Black Holes: The Assholes of the Universe

The other day the Science channel had a marathon of different shows like “How The Universe Works” and “Morgan Freeman's Through the Wormhole” on various aspects of cosmology. I watched a good bulk of the episodes, so I think it's safe to say I now qualify an expert on everything from supernovae to string theory. I'm a regular Neil deGrasse Tyson, bitches!

And in my freshly minted expert opinion, I must conclude that black holes are, in fact, the assholes of the universe.

Now, I don't mean that they are the opening from which the universe excretes it's fecal matter. That's the sort of thing someone who has been watching the Animal Planet or Discovery all day might say. (I watched Science. Just so we're clear.) If I was attempting to be metaphorical, they'd probably be the universe's mouths, since they consume much more than they emit. And in which case “Hawking radiation” would be the universe's vomit. (See, I told you I'm an expert now.)

I mean they are assholes in the sense of they are stupid little fucks who need to get their ass beat for being so cocky.

For instance, scientists think there's trillions of black holes out there, mocking us by staying invisible. Meanwhile, they are probably the number one thing we would WANT to see, since they are the weirdest, scariest things in existence.

These things aren't just holes in the universe, they are holes in reality itself. All logic breaks down inside them, so good luck trying to understand these fucking pricks if they aren't even going to follow the fucking rules.

I also learned how Stephen Hawking successfully trolled theoretical physics for 30 years when he proposed the “information paradox” which says all information (matter, energy, and the way they were oriented) is totally lost forever once it passes the event horizon. Everything sucked inside just disappears after the holes evaporate, just like they never existed. This idea not only undermined the basic laws of the physics, it undermined the law of cause and effect.

And did Hawking care? Did he think, “Damn, that can't be right. Maybe I'm overlooking something?” Nope. He just put it out there and let his detractors work on it themselves, while he just sat in his wheelchair giving them the troll face. Eventually someone came up with a way using string theory to show how information might be conserved, but it took Hawking several years before he admitted he was wrong.

Oh, but this other guy's theory isn't right either.

Hawking suggested that if there was a parallel dimension where the black hole didn't exist, then the information would still exist there. Problem solved, right? He had just forgotten to incorporate the improvable theory of parallel dimensions, that's all! Stephen Hawking may love physics, but he sure loves trolling even more.

So the question is still open as to whether or not black holes actually destroy information or not, but one thing we can be sure is that they're huge fucking assholes for making us wonder about it in the first place.

No one knows what exists beyond the event horizon or what the singularity really even is apart from the math they use to describe it's physical properties. It could literally be anything. For all we know, it's a picture of my dick. There could even be another universe in there, with lifeforms and such. Hell, maybe this universe is the singularity in the center of some black hole in another universe that's sitting on a turtle's shell. Your guess is as good as anyone at MIT's, it seems.

It's also impossible to know for sure what the true nature of black holes are, since no one has actually seen one, let alone seen one being born and even if we could send a probe light-years away, it couldn't get anywhere close to it before the gravity got so large it couldn't send transmissions anymore.

And what compounds the problem even further is that in order to understand what's going on at the singularity, we need both general relativity and quantum mechanics-- two theories that mix about as well as evolution and intelligent design. The singularity is said to be “infinitely dense” which somehow means it's some finite mass compressed into no volume. So it's something packed so tightly it takes up literally no space.

And this concept makes as much sense to the smartest astrophysicists as it does to anyone else. They just hope that the absurdity that is quantum mechanics probably has something to do with it. But for all they know, it very well may not. And there's no way to really verify it.

Seriously, fuck everything about these things.

Most of what we know about black holes are educated guesses based on math and some other principles in general relativity that have been, so far, verified. The theory as to how they are created is when a giant star much, much larger than our sun dies and go supernova, at which point its core becomes so fucking heavy that it literally breaks the shelf of reality that the star was sitting on and forms a black hole. This is why we can't have nice things.

Furthermore, despite all this crazy bullshit they put astrophysicists through when it comes to trying to understand these cosmic rule breakers, they only have, at most, three physical properties (but sometimes just one), so they're more easy to describe than something like a star or planet. It's like the universe is just trolling us with these things. Common.

***

There is a rule in life that the more your learn, the more you realize you don't know, and in no field of science is this fact more clear than in astrophysics. These scientists know more about how much we truly don't know more than anyone else, and yet they don't need to seek the security blanket of religion to shelter than from the emptiness of their own knowledge. I think that pretty heartening.

That's why I find it so crass for theists to arrogantly proclaim they have all the answers which came about, not through hundreds of years of logic and reason carried out by brilliant minds standing on the shoulders of other brilliant minds, but through their own primitive instincts they mistake as a mystical revelation. It takes away from the beauty of the natural process that is the culmination of billions of years of change to simply claim it was all done with ease by some magic man in the sky.

They'd have you believe that God created a universe filled with things than can utterly obliterate not just us, but all life, a million times over, in countless ways, (many of which we wouldn't even see coming) and He had us in mind when he set this all up. For 14 billion years He was busy creating super massive black holes, quasars, galaxies, and stars that go supernova-- all so we could live on the surface of a small rock mostly covered in a substance that drowns us and is plagued by frequent natural disasters. Basically, the universe is the insanely complex Rube Goldberg device build by an all powerful being just so he could create a few billion people he can torture for eternity if they use condoms.

Sounds legit to me.

Sympathy for the Devil

“Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste”- The Rolling Stones

With all the talk about Barack Obama's new so called “Jobs Bill,” and how it's really not class-warfare, despite the popular belief held by the right, I knew it wouldn't be long before some of the more progressive minds on the left would not only accept the label of class-warfare, but would embrace it forthrightly and claim they were only acting in self defense from the evil bourgeois interests which had drawn first blood in this class struggle. This is where they point to the age-old “the rich are getting richer while the poor are becoming poorer” pseudostatistic used to justify their Marxist crusade against their less militant foe.

The problem with this reasoning is multifold. The most damning of which is the fact that when one looks at the statistics and sees the top whatever-you-like percent all that is seen is that that the income associated with that group has risen, yet it fails to perceive the fundamental question of “who are these people?” The economy is highly dynamic and alters its shape everyday as markets must allocate new resources and respond to changes in the incentive structure. Businesses wax and wane, technology is improved, the tax code changes, regulations are passed, trade agreements are signed, and the demand for different skill sets come and go. All of these variables do their part to shift those individuals and households which compose these statistical designations. Those who may have been considered middle class for most of their lives have succeeded at becoming a member of the top 5% class, and someone on the lower fringe of the top 10% may now be classified as belonging to the top .01%. Likewise, someone who used to work in the housing or financial sector may have lost their job, found a lower paying job, or received a pay-cut, rendering them in a lower bracket. Or the case could simply be that new taxes or regulations have made them or their businesses less productive, and thus receive lower profits for producing less value to others.

Progressives therefore take an archaic and medieval worldview when it comes to how they perceive “classes.” For most of human history, when we had monarchs and feudalism, those who were born into their class would stay there for their whole lives. It was part of their identity. No longer is that the case, however. Classes have more or less been abolished. Certainly the lifestyle of Bill Gates or a professional athlete might be much more lavish than someone who makes $30,000 a year, but these differences are far removed than the wealth disparity of the middle-ages. Even the poorest in the industrialized nations have access to simple, but nevertheless vital, medicines which prolong our lifespans until even the Warren Buffets of the world aren't expected to live all that much longer than someone that makes less than 1% of his income. Those below the poverty line have access to potable running water, household appliances, air-conditioning, and other amenities that even the Kings of ancien régime would marvel at.

The exact process of how the wealthy become wealthy in this post-industrial revolution era is allowed to be eluded in their minds. It's curious how the intellectuals who typically refer to reality as subjective seem to know the precise level that constitutes “fairness” when it comes to how much money the rich should be allowed to keep. They don't consider that fairness might be achieved by allowing people to keep all that they earn though, even if it is six or seven figures. While it is true that something's value is determined by subjective judgments, it is by this very process that wealth grows. Think of how much wealth existed in an era before the combustible engine or electricity and now think of how many people live longer and better lives than the people of that era, despite there being far more people today for that wealth to be divided by. All of this comes from the trillions of exchanges between people who were free to express their subjective value judgments toward items or skills which they possessed (and they considered to be of a relatively lesser value to them) and items or skills which someone else possessed (considered to be of a relatively greater value). Now, if it were in fact true that everything had an intrinsic value which was fixed, then no wealth could be created and perhaps it could only be destroyed as it is being consumed. In such a case it might be true that wealth would need to be redistributed in order to ensure people had enough to survive, but as that is not the case, this sort of thinking can only be thought of as unjustly depriving an individual of that which is rightly theirs. There's a word for this sort of action; it's called “theft.”

To think of the wealth inequality as being a problem in-and-of-itself anymore is operating on some gut instinct that says it's wrong to be richer than others. This is perhaps better known as “envy.” Or if they have no reason to be envious, because they already have some wealth, that feeling is replaced with guilt for belonging to the class of the “haves” instead of the the morally preferable “have-nots.” If money really didn't matter to those who seek a “fair” distribution of income, as they often claim, then they wouldn't make it their businesses how much of it other people possess. The left's neuroticism is therefore taken out on those people, regardless of their character, who's only crime is creating value to a large number of people because it's not “fair” that they have a nicer life than the vast majority of other people.

However, to show that I am fair-minded, I will point out that the left's complaints are not completely unfounded. There are, in fact, times in which corporations are able to earn profits which they don't deserve, and this is probably contributing to why the rich are getting richer while everyone else isn't. In the field of economics this is referred to as “rent-seeking.” In short, rent-seeking is defined as revenue extracted at the expense of one group's welfare and doesn't result in a net increase in wealth. An example of this would be when corporations lobbies the government for licenses or regulations which limit competition and allows them from earn higher profits. But rent-seeking doesn't only apply to corporations. The very nature of unions is to create rents by seeking government help to exclude non-union labor form competing and driving down wages to their otherwise free-market rates. This artificially drives up the costs of hiring labor, while said labor doesn't become any more productive and thus reduces the possible productivity of the business by keeping it from hiring more people or investing in capital goods. It seems to me the solution to the unfair rents garnered by businesses shouldn't be used as excuses for others to engage in their own rent-seeking behaviors. The losers in both cases will always be the consumer who now face higher prices and fewer choices than they would face in a freer marketplace.

If the left really understood the impact of a highly progressive tax system, they would try to do away with it post haste and replace it with a flatter, simpler tax code. Unfortunately their morality betrays them as it is the reason they avoid imposing taxes on the poor and middle classes who, combined, far outnumber the 5% they want to use as the sole revenue source for the nation.

Maybe the most ironic aspect of their reasoning is that when corporations face higher taxes and regulations, it only serves to further entrench the richest ones who suffer the lowest risk of any of the competition from going out of business. Meanwhile, to their smaller among them, these costs are relatively higher and they very well may risk going belly-up or at least must downsize. These higher taxes and regulations also deter others from getting into the industry altogether who might instil that sector with cost cutting innovation that provides consumers with lower prices or product diversity.

If the tax code was actually fair, it would mean everyone being treated equal and burden their incomes by the same amount. Furthermore, such a tax code would allow corporations and the rich to invest more money into productive enterprises which grows the economy and discourages the use of tax shelters and other means of dodging the tax man. When the economy grows, so do the government coffers which would make it easier for the government to maintain the welfare programs so championed by the left. There's evidence that shows, if your goal is wealth redistribution, direct-payments are far more effective than engaging in class-warfare via the tax code. This is how Europe does it, and they don't have tax codes as progressive as America's (which ranks the most progressive of any other in the world).

Perhaps even more compelling are the data that show that the revenue-to-GDP ratio remains more-or-less flat as the top federal tax rate has gone everywhere from 90% to 23%. What we can tell is that, when these tax rates are low, GDP grows as does the revenue the government collects. So if you want to pay down the public debt or run welfare programs, the best solution is to treat the rich like equal citizens and not like society's pariahs.

Maybe if the left would like to achieve a better, more equitable society, they should show a little bit of sympathy for their devils.

On Marx

I've just recently returned to an issue that I would like to examine further: the idea that maybe Karl Marx was right in some way. At least when it comes to his prognostication of the progression of capitalism through history.

Karl Marx expected that the proletariat would eventually rise up and usher in the new communist society, replacing the former capitalist and statist hierarchy. He said that capitalism (as he saw it) would collapse in on itself from its pursuit of capital accumulation at the expense of the laborer. This replacement of labor with machinery would form a "growing army of the unemployed" and this hardship would lead to revolution and the instillation of a co-operative based society devoid of any such hierarchical institutions.

It seems to me that capitalism has been experiencing a slow-motion collapse at least since the progressive era. Maybe it was even doomed from the start by the likes of the railroads that sought government subsidies in order to make a profit where there wasn't one before. If one defines capitalism by the concept "do whatever it takes to make as much money as you can" then maybe the morality of capitalism was never truly grasped. This is what Ayn Rand meant in referring to capitalism as haven been created "in mid-stream". An understanding of the full extent of Adam Smith's revolutionary idea was never completely grasped for this very reason. Smith, perhaps, could have saved his capitalism by marrying his Theory of Moral Sentiments with The Wealth of Nations and constructed something like an objectivist ethics by stressing that capitalism can only be sucessful under the pursuit of one's rational self interest, and not a simple hedonistic version as is so often used to malign the idea-- and is some unfortunate cases, in defense of--ego-centric morality.

If this is the case, then it would definitely appear to vindicate Marx in a way. The demise of capitalism is just as much to be blamed on some of the businessmen in whom it was entrusted, as with the labor unions and unsympathetic politicians. However, overtime what is happening is a corruption of the idea of freedom and liberty to mean lack of such things. "Rights" are now conceptualized as involving the abolition the rights of some for privileges which are to be bestowed to others by Society's mediary on earth: the State.

So what we have today is the gradual secession of capitalism and the morality that it entails, to the aggrandizement of the State and a mandatory subservience to Society. Some may call this Communism or Socialism, depending on how one ultimately conceptualizes those terms. But to someone that sees Socialism as the mere subordination of the individual's motives to that of Society's (maybe without the need to do much nationalizing of industry at all), where does this reasoning logically end? Can it merely be stopped at the nationalization of the healthcare industry, the energy industry, and banking industry? Self-proclaimed socialists may argue that these sorts of things are a "right" held by all, but once the state secures these, where do these socially bestowed rights end? Can we logically assume that all farming must be owned or controlled by the state since food is necessary for survival and is therefore a "right"? What about housing? What does it mean for the related trades involved in producing these things? If it is assumed that, perhaps there are negative aspects to State control over certain markets (as the Soviet model demonstrated), then maybe a Socialist would like to stop somewhere. But how does one retrain such impulses if the word "privilege" has long shared the meaning with "right"? Is it to stretch the mind beyond reason that the meaning of words can be changed overtime to the detriment of a people? George Orwell, my guess is, would likely say, "No."

While the clout of labor unions have been a dominant pull in government legislation, undoubtedly so has the clout of big business. The question of which came first, the chicken or the egg I'll accept as a matter of debate. I'd like to believe it was the labor unions who first ran into the arms of big daddy federal government, but that could very well not be the case. Either way, the current zeitgeist involves a pandering to the federal government to secure whatever "rights" (be they legitimate, or privileges) before some other law gets passed that infringes on them.

This being the case, perhaps then, it can be argued that capitalism-- or at least the capitalists-- have been responsible for the collapse of capitalism and setting the stage for labor unions (who purport to be the stand-in for all who labor) to take over control over the State. This may not be the exact idea that herr Marx had in mind when he wrote his Manifesto, but it does take on a certain resemblance to his revolution, this one being more akin to the menshevik version than the violent bolshevik one.

It's up We the people; libertarians, conservatives, liberals, and moderates to decide whether Marx will ultimately be shown to have been correct in some vague way (the only way a prophet's predictions can be). Those of us who want to stop this must find a way to be effective in creating change. The most tried, true and, most importantly, moral way is do as these mensheviks and ask for moderate reforms toward liberty while all the while keeping within our hearts the drive for a long and draw-out replay of the American Revelution to be waged in the 21st century. And if this doesn't happen, then perhaps Karl Marx deserves more credit than I have typically regarded him with.

What Happened Before The Big Bang?

(spoilers: no one says, "God")



I just watched this BBC documentary and it was really fascinating to hear what the cutting edge theories of cosmology are. No one even patronized the idea of there being something like a God who created the universe. It really pisses me off at how we have these kinds of brilliant minds out there doing all this hard work formulating such elegant and imaginative theories to explain creation, and some people can just say, "that's all garbage-- obviously it was due to the will of magic man in the sky." What an uninspiring, cop-out, bullshit of an answer!

I'm tired of the fucking Austrians

And I'm not talking about the actual citizens of the country, of course.

I'm referring to those who subscribe to the idea of the "Austrian business-cycle theory" and the associate perspective on the proper monetary policy. Perhaps I should really call them "Rothbardians," since it's Murry Rothbard who they tend to have the most respect for out of all the Austrian economists. The fucked up thing is that Rothbard was a poser and didn't really understand economics very well beyond certain free-market fundamentals of classical economics.

Probably the most annoying aspect of the Rothbardians is how they are staunchly against banking, and seem to not be quite aware of this fact. They say they're against "fractional-reserve banking" which sounds as though it were some specialized form of banking, but really its simply just plain ol' banking. What other forms of banking are there? What is a bank other than a business that takes deposits, makes loans, and profits off the difference between the interest it receives and that which it pays (and sits on a bit of capital itself)? Usually their version of a "proper" gold standard involves abolishing banks. If we're ever going to have a gold standard again we've got to find a way to get them to shut the fuck up about this bullshit theory.

There has never been a time when humans had a gold standard without "fractional-reserve banking," and guess what, it worked just fine when it was used in conjunction with low taxes. It seems that the Rothbardians have generally overlooked the issue of taxes as having anything to do with the health of the economy. True, Rothbard was against taxes, but it wasn't because taxes hurt hampered wealth creation (aside from the immediate loss from those who paid them). He was against them because it was, to him, immoral to implement then in the first place, and as an anarcho-capitalist, Rothbard's solution was simply to remove the monopolization of government so that tax collection was no longer an affront to human rights. In general, he saw it as a zero-sum game to be played-- the government takes what it will and there's no economic loss, only a moral one. If he ever acknowledged that high taxes begat recessions, then he couldn't tie a pretty bow around the Austrian Business-Cycle Theory, which he also used to indict Central Banks' authority (and by extension, the authority of bankers over their debtors).

Nowadays, there's plenty of Rothbarian apologists running around and helping paint libertarianism with a kooky facade. Maybe a better name for these people are the "paultards" who aren't intellectual beyond some paltry grasp Ron Paul's platform and who only bother to pick up books approved by the Mises Institute.

What I think is sad is that most libertarians are such strong followers of the Rothbardian end-the-motha-fuckin-FED tradition that few actually pay lip service to Milton Friedman or cite the eloquent way he used to advocate for libertarian values. Friedman and some of his associates like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams have written and spoken at length about things like minimum-wage laws, labor-laws, unions, inflation, and the advocacy of free trade; things which many Austrians don't talk much about because they're busy decrying the Fed's authority over the money supply (something which they even fail to correctly define). The Rothbardians won't tell you much about Reason Magazine or any of their affiliated websites, either, since many of their writers are sort of cool with a few basic environment regulations, maybe a few safety laws for workers here or there, and *gasp* think that the FED doesn't need to be utterly demolished with the rubble pissed on and then scattered to the four corners of the earth! Cato barely gets much mention by them as well, for similar reason as not having more puritanical libertarian dogma, even though Rothbard was one of the original founders.

If we want to live in a freer society that adopts more libertarian values, there needs to be serious intellectuals out there who don't show up to the debate wearing tri-corn hats, yelling about how we need to make banking illegal and that scapegoat all economic problems on the FED.

How do I know there is not, nor ever could be, such a thing asGod?

Well, how would one seek to prove that there is a God, unequivocally? What scientific evidence could there possible be? Hypothetically, one might say, "Well, if God appeared one day and said, 'Hello. this is God.'" But anyone could go around claiming to be God. If you saw someone you knew one day claiming they were God, you'd just say, "The hell you are, Dave! I've known you all my life."

"Well," Dave says, "How do you know I haven't really been Him this whole time?"

"Because you're not omnipotent and I saw you kick that cat that one time. God wouldn't kick a cat."

"Well, how do you know that he wouldn't? Aren't the true characteristics of God unknowable after all?"

That brings up a good question: How "knowable" is God? If a supernatural deity did exist, what would distinguish it from the rest of the universe? If a characteristic is that He isn't distinguishable (not just now, but EVER), then what grounds would you ever have to claim anything could ever be God, for certain? Furthermore, how do you know that God, in fact, is never distinguishable unless you are formulating this hypothesis without good cause? If the case is that God's existence can't ever be proven because He doesn't look or act any different from the rest of non-God reality, then there is no valid argument to conceptualize anything as being "God". If your "God" can more readily be defined as "the universe and the physical properties thereof," then all you have done is add a superfluous word to the human language.

In order for objective existence-- of anything-- to be claimed, there must be grounds for it to be first regarded as an observable "thing," that is, it must have characteristics which can be identified and studied. If no differentiating characteristics can be observed, whether directly (via the primary human senses), or indirectly (via instruments or through a mathematical science like quantum physics), there can be no grounds to say there is any "thing" at all.

The existence of dark matter is not observable directly, but it's existence remains detectable via calculations on the rotation of the galaxy and what we know about the matter we can observe with our eyes. Furthermore, while it doesn't scatter light, its gravity bends light so it can be detectable with certain telescopes through lensing. These characteristics tell us, while we don't completely understand what dark matter is or how it operates, we know that it has unique characteristics which permit scientists to study its existence further.

Unless God can exhibit certain distinguishable characteristics that can allow us to conclude that, no only is this a "thing", but also something which we can logically conceptualize as a supernatural being or deity-- a "higher power," if you will-- can there even possibly be a conclusion about whether anything is, or is not a God.

This is where you run into further problems. Most religions' God (or Gods) have different characteristics and personalities. Some say that He is all loving and merciful, while other depict theirs as spiteful and the cause of all types of natural disasters and misfortunes. Some think that God "tests" us by conjuring up bad things while others say it is the work of the Devil or demons. Certain individuals claim to believe in some kind of supreme being or creator of the universe which they attribute their own, unique characteristics to Him that don't follow the teachings of any organized religion. Usually these people refer to themselves as "Deists,"

which is really just a way for those who are uncomfortable with organized religions to not have to give up their security blanket of believing there is still a benevolent, mystical father-figure out there who loves them unconditionally-- or worse still-- gives them an excuse not to have to employ reason or logic to understand reality.

In order for some entity to be proven to be a supernatural creator of the universe, we first need to come up with grounds to properly conceptualize what it is we would be looking for. If some observable "thing" is out there which could objectively be called God, how would we know when we've found it (providing, of course, that it were ever feasibly possible to discover such a thing)? If you don't have an objective concept of God, then there is nothing stopping your friend, Dave, from claiming that he is God, despite behaving just like another human.

Let's come up with a working list of attributes that just about anyone would agree encompasses what we mean when we say "God":

-All powerful (there is nothing that He can't do)
-All knowing (He knows everything that could be known)
-Loves all humans unconditionally
-The creator of the universe
-Intelligent (capable of logical thinking)
-Exists beyond the universe (in another dimension/universe)
-Operates on a logic that transcends our own
-Supernatural (can orchestrate miracles that defy nature)

Well, I think it's easy to say that if God is all powerful and all knowing, then He can't be always benevolent, since that implies that he is responsible for all unjustness in the world. And if it wasn't part of his plan for the unjustness of the world to happen, then he must not be all powerful since he couldn't stop it. If he could have, but didn't want to, then he is an accessory and is therefore just as morally culpable since he let something terrible happen to one of His "creations" that he loved.

Furthermore, what need would there be for an all powerful, all knowing God to have "intelligence"? Or rather, what good would thinking or reason do Him, if He already knew the solution to any possible problem He could have before he could have it? And if he was all powerful, wouldn't he have solved it before it needed solving? Does he need to think out what His plan is or how to implement it at all? He wouldn't have to think about what He's going to do next-- He would just be operating on whim at all times. Clearly, the idea that God would have an intelligence, or a mind, or could think is something of human creation and that we would need to attribute to a God that could design a universe "intelligently," in any sense of the word. And frankly, there isn't much evidence to suggest that this universe is designed intelligently or under any plan-- at least not for lifeforms at any rate. Its pretty hard to stay alive, if you think about it. If it wasn't for the capacity to reason and build our own habitat that could keep us a live for long periods of time, humans would still only last until the 30s if they were lucky. And that's just on Earth, not to mention how utterly uninhabitable the rest of the universe is for life, let alone human life.

Although perhaps the case is that there is, or was, a God at the creation of the universe who set the Big Bang into motion and designed the universe without life in mind (judging from how difficult it is for life to survive in it). However, there was such an entity who exists in some other dimension who is just sort of apathetic about the whole thing. But let's still say that there could be a creator who has the power to create a universe from nothing. How would one conceivably come to recognize such and entity even in the most hypotheical situation one could think of? For arguments sake, lets say at some point in human existence we can send a human or probe, safely, to this universe/dimension where God is. What would it be like to observe this "God"?

No matter what dimension or universe such a being would exist in; no matter what sort of crazy logic exists there which is different from ours (where the rape of children appears to make moral sense, or where certain beings have the power to create universes with stars and human life in them), such a "God"-- with the power to create matter out of nothing, the physical properties that govern their movement, and by extension, the logic that makes them all these functions operate on-- would necessarily have to obey what ever type of order that corresponds to that universe. If there is some kind of "Super logic" that humans can't understand that exists there, then in order for it to be a logic of any type, it would have to be consistently applied or else there would be perpetual, unfathomable chaos. The substances that a "God" would be made up of would have to obey the physical properties of that universe or else it couldn't exist there either. And whatever principles allow this "intelligent, all powerful being" to design our universe would mean that this "God" would have to obey said principles (even if it had the power to create different principles that govern our universe). This necessarily means that such an entity would not be "all powerful" in whatever universe/dimension it existed in, and therefore, not God.

The concept of something real and yet "supernatural" is a contradiction in terms. Something cannot exist which is beyond the possibilities granted by the laws of nature. If ghosts or ESP could be proven scientifically to be real, then they would not be "supernatural." They would be as natural as roses, insects, or galaxies-- all of which are things provable and able to be studied scientifically in one form or another. If there is a logical explanation for something-- even if it is "God did it"-- that disqualifies it as being "miraculous" or "supernatural."

However, I think that perhaps the most compelling proof that there could never be any omnipotent being is can be found in the omnipotence paradox: "Can God create a rock so large that even He couldn't lift it?" or some derivative thereof. There is no possible answer to that question that would suggest that whatever being that you are talking about would be logically considered to be called "God." Even those who would suggest something a long the lines of "well, God's omnipotence doesn't cover such paradoxes in logic" is conceding that "God must be governed by the rules of logic and doesn't have the power to do something illogical."

How do I know there's no God? That's how.

Liberal Economists

People like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich are generally regarded as serious economists, yet I find it odd that these economists don't realize how much their policy prescriptions are based on normative analysis (e.g., propositions which can't be objectively verified). For instance, they often harp on how we don't have a sufficiently progressive tax code so that the "rich" can be forced to "pay their fair share." Regardless if you agree with this statement or not, it's impossible to determine in any objective way what a "fair share" means. It's completely a matter of conjecture as to how much you'd like to soak the rich.

Another problem that liberal economists like to talk about is how the richest 1% are acquiring a larger percentage of the nation's total wealth. By itself, that statistic suggests more than it actually tells us about what's going on in the economy. Is it that the rich are hording their wealth? Or perhaps the value of their assets is stable, yet the other 99% are seeing their assets diminish in value at a greater rate. Or it could even be a case that the top 1% is actually engaging in more productive endevours than the top 1% of 20 years ago. By simply throwing around statistics irresponsibly, and not attempting to go into a more sophisticated analysis of how or why those statistics might be changing, it is merely an attempt to embitter their audience against the rich and to perpetuate class warfare.

It's hard to find a left-leaning economist who can actually offer entirely objective analysis of what are the maladies of the economy, or what the optimal policies to alleviate them would be. It always comes back to the normative stances implicit in their worldview: the richest among us are usually unjust and greedy (since they choose to be that rich in the first place) and the best economic policy is always to redistribute their wealth to the relatively impoverished (who don't choose to be that impoverished)-- and costs of doing so be damned!

The best economists out there know how to separate their moral sentiments from their policy suggestions and analysis. A goal of maximizing revenue need not have to take into considerations of what is "fair" or how to promote the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum amount of individuals. I don't see why more economists couldn't say, "well, you could do it like this if this is your goal, or you could do it like that if that is your goal." Such an economist should also be able to offer potential drawbacks to each type of policy which appeal to both left or right-wing world views. If you can at least see the other side as maybe having some legitimate considerations which shouldn't be immediately tossed aside, you do yourself and your point-of-view a great deal of service.

LA

I am under the impression that LA is just filled with people being followed by camera crews.