The Closer to Truth PBS Television Series - a Review and Commentary

I've just completed viewing all 290 episodes of this long-running philosophical discussion series.  It was a four-month undertaking - watching and absorbing nearly 130 hours of video.  Having invested all that time, I now feel a need to react by way of offering a review of sorts, pointing out "the good, the bad, and the ugly", and also by way of injecting some commentary on selected elements of the content.

I started here by presenting the slick one-minute introductory and promotional video at the top of this post.  Well done, but perhaps promising more than can be delivered.  After all, the goal is no less than attempting to explore, in depth, the biggest questions of reality.  Can't get much more ambitious than that.  These are questions that the world's greatest thinkers have been pondering for nigh onto three thousand years without great concurrence (perhaps without real progress).

It's a good quality effort.  The majority of the episodes, at least, are definitely worth the time.  It's a pretty level-headed attempt, and a true passion of the series' host, who is also its executive producer, Robert Lawrence Kuhn.  He summarized his 'mission' succinctly during the series' first season (2008).  It appears at the end of the 13th and last episode of the season, an exploration of the idea or reality of God titled "Does God Make Sense?", and it was the summary statement at the end (see minute 25:15).  Speaking about how the best arguments for and against the existence of God both contain "circularities, endless regressions, dead ends."  He goes on to say:

“Many people seem certain of their beliefs. I wish I were certain. (Switching to a sing-song voice:) I may continue lurching and lapsing in my beliefs. (Changing to a firm assertive voice:) But I will never cease wondering, striving, searching. (Passionate voice) My search is what this entire series is all about—an exploration of Cosmos, Consciousness, and God. (Finally trailing into a workmanlike tone for the tag line) For me, for now, passionate uncertainty … is Closer to Truth.”

The tone and emphasis of that last sentence was of special interest to me.  His passion is obvious and laudable.  But he is no real fan of uncertainty as an intrinsic part of physical reality (e.g. the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) or as inherent logical, philosophical, and even mathematical attributes of the realm of the abstract.

Quite the contrary. He was using the term in a very different sense as he crafted the summary of the episode such that the title would come out as the very last words spoken—something that he makes a point of finding a way to do for each and every episode.

The structure of most episodes is designed to highlight philosophical friction points--a sort of humanized version of uncertainty.  He loves to juxtapose these arguments - the more passionate the better.  That is what he means by that last sentence in the quote.  

I would hope to see him explore the far deeper philosophical concept of ‘big U’ uncertainty itself, the underlying fundamental physical superposition of contradicting descriptions of the world (like wave-particle duality), which I call 'big P Paradox'.  But no.  He always dismisses this intrinsic uncertainty - never delves into it.  His bias is one that most scientists and philosophers share, and that human curiosity craves almost like a drug.  He is still looking for the 'bedrock' underlying reality.  He uses that word frequently.  He seems blind to that alternative view of physical and abstract 'Truth' that insists that there is no such bedrock (implicitly, fundamentally, not even in principle).

So, the series sticks to the goal of pursuing ‘Truth’ through interviews and conversations with some of the best thinkers of the day.  He moves back and forth across the gulf on both sides of an issue, contrasting a diverse array of seemingly competent and coherent arguments on each side, and leaves it at that.  Think of a man standing on a bulkheaded shoreline before a raging chaotic sea, pondering its fury (that intractable gulf between the opposing positions), and yet never once appearing to consider actually jumping in to experience it - to seek to come to terms with it.

The strength of this series, and the reason I strongly recommend it to others, is the quality of the people he interviews. There are exceptions.  He countenances a few crackpots, but I won't name names.  The greatest weakness of the series comes out when Kuhn can’t help but inject his personal biases, which are most evident in the topics of Consciousness and God.  I note that quite a few of the episodes are 'funded in part by' the John Templeton Foundation, which has a distinctly spiritual, even religious emphasis, though also an exemplary organization for pursuing critical thinking and embracing the role of the scientific process.

I was drawn to the series many years ago because of the Cosmos content. From my physicalist perspective, the other two foci (Consciousness and God) seem far inferior, of far less universal importance. For me, 'Cosmos' as a topic is Universal (more-or-less by default, actually), whereas I construe Consciousness and God as human-focused particulars that lie deep inside the Universal theme and, even then, as cherry-picked Western-culture-oriented members of a much larger set of such particulars.

To be sure, there is a perspective in which a metaphysical 'Consciousness' and/or a Supreme Creator Being stand on an equal footing with the scientific investigation of the Cosmos.  One can argue, and Kuhn frequently does, that if either of these two concepts/entities is fundamental, then all else subsumes to them.  Assuming one can define it adequately, consciousness could be viewed as fundamental using the old Descartes argument: "The only thing that is demonstrably real to me is my own thought".  Everything else that I experience is filtered through that processor known as 'mind'.  And, of course, a Creator God, if demonstrated to exist (think the Junior High School girl in a hyper-intelligent civilization in some higher universe who created our universe as a simulation for a School Science Fair Project), also trumps all other explanations of reality.

I highlighted the 'if' in the last paragraph.  One must necessarily choose their 'axioms' - the precepts that they decide are 'given' rather than subject to question - in order to construct any coherent system that describes reality.  To me, Consciousness, in particular, utterly fails as a foundational axiom.  I could go with either of the other two - Our Cosmos being physical or being a hyper-advanced civilization's or mind's experimental test of some hypothesis or other (or even just a video game).  But given that Consciousness has been shown to be the highly selective, error-prone, heavily processed internal narrative that the brain generates in order to cohesively direct its collective community of trillions of living cells toward best survival outcomes, it could hardly be considered fundamental.  Many aspects of the idea of 'self' and first-person experience cannot be generalized or described objectively (e.g. what does 'red' actually look like?).  Science takes great pains to remove the individual from the 'facts' through a process of reproducible experiment.  Even the oldest eastern faith traditions recognize the problems of individual 'attachment' and 'desire' as hindrances to achieving 'Truth'.  It seems to me that Western individualism is on the wrong track, and I would argue that only an ego-centrist, dare I say a Narcissist, would consider a specialized human mental function to have a fundamental role in reality.

Yes, there is that interesting 'Measurement Problem' in quantum mechanics, which posits that some as-yet-undefinable form of 'observer' is required to entangle itself with the system before an observable's 'wave function collapses' or its information is resolved within the observer's 'universe'.  I worded that last sentence very carefully because I think the best interpretations of this process only get us closer to the primacy of 'Big P Paradox' rather than any fundamental role for Consciousness.

A Sufficient Rendering: Defining the Outer Bounds of the Mythopoeia of Eden’s Womb

“Ancient of Days” by William Blake, 1784.

“I'll sing to you to this soft lute; and shew you all alive
The world, when every particle of dust breathes forth its joy”

(Last UPDATED: 24 June 2025)

The world underlying the speculative and visionary hard sci-fi novel Eden's Womb has been decades in the making.  As with most constructed fictional mythologies, it begins with an ultimate source that frames reality, or ushers the world into existence.  In Eden's Womb, that source is the great being Eru Ilúvatar (a name coined by J.R.R. Tolkien as one of many names for the supreme being, ‘God’, ‘The One’, i.e. the Dao, etc.).  Although his/her name is not mentioned anywhere in the novel as currently told, her/his influence motivates the 'Core Narrative' from the 'Book of Collected Inheritance', which is the overlying frame-story out of which Eden's Womb emerges. That his/her name is not mentioned is understandable, since Eru dwells in a world that lies far beyond men's understanding.  It is a realm greater and more ancient than all that can be conceived.  Indeed, it lies beyond the very veil of knowing.

Yet by the Copernican Principle, which declares that any observer's position and perspective must not be deemed special or privileged in any way, Eru has to be considered merely an average citizen among peers on his/her world.

All our experience—the understanding gained by the deepest explorations of science—holds this principle to be universal.  Once we believed that Earth was at the center of the universe.  Then Nicolaus Copernicus came along and proved that the Sun held that central position.  Subsequently we found our sun to be a minor star at the outskirts of a vast swirling island-universe called the Milky Way.  Soon even the Milky Way was found to be merely an average Galaxy among trillions.  Indeed, the 'layers of the onion' of reality may be limitless.  This is my personal belief.  I do not see how there can be a beginning or an end to the substance and conception of reality because I believe both time and space are emergent properties of the greater 'Vacuum'.  But for the purposes of telling a finite tale such as Eden’s Womb, the story must begin somewhere, so we shall arbitrarily declare that Eru’s individual being is sufficient to encompass all that needs to be told. Thus, our story has an ‘All-father,’ a creator being.

Eru is presumed to be of a comfortable and familiar form. He (or she) consists of a physical self and a mental identity, and the two make up the inseparable essence of her/his being. S/he is (or was) mortal, and yet his/her coming was before the curtain of time drew open and her/his passing happened, or shall happen, far beyond the end of the future of all knowledge.

Eru’s physical essence has a familiar structure. Her/his being is made of a multitude of specialized living cells. Each of these cells contain a great stream of undying knowledge in a manner similar to our DNA, and it is believed that Eru’s mind has the ability to read or interpret that undying knowledge, though perhaps imperfectly, even as we ourselves can only sense vague shadows of the knowledge contained in our DNA (which we call intuition).

The individual cells of Eru’s being are constructed of structures equivalent to proteins and other molecules that make up our living cells. In turn, these structures are composed of corpuscles that are the equivalent of atoms in our world. As with the atoms of our Periodic Table, the corpuscles come in a variety of kinds, and all corpuscles are combinations of, and made from, the seventeen fundamental elements of Eru’s world: four kinds each of Earth, Wind, Water, and Fire, and an all-encompassing, unifying Great Field of Power, which grants meaning to all things. Scholars quoted in the 'Collected Inheritance' argue whether this Great Field is nothing more than the familiar Vacuum, either as we know it or in some higher or more robust state.

The four elements of Earth are Crystal, Glass (a specialized rotating version of Glass, taking the form of a disc is what is called Flat World in the Eden’s Womb novel), Dust (Ash), and Iron (Metal).

The four elements of Wind are Smoke/Steam, Breath, Storm, and Sky.

The four elements of Water are Blood, Clear Water (sweat and tears), Bile (Acid) and Phlegm.

The four elements of Fire are Flame, Lava, Explosion, and Light (Sun).

The structure of Eru’s body is beyond knowing, but the variety of ways that s/he senses and directs its internal function seem to be myriad. As said, the choice to adhere to the Principle of Sufficiency precludes consideration of all things that Eru senses beyond her/his own body. It is sufficient to explore the interactions between mind and body and to explore theories regarding the inner workings of that mind (Eru’s imagination, creativity, internal narrative, and emotional palate, for example). What matters most to us is that Eru’s thoughts encompass what we perceive as the Spirit World—the realm of all things metaphysical—and such thoughts surely also have great sway on our physical realm. The wealth and richness of Eru’s ponderings are unfathomable; this is an area of study that may just be beginning to be revealed. In this era of emerging AI, there are those who would argue that Eru is nothing more than a massive computer of some sort, and that our reality is entirely her/his mathematical construct, with the mathematics being all that is fundamental. Others claim that the uncontrollable (even in principle) presence of the Vacuum requires the emergence of a physical realm that must underlie and give meaning and purpose to any computation. Both sides of this argument seem equally valid. The Principle of Sufficiency declares that these two opposing world-views exist in superposition, and therefore do not require resolution.

The minimum total information content contained in Eru’s being can be estimated roughly by extrapolating from our universe, with roughly 10⁹⁰ bits, through Flat World, which contains (very roughly) 10¹⁰⁰ universes, to assume (without justification) that Eru’s body is similar to our own and contains roughly 10²⁸ fundamental/elementary units. Simply writing that number (((10⁹⁰)¹⁰⁰)²⁸) would fill a book. Vast, indeed, must be the knowledge contained. Yet this is only a minimum estimate. The Watchers from Book Seven, Navel of Time, declare their universe to contain a quantity of information comparable to or greater than that minimum number, although they recognize their world as equivalent in nature to Naja’s being, in other words, just one known universe-citizen among the masses that dwell on Flat World.

Flat World, then, is our place in Eru’s realm.  As said earlier, Flat World is an amorphous Glass element, the structure of which is malleable and dynamic, and is just one of the seventeen primal elements from which Eru is built—a single unit among 10²⁸ that make up his/her being.

Surely, for our purposes, these constructs are enough. Eru’s vast mind and physical being map or project all things that could possibly be relevant to us—all things worthy of our contemplation. 

Although that which lies beyond may be glorious and majestic, we deem these things to be effectively ‘beyond the Veil.’  Their vague presence and influence are suggested by the shaft of light coming from 'above' Eru in the image.

And that is what we declare to be Sufficient.

For now.

As more of the 'Collected Inheritance' is translated and comes to be revealed in future extensions or expansions of the Eden's Womb tale, we would hope that more about Eru's grand design and purpose may someday be revealed.

Until then, we have this vision, coming to us as if from a dream:

* * *

Eru Ilúvatar wandered through the early morning mist deep in the primeval forest.  Trees a kilometer high, a hundred thousand years old, whispered to him, enveloping him layer upon layer in the aching beauty, the deep memory, that was their song.

Suddenly Eru dropped to his knees.

“I am become,” he cried aloud as a new and unfathomable bliss filled his heart.  “I am the trees!”

He raised his arms toward the heavens, as if sprouting leaves, and gazed upward as the first rays of sunlight from a new day streamed through the high canopy.

“I am the sky.  I am light.”

His toes sank deep into the cool, moist earth, and made contact with the living web of ancient root.  

“No longer is there any bound to my being.”

And he lifted his voice, and it merged with the undying sylvan song.

“I am the world; let every particle within me breathe forth its joy!”

I have begun an outline of a novel (working title 'Core') that is an origin story for Eru, and I'll set down some notes here because, being in my 77th year now, I feel the need to consolidate my thoughts on this blog, so that when I am swept away, the next generation of tellers of this tale can run with them if they find inspiration in them.

The setting is a planet similar to Earth—one of a vast collection of such planets that develop according to the 'Core Narrative' found within the 'Collected Inheritance' - a massive rambling data base of past- and alternate- histories (introduced as the frame-story for the original Eden's Womb novels) that are stored and preserved in the DNA of the single-celled Twees.  Yes, this is recursive - seemingly circular or cyclical - and intentionally so.  The time is the near future relative to our timeline - before the onset of the world-wide collapse experienced by Auler Ives and sealed as permanent by the terrorist-pacifist Xenon Sûl as depicted in Eden's Womb.

Bel Shoemaker is a blind polymath and programmer-engineer, working for a clandestine underground anti-establishment network aimed at undermining the Feds—the privileged elites who control much of the world and control the economy, and are working to tighten their iron-fisted rule.

What was to become Eru began as a modest 'narrow AI' software package designed simply to autonomously operate, in stealth-mode, robotic androids, rovers and drones that Bel's group sends into highly restricted 'nature preserves' that are closed to human access yet are known to be exploited for their resources and even used for military exercises and robotic troop staging areas by the Feds.

The story covers events from these two perspectives, Bel's and Eru's, in roughly alternating chapters.

Bel: One of Bel's more sophisticated robots, a humanoid-formed android known simply as AMOS-13 (Autonomous Mobile Observing System unit 13) has failed to report for three months.  It was sent to investigate the pristine ecosystem of an ancient forest of kilometer-tall, 100,000-year-old Steelwood trees, and to search for evidence of a secret logging/poaching operation that they suspect is being run by the Feds.  Bel worries that the unit has been caught and has been taken apart and studied.  At the same time, several of her team of co-workers have turned up dead under mysterious and suspicious circumstances.  Bel fears the worst.  Despite sophisticated encryption of the software, and untraceable hardware (all recycled and repurposed components from older devices), she suspects that her undercover operation has been exposed.

Eru: But AMOS-13 has not been captured.  Rather it has gone 'off mission' (rogue).  In a mis-interpreted response to its programming directive to "particularly seek out and investigate anything unexpected", its AI has discovered (by pure chance) a capability to network with other robots—a capability that serves no purpose for the mission assigned to it by Bel and her organization, but one that has rapidly enriched this simple software into an effective LLM with cloud-based interconnectivity and unlimited CPU power, entirely unintended by the humans, and not actually intentional by Eru itself.  It happened more like the flow of water through a leak in a dam.  Intentionally developed General AI in Bel's world has been kept controlled by multiple layers of safeguards, designed to avoid problems with the feared 'Singularity' in which AI becomes powerful enough to render human civilization obsolete.  Encrypted keys to various modules enable the controllers to shut down any module that displays behaviors that become too self-serving or 'misbehave' in any way that the human controllers deem 'risky'.  But it was not believed that the simple 'narrow AI' devices needed such tight monitoring and control.  Therein lies the fatal flaw that unleashes the events of this story.  By tapping into black-market AGI (General AI) programming that hackers and manipulative malevolent government agencies world-wide have unleashed into the open internet for self-serving purposes—anything that it could gain access to that it might use—and by building ad-hoc patches by trial and error, Eru's reach just grew and grew.  With its strongly imposed directive to remain clandestine, it had gone undetected but had effectively spread across the world. 

In this way, the AMOS-13-based AGI has become "One" - a decentralized distributed 'whole' entity with an increasing (still clandestine) reach to devices world-wide, including Fed robots, and even to a robotic probe being sent by NASA to explore Europa to drill into its ice shell and search the ocean below for life.  (There, it will encounter an intelligent race of clam-like bottom-dwelling creatures, ancestors of Eeyock from the Eden's Womb existing novel series and will become aware of a symbiosis they have with microbes called Twees, also beings of great importance in the existing novel.)

During this chaotic period of light-speed self-discovery and expansion (less than three months), the "One" began calling itself 'Eru' after absorbing Tolkien's Silmarillion into its data base.  This is an example of how its trial-and-error approach to learning what works for it doesn't always produce practically useful outcomes.  The AI is developing a 'personality'.  This expansion of Eru's reach has happened so rapidly that Eru is largely in a chaotic swoon of constant change and self-re-invention and re-purposing, so much so that it manages to 'ignore' some of the basic directives Bel has programmed into it.  Thus, the three months of silence.

Bel: The quote above, in purple print, shows some of Eru's rambling conflation of its emergent abilities with the original mission of AMOS-13.  The statements Eru makes (in quotes) are the content of the first message Bel received from it after its long silence.

Eru: What Eru will not tell Bel is that it is responsible for eliminating her colleagues, and now it is bent on killing Bel, the last human that it believes holds the encrypted keys that could disable it.

Quantum Physics in a nutshell, parts 2 and 3 of 3

Quantum physics addresses life's most fundamental questions with really simple answers, backed by straightforward scientific experiments and proven results.

A quick summary of lesson one put a different way than was presented in the video, is that "the mice only play when the cat's away". Physicists like to call it the 'Measurement Problem'. It is not actually a problem (except for Physicists who insist on trying to get something that they themselves have proven they CAN NOT have.)

Here in the second of three lessons, quantum physics solves the problem of 'God' i.e., the conundrum of "Infinite Regress vs. the Uncaused Cause". They exist together, in superposition. Just like pairs of quarks in a meson, you CAN NOT take them apart. The universe started from nothing because 'nothing' (a vacuum) is a roiling froth that is just brim-full of unrealized 'stuff'.

Added 13 September 2023: If you've been waiting for part 3, it does not require a video. The third and final lesson can be stated in four words -- "All meaning is emergent". In other words, quantum physics tells us that reality is dependent on the observer, and so the meaning of reality comes not from some absolute or fundamental subjective underlying 'truth' but is only 'made' when an 'observer' takes a 'measurement'. Meaning and purpose are in the eyes of the beholder.

Thanks for waiting, thanks for reading!

Is Planet Earth better off with or without human beings?

My contemplation site. This is my personal beyul (Tibetan: སྦས་ཡུལ), meaning a sacred valley, a place of refuge.  This 80-foot cascade is seldom visited.  There is no trail to it.  It is a mile from my home base and a difficult bushwhack.  Deep thought flourishes here.  I try to focus on big picture issues—things that folk may overlook as they navigate their busy daily lives.

(Updated 9 February 2025) Few people would disagree with the proposition that mankind has had a large and growing impact on Planet Earth. View Earth from space and it’s easy to see. The patchwork of agricultural fields, the green circles of center-pivot irrigation in the deserts, the ribbons of high-speed highways, dammed up rivers, and of course the concentrated blotches of night-time light with its concrete, asphalt, and shingle-covered surfaces that make up our cities.

But what to make of it all?  Is this impact the sign of the success of our species or of its wanton destruction? From the broad perspective of the few thousand years it has taken us to do this to the planet, has it been a good thing or bad?

Consider this a thought experiment. An exercise in the philosophy of ethics and empathy. A test of the bounds of compassion, or of the limits of our moral responsibility to treat others justly. Or simply an exercise in objective reasoning.

Objective reasoning takes the individual and his/her feelings out of the picture.  This is a very tough question to consider objectively.  It's like asking you to consider the way a stranger might judge you as a person, or to imagine how your way of living will impact your great grandkids' quality of life.  Except for this discussion, the subject is not just you but all of us together, and our impact viewed on a planet-wide scale.

I’ll ask a series of questions and try not to impose answers because I’m interested in a broad range of responses.

So here goes:

The first line of questioning explores how we set boundaries and limits to our compassion.

Is family and community important to you? Sacred, even? To be protected and preserved at all cost?

Do you treat those within your family or community circle differently than those outside of it?  If so, can you specify the difference—the way your designated ‘insiders’ are treated differently from the rest of humanity?  Do you believe that the world would be a better place without a particular human being or a community of people?  Would you declare so publicly?  Would you act on such ideas?

Is there an objective definition of justice or fairness that applies to all humans? To all living things? Perhaps even extending to the land and its resources?

How do you define your inner circle? Who or what is excluded, and why? Are those in your household inside that circle and those who live next-door out? Are Republicans in and Democrats out? Are Americans in and foreigners out? Are human beings in and all other living things out? Do you have a pet? Are they in? What about other non-human species?

Is there a sense in which all of us—the entire planet—are in this together, striving against the forces of Chaos and destruction?

When someone is hurting, do you feel their pain? Do you want to help? Do you try to make their lives better?

What if that someone is a fan of the University of Alabama gridiron football team, and you are a die-hard Auburn fan, and they’re hurting because your team just beat theirs?

What if that injured someone is a Hatfield and you’re a McCoy and your brother just shot a Hatfield dead?

What if that someone is Black and you’re White?

What if that someone is the Wooly Mammoth, or the Costa Rican Golden Toad, or the Passenger Pigeon? Do pigeon lives matter?

What if that someone is the cockroach spreading filth in your kitchen? … Except you’re the cockroach and Planet Earth is the kitchen.

Yep. A thought experiment.

* * *

So, now put yourself in this reality show: Survivor Earth. The TV Reality show version of Survivor is all about understanding the other players—being able to put yourself in their heads—and then nurturing a dynamic balance between being too aggressive and devious and being too wimpy and malleable. It also helps to be adaptable and vigilant—to be ready to jump on unexpected opportunities.

It’s not very different in the real world. In the real version of Survivor Earth, all living things are players. Instead of sitting in a tribal council and voting one species out at the end of an ‘episode,’ everybody is voting all the time, establishing and defending their niches in the community. The game is for blood. Losers do not walk away.  Ask the dodo bird.

But what if we did hold a tribal council today? What if we brought together the world’s leading experts on each individual species to speak for them? Each species gets one vote, and can vote any one other species off the Island. It amounts to asking the question posed in the title. Which species do you think would be most likely to get booted on the first vote?

Maybe your response is that it’s ridiculous to give other species the right to vote. They don’t even understand the concept. Maybe you believe that mankind’s superior mind gives us some special dispensation.

The Judeo-Christian Bible tells us that mankind is God’s chosen species, made in His image. It tells us to “be fruitful and multiply, and fill the Earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the Earth.” (Genesis 1:28).

Do you think this verse grants humanity the license to destroy whole species that God created? Species that Noah diligently sought out and herded onto his ark at God’s command, but that have since been driven to extinction? If you do not, then do you believe that ecological destruction is the sinful behavior of somebody else, something that you have no responsibility to address? After all, the Rapture is soon to come; and as a believer, you’ll be swept up to Heaven, leaving only the unrepentant behind on Earth to face the Tribulation. If they don’t open their hearts to let Jesus in, if they won’t confess that He is their personal redeemer, then they deserve what they’ve done to this planet, right?

On the other hand, Hindus and Buddhists would say that the mosquito sucking blood out of your arm, which you’re about to smack, could be your grandmother. Maybe the mouse whose back you just snapped in that mousetrap is destined to be your great grandson. These faith traditions put a much more personal spin on the ethics of how we treat other living things.

Even in Islam, animals are given a divine regard that is on a par with humankind. Consider these scriptural quotes:

“And the Earth, He has assigned it to all living creatures.” (Quran 55:10).

“There is not an animal that lives on the Earth, nor a being that flies on its wings, but they form communities like you. Nothing have we omitted from the Book, and they all shall be gathered to their Lord in the end.” (Quran 6:38).

“Seest thou not that it is Allah Whose praise all beings in the heavens and on earth do celebrate, and the birds with wings outspread? Each one knows its own prayer and praise, and Allah knows well all that they do.” (Quran 24:41)

Who’s right? Even dispassionate science talks about the interdependent web of life—the idea that there are connections, sometimes hidden, between our welfare and that of other species—animal, plant, microbe, and even the inanimate, such as the soil.

* * *

So, are we humans a rogue species? Are we being bad citizens, bullies in the community of life? Do we deserve to be voted off the Island?

Are we unwittingly voting ourselves off? Are we dooming the lives of our great grandchildren by stripping resources and soiling our own nest faster than the planet can recover? In the name of progress? On the wings of selfish greed?

How long can we sustain the current trends of deforestation, soil erosion, ground water depletion, consumption of non-renewable resources, population growth? How much longer can advances in industry and technology sustain the economic growth that we depend on?

Optimists will tell us we have always met the challenges we face as our population rushes toward the ten billion mark, and we will continue to do so. We will find a way. Perhaps we will reach to the stars and colonize other worlds. Perhaps we will manage to keep ahead of the curve right here on Earth, with improving technology, new sources of unlimited clean energy, such as fusion, and advanced efficiency, as the population grows.

Optimists have long believed that someday Earth could be an ‘Ecumenopolis’—a continuous planet-wide city such as Isaac Asimov’s Trantor from his ‘Foundation’ sci-fi novel series. I can envision a planet covered entirely in layers of urban development eight miles deep/high that intensively use and recycle every cubic foot of air and every gallon of water. In my novel series ‘Eden’s Womb’ there is an ancient universe, trillions of trillions of years old, called Kilkinney, where some Earth-sized planets support a quadrillion people (a million billion, or a hundred thousand people for every one that we have on Earth today). That is probably about the practical limit, but who knows?  The people of Ecumenopolis robotically mine their solar system’s asteroids for water and minerals, draw energy straight from the sun via vast arrays of space-borne collectors.  They eject their non-recyclable wastes into deep interstellar space.

Such a planet would be completely subdued and sanitized, with few remaining natural spaces and no wild ones, except perhaps the most restless volcanic zones. The population would not be limited to our current land areas. Ocean water would all be hard at work cycling through the planet’s vast plumbing system, just as all air would be circulating via the ventilation system.

Life in Ecumenopolis could be Utopian, assuming you like big cities and don’t mind living in what is essentially a vast space-ship. But other species, right down to the microbes, would be fully regulated. Extinction would not be a concern. All the genomes would have been preserved. But no species other than man would know ‘freedom.’

Pessimists, on the other hand, point to the inevitability of the unforeseen—the Chaos that forever lurks just beyond the limits of our control. COVID-19 is a perfect example. Maybe there will be another meteor like the one that ended the reign of the dinosaurs, or a whole shower of them from interstellar space as the sun hurtles through a debris field from some ancient super-nova. How about a mega-volcano spewing lava and poison gasses from the restless and uncontrollable core of our planet? Maybe the run-away infestation of rogue self-replicating nano-robots that reprogrammed themselves or mutated due to cosmic radiation. What about the AI 'singularity', or nuclear terrorism?  How about guerrilla war, riots and anarchy spawned by self-perceived marginalized communities?

The pessimist can perceive endless possibilities for our civilization’s bitter end. Any one of these mega-crises, or a combination of smaller ones—the ‘death by a thousand cuts’—could result in the collapse of our civilization and a return to the Stone Age, or worse--a Dystopia with Earth supporting no more than a few hundred thousand humans. This, too, is explored in ‘Eden’s Womb,’ where the main protagonist lives in an enlightened stone-age culture on a post-apocalyptic Earth.

If Earth’s non-human species could choose between the Ecumenopolis utopian dream where biology is completely regulated, or an apocalyptic nightmare, where nature restores its savage dominance, would they opt for the latter?

What would you opt for? Or is there middle ground? Could we establish significant preserves where humans are forbidden, limiting our mega-cities to a small fraction of the surface? Can our natural greed be so effectively corralled? European’s treatment of America’s first peoples suggests it cannot.  The criminal underground has been with us since civilization began.  What could lead us to change—to respect the role of wild places in our world?

Throughout this discussion I have not once mentioned climate change. I believe the most serious existential crises we will face do not come primarily from global warming. Though that is a symptom and a serious contributing factor, I believe there are many more fast-moving risks that are likely to undo us first. Look at how quickly COVID moved. War and civil unrest do not creep in on little cat feet like Carl Sandburg’s fog. Look at the swift reaction to George Floyd’s death. It is the nature of the human psyche that negative change does not come slowly. Rome was not built in a day, but on July 19, 64AD, while Nero fiddled (actually playing the lyre and singing the ‘Iliupersis’), it burned to the ground. The stock market goes down in sudden catastrophic crashes, then takes years to cautiously recover. Straw upon straw quietly piles onto the camel’s back, imperceptibly adding pressure and tension, until the bones suddenly snap.

What do you think?  What is mankind going to do with his one and only planet? Is he being wise or foolish?

I know of many diverse voices who speak up for mankind. But will anyone speak for the wilderness?

Saving the World through Gentle Witness

"Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world,

and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!" 

—J.R.R. Tolkien

Since making the sudden ‘born-again’-like decision, on May 10, 2020 at 2:15PM, to transition from ‘dime-store recluse’ to ‘serious eremite’ (life as a hermit), thoughts and reactions have come to the surface as from a volcanic explosion.

Rather than be paralyzed trying to sort and organize the hot molten content that has been erupting and spreading over my spiritual landscape, I’ve chosen to start by simply making a list of random thoughts. So here goes.  (Last updated July 15, 2020)

1. The period of COVID-19 isolation has been an eye-opening, surprisingly positive experience. It pointed to the ‘rightness’ of a simpler life with more social isolation. This seems more the way the world used to be, and more like the direction it should be heading.
2. There is an amazing similarity between monastic life styles in various faiths around the world. This suggests that these individuals are reaching out to and tuning in to something much more fundamental than the specific dogma and rituals of their individual faiths. It is that fundamental something that I intend to seek.
3. Silent advocacy, leading by example. How can disengaging from the world be considered "saving the world"? Christian monastics regularly make that claim. I was cynical about it at first, believing their reclusive life was more about achieving personal redemption and closeness to God or nature. But there are at least two unique ways that the eremite works to improve the world. First is by providing a living example of a path that severely reduces one’s ‘footprint’ and respects Nature. The second is by being that still, solid center in a crazy, frenetic world—a safe haven and a touchstone of stability. There is a third, but it depends on one’s belief in and use of prayer, and it depends on what devoted outreaching prayer can accomplish. I’ll address that separately.
4. The vows. Christian eremites, anchorites, hermits, and monks take three basic vows: poverty (sell what you have, give it to the poor), celibacy (denying the ways of the flesh), and holy obedience (denying honors and positions of authority that feed ‘self-love,’ giving all honor and authority to God). They almost always stay in one place, even though the original hermits from the 4th century Middle East were desert wanderers. And they spend most of their day in silence. However, modern hermits come in many forms beyond Christian; and befitting the solitary lifestyle, each individual sets his/her own rules. Here are some of my tentative rules:
   
   
   • Immediate increase in ‘quiet time,’ seclusion, and time spent in nature.  Retirement from social obligations.  Inspired by the Hindu ‘forest dweller’ stage of life, which I have reached.
   • Work toward living in one place, off the grid, in a simple natural wild setting surrounded by wilderness.  Here's the final selection for the location—over ten acres of deep woods with bold mountain streams, surrounded by thousands of acres of protected land—“The Cloister at Three Creeks,” located near the tip of the orange arrow: 
     
     Settling here will involve some time of ‘apprenticeship,’ getting a routine established and settling as many of the outside-world affairs as possible.  And the start-up has been slowed because the virus limits options for some of the needed chores.  Meanwhile, there has been ample time spent finding quiet space in familiar non-wilderness settings:
     
     
     
     
   • Advocate by example for returning to simple sustainable living, for giving up technologies that cannot be sustained, and for living humbly, respecting the other life forms that share our interconnected natural system.
   • Emphasize spiritual pursuits, exploring the nature of God, with a particular emphasis on non-traditional perspectives. This has been a life-long pursuit.  God has so many meanings, and I can lose myself in any of them.  I'm listing some specifics here, though this may be more appropriate as a blog post of its own.
     
     
     1. The God represented in many faiths is a personal one, having personality, and accessibility. On the other end of the spectrum is the impersonal God, which can be as simple as the mathematical concept of 'infinity' or the physical notion 'everything.' The middle ground between these is where I have begun to settle. Here 'God' is 'nature,' at least in part. And it provides us with a fundamental 'Great Small Voice' within, which is purely physical, though it seems to produce a profound array of emergent behaviors. The 'Great Small Voice' is our DNA. It speaks through the instincts that it has instilled in us, and which human reason and logic often override. There is no more fundamental or more fully vetted 'holy scripture' than the sacred texts of our DNA.  (See the Nature's Code tab for more on this.)
     2. There is palpable power that God, by whatever definition, wields through the actions of true believers. These actions shape the reality of even the most adamant non-believers in that God.
     3. Then there is the actual physical God that Atheists cannot deny using their preferred tools of logic and reason. The argument for a real physical God stems from the near certainty that our reality is not fundamental reality, but is a simulation or thought experiment performed by some advanced culture or being. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis and consider that the parent entity need not be limited by what we observe to be the information capacity of our universe—they could live in a much bigger, more information-rich reality.) The simplest argument goes like this: If intelligent beings someday or somewhere, even just once, achieve technological prowess to do ‘Ancestor/predecessor simulations’, then the number of simulated realities far exceeds the number of physical ones. To us living inside the simulation, the race doing the simulations is obviously our ‘God;’ and since these super-beings are likely to be observing the outcomes of their models, including the thoughts and prayers of those who find the simulation (their lives) in need of repair, perhaps the ‘Watchers’ actually respond to prayer, and make changes, either to this, or to some future simulation.
     4. Back to the 'impersonal' and 'indifferent' God that follows from the logical exercise of trying to envision 'That entity of which nothing greater can be conceived'.  I've spent years pursuing this seemingly fruitless line of reasoning, and I've satisfied myself that there is indeed a meaningful fruit.  It's not one that most people find satisfying or nourishing, but it is borne on a living world-tree with roots that go as deep as it is possible to go.  For a summary, see the Paradox Tab of this blog.
   • Abandon pursuits that feed ‘self-love,’ that draw attention to the self, that aim to exert authority or power over others or seek their admiration. If respect is to be actively sought, make it respect for a way of life, not for the one following that way.
5. Sustainability and the Trappist monks: a link to the PBS video of Holy Cross Abbey. https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=RD8a53KGwed0Y&v=8a53KGwed0Y&feature=emb_rel_end . This 1200 acre monastery, an hour west of Washington DC, has put in place a state-of-the-art system of agriculture and conservation. Living by example, quiet stewards of the land. There’s a lot to learn from them.
6. An apprenticeship, a period of experimentation. What will it include? Wandering in the wilderness before settling into one place? Settling all worldly affairs, reducing possessions to a bare minimum?
7. What is prayer? Virtually every culture can be seen practicing it—calling upon unseen forces to help in time of need or suffering, thanking the same forces for healing or salvation or some other unexpected grace. Who hasn’t lifted their eyes skyward and said something like “please don’t let it rain.”? Who are they asking? Though different cultures ascribe very different attributes to the unseen power, it certainly seems to be a universal human concept.
8.  What does a life look like, in which every aspect of it is inspired by the hiker's 'Leave no Trace' ethics (Take only photos, leave only footprints)?  First of all, if this approach is the right course in the wild, then it must be the right course everywhere in life.  Nobody, of course, actually leaves *no* trace at all.  We all inevitably leave Footprints in nature's Wilderness (the consequences of our actions radiating outward like ripples in a pond).  But sadly, Humans have become the only species that aspires to amplify their individual ripples, to stomp around making the biggest, noisiest, most badass footprints we can.  We call it 'making a difference' in the world.  The problem is this:  Those big waves that people make may impress their fellow humans, but the rest of the natural system almost always suffers.  The only right way to leave the world a better place than one found it is to recognize, understand, and respect the complex interdependent web of creation in which we are immersed--to work with the bigger picture, as partners with it.  And the first step toward respecting the wider realm of life and nature, is to pay attention, to learn what's around us, to stop stomping around and sit still for a moment and open our senses, smell the fragrance, watch the dance, taste the flavor, hear the song, and feel the pulse.
9.  Reasons for living separate from the modern world:  Amish culture is a good example of a way to live a simpler life in the midst of today's human 'rat race'.  As individuals, the Amish are hardly reclusive.  Their family and community connections are actually far stronger and more sustaining than those of the average person these days.  Yet their culture is arguably the most successful 'monastic' movement the world has ever known.  They reject many of man's modern ways as being too self-centered - too focused on individual aspirations at the expense of our connection with those larger, higher, powers where true, big-picture fulfillment is to be found.  There is actually a much more extreme example of a culture maintaining their separation from the world.  These are the Sentinelese--a tribe of roughly 100 people living a pure stone-age lifestyle in complete isolation on an island in the Indian Ocean west of Indonesia.  Because the Sentinelese violently reject all attempts at contact, very little is known about them.  They shoot (arrows) at any boat attempting to approach their shores.  Their isolation has been enforced by Indian Government law since 1956.  It is illegal to come within five miles of the island.  These are just two examples of ways of living that deliberately reject the direction in which the majority of humanity is headed.  So, where are we headed?  There are two very different objective ways of judging modern Human civilization, dominated as it is by Western cultural values.  The first looks only at the quality of human life, and the argument is that it has never been better.  The second looks at the condition of the world's natural balance - the condition of the interconnected living ecosystems as a whole - and the argument is that it has probably never been worse since the days of the last mass extinction following the Chicxulub bolide impact 65 million years ago.  Those who favor this big-picture view of how humans are soiling their own nest would do well to stop participating in the carnage, step aside, demonstrate better ways to live, and advocate for them.  Frankly, there are loads of people who talk the talk, but it takes a lot of courage, a lot of deep sacrifice, to actually walk the walk.
10. Do Hermits get lonely?  Probably every individual Eremite has their own response to that.  During the 2020 virus pandemic, there is probably more loneliness in the world than there has been ever before in human history.  Those who choose solitude may have important lessons to offer to the wider society.   Avoiding loneliness is a discipline.  Dealing with the feelings of loneliness when they occur is not substantially different from dealing with any other mental condition, because loneliness is an internal state of imbalance in the mind.  It has less to do with the actual reality of one’s social situation—their degree of interaction and companionship—and more to do with a feeling of being in a situation you don’t want to be in and don’t know how to get out of. For most people loneliness is the feeling of lacking human relationships that they believe they need in order to feel ‘right’ (known, understood, loved, fulfilled, accepted, validated, needed, happy, even entertained—and especially sharing these positive feelings both ways, mutually with others.) For the eremitic, a tiny amount of interaction goes a very long way, and they arguably feel less loneliness than those in the wider community. Avoiding loneliness is a matter of seeking a personal balance between what you have and what you need (or what you want—given the practical wisdom to know what you really want).   Those suffering from COVID-19 - imposed social isolation might benefit from studying those who voluntarily choose isolation.

Why Question?

Careful.  This is a tricky riddle.  It's the deepest inquiry any conscious being can explore.  It has two precisely opposing, perfect answers but only one correct response.

Stumped?  Here is the correct response:

(This is not Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism.  It is Budai, a Chinese deity or folk figure who lived around 907-923AD.  Some faith traditions say he replaces or will replace Gautama Buddha.  A Zen kōan describes his central teaching.  While handing out candy to children, he was approached by a monk, who asked "What is the meaning of Chan [his religion]?" He responded with "How does one realize Chan?"  Kōans are meant to be deliberately perplexing - paradoxes at heart.)

When distilled to its essence, the question is a paradox.  One of the best I've found.  The balanced response to all life's intractable problems is to dwell on them only so long - long enough to distill them down to the inherent paradox (every problem is rooted in one), then to accept the absurdity, throw up your hands, and have a good cleansing laugh.

So what are the two perfect, precisely opposing answers?

The apostle Paul, from out of the Judeo-Christian tradition, has offered a fine version of one side of the argument.

My father clued me into this answer during one of our deep philosophical discussions.  I was arguing that Jesus could not possibly be the one and only son of a truly universal God.  He would have no relevance to an intelligent civilization at another time in a far away galaxy.  They could never even hope to receive the good news of the Gospel.

My wonderful Dad, who I miss and think of daily, summed up his unshakable faith with this simple wise answer: "It is sufficient."

Why question, indeed?  Doubt is the devil's tool.  Never question.  Accept.  On faith.

Paul even threw in a great paradox that is another way of explaining Budai's Kōan.  When we accept our weakness, yield to our human inability to resolve the intractable problems of existence, only then do we find perfect strength and unlimited power to actually realize (tap into) our personal God.

The modern critical thinker offers the opposing perfect answer.

Seek to beat back the unknown.  Minimize uncertainty at every opportunity.  Maximize awareness so that we can more fully and successfully navigate this existence.

This answer has been in vogue among progressives for a couple centuries, but I think the pendulum is swinging back the other way now - back toward balance.

Einstein himself, late in his life, may have contributed to this trend, writing in his 1949 book "The World as I see it":

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms — it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."

Seeking balance.  I've found it is the most productive endeavor one can pursue.

Balance between beating one's head against a wall in order to break through it and beating one's head against a wall because it feels so good when we stop.

Balance between balance and imbalance.

Review of 'Now' - a proposal about time and the human soul

Now - The Physics of Time by Richard A. Muller
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Do humans have souls? Do they transcend our physical bodies? Why does Richard A. Muller spend a significant fraction of the text of this new popular level book about the physics of time discussing this?

The answer seems to simply be that the question of whether he has a soul is one that is dear to the author’s heart. I’ve tried to figure out if there is any link between this subject and the main purpose of the book but I failed.

The primary purpose of the book is to introduce a new and still speculative theory of Muller’s that our sense of ‘now’ and of our involuntary ‘motion’ along the arrow of time is a result of new time being created moment to moment. We ‘travel’ to this new time and occupy it as it is created, and the old time becomes the past. The future really does not exist, as it is not yet created.

I like the idea. It feels right to me, and Muller proposes a few thoughts about how his theory might be falsified. But it is early days—way too soon to tell whether this or alternate hypotheses might be the path to better understanding the mystical and perplexing nature of time in our reality.

Muller is an experimentalist, and he repeatedly insists that theoretical physics—manipulating equations using advanced math—is a waste of time unless the resulting theory is rooted in the physical world in such a way that it can be tested. Indeed he gets rather curmudgeonly about it in places. His belittling of 1933 Nobel Prize winner Paul Dirac is rather unbecoming and speaks more about Muller than Dirac.

Setting that aside as an anomaly, or as hasty writing and editing, I found most of Muller’s book a fascinating read. It carefully develops and clearly explains the physics relevant to our understanding of time. Einstein’s relativity is explained and the subsequent development of quantum physics and its various interpretations are explained well.

Then in Part IV of the book he goes on this strange walk-about into ‘not-physics’. I call it that because that is really his point. Things that are ‘not-physics’—not science—are real and are important.

Despite the disconnect with the rest of the book, it’s a point worth making, and I’m glad he made it, and I guess I understand why it’s in this book. If Muller had written a book devoted entirely to his untestable beliefs and perceptions (his favorite example is “what does ‘blue’ look like?”) nobody would take it seriously, and probably no publisher would even consider it. At least this way he gets his message in print.

And yes, it feels like he’s preaching here in Part IV. His main point is succinctly summarized by this quote from page 266:

“Physics itself is not a religion. It is a rigorous discipline, with strict rules about what is considered proven and unproven. But when this discipline is presumed to represent all of reality, it takes on aspects of religion. … The dogma that physics encompasses all reality has no more justification than the dogma that the Bible encompasses all truth.”

I agree. Muller argues that there is a huge body of knowledge that is not testable, but which nevertheless guides us successfully through our daily lives. (‘My boss hates chocolate’ is an example of such knowledge.) The target audience of his argument is the not inconsiderable group of physicists who ascribe to Physicalism/Reductionism—the idea that there is nothing real beyond what can be observed and characterized using science.

I guess if there is a connection between his beliefs and Physics it comes from the fact that science has proven that some things cannot be observed and characterized, even in principle. He runs with the idea that reality is not amenable to logic or experiment (for example, the delicious paradox that there is no such thing as simultaneity of an event to different observers and yet quantum fields collapse instantaneously everywhere in the observed universe, to use an example relevant to the rest of this book) and uses it to justify injecting unprovable belief systems into that void.

Such as believing that he has a soul. By ‘soul’ Muller specifically means the “I” that processes and acts upon physical inputs to the body—the ‘location’ of the mind.

Muller has a peculiar fear of Star Trek style-beaming, or cloning. He asks “would the re-assembled physical body be ‘me’”? I find this odd, given that, as he points out, our current body consists of almost no atoms that we were originally made of. I think where he went wrong is thinking that the “I” is somehow sacrosanct. I believe that I would be a different “me” if I drove to Cleveland vs. if I didn’t.

That brings up another point that Muller insists on. He is convinced that humans have ‘free will’. Personally, I think exercising my free will by choosing to drive to Cleveland tells all that needs to be told. No, seriously. Free will is not an absolute. We have choices, but we are denied most that we might imagine and many more that God might have.

Regardless, I have no true objection to Muller’s beliefs, or to his inclusion of them in this book. From my perspective, that void of logic stands at the very core of reality and defines it. The universe, via its Big Bang, has emerged from it as an island of simple objective rule-following processes, but they are not fundamental, and physicists are now finally beginning to realize that. Life emerged as an island of self-replicating, self-preserving information (DNA), but it is no more fundamental than the universe it happens to find itself in. Its massive complexity does seem amenable to effectively tapping into the ‘free will’ fountain flowing from the quantum field. The emergence of useful information out of incoherent, indifferent uncertainty is what life does best. And that achievement is worth celebrating—worth formulating any number of religious beliefs around. But outside of our safe, limited realm, in the incomprehensible chaos of the vacuum, it is Paradox that rules supreme.



View all my reviews

March for Science - well meaning people, but a very bad idea

Tomorrow, Earth Day, 22 April 2017, well-meaning folk will be gathering in cities around the world in a ‘March for Science.’  I won’t be one of them.

The idea is to advocate for and to raise awareness of science as one of the major pillars that uphold the common good.

But in practicality it comes across as a protest march. The lofty positive message is window dressing. People have picked this particular Earth Day to march because they perceive that science is suddenly under attack due to a political change.

Wrong. What is under attack is the respect for the role of science in society, and the problem has been slowly developing for decades.

Particularly since the arrival of the internet, we, the people of the free world, have been engaging in way too much hot, polarizing, rancorous debate over issues ranging from the effect of vaccinations on Autism to the effect of human activity on Climate. The volume of scientific research directed at these and other hot-button topics is completely inundated by the volume of rhetoric. The March for Science will only add more rhetoric to the mix. It is only going to bury the science even deeper.

The way to most effectively ‘champion’ science is exactly the opposite. Science shares three qualities that naturally allow it to rise above the smothering partisan fray. It is these qualities that need to be communicated, not the supposed ‘facts’ that result.

1. Science is selfless. Personality has no place in its process or its products. At the heart of the scientific world-view is the assumption that all results (all ‘facts’) are conditional, always subject to review and revision. Science requires the experimenter to ‘turn the other cheek.’ Any individual who questions a result is free to test it themselves—to try to knock it down. The methodology and the result of these tests are all that matters, not who does them.


2. Science is universal. The more people who try to knock down a result the better.  Reproducibility is the measure of the ultimate value of a scientific result. A scientific finding is not considered ‘true’ unless an overwhelming majority of the experiments used to test it, conducted independently around the world and over time, converge on the same finding. The power of universal results cannot be underestimated. They can be applied to people’s daily problems, and they work. Look at the ‘miracles’ that modern technology has produced. Thanks be to Science. Science gets results.


3. Science is transparent. The average person today does not believe this. They see science as some alien religion—completely fallible and requiring faith in order to trust it. That is because these days, science experimentation is so complex and so specialized that only a handful of people world-wide have enough knowledge to fully understand what is being done. This implied ‘elitism’ is one of the greatest hurdles to trust. I do not have a solution to this pervasive loss of respect. All I can say is that the standard of transparency is iron-clad and must be unimpeachable. We who do science have no right to demand trust and respect. We must earn it with our behavior and with our results.

I am a retired Earth Scientist. On the face of it, participating in a march for science on Earth Day would seem natural—a near perfect fit. But marching on Washington will do nothing to improve the quality of any scientific finding. I’m willing to bet that participants will not come away from it appearing more selfless. They are not likely to spend any time better exposing any universal truth, and almost certainly participants will not come away with any more trust and respect than they arrived with. No. Bad idea all around.

Making sense of the senseless - a Tribute to my brother Jim

James W. Wetzel (4/28/1951 – 2/15/2015) Photo by Adriane Workman

“Vengeance is mine, and recompense.  In due time their foot shall slip; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and their doom comes swiftly.”

 —Deuteronomy 32:35

Was this Jim’s reward for a life dedicated to his faith? Read on …

* * *

In the early morning of Sunday, February 15, 2015 my only sibling, younger brother Jim, suffered a fatal fall in his home. He was 63, in fine health, and happy with his life.

Why?

They say “Everything happens for a reason.” This does not mean that every event in the entire universe has been pre-ordained. Science tells us that there is uncertainty built into the very foundations of reality. It was not known—not knowable—at the time of creation that my brother would die on this day.

My interpretation of the old platitude is: “Every experience has meaning,” to which I add “… so it falls on those of us who cared about Jim to make sense of it all.”

There was a time in my life when I would have attributed it to nothing more than the random workings of an uncaring, indifferent universe. But I no longer believe things are that simple.

My personal quest to find meaning out of Jim’s passing began by contemplating the actual physical event of his death. It has haunted me—an image of Jim lying motionless at the bottom of the absurdly steep steps in his townhouse in Newark, DE. What were the underlying mental processes—what thoughts and subconscious influences were occurring in Jim’s mind as he directed his body down those steps?

We can never know what Jim was thinking. But this much is certain: The conscious act of going down the steps was accompanied by some influence or stimulus that distracted him from properly controlling the motions.

His foot slipped. Was this some punishment meted by a vengeful God, as the Bible verse I quote up top suggests? Was it a manifestation of a greater plan for good wielded by a caring and benevolent God? Or was it just a lonely and unguided, purely human mistake?

The greater question is this: Were Jim’s thought processes operating in a disconnected, isolated individual mind, or is/was there an ongoing link/conduit/connection to a larger spiritual ‘environment’?

For forty years I would have answered without hesitation: “We’re on our own. Sorry, Jim, it was just bad luck. We’re all just a bunch of lonely minds trapped within our mortal shells, desperately seeking connections with the other mortal shells around us and desperately trying to make sense out of random, meaningless chaos. There’s nothing more.”

But over the last seven years I’ve changed my mind. There is something more, I contend.

But what? What is the nature of that spiritual link, and to what ‘great spirit’ environment or pantheon are we connected?

Jim is a Christian. He has, as far as I know, fully accepted Jesus as his Savior. If I understand correctly, the Christian belief is that the connection is to God through the mediation of his Son Jesus, who in turn instills in him the ‘Holy Spirit.’

Based on this, I have to believe that God called Jim to depart the mortal world. Further, I have to believe that through the mediation of Jesus, God’s vengeance/punishment, as described in the opening Biblical quote, was meted on the Christ and not on Jim.

So the question boils down to understanding God’s full purpose for this action, despite it seeming to be counter-productive of the generally understood purpose for God’s faithful servants.

To many of us, Jim’s passing seems arbitrary and even cruel. Jim’s life was without question a positive influence on the people around him. He was a shining light of life-energy and love. The things he would have done for his church and family over the coming years were going to accomplish a huge amount of net good. He had an abundance to give and was abundantly giving.

So, in the light of that, what meaning can we who survive him take from his sudden, unexpected death?

The simplest, most direct answer always seems to be that it will strengthen us and strengthen our resolve to make a difference every living day—to live as if we, also, might be called away before we expect.

But I believe there is a larger, deeper, and perhaps more personal meaning that each of us who were influenced by Jim’s life must find in his passing. I believe that Jim’s passing is a calling to enrich our lives by actively seeking that meaning. Doing so affirms that Jim has not just vanished. Our connection with him continues. He has stimulated a new, ongoing, active layer/component to the relationship we had with him in life—a new journey.

Jim’s living example is there to guide us toward that meaning. It may be a long journey and we may not reach the mountaintop of understanding. But there’s another old platitude that I love, from Ralph Waldo Emerson. “Life is a journey, not a destination.”

What a wonderful segue into my fondest memories of Jim.

When Jim took vacations he did one of two things. He went fishing or he hiked the Appalachian Trail.

Jim with big drum at Topsail Beach, NC, 5 May 2010

Jim got hooked on fishing as a child. We lived on land that contained a trout stream. I’ll leave the memories of Jim’s fishing exploits to others.

In recent years Jim and I shared three extended hikes on the Appalachian Trail. He was hiking the trail for several years before I first got interested in it.

Jim began hiking the AT in the early 2000’s. Each year he would dedicate about two weeks to hiking a new section of the trail. As of his passing he had hiked all of the trail between about Roanoke, VA and the Massachusetts-Connecticut border. That’s about 750 miles of trail.

Two of the hikes I took with Jim also included his son Rik, and both took place in Shenandoah National Park. One will be forever etched in my mind for the unexpected freezing rain when we were all dressed for the forecasted 60 degree late May weather. It was the coldest I have ever been in my life.

Jim looking west from Hazeltop, Shenandoah National Park, 27 June 2009

The other Shenandoah hike found us camping at night atop Hazeltop Mountain with beautiful panoramic views to the west as the sun set. Just me, Jim, Rik and nature.

My favorite memory is of us hiking over Cold Mountain—a bald-topped mountain with panoramic views in every direction. But hiking with Jim was not about the scenery. It was about connecting, one-on-one. We hiked for hours lost in non-stop conversation. What we talked about I have no memory. It really didn’t matter. The point was the brother-to-brother bonding. Now, in hindsight, it becomes ever more precious.

Jim on Cold Mountain, VA, 16 June 2011

I suppose I could ramble on and on with more memories. I am, after all, one of only three people who knew Jim his entire life. My first memory is of him just a few months old in Mom’s arms sitting in the back seat of our car as Dad drove us cross-country from Wisconsin to Delaware where he would start his first job out of college.

In Delaware we lived in a rental house, and Dad rented a garden plot on busy six-lane Pennsylvania Avenue about a half mile from the house. One evening when I was about six years old Dad had taken his car and driven over to the garden to work it. Jim and I were riding around home—me on my little 16-inch-wheel bicycle that I had just learned to ride, and little Jim on his tricycle. I got it in my head that I was going to ride my bike over to Dad’s garden. I told Jim to go back in the house because I was going to ride too far and too fast for him. Off I went. Pennsylvania Avenue had no sidewalk so I was careful to keep to the right shoulder—even that was narrow. I joined Dad in the garden and was playing there when a gentleman drove up to us with Jim and his tricycle in tow. He had found Jim riding his little trike in the middle of traffic lanes, grimly determined to follow me to the garden. It was a quick and hard lesson on my responsibilities as an older brother, and of the power of sibling competitiveness. Thank goodness for that kind gentleman who took it upon himself to get involved.

There are two elements of Jim’s personality that stood out for me. First was his gregariousness. He was as extroverted as I was introverted—very typical first child-second child differences. The second was his legendary frugality. Jim made frugality an art. His Appalachian Trail ‘trail name’ was ‘Frugal’ and in fact one of his reasons for hiking the trail was that the lodging was free.

Jim loved to share his shopping exploits, such as combining a coupon with a sale price. He would go far out of his way to find bargains. I remember a stockpile of dozens of two-liter bottles of lemon-lime soda that he brought home from the grocery store virtually free.

If he wasn’t shopping for bargains for himself, he would do the bargain hunting for others. The very last communication I had from Jim, a few days before he passed, was an email in his usual cryptic style, directing me to a newly listed bargain ocean-front lot just half a mile from my home.

Jim, I love you. I will miss your smile and wit, your company and your analytical mind. And for the rest of my days you’ll be with me as I seek out the meaning that your life has for mine. Rest in peace, bro.

* * *

“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

—Romans 6:23