Happy 50th Birthday to Me!

Today is the golden anniversary of my birth. Needless to say, this is a big deal for me and so it has been the basis of a great deal of introspection on my part. I’ve decided to be completely selfish here and share the results of this contemplation as a commemoration of the event.

The first thing I’ve figured out is that I have an enviable life. I love and am loved by extraordinary people, I have a brilliant mind and at 50 years old I have the body of a super-middleweight contender. And on top of all of that, I absolutely, positively know that I have an ultimate purpose that I am destined to fulfill and which justifies all of the evil and suffering in the world (as do you).

I am smart enough to realize that I didn’t do all of this on my own. I have had people in my life at key points along the way whose influences guided me towards the desirable circumstance that is my life. As such, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the people who, for a variety of reasons have special places in my heart (I’m generally going with first names only but you know who you are):

• Thank you, Lorris (grandma) for being the first manifestation of an Immanent God in my life.
• Thank you, Marianne (mama) for taking over where grandma left off (as the New Testament version) and protecting me from my youthful arrogance and impetuosity which the odds said would kill me well before today.
• Thank you, Ann for being the first person in our family to get university degrees and thus show me that it is possible for people from our humble beginnings.
• Thank you Artie for being “Bo Dean” and “Big Artie”, a reputation that likely kept me from many an ass kicking before I learned to take care of myself.
• Thank you Artie and Lolo for being cautionary examples
• Thank you Darren for removing “the Body of Christ” from your mouth and crunching it like a potato chip after I told you that the nuns said it was sacred (a perfect metaphor for your time in my life).
• Thank you Richard for the kick ass genome.
• Thank you faculty at Our Lady of the Gardens for not treating me like a freak when you found out what my IQ was.
• Thank you Gary, Andre, Tony, Phil B, Baby Brother, James, Artis, BG and the rest of the “little boys” in the Gardens for pushing me to be stronger physically and tougher mentally.
• Thank you Donna for showing me that I could have attractive female friends without needing to have sex with them.
• Thank you Jeffrey and Jeffery for being people I could talk to about anything.
• Thank you Mr. Packer for being so incompetent at 6th grade math as to make it a self-study course in which I learned I could
• Thank you Hazel, Druscilla and Shawnee for being my first crushes.
• I’m sorry Marion for not defending you against the terrible teasing we gave you.
• Thank you Nathaniel, Tyrone and Stanley for bringing OLG to Mendel.
• Thank you Carver for letting me roam your halls while not enrolled there and thus learn how to go anywhere I am not explicitly forbidden to be.
  
• Thank you to my AG home boys for parting company with me when you started doing drugs.
• Thank you Mr. Moss for demanding more of me academically at a time when I could do better.
• Thank you Arthur for "Childhood's End", the first novel I ever had to read that didn't bore the crap out of me
• Thank you Miss Sise for assigning it (and for being my first school boy crush)
  
• Thank you Billy and Andy for being my home boys at Mendel Catholic.
• Thank you James for the JBs
• Thank you Mr. Curtin and Mr. Shields for making me think and write more deeply.
• Thank you Dale, Mike, Henry and Paul for finishing ahead of me in our class.
• Thank you Dzado for finishing behind me.
• Thank you George for the Mothership
• Thank you Nate for the Bell Labs Scholarship and admission to IIT.
• Thank you Chris for bringing some of my class at Mendel to IIT and being my cool roommate.
• Thank you Mark, Danny, Spencer, Cedric, Marc and Wild Dollar Bill for showing me the ropes at IIT.
• Thank you Harold for being everybody’s anchor.
• Thank you Herbie, Grover, Ronnie, Hubert, Roy et al for music to study by.
• Thank you Stevie for the Key of Life.
  
• Thank you all of the girls who dumped me by the 6 month mark.
• Thank you BSO for some great parties.
• Thank you Mr. Drukarev for reminding me that I actually love learning.
• Thank you Johnetta for showing me my emotional limits.
• Thank you Nila for being attractive and compassionate.
• Thank you Greg for making me a comic book addict
  
• Thank you Dr. Kraft for allowing me to see what I could do through senior year and grad school.
• Thank you to all of the Asian students who came to me for help in grad school.
• Thank you Bob for my first real job.
• Thank you Bill for insisting I could do that job.
• Thank you Mike for taking me under your wing at Bell.
• Thank you Nila for asking me the questions that led to Rational Answers
• Thank you Paul for 'Risky Business'
  
• Thank you Jim for saving me from Schaumburg and bringing me into a great group of people.
• Thank you Chris, Mark and John for teaching me that at work the rules are not absolute.
• Thank you Nila for giving me an appreciation for dance (and for 'Live Nude Dancers').
• Thank you Mike and Gary for being my work home boys.
• Thank you Buddy for the '46 Defense' and the 1985 season.
  
• Thank you Andrea for asking if I needed help
• Thank you Kurt for ‘Breakfast of Champions’
• Thank you Nila for Kamaal
• Thank you Gail for delivering Kamaal
  
• Thank you Kamaal for making me grow up
• Thank you Ameritech for letting me go.
• Thank you Fusion for picking me up.
• Thank you Julie for Darwinian consulting, teaching me to juggle and being my favorite boss EVER!
• Thank you Carolyn for confounding me.
• Thank you Marco for showing me I had grown up a bit.
• Thank you Iris for being smart and not knowing it.
• Thank you Jody for pushing me to go to the CBOT
• Thank you Sandy for being authentic
• Thank you Dave for being so much better than your reputation.
• Thank you Nila for reminding me its okay to use my brain away from the office.
• Thank you Nila for Akilah
• Thank you Gail for delivering Akilah
  
• Thank you Akilah for being wonderful
• Thank you Miles for ‘Kind of Blue’
• Thank you Ryan for your persistence.
• Thank you John for your optimism
• Thank you Aaron for being a monstrously cool geek
• Thank you Robin being crazy, yet somehow making it work
• You’re welcome Martin for my suggestion that they make you our boss and thank you for not disappointing me (and for rehiring me later).
• Thank you fellow Web Works / Net Quotient consultants for being a cohort worth going into battle with.
• Thank you Dan for taking a chance
• Thank you Sandy for your generosity
• Thank you Alan, Hal, Paresh, Pooja, Sean, Steve and Todd for being the best software development team ever assembled (and some of my absolute favorite people).
• Thank you Louisa for being awesome
• Thank you Karen for making me think about spirit
• Thank you Sandy for allowing me to live vicariously through your exploits
• Thank you Nila for challenging me
• Thank you Rob for underpaying me and knowing it
• Thank you Rob and John for being there
• Thank you Alan for ‘American Beauty’ and the finale of ‘Six Feet Under’
• Thank you Drea for your honesty.
• Thank you Karen for your insight.
• Thank you Sandy for making time.
• Thank you BlogNigger for trippin’ (and Karen for pointing him out to me)
• Thank you Allison, Jason and Sarah for giving me hope that the generation between me and my kids will be able to keep those plates spinning.

Thank you one and all for helping me become me!!!

Cool Genius

Genius is essentially the capacity to perform at greater than four standard deviations above the mean in a worthwhile area of human endeavor. Cool people can be geniuses and geniuses can become cool. But neither is required to be the other. A cool person who is not a genius simply lacks the level of creativity that distinguishes true genius. A genius who is not cool most likely lacks the courage to endure the trial that often characterizes the path to becoming cool.

Geniuses obviously have the creativity and curiosity to set them out on the road to becoming cool. But most uncool geniuses probably balked at the price that circumstances typically demanded of them in order to remain true to their unconventional nature. In other words, the primary difference between a towering genius and a cowering genius is the heart that the latter lacks.

But it is humanity’s loss each time a genius chooses to cower rather than tower. We all miss out whenever a brilliant idea remains hidden in a mother’s basement or an unpopular girl’s notebook. So much genius is going unrealized in this increasingly complex time when we need it more than ever.

Geniuses are often made to cower in this culture because conformity today represents joining the herd in pursuit of wealth, fame and/or power. It takes a truly courageous individual to resist the pull of the conventional quest for this unholy trinity. This is especially true among geniuses who have unique abilities that sometimes give them a leg up in this pursuit.

Unfortunately, genius is no guarantee of success in amassing wealth, fame and/or power, unless that is the basis of a given individual’s genius. As such, most geniuses who chose to undertake this quixotic quest will eventually wind up cowering unappreciated on the roadside, often complaining about how unfair life is. Ironically, even those who are successful in this pursuit are often left unfulfilled. This is because, in abandoning or compromising their authentic selves in this endeavor, these geniuses rarely achieve their full potential.

What the world needs today are more cool geniuses. We require more brilliant people to eschew the pursuit of wealth, fame and/or power and instead courageously go wherever their genius takes them. We need them to focus on developing their genius to the fullest extent possible, though this may mean a more frugal, more obscure and less influential life than they might otherwise enjoy were they to apply their gifts to the pursuit of the unholy trinity. Once they maximize their potential, we need more of these cool geniuses to dedicate their brilliance to the betterment of those less gifted.

This is by no means a thankless job, though at first glance some may see it as such. In fact, it generally represents the most fulfilling life available to a genius. What could be better than being true to yourself and making your greatest possible contribution to the betterment of the world? If your answer involves something that can only be gained via wealth, fame or power, you are probably already lost to us.

You Might Be a Genius If…

• You might be a genius if you spent a significant portion of your youth wondering why other people could not answer “simple” questions.
• You might be a genius if you see cognitively challenged people as the rule, not the exception.
• You might be a genius if you have stopped looking up to famous geniuses and started relating to them.
• You might be a genius if you see Mensa as a group of posers.
• You might be a genius if the people around you have a variety of self-servingly wrong explanations for why they can’t do the things you can do.
• You might be a genius if you frequently have to dumb it down to keep people from feeling intimidated by you.
• You might be a genius if you often add extra layers to activities you’re engaged in just to make them interesting.
• You might be a genius if it takes a conscious effort on your part to avoid spoiling any attempt to surprise you.
• You might be a genius if you truly believe that insufficient time is the only thing that keeps you from solving any problem that matters to you.
• You might be a genius if words like paradox, unknowable and unsolvable excite you.

The Evolution of Lucifer Morningstar

I used to be a nice guy. Back in the day, I cared about the well-being, feelings and dignity of people I didn’t know. What can I say, I was a slow learner. I kept giving people the benefit of the doubt and they invariably proved to be unworthy of it.

At first I would blame people for disappointing me but after a while I started blaming myself for foolishly expecting more from them. I went through a period of intense anger at all of humanity. During this time I would revel in their pain and suffering because I felt they deserved no less. The only thing that provided me with a temporary respite from the heat of my rage was witnessing the infliction of exquisite physical and psychological torture on the unsuspecting livestock. I became a connoisseur of human agony.

Over time I lost my taste for it as I burned through the worst of my anger. Once I regained some semblance of perspective I decided to seek out special individuals who might prove to be worthy of my hopes for the species. But, having exhausted my anger, I was simply saddened to discover that even these paragons of humanity invariably disappointed me with their inconsistency.

Ultimately I concluded that humans are not special; they are capable of doing special things but at their core they are offal. What makes humans even remotely interesting to me is that given what they are they can occasionally surprise me by acting in a responsibly mature manner.

I have settled into a comfortable feeling of amiable indifference towards humanity. Humans are so wonderfully pointless. As such, I am amused by their incredible sense of self-importance. I find it deliciously ironic that this perception self-importance is keeping humans from actually becoming anything of value to the world around them. It is evident that few, if any of them can appreciate why this is of paramount importance to their continued survival.

I am aware that evolution will eventually produce a truly mature species. Whether or not humans will survive long enough to be the ancestor of that species, rather than simply a genetic dead end, has yet to be determined. After all humans are leading cockroaches by perhaps an antenna in the race to become the species that is the point of Creation.

This evolutionary contest will have an eventual winner whose profound nature will represent the undeniable justification of everything that preceded its emergence. In the cosmic scheme of things, it does not truly matter which species this is. But as long as humans believe it is important that they be that species, they keep themselves from becoming that species.

And so I have come to appreciate my purpose. It is my responsibility to teach humans how little they actually matter. I am charged with freeing them from the shackles of self-importance so that they can focus on their responsibilities to others. It is a job for which I am uniquely qualified. I find it ironic that I represent humanity’s last hope for surviving its childhood. Mysterious ways indeed!

The Gestation of the Cool

Most people in this culture don’t know exactly what it means to be cool though they often claim to know it when they see it. These individuals generally see cool as one of those subjective, largely incomprehensible concepts like beauty and love that can only be grasped intuitively. But what must be present for someone to be authentically cool is actually very consistent.

Cool is essentially based on what I call the Four Cs: creativity, curiosity, courage and confidence. You are perceived to be cool when these traits manifest sequentially and generate unconventional but valid insights into the true nature of world. Without any one of these characteristics you can be mistaken for cool but at your core you are not.

No one is born cool. Cool is an emergent property that develops as an individual undergoes a certain sequence of experiences. Most people think that the key to being cool is confidence but that is actually merely a phenotype that emerges during the gestation of cool. This is evident in that confidence based on arrogance, ignorance or prejudice is not cool, though it is sometimes mistaken for it. Cool is based on having valid, empirically derived, unconventional knowledge supporting one’s confidence.

The accumulation of such knowledge begins with the exercise of creativity. Cool starts to develop when an individual meets with success while interacting creatively with the world. The essence of creativity is the ability to connect disparate things in a harmonious manner to produce something that is both novel and worthwhile. In thinking creatively you begin to see through the conventional boundaries that distinguish things in our world. As these boundaries become increasingly the translucent, it may stimulate your curiosity to discover what is on the other side. This will incline you to test the permeability of these conventions.

In working your way through these boundaries you may discover that the consequences are nowhere near as dire as the conventional wisdom typically leads us to believe. This is not to say there are no consequences; it means that you regard what you gain as a result of going beyond these boundaries as being worth the cost. This perception that such a personal price is worth paying to not be bound by convention is the essence of the courage that underlies being cool.

In general, courage is the willingness to pay a price to make a difference. Courage is not about unwillingly or unwittingly paying a price to achieve change. And those who actually enjoy paying such a price are not courageous, so much as masochistic. Courage is anticipating that “this is gonna sting”, and still being willing to go through with it to achieve a particular objective. Such courage allows you to endure the discomfort that sometimes ensues when you are perceived as flouting conventions in your exploration of the world beyond them.

Armed with creativity, curiosity and courage you explore the world beyond the conventional boundaries that distinguish things in our world. These investigations lead to the accumulation of unconventional knowledge of how things truly work. It is the possession of this empirically derived, exclusive insight acquired through creativity, curiosity and courage, that forms the basis of the confidence that makes an individual authentically cool.

DISCLAIMER: In and of itself, cool is neither good nor bad; it is simply unconventional yet valid. Being cool in the face of oppression is generally seen as good while being cool in opposition to stability, safety and security is often regarded as evil. Yet these can represent different interpretations of the same situation. As such, be aware that if you are not naturally cool, trying to become cool for the sake of simply being cool can lead to unanticipated consequences.

Levels of Spirituality - Part II

The evolution of the participants in a spiritual tradition goes from Adherent to Prophet to Divinity (though recall that among Abrahamic believers the idea of ascending to Divinity through one’s own efforts is generally considered heresy). The most common path for Adherents to take towards becoming Prophets is through immersion in the logos of their tradition. It is this study that most often leads to the mystical experience that transforms them into Prophets. The path from Prophet to Divinity is much more subjective and thus less well understood. But all such transitions involve the subject relinquishing the perception of uniqueness and ultimately abandoning the subject-object duality. How this is accomplished in the spiritual dynamic varies with the individual Prophet.

These levels of spirituality manifest concentrically with Divinity at the core, surrounded by Prophets who are in turn surrounded by Adherents. Where there are multiple Divinities in a given tradition, each distinguishable instance is simply a different face of the same underlying Transcendence.

Adherents often mistakenly believe that Prophets are responsible for leading them to the Divinity. But Prophets are typically still blazing their own trail to Divinity. And even as a given Prophet’s effort nears completion, the resultant path is only appropriate for that specific individual. In general, the Prophet is merely nurturing Adherents to become Prophets in their own right so that they can find their own paths to Divinity. The Prophets do this by providing the Adherents with the logos and an example to contemplate.

Adherents are bound to their spiritual tradition by the strength of their faith since they have no tangible proof of its validity. Once this proof arrives in the form of a life-changing mystical experience, the Adherent becomes a Prophet who is bound to the tradition by the power of that experience. Divinities cannot leave their spiritual traditions because they are what define the traditions. For a Divinity to abandon its spiritual tradition would be like water abandoning an ocean (where there is no water there can be no ocean).

Though the Divinity cannot leave the spiritual tradition based on it, sometimes the tradition is seen as abandoning the Divinity. It is typically revealed to a Prophet that the tradition has moved away from its source. Sometimes this movement is based on the logos moving away from its foundation to keep up with societal fads and at other times it is the result of provincial aspects of the logos not changing in the face of divinely inspired cultural advancements (distinguishing fads from legitimate advancements is the relevancy challenge of all traditions). In response to this divergence, the Prophet presents a new revelation that represents the spiritual tradition’s path back to the Divinity. Generally only a portion of the original Adherents will choose to follow this new path. This dynamic was the basis of the various spiritual reformations that have occurred through the ages.

Despite what the administrators in the typical spiritual bureaucracy (i.e., religion) would have you believe, every cleric is not a Prophet and every member of the laity is not an Adherent. While some Prophets are clerics, others are members of the laity and still others are heretics residing out beyond the periphery of the spiritual orthodoxy. Many clerics are Adherents who were certified by other Adherents in Prophet’s vestments. More than a few clerics are complete charlatans preying on the faith and gullibility of hopeful Adherents.

Most spiritual interpretations indicate that there are occasional eruptions of true Divinity scattered about our world. These Avatars (Descenders), Buddhas (Enlightened Ones), Tirthankars (Ford Makers), Gamur Tzaddiqim (Completely Righteous Ones), Christs (Anointed Ones), Mahdis (Guided Ones), Gurus (Teachers) and Saints (Holy Ones) are believed by some to walk embodied among us and by others to manifest spiritually in a form of the Transcendence to which Prophets and Adherents can relate.

Levels of Spirituality - Part I

I have come to embrace of mild form of spirituality that is consistent with my rationalist leanings yet not inconsistent with our major spiritual traditions. I will explain the specifics of my personal spirituality in a subsequent essay. My purpose here is to describe the shared structural elements of our major spiritual traditions as viewed from the perspective of a rational, open-minded non-participant.

My analysis of our major spiritual perspectives indicates that there are three discrete levels of involvement. These levels of spirituality are defined with respect to the Transcendent entity underlying all of these traditions. The distinct levels of spirituality are:

• Adherent - Believer in Transcendence
• Prophet - Communer with Transcendence
• Divinity - Manifestation of Transcendence

The Adherent represents the minimum level of participation in a given tradition. As such they are the most loosely affiliated participants in a given spiritual practice. This is the level of the majority of those associated with a given spiritual interpretation. The Adherents of different spiritual traditions have accepted as true the revelations of a Prophet of that tradition.

A Prophet speaks for the fundamental Transcendent entity underlying most spiritual interpretations. To do so, the Prophet has to have had some form of communion with this Transcendence. From most spiritual perspectives this communion represents a mystical experience. It is generally the first significant instance of such an experience that transforms an Adherent into a Prophet. In being fundamentally transformed by their spirituality, Prophets have a deeper level of commitment to their interpretation than do Adherents. The relative rarity of true mystical experiences means there are typically fewer Prophets than Adherents in a given spiritual tradition. The mystical experience provides the Prophet with intuitive insight into the nature of Transcendence, in the form of a spiritual revelation. Collectively the revelations of the orthodox Prophets of a given spiritual interpretation represent its logos.

In mystic spirituality the fundamental Transcendent entity is regarded as being beyond comprehension. As such its manifestation as Divinity is what Prophets commune with in order to receive the revelations that form the foundation of the beliefs of Adherents.

Its Divinity represents the accessible core of a spiritual tradition. Only the most exceptional beings in a given spiritual interpretation are found here. In the Abrahamic traditions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) Adherents are taught that the Transcendent descends to manifest as the Divinity (Shekhinah, the Holy Spirit, the Christ, Az-Zahir). Generally in the Abrahamic interpretations only Prophets believe they can ascend to the Unity with Transcendence that manifests as Divinity. Abrahamic Adherents believe they can only aspire to proximity with the Transcendent, a location that represents the realm they call Heaven. This domain corresponds to what is essentially the upper reaches of the Prophetic level.

By contrast, in the Dharmic and Daoic traditions (Hinduism, Daoism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, etc), Adherents are taught that Prophets can ascend to Divinity through spiritual growth. These Far Eastern traditions share the Abrahamic belief that the Transcendent can descend to manifest as Divinity.

A Refutation of Materialism

I obviously have a great deal of sympathy for the scientific perspective in general. I am on the side of the scientific community in their ongoing dispute with mystics over the rational comprehensibility of Reality. But we part company over the belief among many scientists that Reality is fundamentally a material domain.

The typical hardcore materialist insists that there is nothing beyond the material world. A common response to this position is to trot out phenomena such as hope, love or spirit as counterarguments. My initial response is to ask if the concepts that form the basis of the intelligibility of the material world are material phenomena. If so, what are the masses, locations, momenta or charges of the numbers we use to quantify the mass, location, momentum and change of matter? For that matter, what are the sizes, masses, locations, momenta and charges of the ideas we call size, mass, location, momentum and charge? Unlike hope, love, spirit and other such arguably mental manifestations, there are quantitative concepts that exist independently of the mind.

Before I prove my conjecture let me state that for the sake of this argument I am willing to concede that as a phenomenon that emerges from interactions among material phenomena (i.e., neurons, molecules, atoms, fermions, etc.), the mind can be characterized as residing in the material domain. In light of this concession, the standard materialist counterargument to my position is that even if ideas are not material phenomena, they cannot exist without minds. Being contingent upon occupants of the material domain means ideas are also encompassed by that domain. These materialists would argue, for example, that the idea of mass did not exist, although massive phenomena did, prior to conscious beings manifesting and creating the idea.

My subsequent counterargument is based on the theory of real numbers. Mathematicians theorize that the vast majority of real numbers can only be referenced by an infinite string of symbols or operations used to calculate them. This means that only an infinitesimal fraction of real numbers can be referenced in any finite sense (which is the only sense available to us as finite beings). To put this in perspective, consider that if the continuum of real numbers is viewed as the infinite set of all possible integers, the referencible values in it correspond to the number 1.

To appreciate the unreferencible nature of most real numbers, consider the value we get by executing the following algorithm. As we sequentially scan each of the theoretically limitless decimal places of the value π, wherever we encounter a digit that is greater than or equal to 5, we leave it alone. Where we come upon a digit that is less than 5, we flip a “fair coin”. If the coin lands with the heads side up, we double the digit and if it lands with tails up, we add 1 to it. The specific value that would emerge from the theoretical completion of this algorithm is essentially unreferencible since it can only be uniquely referenced by a limitless series of numbers or operations.

Every real number whose only reference is comprised of an infinite sequence of digits is essentially unreferencible. In other words, each such value represents a target without a reference. But the reference to a target is the means by which it manifests in a conscious mind. For example, when you think about an elephant, it is not an actual elephant that manifests in your mind; it is merely a reference to one that is created by your mind.

A matter-based mind can only create references to targets that manifest in some comprehensible manner in the material domain. For instance, the reference to a mythical creature such as a unicorn can manifest in our minds because a finite combination of physical phenomena that captures its uniqueness is available to us (e.g., shaped like a horse with a single horn protruding from its forehead…). By contrast, no finite combination of material manifestations captures the uniqueness of a particular unreferencible number. This is evident in that the algorithm mentioned earlier does not refer to a particular unreferencible number since it will never produce the same number twice (the probability of this happening is one in infinity, which makes it infinitely improbable). Where the mind cannot create a reference to a target entity, that entity cannot manifest in the mind. This only happens where there is no finite combination of phenomena in the material domain that encompasses the target’s uniqueness.

The unreferencible nature of virtually all real numbers means they cannot be used to refer to anything else. In other words nothing can have a size or manifest in a quantity that corresponds to an unreferencible number. This means that unreferencible numbers cannot refer to entities in the material domain.

But, one might ask, if unreferencible numbers cannot manifest in our minds, do they exist at all? In a mathematical sense, unreferencible numbers must exist since without them the continuum of real numbers is indistinguishable from the discrete system of rational numbers. In other words, if unreferencible numbers do not exist, then there are no real numbers.

To summarize: unreferencible numbers are not material manifestations (i.e., they have no material properties such as mass, charge, momentum, etc.), they are not individually referred to by occupants of the material domain (e.g. conscious minds) and they do not refer to any occupants of the material domain (i.e., they do not correspond to the size or quantity of any material manifestation). This means that these numbers are completely uncoupled from the material domain. Since they are not in any way connected to the material domain, unreferencible numbers represent completely non-material phenomena.

Where unreferencible numbers actually reside is beyond the scope of this essay (though it is explained in my framework). My conclusion that there are phenomena that reside completely beyond the material domain is why I reject pure materialism and the label of materialist, regardless of my frequent disagreements with mystics.

Wilber, Tipler and Me

Though I have some significant differences of opinion with Ken Wilber and Frank Tipler, I agree with certain aspects of each of their systems. I find it amusing that I probably agree with each of them more than they agree with each other.

Wilber’s framework represents an effort to extend Dharmic/Daoic traditions into Western philosophy and science. In theory, I see this as a worthwhile endeavor since my framework concurs with the bulk of what the Eastern systems of thought have to say about the fundamental nature of Reality. But these Eastern disciplines are thousands of years old. As a result, there are important ideas in these ancient traditions that are outdated in the context of contemporary Western thought.

In his integration of East and West, Wilber’s interpretation of Eastern spirituality emerges largely unchanged. This is because Wilber mostly just cites examples of Western thought that are consistent with his Eastern sources. He fails to enhance his ancient Eastern ideas with the Western knowledge that has been discovered in the interim.

For whatever reason, Wilber largely ignores mathematics and physics, arguably the most successful Western disciplines, in terms of explaining the fundamental nature of Reality. These areas of Western thought have the most to offer towards modernizing the ancient Eastern traditions that are Wilber’s most important sources. By failing to integrate certain key ideas from these areas of study (e.g., quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity, the anthropic principle, time reversal invariance, transfinite numbers, etc.), Wilber misses out on an opportunity to develop a system that truly integrates Eastern and Western thought.

Tipler’s framework attacks the problem of explaining the fundamental nature of Reality from a different direction. His approach is based on a combination of pure scientific materialism and fundamental Christian spirituality; strange bedfellows if I’ve even seen them. Nonetheless, there are concepts in these disciplines that I embrace in my framework as well. For instance, both of our systems are based on quantum mechanics, theory of relativity, anthropic principle and time reversal invariance. In addition, certain purely Christian concepts (that I expect to discuss in subsequent essays) are also consistent with my framework.

Tipler’s effort to integrate science and Christianity almost completely bypasses philosophy, the discipline that forms the natural bridge them. The absence of philosophical underpinnings in Tipler’s exposition undermines the plausibility of his frequent jumps directly from hard science to hardcore Christianity.

Tipler has a tendency to cite as unimpeachable any scientific postulate that he can shoehorn into supporting his premises. He rarely takes the time to establish why (beyond often being attributed to someone with an impressive scientific credential) the often obscure (to laypeople) sources he uses for validation are themselves valid. By never connecting his framework to premises that his broader audience is qualified to accept, Tipler builds a castle in the clouds that looks impressive but has no foundation.

I also have problems with the materialism of Tipler’s framework. His interpretation of God is a physical entity that manifests at the beginning and end of time. I can relate to the idea of this Alpha/Omega Point from which all manifestations emerge and to which they ultimately return. But I have trouble with the idea that this ultimate source and destiny of all manifestations is in any way contingent upon the fundamental laws of nature that Tipler is constantly citing as proof of his theory. Finally, I find it problematic that Tipler chooses to embrace a more literal interpretation of Christianity rather than a progressive contemplative form that better reflects the leading edge of Christian thought.

Like Wilber, Tipler goes out of his way try to justify ancient beliefs in the context of modern thought rather that using modern thought to update those ideas. To his credit Tipler does attempt to reinterpret the meaning of certain aspects of Christian eschatology in a manner that is consistent with his theories. Both Wilber and Tipler generally refer to their spiritual sources as though they are beyond reproach. While this approach works when they are preaching to the converted it can be annoyingly presumptuous to the many skeptics in their audiences.

Tipler and Wilber’s reverence for their respective spiritual sources is most likely the basis of their reluctance to modernize them. But their unwillingness to revise their particular spiritual foundations leaves their interpretations in what is essentially a pre-modern state. Such interpretations typically cannot withstand the critical scrutiny of today’s rational thinkers. While Wilber claims to have transcended rationality he does not seem to realize that expecting rational thinkers to evaluate his framework without using rational (objective) analysis is asking a bit much.

By contrast, though my framework also encompasses a great deal of the wisdom of these ancient spiritual traditions, it does not include the more dogmatic articles of faith that seem to reflect the provincial thinking of the time of their origins. As such, I have no use for belief in Sky Fathers, Judgment Days, Evil Spirits, Hell or Lila among others.

Unlike Tipler and Wilber, I do not have to carry any of the irrational baggage associated with these spiritual traditions. This is because my purpose is not to give a new relevance to an ancient belief system; it is to provide rational answers to the questions of our origin, purpose and ultimate destiny, based on the most promising knowledge that we have accumulated over the course of human history. As such, I regard it as wonderful and encouraging that there are many areas of overlap between my framework and those of Frank Tipler and Ken Wilber. This overlap implies that there are rational answers to our most important questions that are not inconsistent with are most enduring spiritual traditions.

Not Smelling What Frank Tipler is Cooking – Part III

Copyright 2006 by Sidney Harris

Finishing Frank Tipler’s ‘The Physics of Immortality’ was complicated by the fact that he consistently resorts to using unnecessarily dense scientific jargon and implicit authoritarianism whenever he is on shaky ground in his reasoning. Frankly, I found it exasperating how Tipler bloviated his way over the heads of his non-specialist audience on the points that would require the greatest expository clarity if his ideas were going to come together to form a rational framework (the points at which, in the words of Sidney Harris, “a miracle occurs”).

I actually have a reasonably good layperson’s head for physics yet Tipler occasionally managed to talk over it in his discussion of the science that supports his position. His efforts to justify his sometimes dubious conclusions consisted of authoritatively citing relatively obscure (from the layperson’s perspective) yet evidently legitimate scientific principles and then performing interpretive legerdemain to justify his belief that they support his position.

I was generally able to slog through this morass secure in the knowledge that no matter how confidently Tipler stated his case, his fundamental premise had already most likely gone down in cosmological flames. It was interesting to watch Tipler assemble such an impressive sounding argument in the aftermath of the discovery of solid contradictory evidence that was not available to him at the time.

The context in which I read ‘The Physics of Immortality’ provided me with a unique insight into how experts use their credentials, in conjunction with often impenetrable, yet seemingly coherent jargon to lead laypeople to accept untenable conclusions. But then I am innately mistrustful of those who, when speaking to a general audience, choose to use jargon that implicitly elevates them in the eyes of that audience rather than attempting to elevate their audience by simply and clearly explaining their position.

Reading ‘The Physics of Immortality’ under these circumstances, I got the distinct impression that Tipler was teleologically cherry picking from among the many diverse principles in cosmology, physics, information theory, cybernetics, etc. those that he interprets as supporting his conclusions. One cannot help but wonder whether Tipler is failing to mention other positions of equal or even greater significance that contradict his. Once you get into the business of citing legitimizing sources to a general audience it is disingenuous to imply that the consensus in the encompassing discipline supports your position when there may not even be a consensus or worse, when you are actually on the wrong side of the consensus.

The most disappointing thing about the whole Frank Tipler saga is what became of him in the aftermath of ‘The Physics of Immortality’. Though he still primarily works as a professor of physics and mathematics, Tipler has fallen in with the Intelligent Design crowd. While this does not automatically invalidate his position, it does give his work a certain theistic bias. This bias saturates in his follow-up book, ‘The Physics of Christianity’.

Tipler is out speaking to Christian audiences about how physics proves that their beliefs are valid. Ironically, I agree with his basic premise that many spiritual beliefs are supported by rational arguments. I simply do not believe that Tipler’s unswervingly materialist arguments are the appropriate ones.