Theo's Not Bull (C102/9): The original chicken's egg was the egg of one species of Indian Jungle Fowl that was by human intent fertilised by another species of Indian Jungle Fowl. That was done several thousand years ago and there is nothing we can do about it now, likewise in regard to cross bred cattle similarly cross bred in the past. A new not bull's egg would be as if from one species of bull fertilised by another species of bull. Unless the fertile not bull's egg is entirely man made the rights of all the ancestral bulls in regard to their offspring will be violated. It may be desired to look at countless other animals later. Some take it as their duty to defend the rights of those not able to defend them themselves. An optimal solution would be to genetically engineer such people into an entirely placid separate species, the preservation of which we could then consider. What other solution can there possibly be.
Sanity: The dictionary says the word sane is used to mean in one's senses and free from delusive prejudices and fancies. The wording is quite precise. It requires only that one internally has a reasonable grasp of whatever matters come one's way. The condition being so internal perhaps one could measure one's own sanity, being wary of course that in examining oneself too little or too much one could well be engaging in a delusive prejudice or fancy.
Concerning sight, sound, smell, touch and taste, the basic senses, one could perhaps simply ask does one respond to relevant experiences in ways not necessarily identical but nevertheless fairly consistent with how many other people of similar background and circumstance seem to respond. I say many because only by comparison with many can one assume a reasonable amount of statistical averaging, and towards that averaging I should also say the many should be of the general culture one is used to, and include how one understands at least two or three generations of people in that same culture are reported to have reacted to like experiences, also how it is assumed the next two or three generations of that culture are expected to react to them. This is to try and correct for the possibility one might be living within some historical event. These and similar qualifications will also apply in the following.
With emotions one might try asking whether one generally finds what the world treats as tragic, comic and mundane to be respectively miserable, funny or of limited interest.
For the intellect one could possibly ask whether there are any matters about which one holds a strong independent view, and where one can see not any ground at all on which those one compares oneself against seem to hold some contradictory view.
Lastly one should maybe then ask whether others say, and one agrees, that one has some condition or one has experienced some traumatic event, and whether that pretty obviously explain any unusual attitude one seems to have in regard to some particular aspect of life. And, whether, if one was of a different background and circumstance one's views would probably be somewhat similar to those of people in the corresponding group.
Then, if one's answers to all the above cast a broadly positive light, it would seem one is tolerably sane relative to everyone else.
Curiously, granting one compares like with like, these tests look as though they would not need to be all that different to apply them others, even to animals. But, of course, one would need considerable knowledge of a subject's history and situation to minimise the risk of error.
The above is all comparative. For an absolute test it would be necessary to briefly expose oneself to a very wide range of sensations and ideas and check for logically correct responses. Doing that in even a small way for most would be quite impracticable at the moment. Reflecting on several years or decades of experiences as when chatting to relatives or friends, amounting to performing the checks outlined above without realising it, is perhaps about all that might be done.
However, it is likely that in fifty years or so there will be virtual reality absolute sanity testers for adults, children, dogs, cats and any other pet one cared to name. It only requires a few extras on our computers and someone to write the necessary programs. No doubt the sessions will all begin with the subject suspended in darkness and a test to see if they are aware. Is it not ironic the most widespread application of the classic question about whether we are absolutely here will be to show we are absolutely crackers!
The Amount Of Energy In The Great Void: Previously I demonstrated that the great void is an eternally infinite closed system and that the greater universe, taken to include any energy of space and other universes there might be, is only an eternally closed system within that void. I left the question as to whether the greater universe is finite or infinite in size or content, and, whatever the case, whether its condition in such respects is eternal.
The problem may seem one that can not be answered with any certainty at all. However, a definite answer is actually quite easy to establish. We need only remember that what is in and around us is real, including the underlying emptiness in which all is, and bear in mind that any gap anywhere in the greater universe would mean it is finite. Then there are only three situations to consider.
The two extreme situations are trivial and can be dismissed, they are where there is no energy or there is infinite energy, it is obvious the energy where we are is some, so, we are left with only that as the actual situation. With that, the greater universe is then also of finite volume simply because a finite amount of energy can not be stretched out into an infinite emptiness without tearing somewhere. To settle the durational issue we also have it that the energy forming the greater universe is real so could not be less nor more than it is. This gives us the conclusion: Nothing but an eternally finite quantity and finite volume of energy in an eternally infinite emptiness.
With no beginning or end our local universe is probably just some energy in one particular form in an infinitely long succession of forms, and, as there is no ultimate voidal restraint, more likely than not there are countless other universes out there in whatever forms they presently happen to have. However, one does not say that is so, claims such as that can only rest on probability relative to what seems usual in this universe of ours, where, when we look, we often discover the apparently unique to be no more than an example of what is common.
However, no matter how the energy is arranged there is a little more that can be said. For convenience I shall mix two topics, it should not be difficult to separate them. One theory of creation says God is eternal and formed the local universe. This would only mean God is some long established form of energy with spiritual, intellectual and life properties in the greater universe. We know part of the energy in the greater universe, meaning ourselves, certainly has life and intellectual properties, and it is said it has spiritual properties. Now, whether spiritual properties exist or not, the others certainly do. And we have no reason to believe they are lost if the energy demonstrating them takes a different form, nor to believe they are not within all energy in all its possible forms. So, we can say the perhaps spiritual and certainly intellectual and life properties of energy have no beginning or end.
In a previous item I said that in fact energy is entity, it is more straightforward than supposing there is an entity universe mixed in with an energy universe to account for all that we observe in everyday life. Taking up that earlier line, then what do we now have but an eternally infinite void in which there is an eternally finite quantity of life. The answer to everything therefore becomes that in limitless nothing there is one or more accumulations of entity that always had and will always have the potential to demonstrate life, thought and possibly bliss, and perhaps more.
With all this it is very important to be careful with the word "why". In essence the Shorter OED says "why" is used to ask "for what reason" and gives about twenty five usage examples. Critical reading of the dictionary's statement and those examples will show we ask "why" with the assumption there is a reason to ask for. However, if a truly closed system exists no reason is required for it to do so.
Towards An Easier Mathematics: The essential problem with mathematics is that practically nothing in the universe carries a little sign saying what symbol represents it and hardly any of the symbols used ever carry little signs saying where they are to be put and what is to be done with them. This truly deplorable situation could be entirely relieved by the release of vast swarms of suitably equipped micro-robots.
The Personal Website: I there. For I not.
Albert Dean
Albert : with respect to bulls; some agreement here, but I think the issue is not with the rights of ancestors over their remote progeny but with the rights of individuals not to be born to certain forms of life. Also, with respect to defending the rights of those not able to defend them themselves - amusing though your response is, surely the complaint has to have some limiting scope. I take it that rights are given rather than natural, but needs are natural and it may be seen to be right to satisfy as many needs as we can. However, we cannot satisfy all needs as we have limited resources and needs conflict. We also have our own needs, as individuals, to satisfy - these deserve some weight as well. This said, we might like to grant rights to some of the powerless with whom we have an affinity and whose plight we either have shared, could have shared or may yet share. How widely this net is cast depends on means and also the sensitivity of our empathy (or maybe of our anthropomorphising tendencies). At the moment I suspect that bulls are outside the scope.
Concerning sanity - wouldn't what you say would make all deviants insane, and make progress, at least other than the gradualist sort, impossible ? You are right, I think, to say that sanity is related to cultural norms. However, I think sanity rests not so much on an individual conforming or not, but on them knowing whether or not they are conforming. I suppose we run the risk of infinite regress here, but we need to judge the reasons a person gives for heretical belief, perception or action. A person is sane if their beliefs are held for defensible reasons - though, again, what is defensible is often culture-driven.
Concerning the great void : please explain why "any gap anywhere in the greater universe would mean it is finite". When you refer to "infinite", are you not assuming that the universe is Euclidean ? I am, as usual, troubled by much else in this section. Could you explain your thoughts in such a way that I, at least, can follow your logic ? Ie. when using words that look as though they indicate conclusions to an argument, please show how the argument works. I am too dim to understand what on earth you are on about. Please explain. Can anyone else out there expound Albert's thoughts for us ? I hate printing stuff that neither I, nor anyone else as far as I can tell, can make head or tail of. But I don't want simply to ignore it.
Concerning mathematics : our senses of humour fail to agree, once again. We all agree that mathematical modelling is a fine art. Mathematical models are useful if they work, else not very - except to show quantitatively or structurally what's wrong with the model. Your little signs don't seem to refer to quantity or structure so I wonder whether they have anything much to do with mathematics. However, there is some slight resemblance between your thoughts and those of Martin Kusch later in this edition of Commensal.
Theo