Social Networking
Vélaldin Released! Website Unveiled!
Velaldin Emergence Engine Logo
Finally, after a very long summer of hard work and no vacation — I've released the Vélaldin Emergence Engine β0.5, and this weblog-entry marks the publication of the official Vélaldin website.

For those of you who know me, but don't really follow that closely what I'm working on; Vélaldin is the project I've been working on this summer (and during this semester), in relation to research I've been doing for the past two years. Below is my formal description of it:

Vélaldin is an open-source engine for developing structures with emergent properties. Based on the basic concept of cellular automata, Vélaldin offers a new approach to emergence research through an abstract representation of cells — leaving it up to the developer to determine the features, rules and states of cells in whatever way is required.

The Icelandic word
Vélaldin can be directly interpeted as Mechanical fruit; vél meaning machine, and aldin fruit. The name references the goal of understanding and interpreting our world through mechanical means, gradually moving towards more life-like machines.

During the last stages of work this summer, I put together a website which I am now unveiling. The website can be found at:

I appreciate all comments on anything regarding Vélaldin; the webpage design, the code, the features, the concept. Feel free to e-mail me.

Icelamerican News
About a year ago I was surprised when I heard that 365 Media (Iceland's media monopoly) was launching a new 24-hour news channel called NFS. For a country with the highest internet usage amongst the European countries, it made me wonder what exactly they were planning on telling us that we wouldn't already know.

This is why I wasn't surprised when I heard that the channel wasn't doing very well, and that it might jog onto a big brick wall sometime soon.

But I'm glad that it's going down — the channel is being run and directed in mediastyle pioneered by certain American newsstations, characterized by subjectivity, silly personal commentary and absurd melodrama regardless of the nature of the story. During interviews, NFS reporters ask: "Don't you think that's horrible?" instead of: "How do you feel about that"? Instead of a poker face in-between news, there's smalltalk and joke. Probably to make the viewers (us) feel a personal connection to them.

Now, I've been wondering for a while whether there really is something wrong with having a bit of personality and fun in between news of war, murder and general misery (three topics which are the emphasis of all newschannels)? But really, what personality? Is it really their personality? Before their station got named NFS, I don't remember them this jolly — is it possible that all the reporters liked the change of name so much that they suddenly became twice as jolly? Or maybe NFS is an acronym for Not Effin Sober?

All jokes aside, I'm appalled at times with blatant efforts for making "news that sell" — and I celebrate the possibility of NFS going down under.

While I'm on the subject of news reporting, I made a news-spoof a few months back when I was playing with iMovie. It's really got nothing to do with NFS, just a humorous take on news.
Check out the video above (in Icelandic), the sound is not top-quality so I recommend headphones.

The A.I. Lab Revisited
These past few weeks I've been busy working on finishing my NSN (Icelandic Student Innovation Fund) project, Vélaldin, as well as maintaining headway at school. Only to be rewarded with a bad cough and fever.

But sickness, as annoying as it can be, has it's upsides. Thank sickness for the log-entry, for example.

I thought I'd post some new pictures of the A.I. lab, as
the last ones were from before everyone had settled in. I'm still in the process of migrating from home to the lab. As can be seen on some of the pictures, my desk is quite empty. It's hard to leave my home setup alone, as I've been growing accustomed to it for the past two years. Then there's the question of data transfer — most of my project include many dozens of different files and formats. I've been using FTP for fetching data to Serafin (my home machine) when I'm working at the lab, which works okay when I have software at the lab to read it. Guess it will take some time to make the new workstation worthy of perpetual use.

Here are the pictures, they're all taken on my phone — not the best quality.

A picture of my desk at CADIA
Here's a picture of my desk. Those walls are nice and new, but they made the workspace 2x smaller as well as making it very difficult to socialize with people on the other side.

A side picture of my desk and workspace
Here's a better view of the table-cluster my workspace is part of.

The North East corner of the lab
Here's a nice view of the north-east corner of the lab (facing away from my desk) Still some boxes waiting to be cleaned out.

A view to the south at the lab
A view to the south.

The logo for the botcave
I have named the lab's project room "The Botcave" — and stuck this nice logo on the door.

I wonder if the next Superhumanoid will look like this:1960's batman

If you want to see more pics of the lab, there are more photos in my older post from before everyone moved.

Logo for the Icelandic branch of the International Global Action Plan


Vistvernd í Verki is the Icelandic branch of the international project Global Action Plan for the Earth, aimed at empowering people to live a more sustainable lifestyle. The Icelandic branch works in collaboration with the Icelandic Environment Association (icel. "Landvernd") and has been quite successful. Over 560 homes have taken active part in the project here in Iceland.

I aimed at capturing the essential goals of the project in the logo, whilst trying to maintain a sense of uniqueness in comparison to similar associations and projects.


:: Vistvernd í Verki (Global Action Plan, Iceland)
Landvernd (The Icelandic Environment Association)
Global Action Plan International
Discussions With A Jehovah's Witness
Double Helix IconReligious Cross Icon
A few days ago I posted my article on the differences between science and religion online. Since then I've received several e-mails varying in quality, but one of which I felt provided an interesting insight into the world of religion.

Tom has been a member of Jehovah's Witnesses for over thirty years and presents his opinions and beliefs in a non-aggressive and sensible manner. Upon reviewing our discussions, I felt that it was a good example of our different outlooks on life. In light of the friendly approach from both sides, I thought it was worth posting here on my weblog and the following is my reply to the second mail he sent. I've made icons and colored the text to make the reading more pleasant; obviously the double-helix represents science and my answers, and the cross represents religion and Tom's answers. At places, I've added [some additional comments to clarify or explain] that were not included in my original response to Tom.

Potential advocates of god and religion be advised: Tom's email was the only one I've received that I felt worth making a real effort to answer. I do not intend to make a career out of posting these kinds of entries. Like I told Tom, I wrote my article not to argue existential issues, or to convince people to take sides, but to point out that science and religion are two different things that can't be mixed.

Double Helix Icon
Hello again.

First of all I'd like to say that I respect your approach, and opinions, and think your letter is very well written.

I'm going to answer each of these points, but would also like to point out that we have now ventured out of my article's dominion — which was that science and religion are opposite approaches to explaining life and that they can't be mixed. I usually leave discussions of which one is "better" or "more true" up to people that are inclined to do so — but on account of your friendly approach and obvious thought you've given to each argument, here is my reply.

Religious Cross Icon
Hello H. T:
“Fatal flaws” are in the eye of the beholder. In the field of science, I have a working knowledge. You are the expert, not I. I would not be so presumptuous to think I have qualifications to instruct you on your own turf.

What I can say is that evidence garnered so far in support of evolution is unconvincing to me. It is insufficient to override my belief in creation.

[In Tom's first letter he talked of the Theory of Evolution having fatal flaws — to which I replied that while there are unexplained aspects to the theory, none are fatal, and that tons of correlating evidence mutually support it]

Double Helix Icon
I can respect and relate to that. It's my exact response to why I don't believe in a god.

Religious Cross Icon
Of course, you might say “that’s because you’re an ignoramus,” which is the answer evolution proponents often give.

Double Helix Icon
I'm sorry to hear that — and apologize on behalf of my colleagues.

Religious Cross Icon
Or you might, more charitably, say that the problem lies in communication….evolutionists have not properly explained their position and its supporting evidence. This, in fact, is what you did say.

By the way, when I use the term “you,” please understand that I don’t necessarily mean you personally, but only generically, as in the typical evolution proponent. And I know there is a challenge in describing who’s typical. There is a bell curve, I realize. But I will do my best.

Double Helix Icon
Of course — thank you for explicitly pointing that out. Please also consider any such remarks on my behalf the same way, and believe me when I say that nothing I write here is supposed to be insulting. If you feel it is, then it is not intentional and I apologize beforehand.

Religious Cross Icon
I have come to view the Bible as a trustworthy, logical whole, and as a source of satisfying answers to vexing questions which are answered nowhere else. Such questions as …why do we grow old and die? and ….why is there suffering and misery? ….are convincingly addressed in the Bible, and intricately linked to the creation account. It’s the strength of these positive things, rather than perceived difficulties with evolution, that accounts for my position.

Double Helix Icon
Indeed. I can truthfully say that I at least partially understand your stance. Science, at this point, has no answer to those questions. However, to explain my position — I'm okay with not having all the answers. I accept that scientific knowledge is, and will remain for a very long time, a work in progress. Until then, I will continue using the scientific method to support or disprove what I believe or question — until one day all questions will be answered, or we will have answered the question of whether science can really answer all the questions (more on this further below).

Religious Cross Icon
Put the two on a scale, and I see the Bible as weighing more. It’s not that evolution is weightless. Quite the contrary. There is supporting evidence. But the evidence supporting the Bible weighs more, in my view. Put yourself in my place and you can see how such a view would lead to a focus on “fatal” evolution flaws, a project I would never undertake were it possible for the two ideas to co-exist.

Double Helix Icon
I'm not sure we share the same definition of "evidence". Do you mean scientific evidence that godly powers exist, or some kind of different evidence? Or perhaps mainly a lack of evidence on behalf of evolutionists?

I have a question that might seem strange, one that contains a point that allows the two to co-exist: Considering how little is said about god's methods of creation in the bible, or other scriptures — don't you ever consider the possibility that god created evolution? There is nothing to suggest that evolution isn't part of god's methods to create humans.

I'm interested in hearing your take on this; is there something that you feel is wrong or disconcerting about this notion?

To clear any confusion, I don't believe this for my obvious agnostic atheist position. But I do, of course, continually reason with myself — and this is a thought I've been longing to ask someone religious as I've never heard it used as an argument.

Religious Cross Icon
But here is a problem. You are expert in your field. I am expert in mine. I have a working knowledge in your field. But you, I strongly suspect, have not a clue in mine.

A lawyer ought to be able to argue both sides of a case. I can argue your side. Not as convincingly as you, of course, but I can do it. But you couldn’t begin to argue my side. Apologies if I am wrong, but I doubt I am.

Double Helix Icon
Actually — my mother is a christian fundementalist, and she did indeed try to raise me as one as well. My atheism was not brought about by ignorance of religious scriptures — but was the result of many years of learning and thinking during my childhood, and today still. I went to sunday school regularly, and to church. As of yet, none of the arguments I've heard have been convincing enough to change my mind.

On the other hand, you're partially right. Even though I was raised in a christian home — I admit I have not for many years made an effort to study the Bible, Koran or any other religous doctrine. But it isn't what's said *in* the Bible that's my reason for disbelief, please see my next paragraphs.

Religious Cross Icon
At any rate, it would be easy to test. Write me succinctly the Bible’s answers to the two questions I posed: why old age and death; why suffering. I’m not saying you have to believe the answers, just make the arguments.

Assuming that you can’t, perhaps now you see the problem; the playing field is not level. And it’s your fault. (generic “you,” remember.) I know your side. You don’t know mine. Thus, the “ignorance” quote from Isaac Asimov (in your main paper) is most condescending. (but not atypical of him) And misleading. Because he doesn’t know our reasoning, he assumes there is none.

Double Helix Icon
I could attempt to answer these questions, but I do not see how this is relevant. The reason that I don't believe in religious doctrines is not because the arguments aren't convincing, or that they don't make sense in their own way. The reason is that there is no way for me to prove or refute their validity. No matter how much sense it makes that suffering is due to original sin — there is no way to find evidence to support it, we can't investigate the notion. This is what Asimov meant by ignorance: If anyone chooses to decide something without any way to support or disprove it — there is no rational way to make us change our mind, no way that we can embetter our ways or reach new horizons. 

How would you, for example, propose that we decide whether the Bible is the right scripture, or the Koran? While scientists inevitably contradict eachother's theories and hypotheses, they eventually come to agreements through the gradual accumulation of knowledge/mutually supporting evidence (and thereby enter new domains of disagreement). People of religion always depend on the same unprovable scriptures, and hence, can never come to agreement. How do we know or reason which one is right? We will never be able to, unless there's some kind of divine intervention. Even though science today doesn't have all the answers, I can rely on constant development and the possibility that one day it might. And indeed, I am starting to repeat myself because this is a difference implied in my article.

Now, if you ask me why I would want to lead a life of consistent reason aside from what I've already mentioned — I can't answer in a single sentence, but an important point is that I've seen what rationality and science can do to better the world. To rid us of witchburnings, or beliefs that the mentally ill are posessed by devils, or creating better medication based on our knowledge of biology, for example. Also, as I noted before — I have no problem with accepting that at this point we can't answer everything. But there is no logical reason to believe continued scientific research will one day stop providing answers or improving our lives. I'd like to point out that the theory of evolution was conceived of around 1840, which makes it's lifespan very short in terms of research, development and substantiation — but I'm sure you realize that.

Religious Cross Icon
Now, two caveats.

First, the “playing field” only has to be level if you want to “play.” And you may not. I can respect that. After all, I read your article and contacted you. Not the reverse.

Second, when I say the fault is yours, that is not to imply any deficiency on your part. Your prior e-mail lamented that proponents of evidence for evolution have insufficiently explained their case. That argument is a thousand times more true in the field of religion than in science.

Double Helix Icon
If I understand you correcly, it seems to me that we are very close to having the same approach to these matters — just on opposite ends.

Religious Cross Icon
It’s also not unexpected, by the way. The Bible is full of these type statements:

I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves…….Acts 20: 29

For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories……2 Tim 4:3

Suffice it to say that, if you do not know my position, it is religion’s fault, not yours.

Double Helix Icon
I don't like assuming when it comes to people's opinions.

Religious Cross Icon
As to “fatal” flaws, I won’t discuss any, at least for the time being. You know what points I would likely raise, and you have answers to them all. It often boils down to… this or that impossible (my view) or simply astronomically unlikely, (yours) though it has nonetheless come to pass since any other outcome has been culled by natural selection.

Double Helix Icon
Excellent position. Regardless of if I would have had answers to them all — I probably wouldn't have ventured into those discussions. My argument provided in the article still stands: that religious beliefs and scientific beliefs are uncomparable. The existance of god, at this point in time, is something that can't be explored through scientific means, and hence — any attempt at arguing it at this point eventually leads nowhere if we restrict ourselves to scientific reasoning.

Religious Cross Icon
Well, okay, here’s one I’ve already written about.

Double Helix Icon
Baring in mind that I've acknowledged that scientific knowledge is a work in progress — here is some information that might be of interest to you. [The link leads to information on Macroevolution]

Religious Cross Icon
Lastly, so as to make my views somewhat more palatable to you, I have no issue with micro-evolution: fruit flies, bacteria, finches, and the like. It is similar to animal husbandry, and has been around forever.

Double Helix Icon
I can understand how the uniqueness of the human species can make one think that we have come to exist differently than fruit flies and bacteria, even though I don't believe it.

Religious Cross Icon
I also agree with you - and not with the fundamentalists - that it is nonsense to suppose all was created in literal 24-hour days. The Bible doesn’t insist on this. There is no reason “day” can’t be viewed more broadly, such as an old-timer talking about life “in his day.” Scientists speak of millions, even billions of years, in life’s origin. In general, I have no issue with this.

I don’t count myself a fundamentalist, nor does the faith I am a part of, Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Double Helix Icon
As I've noticed, you do like being informed on scientific issues as well as religious ones, so here's a bit of information: 

You mentioned mathematicians using the disproving of one hypothesis to prove another [Tom mentioned this in his first email]. This is possible when we are talking about an hypothesis and it's null-hypothesis. For example, we state the hypothesis that 1+1=2, then the null-hypothesis is that 1+1 does not equal 2. If we can prove that the null-hypothesis is true, then we have proven that 1+1=2 is not true. This is usually only applicable to very simple hypotheses and not to complex systems such as human existance or the theory of evolution — as they are complex theories built on hundreds or millions of smaller hypotheses and subsystems.

[Scientifically, I think the existence of a god
can't be evolution's null-hypothesis, see my article]

Religious Cross Icon
Does this address the points you raised in your e-mail?

Double Helix Icon
In part, yes. You have a very sensible approach to these matters and, like I said, I appreciate that. I hope my arguments have come across as well as you conveyed yours. As I mentioned at the beginning of this letter — I try to avoid these discussions. My article on scientific- and religious beliefs was one that I felt compelled to write, not to argue existential issues, or to convince people to take sides, but to point out their differences.

In final word, I'd like to emphasize that I am not inclined towards trying and convert you to atheism, or to belittle your beliefs. I consider our conversation a general exchange of information between two humans in a complex world.

Thank you for challenging us, and providing an insight into your world.

-Hrafn Th.


:: You can find Tom's website here.
:: Wikipedia's page on
:: Wikipedia's page on
Jehovah's Witnesses
My article that sparked these discussions

Please note: I strongly recommend not using Internet Explorer to view this page.