Another Pair Of Eyes

Cheese

I have a question about this cheese:

The question is related to the nutritional information on the side, which reads as follows for values of 100g:

Energy: 1365kJ / 330kcal
Protein: 15.5g
Carbohydrate: Trace
Fat: 29.7g

Now, using my knowledge of calories from various bits and bobs, I can tell you that fat is 9kcal/g and that both protein and carbohydrate are 4kcal/g. As such, the total calories in 100g is given by:

4(15.5) + 9(29.7) + 4(0) = 329.3kcal

I assume the trace of carbohydrate is responsible for the remaining 0.7 kcal, so that all adds up. What I am wondering is: what is the rest of the cheese made of? We have only accounted for 45.2g of each 100g, meaning that another 54.8g of apparently energy-free something is present. In  vegetables, I’d say fibre, but clearly soft cheese is not known for it’s fibrous properties.

WHAT IS IN THE CHEESE??!

Omniscience

Omniscience: the state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge.

Seriously, I leave you guys alone for about 4 days and a great big religious debate breaks out? Honestly.

Still, debates are debates so I’ll leave the grand scheme of things to you lot (or you two, at least), and tackle one argument line only. Feel free to debate it with me, but try not to take it off in another direction; I want to try and keep it from expanding into such a multifaceted argument that nothing works anymore.

The argument line I will approach is that of an omniscient God, and how by being omniscient he becomes a fully-fledged divine evil. A bit strong, you might say, but hear the logic. I concocted this argument myself a long while ago, apologies if it appears somewhere else already.

A central tenet of the Christian faith, and many others, is that you have free choice in your life to do with as you will, with the result that you end up either accepting god or not, be forgiven or not, and end up in heaven or hell. Free choice is a much-advertised part of the whole story. However, all it requires to scupper this argument is the existence, in any universe or outside it, in any time (and for any length of time) or outside it, a being that knows everything.

God is omniscient, and hence knows everything. If he knows everything, he already knows the outcomes of all the choices you make. That point is so vital, you should read it again. If you murder someone, he knew you were going to do it. What you’re going to eat tomorrow? He knows. Whether you’ll accept god or not? He knows, and he knows all this BEFORE you were ever even born. In fact, before the universe was, he knew all this. As such, all of your choices are rendered hollow shells of choices: they are nothing but an illusion of decision in a life which already has a predetermined path and a predetermined end. That’s a bit irritating, but actually (ironically) in a universe where there is no afterlife that doesn’t matter: you have the illusion of choice all your life and you don’t know any better: you might as well have had free will all along as far as you are concerned.

Where it breaks down is the afterlife. It’s fine, in a way (although I don’t like the idea) that all of life is predetermined, provided that you don’t then get elevated to heaven or cast into hell depending on the outcome of it. With the afterlife, it’s a less pretty picture: if you are born and god already knows you are going to commit a murder, and never accept him, then you will go to hell and burn in eternal fire (with much wailing and gnashing of teeth if my biblical memory serves me correctly*). This means that god has created you knowing your existence to be an eternity of torment. Moreso, he created millions of others who shall also be confined to suffering beyond measure with absolutely no choice in the matter.

That is no being I’d want to worship.

There is then the counterargument that god is somehow not omniscient, ergo none of this will hold up. I’ll countercounterargument that now. If god does not know everything, then there is the possibility that he is wrong about things, or ignorant of things, and is flawed. Fine, if you accept your god to be flawed, but that is not the Christian god’s way. Also, if god is flawed and ignorant, then all of ‘his’ words (bible) and similar become equally flawed and ignorant. Meaning, of course, that the whole lot could be rubbish.** When one of the founding texts of something is just as likely rubbish as fact, that something enters a dangerous place, don’t you think?

*and it does: “And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 13:42

**which I pretty much think anyway, for all that it is an interesting historical text.

Dignity

Read this. Then read the comments here.

Setting aside the trust and all the hype about ‘forcing’ heart transplants on someone, which I believe is a somewhat inflated headline when I read the text, do you think she made the right choice, and do you think at 12 you can?

At first, I thought that it was a brave decision and a reasonable one, but the more I think about it the more I wonder. Can you really know, aged 12, what you’re missing? Immunosuppressant drugs have their issues, but they aren’t a death sentence. I guess I don’t know how long the transplanted heart would last, especially combined with leukaemia drugs, but I’m just not sure. The phrase \dying with dignity’ has a lot of power behind it, but should it really when there is the chance to live? All operations carry a risk of dying of one level or another, but this type of event is rare.

In the end, it is her choice. I just find it a difficult case, a moving case and a her choice is one I am glad I do not have to make. Not sure what to think.

Pain Prone Personalities

This week has been a week about pain, particularly chronic pain, in the insular world that is my course. The question of ‘is there such a thing as a pain-prone personality?’ has come up several times, and has been the topic of some debate.

So, to pass on the question, do you think there is such a thing as a pain-prone personality? I’ll keep myself neutral for now…

Morning?

I was having a discussion recently about timetables, in which it was stated that my friend’s favourite day ‘had lectures at 12-2 and 3-4.’ It sprung to mind because that is possibly one of the worst distributions of lectures I could have, with the exception of 12-6 which would, of course, be inferior even to the above.

Basically, I am a morning person. Even if I was out the night before it;s unusual for me to still be sleeping at 9, and on a normal morning, 7. I reguarly forget to set my alarm, and equally regularly wake up bang on the button anyway (including, most notably, when I’d only gotten to bed 3 hours before). My concentration is great all morning through until around half twelve, but from there on it’s bad news. Goldfish could learn my afternoon lectures more thoroughly than I do, and I struggle simply to keep my eyes open between about half three and half four. Come half five, however, and the lethargy vanishes instantly to be replaced by boundless energy again until such time as the evening winds down, be that ten or two. From this, I’d sumrise that I am a Morning Person. Pray that you never come to me as your GP when you’ve got a condition we had afternoon lectures on!

Any other morning people? Or do you find yourselves much better served by the later hours?

‘The Perfect Place’ Argument

I am going to focus this entry on one thing – the argument people use in religious debates stating that this universe is such a perfect place for us to exist that there is no possibility of there not being a hand in its creation. I am not going to go into any other points of the debate, or get tied up in the rest of the god-or-no-god shouting match.

Basically, my counter to the ‘Perfect Universe’ argument goes as follows: if this world or this universe was not perfect for our existence, we would not exist to notice. The very fact we are alive and capable of remaining so is because of the fact that chance has dictated a universe in which we fit. In a hypothetical infinite number of universes in which every possible universe exists, life would only exist in the those suited to its existence. To that life, in that universe, it would appear that the place was perfectly designed for them. That doesn’t mean it was.

Discussion welcome, but lets try and keep it on this particular point rather than the whole debate as there’re enough of those around for now!

In The News

What do you reckon? Undercurrent religious opposition (despite the statement to the contrary within the article)? Genuine concerns about side-effects and time off, mysteriously not taken up by any other schools thus far?

I’m a medical person, and am hence inclined to think they are fools to deny a potentially life-saving vaccine to their children on school premises – will every parent take their child to the doctors to have the vaccine? I doubt it.

In my view, the governors have put at risk the lives of their female pupils and this is out of line. It’s very black and white, I know – but is my opinion (or their action, for that matter) justified?

Thoughts appreciated.

Also, I just came across this. Bit like opening a can of worms, but it really concerned me so I’ll post it here anyway. I’d trust the Chinese government with this information for about as far as I could throw President Hu Jintao with my hands tied behind my back and a rock the size of Bilbao balanced on my forehead.

Addendum: And apparently, people are both gullible and stupid. I’d've thought those pop-up boxes were pretty obvious really…

Addendum II: Can’t seem to stop adding things to a topic so easy as ‘In the News’. This was harrowing.

Third and final addendum: Crazy people. I mean seriously. What the hell?