With so many different viewpoints and sources of information today, how can we best tell when something is true? That’s a big question, but one helpful thing is to notice when separate lines of evidence converge to a consistent answer.
One of the problems with interpreting sources is avoiding confirmation bias. This is when we look for sources that say what we already think. It’s a very common human trait and is largely amplified by social media and today’s biased news sources.
Continue readingWe seem to find beauty in unlikely places. Evolution says we should be attracted to those things that benefit us, and so it seems that we should find beauty in those things that support flourishing. However, we also sometimes find beauty in things like austere mountain peaks, desolate lunar wastelands, and sometimes even in dying foliage.
For example, one of the most common pictures of the end of summer, the shortening of daylight, is fall colors, yet these represent life being pulled back from the leaves in order to prepare for the coming season of scarcity. Hardly a cheery thought, and yet it’s considered an iconically beautiful scene.
In a like manner, this scene struck me as beautiful even though it features flowers that are in decline.
This sense is sometimes explained as our evolutionarily-bequeathed aesthetics misfiring, being activated incorrectly. In this line of thought, what we perceive as something wonderful, is really just a mistake.
Continue readingHere’s a famous question: “What is the meaning of life?”
The question captures a basic human yearning for relevance, to know that there is a purpose to our existence.
Some assert that the purpose is what we make it, that we invent it. Others claim that it is the result of searching, something we discover. In the end, the choice between these two views is an individual one.
But another way to look at it is whether purpose and meaning is strictly personal, or whether there is a community aspect to it. Since no one lives completely as an island, it seems that the most complete answer is to be part of a shared purpose, one that allows individual expression but yet is part of something greater.
Continue readingThe term “Kelvin’s Clouds” is a reference to a famous lecture given by Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) in 1900. It is often used to illustrate the limits of physics. I use it as the title of this blog as a reminder of the humility needed when considering fundamental questions about reality and the human condition.
Lord Kelvin was a famous scientist after whom the Kelvin temperature scale was named. On April 27, 1900, he delivered the Friday Evening Lecture at the Royal institution in London. In that lecture, he described two urgent challenges of conventional physics regarding “the theory of heat and light”. One of the challenges had to do with the luminiferous ether, and the other with something called the equipartition of energy. He described each of these problems as “clouds”.1
The first cloud, regarding the ether, was resolved with the development of the theory of special relativity. The second cloud was resolved with the development of quantum physics. The development of these two new branches of physics completely redefined our understanding of reality.2
Today, we face a larger, even growing, set of clouds. For example, a theory called “M-theory”, which was hoped to unify relativity and quantum mechanics, has not been supported by the latest particle physics experiments, leaving a whole host of questions without a clear path to solution. Other examples exist both within and outside physics such that we clearly need to be careful when making assertions of absolute truth.
In particular, metaphysical views are often held with deep certainty even though Kelvin’s Clouds should teach us that we need to be humble and constantly learning. Questions regarding science and religion are often contentious, but it seems clear that we really don’t know enough about the world to be certain about things like the existence of God, the ultimate nature of consciousness and humanity, whether life has purpose and meaning beyond what we give it, and so on.
Of course, over time we will continue to learn and perhaps some clouds will be eliminated, perhaps some mysteries will be solved. But, maybe not all. Maybe there are fundamental limits to our ability to know.
In either case, we can’t just throw up our hands until everything is clear, we need to decide how to live in the face of uncertainty, to prioritize and make decisions in life. We each need some perspective, some worldview to make sense of what we do know.
Ideally, one’s worldview would be informed by a variety of perspectives, constantly learning and (when necessary) adapting, and rational without being dogmatic.
The goal of this blog is to explore my own views on science and faith, hopefully in a way that embodies those principles.
(1) many references to this speech describe Kelvin’s second cloud as having to do with block body radiation, but that is incorrect. A good description of the speech and its history can found in this paper: Oliver Passon , “Kelvin’s clouds”, American Journal of Physics 89, 1037-1041 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1119/10.0005620
(2) In addition, the development of quantum mechanics and relativity have shown us that there may be fundamental limits in our ability to describe reality due to the lack of infinite precision in measurements and the hard limit of the uncertainty principle.
Here is the start of a a framework for exploring photography. I’ve dabbled with photography for years, but have been unsatisfied with the results. Not necessarily aesthetically, but personally. It’s not that I could never produce pictures that were visually attractive, but they just didn’t do anything for me. Or else, I found myself unmotivated by them.
Basically, I found that the fun, and even the challenge, of simply making nice looking pictures wasn’t motivating. This realization may have come about from starting with virtual reality photography. Although I tinkered with standard photography, most of what I made were spherical pictures (virtual reality photos, or VRs). Something was missing, but I still felt drawn to explore it. Continue reading
Photo by Steve Johnson on Pexels.com
Imagine you have a bowl full of little chunks of unknown material. You want to determine what sorts of materials are in the bowl so you decide to sample some and analyze it. You gather a sample from the bowl by placing a magnet in it and removing whatever sticks to it. Upon analysis you discover that everything in the sample is made of metal, and so conclude that all the material in the bowl was metal.
Do you see anything wrong with this scenario? Continue reading
This is Majestic Falls, in McDowell Creek Falls area, taken on a morning that was supposed to be cloudy but turned out sunny. Fortunately we made it there before the sun became a problem. Taken with a long exposure, the falling water appears silky smooth, almost like a wisp.
This photographic approach is very popular. One reason may simply be the aesthetic of silky smoothness. But also, something about this style seems to capture what we feel when we see a waterfall — the sense of pure unbroken flow.
In other words, the smooth lines of flowing water give a sense of what we experience, but may not be an accurate representation of what we physically see.
I think this is an interesting distinction — the difference between what we observe with physical senses, and what we consciously understand. What is the difference between what we see, and what we perceive? It’s tempting to think that what we see with our eyes is the “real” waterfall, and perception is not. But if the perception does represent something of what we experience, isn’t that also real?
It is as real as our own sense of identity and awareness. It’s as real as we are as individuals.
In other words, if the picture captures anything of what you experience when looking at the waterfall, then it is as real as you are, as the people you know, as the relationships in your life. Not physical things, but real nonetheless. And in many cases, those things that are most important.
In searching to understand natural worldviews, one of the things that keeps coming up is the need to develop a system of morals. Ethics is generally part of religious worldviews, but it seems generally accepted that ethics in a natural worldview are developed from reasoning, logic, and some sort of shared values. For example, sentience is often considered valuable, so that particular shared value can form the basis of an ethics.
After looking at several rational, naturalistic approaches to defining values and morals, I’m left wondering about the general approach taken in developing these frameworks. One of the common elements seems to be that they are based on an assumption that the process can be approached as a rational exercise. In other words, given one or more shared values as described earlier, one can then apply some sort of logical or rational reasoning or thought process to develop an ethical framework.
The problem with this is that modern psychology and cognitive science have pretty clearly shown that humans are not generally rational, logical thinkers. Mind you, that doesn’t mean that rational thought plays no role at all, simply that it’s only one of several things that go into our mental processing, especially regarding things like setting values.
Seems like this raises a question: Should we really expect human ethical frameworks to be based on rational thought instead of taking into account all that it means to be human? In other words, why should we expect it to be possible to rationally establish human values and morals when humans themselves are not rational? * Continue reading
In a recent photography project, I explored the idea that the way we look at something affects how we interpret it. This is similar to an earlier project that explored the importance of viewpoint, a related topic. In both cases, our personal biases and ways of looking at things influence what we see and how we understand it. It takes deliberate effort to try different perspectives, something that doesn’t come naturally. Yet, some of the most important things in life demand that we do this. For example, understanding someone else’s point of view can greatly strengthen a relationship. The deliberate effort pays off by helping us navigate something that’s inherently complex and subject to misinterpretation. Continue reading
While taking a picture recently that included some beautiful stained glass windows, I learned how difficult it is to make a good picture. The back light through the windows makes it challenging to capture an image that blends with the rest of the scene. The key seems to be balance between the front lighting and the back lighting. If either one is too strong, the result is not beautiful. With only back lighting, the colors are beautiful, but the context of everything is gone. With only front lighting, the picture is clear and balanced with the context, but much of the beauty is gone.
This brought to mind the interplay of the physical and the transcendent, and in particular, how they intersect in the human mind. Continue reading
Kelvin's Clouds 