Doctor Who

(Source: Alice X. Zhang.)

Anesthesia

A colony of bacteria

Richard Dawkins once claimed in "The Richard Dimbleby Lecture: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder (1996):

For the first half of geological time our ancestors were bacteria. Most creatures still are bacteria, and each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria.

Hm, "each one of our trillions of cells is a colony of bacteria"? Sorry, I couldn't leave this glaringly inept bit unchallenged. I'll try to keep it short and only say a couple of things for now:

1. What does Dawkins mean by "each one"?

   a. For starters, "each one" of our cells is a single cell, not a "colony" of cells (let alone bacterial cells). But maybe Dawkins simply expressed himself poorly here.

   b. Or does Dawkins mean all the constituent parts of a cell within a single cell are themselves "a colony of bacteria"? If so, then that's just dumb. Are the constituent parts of a bacterial cell likewise "a colony of bacteria" within a single bacterial cell such that we have an infinite regress of "colonies of bacteria"? It's turtles (or bacteria) all the way down!

2. By the phrase "each one of our trillions of cells," I presume Dawkins is referring to a group of the same type of cells within the human body. Say brain cells like neurons. But how are neurons equivalent to "a colony of bacteria"?

   a. Does Dawkins mean neurons are literally "a colony of bacteria" residing in our brains? If so, there are several problems. For one, it fails to distinguish between self and non-self. If neurons are indeed "a colony of bacteria" in humans, then wouldn't we expect our immune system to recognize them as such and deal with them accordingly? (Or are they like gut flora, which if so would raise other issues which would appear to contradict established medical science?)

   b. Does Dawkins mean evolutionarily speaking neurons originated from "a colony of bacteria"? If so, that's a pretty big ask. And of course there are many arguments against neo-Darwinian theory as a whole (such as from the ID community).

As an aside, if we are "a colony of bacteria," does that make the Earth a Petri dish (or at least the appearance of a Petri dish)? :-)

Ectopic pregnancy

For what it's worth, if anything, here are some of my thoughts on the topic of ectopic pregnancy:

1. Keep in mind I'm a mere med student, not a physician, let alone an OB/GYN. I'm open to correction on the medical science and other related data.

2. The vast majority of ectopic pregnancies are tubal ectopic pregnancies. Specifically, 95-98% of all ectopic pregnancies are tubal ectopic pregnancies. This simply means they're in one of the Fallopian aka uterine tubes.

   Other types of ectopic pregnancies are far less common (e.g. ovarian, cervical, abdominal).

3. My understanding is if an ectopic pregnancy occurs (e.g. the embryo implants in one of the uterine tubes), then there are basically two possibilities:

   a. The pregnancy will end in miscarriage.

   b. The baby will grow too big and rupture the uterine tube. This may in turn damage adjacent organs. Worse, the rupture could likewise cause the mother to hemorrhage to death.

4. If ectopic pregnancy is discovered early on, and doctors think (a) is most likely, then doctors will attempt what's called "expectant management." This means the doctors will closely monitor the mother and hope the pregnancy will naturally resolve itself in a miscarriage. That way, nothing much needs to be done by the medical team, and the health outcomes for the mother are probably best (e.g. she'll still likely be fertile).

   But if (b) is more likely, then medical (in the form of an abortifacient drug i.e. methotrexate) and/or surgical intervention is needed. It could be a medical emergency depending on how close to rupturing it is.

5. A few possible if currently perhaps unrealistic pro-life options:

   All these assume the baby in the ectopic pregnancy is developing normally or at least not developing too abnormally. This may be a pretty big assumption though. It's quite possible the baby won't be developing normally. Not getting enough blood and nutrients from the mother and so on since it's not implanted in the mother's womb but outside it (by definition).

   a. A potential option is to surgically transplant the embryo from the uterine tube (or wherever else it is) to the uterus aka womb.

   However, at least to my knowledge, medical science isn't advanced enough to do this let alone do this safely.

   Maybe someday in the future.

   b. Another possible option is to allow the ectopic pregnancy to grow and develop as much as possible, and then to surgically remove the baby as a preemie.

   However, this is highly unrealistic in a tubal ectopic pregnancy. The diameter of the uterine tube is approximately half an inch or thereabouts (about 1.25 cm). While the uterine tube is extensible to some degree (depending on several factors), the bottom line is if the baby grows too much bigger than the diameter of the uterine tube, then it could rupture the tube, and put the mother's life at risk. The baby would already be about half an inch at around 6 weeks. By 8 weeks or so, the baby would have doubled this size. At this point, or not too much beyond this point, it's possible the uterine tube could be at grave danger of rupturing. But to remove the baby at even 10-12 weeks would mean it'd die.

   Currently the earliest we've been able to save babies is around 20 weeks, give or take. And that's extremely rare. Most don't make it.

   But maybe future medical technology will make this a viable option.

   c. In the vast majority of ectopic pregnancies (i.e. tubal ectopic pregnancies), unfortunately it seems the best option is either to allow the ectopic pregnancy to naturally end i.e. miscarriage, or to intervene and abort. This is where some philosophers and ethicists justify the abortion by the doctrine of double effect. But in a small percentage of ectopic pregnancies, it may be possible to save the baby and/or mother. Basically, my understanding is these are in general only realistic in abdominal ectopic pregnancies, although there may be some cases where it's happened in other types of ectopic pregnancies.

   If the ectopic pregnancy is in the abdomen, then there might be more room as well as sufficient blood supply (depending on where in the abdomen the baby is) for the baby to grow and develop and with some luck make it to 20+ weeks, and thus we could hope to remove the premature baby such that neonatologists have a fighting chance to work their magic and rescue the baby. Although even 20+ week old babies are still at huge risk of dying. (A full-term pregnancy is at least about 37 weeks.)

   But even still there's absolutely no guarantee both baby and mother won't die. I think it'd be best to look at abdominal ectopic pregnancies on a case by case basis and see what, if anything, can be done to save both, or one (if not both).

   Here is a list of some successful ectopic pregnancies. But note the vast majority of them (if not all of them) are abdominal ectopic pregnancies, not tubal ectopic pregnancies (which again constitute the vast majority of all ectopic pregnancies - i.e. 95-98%).

Acute porphyria

According to an atheist named porphyryredux:

The reason this philosophy [i.e. empiricism] is likely true or else the best one within the competing marketplace of ideas is that those who attack it, cannot do so unless data comes to them via one of their 5 physical senses, and they send out data intending to stimulate one of the 5 physical senses. If you are using empirical data to disprove empiricism, that is sort of like biting the hand that feeds you, isn’t it?

I should start by saying: although there are probably more sophisticated arguments for empiricism, at this point I'm just assuming porphyryredux means traditional empiricism. After all, it's not as if porphyryredux offers anything more.

1. Who uses "empirical data to disprove empiricism"? Who does he have in mind or what arguments does he have in mind?

2. As others like William Lane Craig have pointed out, empiricism is too narrow. It would exclude logical truths, mathematical truths, moral truths, aesthetic truths, etc.

3. Why should we think our sensory experience is a reliable source of knowledge anyway? Something like Plantinga's EAAN could be relevant for the atheist, for instance. What about arguments for solipsism, to take another example?

4. Why couldn't empiricism coupled with atheism logically lead to a denial of morality, value, meaning, purpose, etc.?

5. Also, what if the empirical data give us conflicting facts or truths?

6. Likewise, there's no empirical data for the existence of certain objects (e.g. the mutliverse, theoretical sub-subatomic particles). Presumably there never can be empirical data for the existence of say sub-subatomic particles either, at least short of building a particle accelerator the size of the solar system.

7. Finally, here is another way to look at empirical knowledge, and if true then it seems our knowledge is mainly a matter of probabilities rather than proofs. If so, then I presume probability type arguments for theism or against atheism would be relevant (e.g. Tim and Lydia McGrew, Richard Swinburne).

Two boundless oceans

Yesterday I saw a cardiac arrest. In fact, two cardiac arrests, in the same person.

The person was an obese woman around the age of 60.

I only came in at the very end of the surgery, but from what I could gather as I entered the OR the patient had had blocked arteries in her legs, and was having surgery to clear up the blockage (i.e. recanalization of femoral popliteal bypass).

The surgeon had just finished the surgery. It looked like a success. She was perfectly stable. The anesthesiologist was beginning to wake her up (e.g. putting in a reversal agent).

Suddenly, she went into cardiac arrest. Someone hit to call for help - code blue, resus team needed stat! The alarms in the OR went off and the lights at the entrance of the OR began flashing so people could see which OR needed assistance (since hospitals have hallways full of ORs).

At the time, near the end of surgery when I walked in, there were only a handful of people in the OR. Maybe 5 or 6 people. In a matter of seconds, there were about 20-25 people. (A senior anesthesiology resident later told me there didn't need to be so many people in the OR.)

A medical resident jumped on her chest and immediately began chest compressions (CPR), while the head anesthesiologist began barking out orders to get more IV access into the patient, fill up syringes with various drugs so he could push the meds, etc. It was all quite chaotic, but from what I could tell everyone was doing their jobs well enough.

They were able to get a heart rate, blood pressure, and so forth again. Everything looked fine. The patient was somewhat conscious again. She was waking up, breathing, but was doubtless exhausted, to say the least.

After several more minutes, when it looked like she was stable and medical staff were no longer needed, well over half the staff began going about their business again.

At this point, there were maybe 10 people in the room including me. While I was talking to a friend about all that just happened, we looked over at the anesthesia machine and noticed the patient's BP begin dropping precipitously. I think it started at 80/50, but then it dropped to 70 (systolic, i.e. the top number), then 50, then 20, then it actually read negative somehow on the machine, all within a matter of seconds.

Of course, the anesthesiologist and other staff noticed as well, and they began CPR again. Another mad rush to save the patient's life.

While the doctors and nurses were rescuing her, my friend and I noticed her left ear had gone dark blue and purple. It was cyanosed. Not enough blood perfusion, not enough oxygen circulating. Bad news.

Eventually the medical staff were able to resuscitate her once again. They got her ready to be transported to the cath lab, where they'd have a better chance to figure out what happened to her as well as to fix it (e.g. the leading theory seemed to be a rogue blood clot). They attached equipment to monitor her vital signs, made sure she had a defibrillator on her bed in case she went into cardiac arrest en route from the OR to the cath lab, bag valve mask ventilated her so she would be oxygenated, etc.

I still don't know what happened to her. Hopefully I'll find out next week when I return.

As for what directly necessitated the code, I thought she had gone into VF (ventricular fibrillation, which is a type of erratic beating of her heart). However, another staff member told me he thought she had in fact gone into asystole (which means flatlined and no heart activity).

Either way, one thing was for sure: she was teetering on the brink between life and death.

As a med student, I don't know much in any case, and thus I wouldn't have been allowed to do anything, but I wish I could have done something to help. Still, it was medically instructive for me to watch.

As I watched, though, I wasn't actually thinking about medicine. Instead, the overriding thought I had in my mind was how close she was to crossing over from life into death, and hence into either heaven or hell. One second she was perfectly stable and ready to emerge from her sleep, and then in a flash everything changed and she could have died on the operating table. She may have in fact died in the cath lab for all I know. How near to eternity we are, and usually without even realizing it.

As John Wesley once said to his brother Charles Wesley: "I desire to have both heaven and hell ever in my eye, while I stand on this isthmus of life, between two boundless oceans."

I, robot

Richard Dawkins once said:

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

Imagine a genius inventor is able to manufacture a human android. Say an android like David 8 in Ridley Scott's Prometheus. But far better (e.g. sans white colored blood, etc.). Indistinguishable from an actual human being.

Of course, one could ask, is David a "living" organism? But given the beliefs and worldview of someone like Richard Dawkins or Jerry Coyne (e.g. atheism, materialism, reductionism, neo-Darwinism), would there be a substantial difference between David and a living, breathing human being like Dawkins?

If so, what would it be?

If not, then how would an evolutionist like Dawkins differentiate between a "living" human being which evolved and David who is an artificial creation? Say the inventor is the only other who knows and he's not telling! Neither is David.

After all, both appear designed. But real humans (e.g. Dawkins) have come to appear designed due to unguided and purposeless natural processes, whereas artificial humans like David have come to appear designed due to the guided and purposeful intelligence of a genius inventor. That is, real humans have the appearance of design, while artificial humans have in fact been designed.

This scenario may sound far-fetched to many people; it's in the realm of science fiction, naught else. Maybe so. But given Dawkins' worldview, why not...someday? Indeed, Craig Venter "created" artificial life not too long ago. Apparently Venter had even placed a genetic signature or watermark in his synthetic life in order to make it known it was his creation. Not unlike, perhaps, Mr. Weyland placing "W" on the fingertip of his creation David in Prometheus:

So, short of some sort of a watermark or signature in the cell, if it's not possible to distinguish between a real human being and an artificially designed human being, then how could we tell one did indeed evolve according to unguided and purposeless natural processes, whereas the other was intelligently designed?

If we can't, then an outsider might as well conclude David evolved according to evolutionary theory, whereas Dawkins was designed by a genius inventor. But we don't really know because we can't distinguish between the two.

As such, on what grounds could Dawkins aka the Dawkbot say humans merely have the "appearance" of design rather than actual design? Couldn't it go either way? If so, then Dawkins shouldn't be so quick to pronounce the appearance of design over actual intelligent design.

A quick and dirty intro to ID

This is just a quick and dirty intro to Intelligent Design (ID).

Obviously, I think it'd be best for people to go straight to the source and read about ID directly from websites like Uncommon Descent and Evolution News & Views. To say nothing of the plethora of published works by ID theorists William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, et al.

However, since I've had friends and others ask me to explain ID, I thought it'd be worth summarizing what I think is the main point of ID to them.

---

Francis Crick, who co-discovered the structure of DNA along with James Watson, once said:

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.

By the same token, the militant atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins has said:

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

As ID theorists have pointed out, the key word is "appearance." Individuals like Dawkins believe living organisms merely "appear" to have been designed when in fact they are anything but. They believe living organisms have instead come into being via unguided and purposeless natural processes. And that these natural processes are best explicated in neo-Darwinism.

By contrast, a reason ID theorists use the term "intelligent" in ID is because they wish to distinguish between an unguided and purposeless natural process vs a guided and purposeful process best explained by intelligent agency.

Now, virtually everyone recognizes there are many things in this universe which look like they're designed. Obviously we know things like computers, cars, and buildings have been engineered by humans. Likewise, various works of art, literature, music, movies, computer games. Similarly, we could say many inorganic materials like various plastics have been artificially designed. We could further include nanoparticles and arguably the synthetic elements in the Periodic Table too. Almost everyone including atheists like Dawkins would probably agree most if not all of these have been designed by intelligent agents i.e. humans.

But when it comes to living organisms, while everyone agrees life looks designed, atheists like Dawkins think actual design is an illusion. (I suppose in some ways similar to how some atheists think of consciousness.)

Worse, they practically become apoplectic if anyone so much as hints the design may not be an illusion but may in fact be actual design by an actual intelligence of some sort. That it may not have been unguided and purposeless after all. Or to put it another, if anyone casts doubt on the neo-Darwinian paradigm.

As an aside, it often seems as if it's all but a thought-crime to question Darwinism. This isn't hyperbolic language for effect, I don't think. There have been very real and unfortunate consequences. For example, many people's reputations have been unfairly marred. Many have lost their jobs and thus livelihoods and/or been blacklisted from future jobs due to their dissent from Darwinism. For starters, check out what happened to Richard Sternberg and Guillermo Gonzalez.

Getting back to the point, given living organisms appear designed, the next logical question should be: are living organisms, in fact, designed? Not: how or by what mechanisms have living organisms come to appear designed? Nor: who or what designed living organisms? (Dawkins, Coyne, Wolpert, and their kind react as equally irked by theistic evolution as they do by ID theory.) Yet neo-Darwinists often get ahead of themselves and confuse and/or conflate these and other questions and their related issues. They proceed, for example, to shout down ID theorists as Young Earth Creationists (YEC) in disguise, even though it's clear to anyone with a modicum of fair-mindedness and an ounce of familiarity with the movement that ID most decidedly is not. (Sometimes to the chagrin of many actual YECs!) Of course, these are good questions to ask, and questions which we should ask. But my immediate point is ID doesn't strictly speaking deal with these questions, not as their first port of call.

So, how can we tell if a living organism is truly designed? This is where intelligence comes in. Indeed, intelligence is what makes the crucial difference between the mere appearance of design vs actual design. In other words, there's a significant distinction between unintelligent design vs intelligent design, for unintelligent design means an unguided and purposeless natural process (i.e. neo-Darwinian theory), while intelligent design is, as I've already noted, the reverse.

Specifically, according to ID theorists, intelligence is a causal power that can arrange and adapt means to bring about teleological ends. This stands in distinction both to brute necessity which does not arrange or adapt means as well as to random chance which is not teleological or goal-oriented.

What's more, ID theorists have come up with ways to detect intelligence. I think Dembski's scheme is the most analytically rigorous. It'd be beyond the scope of this post to go into detail, but Dembski does point out three marks of intelligence: contingency, complexity, and specificity. By contingency he simply means if an object or event is unnecessary or, if you like, optional; if it occurred, even though it need not have occurred. Complexity refers to the fact that an object or event is difficult to reproduce by chance alone. And specificity is if an object or event exhibits an independent pattern. Dembski terms his theory of intelligence detection, specified complexity, and argues only intelligence can originate or generate specified complexity when prior to intelligence there was no specified complexity. Note this isn't the same as unintelligent natural processes making use of specified complexity.

If specified complexity is successful, then at a minimum it means we have sound and reasonable scientific and mathematical criteria to detect intelligent design in nature.

Parsing Parsons

Keith Parsons recently wrote:

neurons are classical not quantum objects

What's Parsons attempting to say here? Is he referring to classical mechanics in physics as opposed to quantum mechanics?

If not, I'm not sure what he's talking about.

But if so, then presumably he's attempting to say something like (in his own clumsy way) the physiology of neurons or neurophysiology isn't best explained by quantum mechanics, but rather by classical mechanics?

If so, for starters we can say that, generally speaking, quantum effects are more pronounced the smaller an object is. But just because neurons (i.e. nerve cells) aren't, say, atomic or subatomic particles doesn't necessarily mean QM has zero effect on neurons. A quantum effect could still be present but simply not observable. At least not by our current instruments or technology.

Further, neurons are obviously comprised of smaller constituents which could be measurably subject to QM (e.g. perhaps some proteins, perhaps the electron transport chain in the mitochondrial membrane).

Besides, isn't Parsons a reductionist who also subscribes to emergent phenomena in their lower level constituents? If so, wouldn't Parsons think lower level constituents in neurons could influence the higher level neurons themselves in some fashion?

Also, even if we don't head down to a low level like the atomic or subatomic level but instead stick with the molecular or cellular level, we know nerve signals are transmitted via nerve cells or neurons electrochemically (i.e. via electrical action potentials and chemical neurotransmitters). And I don't see why certain events in this electrochemical transmission process between neurons couldn't be explicated in terms of QM? (Well, maybe only if the time scale isn't short enough.)

Of course, none of this is at all to suggest I agree with the position that QM fully explains consciousness. Rather, I'm just responding to Parsons on his own terms.

This article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy may also be of interest to some.

Background to pop gen

Here's some quick and dirty background info for those curious about population genetics. It'll be simplified for wider popular appeal, but hopefully not overly simplified. I won't talk about population genetics itself, per se, since that'd be a bit too time-consuming for me to provide right now. But the background should provide enough knowledge to get people started on learning about population genetics on their own.

1. DNA. The first thing to know is that we're made up of DNA. DNA is a molecule that resides in us and encodes all our genetic information. We can think of it as containing all the instructions for how to make a human being.

2. Genes. DNA is composed of genes. Genes are segments of DNA that give humans form and/or function. Genes are also passed on from one parent to their child.

3. Allele. An allele is an alternative form of a gene. A variant. For example, different eye colors (e.g. blue, brown).

4. Genome. A person's genome is all the genetic info in a single person. This is all the DNA in a person.

Usually when we refer to DNA, we're talking about the DNA in a person's chromosomes aka chromosomal DNA. But there's also what's called mitochondrial DNA. That is, DNA in a person's mitochondria as well.

There are further distinctions but this should suffice for our purposes.

At any rate, a person's genome would include all the DNA.

5. Population. A population is all the organisms in a given set that can interbreed with one another. Actually, this is a very basic definition. It isn't perfect by any means, and debatable. But we'll just stick with this for now.

6. Evolution. A basic definition of evolution is a change in the frequencies of genes/alleles in a given population. Again, somewhat debatable, or at least requiring more elaboration, but we'll move on.

7. According to neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, there are at least five factors that can influence the frequency of the genes/alleles in a population:

a. Natural selection. This is based on fitness. This is when the fitter or fittest individuals of a population survive (e.g. thick coated foxes are more fit to survive in the Arctic than thin coated foxes), pass on their genes/alleles, and thus their genes/alleles become more frequent in a population.

b. Sexual selection. This is based on sexual attractiveness. This is when the more sexually attractive individuals of a population mate and have the most offspring, thus passing on their genes/alleles, and thus their genes/alleles become more frequent in a population.

c. Gene migration. This is based on movement. This is when new individuals with new genes/alleles migrate into or out of another population, thus changing the frequency of genes/alleles in a population.

d. Genetic drift. This is based on chance. This is when random chance events (e.g. bugs getting stepped on, floods wiping out half the population) lead to changes in the frequency of genes/alleles in a population.

e. Mutations. This is based on anomalies in the genetic code. This is when mistakes in DNA lead to new genes/alleles.

7. Equilibrium. Specifically, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. A population is said to be in (Hardy-Weinberg) equilibrium when none of the previously mentioned factors are in operation. It also assumes all individuals in a given population capable of breeding are breeding and each produces the same number of offspring.

That is, natural selection is not at work. Sexual selection is completely random. There are no new migrants into or out of a population. There is a huge population size in order to moot random chance events affecting the frequency of genes/alleles in a population. Finally, no mutations ever occur.

8. Finally, as the cornerstone of population genetics, we have what's called the Hardy-Weinberg equation. The equation is: p² + 2pq + q² = 1.

We can think the equation in the following way.

Consider three basic types of genes/alleles. Say we have XX genes/alles representing dominant genes/alleles, xx representing recessive genes/alleles, and Xx representing mixed dominant and recessive genes/alleles.

Accordingly, the "p²" in the equation refers to what's called homozygous dominant genes/alleles. The "q²" refers to what's called homozygous recessive genes/alleles. And the "2pq" refers to what's called heterozygous genes/alleles.

If we know 40% of a given population posses homozygous dominant genes/alleles, then we know p² = 0.4.

If p² = 0.4, then p = 0.63 (approx).

That means q = 1 - 0.63 = 0.37.

While q² = 0.137.

And 2pq = 0.466.

Thus, since we know p² = 0.4, 2pq = 0.466, and q² = 0.137, then we know 40% of the population possesses homozygous dominant genes (e.g. XX), 46.6% of the population possesses heterozygous genes/alles (e.g. Xx), and 13.7% of the population possesses homozygous recessive genes/alleles.

Bayesian statistics

I'm familiar with general statistics, but I'm no expert in Bayesian statistics. So perhaps I'm mistaken in what I'm about to say.

Also, I should say, I'm by no means against the use of Bayesian statistics. In fact, I think it has great value in certain apologetic contexts.

However, isn't one limitation of Bayesian statistics the presumption that the Bayesian statistician is able to assess the probabilities of a particular theory from a completely objective, impartial, and almost omniscient sort of a perspective or standpoint? As if one could comprehensively evaluate a theory on its own merits or demerits, as well as any and all unknown variables in or related to the theory?

But in practice, isn't it more often the case that one has to assess the probabilities of a particular theory in relation to competing theories?

Physics on the wane

Steve Hays recently made the following point, with which I'd agree:

Physicists have a reputation for being the smartest scientists. Smarter than biologists. That's ironic since biology is far more varied and complicated than physics, so–if anything–you'd expect great biologists to be smarter than great physicists.

Just to add to Steve's thoughts:

1. I suppose some of this is self-perpetuated by physicists as a community. For example, people like Richard Feynman and Murray Gell-Mann seem to have incessantly talked about how smart they were or are.

2. Plus, I think the most impressive scientific discoveries in the first half or two-thirds of the 20th century, certainly to the public if not also impressive in their own right, have largely been in physics (e.g. Bohr's model of the atom, Einstein's theories of relativity, the big bang theory, QM).

3. Not to mention the technological applications in the wake of these discoveries in physics (e.g. nuclear weapons, spaceflight, maybe modern computers to an extent - although I think computers are probably better attributed to mathematicians such as those who served as code crackers in WW2).

4. All this presumably gives the public the impression that physicists are like modern wizards (e.g. able to unlock the inner workings of the atom to harness nuclear energy).

5. Related, I've also read JFK's administration really pushed science, math, and engineering on the American public mainly in order to compete with the Soviet Union in the space race (e.g. to land a man on the moon). I could be wrong, of course, but I assume this would positively affect the perception of these fields in the minds of most of the public, if not also make the public think these are the fields all the really smart students should strive for.

6. However, as we know, it seems there haven't been as many momentous moments in physics in recent years. Today some even joke physics is far too speculative (e.g. string theory, multiverse).

7. My impression is biology started really taking off as a field around the time when physics began to wane, say, around the middle of the 20th century. Such as with physicist Erwin Schrödinger's What Is Life? series of lectures. And especially with the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick. Crick himself of course was a physicist turned biologist.

From DNA, we learned about genes, chromosomes, etc., at least on levels deeper than Mendelian genetics.

This coincided with medical discoveries and applications like Fleming's discovery of penicillin as an antibiotic.

Likewise, people began to apply mathematics to biology (e.g. population genetics - which with Darwinism and genetics now form the neo-Darwinian synthesis).

In our time we've had the sequencing of the human genome, among other genomes. And there still seem to be so many discoveries awaiting scientists working in biology or related fields (e.g. biochemistry, pharmaceuticals).

In any case, perhaps future generations who have lived through this era where it seems physics is waning while biology is waxing or on the rise will have a different impression than previous generations who have lived through the apogee of physics.

8. For better or for worse, many smart people primarily chase the money. For instance, rather than going for a PhD in something they could do like physics, and hoping for an academic career, some people decide instead to stop at a bachelor's degree in order to try their hand working for a large company in Silicon Valley like Google or Pixar. Of course, one can still do significant research at these companies, but is the opportunity cost vs return worth it for them?

9. I suppose the truth or at least in the direction of the truth is that the smartest people are those who are fluent in abstract and analytical reasoning and able to apply it to whatever field they're interested in (e.g. theology, philosophy, mathematics).

10. By the way, I think William Dembski, for one, who I'm sure could've done physics if he wanted to, but instead chose to apply himself more to the biological sciences side of ID, is considerably smarter than physicists like Victor Stenger or Lawrence Krauss. I think it might even be arguable Dembski is on par with Stephen Hawking or Roger Penrose. Of course, Dembski gets such a bad wrap due to his Christian beliefs.

Is it always wrong for a man to hit a woman?

1. In general, I take it that it goes without saying a guy's role is to protect the women in their care (e.g. mothers, sisters, wives, daughters).

I suppose this can in some situations extend to other women not directly under a man's care. For example, a man could intervene if he sees a woman getting attacked by another man.

Or, maybe, although care should be taken here, if he knows his neighbor is a wife-beater.

2. However, what if another woman is attacking a man's wife or mother or sister or daughter?

It may depend on the way she's attacking his loved one. Like can he step in and hold the other woman back solely by his strength? If so, then this may be the most viable course of action.

But what if the other woman is attacking his loved one such that he can't hold her back by non-violent means? It seems to me the man would be justified in hitting this other woman to protect his wife or mother or sister or daughter.

3. Some say a man shouldn't ever hit a woman because women are physically weaker than men. That's true in general.

But it's possible some women are stronger than some men. What if a female MMA fighter or wrestler or the like is pounding on a scrawny or skinny guy? Can he hit her back in self-defense?

4. Also, what if a woman is wielding a weapon like a knife against a guy who doesn't have any weapon? What if she's waving the weapon near his face and it looks like she'll cut him? Is he still not allowed to hit her?

5. It's usually significantly frowned upon if a guy is sucker punched, or if he's kicked in-between the legs. For whatever reason, these are usually off-limits, even, it seems, in street fights.

What if a woman sucker punches a guy, or kicks him in-between the legs? Can a guy hit her in retaliation? Or should he simply take it in, and eat her sucker punch or kick in the groin "like a man"?

6. What if a man is up against more than one woman on his own, say, for instance, a gang of women who clearly intend to assault him or rape him? Can he defend himself?

7. What if he faces a group of armed female looters attempting to rob his store like many Korean-Americans faced in Los Angeles in the Rodney King riots?

8. Short of hitting a woman, can a man push or slap a woman if, say, she repeatedly and publicly berates him, insults him, disrespects him, even attempts to instigate other men to attack him such as lying about him and saying he tried to steal her purse or rape her, and the like, even though he's never wronged her? (Of course, if other men are foolish enough to jump in at her instigation, then it may not be realistic for one man to go up against a group of men.)

Christians and alternative medicine

I recently came across a Christian discussion over complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). For what it's worth, if anything, here are some of my thoughts:

1. It seems to me lots of companies use various buzzwords to try to get people to buy their products without necessarily advocating an entire belief system behind these buzzwords. For them, it's not really about the worldview, but it's about making money. So they'll market it in whatever way will net them the most profit. In other words, even if it's true a CAM company markets their products with various buzzwords taken from Hinduism or Eastern medicine or wherever else, it doesn't necessarily mean the company itself is going to push Hinduism or Eastern religion or philosophy on people.

2. Plus, doesn't this reflect the culture and society we live in rather than the company, per se? It seems they're just trying to make money using popular cultural buzzwords like "aura" and "karma" and so on to sell their stuff.

3. But maybe I'm wrong. While I would think such a company would be happy to sell their products with or without various buzzwords, but maybe they really do want their sales people or those who partner to sell their products to also push their entire philosophy and practice. If so, then I'd steer clear.

4. Of course, every company has a certain culture. For instance, I have a friend who works in the video game industry. And I've visited several different video game companies as well as huge events like E3 more than once. I'd agree with a lot of this Wiki article on video game culture, and I'm sure video game companies are saturated with a lot of this too.

   Now, if a Christian works for a CAM company, how will the CAM company's culture affect them? That's a consideration.

5. Some Christians seem almost superstitious in how much power they think CAMs have over us, weaving grand conspiracy theories about how the New Age or Eastern mysticism is entering the church through working for such companies.

   (Interestingly, many of these Christians are also cessationists, and think modern miracle workers are nothing more than charlatans.)

   But if they wish to warn Christians about buying or selling CAM products, or about working for a CAM company, wouldn't a more simple and direct reason be because it's unwise to partner with companies that are more like slick snake oil salesmen trying to make a quick buck? Why strain to make it all about the New Age, Eastern mysticism, and the like - these are so far from evident?

6. CAMs are very diverse in their medical efficacy. Some are good, some are bad, some are neutral.

   For others the jury's still out since the evidence is inconclusive.

   There's also the placebo effect to take into consideration.

   For example, homeopathic medicines (despite having "scientific" journals of homeopathy) are basically like 99 parts water to 1 part "medicine." These days, the dose of the "medicine" in the solution (assuming it would even be effective in the first place if given in an appropriate dose) is far too small to have an effect - beneficial or deleterious. So the joke with homeopathy is people are just drinking very expensive water. Perceived benefits are pretty much attrbuted to the placebo effect from what I understand.

7. I think most physicians would advise against a particular CAM if it's bad. Or if it's in place of actual medicine. Like a lot of people who have cancer want to explore this or that CAM instead of getting chemotherapy or surgery or whatever (e.g. Steve Jobs).

8. As a side note, lots of CAM people say Western doctors don't know anything about CAMs. Maybe that was true in the past. I don't know. But today many if not most physicians like oncologists are taught and educated about CAMs in order to be very familiar with them since so many patients ask about them.

9. There are some people or companies that push CAMs like herbal medications or massages in the context of a bad religious system or strange worldview or something like that. I would avoid these. But it seems to me most are more than happy to take people's money without talking about their own beliefs or hooking people into some weird New Age cult!

10. Perhaps a bigger problem is some CAMs are intertwined closely with certain philosophies or worldviews.

    Take acupuncture. Traditionally, acupuncture involves the idea of qi, yin/yang, and the five elements.

    Presumably this still exists in various parts of Asia and among certain acupuncturists in the US.

    But that's not necessarily the case in some modern practices of acupuncture.

    And it's possible to have acupuncture without buying into the underlying philosophy. Similarly it's possible to practice yoga stretches without buying into Hinduism or Buddhism.

    Also, my impression is, although the evidence is debatable, and much of it attributable to the placebo effect, there does seem to be some slight scientific evidence for some acupuncture. I'd have to read up on this to be sure though.

    I'm guessing doing nerve blocks to relieve pain (which doctors like anesthesiologists, critical care physicians, and emergency doctors can do) is similar to some parts of acupuncture.

11. There are some doctors who are quite secular (e.g. Steven Novella). But does seeing a secular physician mean one is necessarily buying into secularism?

Homsexual Christians, marriage, and sexuality

Several thoughts on homosexual converts to Christianity, sexuality, and marriage in no particular order:

1. I understand if pastors aren't comfortable discussing these issues. It gets to be fairly explicit, and some women might find it offensive. But if we're going to have an honest discussion about the lifestyle of homosexual converts to Christianity, consistent with biblical sexual norms, I think we need to explore whether the current options aren't narrowly idealistic.

2. For discussion purposes, let's stipulate that some homosexual men genuinely convert to Christianity, but they aren't physically attracted to women, and they retain a physical attraction to men, although it's not overpowering.

   How should the church counsel them?

   Currently, there seem to be three popular options:

   a. The liberal position, according to which homosexual activity is morally acceptable. We can summarily take that off the table.

   Among conservative evangelicals, there are two popular alternatives:

   b. Undergo reparative therapy. If successful, marry a woman.

   c. Lead a celibate lifestyle if you aren't attracted to women.

3. However the latter two are in tension with something else conservative evangelicals often say. Conservative evangelicals frequently criticize the romantic model of marriage. They raise two objections:

   a. Falling in love is not an adequate basis for a stable marriage.

   b. The Bible takes a more pragmatic view of marriage.

4. However, if we accept b, then it's no longer clear why a homosexual convert to Christianity shouldn't marry a woman even if he lacks a normal man's attraction to a woman.

5. There are additional considerations. To be blunt, a man finds sexual intercourse enjoyable even if he doesn't find the woman attractive. So, at a purely physical level, even a homosexual man ought to find sexual intercourse physically satisfying.

   Indeed, active homosexual men resort to alternatives which approximate sexual intercourse.

6. In addition, it's possible for a man to deeply love a woman even when there's no sexual attraction involved. Paradigm cases involve men who love their mothers, grandmothers, and sisters.

   In theory, it would be a possible for a convert to Christianity to truly love his wife without having a sense of romantic affection.

7. One objection is that even if that worked out for the husband, it would be unfair to the wife. She wouldn't be getting as much out of the relationship. What about that?

   a. Certainly there should be informed consent. If a homosexual convert to Christianity wants to marry a woman, he should be forthcoming about what he brings to the marriage.

   b. In my observation, popular stereotypes notwithstanding, men are generally more romantic than women. I don't think it's unusual to have a marriage in which the husband loves his wife more than she loves him. (Of course, that's unfortunate.)

   Likewise, women are often fairly pragmatic in their choice of a mate. A man chooses a woman for the woman, whereas a woman often takes other factors into consideration when choosing a man, viz., is he a reliable breadwinner?

   c. A certain percentage of marriages settle into something more like roommates. They stay together to avoid loneliness, but it's not as if they are deeply in love with each other.

   I don't say that's a good thing, but as a practical matter, there's often a stark contrast between the marital ideal and the marital reality.

   Likewise, you have marriages which evolve. The couple may be crazy about each other for the first few years. Then the wear-and-tear of marriage takes its toll. But if they stick it out, the love may deepen.

8. Although it's controversial to mention this, I daresay women can find sexual intercourse physically enjoyable even if she doesn't find the man attractive. For one thing, most women are sexually active, even though the husband isn't matinee idol material.

   I'm not a gynecologist or urologist, so I may be wrong about this, but I suspect the stereotypical impression that men are less discriminating about sex than women is based on faulty assumptions:

   a. To my knowledge, foreplay is more important to women than men because women need some lead-time. Without vaginal lubrication, intercourse is uncomfortable for women. Put another way, men have a hair-trigger sexual arousal mechanism. In that sense, men are always ready for sex in a way that women are not. But that's somewhat misleading, because it's a question of timing.

   b. From what I've read, the clitoris has about twice as many nerve endings as the penis. Perhaps that's because the clitoris has more surface area. In addition, circumcision desensitizes the penis to some degree. So, in principle, intercourse is even more stimulating for women than men.

   c. From what I've read, a woman's libido peaks with ovulation, so it's cyclical in a way that man's libido is not.

9. Many women view themselves as missionaries whose role in life is to save a man from his weaknesses. So you might have Christian women who are willing to marry a homosexual convert to Christianity.

10. What about matching up lesbian converts to Christianity with male homosexual converts?

11. As we know, both biblically and historically there have been lots of marriages primarily for pragmatic reasons, not romantic love. Not to mention this still occurs in many contemporary cultures like in Asia.

    Take arranged marriages. Many if not most of these marriages seem to have worked out well enough. They may not reach the ideal of romantic love, but then again I don't know that they haven't either.

    For example, I know close relatives who had an arranged marriage. They started out not knowing one another well, and not romantically loving one another, but after marriage they fell in love.

    I also think of someone like C.S. Lewis originally marrying Joy Davidman not because he loved her but because he felt he needed to help her and her children stay in the UK, and getting married would grant them British residency and citizenship. But he later fell deeply in love with her.

12. Our own society and culture often caricatures arranged marriages as loveless and imprisoning and so forth. I don't doubt this does occur. But isn't this an extreme rather than the norm?

    On the flipside, more traditional cultures seem to me to be quite shocked by how easily Western cultures fall in and out of love, how promiscuous they are, how easily people get divorced, and so forth.

13. We can group normal sexual function in terms of vascular, neurological, hormonal, and psychological systems. Ideally, the initiation and maintenance of penile erection is mainly vascular (the penis becomes engorged with blood), triggered by neurological signals (including visual) on the background of normal hormonal and psychological factors.

14. We can broadly categorize sexual problems in at least three stages:

    a. Sexual desire (e.g. low libido)

    b. Sexual arousal (e.g. erectile dysfunction, failure of arousal in women)

    c. Orgasm (e.g. premature ejaculation, retarded ejaculation, female orgasmic disorder)

15. Many homosexual men and women come with tremendous psychosocial baggage (e.g. poor parental behavior to model or imprint, child neglect, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, depression, suicidal ideation).

    Sadly, many Christians (heterosexuals and penitent homosexuals) may find such scars left unhealed in this life.

    Point being, when it comes to sexuality including sexual intercourse in both men and women, it's not all just hormones and neurophysiology. There's a tremendous psychogenic aspect to sexuality too. I think it's quite possible a normal marriage could actually bring psychological and emotional healing, which in turn could in fact beneficially influence sexual desire, sexual arousal, and orgasm.

16. It's possible to be sexually aroused even if sexual desire isn't initially present. For instance, take wives who may have a "headache" or otherwise not feel in the mood for sexual intercourse, but regardless they decide to have sex with their husbands, and find the stimulation of genitalia can lead to sexual arousal.

    (Another example, though an utterly horrific one, is some women who are raped actually become sexually aroused.)

    Also, this often helps wives bond with their husbands. Sometimes women become sexually aroused in the course of intercourse. But even if they aren't sexually aroused or anything at all (which is I guess one reason vaginal lubricants are so popular on the market), at least they can bond with their husbands in other ways like psychologically and emotionally. And this in turn is sort of like a positive feedback loop which can be helpful in improving sexual desire and arousal and other patterns in the future.

17. Similarly, castrated men can still experience sexual desire.

18. I haven't ever looked into hormone levels in homosexual men (e.g. testosterone). But given that hormone levels can affect sexual behavior, I wonder if homosexual men have significantly lower or higher hormone levels than heterosexual men (e.g. testosterone, estrogen), and if so how this would affect their sexual behavior? There's presumably medication to better balance their hormonal levels.

19. This isn't directly relevant per se, but it might be useful to compare differences between men and women's orgasms (though the differences aren't set in stone and there's some debate over each):

    a. Women can have repeated orgasms separated by very short intervals. There's a much longer refractory period for men.

    b. Women can have an expanded or full body orgasm. Some men may be able to achieve this as well, but it seems much more prevalent among women.

    c. Women's orgasms can last much longer than a man's orgasm. Not just like a few seconds, but 30-60 seconds or even much longer.

    d. Normally, women's orgasms can be stopped mid-orgasm, as it were, whereas normally once a man's orgasm starts it can't be stopped.

20. I've heard the nerve endings in the clitoris are bundled much more closely together than the nerve endings in the penis. But I haven't verified it in the medical literature.

    It's also important to note the course or path of the nerves in men vs. women. There are some interesting differences in how men vs. women are stimulated and how this sensation travels along the nervous system, but I think it'd take a while to write about it. For example, in men and women sexual arousal is due to the part of our nervous system known as the parasympathetic nervous system ("rest and digest" response), but for men ejaculation is due to the sympathetic nervous system ("fight or flight" response), which if I recall isn't the case in the female orgasm (although I should double check). Another example is how the female orgasm (due in large part to activity in the nervous system) leads to rhythmic contractions of the perineal muscles as well as the uterus, which obviously men don't have, and thus can't experience this particular sensation.

    Apart from the nervous system, it's important to note the blood supply to the penis and clitoris. For instance, I wouldn't be surprised to find the clitoris has more blood vessels supplying it than the penis has blood vessels supplying it.

    And there's the significant influence of hormones in sexual intercourse that's different in men vs. women (e.g. oxytocin).

21. We also know that in the past, when homosexuality carried a social stigma, some homosexual men led double lives. Married a woman and fathered kids. So they were able to achieve sexual arousal despite their lack of physical attraction for the opposite sex.

22. The conventional evangelical assumption is that a homosexual convert should first acquire normal attraction for women before he considers marriage.

    But what if, in his case, acquiring normal attraction for women is a result of marriage? Is that the best "reparative" therapy?

    Can he become reoriented in a vacuum, or is marriage his best hope?

23. It seems to me if we look at elderly couples most men are still pretty happily married even though after the years their spouse is no longer physically attractive to them (e.g. gained weight, has gone through disease resulting in physical changes like say a single or double mastectomy). Not to suggest in any way spouses should neglect the physical at all, but it's possible over time couples are attracted to their spouses less for physical reasons and more for other qualities. Most presumably have a healthy sex life.

24. As for women, there seem to be plenty of heterosexual women who have a happy marriage but can't achieve orgasm regularly and some extremely rarely if not never. Here are some stats:

    Sexual complaints are reported by approximately 40 percent of women worldwide [1, 31-33]. This was demonstrated in a study conducted in 29 countries among almost 14,000 women aged 40 to 80 years responding to a questionnaire in person or on the telephone [33]. The most commonly reported types of dysfunction were low sexual desire (26 to 43 percent) and inability to reach orgasm (18 to 41 percent). For all categories of sexual problems, prevalence was highest in Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand) and lowest in Northern Europe (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom).

    Most studies have not assessed whether sexual issues are associated with personal distress, a key requirement for diagnosis of female sexual dysfunction. In addition, some studies still exclude women who are not in sexual relationships, so that women for whom sexual dysfunction is a barrier to forming sexual relationships are not assessed [34].

    The largest United States study of female sexual dysfunction, Prevalence of Female Sexual Problems Associated with Distress and Determinants of Treatment Seeking (PRESIDE), did measure personal distress and included women who were not currently in a sexual relationship; over 30,000 women responded to validated questionnaires regarding low desire, low arousal, and orgasm difficulties [1]. The prevalence of any of these three sexual problems (with or without distress) was 43 percent; 22 percent reported sexually related personal distress and 12 percent attributed distress to a specific type of sexual problem (eg, desire).

    Low desire was the most common sexual problem in women, reported by 39 percent of women and associated with distress in 10 to 14 percent [1]. Low arousal (26 percent) and orgasm difficulties (21 percent) were slightly less prevalent, and were both associated with distress in 5 percent of women [1]. Five percent of women reported both low desire and another sexual problem; 2 percent reported all three problems.

    References
    [1] Shifren JL, Monz BU, Russo PA, et al. Sexual problems and distress in United States women: prevalence and correlates. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112:970.
    [31] Laumann EO, Paik A, Rosen RC. Sexual dysfunction in the United States: prevalence and predictors. JAMA 1999; 281:537.
    [32] Fugl-Meyer KS, Arrhult H, Pharmanson H, et al. A Swedish telephone help-line for sexual problems: a 5-year survey. J Sex Med 2004; 1:278.
    [33] Laumann EO, Nicolosi A, Glasser DB, et al. Sexual problems among women and men aged 40-80 y: prevalence and correlates identified in the Global Study of Sexual Attitudes and Behaviors. Int J Impot Res 2005; 17:39.
    [34] Bhasin S, Enzlin P, Coviello A, Basson R. Sexual dysfunction in men and women with endocrine disorders. Lancet 2007; 369:597.

    It's difficult to tell what number of heterosexual women regularly achieve orgasm. But from these stats we can at least say a not insignificant number of heterosexual women do have difficulties with low sexual desire, low arousal, and orgasm.

    That said, it seems there are many women in happy marriages who have good and regular sex with their husbands that say they enjoy sex even though they themselves don't necessarily reach orgasm during sex. Instead, they say they enjoy sex for other reasons like the physical and emotional intimacy, it makes them happy when they please their partners, etc.

    Female sexuality is very complex and it seems to me much more so than male sexuality.

25. Although some Christians would disapprove, the aforementioned might be a good reason for teenage girls to experiment with auto-stimulation. They'd learn two valuable lessons: what an orgasm feels like, and how to trigger it.

    When they marry, that would help them to instruct their husbands in how to better induce an orgasm in the wife. That would obviously benefit the wife. Physically speaking, she'd get as much out of intercourse as the husband.

    And it would make her more enthusiastic about conjugal relations.

26. Similarly, although this might be similarly controversial and I'm not entirely sure I stand on this either, it might be helpful for some married couples to mutually masturbate one another prior to or perhaps temporarily in lieu of sexual intercourse in order to help improve their sexual life in the future. The wife can show her husband what's pleasurable to her, guide him, etc., and vice versa.

Doctor Who faves

(This is a work in progress. I'll update it as I have time.)

My favorite Doctor Who episodes in chronological order:

Ninth Doctor:

• Dalek. Christopher Eccleston was the perfect "dark" Doctor. What the ravages of war can do to a person.
• Father's Day. What if? A touching story about a girl and her father.
• The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances. Great story. Loads of fun. First intro to Captain Jack.

Tenth Doctor:

• The Christmas Invasion. Still the best of the Christmas specials. But I liked A Christmas Carol and The Snowmen well enough to include them among my favorites too.
• School Reunion. Wherein I begin to understand how the past informs the present.
• The Girl in the Fireplace. A wonderful love story.
• Love & Monsters. Hilarious spoof of geek fandom.
• Army of Ghosts/Doomsday. Heartbreaking. Rose!
• Smith and Jones.
• Gridlock.
• Human Nature/The Family of Blood.
• Blink.
• Utopia/The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords.
• Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead. Our first introduction to Professor River Song, and it was beautiful and sad. I wish they hadn't made River Song Rory and Amy's daughter, an assassin, and so forth though.
• Midnight. The single scariest episode of Doctor Who. More so than Blink. The "monster" is never seen. The Doctor doesn't know what the monster is. The Doctor doesn't know what to do about the monster. Yet the real monster is humanity unmasked. Our evil nature which turns against others. A suspenseful bottle episode.
• Turn Left. Possible worlds.
• The Next Doctor.
• The Waters of Mars.

Eleventh Doctor:

• The Eleventh Hour.
• Amy's Choice.
• Vincent and the Doctor. The relationship between genius and madness. The blessing and curse of being able to see the invisible, of being able to see what others cannot see. The black dog of depression.
• The Lodger. Hilarious. As is Closing Time.
• The Pandorica Opens/The Big Bang.
• A Christmas Carol.
• The Impossible Astronaut/Day of the Moon. Love the G-Men, the UFOs, the Silence, the conspiracies, Nixon, the Doctor's death.
• The Doctor's Wife.
• The Girl Who Waited.
• Closing Time.
• The Wedding of River Song.
• The Doctor, the Widow, and the Wardrobe.
• Asylum of the Daleks.
• The Angels Take Manhattan.
• The Snowmen.
• Hide. From eerie to ecstatic.
• Day of the Doctor.

Others:

• Favorite Doctor: Ten. Although since I've only ever seen the rebooted Doctor Who series (2005), I'm only judging from three Doctors. I like the other two Doctors though. Christopher Eccleston was great, but not around long enough. While Matt Smith had the unenviable task of following in David Tennant's footsteps, though I think Smith ended up doing a good job. Smith's acting progressively improved over time. His main flaw was his lack of gravitas for the role, or so I felt.
• Favorite Companion: It's hard not to say Rose. Although they shouldn't have brought her back after Doomsday. That marred her status a bit. I thought Amelia Pond as a little girl meeting the Doctor in The Eleventh Hour and her relationship with him beyond that point had a lovely fairy tale like quality to it. But the way the writers dispensed with her (and Rory) was a shame. Maybe Captain Jack wins. Or does Wilfred Mott count?
• Favorite Episode: Human Nature/The Family of Blood. This post sums it up pretty well.

Fractal dimensions

Let's talk about fractal dimensions. Just for fun.

1. As many know, fractals are a type of geometric object which consists of self-similar patterns on all scales of magnification.

2. What's not as often discussed is fractal dimensions.

a. We know a point has zero dimensions. A line has one dimension (length). A square has two dimensions (length, width). A cube has three dimensions (length, width, depth). Likewise, fractals have fractal dimension.

b. An example that's sometimes used to illustrate fractal dimension is the Sierpinski triangle. What is a Sierpinski triangle?

Start with an equilateral triangle:

Cut out a central triangle as follows:

Next, cut out three smaller triangles as follows:

And then repeat for each of the triangles that haven't been cut out as follows:

If we continue, the result will be a Sierpinski triangle like this one:

c. Normally, if we double the lengths of a triangle, its area will be quadrupled. Say we have a triangle with base 2 and height 3. Its area would be (2 x 3) / 2 = 3. If we double its base and height, then we would have (4 x 6) / 2 = 12. And 12 is 4x greater than 3.

d. Strangely, though, if we double the lengths of a Sierpinski triangle, its area will not be quadrupled. Instead, its area will only be tripled.

This is due to the fact that when we take three smaller Sierpinski triangles to form a larger Sierpinski triangle, the larger Sierpinski triangle has doubled in size.

Thus, the Sierpinski triangle has a dimension = log 3 / log 2. That is, approximately 1.585 dimensions (if we round up).

How can we have 1.585 dimensions though? Since we cut out triangles within triangles over and over again, and in fact we could do so an infinite number of times, the resulting Sierpinski triangle is more like an assembly of points (with zero dimensions) or a grid of lines (with 1 dimension). Hence overall the Sierpinski triangle isn't 2 dimensional like a normal triangle would be, but it has 1.585 dimensions.

e. BTW, Sierpinski triangles can also be Sierpinski pyramids:

3. A few further notes:

a. In reality, a dimension either is or isn't. We can't have partial dimensions. Thus, 1.585 (or whatever) dimensions is not reality, per se, but a mathematical abstraction.

b. That said, say we have a piece of string. Say we assume this string is 1 dimensional. (Of course, all physical objects in our universe are actually at least three dimensional.) Say it's a long piece of string. Say we roll this string up so it becomes a ball. As such, the originally 1 dimensional string has become in a sense 3 dimensional.

Take another example. Say we assume a piece of paper is 2 dimensional. Say we crumple up this piece of paper. As such, the originally 2 dimensional piece of paper is 3 dimensional.

Fractals can likewise be "crumpled," so to speak.

c. Of course, the real universe in which we live is 3+1 dimensions. That is, 3 space dimensions + 1 time dimension.

We can use fractals and fractal dimensions to better understand our own world. There's a lifetime of study in this alone.

However, perhaps we can likewise use fractals and fractal dimensions to help us imagine worlds beyond our own? That is, like Edwin Abbott did in Flatland, or Ian Stewart did in Flatterland, it's possible to imagine that we live in 4+1 dimensions, for example. Perhaps fractals and fractal dimensions can be an aid here.

I'd like to write more about this in the future, time permitting.