teach me to think for myself.

I would like to draw your attention to the word indoctrinate. Indoctrination is filling a child’s mind with one-sided subjective opinions that do not rely on facts. I guess we may reach an agreement to qualify those opinions and where they originate from as non-factual, mystical, spiritual or supernatural. I don’t mean necessarily they are bad or evil please note.

Influencing someone with non-factual opinions may not always be harmful. If someone believes fairies that glow at night in their backyard, or they believe star signs, or they believe a soul, or a spirit to grant everlasting life these seem pretty harmless and we should tolerate them.

Also if someone takes only peaceful messages from a religion and ignores the evil parts such as disrespecting or killing others, then perhaps pains religions inflicted in human beings throughout history may be set aside; we then may consider such benign realisations as cultural nuances, embrace those individuals, say “good for you”, and move on.

But it is one thing that a child believes in Santa Claus, it is another thing if you teach them other religions are evil and he should one day blow himself up and kill as many as possible from the other side for reserving a good seat in heaven.

Or it is one thing to teach peaceful attributes of a religion and respect for others and it is another thing to inflict hostility in the heart of an innocent child by labelling all other religions as fake and their believers inferior.

Or it could be another thing to teach a child all religions and atheism in the context of ethics and objective history along with science and theory of evolution, and eventually let them decide whichever religion to believe or not to believe anything at all.

The issue here is not about legislating how parents should raise their kids but whether world nations should any longer endorse religious indoctrination through publicly or privately funded faith schools.

In Britain recently the UK Government passed a law to abolish public funding of faith schools. This is an important step if we want to build peaceful democratic societies.

This is also a clear message from a Western government on the dangers of sponsoring faiths schools, which often singlehandedly indoctrinate kids with hatred and cause painful segregation inside the larger civil society they breed within.

Hence this is in my opinion the way the message on the billboard should be read.

Children are pillars of our future. Can we afford to let them be raised in intolerance?

Put another way do we need to tolerate the intolerant?

Just as we don’t indoctrinate children with racism and holocaust denial we should not indoctrinate them with subjective one-sided religious thinking, fear mongering, bigotry and hatred for others.

It is wrong.

I think anyone with common sense, religious or non-religious alike, would see merits of these arguments.

Recasting Malthusian Theory

The researches estimate that the carbon legacy of the average female in the United States is 18,500 tonnes of CO₂ while that of a Bangladeshi woman is only 136 tonnes.

In other words, the future stream of carbon emissions following a decision by an American couple to have an extra child is 130 times greater that of a decision by a Bangladeshi couple.

Put another way, to have the same impact on future global carbon emissions, a decision by one American couple not to have a child would have to be matched by 130 Bangladeshi couples.

Therefore it makes no sense to single out population growth without linking people to their expected consumption.

Recognising that it is affluence rather than population growth that is mainly responsible for the climate crisis allows us to recast the famous Malthusian theory.

References:

Requiem for a Species – Clive Hamilton
Malthusian Catastrophe - Wikipedia

A1F1

I am reading a book called Requiem for a Species¹ by Clive Hamilton. 

In Hamilton's terms: 

"This book is about why we have ignored those (Climate Change) warnings, so that now it is too late." 

In the 1990’s the IPCC² developed a number of scenarios to reflect future influences on emissions and associated warming. The worst-case scenario is known as A1F1.

In A1F1 IPCC anticipated growth in CO₂ emissions of 2.5% per annum through to 2030, yet we have seen that from around 2000 global emissions began growing at 3% a year.

The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, published in 2007, narrowed the likely range of warming to 2.4 to 4.6°C above pre-industrial levels by 2100 if we do nothing.

The upper limit of 4.6°C became the most likely outcome for the A1F1 scenario since emissions grew faster than projected by IPCC in 1990’s.

Climate scientists believe that the temperature threshold that would bring about the melting of the Greenland icesheet is between 1°C and 3°C, in other words well below the 4.6°C warming level expected under A1F1.

Melting of the Greenland icesheet would eventually result in the world’s oceans rising by around seven meters, dramatically redrawing the geography of the Earth.

A recent study³ concluded that a 4°C rise in the Earth's average temperature would kill of 85% of the Amazon rainforest, and that even a 2°C rise, now seen as unavoidable, will see 20-40% of it dies off.

References:

1. Requiem for a Species – Clive Hamilton

2. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
3. David Adam, 'Amazon could shrink by 85%, die to climate change, scientists say', Guardian, 11 March 2009.