The fall of reductionism foreseen?

 Flannery: What Werner Heisenberg Foresaw

Plato's Revenge

The new bookPlato's Revenge : The New Science of the Immaterial Genome, by David Klinghoffer, details in accessible form the thinking of biologist Richard Sternberg. But others before Dr. Sternberg had also foreseen the recognition of Platonic forms as realities in modern science. Historian of science Michael Flannery cites quantum physicist Werner Heisenberg as an example

mathematician-turned-philosopher Alfred North Whitehead famously said that all of Western philosophy consists of a “series of footnotes to Plato.” Now what Whitehead said of philosophy may be applied to science. Plato’s Revenge is about the teleologically ordered biological systems theory that Richard “Rick” Sternberg calls the immaterial genome. It is an ancient story that dates back to the atomists on the one hand and the teleologists on the other — Leucippus vs. Anaxagoras. The argument between reductionist evolutionists like Charles Darwin and design-oriented evolutionists like Alfred Russel Wallace harkens to these pre-Socratic sources, proving King Solomon’s wise adage, “There is nothing new under the sun.”

With Darwin the triumph of chance and necessity was considered complete. But one of the greatest teleological proponents of all history, Plato, now has his revenge as we find that design and purpose have won the day. The quantum physicist Werner Heisenberg understood this, saying, “I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact these smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.” Now Sternberg, as told eloquently by David Klinghoffer, expresses this in the language of life. This book unites the best elements of metaphysics with cutting-edge science to put the threadbare materialist reductionisms of the neo-Darwinists to shame. [Emphasis added.]

MICHAEL A. FLANNERY, AUTHOR OF NATURE’S PROPHET: ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE AND HIS EVOLUTION FROM NATURAL SELECTION TO NATURAL THEOLOGY AND AMERICA’S FORGOTTEN POET-PHILOSOPHER: THE THOUGHT OF JOHN ELOF BOODIN IN HIS TIME AND OURS

Get your copy of Plato’s Revenge now and find more information and endorsements at Discovery Institute Press.

Richard Sternberg's body blow to reductionism

 Spooked by Sternberg: From the Introduction to Plato’s Revenge

David Klinghoffer

Editor’s note: We are glad to offer an excerpt from the first pages of the new book from Discovery Institute Press, Plato's Revenge: The New Science of the Immaterial Genome, by David Klinghoffer.

My view is not the view that most people have of intelligent design.

RICHARD STERNBERG

When I first heard biologist Richard Sternberg describe his immaterial genome hypothesis, reviving the thought of the Greek philosopher Plato in a modern and scientific context, another biologist on hand took in her breath. “If that’s true,” she said, “it changes everything.” I felt similarly. The idea spooked me. All familiar thinking about the genome assumes that it is, of course, purely material: the twisting strands of DNA and a few other physical structures in the cell. The proponents of intelligent design (ID) have, in large part, accepted this premise and argued according to its terms.

Sternberg goes further. He argues — sometimes from common-sensical and accessible evidence and sometimes from highly technical mathematical and biological ­ realities — that the material resources of the physically instantiated portion of the genome are woefully inadequate to shape life from generation to generation. The conclusion still gives me a shiver: An immaterial source exists, in company with DNA and the other material sources of biological information. That source extends not only beyond us, but beyond physical reality.

A Meeting in Seattle

I vividly recall the meeting. It was 2012, a time of great strain in my life. In a small conference room in Seattle, several of us, including scientists and ­ non-scientists like me, gathered to listen to Sternberg sketch an argument he had been developing, rooted in his observation that there simply is not enough information physically in the ­ cell — including the DNA and epigenetic (from the Greek, meaning beyond genetic) ­sources — to account for the development of an organism. According to him, this finding applied not only to the more complex organisms, such as whales and humans, but also to the relatively simple ones, such as yeast.

He also spoke of those who had influenced ­ him — in particular, theoretical biologist Robert Rosen (1934–1998) and the men who had first devised the idea of a gene. As Sternberg explained, they saw it in terms that might not be material.

The nature of genetics and heredity is inherently of more intimate interest to some people than are many other scientific topics. The law of gravity says nothing about me as a person, except how fast I would fall if pushed off a tall building. Heredity promises to say much about who I am. As I am writing this, I have just put a tube of spit in the mail to the DNA ancestry company 23andMe. On the top of the test kit you get from Amazon is the message to the customer: “Welcome to You.”

Siddhartha Mukherjee, who teaches medicine at Columbia University, begins his book The Gene: An Intimate History by detailing why the subject is painfully personal for him: Behind his narrative of scholarly discovery lies his father’s family with its history of a mental illness, schizophrenia. In that family history he is himself implicated, as are any children he might have. “Madness,” he writes, “has been among the Mukherjees for at least two generations.” It is “buried, like toxic waste,” in the genetic inheritance.

In 2012, heredity was on my mind. That year, my birth mother, Harriet Lund, had come to live near me in the Seattle area, bringing emotional turbulence with her. She was suffering from dementia and, with it, episodes of rage and paranoia. It was at this time she told me that, in Los Angeles in 1965, my birth father, George Thomas, raped her. And this was how I was conceived.

The Crucial Point

She was ­ Swedish-born, from a long line of Lutheran pastors. She was a social worker at the time, and George, a Mayflower descendant from Kansas, was her supervisor. I had first met her in 1993 and, charmed, wrote a book about her in relationship to my conversion to Orthodox Judaism. Yet she had not told me the crucial point about George Thomas until 2012, right around the time I first heard ­ Sternberg’s immaterial genome idea. Harriet sounded perfectly lucid when she said it: “Your father raped me! You’re the son of a rapist!”

Later, after Harriet had already slipped away, present in her body but not in her mind and thus incapable of answering questions, a cousin of hers contacted me. The cousin revealed, with credible details, that Harriet had kept another secret as well: Harriet’s own ­ father — my grandfather, the Swedish filmmaker Oscar A. C. ­ Lund — had sexually molested Harriet when she was a girl.

Before she became ill, Harriet had wanted to save me from the truth about my heredity. Only in the throes of dementia did she tell me the point about my birth ­ father. Now I knew it all. As they put it at 23andMe, welcome to you. That is the first reason that Sternberg’s discussion moved me. 

There was something else about Sternberg that struck me. Given that he is a man decorated with two PhDs in ­ biology — one in molecular (evolutionary) genetics and another in mathematical ­ biology — and has held a scientific post at the Smithsonian National Museum, it’s natural to expect him to have little interest in classical history. Here, surely, is a man oriented toward science, natural history, and the vanguard of discovery. But when you meet him in person, you quickly sense that a more complex description will be required. He is a man as interested in the history of science and philosophy as he is in the latest scientific evidence and ideas.

I confess that I find this very relatable. As a college student at Brown, studying Greek and Latin, I was narrowly diverted from an academic career in comparative literature. After graduation I was set to start in September in the Classics Department at Columbia to work towards a PhD. That summer, though, I was offered a job as assistant literary editor at William F. Buckley Jr.’s National Review.

A Form of Archaeology

I deferred grad school for the coming academic year but then never went. The journalism virus had infected me. Yet I continued to find the Greeks, the picture of life that they offered, and their difficult language enchanting. More than this, I have remained fascinated by intellectual life as a form of archaeology, digging for insight and wisdom in ancient sources.

My children grew up hearing me say many times over that there are two kinds of people. There are those who see modern opinions as the product of an ­ upward-driving, almost teleological evolutionary process, with a kind of natural selection picking out the very best concepts from what has come before: the more modern, the better.

And then there are others like me who look around at contemporary existence, with its increasing surrender to mental illness as a philosophy of life, and conclude just the opposite. Jewish tradition calls this yeridat ha’dorot, the devolution of the generations. Human beings are not getting wiser. This is not only an axiom but is evident just from observing the world around you.

So I was naturally sympathetic to Sternberg, for though he grounds his argument for the immaterial genome in the latest discoveries of molecular biology, he is also by temperament sufficiently suspicious of novelty that he mined the history of philosophy and science to excavate intimations and intellectual forbears of his argument. In the process he turned up a line of thinkers and scientists from Plato to Rosen.

Starlink being disruptively disrupting?

 

The irreducible complexity of Logos vs. Darwinism

 Communication, in Human Life and Beyond: An Irreducibly Complex Design

Eric Hedin

Communication is something that we can easily take for granted, and yet this pervasive attribute of living things represents bedrock evidence for intelligent design.

Communication, to be effective, always includes three features.

Expression

Reception

Comprehension

Effective communication necessitates and relies upon the operation of all three features. A lack of any one of these causes communication to fail. In short, effective communication is irreducibly complex.

When we refer to communication, we usually imagine people talking and listening, or someone reading what another has written, or maybe we’re listening to a music performance. Beyond ourselves, however, communication saturates the animal kingdom in myriads forms. Insects also communicate. Even within biological organisms, at the cellular level, communication forms an integral part of sustaining our physical being.

The Example of Blood Pressure

For instance, the physiology controlling blood pressure within our circulatory system utilizes all three features of communication. Complex hormonal chemicals, such as epinephrin and angiotensin, when emitted, interact with sensors and receptors throughout our bodies to regulate blood pressure and maintain it within required tolerances. Communication occurs unconsciously, but without it, we’d go unconscious!

Let’s look in more detail at the form of communication we’re most familiar with — human speech. Creating sounds with vocal chords, pharynx, tongue, mouth, and lips is just the first step in the communication process. The multitasking capabilities of the pharynx have been highlighted in a previous post by Howard Glicksman and Steve Laufmann.

The pharynx affords us the dual abilities to breathe and swallow food and water, but it does much more. It affords the ability for speech, language, and tonal activities like lyrical speech and singing. The percussion and acoustic shaping of the tongue, teeth, throat, oral and nasal cavities, and most of the other parts of the pharynx, are absolutely required for the nuanced communication that’s essential to the human experience.

All the coordinated anatomy that allows us to form sounds corresponding to words would be wasted and in vain if we didn’t also possess a marvelously attuned sense of hearing. Even a cursory description of the delicate structures of the ear required for us to hear sounds over a thousand-fold range of acoustic vibrations reveals intricately interrelated details surpassing human engineering abilities. 

More than Anatomy

And yet, hearing is much more than anatomical structures precisely arranged to transform acoustic vibrations to electrical nerve impulses. We must also have the ability to interpret impulses in the auditory nerve, to comprehend the electrical signals channeling to our brains, for any communication to occur.

The brain takes signals, and turns them into words and sentences and, then eventually, into ideas. In a few tenths of a second, a sound from your ear can become an idea in your mind. Your ears and brain need to work together to make this happen properly.

The complexity of interpreting auditory signals within the brain has challenged our understanding.

For neuroscientists, human hearing is a process full of unanswered questions. How does the brain translate sounds — vibrations that travel through the air — into the patterns of neural activity that we recognize as speech, or laughter, or the footsteps of an approaching friend?

Independent Complex Systems 

Perhaps we let this incredible phenomenon of communication go unappreciated by virtue of its familiarity to us. Three independent complex systems are required: speech, hearing, and cognitive interpretation. Having (or, to use the evolutionary view, evolving) one feature provides no guarantee the other two will arise. No partial benefit to communication comes from, say, speech and comprehension without hearing. Or hearing and comprehension without speech. All three features of communication are needed. Each of the features entail specific, complex biochemical and neurological functionality. Together, the three essential components of communication comprise a system of irreducibly complex systems.

In the animal kingdom, we can recognize many examples of communication. Even though squirrels may not be discussing politics or theories of cosmology, they use a variety of vocalizations for their own benefit.

Vocal communication is an important method squirrels (Sciuridae) use to transfer information from one individual to others….vocal communication is important to the development, reproduction, and survival of squirrels…

Most research emphasizes the evolutionary origin of animal communication, citing its obvious benefit for enhancing survival. While the survival benefit of communication ability should be obvious, the irreducible complexity of any communication system defies explanation from evolution.

The independent complex features required for effective human communication are mirrored in animal communication (expression, reception, comprehension), and they even appear in the plant world. For example, research indicates that trees engage in communication.

[Trees] are connected to each other through underground fungal networks. Trees share water and nutrients through the networks, and also use them to communicate. They send distress signals about drought and disease, for example, or insect attacks, and other trees alter their behavior when they receive these messages.

The national park service reports:

It has been known for at least a couple of decades that trees and plants can communicate by releasing volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

Again, an irreducibly complex system is involved in arboreal communication: the message must be expressed and received. But this is not enough — the message must produce the intended result, otherwise the whole system is a waste.

Considering again the example of physiological communication within the body, the importance of this process for life has not been lost on the scientific community, expressed with the presupposition of evolution.

In the process of evolutionary history, advancement of the life as a group wouldn’t be possible without cells, tissues and systems communicating with each other with specific communication mechanisms.

Neither has the interconnected necessity of features of successful communication gone unnoticed.

Theory predicts that for a signal to evolve, both the sender(s) and receiver(s) should benefit from their interaction. Thus, there should be tight coevolution between signal production and subsequent perception and response.

In the process of evolutionary history, advancement of the life as a group wouldn’t be possible without cells, tissues and systems communicating with each other with specific communication mechanisms.

Neither has the interconnected necessity of features of successful communication gone unnoticed.

Theory predicts that for a signal to evolve, both the sender(s) and receiver(s) should benefit from their interaction. Thus, there should be tight coevolution between signal production and subsequent perception and response.

Suspending Disbelief

How is it possible to assume that the myriad forms of sophisticated communication between and within living things just happened to evolve? How can one conclude that each essential feature happened to come online in parallel, through undirected processes whose only raison d’être is enhanced procreation? Doesn’t such a hypothesis require an unbearable suspension of disbelief?

The implication of the irreducible nature of communication is clear, but by holding the wrong assumptions it’s possible to hear the signal and miss the message.

Fake it till you make it(or not)

 

The science against reductionism.

 Plato’s Revenge: An Interview with David Klinghoffer

Andrew McDiarmid

You’re familiar with the genetic revolution — the discovery that physical structures in the cell, including DNA and RNA, shape every organism. But we are now overdue for another and more profound revolution in science, one you’ve probably heard very little about. Recent findings reveal that genetic and even epigenetic sources alone cannot account for the rich dynamism of life — not even close. Some other informational source is required. On a new episode of ID the Future, science writer and Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer speaks with me about his new book Plato's revenge: The New Science of the Immaterial Genome. A little book about a very big idea, it tells the story of the scientist, Dr. Richard Sternberg, who has spent the last two decades bringing together cutting-edge molecular biology, higher mathematics, and common-sense reasoning to flesh out this potentially revolutionary new idea.

Intelligent Design in Real Time

The immaterial genome hypothesis is a very old one, sketched by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato in his dialogue Timaeus over two millennia ago. But aspects of it are very new too, confirmed by the latest scientific discoveries about the genome. And although the past figures into this story prominently, it’s very much a theory of the present, affecting all of us, as well as every developing organism, at this very moment. Klinghoffer explains: “We are accustomed to thinking of intelligent design as having happened in historical time…And it has. But Sternberg’s thesis really takes intelligent design to a different level. It shows design operating in real time, operating at this moment in every cell in your body.”

Also discussed: a useful analogy to help you wrap your head around the immateriality of the genome, a glimpse into the long line of intellectual forbears behind Sternberg’s idea, and some thoughts from Klinghoffer on what you’ll get out of reading this user-friendly and concise volume. Download the podcast or listen to it here.

Henry Ford's real sucessor?

 

Cold fusion again,but they mean it this time(?)

 

Enduring to the end.

 Matthew ch.24:13NKJV"But he who endures to the end shall be saved. "

Am I tired of waiting for JEHOVAH'S promises? No I am not. You see I have already receved much of what JEHOVAH has promised for those proving loyal to their oath to him,

1Corinthians ch.2:9,10NLT"That is what the Scriptures mean when they say, “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love him.But it was to us that God revealed these things by his Spirit. For his Spirit searches out everything and shows us God’s deep secrets."

JEHOVAH Does not require a blind faith,true faith requires the whole mind at least as much as the whole heart,JEHOVAH'S Spirit engages both the intellect and the moral/spiritual sense.

Luke ch.10:27NIV"He answered, “’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your MIND’ ..."

Those who work hard on an intimate relationship with JEHOVAH are kindly blessed by him with residence in a spiritual paradise,a condition of mental ,moral and spiritual excellence/abundance,which is a token of the essence of the coming paradise.

Psalm ch.36:10NIV"Pour out your unfailing love on those who love you; give justice to those with honest hearts."

We appreciate JEHOVAH'S Past and present fulfillments of his promises,sacred service has proved a source of joy and peace in the past and the present and we do not doubt that it will continue to prove so,as for the end,my pledge to my divine benefactor is one of eternal service there is no end to my loyalty.

The king of Titans supresses yet another uprising.

 

AI overlords settle a score

 

On designed intelligence

 Can We Credit Human Creativity to Blind Evolution?

Evolution News

Does the evolution of brain chemistry explain novels, speeches, and innovative ideas? Pat Flynn explored that critical question with Dr. Eric Holloway and Professor Robert J. Marks in a recent episode of the Mind Matters podcast. Delving into a chapter from their book Minding the Brain, they focused on the “information cost” of creativity. They argue that the complexity involved in generating meaningful phrases surpasses the computational resources of the universe. That is a challenge to naturalistic explanations and suggests a need for an external source of creativity.

Defining Creativity

Creativity is defined through the lens of the Lovelace test, proposed by Selmer Bringsjord, which posits that a creative act by a computer must exceed the intent or explanation of its programmer. Dr. Marks emphasizes that artificial intelligence, including large language models, operates within the bounds of programmed instructions, lacking true creativity.

Dr. Holloway distinguishes creativity from randomness. Creativity cannot be reduced to probabilistic distributions because random processes lack the intentionality required for meaningful output. This distinction sets the stage for questioning whether evolutionary processes, often equated with randomness, can account for human creativity.

The Information Cost of Meaning

Mountain climbing is a useful metaphor to illustrate the challenge of generating meaningful phrases. The “summit” represents a meaningful phrase, and the “climb” represents the process of reaching it through random selection of letters from a 27-character alphabet (including spaces). Meaning is broadly defined as any string of letters corresponding to words in a dictionary.

The authors argue that creating meaningful phrases requires an extraordinarily high amount of information. They calculate that even with the universe’s computational capacity — estimated at 10^244 bits based on Planck cubes and Planck time units — only a 268-character phrase could be generated randomly. Even hypothesizing parallel universes (up to 10^1000) would only marginally increase this number to 1,380 characters, underscoring the exponential difficulty of the task.

The Role of Active Information

Active information is introduced as the guidance needed to navigate the metaphorical mountain. Without it, random processes are as likely to succeed as any other path, per the No Free Lunch theorem.

Dr. Marks illustrates this with an analogy: finding an Easter egg in Wyoming. Without accurate guidance, the search is futile. An active information source like “you are getting warmer” or “you are getting colder” is needed to find the egg.

If we use the mountain climbing metaphor instead, active information is like an escalator on the side of the mountain that lets you reach the summit more easily.

Metaphysical Considerations

The  discussion also touches on a metaphysical argument by philosopher Richard Taylor (1919‒2003), who argued that meaning cannot arise from random processes. Using the example of rocks forming the phrase “Welcome to Wales” by chance, Taylor argues that such an arrangement, if truly random, lacks intentionality and thus cannot convey meaning. Even if random processes could produce such a meaningful arrangement, the absence of a mind behind it negates its semantic content. Creativity requires a non-random, intentional source.

Implications for Creativity’s Source

The findings challenge naturalistic accounts of creativity, suggesting that the ability to generate meaningful phrases exceeds the universe’s computational resources. The authors propose that human creativity, suffused with semantic and intentional content, points to a non-material or external source of active information.

The need for active information implies an intelligent design, potentially guiding evolutionary processes or directly enabling human creative capacities.

Take Away

The Mind Matters podcast discussion casts doubt on the ability of evolutionary processes to account for human creativity. By demonstrating the immense information cost of even simple meaningful phrases and the necessity of active information, Holloway and Marks demonstrate that naturalistic explanations fall short. Their work invites further exploration into the origins of creativity, noting that the genius of the human mind requires an external, intelligent source beyond the material world.

GROK on Hitler's persecution of JEHOVAH'S Witnesses.

The Nazi persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses was a brutal and systematic campaign rooted in the regime’s ideological opposition to the group’s religious convictions and refusal to conform to Nazi authority. Jehovah’s Witnesses, known for their strict adherence to biblical principles, rejected Nazi ideology, refused to swear allegiance to Hitler, perform military service, or participate in Nazi rituals like the Hitler salute. This defiance made them a target, as the Nazis viewed their non-conformity as a direct challenge to their totalitarian control.

From 1933, when the Nazis seized power, Jehovah’s Witnesses faced escalating persecution. Their literature was banned, meetings were raided, and thousands were arrested. By 1934, the Gestapo intensified efforts, seizing property and sending members to concentration camps. In the camps, such as Dachau, Buchenwald, and Ravensbrück, they were marked with a purple triangle, a symbol distinguishing them from other prisoners. Estimates suggest around 10,000 Witnesses were imprisoned, with 2,500 to 5,000 dying due to execution, torture, or harsh conditions. Unlike other groups, Witnesses could often secure release by signing a declaration renouncing their faith, but most refused, viewing it as a betrayal of their beliefs.

them from families to be raised in Nazi-aligned households or institutions. Despite this, Witnesses maintained clandestine networks, distributing literature and holding secret meetings, often at great risk. Their resilience stemmed from their apocalyptic worldview, seeing persecution as a test of faith and a sign of the end times.

Post-war, their suffering was less acknowledged than that of other groups, partly because their persecution was driven by religious rather than ethnic or political factors. However, their stand against Nazism remains a striking example of resistance through non-violent conviction. 

On Darwinism's aspirations to hard science status

 Physics Envy Is Not Helping Evolutionary Biology

David Coppedge

One of Murphy’s Laws of Technology facetiously avows, “Under the most rigorously controlled conditions of pressure, temperature, volume, humidity, and other variables the organism will do as it darn well pleases.” Can such a law be tested with an ammeter or a differential equation?

“Physics envy,” a term sometimes used to disparage the “soft sciences,” expresses the desire of biologists to share the scientific prestige of physics which has been highly esteemed since Newton for its mathematical precision. Launch a cannonball, calculate the force on a dam, or fly a spacecraft, and if the initial conditions and variables can be measured accurately, physicists can usually predict the outcomes meticulously. The laws of physics, expressible with differential equations and tensor calculus, can even predict new laws. But can evolutionary biologists predict the size and time of emergence of a small predator in an ecosystem overpopulated by mice? Hypothesizing “methinks it is like a weasel” is uncomfortably vague.

Organisms Obey Physics, But…

To be sure, the bodies of organisms will obey the laws of physics. When launching a human cannonball, physicists can predict where to place the net. The power output of an electric eel can be measured with voltmeters. The luminosity of fireflies submits to photometry. Terms such as entropy and enthalpy can also be used to model processes of photosynthesis in plants.1

That’s not the kind of physics that evolutionary biologists envy. They want to predict what evolution will do, or post-dict what it has done. Sometimes they try too hard to imitate physicists in their stories by borrowing their terms. One recent paper,2 for instance, attempted to describe “The emergence of eukaryotes as an evolutionary algorithmic phase transition.” They’ve compared a saltational evolutionary change, in effect, to water going from liquid to steam.

During the first phase of this process, corresponding to prokaryotes, protein length follows gene growth. At the onset of the eukaryotic cell, however, mean protein length stabilizes around 500 amino acids.

Supposedly this is when the water starts exhibiting convection before boiling.

While genes continued growing at the same rate as before, this growth primarily involved noncoding sequences that complemented proteins in regulating gene activity. Our analysis indicates that this shift at the origin of the eukaryotic cell was due to an algorithmic phase transition equivalent to that of certain search algorithms triggered by the constraints in finding increasingly larger proteins.

In physics, phase transitions are reversible. Steam can condense into liquid water again. The authors of this paper want to present a major step up the ladder of evolutionary progress.

Perhaps their “phase transition” language can be forgiven for its pictorial value. They never explain, though, how the prokaryotes broke through this phase to emerge with new organelles, a nucleus, and new molecular machines like the spliceosome. With the magic word “emergence,” they simply allege that it happened.

The emergence of the eukaryotic cell, most likely arising from the symbiosis between two previously unrelated organisms — an archaeon host cell and a bacterium that would become mitochondria — brought a new cellular structure with membrane-bound nucleus and organelles. Without this evolutionary event, the posterior evolution of multicellular organisms represented by animals, land plants, and the majority of fungi would not have been possible.

Feel the tension (another physics term measurable with instruments). The authors struggle to make their model look like a physics paper. They even derive the tension with equations.

Our blend of theoretical and empirical approaches will ultimately uncover how the tension between a conserved process of gene growth and the constraints on the increasingly longer proteins resolved in a phase transition signaling the emergence of the eukaryotic cell.

Later they are even more explicit that their model belongs in the physics category, even like astrophysics. But in drawing this comparison, they point out an embarrassing gap.

Our portrait of a phase transition is in agreement with the lack of intermediate forms behind the emergence of eukaryotes — what has been termed a black hole at the heart of biology. Previous work has also highlighted the shift between prokaryotes and eukaryotes on the basis of energetic constraints, or metabolic allocation. Our results add an algorithmic dimension to this view emphasizing the role of constraints. It reconciles the contingency of evolution — exemplified by the random exploration of the search space — and the universality of physics.

Evolution, they hope, has reached the pinnacle of physics. Time to self-congratulate!

Importantly, our framework has an unparalleled predictive power, as shown by its ability to predict not only the specific laws governing the growth of genes and proteins across the entire evolutionary history, but also the precise moment in time at which eukaryotes emerged and the critical mean gene length at which this occurred.

Unsurprisingly, the press release from Gutenberg University celebrates the achievement of its homeboys. “The study recently published in PNAS not only answers essential questions, but is interdisciplinary, combining computational biology, evolutionary biology, and physics.” Great. Now use the equation to calculate the evolutionary emergence of the weasel in deep time with 6-sigma precision.

No Weasel Words Allowed

At The Conversation, Kathleen Garland and Alistair Evans from Monash University also appeal to physics for their evolutionary theory. “A secret mathematical rule has shaped the beaks of birds and other dinosaurs for 200 million years,” their article proclaims — which is a bit odd, for it is not the tradition of physicists to keep their mathematical rules secret. 

We can feel their physics envy in the essay:

Finding universal rules in biology is rare and difficult — there seem to be few instances where physical laws are so pervasive across all organisms.

But when we do find a rule, it’s a powerful way to explain the patterns we see in nature. Our team previously discovered a new rule of biology that explains the shape and growth of many pointed structures, including teeth, horns, hooves, shells and, of course, beaks.

This simple mathematical rule captures how the width of a pointed structure, like a beak, expands from the tip to the base. We call this rule the “power cascade”.

After this discovery, we were very interested in how the power cascade might explain the shape of bird and other dinosaur beaks.

Few would complain about rule-governed processes in embryonic development, where physical pressures between cells and flows of material follow laws of fluid mechanics under genetic control. They’re not talking about those. They’re talking about Darwinian evolution, as they stated in the preceding sentence: 

By studying beaks in light of this mathematical rule, we can understand how the faces of birds and other dinosaurs evolved over 200 million years. We can also find out why, in rare instances, these rules can be broken.

Their photos show the hooked beak of an eagle, the long bill of a spoonbill, the short snout of an ostrich, and the curved bill of a godwit. “All these bird beaks follow the power cascade rule of growth, despite being used for very different purposes,” they boast. Their physics-like model explains all — except when it doesn’t. “While rare, a few birds we studied were rule-breakers.” The Eurasian spoonbill (pictured at the top) evolves as it darn well pleases. “Perhaps its unique feeding style led to it breaking this common rule,” they sigh, as they return to Just-So Storyland.

Playing Games

A look through another paper in PNAS is sure to satisfy physicists with its equations and matrices.3 Evolutionary Game Theory (EGT) with its apparent mathematical precision comes close to mollifying physics envy. Unfortunately, these authors come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

We argue that it is crucial for the field of evolutionary game theory to emphatically acknowledge that the replicator dynamics is more limiting than previously acknowledged (or fully appreciated) in terms of the biological systems that its predictions can apply to. Here, we have discussed a fundamental limitation of the replicator dynamics, the implications of which had not been reconsidered or explicitly acknowledged as a substantial caveat, even as the field moved to address other limitations, e.g., that the replicator dynamics ignores stochastic effects, that it muddles growth rates and interactions, or that it apparently ignores more realistic genetics and demography. This fundamental assumption — that the game is the only source of fitness differences — is so likely to be broadly violated across natural systems, that the potential for paradoxical findings and unproductive debates is very high.

Stochastic effects ensure that the organism will do as it darn well pleases. 

A week later in Current Biology,4 John Harte discussed another biological field where failure is always an option. He summarized an ecological model that demonstrated only partial success:

A theory-derived ecological equation of state relating biodiversity, productivity, abundance and biomass in ecosystems has been tested with satellite-derived proxy forestry data. Predicted failure of the relationship in disturbed ecosystems is partially supported but further ground-based analysis is needed.

Biology Is Not Physics

Biology, with all of its subdisciplines, is an ancient science worthy of esteem for the wealth of insights it brings. But it’s not physics. Biology is largely observational and taxonomic, and its explanations tend to be statistical (i.e., messy). Like Garland and Evans admitted, rare are the instances where identifiable causes yield predictable effects in law-like regularity. 

Irregularity is due to the nature of the beast. Animal algorithms predict behaviors en masse but there will always be exceptions. Evolutionary biologists invest great hope in the exceptions, the mutations, the innovations, that they believe “nature” will “select” to drive a population to new fitness peaks (but see this). Much as they would like to wrap the magic word “emergence” in equations, the nature of biology balks at being reduced to physics. I asked Paul Nelson about this. He replied:

I don’t think the problem in biology, however, is physics envy, as much as it is reality denial, or, more charitably, trying to use the wrong analytical / explanatory tools for the phenomena at hand. Imagine Caravaggio trying to paint this eye … with house paint rollers, or spray paint. Ain’t happening. “Physics envy” is really the belief that “equations will suffice,” when the data — a single protein, for instance — simply cannot be expressed as any mathematical relation. Amino acid sequences (and their nucleotide templates) are highly incompressible. If you want a histone or a kinase, you need the complete sequence, and math will not contain enough detail to specify that sequence…. If a scientist denies reality by trying to use the wrong tools for the data at hand, he will produce nonsense.

The incompressibility in biology is a feature, not a drawback. It’s what makes our world beautiful with wildflowers, towering redwoods, majestic whales, and individual human faces. When it comes to explaining origins, evolutionary biologists seek to alleviate physics envy in vain. They’ll find more relief, I believe, in teleology. On that, see the new book by David Klinghoffer about the thought of ID biologist Richard Sternberg, Plato's Revenge: The New Science of the Immaterial Genome.

GROK on aristotle's take on body and soul.

 Key Points:

Matter: The physical "stuff" or potentiality of an object (e.g., wood for a table).

Form: The actualizing principle that makes an object what it is (e.g., the shape and function of a table). For living things, the form is the soul (psyche), which organizes and animates the body.

Unity: Matter and form are not distinct substances but two aspects of a single substance. A living being, like a human, is a unified whole, not a soul trapped in a body.

Soul and Body: In humans, the soul (form) is the principle of life, movement, and thought, inseparable from the body (matter). The soul isn't a separate entity that survives death in Aristotle's view, unlike Plato’s dualism.

Causality: Form relates to Aristotle's four causes, especially the formal cause (what a thing is) and final cause (its purpose or function).

Real life tony stark is a game changer?

 

GROK on the western schism.

Yes, there were times when multiple popes presided simultaneously, primarily during the Western Schism (1378–1417). During this period, rival factions within the Catholic Church elected different popes, leading to competing claims to the papacy:

Western Schism (1378–1417): After the death of Pope Gregory XI, the election of Pope Urban VI in Rome was contested. A group of cardinals, dissatisfied with Urban VI, elected Clement VII, who set up a rival papacy in Avignon, France. This created two lines of popes: one in Rome and one in Avignon. At its peak, there were three claimants to the papacy:

Rome: Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, and Gregory XII.

Avignon: Clement VII and Benedict XIII.

Pisa (1409–1415): A council in Pisa attempted to resolve the schism by electing Alexander V (and later John XXIII), creating a third line of popes.The schism was resolved at the Council of Constance (1414–1418), which deposed the rival popes and elected Martin V as the sole pope.

Another earlier instance was the Great Schism of 1130–1138, when two popes, Innocent II and Anacletus II, claimed the papacy after a disputed election. Innocent II eventually prevailed.

These periods of multiple popes were driven by political, regional, and ecclesiastical disputes, leading to competing claims rather than a unified papacy.Another earlier instance was the Great Schism of 1130–1138, when two popes, Innocent II and Anacletus II, claimed the papacy after a disputed election. Innocent II eventually prevailed.

These periods of multiple popes were driven by political, regional, and ecclesiastical disputes, leading to competing claims rather than a unified papacy.Another earlier instance was the Great Schism of 1130–1138, when two popes, Innocent II and Anacletus II, claimed the papacy after a disputed election. Innocent II eventually prevailed.

These periods of multiple popes were driven by political, regional, and ecclesiastical disputes, leading to competing claims rather than a unified papacy.

GROK'S pregame analysis of a hypothetical Sherlock Holmes vs. Lex Luthor chess match up

 A chess match between Sherlock Holmes and Lex Luthor would be a fascinating clash of intellects, each bringing unique strengths to the board. Here’s a breakdown of how it might go:

Sherlock Holmes:

Strengths: Holmes, as depicted by Arthur Conan Doyle, is a master of observation, deduction, and strategic thinking. His ability to read opponents and anticipate moves would make him a formidable chess player. He’d likely excel at recognizing patterns and exploiting subtle mistakes, treating the game like a puzzle to unravel.

Approach: Holmes would play methodically, focusing on positional play and long-term strategy. He’d analyze Luthor’s body language and habits (e.g., hesitations or nervous tics) to predict his moves. His improvisational brilliance, seen in cases like A Study in Scarlet, suggests he could adapt to unexpected tactics.Weakness: Holmes might overthink or become distracted by trying to “solve” Luthor’s psychology, potentially missing simpler, direct threats. His reliance on logic could also make him vulnerable to unorthodox or chaotic moves.

Weakness: Holmes might overthink or become distracted by trying to “solve” Luthor’s psychology, potentially missing simpler, direct threats. His reliance on logic could also make him vulnerable to unorthodox or chaotic moves.

Lex Luthor:

Strengths: Luthor, as a DC Comics supervillain, is a genius strategist with a knack for outmaneuvering even Superman. His intellect is paired with ruthless pragmatism, making him a dangerous chess opponent. He’d likely prepare extensively, studying Holmes’ known games (if any) and devising traps tailored to his opponent’s style.

Approach: Luthor would play aggressively, favoring sharp, tactical lines to pressure Holmes early. He might employ psychological warfare, taunting Holmes to disrupt his focus, as seen in his manipulations in stories like All-Star Superman. His access to advanced technology (e.g., AI simulations) could give him an edge in preparation.Weakness: Luthor’s arrogance could lead to overconfidence, causing him to underestimate Holmes’ unconventional brilliance. His need to dominate might push him into risky positions, especially if Holmes baits him into overextending.

The Match:

Opening: Luthor might choose a sharp opening like the Sicilian Defense to test Holmes’ tactical acumen, while Holmes could opt for a solid, flexible setup like the London System to keep options open and observe Luthor’s tendencies.

Middlegame: Holmes would likely focus on subtle positional advantages, slowly building pressure while dodging Luthor’s tactical traps. Luthor, meanwhile, would push for complications, aiming to overwhelm Holmes with aggressive piece play.

Endgame: If the game reaches an endgame, Holmes’ precision and patience could give him an edge, especially in a simplified position where calculation trumps bravado. However, Luthor’s cunning might shine in a chaotic endgame with imbalanced material.Outcome:

Edge to Holmes: Holmes’ ability to read people and adapt on the fly might frustrate Luthor, whose plans often rely on opponents following predictable patterns. Holmes’ experience solving complex mysteries suggests he could outmaneuver Luthor in a battle of wits, especially if Luthor’s ego leads to a critical misstep.

But Luthor’s no slouch: If Luthor anticipates Holmes’ deductive approach, he could use misdirection—perhaps sacrificing material to create a position too complex for even Holmes to untangle in time.Outcome:

Edge to Holmes: Holmes’ ability to read people and adapt on the fly might frustrate Luthor, whose plans often rely on opponents following predictable patterns. Holmes’ experience solving complex mysteries suggests he could outmaneuver Luthor in a battle of wits, especially if Luthor’s ego leads to a critical misstep.

But Luthor’s no slouch: If Luthor anticipates Holmes’ deductive approach, he could use misdirection—perhaps sacrificing material to create a position too complex for even Holmes to untangle in time.Verdict: In a single game, I’d lean toward Holmes winning 55-45, thanks to his superior intuition and adaptability. In a longer match, Luthor’s preparation and stamina could close the gap, but Holmes’ ability to learn his opponent’s style would likely keep him ahead. It’d be a tense, brilliant battle, with both players pulling out every trick.

If you want a deeper analysis of specific chess strategies they might use or a fictional play-by-play of a game, let me know!Verdict: In a single game, I’d lean toward Holmes winning 55-45, thanks to his superior intuition and adaptability. In a longer match, Luthor’s preparation and stamina could close the gap, but Holmes’ ability to learn his opponent’s style would likely keep him ahead. It’d be a tense, brilliant battle, with both players pulling out every trick.

If you want a deeper analysis of specific chess strategies they might use or a fictional play-by-play of a game, let me know!

Real life tony stark says we are definitely in the jetson's timeline

 

GROK's pregame analysis of the(hoped for) bruce wayne vs. Lex Luthor chess match

 Bruce Wayne (Batman) vs. Lex Luthor in a chess match would be a battle of intellect, strategy, and psychology, given their respective personas and skill sets. Here's a breakdown of how it might go:

Bruce Wayne's Strengths

Strategic Genius: As Batman, Bruce is a master tactician, often planning several moves ahead in combat and detective work. This translates well to chess, where foresight and adaptability are key.

Psychological Insight: Bruce is adept at reading people, using his understanding of opponents' motivations to outmaneuver them. He could exploit Lex's ego or overconfidence.

Discipline and Focus: Bruce's training and mental fortitude allow him to stay calm under pressure, avoiding impulsive moves.

Preparation: Bruce is known for studying his enemies obsessively. He'd likely analyze Lex's past games (if any) and tailor his strategy accordingly.Lex Luthor's Strengths

Super-Genius Intellect: Lex is one of the smartest humans in the DC universe, with expertise in science, strategy, and manipulation. His raw intellect could give him an edge in calculating complex chess positions.

Ruthless Ambition: Lex plays to win at all costs, potentially making bold, aggressive moves to unsettle Bruce.

Psychological Warfare: Lex is a master manipulator, capable of taunting or distracting Bruce to throw him off his game.

Experience: Lex's wealth and status suggest he’s likely played chess at a high level, possibly against grandmasters, giving him practical experience.Lex Luthor's Strengths

Super-Genius Intellect: Lex is one of the smartest humans in the DC universe, with expertise in science, strategy, and manipulation. His raw intellect could give him an edge in calculating complex chess positions.

Ruthless Ambition: Lex plays to win at all costs, potentially making bold, aggressive moves to unsettle Bruce.

Psychological Warfare: Lex is a master manipulator, capable of taunting or distracting Bruce to throw him off his game.

Experience: Lex's wealth and status suggest he’s likely played chess at a high level, possibly against grandmasters, giving him practical experience.The Match

Opening: Bruce, cautious and methodical, might opt for a solid, flexible opening like 1.d4 or 1.e4, aiming to control the center and probe Lex’s strategy. Lex, confident and aggressive, could choose a sharp opening like the Sicilian Defense or King’s Gambit, trying to seize the initiative early.

Midgame: Bruce’s ability to anticipate Lex’s plans would shine here. He’d likely play positionally, setting traps and waiting for Lex to overextend. Lex, however, might push for complications, sacrificing material for an attack to overwhelm Bruce’s defenses.

Psychological Dynamics: Lex would try to rattle Bruce with taunts about Gotham’s crime or his parents’ death. Bruce, stoic but human, might feel the sting but would counter by subtly baiting Lex’s ego, goading him into risky moves.Endgame: If the game reaches a technical endgame, Bruce’s discipline could give him an edge, as he’d grind out a win through precise calculation. However, Lex’s brilliance might allow him to find unexpected resources, especially if he’s behind.

Endgame: If the game reaches a technical endgame, Bruce’s discipline could give him an edge, as he’d grind out a win through precise calculation. However, Lex’s brilliance might allow him to find unexpected resources, especially if he’s behind.

Outcome

Close Match: Both are near-equal in intellect and strategy, so the game could go either way. Bruce’s edge lies in his patience and ability to exploit mistakes, while Lex’s strength is his creativity and willingness to take risks.

Likely Winner: Bruce Wayne, slightly favored. His ability to stay calm and read Lex’s intentions could lead to Lex overplaying his hand. Bruce might lure Lex into a trap, capitalizing on a single miscalculation to secure victory.

Final Verdict: Bruce wins in a grueling match, possibly after Lex falls for a subtle positional trap in the late middlegame. However, Lex would demand a rematch, claiming he was "distracted by bigger plans."Outcome

Close Match: Both are near-equal in intellect and strategy, so the game could go either way. Bruce’s edge lies in his patience and ability to exploit mistakes, while Lex’s strength is his creativity and willingness to take risks.

Likely Winner: Bruce Wayne, slightly favored. His ability to stay calm and read Lex’s intentions could lead to Lex overplaying his hand. Bruce might lure Lex into a trap, capitalizing on a single miscalculation to secure victory.

Final Verdict: Bruce wins in a grueling match, possibly after Lex falls for a subtle positional trap in the late middlegame. However, Lex would demand a rematch, claiming he was "distracted by bigger plans."Outcome

Close Match: Both are near-equal in intellect and strategy, so the game could go either way. Bruce’s edge lies in his patience and ability to exploit mistakes, while Lex’s strength is his creativity and willingness to take risks.

Likely Winner: Bruce Wayne, slightly favored. His ability to stay calm and read Lex’s intentions could lead to Lex overplaying his hand. Bruce might lure Lex into a trap, capitalizing on a single miscalculation to secure victory.

Final Verdict: Bruce wins in a grueling match, possibly after Lex falls for a subtle positional trap in the late middlegame. However, Lex would demand a rematch, claiming he was "distracted by bigger plans."Outcome

Close Match: Both are near-equal in intellect and strategy, so the game could go either way. Bruce’s edge lies in his patience and ability to exploit mistakes, while Lex’s strength is his creativity and willingness to take risks.

Likely Winner: Bruce Wayne, slightly favored. His ability to stay calm and read Lex’s intentions could lead to Lex overplaying his hand. Bruce might lure Lex into a trap, capitalizing on a single miscalculation to secure victory.

Final Verdict: Bruce wins in a grueling match, possibly after Lex falls for a subtle positional trap in the late middlegame. However, Lex would demand a rematch, claiming he was "distracted by bigger plans."Outcome

Close Match: Both are near-equal in intellect and strategy, so the game could go either way. Bruce’s edge lies in his patience and ability to exploit mistakes, while Lex’s strength is his creativity and willingness to take risks.

Likely Winner: Bruce Wayne, slightly favored. His ability to stay calm and read Lex’s intentions could lead to Lex overplaying his hand. Bruce might lure Lex into a trap, capitalizing on a single miscalculation to secure victory.

Final Verdict: Bruce wins in a grueling match, possibly after Lex falls for a subtle positional trap in the late middlegame. However, Lex would demand a rematch, claiming he was "distracted by bigger plans."Outcome

Close Match: Both are near-equal in intellect and strategy, so the game could go either way. Bruce’s edge lies in his patience and ability to exploit mistakes, while Lex’s strength is his creativity and willingness to take risks.

Likely Winner: Bruce Wayne, slightly favored. His ability to stay calm and read Lex’s intentions could lead to Lex overplaying his hand. Bruce might lure Lex into a trap, capitalizing on a single miscalculation to secure victory.

Final Verdict: Bruce wins in a grueling match, possibly after Lex falls for a subtle positional trap in the late middlegame. However, Lex would demand a rematch, claiming he was "distracted by bigger plans."Outcome

Close Match: Both are near-equal in intellect and strategy, so the game could go either way. Bruce’s edge lies in his patience and ability to exploit mistakes, while Lex’s strength is his creativity and willingness to take risks.

Likely Winner: Bruce Wayne, slightly favored. His ability to stay calm and read Lex’s intentions could lead to Lex overplaying his hand. Bruce might lure Lex into a trap, capitalizing on a single miscalculation to secure victory.

Final Verdict: Bruce wins in a grueling match, possibly after Lex falls for a subtle positional trap in the late middlegame. However, Lex would demand a rematch, claiming he was "distracted by bigger plans."Outcome

Close Match: Both are near-equal in intellect and strategy, so the game could go either way. Bruce’s edge lies in his patience and ability to exploit mistakes, while Lex’s strength is his creativity and willingness to take risks.

Likely Winner: Bruce Wayne, slightly favored. His ability to stay calm and read Lex’s intentions could lead to Lex overplaying his hand. Bruce might lure Lex into a trap, capitalizing on a single miscalculation to secure victory.

Final Verdict: Bruce wins in a grueling match, possibly after Lex falls for a subtle positional trap in the late middlegame. However, Lex would demand a rematch, claiming he was "distracted by bigger plans."Outcome

Close Match: Both are near-equal in intellect and strategy, so the game could go either way. Bruce’s edge lies in his patience and ability to exploit mistakes, while Lex’s strength is his creativity and willingness to take risks.

Likely Winner: Bruce Wayne, slightly favored. His ability to stay calm and read Lex’s intentions could lead to Lex overplaying his hand. Bruce might lure Lex into a trap, capitalizing on a single miscalculation to secure victory.

Final Verdict: Bruce wins in a grueling match, possibly after Lex falls for a subtle positional trap in the late middlegame. However, Lex would demand a rematch, claiming he was "distracted by bigger plans."Outcome

Close Match: Both are near-equal in intellect and strategy, so the game could go either way. Bruce’s edge lies in his patience and ability to exploit mistakes, while Lex’s strength is his creativity and willingness to take risks.

Likely Winner: Bruce Wayne, slightly favored. His ability to stay calm and read Lex’s intentions could lead to Lex overplaying his hand. Bruce might lure Lex into a trap, capitalizing on a single miscalculation to secure victory.

Final Verdict: Bruce wins in a grueling match, possibly after Lex falls for a subtle positional trap in the late middlegame. However, Lex would demand a rematch, claiming he was "distracted by bigger plans."Outcome

Close Match: Both are near-equal in intellect and strategy, so the game could go either way. Bruce’s edge lies in his patience and ability to exploit mistakes, while Lex’s strength is his creativity and willingness to take risks.

Likely Winner: Bruce Wayne, slightly favored. His ability to stay calm and read Lex’s intentions could lead to Lex overplaying his hand. Bruce might lure Lex into a trap, capitalizing on a single miscalculation to secure victory.

Final Verdict: Bruce wins in a grueling match, possibly after Lex falls for a subtle positional trap in the late middlegame. However, Lex would demand a rematch, claiming he was "distracted by bigger plans."Outcome

Close Match: Both are near-equal in intellect and strategy, so the game could go either way. Bruce’s edge lies in his patience and ability to exploit mistakes, while Lex’s strength is his creativity and willingness to take risks.

Likely Winner: Bruce Wayne, slightly favored. His ability to stay calm and read Lex’s intentions could lead to Lex overplaying his hand. Bruce might lure Lex into a trap, capitalizing on a single miscalculation to secure victory.

Final Verdict: Bruce wins in a grueling match, possibly after Lex falls for a subtle positional trap in the late middlegame. However, Lex would demand a rematch, claiming he was "distracted by bigger plans."Outcome

Close Match: Both are near-equal in intellect and strategy, so the game could go either way. Bruce’s edge lies in his patience and ability to exploit mistakes, while Lex’s strength is his creativity and willingness to take risks.

Likely Winner: Bruce Wayne, slightly favored. His ability to stay calm and read Lex’s intentions could lead to Lex overplaying his hand. Bruce might lure Lex into a trap, capitalizing on a single miscalculation to secure victory.

Final Verdict: Bruce wins in a grueling match, possibly after Lex falls for a subtle positional trap in the late middlegame. However, Lex would demand a rematch, claiming he was "distracted by bigger plans."

GROK on may day

 May Day, celebrated on May 1st, has a dual history rooted in ancient traditions and modern labor movements.

Ancient Origins: May Day traces back to pre-Christian Europe, particularly Celtic and Germanic festivals. It marked the beginning of summer, celebrated as Beltane in Celtic cultures, with rituals like bonfires, dancing around maypoles, and crowning May Queens to symbolize fertility and renewal. Romans celebrated Floralia, honoring the goddess Flora with flowers and festivities. These pagan traditions persisted, evolving into secular spring celebrations across Europe, with maypole dances and village gatLabor Movement: In the 19th century, May Day became synonymous with workers’ rights. On May 1, 1886, U.S. labor unions organized a nationwide strike for an eight-hour workday, culminating in the Haymarket Affair in Chicago, where a bomb explosion during a protest led to deaths and heightened tensions. In 1889, the Second International, a socialist organization, declared May 1st as International Workers’ Day to commemorate the Haymarket martyrs and advocate for labor rights. It became a global day for demonstrations, strikes, and celebrations of workers’ solidarity, especially in socialist and communist countries.

Modern Observance: Today, May Day is a public holiday in many countries. In some, like the UK, it retains its spring festival character with traditional dances and fairs. In others, particularly in Europe and Latin America, it’s a day of labor protests and political rallies. In the U.S., it’s less prominent, with Labor Day in September taking precedence, but some activist groups still mark it. The holiday’s meaning varies by region, blending ancient rituals with modern social justice themes.

GROK on Jewish philosopher Philo's Logos.

Intermediary Between God and Creation Philo viewed God as completely transcendent—perfect, beyond comprehension, and separate from the imperfect material world. To explain how such a God could create or interact with the universe, Philo introduced the Logos as a mediator. The Logos acts as God’s agent, facilitating the creation and governance of the world without compromising God’s transcendence.

2. Divine Reason and Blueprint Drawing from Platonic philosophy, Philo described the Logos as the divine reason or mind. It contains the ideal forms or blueprints of everything in existence, serving as the rational principle that brings order and intelligibility to the cosmos. In this sense, the Logos is the organizing force behind the universe.

The Word of God Philo linked the Logos to the Jewish concept of God’s creative word, as seen in Genesis (e.g., "And God said, 'Let there be light'"). He identified the Logos as the spoken word through which God brings the universe into being. Beyond creation, the Logos also serves as the medium of divine communication, such as in revelation and prophecy.

4. Firstborn of CreationPhilo referred to the Logos as the "firstborn" or "eldest" of all created beings, highlighting its unique role and preeminence. Though distinct from God, the Logos is closely tied to Him, often described as God’s image or reflection, through which all things are made.

Yet another skrimish in the war of the titans

 

GROK on the Andromeda paradox

What is the andromeda paradox?

The Andromeda Paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity illustrating how simultaneity is relative. It involves two observers moving relative to each other, say on Earth, with one walking toward the Andromeda galaxy and the other away from it. Due to the relativity of simultaneity, their "now" slices—events they consider simultaneous—differ.

For the observer moving toward Andromeda, their "present" includes events in Andromeda's future compared to the other observer’s "present." The time difference can be significant—potentially days or years—depending on their relative velocity and the distance to Andromeda (about 2.5 million light-years). This arises because light signals from Andromeda take time to reach Earth, and the observers' motion tilts their planes of simultaneity in spacetime.

The paradox highlights that events simultaneous for one observer may not be for another, challenging intuitive notions of a universal "now." It’s not a true paradox but a consequence of Einstein’s theory, where time and simultaneity depend on the observer’s frame of reference.

GROK on Isaac Newton's christology.

 Isaac Newton's Christology, or his views on the nature of Christ, was deeply unconventional for his time and rooted in his intense study of scripture and early Christian texts. Newton, a devout but heterodox Christian, rejected the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, which holds that God exists as three co-equal persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Instead, he leaned toward a form of Arianism, a non-Trinitarian theology that views Jesus Christ as a distinct, subordinate entity to God the Father.

Key points of Newton's Christology include:

Rejection of the Trinity: Newton believed the doctrine of the Trinity was a corruption of original Christianity, introduced by later church councils (notably Nicaea in 325 CE). He argued it was not supported by the earliest biblical texts and was a product of theological and political compromise.Subordination of Christ: Newton saw Jesus as the Son of God, divine in a sense, but not co-equal or co-eternal with God the Father. He viewed Christ as a created being, exalted by God but ontologically inferior, aligning with Arian or semi-Arian views.

Scriptural Basis: Newton’s Christology was grounded in his meticulous analysis of the Bible, particularly the Greek New Testament. He studied early manuscripts and believed that passages supporting the Trinity, like the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8), were later interpolations.

Historical Corruption: He argued that the early church, especially after the 4th century, distorted Christ’s true nature under the influence of Greek philosophy and Roman imperial politics. He saw Athanasius, a key Trinitarian figure, as a corrupter of doctrine.Scriptural Basis: Newton’s Christology was grounded in his meticulous analysis of the Bible, particularly the Greek New Testament. He studied early manuscripts and believed that passages supporting the Trinity, like the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8), were later interpolations.

Historical Corruption: He argued that the early church, especially after the 4th century, distorted Christ’s true nature under the influence of Greek philosophy and Roman imperial politics. He saw Athanasius, a key Trinitarian figure, as a corrupter of doctrine.Secrecy: Newton kept his views private, as anti-Trinitarianism was considered heresy in 17th-century England and could have cost him his position at Cambridge or even his life. He expressed his beliefs in private manuscripts, such as Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture and Paradoxical Questions concerning the morals & actions of Athanasius & his followers.

Christ as Mediator: Newton emphasized Christ’s role as a mediator between God and humanity, a divine figure chosen by God to fulfill a redemptive purpose, but not as God Himself.Newton’s Christology reflects his broader approach to theology: rigorous, skeptical of tradition, and driven by a desire to return to what he saw as the purity of early Christianity. His views were shaped by his study of patristic writings, Jewish theology, and his rejection of metaphysical speculations ungrounded in scripture. While his scientific work overshadowed his theological writings, his Christological beliefs were a central part of his intellectual life, though they remained largely hidden during his lifetime.

If you want specific details from Newton’s manuscripts or how his views compared to other contemporary theologians, let me know!Newton’s Christology reflects his broader approach to theology: rigorous, skeptical of tradition, and driven by a desire to return to what he saw as the purity of early Christianity. His views were shaped by his study of patristic writings, Jewish theology, and his rejection of metaphysical speculations ungrounded in scripture. While his scientific work overshadowed his theological writings, his Christological beliefs were a central part of his intellectual life, though they remained largely hidden during his lifetime.

If you want specific details from Newton’s manuscripts or how his views compared to other contemporary theologians, let me know!

On an interstellar visitor

 

Darwinism is universal acid to sound culture.

 John West on Darwin’s Culturally Corrosive Idea

Andrew McDiarmid

On a classic episode of ID the Future, catch the first half of a public talk by political scientist John West on how Darwinism has poisoned Western culture. In the lecture, delivered at the Dallas Conference on Science and Faith, West explores how Darwin’s purely materialistic theory of evolution has drained meaning from nature, undercut the idea of inherent human dignity, and fueled the rise of scientific racism in the 20th century. Dr. West is author of Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science.

Download the podcast or listen to it here.