Friday, October 28, 2011

Part 2 of My Proof God does not Exist!



Nature vs. Intelligence – What's the confusion?
hear on youTube

Many atheist like to point out and argue the apparent un-intelligence of our universe, and indeed that is incredibly easy given the diversity and opportunistic nature of evolution.  The problem with this approach is that it misses the big point.  Embedded in the Creationist argument is the assumption that nature and god could be confused; that evolution and the acts of the creator some how look the same. That the forms they produce and the apparent methods they used would appear so close to each other that millions of scientist over the past 150 years of looking into where we come from would have missed those nuances in the physical record that would have proved there was a creator. Logically this makes no sense since there is nothing connecting the two realities except of course the need by the believer to fit their intelligent designer in to the constraints of the real world.

Part 1 of My Proof God does not Exist!


No Physical evidence of god and his domain.


hear it on youTube

If there really was a god what would you expect? Well for one thing, I would have expected that science would have validated the existence of god and related supernatural phenomena by now.  Now don't take this as some pompous scientific hand waving. You don't have something that interacts with our bodies and minds and not have some obvious impact in the physical world at least at the molecular/atomic level.  The problem is that if god existed in the way most theist tend to imply, you would not expect it to be some weak subtle influence but something rather spectacular and widespread, at least as compared to our current understanding of subatomic particles and quantum mechanics.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Population Weighted History

In Pharyngula article Humanity’s recent surge, PZ discusses a chart from The Economist. The chart deals with population and growth rate on the same time scale by century. 

The article got me wondering how the data would look if you plotted it along a population weighted year (PWYr) time scale. 
(NOTE:  this idea seems quite simple and obvious, so I suspect someone has done this before, but I could not find it.).

So what is a PWYr?
A PWYr is a measure of time based on the number of years lived collectively by a population over some long time scale (i.e. where population is changing dramatically). It turns out that a PWYr is equal average population over a reference period. A table of PWYr shift the years such that it creates a corresponding date within the reference period that assumes a constant population over that period.

So whats good about it?
The interesting thing is that change especially for technology, knowledge, and research driven endeavors like economics, science, longevity, communication, etc. should be at least in part proportional to the number of people living.  In other words, for any society, the more people there are, the more that can contribute to change, and so the faster the change appears.  I came up with the notion of a PWYr a few years ago and always thought it would be an interesting way to watch change over the centuries.


So what does it look like?
To see what a Population Weighted Year looks like, I used World population data from Wikipedia to calculate roughly how many years lived over each of the population intervals.  I then summed the total years lived and divided by the total period covered to get the average population, which is also the number of years lived in a population weighted year.  When I took the period from 0 CE to 2010, I get:
1 PWYr (0-2010) = 603,902 years lived
From there is is simple to calculate the equivalent date in PWYrs for each interval which I have calculated in Table 1. You may ask Why 0 to 2010? I was trying to look at the time line from roughly to day and so 2010 was the closest date to today.

Table 1: Calendar year vs Population weighted Year (PWYr) based on the average population (603902890) from year 0 to 2010. Therefore, 1 PWYr is equivalent to 603,902,890 years lived by the world population. The data came from Wikipedia World Population Estimates article.
Year
Estimate Population*
Population Weighted Year (PWYr)
-8000
5000000**
-2020
0
300000000
0
1000
310000000
505
1250
400000000
652
1500
500000000
838
1800
978000000
1179
1850
1262000000
1271
1900
1650000000
1392
1930
2070000000
1483
1950
2529346000
1559
1960
3023358000
1605
1970
3685777000
1660
1980
4437609000
1727
1990
5290452000
1808
2000
6115367000
1902
2010
6908688000
2010
*UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2008)
**Population for 8000 BCE is from Population Reference Bureau (1973–2008)

Monday, July 25, 2011

Sita Sings the Blues

 I want to thank Helmet (The Friendly Atheist) for the link to a really great movie by Nina Paley "Sita Sings The Blues".  I love the imagery, the intermix of modern day and ancient Hindu, the comedy and of course most of all the music. I love the sweet and comic use of 1920's songs by Annette Hanshaw (playlist).  Here is the movie:





Per the video description:
"Sita Sings the Blues" is based on the Hindu epic "The Ramayana". Sita is a goddess separated from her beloved Lord and husband Rama. Nina Paley is an animator whose husband moves to India, then dumps her by email. Three hilarious shadow puppets narrate both ancient tragedy and modern comedy in this beautifully animated interpretation of the Ramayana. Set to the 1920's jazz vocals of torch singer Annette Hanshaw, Sita Sings the Blues earns its tagline as "the Greatest Break-Up Story Ever Told." It is written, directed, produced and animated by American artist Nina Paley.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Cover of the Week - Love is a Battlefield (Pat Benatar)

Love is a Battlefield by Pat Benatar (playlist) is one of my favorite songs of all-times. Although several of Pat's songs would fit in that title. Power and passion pulsated from her rock and roll and flows into her covers.

For something differenct, I'll start off with a version by Pat Benatar & Neil Giraldo but not the original but a very nice slightly different acoustic version

Monday, July 11, 2011