The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (24 page)

Figure 2a

We simulated normalized Pirate-induced upwelling (in upwelling Pirate units, or upu) over the three upwelling categories described above. An ICR event produces 1 upu. IVIs produce a variable number of upu. We used a Maxwellian with an average of 1,000 upu. It should be noted that IVI events can produce multiple ICRs. ATO produces continuous
upwelling, based on the local Pirate density and oceanic biotic activity. The world average ATO is about 0.5 upu/day.

Figure 2b

We averaged Pirate activity from 1605 to 2005 for each ocean grid cell. While recent Pirate activity is weak and concentrated off the Somali coast (BBC, 2005), historically Piracy has been concentrated in the Caribbean (Bruckheimer, 2003). This is consistent with our model results, which produce significant Pirate-induced upwelling in the Atlantic basin (
Figure 2b
).

We have demonstrated that Pirate activity produces upwelling. It is thus obvious that a decreasing Pirate population will result in less oceanic upwelling, especially in the Atlantic basin.

As evidenced by the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons, decreased upwelling results in increased SSTs and more intense tropical cyclones. Our PARROT model predicts that if the downward trend in Piracy continues, tropical cyclones will intensify. The hurricane season may also lengthen due to increased SST.

The PARROT model has not been experimentally verified. Therefore, we have predicted the upwelling and global impact resulting from a single ICR event. While the effects of an ICR event depend on the mass of the ejectee, our model predicts a reduction of roughly 10 percent in the number of named tropical storms in the Atlantic basin in the 2006 season as a result of a relatively small ICR event off the northern Puerto Rican coast between March 9 and March 13, 2006.

We intend to experimentally verify PARROT by producing such an ICR event. At least one of the authors of this paper will be present for the experiment, to measure the exact upu value of the event.

We have demonstrated that decreased Piracy contributes to increased tropical cyclone intensity. The only viable solution is to increase Pirate
activity, especially in the Atlantic basin. We suggest that ICRs and ATO are preferable to IVIs, because they offer finer control of upwelling effects.

We thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for inspiring this work and Robert Henderson for advocating Piracy to fight global climate change.

Archimedes (of Syracuse). c. 250 b.c.e.
On Floating Bodies
. Syracuse, Greece.

Bligh, W. 1789.
Log of the H.M.S. Bounty
. Royal Navy, London, UK.

British Broadcasting Corporation. Nov. 25, 2005. “US Firm to Fight Somali Pirates.” London, UK.

Bruckheimer, J. 2003.
Pirates of the Caribbean
. Disney Enterprises, Orlando, Fla., USA.

Emanuel, K. A. 1987. “The Dependence of Hurricane Intensity on Climate.”
Nature
, 326, 483–485.

———. 2005. “Increasing Destructiveness of Tropical Cyclones over the Past Thirty Years.”
Nature
, 436, 686–688.

Haqq-Misra, J. D., et al. 2006.
A Predictive Ocean Circulation Model
. In press.

Henderson, R. 2006.
The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
. Villard, New York.

Lighthill, J., et al. 1994. “Tropical Cyclones and Global Climate Change.”
BAMS
, 75, 2147–2157.

Stevenson, R. L. 1883.
Treasure Island
. Cassell &Co., London, UK.

To begin, let us look at the forms of life we can see on this planet. They all exhibit a certain degree of complexity that is not found in nonliving matter. A dog is much more complex than a rock. To express this, we can use the concept of Kolgoromov complexity. Living things possess high Kolgoromov complexity, because their DNA is decidedly uncompressible. As an example, consider the string of bits 10101010. This string has very low Kolgoromov complexity because it can be compressed to “write 10 four times.” On the other hand, the string 0100101 is uncompressible in the same sense that DNA is. It has very high Kolgoromov complexity. That string was generated by me tapping the “0” and “1” keys on my keyboard.

If I had a keyboard with only ACGT, I could similarly write random DNA. If we put that DNA into a cell, and tried to make a living organism out of it, I very much doubt we would get anything living, much less good at living. Therefore, the uncompressible complexity we observe in living things is also nonrandom. It has been created for a purpose: the purpose of building living things.

So, if the DNA has been created, then there must be a creator. Some choose to posit the Christian God, other choose intelligent aliens with amazing technology. The problem is that both of these choices also must have extremely high Kolgoromov complexity. My chances of randomly hammering out the code to a divine being on my four-key keyboard are even less than that of coming up with a living animal. These are really just restatements of the same problem; we still don’t know where the complexity came from. We could posit an endless string of gods each of whom created the one before it, thus accounting for the extremely high complexity of a god. However, this string just results in higher and higher degrees of complexity and gets us nowhere. What we need is a way to get high complexity from low complexity.

If you’ll indulge me a brief tangent, I would like to discuss the properties
of spaghetti. Imagine a box of uncooked spaghetti. It’s essentially a series of straight lines. A box of two hundred pieces of spaghetti has very low Kolgoromov complexity. You could easily compress the data contained in those two hundred pieces. Now imagine a plate of cooked spaghetti, complete with sauce and, if you like, meatballs. Imagine the process of untangling this mass. It would take hours to take each individual piece of spaghetti, clean off the sauce, and put it in its own separate place and pick out the meatballs. This plate of spaghetti, all tangled up and covered with delicious sauce has very high complexity. Spaghetti has the astounding property of being able to go from very low to very high complexity.

Now, let’s return to our search for a creator. Clearly gods and super-intelligent aliens don’t help us in our problem. A spaghetti god, however, could. It is reasonable that something of low complexity might come into existence on its own. We don’t look at a rock in the woods and feel the need for a designer. So, low-complexity, uncooked spaghetti does not require a creator, it is quite capable of arising through random, natural processes. Then, when cooked via the infusion of energy, it can come to have a high complexity. Consider the difference between uncooked and slightly cooked spaghetti. Slightly cooked spaghetti has slightly higher complexity than uncooked. There is a continuous spectrum from low to high as the spaghetti is cooked. The more the spaghetti is cooked, the more energy has been infused. In order to create a Flying Spaghetti Monster capable of creating life, which would have an extremely high level of complexity, we would need an extremely high amount of energy to do the cooking.

There is only one place where we might find the required amount of energy: the universe immediately following the Big Bang. Temperatures of 100 billion degrees Kelvin would certainly be sufficient to generate the high Kolgoromov complexity of spaghetti with the power to create life.

Thus, we have found a solution to the question of where the Kolgoromov complexity of life comes from. Uncooked spaghetti arose naturally (quite possibly because of its low Kolgoromov complexity) during
the first instants of the universe. It was then cooked by the extremely high temperatures, causing it to rapidly gain complexity to the point of being able to create life. Further increases in complexity granted it the ability to fly, and monster status.

There will likely be some neo-Darwinian, Ivy League, science elitist who will come up with some other object that can rise in complexity when cooked. In order to prove that the true form of the creator is that of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, I will employ a version of the famed cosmological argument:

1. You don’t need a reason to enjoy spaghetti.
   

2. Everything (else) has a cause.
   

3. Nothing can cause itself.
   

4. Everything is caused by another thing.
   

5. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
   

6. There must be a first cause.
   

7. The first cause had no cause.
   

8. Spaghetti is the only thing that can have no cause, thus must be the first cause.
   

QED, bitches.

A classic argument for the existence of god is known as the ontological argument (henceforth OA). This argument was developed by Saint Anselm in the eleventh century, but has been greatly improved upon in the ensuing years. The argument, in a nutshell, is that a perfect being must necessarily exist. It is part of the very nature of a perfect being to be real—all beings that do not exist are by definition imperfect. This is because it is better to exist than to not exist (that is, to exist brings you closer to perfection). So if we can merely conceive of a perfect being, then it must, on pain of contradiction, be real.

In a popular formulation of the OA, we are asked to imagine a being of which no greater can be conceived. One might motivate this process by creating a list of perfections. Reasonably, such a list would include omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, being the creator of all of reality, and so on. We are then asked to compare this list with one in which the characteristic of “actual existence” has been added. Obviously the second list describes a more perfect being. It is clear then that the first list was not a description of a being
of which no greater can be conceived
. No matter what characteristics we have imagined, actual existence would be an improvement. Hence whatever characteristics we attribute to our perfect being, existence must be one of them.

While there have been many criticisms of the OA, from Kantian metaphysics to modern quantificational logic, we believe all such challenges can be answered. However, we do not have time to review the nuances of this debate. For more detailed information, please see
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/
.

Traditionally it has been argued (to be frank, it has generally only been assumed) that the necessarily existent perfect being fits comfortably into the Judeo-Christian mold. Now surely any perfect being has the characteristics listed above: it is omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent,
and the creator of all reality. Here we have no quarrel with tradition. However, we will soon see that there are several other characteristics that have been overlooked (or suppressed) by philosophers and theologians during the last millennium. We propose that a careful review of the reasoning behind the OA will indicate that rather than the god of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the OA indicates the existence of a mass of starchy substance capable of gravity resistance. Such a being must necessarily be, and so all denials of its existence involve blatant logical contradiction.

We will begin our argument with an experience most people can share. When a young person moves away from home and goes to college, he finds himself confronted for the first time with the task of providing himself with the necessities of life. For many a college freshman, this proves a nearly unsurmountable task. While one can survive without paying the gas, electric, and phone bills, all living things require sustenance in order to continue to live. And what is the staple diet of the impoverished student? Ramen noodles, macaroni and cheese, and spaghetti. But it is not merely college students in first-world nations who subsist on this food. The staple diet of a large portion of humanity is starchy noodles. The unique properties of this foodstuff make it the most popular form of subsistence in all of recorded history. Noodles are high in caloric content, they are nutritious, and they are simple and easy to produce. Clearly, then, noodles are an objectively superior food. Indeed, noodles are the perfect food.

We will demonstrate that our perfect being must be made of the most perfect food. Before we continue, however, a potentially serious objection must be met.

Some will argue that because rice is a staple diet of so many people in the world, it must be the more perfect food. On the contrary, we argue that rice is a profoundly evil form of sustenance. The corrupting nature of rice should be evident to anyone who has taken seriously the twentieth-century battles against the evils of communism. This small, deceptive grain has provided the fuel for millions of communist soldiers,
communist spies, and communist infiltrators. What countries remain communist in the twenty-first century? China, Vietnam, and Korea come to mind immediately. Now, what food is most commonly associated with these nations? Certainly not spaghetti! The case against rice should be immediately clear. (As a side note, this result should be of more than casual philosophical interest. A central part of modern struggles against tyranny should involve changing the eating habits of those living under oppressive regimes.)