The Perfect Sandwhich Riddle

Here is a riddle I made up:

You are trying to make a grilled cheese sandwich

You have two pieces of sliced bread, a slice of cheese, and a toaster oven. The toaster heats from the top and the bottom.

One side of each sliced bread can only be exposed to heat for only one minute before it becomes uneatable. The problem is, the sliced cheese takes 3 minutes to melt like you want it to. How can you toast your sandwich in your most preferred way?

Rules:
You cannot peal melting cheese from the slice it is on.
You can have the toaster oven on or off for as long as you want.

*Make a comment with a solution if you got one. I will post the solution later.

Aborting a Gay Baby

Watson, the guy who discovered DNA, is also an old geezer whose generation believes in out-dated racist and homophobic assumptions. He recently said that those of African decent are less intelligent than westerners. You can imagine your lizard-looking grandpa watching TV in his underwear blurting out the same thing.

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece

The article says that Watson once told a British newspaper “Woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual.” This got me thinking, is that really unethical – to abort a child solely on the basis that the child has 100% chance of being homosexual? At first this may appear to be ethically ambiguous, but I believe I can prove why it is morally unethical.

We need to make one major assumption before I go on, we need to assume that discriminating against homosexuals is morally wrong. All morals fall somewhere on a ‘moral spectrum’ and I believe the consensus would agree this one is definitely on the bad side.

Lets assume Watson is NOT against homosexuals.

Lets say that Watson believes that woman have the right to choose why they want to have an abortion. In this case he says it's ok to abort when the child is homosexual. This may make sense because a homosexual child is going to be a hassle in a homophobic society.

In this case isn't the mother who aborts her gay child trying to dodge gay discrimination? Instead of her trying to work against homosexual discrimination because it's wrong, she side steps the issue by not having a gay child. This sort of "ignoring the issue" is why homosexual discrimination is perpetuating in modern societies.

It would be equivalent to saying that black slaves should have just ignored the problem instead of dealing with an injustice. And that black people (back then) should not reproduce because they will just be slaves. I hope we can all see something wrong with that.

When Watson says its ok to abort a gay child, he is implying that as a society we need to work AROUND gay discrimination not against!

From an economical stands point: More gay people = less population

The Deist God

Atheists and agnostics have an easy time denouncing organized religion and the BS that it drags along. The Bible, Koran, Torah, or any other holy scripture is easy to disprove with its mounting contradictions and fallacious arguments they possess. The fact that God has never answered an amputee’s pray by growing their missing limb is a ‘humerus’ example of how effortless the debate is.

It is obvious for any Atheist and agnostic that there is an infinitesimal probability that a universe-altering God can exist. What about those who believe God does not interfere with human life and the laws of the universe? This describes the deist, contrary to a theist, they derive the existence of God through personal experience and reason. Like atheists and agnostics they reject supernatural events and that God does not interfere with humans.

In my opinion, the majority of atheists and agnostics have a problem arguing with deists. There are no apparent logical fallacies nor do they explicitly contradict science in their argument. It also seems impossible to logically argue against a God that is beyond logic.

The typical atheist versus deist dialogs goes something like this:

Atheist: “Do you believe in God? (while holding back smirk).”

Deist: “Yes I do.”

Atheist: “Lol! You think the world began 6,000 years ago!”

Deist: “Oh, I believe in evolution - I don’t actually believe in miracles or prophecies, I just think God is beyond our knowledge.”

Atheist: “Uh, but you do know it is statistically improbable for God to exist.”

Deist: “Lol! God is beyond statistics or any other science – I just think he is exists and I don’t let that fact change how I live. Do you find something wrong with that?”

Atheist: “Well, fuck, Dawkins didn’t prepare me for that.”

Well, is anything wrong with being a Deist? Yes there is, but it is a question of ethics like abortion and whenever we bump into a moral dilemma we turn towards philosophy.

Believing in a deist God is a meaningless belief. The word meaningless carries some emotional baggage to it, so allow me to clarify what I mean. When I use the word meaning, I am not referring to the meaning humans impose on objects or events. For example, some people find fishing symbolic of the time they spent with their father and is meaningful in that regard. In this example, the son or daughter imposes the meaning on fishing. The way I am regarding something as meaningful is whether it appeals to logic and reason. When I assert that a deist God is meaningless, I am implying that it doesn’t appeal to logic and reason. Logic cannot answer whether the deist God is true or not.

A good way to figure out if a given hypothesis is true or false is to insert it into the scientific method machine:



The hypothesis of Intelligent Design is easy to find false because when it’s inserted into the scientific method machine it comes out a falsity. This implies that intelligent design is ‘meaningfully’ false. However, when you insert God into the machine, it gives you no answer because you cannot prove God’s existence using logic. You cannot derive the God hypothesis as meaningfully true or false. Therefore the God hypothesis is a meaningless one and will forever be in hypothesis stage.

There are an infinite amount of meaningless hypotheses that you can come up with. Why should you believe in one meaningless hypothesis over the infinite amount you can think of? The fact is, you don’t, and there is a good reason for it. In your daily life you never allow meaningless hypotheses to affect your life in a meaningful way. You use logic in the choices you make. For example, you know the sun is going to come up the next day because it has been doing so for your whole life. Never do you allow a meaningless hypothesis affect your daily choices. Why should the deist believe in a meaningless God? He would only be contradicting the way he lives.

Assume the deist does allow a meaningless belief to affect his life meaningfully. Then what is stopping him from using other meaningless hypotheses? If this deist wanted his behaviors to be consistent, he would seriously consider that global warming is a result of a shortage of pirates. Having meaningless beliefs affect your life meaningfully is a detrimental behavior that should not be practiced.

In summary:

The Deist has two options.

1) Believe in a meaningless supernatural God, and have it affect his life in a meaningful way.

2) Believe in a meaningless supernatural God, and have it NOT affect his life in a meaningful way.

In the first case, the deist is committing an irrational act that is similar to that of a theist. Most likely if you believe in a meaningless God, I can assume you are extracting some meaning from it or else you wouldn't be believing. In this case, again, you are being irrational like a theist.

In the second case, the deist is similar to an atheist. Both understand that God is a meaningless hypothesis and both don't let it affect their life. There is something contradictory about this sort of deist. How can you believe in God and not extract meaning from it at the same time? There must be a reason for believing.

In other words, there is no such thing as a deist, only a theist or atheist in disguise and it is probably the former.

The Spirit of Yosemite

A while ago, I took an environmental college course that included a trip to Yosemite. After our trip we had to make a presentation about certain topics, mine was about the spirit of Yosemite.

Here was my attempt to turn a seemingly bullshit topic into an interesting one:

---

When we were in Yosemite, ranger Dick decided to use analogies to help us remember and understand important concepts about nature. I will do the same in describing the spirituality of Yosemite.

If I drop this marker on the floor (demonstrate), does the marker "desire" to fall to the ground?
Obviously is does not desire, it is just following the laws of nature; gravity.

Similarly, a tree does not literally desire water nor does it desire to grow towards the sun. It does not have a consciousness like humans in order to make that choice.

We, on the other hand, can choose. I can choose whether I want to drink soda or water (or at least it may seem so).

Who exactly is doing the choosing?

We are, fundamentally, our DNA coding and certainly DNA does not choose.

The 'magic' happens in the gene expression. We get a product, like our consciousness, that seems as if it is beyond the laws of nature. This illusion is deeply mystifying and provocative.

Yosemite has this same mystifying property.

Just as the human DNA, Yosemite possess very objective mechanisms that strictly follow natural laws. Trees, plants, insects, etc all follow nature's laws flawlessly and consistently – just as a succulent deposits money in its bank account or how a tree lays off the branches at the lowest tier.

Despite the mechanical aspects of Yosemite, the whole seems greater than the sum of its parts.

Just like the human consciousness, a mystifying beauty emerges from Yosemite.

This beauty is very hard to conceptualize so I will make an analogy to clarify.

Imagine all of you were watching the play "Romeo and Juliet" for the first time. Only, the characters and the scene are going in super slow motion (almost frozen) and they are in the middle of the story. With careful scrutiny of the scene you can make certain assumptions, like the fact it is a play or what time period they are living in. You might be able to construct possible plots for the story. What is almost impossible to know, are the deeper meanings of the story. The irony, metaphors, humor, or social commentaries will be almost impossible to depict.

We are looking at Yosemite like we are looking at this slow motion play, we can only understand it superficially. Maybe our human mind is not capable of conceptualizing this spirit of Yosemite, either way; it has different effects on different people.

Infinity + Philosophy = Fun

I want to share some mind-blowing thoughts about seemingly mundane concepts of infinity and how they paved the foundation for math. I use the word mundane because of the strong intuitive feeling that the concept of infinity has no practical use. We live in a seemingly finite universe and issues concerning us don’t involve the use of infinity.

The big question is: “Does infinity even exist in the universe?”

The answer is yes; space and time in the physical universe is infinite. The answer may not make sense because the notion of ‘infinity’ is not made clear. The dictionary roughly defines infinity as, “A sequence or distance without bound.” Again, this definition may not satisfy you with my answer. Let us examine what it means for something to be boundless.

We have a region of space from point A to point B (assume the line is a continuous whole i.e. no discontinuities).

A---------------------------------------B


There are an infinite number of points between A and B. Be careful at what you’re intuition might be telling you, the spatial region is not made up of points, but can be infinitely divisible by them. Points are not parts of a spatial regions they are simply boundaries. To get a better idea of what I mean, imagine what would happen if I got rid of that line that is in-between point A and B. When that line disappears, so does point A and B! They are never actualized until you create a bound or limit, in this case is the color of the line against the background of the page.

Lets actualize some more bounds on our line

A---------B------------------------C------D

Between AB, BC, BD or any other lines there is always and infinite amount of points that is the line can be divided into. The key concept to draw from this is that a point or bound always separates one region of space from another and only have a potential existence unless actualized as discontinuities. Now imagine if the universe is finite in size and there is a boundary or limit at the end of it. But wait, spatial boundaries are always boundaries of one region of space to another (this thought is just to amuse you).

Time is similarly infinite to that of space. You can think of time as a line with two points. One point is 7:35PM and the other is 9:00PM.

7:35PM---------------------------------------9:00PM

Similar to our spatial line, this line is bounded by an instant of time. An instant of time is not a part of time of which time can be divided into. An instant is more like a point on a line; it is the boundary between two periods of time. The interesting reality of time is the fact that it feels as if it will go on forever. At any point in time there is a succeeding moment and a succeeding moment giving the illusion that time is always ‘becoming’. Aristotle called this the ‘potentially infinite’, versus the actual infinite. Space could also be considered potentially infinite only if space and time were considered dependent to one another. If space were potentially infinite it would mean you could be walking in a straight line forever and always covering new ground. Now if space is independent of time then it cannot be potentially infinite without being actually infinite. If you are walking in a straight line you will be covering new ground every time because there is ground to be covered.

If it still doesn’t make sense that space and time can be actually infinite, rather than potentially infinite, than consider what happens when infinity is applied in mathematics. In mathematical theory, there is no room for a potential infinity. I explained how the potentially infinite space does not work when space is inseparable of time. A mathematician doesn’t define a circle as the locus of a points moving in a plane equidistant from a fixed point by supposing the motions of a point moving along a plane in time. He doesn’t define the circle by imagining in time, he supposes it to exist as a completed whole. How can a statement about all natural numbers be true if there is no completed totality of numbers in reality? How can we prove that there are an infinite number of prime numbers without actually counting them? Well we can prove it, but we can’t do it by supposing a potential infinity. Potential infinities are never totalities, so it would be impossible to prove there is a totality of prime numbers if it weren’t actually infinite.

Whether the universe is actually infinite or not may not make a difference on the practical level, but it does make a difference on the theoretical level. Previously, I said that time feels as if it is potentially infinite. After concluding that potential infinities don’t make sense in the mathematical world, I have to cast doubt on my intuitive notion of time. This leads me to conclude that time is thus in a sense wholly actual even though it is not simultaneously present. This may switch your point of view of time being more of a spatial dimension rather than something else.

What is the Meaning of Life?

When most people think about philosophy they think of stoners pondering their existence as they pass the bong. Philosophy is rigorous and as objective as the logic that structures it. Because of the precise nature of philosophy, a huge majority of those stoner conversations are illogical to begin with. Take for example the most cliché one that might pop in your head: What is the meaning of life?

“Dude, the meaning of life is to chilllll... and like help others or some shit” – Some stoner who forgot his own name

Unfortunately, that is not the right answer; in fact, there can’t be a right answer! The question itself is ill defined. Asking, “What is the meaning of life,” presupposes that there is a meaning to life. So lets change the question around:

“Is there a meaning to life?” – Slightly smarter stoner

The answer to this question is a big no because it too presupposes something, but more implicitly than our previous question. Before I reveal what it falsely assumes, we need to exam what ‘meaning’ means.

Humans have evolved categorical memory, i.e. they have the ability to categorize objects in their memory in a hierarchal manner. Your memory of things looks something like this:

Stuff I do when Hungry --> Eat Food --> Cheeseburger --> No Onions

This is obviously a very rough outline of how we think, but it illustrates how we perceive objects meaningfully. A Cheeseburger is meaningless without a human to assert meaning onto it. In my example, the meaning of the cheeseburger is a food I want to eat because I am hungry. There is no one meaning for an objects and varies between person to person. For example, some people might categorize a cheeseburger as something they like to draw instead.

The key insight from this example is that meaning is a human perception of objects. The meaning of an object doesn’t exist without a human to impose that meaning onto the object. Going back to our question, we ask if there is a meaning to life. The question asks if there is something beyond humans that imposes meaning for our lives. Meaning is a human perception of objects. Assuming there is a meaning to our lives is also assuming there is an omniscient being that asserted a meaning for the lives of humans. Unless you believe in God, you will agree that there is nothing out there in the universe that can impose meaning on our lives.

Yup, life is meaningless.

5 Creative Ways to Deal with Kids

1. Magic Spray

Kids have the tendency to get injured in every opportunity possible. About 90% of their injuries are trivial, but their screaming and yelling try to convince you otherwise. You can probably recall a few instances when you’ve witnessed a kid trip over their own feet – then they get up slightly stunned, but not crying or screaming. At their first glimpse of blood the silence instantly disappears. Luckily, the placebo effect works on kids 95% of the time. Small kids can’t take sugar pills so you can create your own placebo. Just take an old spray container, fill it with water, and label it, “Magic Spray.” Then create some story about how you found it in a magic cave and how it heals all wounds. Spray it on the kid’s injury and watch them magically stop crying!

2. Imaginary Super Hero

Kids have an over active imagination, sometimes it actually scares them. Some variation of a Boogie Man could keep them up at night. If it’s not helping to simply tell the kid there is no such thing, then you need to make them stop thinking about it all together. Tell them to imagine the biggest and strongest super hero imaginable. Every time their bad thoughts pop up, tell them to imagine their super hero crunch up their thoughts like a piece of paper and throw it away in a trash bin. And remind the kid that the super hero has super speed and will never waste time to destroy their bad thoughts.

3. Superstition

Sometimes you just don’t have the time to explain to a kid why they should stop a certain behavior. For example you are at the supermarket and it’s your turn to pay for your groceries when your child starts opening candy bars. You don’t have time to lecture them so just say it’s bad luck. Kids will obey any superstition thrown at them... for about one minute. The one minute will give you enough time to pay for your groceries and will stop the kid’s bad behaviors momentarily.

4. Operation Hopelessness

Have you ever had your child ask you for just one more quarter for the arcades? And after you give them that quarter they run back to ask for another? To stop this aggravating behavior you must hinder their persistence. Make a huge fuss about how you don’t want to give them another quarter (or any other object they want). Then after about five minutes you finally give them the quarter. They will use it up in a matter of seconds and come back discouraged to beg for another. This way you save yourself half an hour dealing with an angry and tireless kid.

5. Embarrassment

Ever have your teacher write your name on the board because you were talking in class? This is a widely used strategy because it works. It is effective because it’s embarrassing and singles you out. If you are in a public place with a child who is out of control, give him the attention he doesn’t want. Yell out their name loud enough for others to hear and sustain a loud voice if they continue misbehaving. If you don’t want to embarrass yourself in the process, just threaten them with embarrassing things you’ll do to them.