Simple virtual reality (VR) photographs, sometimes known as spherical panoramas, are all around us. A few years ago, they were novelties used in special effects productions, advertising, and other niche applications. Now they are frequently used in common applications like Google Street View, games, Facebook, and so on, and smartphones provide an easy way to view them. Specialized hardware can even be used to extend the effect to 3D, but the basic idea of looking around the inside of a sphere remains a useful variation of the standard flat picture.
I dabble with making VRs for fun, especially of waterfalls, because doing so reveals other beautiful things. As scenic as most waterfalls are, they are often in surroundings that are also striking. Lush canyons, austere cliff faces, and so on. When we take a single still picture, the surroundings are rarely included. By taking a VR, other elements become visible. It’s as if you are there, and can look around and appreciate the whole environment.
In almost any situation, VRs capture a more complete, and in some ways more honest representation of a scene. This has been used in journalism, for example. When taking a standard picture, simply framing the shot is an editorial decision. What to include versus what to leave out influences how the viewer responds, what they learn, and so on. This sort of thing can have profound influence on how one interprets a scene. Even if all someone wants to do is provide information, the simple act of framing changes how the information is interpreted. Perspective is important, and VRs illustrate that. Continue reading
One of the nagging mysteries of modern physics is something called the “Fine-tuned Universe” question. It has to do with the fact that our universe has properties that are exactly what’s needed for life to exist. However, our best understanding of these properties seems to indicate that it’s much more likely for the universe to be simpler, so much simpler that life could not exist, so that it’s incredibly unlikely to have just the right properties. The reason for this has to do with the nature of physical laws and how they depend on a small number of constants that seem to have random values. There seems to be no reason for the constants to have the values that they do have, so out of all possible values, why these very particular ones?
Sometimes we become so used to the way things work that we don’t even realize when there are options. Yet simple thought experiments can reveal possibilities that we would never see if we just rearrange normal daily experiences. In this essay, we’ll consider such a thought experiment to see what we can learn about relationships and the way all living beings interact, and consider what it might look like to turn a fundamental aspect of life upside down. 
In the continuing comparison of natural and supernatural views of reality, we’ve considered some fairly philosophical perspectives. However, for these things to be real, we would expect clear manifestations, some evidence in the natural world. It may or may not be strictly testable, but there should be some ramification. In this essay, we’ll consider an example of what we might expect, drawn from a movie.
For the past few years, I’ve been pondering religion “versus” science issues and have worked out an initial attempt of what seems reasonable to me. This post summarizes the ideas as a starting point for more detailed exploration, both with study and discussion with others. The basic idea is that it is a finely balanced choice, more finely balanced than most like to admit. The goal here is to be able to articulate why to make a particular choice, rather than just say “It’s how i was raised”, or “I like this”, or “I don’t like that”, etc. It’s an attempt at a rational perspective. 
Kelvin's Clouds 