February 2008

If you had asked me about 0 (zero) prior to reading Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, the answer I could have given wouldn’t have been too interesting. After all, as far as I was concerned, zero was simply the lack of something, the number between the whole numbers -1 and 1… I may have mentioned that 0 was also capable of making calculators complain; Windows Calculator, for instance, when fed 1/0 returns Cannot divide by zero., which is more than most hand-held calculators I’ve used return!

However, something I realized several years ago is that a calculator is being dishonest by saying you cannot divide by 0; indeed, you can, but the answer is as difficult to fathom as 0 itself: ∞ (infinity). The online calculators of Calculator.com reflect that when you attempt to divide 1 (or anything else) by 0.

Zero reaffirmed that thought, and it added unto it a wealth of history and knowledge about that seemingly innocuous number.

The journey spanned from ancient history, visiting with men like Aristotle and Pythagoras down through time to Newton, Einstein, and Hubble.

The author, Charles Seife, entertainingly paints the plight faced by mathematicians, scientists, and philosophers of the ages when they have had to go toe to toe with zero.

Though I don’t mean to say the book is wholly accessible. I’d be lying if I said I understood everything Seife wrote; indeed, anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of calculus would do better at grasping some of the concepts in Zero than I would.

The advanced mathematics discussion wasn’t what made the book enjoyable throughout, however; what I particularly liked was Seife’s dealings with the question of God. He didn’t skirt the issue, but neither did he exclaim that 0 (or anything else) was the death knell of God (or the concept thereof).

And though Seife does explain that the universe begins and ends with 0 (rather than the God of the Bible), he does provide a very positive nod to belief in God in his discussion of Pascal’s Wager.

Seife explained, Just as he analyzed the value–or expectation–of a gamble, Pascal analyzed the value of accepting Christ as savior. Thanks to the mathematics of zero and infinity, Pascal concluded that one should assume God exists (p. 101).

Note that Pascal’s Wager is not a proof of God; it cannot be. However, when given the choice between belief in God or un- or disbelief in God, Pascal determined that there is infinite gain in believing and infinite gain in disbelieving.

Pascal’s Wager holds true even if there is only a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000 chance that God exists; it is still a better bet, so to speak, to believe in God. The magic of zero and infinity makes it so. Actually, the time when it is not better to believe in God is when there is a 0 chance that He exists, and frankly, no one will ever be able to make that conclusion — the scientific method is powerless against things which are, well, by definition outside the realm of natural phenomena, which a transcendent being certainly would be.

Seife sums it up best on page 104:

If there is no chance that God exists, Pascal’s wager — as it came to be known — makes no sense. The expected value of being a Christian would then be 0 × ∞, and that was gibberish. Nobody was willing to say that there was zero chance that God exists. No matter what your outlook, it is always better to believe in God, thanks to the magic of zero and infinity. Certainly Pascal knew which way to wager, even though he gave up mathematics to win his bet.

Don’t let that trip you up, though; Zero is not a treatise on theology or the viability of God-belief, and continuing on through the book, we find that Seife seems to accept that the universe will one day die a heat death — a total freeze as the cosmos expand forever, all energy being expended, all stars having collapsed:

The expansion of the universe isn’t slowing down. It might even be speeding up. … The fate of our universe will not be a big crunch but an eternal expansion, cooling, and heat death … The universe will die a cold death, not a hot one. The answer is ice, not fire, thanks to the power of zero.

I hope that most of my readers would look at that and think, Nonsense! Revelation says… And certainly I agree with your faith in Revelation; however, let’s not discount the scientific explanation given above…

An infinitely expanding universe, with everything moving farther away from everything else, filled with no more suns…

Stay with me here:

• Revelation 20:11 states that the earth and heaven (the universe) is fleeing away — it is moving away.
• Revelation 21:1 states that the first heaven and Earth (the universe) passes away, a phrase which seems to mean both cast aside and perished.
• Revelation 22:5 states that there will no longer be the light of the sun there — God Himself will be the light.

It’s somewhat a stretch, sure, but it’s pretty amazing that the Apostle John knew all that way back when, ages before Newton’s gravity, Einstein’s relativity, and Hubble’s expansion. And I’m thankful to Seife for this little bit of confirmation of Scripture, as strange of a confirmation as it is!

Zero is a great read, a little thick at times, a lot of fun at others (did you know that using the power of 0, you can show that 1=2 and that Winston Churchill is a carrot?). I recommend it to anyone who thinks they are a geek, especially a math geek, but also to anyone curious about the universe in which we live. Truly, 0 is at the heart of it — a fitting touch to a cosmos created by He who is Infinite.

Buy Zero: Biography of a Dangerous Idea at Amazon.com

I’m sure most of you have come across some form of list — likely online — containing a variety of random trivia, presented as fact, with little explanation beyond the statement of the fact itself, right?

I’m come across my fair share. And honestly, it’s easy to read through the list with an attitude of “Wow, I didn’t know that,” and then leave the list behind without much thought; the trivia that you read, however, may stick around, swimming in your sea of memory, surfacing at opportune times during conversation when you can drop that gem and show how worldly wise you are.

But have you ever thought to check how factual that list of “facts” actually is? For the benefit of anyone who happens upon this site, I want to take a look at a few of those facts to see what they really are. I’m pulling these examples from a list at IndianChild.com.

“I am.” is the shortest complete sentence in the English language.

Seems simple enough, no? “I am” certainly is a small sentence! However, it is not the shortest, though it may perhaps be the shortest declarative sentence.

What is the shortest sentence? Why, that would be the simple little “Go.” One word, two letters, no nonsense! If you’re wondering how a single verb without a subject can be a complete sentence, remember that imperative sentences (commands) have optional subjects; when none is given, the subject “You” is implied. “Make me a sandwich,” “Read my blog,” and “Go” are all valid commands and are complete imperative sentences.

“Dreamt” is the only English word that ends in the letters “-mt”.

This one’s almost true! However, there are a few more words which end in “-mt.” What are these words?

Redreamt | Undreamt | Daydreamt

I’ve also seen “adreamt” offered up as another one, but I’m unsure of its legitimacy as a word; the only places I can find it used on the Internet is in lists of words ending in “-mt.”

And while you may claim it to be cop-out that all of these words are built upon “dreamt,” the trivium said that “dreamt” was the only word with that ending, but that is simply not the case.

Also, if abbreviations count, there’s always “amt.” for amount!

There are only four words in the English language which end in “-dous”: tremendous, horrendous, stupendous, and hazardous.

I like wordplay! And as fun as trivia can be, this little nugget proves to be a letdown. Indeed, a search for words ending in “-dous” on AllWords.com yields three more words for this list:

“Annelidous,” which is a zoological adjective meaning “of the nature of annelids.”

“Macropodous,” which is a botanical adjective meaning “having a long stem or stalk.”

“Nefandous,” which is an adjective meaning “unspeakable; unfit to be spoken of.”

The longest one-syllable word in the English language is “screeched.”

“Screeched” weighs in at an impressive nine letters; unfortunately for it, so do twenty other words; further, there are even some listed with as many as eleven letters!

And “screeched” comes to a screeching halt.

Elephants are the only animals that can’t jump.

I’m going to assume that this makes more sense as “only mammals,” but that isn’t what is going around, so I have to take it at face value. Are elephants the only animals that can’t jump?

Well, perhaps, but if you want to make that claim, I’d really love to see a jumping sea sponge.

The strongest muscle in the body is the tongue.

Stick your tongue out. Go ahead, I can’t see you. Now, with your tongue straight out (without resting it on your bottom teeth or lip), press down on it with your finger; try to resist by pressing upward with your tongue. Your tongue doesn’t put up much of a fight!

Likewise, press against the roof of your mouth with your tongue; now do so with your thumb. You should notice quite a difference.

The tongue is far from the strongest muscle in the body. However, it may be perhaps the most versatile; most muscles in our bodies simply stretch or contract, but the tongue can be curved, rolled, and contorted into a variety of shapes depending on the talent of the tongue-bearer.

Plus it can taste, and no bicep can make that claim!

Leonardo da Vinci invented the scissors.

Leonardo (1452-1519) lived nearly three millennia after scissors first came into use! No matter how great a man Leonardo was, there’s simply no way he deserves credit for the scissors, which have been in use in some form since as early as 1500 BCE.

A goldfish has a memory span of three seconds.

I’ve heard this one ever since I was a young child; I’d say it’s common knowledge except for the fact that it’s completely false. In fact, goldfish can be trained to follow a daily routine, right down to pressing a lever at a particular time of day in order to get food. If you have a goldfish, maybe you could teach it a trick or two as well?

There are 336 dimples on a regulation golf ball.

While the rules of golf are many, there is no rule specifying the number of dimples on a regulation sized golf ball in the 192 pages of the United States Golf Association’s rulebook. The weight of the ball, its size, and various other factors are clearly defined, but there is no regulation on dimple count.

Most golf balls, however, have between 300-450 dimples.

—

I definitely want to post most of these simply because it’s fun and educational, but I hope these examples serve to show that no matter how many times a “fact” shows up in a list of awesome, random, fun, cool, interesting, weird, or otherwise special facts, it isn’t necessarily true. Bear in mind that just like lists of contradictions in the Bible, these “facts” are more or less reposted without much critical examination. They do make great StumbleUpon fodder, though, don’t they?

In Bible study this week, we talked about the Kingdom Parables of Mark 4. I’m particularly enjoying talking about the parables; I feel that when those are the lesson, I’m not the one teaching. Indeed, it takes very little to share the parable and explain what it means. Actually, that’s almost too easy, and we’d easily finish what is usually an hour-long lesson within twenty minutes or less.

What’s great about the parables is that when discussion them, the Word comes alive. There is so much that can be spoken of that branches out of the parables, I’m often a bit dumbfounded at the ground we can cover simply through conversing about Jesus’ doctrine or teaching.

I’m beginning to wonder if I shouldn’t start taking notes during the lesson in order to augment the notes I have before hand.

The first parable of Mark 4 is commonly called the parable of the lamp:

Then he asked them, “When someone lights a lamp, does he put a box over it to shut out the light? Of course not! The light couldn’t be seen or used. A lamp is placed on a stand to shine and be useful.” Mark 4:21, LB

This is very simple: If you (to modernize things a bit) turn on a lamp but then hide it beneath a blanket or box, you are completely defeating the purpose of the lamp, which is to light up an area!

I understand the lamp to represent the Kingdom of God within us, and what is the point of it being there if we keep it hidden within ourselves?

Like a lamp, the Kingdom of God is meant to shine and be useful. Elsewhere Jesus declares that we are the salt and the light of the world, the means through which the Kingdom of God is manifest. How then shall the Kingdom be known if we remain silent?

The parable tells us that the Kingdom is to be public. This isn’t always easy, I admit; yet Jesus does not call us to a life of ease (contrary to the heresies spread by far too many preachers within the churches today). His call is to take up our crosses, which I also admit is not something with which I’m wholly familiar. I’ve read about the persecuted church in foreign nations. I know of martyrs from throughout church history who suffered and ultimately died for the faith which I so easily take for granted. And when it comes to taking up crosses, it’s more likely that it’s a tiny metal cross on a chain rather than suffering loss for His name’s sake.

As I live out the Kingdom of God more and more, as I learn how to shine my light more effectively, I do expect that I’ll face increasingly risky persecution, yet I press on for the joy set before me — that of Christ and His Kingdom. God has blessed me with being able to set my “big picture” upon His Kingdom, and I know that something is different with having that perspective because of how different my goals and my priorities are from what they used to be.

Still, there’s plenty of room to change; it’s easy to fall into the “I’m okay; you’re okay” trap, so if it seems like I’m being down on myself, don’t worry about it. I’m simply being honest about myself with you, my readers!

Well, if you’ve read this far, thanks; I tend to ramble a bit, and I wrote this trying to remember the conversation we had during Bible study. And that is what we got out of the parable of the lamp.

The Kingdom of God must not be hidden. It must be shown forth in this age of darkness, and that happens when Christians live obediently to Christ: Loving God, keeping His commandments, and loving our neighbors as ourselves.

If we would but do those things, we would see genuine changes — not on a socio-political level, maybe, but where it counts: in the lives of individuals.

Thanks for reading.

What is it about mankind which compels us to find entertainment in calamity and destruction?

We pass by the roses without so much as a sniff, yet I have been programmed from childhood (thank you, Bob Saget & America’s Funniest Home Videos) that accidents — very painful accidents — are hilarious and good to watch.

As I grew up, such programs continued, pushing the bar ever higher… World’s Most Dangerous This. World’s Deadliest That.

Destruction. Pain. Violence. All in the name of entertainment.

What’s frightening about this is that entertainment is found not only in scripted material, but in actual pain, actual injury… actual death. If anyone wants to challenge the biblical truth that mankind is depraved, our inability to not stair at a train wreck (to borrow the popular example) is fairly convincing evidence.

That aspect of humanity is integral to the movie Untraceable, starring Diane Lane.

As a matter of fact, the movie caters to that aspect on several occasions, and it is there that the movie suffers greatly: While the antagonist, Owen Reilly (played by Joseph Cross), desperately tries to make a point about the evils of voyeurism, all the while relying upon voyeurs to make his point.

The lesson is made that violence and death should not become viral videos to be watched and enjoyed by countless millions, yet that very lesson is made by a movie with extremely graphic gore which … has been seen by millions of viewers.

If Untraceable managed to make a point about voyeurism without simultaneously being hypocritical about it, it would have been a much better movie. In reality, it is a cheap thrill: a generally fast-paced movie composed of a bit of suspense, generally enjoyable acting / casting (it’s becoming increasingly nicer to view a film composed of actors that I haven’t seen a hundred times before), a healthy dose of geek-speak, and yes, fairly good visual effects. Though its too bad those effects were used to pull the film down, morally speaking.

As a closing aside, I’d love to know how Untraceable’s Owen Reilly’s “killwithme.com” website was able to support millions of viewers watching live video while the IP address of the site rotated every few seconds or minutes. The bandwidth requirements would be obscene, like a slashdotting on steroids!

Which brings me back to what I was saying about human nature, but let me preface this by saying I know that not everyone can stomach the levels of violence enjoyed by others; indeed, while they may enjoy (for example) The Terminator, they’ll have no desire whatsoever to watch (again, for example) Hostel 2. If there’s one thing Untraceable did well, it is to make me think: why do I find gory cinema entertaining? Why can I watch real violence or injury in viral videos without so much as a second thought?

Am I exemplifying the Kingdom of God? Am I living as though I recognize the Prince of Peace as my Sovereign? Are my thoughts continually — regardless of what I’m watching — of things good, honorable, and pure? Am I taking in through my eyes and ears those things which are conducive to holy living?

Or am I opening my mind up to be filled by the putridity of this age?