Reading Is Dangerous

I was reading a book about philosophical mathematics about the multiverse, infinity and other "abstract" concepts. The book is called "The Infinite Book". The author (Dr. John D. Barrow) seemed to have no understanding of the basic laws of cause to effect despite being a professor of mathematics and theoretical physics at Cambridge.

He says: "If you were to meet your copy from a parallel universe, and that both of your pasts were completely identical, nothing says you should act as mirrors in front of the other. Both could have identical pasts but react differently to the encounter."

Well mister John D. Barrow. If both pasts are completely identical, every form of energy is mirrored within the other universe, meaning that the electrons in both brains are being mirrored because the causes to effect of both subjects are identical, and if one were to respond differently to the other, then their causes to effect are different, making your premise incorrect.

Now how the hell can someone with such a prestigious intellectual role make such an obvious philosophical mistake? Well, he's academic. Academia is not equal to intellect. Don't believe everything you read, even from such recognized people. You very well might end up being smarter than them on many aspects. Watch out and always question!

The Psychology of Adaptation

There is an ability human intelligence grants us. The understanding of nature. One problem with humans is that we often tend to subjectively throw our understanding in favour of our survival. This mentality is extremely reckless.

Creationist arguments are based upon this thinking. "The earth is perfect, the moon perfectly creates the tides, we're a perfect distance from the sun, the sun is in an ideal place within the milky way, etc." Of course they do, for you to even be saying this, these were prerequisites to your existence. The environment is not adapted to us, we are adapted to the environment. Now for most evolutionists, this is extremely obvious, so don't worry, my point doesn't stop here.

This mentality is a major setback for several other areas of society. Such as justice, the environment, democracy, capitalism and more. Most people even if rich won't purchase an electric vehicle because they will wait for people to buy more electric cars so that the plug-in systems will be more developed and accessible. They are waiting for their environment (people and systems) to adapt before they get involved in the said evolution. But because most people think this way, very few people purchase electric vehicles and the switch to all electric is therefore astonishingly slow. Capitalism: Certain people try to avoid as much taxes as possible, or to pay as less insurance as possible seeking for personal benefit because everyone else participates, one person less won't change anything. But with this mentality, systems fail due to lack of involvement created by the subjective favouritism of understanding.

A problem with the "intelligent" mentality of understanding (that you must adapt to a situation and not vice-versa) is that certain systems become too left-winged, protecting people from almost anything due to the great power of certain communal services, which can lead to over confidence and therefore reckless behaviour. Such as women taking advantage of an ideal health care system to have sex without protection and getting abortion pills, which costs great money to the communal service. A perfect system will be subject to abuse and therefore eventual failure, thus making an "ideal" social system's existence impossible because it really isn't ideal at all.

My last suggestion implies that people cannot be trusted in the sense that people have a tendency to abuse. Which is normal, it's basic survival instincts. I can change the world, but not human nature.
What I'm trying to say is that creationists are not necessarily more stupid than anyone else. They simply apply a common mentality to a different aspect of society.