![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 22 to 46 of 46. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2005, at 18:34:13
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned » Nickengland, posted by Gabbix2 on September 14, 2005, at 18:30:30
If god has foreknowledge of everything that is going to happen (which is supposed to be implied by his omniscience - knowing everything)...
Then how could Eve (or Adam for that matter) NOT eat from the tree when god knew that was going to happen already???
(AKA if god knows everything that we are going to do before we have done it then how could we 'choose' to do differently from what he already knows we are going to do?)
Posted by Tamar on September 14, 2005, at 19:33:46
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned, posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2005, at 18:34:13
> If god has foreknowledge of everything that is going to happen (which is supposed to be implied by his omniscience - knowing everything)...
>
> Then how could Eve (or Adam for that matter) NOT eat from the tree when god knew that was going to happen already???
>
> (AKA if god knows everything that we are going to do before we have done it then how could we 'choose' to do differently from what he already knows we are going to do?)Well, I think some feminists have put precisely that spin on the story in Genesis 3. God anticipated that the man and the woman would eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And the woman’s decision to eat the fruit was a decision for self-determination and adulthood. She made the decision to leave the garden paradise and live in a world of grey areas. Or something like that. Oh, and there’s also the issue that the woman hadn’t even been created when God told the man they weren’t to eat the fruit of that tree. So the woman only had the man’s word for it… It’s one of my favourite stories.
But back to your question: even if God is omniscient, I don’t think it diminishes the idea of human free will. Even if God knows what choices people will make, they’re still free to make those choices.
I tend to wonder what this story says about God… if he’s omniscient and knows that the humans will eat the fruit of the prohibited tree, why bother telling them not to eat it? Why put it there in the first place? Why tell them it’s the tree of knowledge of good and evil, when he could tell them it’s the tree of suffering and death? But my questions are more theological than philosophical I think…
Posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2005, at 19:49:20
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned » alexandra_k, posted by Tamar on September 14, 2005, at 19:33:46
Interesting...
:-)> even if God is omniscient, I don’t think it diminishes the idea of human free will. Even if God knows what choices people will make, they’re still free to make those choices.
Not sure that you quite get the problem...If god knows what choices people will make, then they aren't free to act differently. If god knew that eve would eat from the tree then eve was not free to refrain from eating from the tree. given that god knows she will do this she HAS to do it and there is no way around this.
If god knows everything that will happen...
Then things just have to run that way.
There is absolutely nothing you or i or anybody else can do to change that...and god already knows who will get to heaven and who won't
and god already knows who will win the next election
and god already knows what the weather will be like tomorrow
and god already knows how many people will die in new orleansand there isn't anything any of us can do about it...
except that we must experience, we must endure this eerie feeling that we are making choices when really... the very choices we will make are fixed by facts outside our control (ie by god, or in the secular version by a determinate or even an indeterminate physics)
Posted by Nickengland on September 14, 2005, at 19:49:43
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned » Nickengland, posted by Gabbix2 on September 14, 2005, at 18:30:30
>I just don't think these principles are less worthy when they are espoused from a different religion, as they often are.
(And no, I didn't think that's what you were saying Nick, that was just my own little comment on the end) : )I knew what you meant ~ I've read the archives ;-)
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 14, 2005, at 20:53:42
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned » Tamar, posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2005, at 19:49:20
> Interesting...
> :-)
>
> > even if God is omniscient, I don’t think it diminishes the idea of human free will. Even if God knows what choices people will make, they’re still free to make those choices.
>
> Not sure that you quite get the problem...
>
> If god knows what choices people will make, then they aren't free to act differently. If god knew that eve would eat from the tree then eve was not free to refrain from eating from the tree. given that god knows she will do this she HAS to do it and there is no way around this.
>No, they are free to act as they will, it's just that God will know, it's not necessarily that the acts have been planned by God.
I'm only saying this as an observer, not as a believer of these particular details.
The question comes up much around the Judas story, without Judas the death and resurrection would not have happened, so some say, it must have been preordained that Judas would betray Jesus, and therefore he was a puppet of God, and not truly evil.
Others say no, that God would have chosen someone he knew would betray Christ, and therefore it was still Judas's free will.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2005, at 21:18:45
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbix2 on September 14, 2005, at 20:53:42
> No, they are free to act as they will, it's just that God will know, it's not necessarily that the acts have been planned by God.but if god knows you are going to do x
then it simply isn't possible for you not to do xso you aren't free to either do x or not do x
you simply have to do x...
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 14, 2005, at 22:47:35
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned » Gabbix2, posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2005, at 21:18:45
>
> > No, they are free to act as they will, it's just that God will know, it's not necessarily that the acts have been planned by God.
>
> but if god knows you are going to do x
> then it simply isn't possible for you not to do x
>
> so you aren't free to either do x or not do x
> you simply have to do x...I don't see it that way, I don't see it as meaning God controls your behaviour, just that he can tell what you are going to do before you do it. Like scientists who can predict an earthquake.. they didn't cause the earthquake.
Or like a parent who says about their child
"I know exactly what excuse he's going to have when he comes home late.."
It doesn't mean that he has too, just that he's known so well.
Posted by spriggy on September 14, 2005, at 23:31:04
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbix2 on September 14, 2005, at 22:47:35
Honestly, I think what you wrote here is a revelation. It spoke to me anyway! :)
"I don't see it that way, I don't see it as meaning God controls your behaviour, just that he can tell what you are going to do before you do it. Like scientists who can predict an earthquake.. they didn't cause the earthquake"
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 14, 2005, at 23:44:34
In reply to wow Gabbi!, posted by spriggy on September 14, 2005, at 23:31:04
Posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2005, at 1:15:30
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbix2 on September 14, 2005, at 22:47:35
:-)
So being able to have done otherwise is not necessary for free will.
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 15, 2005, at 1:31:32
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned » Gabbix2, posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2005, at 1:15:30
> :-)
>
> So being able to have done otherwise is not necessary for free will.
>
Of course it's necessary. Your actions are only being known, not planned, and not controlled.
Why could you not choose what you want to do, and still have a God know what you chose?
It's not predestined.
I don't see the connection between knowing what someone will do in a situation, and your knowing being the cause of it. I had a cat that came running every time it heard a can opener. I knew he would do it.. but he certainly could have decided not to.
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 15, 2005, at 1:33:35
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbix2 on September 15, 2005, at 1:31:32
> Why could you not choose what you want to do, and still have a God know what you chose?
That should have read.. have a God know what you will choose
Posted by Tamar on September 15, 2005, at 5:37:25
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned » Tamar, posted by alexandra_k on September 14, 2005, at 19:49:20
Hi Alex
> Not sure that you quite get the problem...
Yeah, I do get the problem. I've seen much theological discussion of this and related questions.
> If god knows what choices people will make, then they aren't free to act differently.
I'm not sure that that the second idea follows from the first.
Perhaps I understand free will as freedom from coercion, or I imagine that God stands outside time and therefore doesn’t know things ‘in advance’, or that God’s omniscience is a matter of ‘middle knowledge’ as Plantinga would have it. Or that God’s knowledge of people’s future actions is contingent.
I guess it’s a matter of how we understand the terms… I think theologically I favour a qualified definition of God's omniscience over a qualified definition of free will. However, others have tried to show that determinism is a modal fallacy. I don't have the philosophical skills to evaluate that claim. Have you come across it? If so, what do you make of it?
Tamar
Posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2005, at 17:24:53
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbix2 on September 15, 2005, at 1:31:32
> > :-)
> >
> > So being able to have done otherwise is not necessary for free will.
> >
> Of course it's necessary. Your actions are only being known, not planned, and not controlled.
> Why could you not choose what you want to do, and still have a God know what you chose?If god knows everything that is going to happen...
Then it means that the future must be fixed.
It is already fixed what will and will not happen...
And god knows these facts.
If knowledge of the future is possible...
Then it means the facts are already fixed...
And if the facts are already fixed...
Then it is not possible for us to act differently
From the way the future is fixed to be(I'm happy to leave it open whether god actually fixes those facts or whether he just has knowledge of the facts that are fixed by other factors)
> I don't see the connection between knowing what someone will do in a situation, and your knowing being the cause of it.
I don't see a connection there either.
>I had a cat that came running every time it heard a can opener. I knew he would do it.. but he certainly could have decided not to.
Knowledge...
Is a tricky notion.
Most philosophers agree that (propositional) knowledge is true belief plus some kind of justification condition.What that means...
If you know that your cat is going to come running
Then it must be true that your cat is going to come running.
(If you say you know this is going to happen but it doesn't happen then it turns out you didn't know it was going to happen after all)
You must also believe your cat is going to come running...
And you must also have good reason to believe your cat is going to come running
(Which rules out 'knowledge' by accident. You might say you know you are going to win lotto but if your only reason is that you brought a ticket then this belief doesn't count as knowledge because the justification isn't strong enough. It might turn out to be a true belief - but we still wouldn't want to say you knew you were going to win beforehand. If your reason was that you had good information that it was going to be rigged your way then that might be enough justification for you to know you were going to win beforehand).
Posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2005, at 17:37:29
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned » alexandra_k, posted by Tamar on September 15, 2005, at 5:37:25
> > If god knows what choices people will make, then they aren't free to act differently.
> I'm not sure that that the second idea follows from the first.Does what I said to Gabbi help there or not?
> Perhaps I understand free will as freedom from coercion,Okay. So god knows what is going to happen in the future. So those facts are already fixed. We cannot do otherwise than what god already knows we are going to do beforehand (because if we could then gods belief about what would happen would be false and a false belief cannot count as knowledge).
So... We cannot do otherwise from what god already knows we are going to do.
So... If we have free will then freedom to do otherwise cannot be necessary for free will.
So... I think you are okay with this? Free will doesn't mean being able to do otherwise, it just means there being an absence from coersion.If I am tied to a chair then I am not free to leave the room.
If I am not tied to a chair then I am free to leave the room (even though it is already fixed in advance whether I will leave the room or not).How about compulsions (like hand washing)?
Is someone in the grip of a compulsion free, or is there some coersion going on there?>or I imagine that God stands outside time and therefore doesn’t know things ‘in advance’,
Yeah. Thats a clever response :-)
But that will buy you a whole heap of problems if you want the super-natural being to be able to effect changes (ie cause things to happen) in the physical world.>or that God’s omniscience is a matter of ‘middle knowledge’ as Plantinga would have it.
So he isn't infinitely knowledgeable (because maybe infinite knowledge + free will leads to incoherance) maybe he is just the most knowledgable being that could possibly exist given the existence of free will...
>Or that God’s knowledge of people’s future actions is contingent.
??
I'm not so sure what that means or what that argument is.
> I think theologically I favour a qualified definition of God's omniscience over a qualified definition of free will.Okay. I guess I'm not so very attached to free will.
>However, others have tried to show that determinism is a modal fallacy. I don't have the philosophical skills to evaluate that claim. Have you come across it? If so, what do you make of it?
I'm not sure what is meant there...
I really haven't heard that one...What I have found is people trying to find a way around these problems by appealing to quantum indeterminacy. If the world is irreducibly probabilistic (on the middle sized objects level) then determinism is false... You can't use the state of the universe at one instant to predict the next instant... Maybe there is room for free will in quantum indeterminacy... Not sure what consequence this would have for gods knowledge.
What if god were to know...
Not what the state of the universe at the next instant in time would be...
But the probability of every possibility?This line is appealing to some...
I'm not that keen.
But there is math over there :-(
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 15, 2005, at 18:09:00
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned » Gabbix2, posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2005, at 17:24:53
>
> If god knows everything that is going to happen...
> Then it means that the future must be fixed.No, it doesn't. Unless you mean that (speaking not from my own beliefs) that when God made the world, he planned everything that will happen in the future, and it is immutable.
Being aware of who someone is, and knowing how they are going to react in a certain situation, is not the same thing as making things happen for them.
That's also different from knowing what someone will do, or what they will choose given a set of circumstances.
Some believe that they have had signs from God when they were on the wrong path..>
> (I'm happy to leave it open whether god actually fixes those facts or whether he just has knowledge of the facts that are fixed by other factors)
> >I had a cat that came running every time it heard a can opener. I knew he would do it.. but he certainly could have decided not to.
>
> Knowledge...
> Is a tricky notion.
> Most philosophers agree that (propositional) knowledge is true belief plus some kind of justification condition.
>Yes but that's according to philosophers, which isn't what I'm discussing. Neither am I discussing what knowledge is to the Kabbalah, or the Bahai
> What that means...
> If you know that your cat is going to come running
> Then it must be true that your cat is going to come running.
> (If you say you know this is going to happen but it doesn't happen then it turns out you didn't know it was going to happen after all)
> You must also believe your cat is going to come running...
> And you must also have good reason to believe your cat is going to come runningThat was not my point, my point is that one can know something is going to happen without controlling it or having planned it themselves.
Whether I am occasionally wrong or not is important to discussing this from whether or not "I* can truly know something,
but that's not what we were discussing. I was saying it's possible for God to know something will occur without having fixed it because of what kind of person someone is for instance.Like a really good psychic...
I don't know how to explain the crucial difference any better than I have, Tamar and I see no necessary connection between foreseeing and controlling but to you they are intertwined. that's not an area I feel like discussing because I get that you see it that way, but I don't and that renders any further discussion kind of pointless.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2005, at 19:20:14
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbix2 on September 15, 2005, at 18:09:00
I don't rely on a connection between forseeing the future and controlling the future.
If determinism is true (the thesis that the state of the universe at one instant determines the state of the universe at the next instant) then god could have knowledge of the state of the universe at one instant in time and knowledge of the deterministic laws and from there he could predict what will happen indefinately into the future with 100% accuracy...
This doesn't imply that god causes anything at all to happen (though it doesn't rule out that possibility either).
> Yes but that's according to philosophers, which isn't what I'm discussing. Neither am I discussing what knowledge is to the Kabbalah, or the Bahai
okay... so then what is knowledge? when what we are considering is gods knowledge of the future and what implications that has for free will then i suppose it would help to be clear on precisely what we mean by 'gods knowledge'.
> my point is that one can know something is going to happen without controlling it or having planned it themselves.
I agree 100%
It is possible that an infinite being could grasp the state of the universe and the laws of nature and use that information to predict the future with 100% accuracy. That doesn't imply anything at all about the ability of that being to cause changes to the state of the world or cause the laws of physics to be different from what they are. But it also doesn't rule that out either (though we may want to rule that out on other grounds)
> Tamar and I see no necessary connection between foreseeing and controlling but to you they are intertwined.I don't see a connection there either. I think we agree on that point. I'm not trying to say that god controls everything we do. I'm just trying to say that:
P1) IF god knows what is going to happen THEN there must be facts about what will and will not happen. (Gods knowledge of the future must be based on knowledge of those facts).
P2) IF there are facts about what will and will not happen THEN we cannot act differently from the way those facts describe us acting.
P3) IF we cannot act differently from the way those facts describe us as acting THEN we cannot do otherwise from what the facts dictate we will do.
P4) IF acting differently from the way those facts describe us as acting has to be an option in order for us to have free will THEN we do not have free will.
________________________________________________
C) IF god knows what is going to happen THEN we cannot have free willThere are a lot of concepts you can play with to try and get around this problem...
1) You could limit gods foreknowledge
2) You could say that being able to do otherwise is not required for free will
3) You could say 'but determinism is false anyway!!!' and appeal to quantum indeterminacies...
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 15, 2005, at 19:37:31
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it turned, posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2005, at 19:20:14
> I don't rely on a connection between forseeing the future and controlling the future.
>
> If determinism is true (the thesis that the state of the universe at one instant determines the state of the universe at the next instant) then god could have knowledge of the state of the universe at one instant in time and knowledge of the deterministic laws and from there he could predict what will happen indefinately into the future with 100% accuracy...
>
> This doesn't imply that god causes anything at all to happen (though it doesn't rule out that possibility either).
>
> > Yes but that's according to philosophers, which isn't what I'm discussing. Neither am I discussing what knowledge is to the Kabbalah, or the Bahai
>
> okay... so then what is knowledge? when what we are considering is gods knowledge of the future and what implications that has for free will then i suppose it would help to be clear on precisely what we mean by 'gods knowledge'.
>
> > my point is that one can know something is going to happen without controlling it or having planned it themselves.
>
> I agree 100%Okay
> It is possible that an infinite being could grasp the state of the universe and the laws of nature and use that information to predict the future with 100% accuracy. That doesn't imply anything at all about the ability of that being to cause changes to the state of the world or cause the laws of physics to be different from what they are. But it also doesn't rule that out either (though we may want to rule that out on other grounds)
>
>
> > Tamar and I see no necessary connection between foreseeing and controlling but to you they are intertwined.
>
> I don't see a connection there either. I think we agree on that point. I'm not trying to say that god controls everything we do. I'm just trying to say that:
>
> P1) IF god knows what is going to happen THEN there must be facts about what will and will not happen. (Gods knowledge of the future must be based on knowledge of those facts).
> P2) IF there are facts about what will and will not happen THEN we cannot act differently from the way those facts describe us acting.
> P3) IF we cannot act differently from the way those facts describe us as acting THEN we cannot do otherwise from what the facts dictate we will do.
> P4) IF acting differently from the way those facts describe us as acting has to be an option in order for us to have free will THEN we do not have free will.
> ________________________________________________
> C) IF god knows what is going to happen THEN we cannot have free willBecause there are certain inescapable laws that will influence our behaviour to the point that it can be predicted without having been coerced.
Yes I get that.
But then I suppose we'd also have to establish what free will is
And, I'm saying this with a smile sistah!
This is where you and I are Coffee and Tea.
I hated these types of "if" discussions 10 years ago and I still hate them. This is why I dropped out of philosophy. Not that it was hard..(well it was hard for me to stay in class)
and I can see how some use it as an excercise in thinking, understanding the world and forming your own beliefs and but it makes me want to just go plant flowers or pet a dog..
Honestly, just a different taste.. I could talk and read the meaning of ancient symbols and mythology (which too end up without a concrete answer) practically forever..
Same passion, just a different flavour.
:)
Posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2005, at 19:57:06
In reply to Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it bored Gabbi » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbix2 on September 15, 2005, at 19:37:31
> But then I suppose we'd also have to establish what free will is
Yes :-)
If free will requires that we could have done otherwise from what we do in fact do then we cannot have free will.
Either we have to clarify our concept of free will (so that it is possible for us to have it) or we have to conclude that we don't have free will.
Loads of our concepts are like that. Our 'common-sense' 'pre-theorietical' notions are often deeply incoherant. Thus philsophers engage in 'conceptual analysis' to tidy up these notions. Basically... When you end up with a contradiction then one or the other of your claims has to go... Most philosophers try to come up with a coherant system that isn't toooooo much of an affront to common sense at the end of the day... (So the philsophers definition of knowledge, for example is supposed to provide a judgement of whether certain cases count as knowledge or not that pretty much accords with our pre-theorietic conception of whether it counts as knowledge or not).
There can be conflict between the way people do talk...
And the way people *should* talk (if consistency / coherance is required for the possibility of truth and if truth is what interests us...)
> And, I'm saying this with a smile sistah!:-)
> This is where you and I are Coffee and Tea.
> I hated these types of "if" discussions 10 years ago and I still hate them.:-(
> and I can see how some use it as an excercise in thinking, understanding the world and forming your own beliefs and but it makes me want to just go plant flowers or pet a dog.
okay, fair enough.
i am a thinker...
and you are a doer...
i barely notice the flowers...
i'm too busy trying to figure out whether the flower is red or whether redness is a property of me or is a response dependent property and whether it exists in platos realm of forms or what...
;-)
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 15, 2005, at 20:06:06
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it bored Gabbi » Gabbix2, posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2005, at 19:57:06
> okay, fair enough.
> i am a thinker...
> and you are a doer...
> i barely notice the flowers...
> i'm too busy trying to figure out whether the flower is red or whether redness is a property of me or is a response dependent property and whether it exists in platos realm of forms or what...
> ;-)
That made me chuckle"For heaven's sake, what are you doing? asked Alexandra. "Nature is to be examined not to be enjoyed"
That's extreme but it still makes me laugh, there's a bit of each in both of us I think..
I know you feed the ducklings just because it feels good.
But I won't tell anyone
Promise..
Posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2005, at 20:21:40
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it bored Gabbi » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbix2 on September 15, 2005, at 20:06:06
dare i say i was trying to train the duckies to perform tricks via the strategic use of reinforcement??
(tragic thing is... that i was)
;-)
Posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2005, at 21:55:29
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it bored Gabbi, posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2005, at 20:21:40
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 15, 2005, at 22:37:25
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it bored Gabbi, posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2005, at 20:21:40
> dare i say i was trying to train the duckies to perform tricks via the strategic use of reinforcement??
>
> (tragic thing is... that i was)
>
> ;-)
Ahhh Alex..But I bet part of you enjoyed the ducks just for their duckocity..
(or maybe most of you just enjoyed the fact that they grew up and terrorized the neighbours) : )
Posted by Gabbix2 on September 15, 2005, at 22:44:22
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it bored Gabbi, posted by alexandra_k on September 15, 2005, at 21:55:29
I've read that before, so I do understand that aspect of philosophy, however, I don't enjoy, or do my best thinking directly within the margins of philosophy as a subject (which I realize is only a starting point.. kind of like learning the fundamentals of music so that you can eventually write your own)
I do realize though that all my favourite things to ponder, contain aspects of it.Did that make sense?
Posted by alexandra_k on September 16, 2005, at 18:09:15
In reply to Re: Adam Eve gained knowledge, but it bored Gabbi » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbix2 on September 15, 2005, at 22:44:22
> I've read that before, so I do understand that aspect of philosophy,
:-)
Its something I have to try and remember. Aristotle said that philosophy begins in wonder, but it might be fair to say that it progresses from there into dense thickets of terminology and petty technical points.
There are lots of criticisms of academic philosophy. And sometimes I feel pretty disillusioned about it all.
The philosophy for children stuff is interesting...
And the stuff that is pitched at people with no formal training.
If you can't say it simply...I think its important not to forget that.
But sometimes... I do.
> Did that make sense?Yeah. It makes sense
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.