Monthly Archives: December 2011

Powerful method for detecting the Higgs boson discovered

See paper:

I am one of the coauthors of this paper.  It is being submitted for publication shortly, but please imagine that the link to this paper goes viral beforehand.

What Hitchens missed


Click Here

Opinion reads: Hitchens seemed to be oblivious to the miraculous interiority of the human being through which we experience the sacredness of life. This interiority is the inexplicable endowment of our humanness. It is this presence, which is not the outcome of rational ethics or conscious decision that is the mystery of Life. Yes, it is a conception of the Divine that transcends much of sectarian “orthodox” religious belief.

RIP Christopher Hitchens


Article reads:  From Vanity Fair: “Christopher Hitchens—the incomparable critic, masterful rhetorician, fiery wit, and fearless bon vivant—died today at the age of 62. Hitchens was diagnosed with esophageal cancer in the spring of 2010, just after the publication of his memoir, Hitch-22, and began chemotherapy soon after.

Remember cellulosic ethanol?


Click Here

Article reads: Congress subsidized a product that didn’t exist, mandated its purchase though it still didn’t exist, is punishing oil companies for not buying the product that doesn’t exist, and is now doubling down on the subsidies in the hope that someday it might exist. We’d call this the march of folly, but that’s unfair to fools.

Quest for the elusive Higgs boson


Article reads: On Tuesday, physicists at the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, Switzerland, said that data from two independent experiments had helped them narrow the range of what the mass of the Higgs boson could be. Higgs bosons—if they exist—are created in the giant atom-smashing machine, where they almost instantly decay into other particles. Discovery is based on observing the particles into which they decay.

Did they just find the Higgs?


Article reads: A respected scientist from the Cern particle physics laboratory has told the BBC he expects to see “the first glimpse” of the Higgs boson next week.

Two-sided emotion and universal grammar

I wrote before about the two-sidedness of emotionality. This should not be surprising, sense emotionality relates to motivation, desire, action and intention. Because action and intention come to bear on the question of determinism and freewill, we see that emotion relates directly to Kant`s third antinomy that is found two-sided: i.e., it is just as easy to interpret emotion from the vantage point offered by liberation and self-determination, as it is to argue that emotion is the by-product of circumstance beyond our control.

This explains why traditional science can`t explain emotion, and why emotion can only be studied with a transcendental science. This explains why the unscrupulous libertine can interpret emotions one way, and act in a different way; that is, the libertine will equivocate his two interpretations of emotionality depending on what is most expedient.

I offer two definitions that may find relevance, assuming my intuition is pristine enough:

1. Prejudice: a premature articulation and judgment of what emotion that is found sense-certain.

2. Intolerance: a call to respect the two-sidedness of one`s own emotionality, while enforcing a one-sided interpretation of the emotionality coming from others.

Question: Assuming God`s plan is to avoid prejudice and intolerance, and noting that Kant`s third antinomy offers a doorway into Trinitarian philosophy where emotionality is found sourcing the middle-term that holds the sides of the antinomy together, then how might we arrive at the universal grammar that is now underwritten by the emotionality that is found transcendent?

When faced with emotion we may slow down, to give emotion enough time for its articulation and thoughtful action. Feeling may be treated by reflex action where we give ourselves over to subconscious control, which is fine. However, to avoid being a libertine we seek a pathway beyond prejudice, defined above, and this implies that enough time must pass to bring deliberation to a proper conclusion. Then we may act, noting that deliberation is followed by liberation. Note, however, to avoid intolerance there must also be a call to respect the two-sided emotionality that is found transcendent. So not just any conclusion will do, and more work may be noted.

Awareness finds itself with the articulation of the emotion that is found sense-certain. But note, this is as much the emotion returning to its transcendent source by liberation, and so awareness finds its self in its provisionality that is less than an absolute understanding. Therefore, this provisionality should open itself up to its own two-sidedness again, lest more unresolved tension remain for further rounds of articulation. The less aware, or the libertine, will fall short in these demands. Nevertheless, I believe the universality of this pattern remains, and hence we find the universal grammar.

Uncertainty in climate science


Click Here

Opinion reads: There’s nothing wrong with uncertainty in science. What’s wrong is denying it exists. “They were attacking skeptics for questioning the science, but in private, they were questioning it themselves,” RossMcKitrick, an economics professor at the University of Guelph who is a leading climate-science critic, told me. He thinks the entire IPCC process needs to be rebuilt from scratch.