Look to Chaos Manor Reviews; Intelligent Design; Trump as “Digital Candidate”? and other matters.

Chaos Manor View, Sunday, January 31, 2016


Tuesday, Morning:  Yesterday was devoured by household problems, one of which may be interesting; but The February 2016 edition of Computing at Chaos Manor is up at Chaos Manor Reviews, and I recommend it to you.  I’ll work on Trump and the Iowa election this afternoon after a routine medical appointment, but electricians are in the house dealing with a minor emergency; Chaos Manor is old.  One thing: you may be sure that both Democrat and Republican old pro’s are shaking with fear for their power.

Today (Sunday) I did a Computing at Chaos Manor draft; it has gone to my advisors and will be edited and posted by Monday afternoon. I didn’t get a lot else done, but that’s something. Look to Chaos Manor Reviews. {Monday morning: still editing the column, but it should be up by evening; certainly tomorrow.]

Tomorrow I hope to have some thoughts on Trump, but I may wait until after Iowa to publish them: nothing I say will affect the Iowa turnout, and that turnout will have a great effect on Mr. Trump’s showing. He is a serious candidate, and his enemies’ response of contempt and ridicule only strengthens him among his followers. The American people of all parties are disgusted with the professional political class, and their usual contacts with government have not been pleasant experiences. The governing class considers this lese majeste and acts accordingly. Meanwhile the Veteran’s Administration officials award themselves bonuses for what most consider sub-standard performance, bunny inspectors thrive, and licensing ownership of groundhogs has become a Federal Case. Trump knows this. So do his enemies, but they do not want to talk about it.

Monday, 2200: Trump was second and gracious. The campaign continues.  It is not known whether Hillary or Bernie won for the Democrats.  Very interesting.



Intelligent Design

Okay, where do I stand on ID? In the middle. I have long thought that creation/evolution need not be mutually exclusive, since it seems to me that both play a part in the overall reality. I concluded this when I studied the matter in high school, college and in private discussions with some of my professors who became personal friends.

Arguments that favor ID are the presence of mathematics throughout the universe, the existence of natural law and the concept of irreducible complexity.

Math is all over. The patterns of landscape, mountain ranges created by geological action, coastlines created by erosion, the paths of rivers all follow and can be described by fractal geometry. Everything in nature that uses the spiral or parts of a spiral – the whorls of a mollusk shell, the arrangement of leaves around a stem or branches around a tree trunk adhere to the Fibonacci series. Pi, originally used to describe the relationship between the radius and circumference of a circle, keeps showing up in all sorts of places that have little or nothing to do with circles. Can this all be coincidental?

Natural law exists, physics in all its variations, and chemistry are mostly concerned with determining these laws and they cannot be avoided, at least not directly (more about this at some future time). As far as we understand them these laws exist throughout the universe.

Irreducible Complexity (IC) is the idea that many complex systems must have all of the parts present to function at all. A good example is the mammalian/human eye. Consider the parts – transparent membrane, focusable lens, iris to regulate light, receptors to detect light and color (not present in all species), a broadband data transmission cable connected to a signal processor (brain), precise separation between lens and retina, all formed into a ball rotating in a lubricated socket with a shield/wiper in front (the lid), with washer fluid (tears) all enclosed in a flexible housing maintained by a transparent fluid. Take any one of those components and consider how the eye would function without it. Then explain how this system developed by random changes no matter how long or how many small changes happened over time.

Once you have this basic structure it can be modified to suit local conditions/requirements, and that is where evolution/natural selection plays a role. There is survival value in the eagle’s long-range vision, of the specific musculature of the lion, of the color/pattern of an antelope and so forth. The creator building the system included a mechanism for adapting that system to suit future needs, including needs the creator may not have envisioned. While the species is developing these local improvements the individual can still function, perhaps not as efficiently or effectively, but long enough to pass the adaptation to the next generation.

Then there is man. Many species have remained essentially unchanged for millions of years. Yet man, assuming we actually descended from the early homonids, has only been around for 100,000 or so and has changed dramatically in that time. Modern man seems to just appeared less than 50,000 years ago and rapidly took dominion over the planet. How did that happen and why? Were we prodded a bit? Did a creator manipulate us to become what we are? Or, for some reason or another did man take a “fast track” to develop so dramatically? There has been little change, at least physically, from the earliest modern man to the guy who walks the streets today. Why is that? I have no idea, but suspect that someone flicked the “off” switch for rapid development.

So that’s where I am, where are you?

Take care,


You are hardly alone; St. Augustine once speculated that the world might have been created in germinal causes and evolved; this was over a thousand years before Darwin. When you find a watch, you generally expect to find a watchmaker, not a random process; finding a watchmaker logically leads to speculation of how the watchmaker was generated. Evolution of a fully formed eye has been modeled on computers, but it requires many steps, and at each step the animal that has inherited the required change must be more survivable than those without it; but it is difficult to show how some of the steps from a light sensitive spot to a fully formed eye can have been much of an advantage. In any event it requires a very long time, which is one reason evolutionary theorists have been so opposed to the notions of catastrophe in evolutionary theory.

Of course some evolutionary paths are better mapped and intrinsically likely; no doubt there has been survival of the fittest, but it is much easier to believe that certain evolutionary steps thrived because somehow there was a goal; you can get from a light sensitive cell to a fully formed eye if you know the goal in advance. On the other hand, it is difficult to see intelligence in some human and animal features. Why do we have an appendix?

Fully accepting either hypothesis – intelligent design or blind chance as the explanation for finding a watchmaker – requires a fair amount of Faith. Of course it is not likely that a random group of atoms would get together to perform both Hamlet and Swan Lake even in 20 billion years.


Hello Jerry,

“Of course it is not likely that a random group of atoms would get together to perform both Hamlet and Swan Lake even in 20 billion years.”

Or, as Fred Reed put it in his column of 17 March, 2005:

“Evolution writ large is the belief that a cloud of hydrogen will spontaneously invent extreme-ultraviolet lithography, perform Swan Lake, and write all the books in the British Museum.”

The quote is from one of Fred’s columns on the subject of evolution, and evolutionists, and can be found here:


It is worth reading for those interested in the subject, if only for the questions he asks.  As a footnote, he also addresses the ‘monkeys typing on a typewriter for long periods of time’ argument supporting the plausibility of evolution.  In short, it doesn’t.

He has written a few other columns on evolution over the years.  They can be accessed from his website:


Bob Ludwick


Yes, of course; it was Fred’s phrasing of a rather ancient paradox that I had in mind when I wrote that.  I figured anyone familiar with Fred would recognize it, and it’s good phrasing.  This discussion will continue.




‘We believe that Trump deserves to be called the only “digital”

candidate in the race.’



Roland Dobbins

<snip>For those inclined to denigrate what this involves — from calling him an “opportunist” to “eminent domain” bully — Trump’s trajectory seems baffling.  Some think that he came across the bridge from Queens with a chip-on-his-shoulder and some just presume that he “inherited” his empire.  Woe to those who have lost the plot line of his life and shame on those who judge him but have never faced a life defining strategic challenge themselves.

Some who know him, and his business operation, point to a singular event that shaped Trump perhaps more than any others.  On Oct. 11, 1989, Trump’s closest business colleagues died in a helicopter crash in New Jersey.  This accident and resulting adversity forced him to rebuild in a way that few others have experienced.  The fun-and-games had ended.  Going forward Trump and his newly assembled team would have to be far more strategic in their outlook.
Trump’s strategy-centered approach to the GOP primary race reflects the results of these repeated “trials-by-fire.”  Clearly he has out-strategized the television networks — where the “logic” of ratings compels them to cover his every move, saving him millions.  In Iowa, instead of either the classic mailing-list driven, army of volunteers knocking-on-your-door approach or the new-and-improved television “niche marketing” segmentation approach, Trump has relied on the combination of mass-rallies and “social media” — strategically aligning himself with how the voters do their politics today — adding the old-fashioned touch of sending signed Christmas cards to his supporters.
We believe that Trump deserves to be called the only “digital” candidate in the race.  The contrast between how politics was considered fully “established” with opposition-research/consultant/focus-group driven television-advertising campaigns and Trump’s approach is impossible to miss.  Strategically speaking, his opponents are bringing a roller coaster (i.e. television-based campaigning) to an F1 Grand Prix race. <snip>

An interesting analysis.


Russia, Turkey, Problems

I’m amused:


Turkey warned of consequences on Saturday after saying a Russian SU-34 jet had violated its airspace despite warnings, once more stoking tensions between two countries involved in Syria’s war, but Russia denied that there had been any incursion.

In a similar incident in November, Turkey shot down a Russian warplane flying a sortie over Syria that it said had violated its airspace, triggering a diplomatic rupture in which Russia imposed economic sanctions.

Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov denied that any Russian plane had entered Turkish airspace, and called the Turkish allegation “pure propaganda”.

He said Turkish radar installations were not capable of identifying a particular aircraft or its type or nationality, and that no verbal warning had been issued in either English or Russian.



The Russians were doing pretty well, save for the “propaganda”. This led me to wonder since propaganda is a one-sided position and is distinct from disinformation. So,it led me to think some truth existed despite the Russian denial. But it is the last line that cooks the goose…

I appreciate the Russian insult of Turkey’s lack of technology and laughed hardily and then I laughed harder when I saw “no verbal warning had been issued in Russian or English”.

How could the Russians have known that a verbal warning was not issued at an incident they were not present at? Further, the statement suggests a warning but not in English or Russian. Else, why the specificity? Now I’ll iterate the word “suggests”; I’m not convinced a warning occurred but the language directs me to consider the possibility and this could be from translation. Abstracting from abstractions is like working from a copy of a copy.

◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Most Respectfully,

Joshua Jordan, KSC

Percussa Resurgo

Russia and Turkey have been enemies for a very long time. Turkey allied with NATO because it was an anti-Russian alliance. Interesting. Thank you.


Subject: Firefly

BTW, Just getting thru with TWBW IIII
Roger Miller

Interesting reviews. I liked Firefly a lot.


Zika outbreak: British travellers told to put off trying for a baby for a month – Telegraph


More on Zika.


If you were a ZPG Nazi, a disease that deters people from having babies would be almost as useful as a disease that renders people sterile. Keep in mind that most women in developing countries wait until their fertility is declining before they decide to have a child. A delay of a year or two pushes them into infertility.

James Crawford=






Freedom is not free. Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.




Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.