Presence

Balsalazide (Generic for Colazal) Now Available

Generic versions of the popular drug Colazal, commonly used to treat ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease are now available; just ask your pharmacist.

I got a pleasent surprise today when I refilled my monthly prescription: instead of the normal $45 for Colazal, my pharmacist gave me a the generic balsalazide disodium, which was free under my prescription plan. At times I've paid over $300 for a month's supply of Colazal, so this is good news for those with Crohn's and colitis.

Salix, owner's of the original patent for Colazal, had convinced the FDA to extend their exclusive rights to manufacture the drug. And just as their exclusive rights to Colazal expired, Salix submitted an application to the FDA for a new colitis drug.

Presence Poll: I Believe that the Universe...

Note: Unlike comments on this blog, I have no way of seeing your answer and correlating that to any kind of identifiable information. In other words, I can't see who is voting for what.

Zoo Torah in DC

Via the Baltimore Achdus mailing list:

Join a Torah Tour of the National Zoo in Washington DC, led by the famous "Zoo Rabbi," Natan Slifkin! The tour will take place on Sunday, July 22nd, from 2pm to 5pm. It is aimed at adults and older kids, but all ages are welcome. The cost of the tour is $18 for adults and $12 for children. Advance registration is essential as group spaces are limited. If you would like to join the afternoon tour, please email zoorabbi@zootorah. com with the number of people in your group and a contact cellphone number, and you will be sent details of exactly where to meet.

Clash of the Titans: Dawkins vs. O'Reilly?

Talk about meeting of the minds:

Say it with me know: Yeesh.

It's amazing that in this conversation, two people are talking, but no one is listening. The "debate" that is currently taking place in our popular culture between science and faith is nothing more than a shouting match.

Meanwhile, no one is listening to the head otter.

Time-Traveling Hiros

I've been holding back from posting about Lost, mostly because the picture keeps changing from week to week. But last night's Heroes, which was awesome (the episodes that are one long story, rather than snippets of each character, are the best, in my opinion; the other great one was the one with Claire's family, where the whole episode was one story), requires some comment. There were some real holes in the whole future/alternate time lines thing that I'm having a lot of trouble with; if anyone can offer some explanations, I'd be much obliged.

OK. Future Hiro tells Geeky Hiro that, in his version of history, Sylar got to Claire and learned her power of regeneration. Geeky Hiro says that, in his past, Peter actually did "save the cheerleader," and as such, in Geeky Hiro's timeline, Sylar would not be invincible. Thus, if Geeky Hiro can get back to his own time, and kill Sylar, the bleak future portrayed in this episode would never come to pass. This all makes sense, except for one thing: Claire wasn't dead! Bennett was hiding her in Texas (how conspicuous). If Claire is still alive, Sylar doesn't have her power of regeneration, which means that when Future Hiro killed him, he should have been dead. Sylar confirms this as well, when he finally gets to kill Claire, saying, "I've been looking forward to this for a long time."

I'd have no problem with this if the show were adhering to a strict alternate time line structure; but they weren't. What sets everything in motion is Geeky Hiro telling Future Hiro that Peter actually did save Claire, which meant that Claire was still alive. There's a co-mingling of Future Hiro's present with Geeky Hiro's past. It doesn't make sense to me. The whole comic book thing was also a little strange, for the same reason.

I do think the writers have one way in which they can make this all make sense, but it would require two things: 1) Candice being killed by Sylar before the bomb goes off and 2) there being no such thing as an alternate time line...which means that all of Future Hiro's plans are/were/will be for naught.

Don't get me wrong, I like the whole idea that everything that's happened this season is as a result of a Future Hiro from an alternate time line going back and trying to set things right. But to do it right, Claire should have been dead in last night's episode. Otherwise, it makes no sense.

Also: I was trying to figure out how Peter had a scar; shouldn't he also have Claire's powers of regeneration? But if he never saved Claire, he might not have her powers...still it seems a bit odd that he never came in contact with her.

A final note: there still seems to be some confusion as to how Sylar learns new powers; I've seen speculation that he eats the brains of his victims, and other crazy ideas. I thought it was obvious from the beginning. Sylar used to fix watches, he had a knack for seeing how complex systems fit together. When he brained his first victim, he got a glimpse of how his mind did whatever special thing it did. Again using his ability to manipulate complex systems of even the smallest size, he is able to modify his brain to do the same thing. I like that Sylar and Peter basically have the same capabilities (learning and copying other's powers) but the manner in which they learn them is different. Sylar's requires him to murder the subject, while Peter's require him to empathize with them. It's that difference that makes one a villain, and the other a hero.

Survival of the Wittiest

Newsweek, March 19, 2007: Beyond Stones & Bones, page 4:

The realization that early humans were the hunted and not hunters has upended traditional ideas about what it takes for a species to thrive. For decades the reigning view had been that hunting prowess and the ability to vanquish competitors was the key to our ancestors' evolutionary success (an idea fostered, critics now say, by the male domination of anthropology during most of the 20th century). But prey species do not owe their survival to anything of the sort, argues Sussman. Instead, they rely on their wits and, especially, social skills to survive. Being hunted brought evolutionary pressure on our ancestors to cooperate and live in cohesive groups. That, more than aggression and warfare, is our evolutionary legacy.

Both genetics and paleoneurology back that up. A hormone called oxytocin, best-known for inducing labor and lactation in women, also operates in the brain (of both sexes). There, it promotes trust during interactions with other people, and thus the cooperative behavior that lets groups of people live together for the common good. By comparing the chimp genome with the human, scientists infer that oxytocin existed in the ancestor of both. But it has undergone changes since then, perhaps in how strongly the brain responds to it and in how much is produced. The research is still underway, but one possibility is that the changes occurred around the time our ancestors settled into a system based on enduring bonds between men and women, about 1.7 million years ago.

Quantum Inderterminacy Does Not Equal Free Will, Part 2

A few weeks back, I posted my thoughts on why the fact of quantum indeterminacy does not provide grounds (or "wiggle room") for free will. Last night, while perusing one of my favorite books, The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, I came across #9, entitled, "Bigger Brother" (you have to log in to Amazon to use their reader, the piece is a short three pages). I'm tempted to copy the whole thing, but that would probably be a breach of copyright, so I'll just give you the upshot:

The appeal to quantum indeterminacy won't do. Even if it is true that quantum theory introduces more unpredictability than our thought experiment has allowed, all it would do is replace an entirely predictable causal process with one that contains unpredictable, random elements. But our actions are no more free if they are the result of random causal processes than if they are the result of strictly determined ones. Free will appears to require that we escape the physical causal chain altogether. And that, it seems, we cannot do.

It's basically what I was saying, only clearer. The end result would not be what we're looking for in terms of free will. Instead, we would need to show that, for all intents and purposes, the equivalent of a miracle takes place each time a free choice is made.

Question: If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Answer: No, it does not.

Quantum Indeterminacy Does Not Equal Free Will

In the comments of my last post on free will vs. determinism, Moishe Potemkin brought up a good question that I think bears further examination. Moishe's comment:

I would hesitate to "presume" determinism once it has been proven false by quantum physics.

Briefly, quantum physics has revealed that, at the molecular level, events that are thought to be causal in nature turn out to, in fact, be statistical. Read more on quantum indeterminacy if you're interested; the important point is that, at the quantum level, there is no such thing as determinism. The supposition is that this indeterminacy provides a basis for free will in the mind.

The problem is is that it doesn't. Even if we could show some kind of connection between physical brain states and cognitive decisions, we must examine what kind of "free will" we would be left with if based on quantum indeterminacy. An indeterminate free will would be random, erratic and unpredictable. The individual exercising such a free will would not appear to us to be acting in any rational fashion. What we are looking for in free will is not the potential for any random occurrence to present itself at any time, but a reasoned, rational intellect exercising a will that can make a decision independent of antecedent conditions. Quantum indeterminism does not provide the basis for this kind of free will.

In case I said that badly, here's a bit more of a professional approach to the subject.

Shabbos Reading: Losing Faith

I know this is a week old already, but if you haven't read Losing Faith: How Scholarship Affects Scholars: 2 Who Did and 2 Who Didn’t, print it out and read it over Shabbos. I would relish the opportunity to sit down and talk with any of these men.

[Hat tip: On the Main Line]

On Intercalating My Birthday

Those of you familiar with the Hebrew calendar know that there is a 19-year cycle. That is to say, if all things work out correctly, the Hebrew date and the Gregorian date should coincide every 19 years. It follows that ones 19th Hebrew and Gregorian birthdays would coincide as well. That is, of course, unless you are me.

For some strange reason, I am a cosmic anomaly. According to every Hebrew to English calendar converter that I have consulted, although in 1977, February 7th and 19 Shevat fell out on the same day, nineteen years later, in 1996, they did not. My 19th birthday was off by not one, but two whole days (February 7th 1996 was 17 Shevat). The reason for this, based on an examination of the calendar, is that 5756 (1996, as it were) was shleimah, meaning it had 355 days, one more than a normal year, due to both Cheshvan and Kislev having 30 days. 5737 (or 1977) was actually chaserah, 353 days. So by the time Shevat 5756 rolled around, the calendars were off by two days.

Interestingly, the fact that 1996 was a leap year helped somewhat to set things back into place; the extra day in February left a single days' difference between the Gregorian and Hebrew calendars. The calendars were finally realigned on December 11, 1996, as 5757 was chaserah, while 5738 was k'sidrah. So, for those of you playing along at home, if you were born:

• From Nov. 23, 1976-Dec. 21, 1976: Your Gregorian 19th birthday was off by one day from your Hebrew birthday.


• From Dec. 22, 1976-Feb. 28, 1977: Your Gregorian 19th birthday was off by two from your Hebrew birthday.


• From Mar. 1, 1977-Dec. 10, 1977: Your Gregorian 19th birthday was off by one day from your Hebrew birthday.

The reason this happens is that, while the Hebrew calendar follows the 19-year metonic cycle, this only accounts for leap years. It does not determine the number of days in a year, which is instead determined by the day of the week on which Rosh Hashannah falls out (and some other stuff). I'm sure there is a way of combining the two to come up with a formula for figuring when things fall out when, but I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.

Why am I telling you all this? Well, it just so happens, through another strange series of events, that this year, on my 30th birthday, both my Hebrew and Gregorian birthdays coincide (although not on the same day of the week as originally - which would be asking too much). So for all you '77ers who felt cheated back in '96, this year, you shall at last have satisfaction. Enjoy it; the next time the two will coincide is the year 2053.

Survey on Jewish Sexuality

JewishSurveys.org, run by some Ph.D. types, is conducting an anonymous survey on adherence to the laws of family purity. I'm very interested to see the results of the survey, and any conclusions that may or may not be drawn from the information.

The Sign of the Rainbow

While reading the chapter of Understanding Genesis about Noach and The Flood, an understanding of the sign of the rainbow occurred to me that, at first blush, seemed obvious. A rainbow appears when sunlight is reflected through falling rain; this usually occurs towards the end of a rainstorm, or during a light rainfall. It would seem then, that the rainbow was a sign from God to mankind that He remembered His promise to never again inundate the earth with water. The rainbow acts as a sign to man of God's adherence to His promise.

While reviewing Noach with my son, I realized this interpretation doesn't hold water. A cursory reading of the verses shows that the the keshet acts as a sign to God, not as a sign to Man.

13 I have set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between Me and the earth. 14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring clouds over the earth, and the bow is seen in the cloud, 15 that I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.'

Going back to Understanding Genesis, Sarna relates the fact that in all other instances in the Torah, keshet is used to connote one's physical strength and ability to destroy. So, God so to speak places his destructive inclination, his keshet, in the rain cloud. Now, when He is causing rain to fall on the earth with possibly destructive consequences, the appearance of the rainbow causes God to recall the promise to never again destroy the world through flooding, and cease the falling of the rain.

Against Scientific Interpretations of Genesis

From Understanding Genesis, by Nahum Sarna:

It should be obvious that by the nature of things, none of [the creation] stories can possibly be the product of human memory, nor in any modern sense of the word scientific accounts of the origin and nature of the physical world.

Biblical man, despite his undoubted intellectual and spiritual endowments, did not base his views of the universe and its laws on the critical use of empirical data. He had not, as yet, discovered the principles and methods of disciplined inquiry, critical observation or analytical experimentation. Rather, his thinking was imaginative, and his expressions of thought were concrete, pictorial, emotional, and poetic. Hence, it is a naive and futile exercise to attempt to reconcile the biblical accounts of creation with the findings of modern science. Any correspondence which can be discovered or ingeniously established between the two must surely be nothing more than mere coincidence. Even more serious than the inherent fundamental misconception of the psychology of biblical man is the unwholesome effect upon the understanding of the Bible itself. For the net result is self-defeating. The literalistic approach serves to direct attention to those aspects of the narrative that reflect the time and place of its composition, while it tends to obscure the elements that are meaningful and enduring, thus distorting the biblical message and destroying its relevancy.

See also my previous thoughts, somewhat similar but much less eloquently articulated.

Isms

If you missed South Park's latest round of episodes on the Richard Dawkins/Atheist stuff, you're missing out.

I won't post the YouTube videos here, as they will likely get pulled down for copyright, but you can find them easily enough (the episode is called Go God Go!). I'll just leave you with one line which made me snarf my bottled water:

Cartman: Wait, isn't everybody at war over atheism?
Future Guy #1: Atheism? No, we've learned to get rid of all the -isms in our time.
Future Guy #2: Yes, long ago, we realized -isms are great for those who are rational, but in the hands of irrational people, -isms always lead to violence.
Cartman: So there is no war now in the future?
Future Talking Sea Otter: Of course there's war! The stupid French-Chinese think they have a right to Hawaii!

It's late, I can't think of a good title for this post, but it's about atheism

Atheism has been in the news quite a bit recently, mostly thanks to Richard Dawkins new book, The God Delusion. Wired magazine has a cover story out this month entitled "The New Atheism." I've been waiting for some kind of response from anybody; I saw Hirhurim linked to an article by R. Jonathan Sacks entitled "Danger ahead - there are good reasons why God created atheists.

Dawkins main position is that if we do away with religion, we will end all the suffering perpetrated in its name. R. Sacks responds that religion is only used as an excuse; Man will find other reasons to cause suffering (I haven't read Dawkins' book, but I did read the Wired artile in which he is interviewed, as well as seen a few interviews he has given).

It is instructive to look closer at how R. Sacks approaches Dawkins' argument. Dawkins views religion in contradistinction to science; it's the old faith vs. reason. Dawkins views religion as irrational, and therefore mutable towards ones own agenda. R. Sacks reframes the argument by positing religion as the antidote to the "will to power," the basic human tendency to seek power, authority, autonomy and control (cf. Genesis). From Dawkins perspective, religious people are simply making decisions based on myths created centuries ago to explain the unexplainable; they put faith in these myths and end up getting carried away and killing people for what are ultimately false reasons; therefore, getting rid of the myths will end the killing. From R. Sacks perspective, religion is not a counterpart to science, but is instead attempting to address the basic categories of human nature and experience, identify where and how they lead to suffering, and put an end to them. Religion is not, like science, a means towards understanding the world around us, but rather a means to understanding the world within us.

When looked at this way, Dawkins arguments for the abolishment of religion in place of atheism make no sense. If religion is a means of understanding the universe, then we have science. But if religion is aimed understanding mankind and human experience, well, science tells us little to nothing about that. Even if our behaviors are defined by evolution, the process of understanding them and seeking to overcome where they fall short is a whole seperate issue. Whatsmore, getting rid of religion will not help end the suffering that stems from our humanity, not our rituals or systems of law.

There's much, much more to be said on this topic, such as the questions for religion that R. Sacks inadvertently raises, further questions for Dawkins about the problems presented by relgion, etc.. But that's all for now. I haven't seen any other sensible responses on this topic.

The Best Science Book Ever

From The Guardian:

Primo Levi's haunting memoir of life as a Jew in Mussolini's Italy told through the unlikely metaphor of chemistry has been named the best science book ever written.

The Periodic Table, published in 1975, fought off competition from Richard Dawkins, DNA legend James Watson, Tom Stoppard, Bertolt Brecht and Charles Darwin to win the vote at an event organised by the Royal Institution in London.

It beat out Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, among others. I'm a surprised that Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions didn't even make the list.

That's My Boy!

A quick anecdote from Hershey Park; we're standing on line for our second run on the Tilt-A-Whirl (we is me, my two older kids, niece and nephew), and the kids are really excited. And by excited, I mean they are swinging and climbing on the railings to the point where I'm concerned that one of them will fall and get hurt. So I say, "Guys, stop climbing on the railings. Can't you just stand still?"

To which my son, Ezra, age 7, replies, in his very matter-of-fact and top-of-his-lungs voice: "Dad, we evolved from monkeys, so we love to climb!"

Now my immiediate concern was not, ironically, ascertaining where he had learned this (I'm assuming he read about it in a book), but if the Chassidishe family standing in line behind us had heard. Then again, I'm sure their opinion of the guy wearing shorts on Chol HaMoed was made up before his kid starting spouting off about evolution.

Reconciling Torah and Science

The preferred approach by most quasi-rational Orthodox Jews to reconcilling Genesis with a scientific account of the age of the universe seems to be what I call a Schroederian approach (named for Dr. Gerald Schroeder, a quantum physisct who authored several works attempting to reconcile modern science with the Biblical text). Typical of this type of approach is an acceptance that the Biblical narrative does not literally correspond to the actual truth of the creation of the universe, but, when properly interpreted metaphorically, the cosmogony presented by the Bible is in congruence with the accepted scientific theory. The most basic example of this, as Dr. Schroeder explicates in his book, is the non-literal interpretation of the word "yom" (day), allowing it instead to signify a stage of universal development , which may or may encompass a significantly longer period of time (such as millions or billions of years) than a single day. By interpreting the text of the Torah as metaphoric, while at the same time aligning the interpretation with modern science, the conflict between reason and belief in the Biblical text is done away with.

I have a serious problem with this approach. As I will demonstrate, I believe that taking a Schroederian approach to interpreting the Genesis narrative requires one to affirm one of two positions, both of which I believe to be untenable for anyone with an honest intellect and a serious sense of religion.

When taking a Schroderian approach, one must affirm one of the two following assertions. Either that the text of the Torah, when given, was incomprehensible to all previous generations that did not have knowledge of modern science, and that only now, in our time, do we have the means to properly understand the true meaning of the text; or that the Torah, being divinely composed, was written in such a way that the science of each generation would be able to be read into the text. So, in the times of Artistotle, Genesis would be reconcilled with Artistotle; when Newtonian physics became the dominant theory, the interpretation would be revised to match the current understanding. The same would apply to quantum physics, and any other theory that should arise in the future.

My objections to the first approach should be obvious: to affirm that all previous generations had an incorrect understanding of Genesis is, to me, an unacceptable position to take. In addition, the nature of science is that, while we have a workable system today, as time goes on, revisions and adjustments will be made to that system, and, quite possibly, an entirely new paragidm will become accepted. Science is a moving target, to assert that the Torah was given and that our current understanding is the correct understanding is both arrogant and illogical.

Regarding the second approach: I find the idea that God composed a text with such exquisite nuance that it could encompass any past, present or future scientific explanation to be a bit unreasonable; if, however, we are accepting the concept of an omnipotent deity, I suppose it is possible. But still, if we take this approach, what we are saying is that knowledge of the universe comes not from the Torah, but from a combination of our reason and experience. Only once we have come up with a system using science as our guide do we go back and read it into the Torah. The Torah, from this perspective, becomes irrelavent in teaching us anything about the universe; rather, it is just an outline into which we place the fruits of our own reason. For this reason, I find this position as well to be untenable.

If this approach, namely re-reading the current scientific cosmongy back into the Genesis narrative, is untenable, what other approaches are there? One could believe that the Torah itself is the literal truth of the creation of the universe (i.e. that things really happened about 6000 years ago, and only took six 24-hour days), but this runs contrary to reason, and so is not a rational position. Another option is to understand Genesis as referring to some other metaphorical type of creation, such as the creation of society or of civilized Man. Yet another approach is to presume that the Genesis narrative reflects the best available information from the time in which it was composed, and to accept that what we know now may very well conflict, even contradict, the biblical text.

Which Way Do the Rivers Flow? A Talmudic Conundrum

Kiddushin 71B.

Rashi, s.v. "Until the River Azak..."

From the context it appears that Bavel is between two great rivers, Tigris and Euphrates; it is found between them, one from the west, the other from the east, and [the rivers] flow from south to north, and the end of the Euphrates empties into the Tigris. All this can be learned from: "The Land of Israel is south of Bavel, as it says, 'From the north will evil will come forth,'" meaning Bavel is in the north, the Euphrates descends from the Land of Israel to Bavel...

Tosofos, s.v. "Until where is Bavel?"

Rabbenu Tam explains that the Euphrates flows from north to south, since the Euphrates comes, "from the east of Eden," and Gan Eden is in the northern part of the world, while the Land of Israel is in the south. The Euphrates begins in Eden, and flows from north to south.

This exchange is interesting for a number of reasons. First off, as both Rashi and Rabbenu Tam are basing their geological estimations on statements of Chazal, it appears neither of them had access to a map of the region (and, although neither of them were exactly correct, R. Tam was more correct; the right answer is south-east). Rashi bases his position on the fact that Israel is called "higher than all other lands," a statement that is certainly meant to be taken in a spiritual sense, not a topographic one. R. Tam, it would appear, understood this to be a figurative statement (unless he felt water could flow uphill), instead basing his estimation on the purported location of Gan Eden and the text from Genesis 2.

From a halachic perspective, which direction the Tigris and the Euphrates actually flow makes little difference. This also gives you a good idea of the state of science/geography/cartogrophy available in Rashi's time (unless the information was in fact available, but was not relied upon), as well as indicating that the Rishonim took a hyper-literal interpretation of not only the text of Genesis 2, but many ancillary statements of Chazal.

Kosher Magic

Menachem Kellner (with the help of his daughter, Rivka Kellner) has gone and combined two of my favorite topics: Rambam and Harry Potter. At a recent conference they presented a paper entitled, "The Magic of Science and the Science of Magic: Harry Potter and Maimonides." In the paper, the Kellners discuss whether the magic used at Hogwarts is of a scientific or supernatural nature; the upshoot being that Rambam would acknowledge the possibility of the former, and disapprove of the later.

"Nothing in Harry Potter's world is based on anything that is in principle impossible to know," according to the Kellners. "The magic of that world is not supernatural. It is based on aspects of the natural universe of which we humans are simply unaware. There are no occult properties or forces beyond investigation. In principle, there is an explanation for everything, even if Albus Dumbledore [headmaster of the Hogwarts School] himself doesn't always know what it is."

I agree, to some extent, but to characterize the magic of Hogwarts as purely scientific is incorrect. There is no question that JK Rowling's magic is scientific in nature, and does not dabble in the occult or pagan (and pshaw to anyone who says that it does). It manifests itself as a technology, which can be studied and learned to some extent by any individual. But unlike our science and technology, there is an additional aspect to this magic that is not present in our technology. Modern science allows even the most numbskulled of persons to wield unimaginable power, without regard to any personal virtue. The Magic of Potter, on the other hand, is highly correlated to the individual's level of self-awareness and social conciousness. Although the basics of magic can be learned by just about anyone, just as you or I can surf the web or drive a car, the higher levels of magic require expression in one's soul before they can be accessed.

The perfect example: Harry is unable to cast an "avada k'dabra" curse, because he lacks sufficient hatred. In contrast, our science has enabled us to take another's life from a distance, with a bomb or a missle, without manifesting the requisite hatred in our souls; killing someone in cold blood, on the other hand, does. Rowling's magic is scientific, but not mechanical; it is pshchological.

For more, see this post on Harry Potter Prognostications.

If by chance anyone reading this has access to the Kellner's paper, and could arrange an owl to deliver it to me, I would be much obliged.

[via KesherTalk; hat tip SoccerDad]

Torah, Science and Game Theory at YU

This year's ultimate edition of The Commentator has an article detailing Nobel Laureate Dr. Robert Aumann's recent visit to Yeshiva University. Dr. Aumann was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work in developing game theory, and has applied it in various halachic contexts.

A few highlights from the article:

"Science is one way of dealing with certain aspects of the world, and Torah is a way of dealing with different aspects of our world," he explained. "As observant Jews, it is not the same kind of activity as when acting as a scientist. One is an experience and the other is a way of explaining observations." Dr. Aumann admitted freely that these assertions contradict Maimonides' views on the relationship between science and Torah.

And:

Dr. Aumann discussed various games mentioned in the Torah, including Sarah's demand that Abraham ban Ishmael from their home to prevent his game-playing from influencing Isaac negatively. Dr. Aumann challenged the assertion some commentators make that Ishmael's games included idolatry, sexual rapacity, and murder, arguing that Judaism's founding father most likely would not have ignored such atrocities committed by his own son.

A RIETS rosh yeshiva mentioned in the discussion that followed that, according to the Tosefta, Rabbi Shimon ben Yokhai held similar doubts about these commentators' assertion and interpreted the games as referring to Ishmael's mocking Isaac's claims to his inheritance.

I believe this is brought down in the Ramban.

I wish YU had speakers like this when I was there; it's entirely possible that they did, and I wasn't paying attention.

Tags: science, torah, game theory, yeshiva university

Making your own Mazel

The older I get, the more I have come to realize how much of who we are and what we do is decided by forces beyond our control. Whether genetics, chemical imbalances, formative experiences or circumstances of birth beyond our control such as socio-economic or family status, so much of how our lives will play out is already decided for us. Ask yourself: How many of my life's decisions did I truly make on my own, without influence from sources beyond my control?

This is what Judaism refers to as mazel, commonly translated as luck, but more appropriately connoting that which is beyond our control (see Sotah 2A, or my explanation of the opening gemara). Religion in general tends to be very much against giving credence to Mazel, insisting instead on attributing to Man free will to guide his life however he sees fit. It is argued that a criteria for a system of justice is that Man be free to choose between good and bad; if Man is not responsible for his actions, how can he be justly punished for transgressions? Accepting determinism is viewed as incompatible with a world in which Man is responsible for his actions.

Judaism, I think, takes a different approach, recognizing Man's determined nature, while at the same time insisting he take responsibilty for his own destiny. It becomes one of life's ultimate ironies, that despite so much of a Man is predetermined and beyond his control, he (or she) alone must take responsibility for his actions.

The role of science is to help Man confront and subdue Nature through technology, in an effort to produce a better world. This science is objective, it makes no value judgements on the applications of the discovered techniques; the kind of world that is created by the application of technology is dependent upon the society that cultivates the science. In a society fueled by fame and fortune, we get blogs and stock markets. It is easy to imagine an alternate society in which technology is more directly applied to the alleviation of human suffering and increasing human dignity. Perhaps we are on the path, angling ever closer to a world in which Mazel no longer rules our destiny.

Bacteria of the Day

The Bacteria of the Day is Clostridium difficile, also known as C. diff.

Fear the Tentacle

As if sharks weren't scary enough, now we have to worry about killer octopi (or octopuses).

Zoloft - Ikvisa D'Meshicha?

ADDeRabbi writes about his experience taking Zoloft. I've gone back and forth on this issue for quite some time; while I do not currently take any drugs of this kind, I often think I would benefit from a prescription. I know several people use them and swear by them. Until recently, I felt very strongly that taking these drugs was an easy way out. I'm not talking about the folks who suffer from bi-polarism or other serious mental conditions; in those cases these drugs are essential and live-saving, so there's no question in those cases. But there are many people where it's not essential or life threatening if they don't take these drugs, but it would improve their quality of life ( I would fit in this category). What then? Is this a case where we say simply, buck up, no one said life was a cake walk to begin with; or do we embrace any scientific/technological means of improving our quality of life and reducing human suffering, even to the slightest degree?

I think now I lean more towards the latter opinion. Technology allows us to improve the human condition, to allow us to live lives of greater dignity, free of suffering. I might be so bold as to say that this is the contribution of Western civilization to Man. God's mandate to Man was to fill the earth and conquer it; Man does this by subdueing nature, bending it to his will, "putting it to the rack." The current offerings, as far as I can tell, enhance our ability to live lives of dignity without robbing us of the ability to choose. In fact, when you consider the way the Rambam describes the Days of Moshiach, it's not far off from simply a life where you don't really have to worry about anything (presumably, tuition will be subsidized).

On the other hand, this presents an interesting dilema. The Torah is generally viewed as the panacea for the soul, namely following it's path will lead one to a life free of suffering and filled with happiness. What happens when all that's available over the counter? As a thought exercise, imagine we had the ability to remove all a person's evil tendencies by some sort of genetic engineering or prenatal operation. Since it's taken several thousand years to get to where we are in terms of science, there was obviously a past need for non-scientific solutions to the issue of human suffering, but now that we have the happy pill, do we need a behavioral framework to assuage our consciousness? Does this obviate the need for religion?

I will admit this is being a pit presumptious as to the overarching goals of religion, but even so, I think religion still has a role to play. Man suffers a dual curse; on the one hand, he must toil to live; the world as it is does not exist to support him. Man also is mortal, and will eventually die. These two curses can be seen as connected: the futility of a life of toil that ends in death. But even if live was free of suffering, and lived in happy repose, with Man feeling in control of and at the same time a part of the natural world, there would still be the sad fact that death would eventually come. To the extent that we are able to come to terms with this, and perhaps subvert it (either metaphysically or psychologically, depending on your level of skepticism), religion has a role to play.

Until they come up with a way to make us live forever. Hopefully, I won't be around by then.

Cue the Blue Danube Waltz and...Action!

National Geographic reports:

Researchers have observed and photographed wild gorillas using sticks and stumps to navigate a swampy forest clearing in the Republic of Congo. The images provide the first documented use of tools among wild gorillas.

In one instance, a female gorilla named Leah tried to wade across a pool of water but found herself waist deep after just a few steps. She retreated, grabbed a branch sticking out of the water, and used it to gauge the water's depth before wading deeper.

...In another instance, a female named Efi detached a stump from a bush and used it for support as she dug for herbs.

Leah and Efi, huh? Obviously Jewish Gorrillas.

I, for one, welcome our new gorilla overlords...

(Hat tip: Arthur)

The Wizards of ID

There's a famous story, attributed to Bertrand Russell, commonly referred to as Turtles All the Way Down:

A well-known scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.

At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise."

"If your theory is correct, madam," he asked, "what does this turtle stand on?"

"You're a very clever man, and that's a very good question," replied the little old lady, "but I have an answer to it. And it is this: the first turtle stands on the back of a second, far larger, turtle, who stands directly under him."

"But what does this second turtle stand on?" persisted the scientist.

To this the little old lady crowed triumphantly. "It's no use , you see -- it's turtles all the way down."

In his introduction to Frameworks Genesis, R. Matis Weinberg employs this parable to decry a type of Torah learning that is devoid of context, that explains away seemingly contradictory data points by simply "adding another turtle." Although he is discussing Torah, his underlying point is that, from a scientific perspective, we must work within the boundaries we are given. Positing another turtle is all well and good (it's called a hypothesis), but if you can not go back and show how that turtle fits into the entire system, you will likely end up publishing your work at Kinkos. Even more so, if its impossible for someone else to show your theory to be false (all it takes is one exception to the rule) then your theory is also not science.

It is here that the essential difference between Intelligent Design and Natural Selection is to be found. Darwin puts forth a theory that attempts to explain, through a natural process, the world as we know it. Anyone is free to look at the fossil record and point out where and when the theory works, and when it does not. This may lead, eventually, to the modification of the theory, in whole or in part, or to it being discarded in favor of some other theory, but it never once leaves the realm of the measurable or the testable.

ID does the opposite. ID takes the theory of natural selection, looks for holes and inserts its own explanation to the fill the void. There is no way for anyone to look back at the fossil record and confirm or deny the Hand of God in the evolution of the species. Injecting God into Evolution in the fashion done so by ID is no different than the old matron adding on another turtle to explain the latest data point. It's untestable, unmeasurable, and unfalsifiable. And as such, it is not science, and has no place in the science classroom.

Before you burn me at the stake, please keep in mind that none of this has any bearing on the truth of claims made by the proponents of ID. ID may be true, for all we know; some will tell you that belief in some for of ID is required of Orthodox Jews. I am, on a good day, far from a positivist as regards epistemology. It's one of the unique challenges of being a Jew today, dealing with the conflicts between religion and science. But for the sake of truth, let's make sure we understand where one ends, and the other begins.

יכול לא ישאל אדם מששת ימי בראשית ת"ל לימים ראשונים אשר היו לפניך יכול ישאל אדם מה למעלה ומה למטה מה לפנים ומה לאחור ת"ל (דברים ד) ולמקצה השמים ועד קצה השמים מלמקצה השמים ועד קצה השמים אתה שואל ואין אתה שואל מה למעלה מה למטה מה לפנים מה לאחור

Hagigah, 11B

Tempus fugit

My good friend Dan pointed out the apparent paradox in the Time Turner sequence at the end of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban; namely that if Harry hadn't been saved from the Dementors, he would have died, in which case, there would have been no future Harry to go back and save Harry in the first place. This is a version of what is commonly referred to as a predestination paradox. A classic example (supposing time travel possible): I decide to murder my direct ancestor, in an effort to prevent my own birth (or to start a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space time continuum, and destroy the entire universe! Granted, that's a worse case scenario. The destruction might in fact be very localized, limited to our own galaxy. Yes, quite a relief). The potential of this paradox has led some to speculate that time travel is in fact impossible, or so I've been told. The Harry Potter case is basically the opposite, but essentially the same (we will not deal here with the ingenius use of time travel employed by Bill S. Preston, Esq. and Ted "Theodore" Logan to obtain the keys; suffice it to say, that might be the single most briliant application of time travel, ever).

I recently came across an article from BBC News detailing a new model for time travel that avoids the problems created by a predestination paradox, and is somewhat reminiscent of Schrödinger's cat. Basically, at the point in time at which an individual leaves his timeline, wherever he ends up, he will be unable to alter anything that was known to be true at the time at which he left. As an example, let's say I want to travel back in time and kill my grandfather, so as to prevent myself from ever having existed. If at the time that I step into my time machine, I know my grandfather is alive, then there is no way that I can possibly kill him, since the probability of him being alive when I left was 1. It would follow that a person would never be able to prevent himself from being born, since the probability of their being alive later on is also 1. Try as I might, I will be unable to change the past, since I know it not to have come true. If, however, at the time of travel an individual's status is unknown to me, it is possible that, once in the past, it turns out I was the one who killed them.

What I find interesting about this approach is that it basically says you can't alter the past, you can only learn more about it. Whatever has happened must happen, and you might just find, you had a hand in it. Marty McFly would have had nothing to worry about back in 1955 according to this theory, since try as he might, his existence acted as knowledge that his parents ended up together (the theory, however, would still permit us the fun in seeing how Marty played a role in his own creation). Accordingly, anyone of us could have shot JFK. The other interesting idea that is suggested by this theory is that time is not linear, but is happening "all at once." Our perception of it is linear, for whatever reason, but the model presents things as happening "all at once" (I would venture to say that it would be impossible to accurately describe this model; its probably beyond the reaches of our language).

With this in mind, let's reconsider the Harry Potter scenario. One minute Harry is lying on the ground, overwhelmed by the Dementors; the next, he is in the Hospital wing, about to go back through time in an attempt to set things right. We don't know how Harry was saved from the Dementors, Harry doesn't even know; he just knows that somehow, he lived. As such, at the moment before Harry heads into the past, the probability of his being alive is 1. Fast forward back to the scene by the lake; Harry #1 lays dying on the banks, while Harry #2 waits expectantly for his past savior to (re)appear. Only then does Harry realize that he was the one who saved himself originally, and so he does it (again?). Nothing has changed, only that Harry #2 is able to complete his knowledge of the events of the past, and in doing so, stepped in and played a part.

A wise man once said, "Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like bananas." So true.

Priceless Quote

R. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb: "The OU has no position on the age of the universe."

Link of the Day

Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America.

We can beat this. Together.

Estimating the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow

Finally, the question we have all been pondering since our youths has been answered: What is the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow?

Of course, we must first find out if it's an African or European swallow.

I'm not going to even pretend I understand this.