There is More to Existence than the Material World

"At the heart of science is...an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive" - Carl Sagan

The current materialist view of the world is that the observable and the repeatable are all that exist. The materialist puts science as the highest pursuit. Anything that cannot be replicated in the lab is dismissed as fantasy. I do not diminish the fact that humans are attracted to a belief in magic and that false beliefs abound. But the other side of the coin, a belief that nothing immaterial may exist, is also a false belief. With help from the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, I present a depiction of reality divided into three categories.

We humans live in the innermost circle. Through our five senses we have access to the world about us. The second circle is the phenomenal world. This is the sum total of the universe that we can ever hope to experience in human form.  The last circle, is the noumenon of reality: reality in itself independent of all conceptualizations of the human mind.  (See Noumenon.)

Since math is one of the best ways to attempt to describe phenomena,  I will to use it to speculate about noumena.  The Greek character Δ (delta) means "the difference". ΔPA is the difference between the sets Phenomenal (P) and Accessible (A) in the figure.  ΔNP is the difference between the sets Noumenal (N) and Phenomenal (P).

We can increase the size of set A, the perception of accessible reality through instruments (microscopes, infrared sensors, etc.) Over the course of the last century we have done much to expand the size of Accessible Reality.  Many hopeful scientists believe that we may one day approach ΔPA=0. That would be great. Many wondrous abilities would accompany such an achievement. The size of set P, cannot be increased, since by definition, it is the entirety of what can be physically observed.  The materialist view is that P is the entire universe and nothing can exist outside of it.  (Though some have had to resort to believing in a multiverse...a concept which is also outside the physically observable).  That we can conceptualize the universe, however, also leads to the fact that we can conceptualize of things that we can't conceptualize.  This is set N, the noumenon.

 

A simple illustration proves that the entirety of reality is off limits to us. For example, there is no way that you can know what it is like to be a fish. You can imagine it, but you cannot know. Now extend that realization to all phenomena. Can you really know what a light wave is? You can consider it's effects and contemplate the duality of its nature as both particle and wave.  But you will always be limited to an understanding that is constructed by and for humans. The noumenon is the "thing in itself" irrespective of the limited human reference point. Kant knew that the material reference point was limited and that part of reality was outside of the phenomenal realm. 

We don't know the size of ΔNP and this knowledge is inaccessible to us, by definition. Yet there are many who profess to be students of Reason that claim that ΔNP must be zero! (IE. that if you can't measure it or in some way experience it with infinitely advanced technology, it can't exist) Such a claim is entirely unreasonable. ΔNP may in fact be infinite. This part of the noumenal realm is inaccessible via the scientific method. It is not subject to the laws of the phenomena we observe. That some of us hope to learn the noumenal as well as the phenomenal, make us no less scientific. In fact, I believe it is the only way to comprehensively search for truth. 

The diagram above ignored one important point: each of us has an inner life which is uniquely ours.  No person or instrument can fully understand or measure your consciousness.  When you ponder virtue and moral goodness,  or when you see the perfection of the constant π, or when you sense the greatness and wonder of life--you are not entirely inside the material world either.   Your noumenon is part of the great untouchable region of immateriality as well. 

The noumenon of each person is absolutely unique and special.  It it partly material (based on nature and nurture). And it is partly meta-physical. That part of us which crosses into the ineffable region is best described as the spiritual.  

As the diagram shows, We overlap with the material world, the spiritual, and with each other.  The boundaries can be pushed.  People can understand one another better through empathy and inter-cultural understanding.  The boundaries with phenomenal reality are enlarged through  scientific inquiry. 

Meditation and spirituality enlarge the boundaries with the great noumenal reality.  This is the place were miracles originate and the place were your consciousness exists.

When I ponder questions like, "what was it like moments before the Big Bang"?  Or "What lies beyond the event horizon of the universe?"  or "What is it like after death?" ...I cross briefly into that noumenal zone.  

Relative versus Absolute Morality

The second diagram above also shows the answer to the question of moral relativism.  Is morality relative?   Morality definitely lies outside the phenomenal.  It is not something that can be measured or easily quantified.  Evolution and survival of the fittest are observations of phenomena.  There is nothing right or wrong about them.  Rightness and wrongness comes from the great speculation that our inner lives have worth.  That someone else's inner life can be as valuable as yours is a spiritual non-materialistic belief.  It is universal and absolute because it comes from the noumenon to which we are all belong.   C.S. Lewis referred to the pursuit of this universal truth as the Tao which he described as "The conception in all its forms, Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic, Christian, Oriental alike... of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes really are true, and others really false,  to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are".

There is an absolute ultimate truth, but we cannot fully comprehend it.  And that is where relativism comes into play.  Our perception of morality will always be subjective, and therefore relative.  Thus, I would say that the perception of morality is relative but its existence is absolute.  For humility sake, we should accept the absoluteness of morality,  and for empathy sake, we should accept that it is perceived relatively.

I Sustain...

I support and sustain President-elect Elect Barrack Obama. This means:

• I will give him the benefit of the doubt.
• I will submit to laws he signs insomuch as they don't cause me to violate deeply held personal ethics.
  
• I will not harass those who voted for him nor insinuate that they are stupid, benighted, or fooled.
  
• I will give him credit where it is due. I will not make him the scape goat for everything that goes wrong during his administration.
  
• I will not express derision for him, call for his impeachment for subjective reasons, or attempt to sully his reputation by propagating distortions of his record or imputing evil motives to him.
• When I disagree with him, I will say so, but I will refrain from personal attacks.
  
• I will pray for his success and continue to love America as the greatest country on earth that has now fully put behind it the last vestiges of institutionalized racism.

God Bless America!
(I voted for John McCain and describe myself as a conservative)

Reconsidering My Views

As new evidence comes to light it's okay to modify your position. I'm sizing up the current realities, and I've decided that I'm not as excited about the Bailout/Rescue as I was a few weeks ago. I'm also less excited about the Patriot Act, and with 20/20 hindsight, I'm less enthusiastic about the Iraq War. I'm also less inclined to be a champion of President Bush.

But first, let me say that I love and admire President Bush. He is a good man. I will always defend him against haters and bashers. In fact, I think it was the hate and the unwillingness to see any good in the president that always galvanized me into action. And I will always be thankful for Bush's contributions to the bench and for pro-life causes. But economically, he didn't lead conservatively.

Caveat:
It is always easy to criticize someone in hindsight! This is why I will defend Bush on almost every measure as one who was trying to compromise and do what seemed right. I myself looked at the same evidence as Bush and I decided an invasion of Iraq was necessary! I wasn't hoodwinked at all. And I still think it has the potential for much future good. But it does seem to me now, that too many eggs were put in the Iraq basket. The opportunity cost was high. So many other conservative things could have been accomplished that weren't. Couldn't there have been a military solution that also left political capital left for other battles?

And same with the economy. It really seemed like home ownership was the answer for a while there. And it really seemed like central banking was going to keep the party going forever. And so Republicans spent like drunken sailors.

Before I go on, I'm going to reiterate that great things happened under Bush. But this article is about opportunity costs, so I must indulge in some criticism.

The Economy
Conservative principles of responsibility, hard work, and rule of law are always the answer. Bailouts subvert these principles. The "stimulus package" of earlier this year was a bad idea. If anything, it postponed the day of reckoning and wasted a lot of tax payer money in the process. Had the reckoning occurred earlier, it wouldn't have been as big a deal during the election. And this is the year that we realized that central banking is yet another example of how central planning will always fail in the end. We need to embrace bubbles and manias! It is part of the learning process and cycle of renewal.

One thinker I respect is Arther Laffer. This article today by him is wake up call to Republicans, and to President Bush, that he has let us down. The president may very well go down as President Hoover did (and Hoover was a good guy too!). And the real rub is that it will cause another New Deal all over again resulting in fundamental shifts in the role of government...away from the founding fathers' vision of a country of free individuals.

How people with opposing views can both be right

I'm sure you've heard someone emphatically declare the truth. I do it myself from time to time. But isn't it a little unsettling when someone else's truths are the opposite of what you have observed? How can you both be right?

I will prove to you that two people can observe the same facts, come to different conclusions, and both be simultaneously correct. The key to understanding this is twofold: first, each of us measures the world according to our own values. Second, the actual function of the world is incredibly complex leading us to cherry pick the factors we consider. By the end of this blog, I hope that you will walk away understanding that people who disagree with you are not necessarily ignorant, stupid, or evil. I also hope that you will see that when you are disgusted with somebody else's opinion, what really is bothering you is that they don't value the same things you do.

Subjective Truth versus Objective Truth
First I need to cover the obvious fact that some truths are subjective. For example: "the best flavor of ice cream is chocolate." A less trivial example would be "FDR was a great president." Other truths are more objective such as the gravity at the earth's surface=9.8 m/s². Subjective truths are inseparable from individual priorities, tastes, and beliefs. (I will call these "values").

Is there any point in asserting a subjective truth when it can only be true for one single person? Yes. Since we all share the experience of being human, we share things in common. Thus, if you like chocolate, there is a chance that I will like it too. But in the end, we must accept that some people may never like chocolate.

Values combine with knowledge to produce individual truth. Collective subjective truth is possible when there are shared values and knowledge. This is no trivial thing. Wars are fought over values divergence. The word culture is another name for collective values. Values are extremely important and everybody has them (socially conservative voters have adopted the term "values voters", but what they mean is "conservative values").

It should be obvious that two people with the same intellect and knowledge can have drastically different prescriptions for society. Let's see how the values of a 2nd amendment activist differ from those of a gun control advocate:. The pro-gun activist is likely to have a higher regard for individual rights at the expense of perceived security, a lower regard for government and for criminals. The anti-gun activist is likely to value collective action over individual action. She will value security over freedom. (Caveat alert: these generalizations are simplified.) As another illustration, a friend of mine recently described his value of freedom poignantly "I'd rather risk another 9/11 than give away civil liberties".

I've thought a little on what it takes to convert someone over to you're way of thinking. I think this table summarizes most of the common approaches.
The possible Scenarios of conflicting opinion

Person A	Person B	Ways A can influence B to unite in common cause	Examples
Person A has ample amounts of knowledge, good mental faculties, and a fairly strong value system.	Has insufficient knowledge but holds values similar to person A.	Since both have the same values, A only need educate B.	Campaign literature sent by a party to its membership. A Democrat explains to a Republican how liberal policies can achieve conservative ends.
	Has sufficient knowledge and a weakly held value system that is different than person A.	Attempt to change the values of person B	A pro-abortion advocate focuses B on the plight of women in order to cause a reprioritization of values.
	Has sufficient knowledge and a strongly held value system that is different than person A.	Compromise.	Including pork in legislation so that everyone can claim success.
		Disenfranchise	Jim Crow laws, anti-polygamy Edmunds act of 1882, etc.
		Destroy your opposition	Terrorism, war, etc.
Person A lacks certain mental faculties or knowledge, but has a fairly strong value system.	This situation is analogous to all of the previous rows except that the effectiveness of persuasion is reduced.
Person A has a weak value system.	In this case, little or no attempt at persuasion is likely

I'm grateful that in this country, at present, we have mostly been able to confine ourselves to the first three rows in terms of domestic relations. What I think people need to be aware of is that when someone has different values than you, it does not necessarily mean they are stupid or evil. I can't tell you how many times I've felt vilified for my conservative views. And just as many times I've been called out as ignorant. I strive to be a thoughtful person, and so these accusations hurt. President Bush is another example. To this day some people seethe with hate for him. Bush's values are so foreign to some of them them that they can only interpret his motives as evil. But if having a different priority of values makes someone evil, which priority is right? Moral relativists will have to say that the only evil is not being true to oneself. (I disagree with moral relativists, BTW) Good luck proving President Bush wasn't true to himself. I'd take anti-Bush people more seriously if they did believe in universal morality but that would make the discussion theological and is outside the scope of this blog.

End versus Means
In all this talk about values, I should mention there is another dimension that complicates matters. Some people choose means that are less likely to achieve their ends. But perhaps they value the means so highly, they are willing to sacrifice those ends. For example, some people value equality of income and try to rectify inequality through progressive tax rates. The income from these taxes are redistributed to the poor. It has been shown that lowering the top tax bracket can induce higher tax receipts (by stimulating investment). People who value the punitive aspect of the tax more than helping the poor with the increased revenue will still oppose the tax cut.

How Two Sides can both be right about Objective Truths
Now I will show by example how opposing viewpoints about objective truth can both be right. I will take the recent financial crisis as an example. That there is a meltdown of sorts is pretty much an objective truth agreed upon by most everyone. Over the past week I've heard two claims that were made with utmost certainty:
1. Republicans, especially President Bush, are 100% to blame for the crisis.
2. Democrats are 100% to blame for the crisis.

My argument is based on the fact that, whether they knew it or not, each of the above claimants is implying "according to my values and priorities" in their statement. When you take into account the implied reference point, their claims can both be verified objectively

I will do so. According to this Denver Post article and this WSJ article there are about eight causes of the financial meltdown. Some of the causes had both beneficial as well as deleterious effects. In no particular order:

1. Enactment of laws that encourage home ownership (most notably, the CRA of 1977 and the 1993 expansion of it) (D)
   
2. Political pressure on Fannie and Freddie to buy/guarantee subprime loans. Followed up by lax oversight. (D)
   
3. Deregulation of banks which allowed them to get too big and have too high a debt load (R)
   
4. Overregulation of banks which give them a false sense of security. (D)
   
5. Low interest rate policy of the Fed which fueled mortage debt (D/R)
   
6. Preditory lending practices (R)
   
7. Government created credit-rating oligopoly (providing the market with misinformation) (D)
   
8. Short Sellers (R)
   

This is a gross simplification, but each of the causes above can be loosely associated with one political party or the other. To be fair, each cause can be attributed to both parties...but I'm trying to make a larger point. I've marked each cause with the associated party.

Now a bubble can only burst when it reaches a certain level. Take away any one or two of the above factors, and you might have averted the crisis entirely. So if you order the list above according to your priority, the last few items (that the other guy caused) are the entire cause of the meltdown right? This sort of cherry picking can be justified from a subjective point of view and it is very very common.

Conclusion
So did I convince you that people who disagree with you can be right too? Did I convince you to be a little more cognizant of different ways to value and prioritize?

Spoke Too Soon

In my last blog: here, I sung the praises of Bush's tenure. Indeed, up until two week ago, it looked as though we were poised for only a mild slow down. Today, a recession seems more inevitable. And a financial crisis looms heavy on all our minds. My last blog isn't nullified of course. The last decade was filled with opportunity. Everyone I know has improved their lot in life. I thank God for those seven years of plenty.

But now I must admit that one of the measures I touted as a Bush accomplishment was in fact a primary cause of this crisis: the high rate of minority home ownership. This was a double edge sword. The cost of boosting home ownership was too great.

A Problem With Many Root Causes

I've been researching this topic and so far I've found the following causes. (See this Denver Post article and this WSJ article) Some of the causes had both beneficial as well as deleterious effects. In no particular order:

1. Enactment of laws that encourage home ownership (most notably, the CRA of 1977 and the 1993 expansion of it)
   
2. Political pressure on Fannie and Freddie to buy/guarantee subprime loans. Followed up by lax oversight.
   
3. Deregulation of banks which allowed them to get too big and have too high a debt load
   
4. Overregulation of banks which give them a false sense of security.
   
5. Low interest rate policy of the Fed which fueled mortage debt.
   
6. Predatory lending practices.
   
7. Government created credit-rating oligopoly (providing the market with misinformation)
   
8. Short Sellers
   
9. Government Debt

And the human side (which will never change)

1. Home buyer and consumer imprudence
2. Greed (from investment bankers and regular joe investors alike)
3. Human tendency to underestimate downside (The economy of Las Vegas is based on this fact)
   

But wasn't it due to the "Failed Policies of the Bush Administration"?

When Obama says this, I'm not sure what specific policy he refers to. There is plenty of blame to go around. If you want to play the blame game, Democrats are knee deep in it too. This video, if a bit propagandist, is still a must see for those who believe Democrats are saints:

A History of the Financial Crisis

As the history books will no doubt explain, the financial crisis of 2008 was caused in large part by government's penchant for liberal activism.

Rersources

A Mortgage Fable

Clinton Defends Glass Steagall

Fannie Mae's Political Contributions

Wall Street's Political Contributions

McCain's Attempt to Reform Fannie Mae

Central Banking's Role

Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)

Pro-CRA Articles
CRA not to blame CRA didn't affect 80% of subprimes
Anti-CRA Articles
Loose Underwriting

Are you better off today than 8 years ago?

Somehow, the media powers-that-be have successfully trained the American people to believe that President Bush has "failed". Few people around the water cooler are willing to stick up for the President. It isn't hip to like George W. In fact, you get brownie points for ridiculing him. It's a fad. It's tempting to just follow the crowd, but let's look at what has really happened over the last 8 years.

President Bush inherited a fragile economy. Irrational exuberance had created a bubble in the technology sector. The bubble began bursting in 2000 and Bush inherited a weak economy. Then 9/11 came long and further rocked the economy. President Bush was handed a can of worms that was created during the 1990's. (You should read The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11)

Where are we today?

• The poverty rate, at 12.5% is historically very low. In only about 7 of the last 50 years has it been lower.
• The 2003 Bush Tax cuts brought the economy to life and put it on a solid footing for the shocks it sustained in 2007. The higher level of investment brought in record amounts of additional revenue to the Federal Government. See page 2 of this U.S. treasury publication. This proves that tax cuts can in fact equate to higher revenue to the government.
  
• The recent 2007 census shows that the number of uninsured (health care) has dropped since 2006. Percentage-wise, it's at 15.3%, at par with what it was during most of the 1990's.
• Median household income continues to rise, almost fully recovering from the 1999 tech-bubble high.
• Home ownership has remained very high (68% )
  
• Minority ownership of homes and businesses is at an all time high. (See this) P.S. See my update on this issue here
  
• Despite heavy pressure on the low-end for jobs (due to illegal immigration) we've had fantastically low unemployment rates in the 4-5% range for most of the last 8 years. Canada and most of Europe can only dream of numbers like this.
• Arthur C. Brooks, an expert on mood, tells us that Americans are generally as happy as they ever have been since 1970 and they are less angry. Americans are happier than our European allies.
• While inequality of income is up over the last few decades, inequality of happiness, which has always been low in America, continues to drop. So income does not translate into happiness. But since so many people are fixated on income equality, it should be noted that over the last decade, upward mobility of the poorest quintile was more than 58%. I personally value upward mobility more than I value income equality. And in this regard America has it right. See page 3 of this for the stats. And don't forget that the top 5% of tax payers pay 60% of all federal taxes. Is that progressive or what? The bottom 50% of taxpayers only pay 3.1% of our entire federal budget.
  
  

(Feel free to help fact check my census data: http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p60-235.pdf)


And consider the external shocks that America sustained during his tenure:

• The worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor
• China and India came onto the world stage as economic powerhouses competing for world oil reserves.
• Millions of illegal immigrants continue to pour across the border putting pressure on social services and competing for jobs. This is why we so often hear about the proliferation of "low wage service jobs".
  

And in 2007 and early 2008 there were some internal shocks that would have crushed a lesser economy: sub prime mortgages, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae. etc. etc. Yet here we are posting positive GDP growth.


Yes, today in 2008 the economy has many dark clouds. But the forces at play would have hampered any president equally. The question isn't "why has Bush failed us?", the question is "how much worse would it have been under a tax-and-spend president?". Just as we can expect El Nino to affect the weather periodically, so can we always expect turbulence in the economy. Such things are good! It keeps the cycle of renewal going. But as things are, President Bush has bent over backwards to smooth out the affects of the slow-down.

In short, America under George Bush has thrived and continues to be a bastion of opportunity that attracts millions of immigrants each year.

Maybe it's Iraq that bothered you. As of last month, the number of U.S. fatalities in Iraq (5) dropped lower than the number of of servicemen who died during peacetime training activities (7). In other words.... the war is over! It's still a dangerous place to be, but such was the case in Japan and Germany for quite sometime after WWII. It's a peace keeping operation now.

Even during the height of the Iraq War, U.S. casualty rates weren't that much higher (and were often lower) than our peacekeeping activities of the 80's and 90's. (That's a fact! See tables 4 and 5 of http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf) And the monetary price tag? The media would have you believe this is most expensive war in history. Not so. Again, our military expenditures as a percent of GDP are historically no worse than the Cold War.

Now what was accomplished:
I will quote from Bret Stephens. "A partial list would include:

• Saddam is dead. Had he remained in power, we would likely still believe he had WMD. He would have been sitting on an oil bonanza priced at $140 a barrel. He would almost certainly have broken free from an already crumbling sanctions regime. The U.S. would be faced with not one, but two, major adversaries in the Persian Gulf. Iraqis would be living under a regime that, in an average year, was at least as murderous as the sectarian violence that followed its collapse. And the U.S. would have seemed powerless to shape events.
  
• Instead, we now have a government that does not threaten its neighbors, does not sponsor terrorism, and is unlikely to again seek WMD. We have a democratic government, a first for the Arab world, and one that is increasingly capable of defending its people and asserting its interests.
• We have a defeat for al Qaeda. Critics carp that had there been no invasion, there never would have been al Qaeda in Iraq. Maybe. As it is, thousands of jihadists are dead, al Qaeda has been defeated on its self-declared "central battlefield," and the movement is largely discredited on the Arab street and even within Islamist circles.
• We also have -- if still only prospectively -- an Arab bulwark against Iran's encroachments in the region. But that depends on whether we simply withdraw from Iraq, or join it in a lasting security partnership.

In addition to these accomplishments, I think it is worthwhile to discuss would-be accomplishments that were thwarted by Democrats. President Bush would have greatly alleviated the Social Security problem. His plan, a creation of expert economists, was the nation's last best hope to save Social Security. But now, Every dollar I currently send to FICA is a dollar I will most likely never see again. President Bush was also willing to sign immigration reform into law. Congress failed. President Bush tried to keep the judicial bench staffed. Congress wouldn't confirm his appointees.

This reminds me of two more great accomplishments during Bush's terms: Roberts and Alito. Without them, this very moment, you'd be living in a country that happily performed partial birth abortions. You also may have lost the right to own most firearms.

We don't live in a perfect world. President Bush didn't live up to my every expectation. He compromised when I would have stuck to my guns. He stuck to his guns when I would have compromised. I disagreed with many of the things he did. But I understand why he did them. He didn't use the bully pulpit as much as I would have liked. He happily worked with Democrats who always stabbed him in the back in the end. So he's guilty of trying to be a nice guy. His bipartisan record greatly exceeds that of Barrack Obama. I know full well that another president could have solved some problems better. There isn't a president in history who can't be picked apart by an unsympathetic historian. But things work themselves out. America is place where people solve problems, not governments.

You may have you seen the bumper sticker "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention". A more apt statement, As Mr. Brooks recently pointed out, would be this: "If you're not grateful to live in America, you're not paying attention".

I, for one, am grateful. I have benefited greatly from this democratic experiment we call the United States. I'm grateful to all Americans who go about their lives trying to do good...even if they make mistakes along the way. President Bush is one of them.

P.S. 9/2/08
I came across this commentary in the WSJ which came to similar conclusions with some very interesting supporting data.

P.S. 9/11/08
I did get some feedback from a friend that I would like to acknowledge. I want to make it clear that I do support President Bush. This is not intended to be a disinterested view of the the Bush years. My values and core beliefs influence my perceptions. I think one of my goals was to demonstrate that according to some measures, Bush has been a very successful president. And I concede that according to some measures he has fallen short. We all pick and choose the measures that are important to us based on our experience and values.

Secondly, I confess that attributing economic success or failure to any given president is a very questionable exercise. The economy is complex. Inputs to it can take years to manifest themselves. However, there is currently a lot of political hay being made out of the weak economy this year, so I'm adding my two cents.