Brian Greene on Science, Religion, Hawking, and Trump

I've only found this video recently, even though it is almost a year old already, but it is still interesting, and funny. And strangely enough, he shares my view on religion, especially the fact that people seem to ignore that there are so many of them, each claiming to be the "truth". They all can't be, and thus, the biggest threat and challenge against a religion is the existence of another religion.



Zz.

Are Religious People Less Smart Than Atheists?

OK, if that isn't an incendiary title, I don't know what is! :)

I took that title loosely from this article that reviews a new study on how various groups of people think. To be fair, the paper being cited actually debunks that myth that religious people are less intelligent than non-religious people.

However (you know that was coming, didn't you?), it points out that religious people tend to rely heavily on intuition when there is an apparent conflict between intuition and logic. In other words, the more religious a person is, the more likely he/she will abandon rational thinking and rely on his/her intuition.

This is actually consistent with an earlier study that I mention on here. In that study, it was discovered that non-scientists are more likely to ignore scientific facts and evidence in favor of a view that support their values. Flat-Earth believers, anyone?

The problem in all of this is that (i) logic and rational thinking are the best methodology that we know of to come up with a valid conclusion, (ii) facts and evidence are being ignored or dismissed, and (iii) our intuition has been known to be terribly wrong and unreliable.

In science, intuition can only go so far, and we often abandon our intuition once it has been trumped by facts and evidence. This is why science evolves and improves over time. So when someone goes against that, and lean more on faulty intuition than logic and rational thinking, we then are into no-rules and no-holes-barred territory. Is this why a lot of people still believe in irrational and uncorroborated ideas and opinions?

I don't know. To me, dealing with public opinions and why such-and-such group of people or individual thinks that way is more mysterious than any of the physics research that I've done. Human beings are irrational creatures by nature, I suppose.

Zz.

Neil Degrasse Tyson's Christmas Tweets Caused A Brouhaha

It seems that a few harmless tweets by Astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson are causing quite a stir on the internet.

Honest, I don't see this as being a big deal. I don't even find it mildly offensive and I wish those people who are criticizing him for it would explain what exactly it is that they don't like. After all, it appears that his words actually meant something for them to either follow him, or take the time to respond. Otherwise, why bother or give a hoot about what he has to say?

There are more offensive things being said and done against Christianity, especially at this time of the year. Picking a fight based on a bunch of FACTS (yes, look closely, he is simply stating FACTS) being presented in a rather cheeky way is a freaking waste of time! So get a GRIP, people!

Zz.

Scientific Evidence Points To A Designer?

We have had these types of anthropic universe arguments before, and I don't see this being settled anytime soon, unless we encounter an alien life form or something that dramatic.

Apparently, this physicists have been making the rounds giving talks on scientific evidence that points to a designer. Unfortunately, this claim is highly misleading. There are several issues that need to be clarified here:

1. These so-called evidence have many varying interpretations. In the hands of Stephen Hawking, he sees this as evidence that we do NOT need a designer for the universe to exist. So to claim it that they point to a designer is highly misleading, because obviously there are very smart people out there who think of the opposite.

2. Scientific evidence have varying degree of certainty. The evidence that Niobium undergoes a superconducting transition at 9.3 K is a lot more certain than many of the astrophysical parameters that we have gathered so far. It is just the nature of the study and the field.

3. It is also interesting to note that even if the claim is true, it has a significant conflict with many of the orthodox religious view of the origin of the universe, including the fact that it allows for significant time for speciation and evolution.

4. The argument that the universe has been fine-tuned for us to live in is very weak in my book. Who is there to say that if any of these parameters is different that a different type of universe couldn't appear and that different type of life forms would dominate? We are still at an infant knowledge as far as how different types of universes could form, which is one of the argument that Hawking used when he invoked the multiverse scenario. So unless that there is a convincing argument that our universe is the one and only universe that can exist, and nothing else can, then this argument falls very flat.

I find that this type of seminar can't be very productive unless there is a panel discussion presenting both sides. People who listened to this may not be aware of the holes in such arguments, and I would point out also to the any talk by those on the opposite side as well. It would have been better if they invited two scientists with opposing view, and they can show to the public how the same set of evidence leads to different conclusions. This is what happens when the full set of evidence to paint a clear picture isn't available.

Zz.

Science, Religion, and the Big Bang

This should stir up the pot, and I think it already has, judging from the comments accompanying this YouTube video.



Zz.

Does The Universe Have A Purpose?

A fun video, no matter which side of the fence you fall into.



At the very least, you can understand why, if we simply look at it "the way it is, rather than the way you want it to be", science has more evidence in favor of the universe having no purpose than the other way around.

I guess I'm with the e-coli bacteria in the video that asked for "more poop!".

Zz.

Will Biology, Astronomy, And Physics Rule Out God?

More arguments on this very topic, and this appears to be a continuation of what Sean Carroll had stated earlier. So I'll let you read the article for yourself.

The one part that I think worth highlighting is towards the end:

Judged by the standards of any other scientific theory, the "God hypothesis" does not do very well, Carroll argues. But he grants that "the idea of God has functions other than those of a scientific hypothesis."

And I think, this is where a lot of the misunderstanding between both sides of the fence occurs. Those outside of science (theologians) appears to not realize that to counter a scientific argument, one must use another scientific argument. Simply arguing that such-and-such must surely point to the existence of "god", without offering evidence (rather than not being able to falsify it) simply isn't convincing, nor can it be used as an evidence. The "god of the gaps" should no longer be used at this point, because history has shown that these gaps continue to diminish over time!

Certainly a thought-provoking article.

Zz.

Analytical Thinking Causes Religions Beliefs To Waver?

{Don't miss our nomination period to nominate your most attractive physicists}

Not that this is surprising to me, but there appears to be a study that suggests that when people start thinking a bit more on certain things, ".... you reject statements that otherwise you would endorse... ", and this includes certain religious beliefs.

To test this idea, the duo devised several ways to subconsciously put people in what they considered a more analytical mindset. In one experiment with 57 undergraduate students, some volunteers viewed artwork depicting a reflective thinking pose (such as Rodin's The Thinker) while others viewed art depicting less intellectual pursuits (such as throwing a discus) before answering questionnaires about their faith. In another experiment with 93 undergraduates and a larger sample of 148 American adults recruited online, some subjects solved word puzzles that incorporated words such as "analyze," "reason," and "ponder," while others completed similar puzzles with only words unrelated to thinking, such as "high" and "plane." In all of these experiments, people who got the thinking-related cues reported weaker religious beliefs on the questionnaires taken afterward than did the control group.

In a final experiment, Gervais and Norenzayan asked 182 volunteers to answer a religious questionnaire as usual, while others answered the same questionnaire printed in a hard-to-read font, which previous studies have found promotes analytic thinking. And indeed, those who had to work harder to comprehend the questionnaire rated their religious beliefs lower.

I'm usually skeptical on whether such things can be studied, and if these statistics are reliable. The authors claim they are since many different studies and methodologies seem to indicate the same, consistent findings, which makes it a bit more believable.

Still, if this is true, then Science and Religion are truly at odds with each other, not just culturally, but rather at the FUNDAMENTAL level. It means that they are, in principle, incompatible with each other.

Zz.

Interview With Lawrence Krauss - Has Physics Made Philosophy and Religion Obsolete?

{Don't miss our nomination period to nominate your most attractive physicists}

On the same day that I posted a rebuttal by Vic Stenger, the Atlantic published an entertaining interview with Lawrence Krauss in response to the recent attack on his book in the NY Times. In it, he showed how little he thinks about philosophy, or philosophy of science in particular.

I want to start with a general question about the relationship between philosophy and physics. There has been a fair amount of sniping between these two disciplines over the past few years. Why the sudden, public antagonism between philosophy and physics? 

Krauss: That's a good question. I expect it's because physics has encroached on philosophy. Philosophy used to be a field that had content, but then "natural philosophy" became physics, and physics has only continued to make inroads. Every time there's a leap in physics, it encroaches on these areas that philosophers have carefully sequestered away to themselves, and so then you have this natural resentment on the part of philosophers. This sense that somehow physicists, because they can't spell the word "philosophy," aren't justified in talking about these things, or haven't thought deeply about them---

Is that really a claim that you see often?

Krauss: It is. Philosophy is a field that, unfortunately, reminds me of that old Woody Allen joke, "those that can't do, teach, and those that can't teach, teach gym." And the worst part of philosophy is the philosophy of science; the only people, as far as I can tell, that read work by philosophers of science are other philosophers of science. It has no impact on physics what so ever, and I doubt that other philosophers read it because it's fairly technical. And so it's really hard to understand what justifies it. And so I'd say that this tension occurs because people in philosophy feel threatened, and they have every right to feel threatened, because science progresses and philosophy doesn't.

Whoa! Them's fighting words! If that doesn't start a fight with philosophers, I don't know anything that ever will! :)

You should read the rest of his interview, where he clarified quite a bit more on the central theme of his book. Very entertaining!

Zz.

A Lot Of Something On Nothing

{Don't miss our nomination period to nominate your most attractive physicists}

Looks like the debate originating out of Lawrence Krauss's latest book "A Universe from Nothing" continues. This time, Vic Stenger wrote an opinion piece with counter argument against a recent NY Times OpEd opinion piece by Philosopher David Albert.

The problem here, of course, is the insistence that (i) there has to be something and (ii) that this somehow can stop at God and that's it. Stenger stated this clearly:

Albert is not satisfied that Krauss has answered the fundamental question: Why there is something rather than nothing, that is, being rather than nonbeing? Again, there is a simple retort: Why should nothing, no matter how defined, be the default state of existence rather than something? And, to bring religion into the picture, one could ask: Why is there God rather than nothing? Once theologians assert that there is a God (as opposed to nothing), they can't turn around and ask a cosmologist why there is a universe (as opposed to nothing). They claim God is a necessary entity. But then, why can't a godless multiverse be a necessary entity?

In other words, if one lives by the philosophy that everything must be the result of something, then one must also ask "What is God the result of?" One can't simply shift the rule and stop asking the same question by the time one reaches God. If one argues that the rule doesn't apply to god (i.e. "god state" is the ground state of the system), then why can't cosmologists argue that vacuum state is the ground state of our universe and stop there? The vacuum ground state has more experimental evidence than the god ground state (which has none). So which one would you believe in?

Zz.

You Want Us To "Consider" The Creator Hypothesis?

It seems that there's a delicious fight going on between Rabbi Lurie on Huffington Post, and U. of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne. I will let you read it for yourself.

What I will address is the tired plea from many of these people, and also a common tactic done by crackpots. They want us to spend time and effort to "consider" their position. "Why don't you consider such-and-such?" "Why don't you try to understand my theory?" Yet, all this while, THEY refused to do the same to OUR position. If this Rabbi wants us to ".. at least consider that there could be a Designer... ", then I'd say that it is fair to ask this Rabbi to ".. at least consider that there could be NO Designer"! How about them apples, huh? Has he done it? Has he read AND UNDERSTOOD Hawking's argument? Has he read and understood Lawrence Krauss's argument?

It seems that it is always the scientists that have been asked to "disprove" of something, rather than these people showing ample validity for things they believe in. And do you want to know why? Because the physical characteristics of this "designer" can't be defined and agreed upon by all those who believe in it! There's no science that can consider testing for something that is so shifty and vague! So far, the most common argument for the "apparent" existence of one is in the form of the "god of the gaps". And we all know what happens to such a concept - the "gaps" get smaller as we know more and more about things. The anthropic principle, for example, has a lot of detractors and many arguments against such a thing. Using it as one of your supporting argument (all without knowing the intimate physics of what it is) is a risky practice and could fall right into your face.

So for this Rabbi to insist that we should "consider" such possibility is laughable, because the concept of a "designer" is unfalsifiable and "not even wrong"! If he wants us to consider the possibility, then it is only fair that he consider the opposite possibility. That is, of course, assuming that he has the ability to understand the physics with his "post-graduate level" physics courses, whatever those are.

Zz.

Creationists Clutching At Quotation Straws

Holy Creation! Can creationists be THIS desperate?

Creationists saw Hawking's comments as an admission that God was needed to create the universe. And they were particularly gleeful about a subsequent story in New Scientist Magazine, headlined "Why Scientists Can't Avoid a Creation Event." That piece called the substance of the conference "the worst presents ever," referring to the failure of several theories attempting to explain the origin of the cosmos.

The story set off a round of virtual chest-thumping. One writer said it raised the "thorny question of how to kick-start the cosmos without the hand of a supernatural creator."

Supposedly, this is what Hawking uttered:

A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God.

Really? Just that?

I'll leave it up to you to read the rest of the article, especially the response by Alan Guth. But what I want to address here is this:

1. Do creationists that are so happy with such a statement completely neglected all of Hawking's history and written pieces on his opinion of God, that one single quote somehow negates ALL of that? It is not even physics!

2. If you hang on so closely to his words (as if they are Divine gospel) and somehow believe him this time, how come you dismissed all of his earlier comments on the same topic before this? How are you able to pick and choose which ones to accept and which ones to reject?

This is unbelievably hilarious. Rather than strengthen the case for creationism, it has reduced such idea to a pathetic desperation for any kind of justification and validation.

Zz.

A Universe From Nothing

Lawrence Krauss had a new book out titled "A Universe From Nothing". In it, he makes the same claim as Hawking/Mlodinow did in "The Grand Design", that one can use just the physics that we know of today to show that the universe can spontaneously form out of nothing. He doesn't make use of the exotica that was employed in Hawking/Mlodinow book, and in that sense, this might be easier to digest and understand than that book.

First, you have to clearly define nothing, since it isn't an official scientific term. Scientists talk about empty space as well as a state in which space and time themselves don't exist. Either type of nothing can spontaneously produce stuff.

Empty space, as it turns out, can't be perfectly empty. Every type of matter has an equal and opposite counterpart, and pairs of particles and their anti-particles can spontaneously emerge from empty space and then disappear again.

One consequence of quantum mechanics' uncertainty principle is that a vacuum cannot remain perfectly empty forever. Not only will particles pop in and out of existence without violating the laws of physics, they have to.

I've mentioned Krauss's argument in an early blog post. So obviously, this book is now out. Now, of course, as expected, it doesn't garner as much brouhaha as Hawking's book, even if the argument is as damning (and in my opinion, stronger) than Hawking's. Did those people who made all those noises against "The Grand Design" got tired and ran out of rants?

Zz.

An Atheist In A Church

When I first read this news, my first reaction was "Oh, that Unitarian Church in Pueblo, CO is rather ballsy to invite not only an atheist to present a talk on God and Science, but also to invite someone of Vic Stenger's stature to present that talk". Either this is a trap, or they are really open-minded bunch of people! :)

Well-known atheist author and scientist Vic Stenger will speak at 3 p.m. Sept. 17 at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Pueblo, 110 S. La Crosse Ave.

The title of his program is "God and Science." Admission is free and the event is open to the public.

Stenger's best-known book is the New York Times best-seller, "God: the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist." His most recent book is "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning."

I already mentioned about Stenger's book "God: The Failed Hypothesis". And no, I still haven't managed to read it yet. In any case, I certainly would like to be a fly in that room when this talk is delivered. Anyone by chance planning on going? I'd appreciate a brief report!

Zz.

Hawking Tackles "Curiosity"

The Discovery Channel's "Curiosity" series kick-off episode on Aug. 7 will feature Stephen Hawking's provocative look at the need (or lack of the need) for a creator in the formation of our universe.

"I recently published a book that asked if God created the universe. It caused something of a stir," Hawking, 69, begins on the episode. (The "stir", in fact, was religious leaders denouncing his book's conclusion that God was unnecessary to the universe.) On the show, he takes viewers on a walk through humanity's history of appraising our place in the universe, from Vikings facing down eclipses to the laws of modern cosmology, which explain the origin and structure of universe. "I believe the discovery of these laws is mankind's greatest achievement," he says.

 Of course, this is based on his "Grand Design" book that received quite a bit of publicity. It will be interesting to see how he will sell this idea on TV. Will he offend even more people? We can only hope so! :)

Zz.

Another Bastardization of Quantum Mechanics

I hoping that I would stop finding things like this, but I think that is asking way too much.

This "author" seems to think that quantum physics can explain god. Go figure!

There are several puzzling stuff that he wrote in that article, but I'm going to focus on just a couple:

Energy makes up matter, electrons are a form of matter, so electrons are made up of energy, which means photons. Light being comprised of streams of individual particles then forces electrons to inhabit only specific energy levels when in orbit around the nucleus of an atom. When an electron gives up or receives energy, it is doing so in the form of giving up or receiving photons of light (of which it is comprised). Since photons are seen to come in discrete packets and not continuous streams of energy, then an electron is limited to exchanging energy solely in multiples of these minimal packets of energy; no fractional amounts of a single photon are allowed. When in orbit around the nucleus of an atom, then, if an electron is to move closer to or farther away from the nucleus (i.e., raise or lower its energy), it can do so only in multiples of a photon's energy. This translates into there being very specific energy levels that an electron can obtain in orbit around the nucleus. It's like the steps on a ladder: You can't climb up half a step. The steps would be the energy levels and the spacing between the steps determined by the size of a photon.

Wow! Where do we start? First of all, this is false: "Light being comprised of streams of individual particles then forces electrons to inhabit only specific energy levels when in orbit around the nucleus of an atom". The discrete energy levels of the atom is due to a "central force" of the nucleus and the electron. You solve the Schrodinger equation, and you get all of these discrete energy states. It has nothing to do with the fact that light consists of photons. That's bogus.

It is obvious that he's confused because he went on to say this: "Since photons are seen to come in discrete packets and not continuous streams of energy, then an electron is limited to exchanging energy solely in multiples of these minimal packets of energy; no fractional amounts of a single photon are allowed." He obviously doesn't know that (i) I can cause an exited state in an atom via electron bombardment as well (example: fluorescent lamp), and (ii) the energy level in an atom does not increase by constant amount. The energy difference for hydrogen, for example, is different between n=1 to n=2, n=2 to n=3, n=3 to n=4, etc.. etc. So when he says "if an electron is to move closer to or farther away from the nucleus (i.e., raise or lower its energy), it can do so only in multiples of a photon's energy." it clearly shows that this part of the physics is something he didn't get.

Oh, but it gets better!

This insistence on discrete energy levels dictates how atoms interact with one another, which forms the chemistry of bulk matter -- everything from the stars to ourselves. So it can be seen that the nature of the very littlest of things can have a tremendous impact on everything else, on the nature of our reality. The formation of matter in our reality is, at its essence, the result of brain waves.

 Of course, when someone says that, he or she has no clue on what condensed matter physicists study, and the fact that More Is Different! When atoms conglomerate to form bulk material such as metals, semiconductors, insulators, etc., they no longer behave as individual atoms, but now have a COLLECTIVE behavior. This collective behavior can be very different than the individual behavior. For example, the discrete energy levels may disappear and form BAND of continuous energy states. This is how we get the conduction band in metals, the band gap between conduction and valence bands in semiconductors, etc. The discrete orbits in atoms have been "mixed" or hybridized to form new properties that are not present in atoms. In fact, there are many phenomena that are EMERGENT out of such collective behavior, none of which can be derived simply from knowing the behavior of individual atoms. Examples are magnetism, superconductivity, etc.. etc..

Yup! Chalk this up to another bastardization of quantum mechanics!

Zz.

Scientists Searching For God?!

This is a rather "harmless" and benign article. I'm guessing it is an opinion piece of what we call "God of the Gaps".

Throughout history things that people could not understand were attributed to God. One by one this "God of the Gaps" eroded as science explained phenomena in the context of natural laws.

The laws of nature are, at the most fundamental level, subsets of the laws of physics.

Sir Isaac Newton published the first laws of physics in the late 17th century. His mathematical description of the motion of planets destroyed part of the church doctrine that included the dual universes of Aristotle and the geocentric paradigm of Ptolemy that had existed for nearly two millennia.

Not a whole lot of things to pick on (maybe I'm feeling a bit mellow this morning). But towards the end, there's a rather strange statement.

Today a group of scientists are undertaking a controversial search for God in the twisted logic of quantum mechanics.

I don't think this is true, even in light of Hawking's recent book. To be able to do research on anything, the premise must first be clearly defined. In other words, something must, first of all, be falsifiable for there to be a scientific endeavor on it. Can that criteria be applied to "god"? Considering also that there's so many different versions of that god, and the various "characteristics" of these gods, I don't think that can tackle such a thing.

Still, it is true that science will continue to address the gaps in our knowledge. After all, that is what science does best, and that is what scientists have been hired to do. And if by doing that, we are indirectly searching for the "god of the gaps" (or more like falsifying the god IN the gap), then so be it.

Zz.

Science-Religion Forum

Northwestern Oklahoma State University is hosting its 4th Science and Religion forum this coming weekend.

Well, first of all, I had to go find where "Northwestern Oklahoma State University" is located. It is in Alva, OK, somewhere in the northern part of the state close to the Kansas border. Secondly, it is fascinating that the forum's "....purpose is not a debate between the two topics...." I guess this is sort of like the "Templeton Prize" as a forum.

Obviously, I will be unable to attend this forum, but I would be so appreciative if a reader of this blog who happens to be in the vicinity of Alva, OK, AND plans on attending this forum (what are the odds on that?) could provide a report on this forum.

Zz.

God Created The Big Bang

... well, at least that's according to the Pope. And he should know, shouldn't he? Just like the Pharaohs of Egypt's past, I'm sure he has a direct line to god. I wonder what's the upload/download data rate on that line...

This was the news I read yesterday, and at first, I didn't care to waste my time commenting on something that, really, has no substantial point or evidence to make. The Pope came out with claims that God really is behind the Big Bang, thus preserving the theistic view of our universe.

"The universe is not the result of chance, as some would want to make us believe," Benedict said on the day Christians mark the Epiphany, which is the day the Bible says the three kings reached the site where Jesus was born by following a star.

"Contemplating it (the universe) we are invited to read something profound into it: the wisdom of the creator, the inexhaustible creativity of God," he said in a sermon to some 10,000 people in St Peter's Basilica on the feast day.
.
.
.
Atheists say that science can prove that God does not exist, but the pope said that some scientific theories were "mind limiting" because "they only arrive at a certain point and do not manage to explain the ultimate sense of reality."

He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the universe and humans left many questions unanswered.

"In the beauty of the world, in its mystery, in its greatness and in its rationality ... we can only let ourselves be guided toward God, creator of heaven and earth," he said in his sermon.

Now, c'mon! Anyone with some degree of scientific background can see plenty of holes in such flimsy argument.

1. This is nothing more than God-of-the-Gaps. Because science can't come up with any idea for something, then that shows God is at work. Of course, one only needs to be aware of history of our civilization to realize that such "gaps" have been shrinking and shrinking. There's nothing to indicate that they will not continue to shrink. So using that argument actually is a damning point against the existence of god.

2. Notice that nowhere in here is any mention of "evidence" to support such statement. Maybe that's why one can get away with saying such a thing - it is not even false! Unfalsifiable statements really are a waste of time, because it is an argument based on a matter of TASTES. The Pope wants you to accept what he says because he likes the color red.

3. Whose god are we talking about here? When you claim something not based on evidence, but based on Tastes, then that taste can differ from one person to another. While it is find and dandy to claim that god is behind such creation, different religions have different versions of such god. There is no way to distinguish one version versus another to see which one is valid.

None of what I've said above is new. I've said different versions of each of the points above in previous blog entries. But what sparked me to stop ignoring this news article is that MSBC decided to do a poll, yes folks, A POLL, of the public (which we all know are very scientifically literate {I'm kidding here}) to see if they agree with the Pope! As of the writing of this blog entry, the option for "There is no God and the Big Bang was probably responsible for all creation." is leading by 10% ahead of "I agree with the Pope. If there was a Big Bang, it was God's work." I wonder if Las Vegas is putting any odds on this one.

MSNBC should also show side-by-side with this poll the latest NSF survey on scientific literacy of the US public. I think that should put this survey in some perspective.

Hey, maybe *I* should start a survey on something similar! Y'know, ask something substantially more important than the last survey that I did, which was the highly shallow and superficial contest on the most attractive physicists.

Naaaah! That requires too much work and too much thinking.

Zz.

Science Versus Religion Battle in Israel

This is a very different battle between science and religion in Israel. If you think the battle here in the US is "complicated", wait till you read about the battle there!

So the battle in Israel between advocates of science and advocates of Torah, surprisingly ends up to be not about an angry disagreement, but a profound agreement. Both sides agree that science education offers a road from being a Talmud scholar living on the dole who's never heard of Madam Curie to being an SUV-driving systems analyst who can't get enough of Lady Gaga.

All they disagree about is whether this is a road worth traveling.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Zz.