Thoughts on the philosophy of science.

According to John Gribbin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gribbin the era of the scientific age proper took root from the 16th century.

Up until that time philosophy was regarded as science but thereafter they tended to go their separate ways. But the ancients determined long before that many things lie outside physics so they coined the Greek term meta- physics (translated as outside of physics) for discussions reliant on intuition, reasoning and mysticism. There was no burden to determine truth in the scientific way we consider appropriate in modernity.

Hence the ancient pre Hellenic Greek philosophers concluded that there can only be divine truths that are unchangeable and unknowable by humanity. They used metaphor and myth to make sense of their existence. 

This post seeks to talk about the philosophy of science to invite discussions as to how far we should go in placing our faith in science and whether or not meta - physics remains relevant. 

A pivotal figure ushering in the scientific age

Thomas Bacon introduced the inductive methodology to scientific theory. Previously scientific analysis was limited to the purely deductive mode of reasoning. 

Bacon's approach as the first empiricist might be viewed as a bottom up approach. Think of it as analogous to busy bee observations peering at the activity within the hive to validate a scientific theory pertinent to the phenomenon observed. Hence science expanded under the heading of empiricism. He also maintained some truths as a matter of reason (logical analysis and proof) and others belong to faith and so we can embrace the concept of double truth.  

Bacon also introduced the idea of the Idols of the Tribe, Cave. Marketplace and Theatre. 

Moving into the modern era

The philosophy of science became increasingly involved as to how we see the phenomenal world and the reasoning as to understand it and or justify a particular view. Fields such as psychology and the social sciences increasingly came to rely on scientifically based underpinnings.

But firstly one needs to define the current terms used.   

Theory 

The logical progression of a statement representing a particular view of a subject matter or related phenomenon. Examples are the origins of a particular type of artistic movement or media studies in terms of how it applies in history e.g. Cubism , the body of knowledge that applies to stresses in engineering - the construction of buildings and bridges and so on. In the modern era many theories provide only a skeleton outline whilst others lack any credibility. 

Laws, Hypotheses and Scientism 

Recurring patterns in nature have formed the basis of natural laws which have become absorbed into a scientific law which then provides an explanation-  such as the laws of thermodynamics. 

Hypotheses comprise a logical and feasible explanation but lack the evidentiary validation involving observations and testing. Once the hypothesis can be validated it can be considered a scientific theory.  

During the 19th and 20th centuries, the so-called 'logical positivists', posited science as the only true system of knowledge and regarded metaphysics as redundant since it was unable to be verified.  

Scientific theory 

Hence the generally accepted distinction is it is more carefully constructed and specific to the subject matter. Examples might include the theory on the origins of the species, the behaviours of atomic and subatomic particles or specific brain disorders and so on. For a scientific theory to be acceptable it must be verifiable by observations. But certain philosophers thought it must be more demanding.  

Philosopher Karl Popper (1902-1994) and Physicist Lee Smollin (1955) propose further qualification.   

Popper proposed one should exclude those theories which are irrefutable- e.g. where empirical evidence can’t be refuted. That rules out psychoanalysis and irrefutable empirical data confined to a specific analysis.

His basis was that logically these truths are confined to the data examined and not supportive of an overall theory.

Lee Smolin favoured virtuosity- ‘The Trouble with Physics’, for fundamental physics. 

For Smolin a theory must be both capable of being proven experimentally and also make a new prediction, to provide an answer that disproves the old theory, whilst ensuring the new theory is verifiable. 

Determining the Truth - as pragmatically seen from different contexts.

The question that arises is whether or not it is possible for two opposing views to be true, given they are seen or talked about in different contexts. Pragmatically can we revert to a truth based on the premise a truthful proposition is one whose outcomes can be demonstrated to be so (true) over time within a designated context.

Provisional truths are also universal truths  

For instance the general theory of relativity may one day be proven to be flawed if it was found that objects can routinely exceed the speed of light.

Similarly Darwin’s theory of evolution, doesn’t correlate to rapid cellular development given the immense complexity arising from a set of DNA instructions.   

Furthermore species adaptations can rapidly occur. By way of example Okanee salmon spawning in Canada - this species used to reach the ocean in their life cycle (and were huge), but for decades dams have prevented that - they now live their lives in Kootenay Lake and spawn to their birth-streams in the third year of life - turning from silver to the red and green in a soon-to-spawn-and-die fashion.

In economics, their elegant theories are routinely hijacked by our non-rational human responses.    

In a pure programming experiment physicist Stephen Wolfram- “A New Kind of Science and creator of Mathematica’, carried out thousands of experiments to prove creative patterns kept evolving from simple instructions, only possible in modernity given the use of very powerful computers. Programs replicated simple instructions (cellular data as he called it) which continued to evolve in a changing creative pattern when you would expect to see the same pattern repeated. Those changing patterns continued on over billions of cellular data and gave appearances of plants and other life forms even though the basic instructions remained were repeated.    

The necessity to hold provisional truths to be true to obtain the greatest good

Whilst one acknowledges the provisional nature of scientific truth those engaged won’t be effective unless the supporting empirical evidence is acted upon. For instance a good psychologist has to believe in the empirical data underpinning his profession if he or she is to be positively helpful towards patients just as the same principles apply to most professions. The same principle applies to most professions reliant on validated empirical data. 

Hence, notwithstanding the provisional nature of these truths, they are reliable enough not to invite hesitation and to feel comfortable to try alternatives if one type of treatment is unsuccessful. As far as medical science is concerned you treat the patient first and apply the treatment as a secondary process. This sees medical science more of an art than a science in practice.    

But when it comes down to the more serious medical issues nothing beats hard-nosed science as opposed to naturalism.

Modern day changes in the emphasis of philosophy

Given the undeniable success of modern day sciences beginning with Bacon it is hardly surprising that both a materialistic and fact dependent philosophical movement began to place emphasis on logic. Hence logical form and essences took over in philosophy.  In the form of privileged representations.

So, the use of intuition and concepts have fallen by the wayside in philosophy. 

The modern day appeal of science to reject metaphysics is, amongst other things, principally due to a deemed lack of self-correcting aspect of science. That may be more of a perception than a reality.  

In defence of Meta –physics   

In defending metaphysics one might turn for inspiration to the pre Hellenic Greeks ( like Nietzsche ) who proposed that only the GODs possessed divine truth- considered both unchangeable and unknowable.  From a Theistic perspective one might also believe only absolute Truth with capital T is the province of GOD.  

So that earthly truth could only be tied to mystical experiences and in the interpretations of myths and in storytelling- a feeling to be in harmony with GOD(s) or not evident in your emotions. I think there is an argument to say our ever increasing creative memories remain dependent on the narrative that defines our inescapable sense of self.   

The search for meaning and our curiosity continues to underpin modern day existence, just as we still relish those stories we tell each other to help make sense of our existence. 

Conclusion  

Ultimately science is aiming to find the truth and there are many that believe our faith is well foundered in the evidence based criteria and there is no room for any other methodology signalling the death of meta-physics.     

Double Truth

It is true that seemingly valid religious truth arising from revelation might differ from a philosophical perspective based on reason (as separate sources of knowledge)  to provide contradictory truths without detriment to either.

In other words the question is:  Are some truths a matter of reason (logical analysis and proof) and others of faith? Or should all truths be subject to the same standard. 

Here is my response and your answer would be most welcome.

Truth as seen in different contexts.  

I think it is possible for two opposing views to be true, given they are seen or talked about in different contexts.  In other words there is a relativity to truth depending on the context.

Perceptions better served by a pragmatic truth concept  

In relation to their being some truths more dependent on analysis and proof versus one taken on faith  I think that’s more a matter of one’s perception, as the dividing line between the secular versus spiritual (faith) is blurred. 

Rather, my suggestion is to revert to a pragmatic truth based on the premise a truthful proposition is one whose outcomes can be demonstrated to be so (true ) over time within a designated context.

The problem with the idea of a double truth proposition

So that, as I see it, the problem with that idea of a double truth  (which proposes we separate scientific truth from revelation as in faith ) is to ignore Truths relativity. That is a truth with a small t if you will and not a large T for absolute truth that doesn’t exist. Of course there are many things we are entitled to take for granted that are true because we have faith in the underlying science that has proven them to be true to become integral to our existence.. 

Provisional Truths apply universally 

The scientist holds true to provisional truths, trusting in the works of those whom he has come to rely upon until such time as those propositions can be proven to be contrary to previously held beliefs. In a religious sense one might argue its faith based premise involves a leap of faith unconnected to rational thinking but it is nevertheless only sustained if outcomes can be demonstrated to be true over periods of time. Similarly such beliefs are only provisional as our beliefs will change over our lifetime or at the very least into the next generation, just as they do for society, to rediscover or renounce what is believed to be the truth by each subsequent generation.

All truths must be subject to the same standard.  

The same rigors of assessment need to apply equally to both although the scientific method is obviously more tangibly evident as in utilizing a rigorous analysis reliant on observation to provisionally verify a theory. But Science and the scientific methodology to ascertain the truth and religion in its quest for the truth are the tools for philosophers and not their masters. 

Neoplatonism and Infinity

For anyone interested in diving more deeply into the fascinating thought world of Neoplatonism this link as per below provides a comprehensive insight. The inspiration for Neoplatonism and its correlation to Hinduism, may have arisen from visits by the ancient Greeks who you may recall were a seafaring and mercantile nation. But maybe these ideas just arose independently. Neoplatonism died out in the 7th century as the ecclesiastical scholarly advancements reverted to Muslim scholars (enhanced by translation to Latin of the works of Aristotle) before it’s returned to its more fundamental roots. But Neoplatonism returned in the early part of the 20th century emergent in Theosophy.https://theosophicalsociety.org.au/

But just as today's modern day scholars may become smitten with Neoplatonism so can one if you are prepared to delve deeply into those ancient abstract ideas, that to my mind represents an amazingly modern day way of thinking relating to the concept of the Great Chain of Being. Their ideas acknowledge the illusion of time. My question is, will we in time be able to ask Dr Albert Einstein what he thinks about it ?  

Here is a quote from him that was included in a letter to the family following the death of Michael Besso included in the book ‘Disturbing the Universe” by Freeman Dyson. Einstein, said: Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me.

That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.

https://infinityonline.valzorex.com/neoplatonic.html   

An Introduction to stoicism

 Introduction  

Stoicism arose as ancient philosophy to influence the Greco - Roman world, whose essential elements nevertheless remain relevant to us today. The Stoics provide a recipe for living the right way by seeking wisdom and its application to live a virtuous life embracing justice, courage and temperance. Christianity was to adopt aspects in the first few centuries arising principally from the many journeys of the apostle St Paul and his subsequent followers.  

St Paul as a scholar (being part of a wealthy influential Roman family and taught by eminent scholars) was also a Roman citizen. So he was very well versed in philosophy and engaged in discussions with the stoic philosophers of Athens and their followers as is evidenced in references in the Acts of the Apostles as is contained in Luke’s Gospel in chapter 17, written circa 50 AD. 

Many became followers of St. Paul’s, whilst others found the idea of the merging of Greek rationally with Hebrew mysticism in respect to Paul’s oft repeated phrase of ‘being in Christ’ a source of constant confusion.  

St. Paul found common ground with the stoics was in relation to the idea of freedom from the passions. 

But stoicism also continued to influence western philosophy throughout the Ages where aspects were refined or rejected such as Hegel’s idea they placed too much emphasis on rational inward thinking to isolate one from the reality of social life. In modernity it has provided food for thought in lessons for coping with the pressures of daily living. 

For instance there is the public face of face book stoic philosophical groups (members numbering in the hundreds of thousands )talking about how to employ those practices to enhance daily living.   

It is also claimed that elements of the processes adopted by AA have their roots in stoic philosophy incorporating ideas of "knowing "derived from the external world. 

An admirer and a critic was Frederick Nietzsche who embraced the idea of love of fate even further but was critical of their dissent in the role of the emotions.

The idea in stoicism of a GOD, imminent throughout the universe, influenced Spinoza’s philosophy and his pantheism (God is in everything) which was immensely inspirational to Einstein. 

In modernity stoicism is experiencing a minor renaissance in numerous articles demonstrating its application to daily living. 

Note stoicism is not the same as the general dictionary interpretations associated purely with resilience. 

 

Early stoic philosophy 

Zeno of Citium (305 BC) who resided in what is present day Cyprus, was influenced by the teaching of Socrates and employed the same dialectic method. Broadly, in attempting to sum up its earliest ideas it can be described as having some similarities to eastern religions in respect to the acknowledgment of a unified rational cosmic force to accept one’s fate and embrace a calm mind so that one can be in harmony with it and overcome adversity. 

The work has been transmitted down the ages, principally through the works of Cicero and that of Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. Its appeal stems from the fact it purports to underpin a way of life - following on from the idea of living the good life by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. 

There are different schools of thought in stoicism but the  underlying thematic is the aim to distinguish between what they considered as ethically binding values and those that are neutral which in turn informs you as to how to take responsibility for living the good life. In other words, what you can change and therefore to concentrate your efforts and not worry about things outside of your control.

 

Epictetus

Epicitus’s was a slave and treated as a non-human tool which left him lame and in ill health, unable to physically enjoy his eventual freedom from slavery. He talked about overcoming pain and suffering by accepting life and realizing serenity. In other words, to gain control of your emotions so they don’t overwhelm you. He believed in a rational GOD presiding over a deterministic universe whose rationally was shared with humanity who can live in the world according to GOD'S will as that will was similarly echoed in the will of nature.

 

Notes from: John Anthony Crook, Professor of Ancient History, University of Notes from Cambridge, 1979–84. Author of Law and Life of Rome. From notes by G. Eraclides- Darabin U3A Inc 

 

Marcus Aurelius

Roman Emperor (AD 161–180), best known for his Meditations on Stoic philosophy. Marcus Aurelius has symbolized for many generations in the West the Golden Age of the Roman Empire. A more intimate contact with the thoughts pursued by Marcus, can be acquired by reading the Meditations. To what extent he intended them for eyes other than his own is uncertain; they are fragmentary notes, discursive and epigrammatic by turn, of his reflections in the midst of campaigning and

administration. In a way, it seems, he wrote them to nerve himself for his daunting responsibilities. Strikingly, though they comprise the innermost thoughts of a Roman, the Meditations were written in Greek—to such an extent had the union of these cultures become a reality. Marcus was forever proposing to himself unattainable goals of conduct, forever contemplating the triviality, brutishness, and transience of the physical world and of man in general and himself in particular; otherworldly, yet believing in no other world, he was therefore tied to duty and service with no hope, even of everlasting fame, to sustain him.

 

Stoicism and Neoplatonism resource notes by G. Eraclides

The Meditations, the thoughts of a philosopher-king, have been considered by many generations one of the great books of all times. Though they were Marcus' own thoughts, they were not original. They are basically the moral tenets of Stoicism, learned from Epictetus: the cosmos is a unity governed by an intelligence, and the human soul is a part of that divine intelligence and can therefore stand, if naked and alone, at least pure and undefiled, amidst chaos and futility. One or two of Marcus' ideas, diverged from Stoic philosophy and approached the Platonism that was itself then turning into the Neoplatonism, into which

all pagan philosophies, except Epicureanism, were destined to merge. But he did not deviate so far as to accept the comfort of any kind of survival after death. Marcus was a statesman, perhaps, but one of no great calibre; nor was he really a sage. In general, he is a historically overrated figure, presiding in a bewildered way over an empire beneath the gilt of which there already lay many a decaying patch. But his personal nobility and dedication survive the most remorseless scrutiny;

He counted the cost obsessively, but he did not shrink from paying it. Selected Quotes from Marcus Aurelius: "You have power over your mind - not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength." ~ Marcus Aurelius

"When you arise in the morning, think of what a precious privilege it is to be alive - to breathe, to think, to enjoy, to love." ~ Marcus Aurelius

"The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts." ~ Marcus Aurelius

"Think of all the years passed by in which you said to yourself "I'll do it tomorrow," and how the gods have again and again granted you periods of grace of which you have not availed yourself. It is time to realize that you are a member of the Universe that you are born of Nature itself and to know that a limit has been set to your time. Use every moment wisely, to perceive your inner refulgence, or 'twill be gone and nevermore within your reach." ~ Marcus Aurelius

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." ~ Marcus Aurelius

"The things you think about determine the quality of your mind. Your soul takes on the colour of your thoughts." ~ Marcus Aurelius

 

Stoic philosophy - what was believed - with my responses? 

 

Question: The rational universe is a unity which imbues a (Logos) which are intelligible ideas on how to live. 

My Response 

From the Christian perspective I believe one can separate the universe from a creator GOD, so that whilst observing a largely deterministic outcome of the Universe with possibly divine laws, it’s not a given one can easily glean intelligible ideas.

Rather, one can exercise introspection and adopt a philosophy that supports a meaningful calm way of life without necessarily holding true to the idea of a rational universe as in GOD. The gift of life and our relative freedom to transcend nature means we live in a kind of mystery that engenders a sense of wonderment and reverence rather than be tied to the idea of a duty from a cosmic universe. 

2. Question: Knowing how this reality functions as a whole, will help us understand how individual things, people, ought to act.

My Response

As previously stated I am wary of holding true to a rational universe but I do believe studying the stoic ideals can help one think about differentiating between things one can change versus those beyond our powers.  

3. Question

Human beings must thus abide and live, by the rational will (Logos) of reality, conform to the divine laws of nature/reality. 

My Response

As above

 4. Question

Each human being must accept (or learn to accept or master) their rightful place in the overall scheme of things and carry out their ordained (necessary) purpose.

My Response 

I think there is merit in ascertaining what you believe to be your purpose or commitment in life. However I do think one has to be careful not to adopt a slave mentality as was rallied against by Frederick Nietzche and risk adopting abstract values implicit in the idea ascertaining a so called ordained (necessary) purpose. Herein I also believe lies the dangers of Calvinism and the perils of holding views on predestination. The so-called elect which was fervently rejected by the existentialists.  

5 Question

Doing your duty is critical and thus the most rational thing to do; it means carrying out the responsibility necessitated for you by the cosmic intelligence, (or world soul, God, providence).

My Response 

As above.  

6. Question

Virtue is knowledge. You cannot be virtuous in ignorance.

My Response 

Knowledge and virtue are two different things. Certainly the idea of studying the virtues can assist one in leading an ethical life but that doesn’t mean those armed with such information will then decide to lead a virtuous life.     

7. Question

Living virtuously is the ultimate objective of life, the ultimate good; the cardinal virtues thus ends  in themselves (reason, courage, justice, self-discipline or self-control).

My Response

Living the good life as they say has many connotations but ultimately I think it can be argued it involves the virtues. However, the question of morals and how to live is also a moving feast. Our ideas of what is moral has changed as we gain more knowledge and the application of ethics as a moral compass I believe has some merit. It is not nearly as clear cut as the stoic philosophers proposed although many aspects as in normative ethics are straightforward as to be a matter of common sense. 

8. Question

Philosophy undertaken properly will lead you to the virtuous life.

My Response 

Not necessarily but it is bound to help. There are offshoots to apply in every field of endeavour involving the expanded narrative associated with philosophy.    

9. Question

If you can attain the virtuous life for yourself, then you will (or can) achieve a tranquil state of body and mind, free from the anxieties that buffet human existence; you ought to aim for this detached state of being, free of the pull of extreme emotions such as joy or grief, pain or pleasure etc... which psychologically can destroy you or lead you astray from the rational path.

My Response 

More a question of balance not to be overly consumed with the emotions which tell us the truth about how we feel but not always the truth.

10. Question

Consistent with the virtuous life is the aim to be self-sufficient, independent of others for your physical and mental needs.

11. Question Each person possesses a part of the eternal divine reason (Logos).

12. Question.  All human beings are part of (or should see themselves as) a cooperating, rational community carrying out the obligation to fulfil the grand design of reality, the rational Logos.

My Responses – Herein stoicism takes on a pragmatic leap of faith whereas I see our life mystery and a sense of wonder with the ability at times to transcend nature.    

13. Question -Ethical action (part of living virtuously) transcends race, gender, age, class or other particular human, tribal characteristics. It is a transcending, rational system.

My Response 

Ethics as in the nature of a moral compass is subjective and has the potential to achieve such outcomes which are nevertheless at times subjective.

14. Question Everything is preordained (predestined, fated).

My Response 

Mostly but there is a degree of freedom since I believe we can transcend nature.  

 

Mystery of the elusive self

 Meaning of life 

As far as the meaning of life is concerned, from my perspective it's always been aligned to the necessity to create your own, since I believe it's inextricably tied to your personal philosophy, whether you chose to formalise it or not. 

As far as our relationship is concerned (self) in my view the universe is not GOD, nor do I believe in pantheism or naturalism. Rather, surely, if we are to take modern day science seriously then, I believe, one has to accept the idea that the Universe is some sort of chance creation – and for those of religious view, one that cannot exist without GOD. Although it exists independent of GOD's it responds with encouragement from a creator in terms of the allegory of a child to its loving parents. Camus was the only existential philosopher to claim existence or life was absurd, although Sartre saw merit in his philosophy to respond positively to living a meaningful created life in accepting such a starting reference point.   

The problem of time and the contradiction of the freedom (free will) inherent in quantum theory versus the general theory of relativity and determinism.     

On the other hand, Einstein, as a deeply religious man, found himself struggling with the obvious contradiction between quantum mechanics and his general theory of relativity so he invented his discredited theory involving a cosmological constant as a solution. In effect to appease his religious beliefs and overrule his own science contained in his general theory of relativity.

In another frame we have the inconsistency of time as we experience it. As one is aware there is no such thing as time in physics- but only space time: the amalgam of time plus motion. But as Raymond Tallis points out, from our personal experience, we always experience time as a never ending series of NOW's. This aspect troubled Einstein as well as the freedom inherent in Quantum mechanics. These realities contradicted his idea of determinism as in pantheism which suggests GOD is a controlling entity in everything.

In other words his idea of a deterministic world, GOD does not play dice with the universe.     

He became desperate to invent a solution. But his idea of a smoothing effect applicable to his so called cosmological constant was what he hoped existed but has never been detected and today is widely discredited.

Modern day science has no answer to this continuing mystery with all sorts of hypotheses suggested as solutions involving string theory and other world dimensions attempting to resolve the mystery. So science is in crisis, just as analytical philosophy and epistemology tend to be discarded as authorities in themselves within postmodernity. But they remain very useful tools to support a more comprehensive narrative process about any topic and more particularly in how to find a more meaningful life in the tradition of the great philosophers.  One could argue philosophy, given a more humble approach to embrace the expanded narrative, is even more relevant today and continues to make slow progress. 

Raymond Tallis suggests human beings move in and out of nature so that we have the ability to transcend its determinism. 

Another topic for discussions: is s philosophy making any progress?

Introduction

Until fairly recently western philosophy was regarded as science and the term metaphysics from the Greeks introduced for discussion on those aspects that lie outside of physics. 

So in the early period philosophy and science both played out on the same hymnal sheet to demonstrate progress much more easily than today. Herein one sees advances in science but in philosophy in many writer’s minds (such as the late Stephen Hawking) philosophy is claimed to have lost its relevance and not kept up to date with the advances in science.  

Postmodern philosophy.

To add to this perception, beginning with the likes of the late Richard Rorty ( Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature ) it has been argued that philosophy needs to cast aside its undue emphasis on epistemology (philosophy can’t claim specialised knowledge) and analytical philosophy (likewise nothing special can be claimed relating to philosophy) in favour of just the broad narrative. 

The future of philosophy  

The future progress is going to slow but it’s continuing in my view as opposed to saying it’s stagnated. 

Just as the enlightenment philosophers may have got a bit carried away with the idea they could view a human being as if looking outside of the world we inhabit, so the post modernisation may also want to dismiss some of the gems from the past. E.g. rescuing the self - I remain a Kierkegaardian and Kierkegaard’s existentialism to me continues to change the lives of some that study it - progress in rediscovered attributes relevant today. Likewise Stephen Hawking’s conceited view eventually science would discover a world view for everything inclusive of a quantum general theory of relativity that would uncover the mystery of quantum mechanics has not materialised. At least Hawking did later withdraw his claim.

So that, if anything, in relation to reality, science remains at the crossroads rooted in mystery. It must turn to metaphysics if we are to form philosophies that help make sense of our life.       

So I think the sense of wonder will always drive philosophical inquiry forward as I would call that progress.

 

Ballina & Byron Bay

 

We have just returned from staying in Ballina prior to attending Anne's nieces wedding (Charlotte) which was finally held in Byron Bay after 2 prior covid forced cancellations.

The weather for the entire time was fine and sunny and we were able to catch up for lunch in delightful venues with both Anne's brother Mark and his wife Shayne and sister Julie and partner Dianne.  

The wedding was a splendid affair for just the family of about 40 and was held at a large holiday home abutting the ocean with magnificent views that the picture below does not do justice to. 

Whilst at Ballina I visited the Maritime Museum which houses one of the 3 original rafts that in 1973 sailed from Ecuador to Ballina - a transpacific crossing of 14,000 km which is the longest journey by a raft ever completed. If you are interested in reading more about this feat, its purpose and the 12 men involved click on the links. 

 https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/the-search-for-a-missing-salvador-dali-work-in-ballina-20130805-2r9a1.html

https://www.sea.museum/2020/07/16/las-balsas-the-worlds-longest-raft-journey

Andre Rieu, "Barcarolle"

The Open Door Singers are currently learning this beautiful piece of music in tenor, soprano, alto and bass parts and with english words.