Many stories winding toward.
Jul. 25th, 2004 01:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wolven7Thinking about something yesterday, and it was the nature of an infinite universe. More specifically, the nature of an infinite, intricate, interconnected universe. All parts interlock, and all interlocking parts work together. Sometimes things move into different positions, or "out of alignment," but that doesn't really unravel or jeapordize anything. (kidneythieves - [Before I'm Dead]). If you spiral something out into everything, it's still everything, only in different configuration. The funny part is that there are stopping points.
We have, in our understandings, two ideas: We have the idea of the infinitesimal incriment (Zeno's Arrow), which says that, small or close though we may get, nothing ever fully ends, disappears, or arrives at anything else. There is no touching, because we can only move forward, or whicheverward, in incriments, and those incriments are infinitely small. There is always space between, and that space is extension of Something. (LUXT - [Parasites (N-Vitro Mix)]) The other idea is that things end. They stop, and are different distinct things. The pressure exerted on a wall, by a sledgehammer, will help break that wall, because a wall is a wall, a sledgehammer is a sledge hammer, and applied force is applied force. You can pick things up, and touch things, and feel the textures of things. You can taste salt on someone's skin, or the warm, wet CO2 insides of her or his mouth. You can do all of these things, even though, by nature of the incrimental graph, you can't.
The problem is often explained away by molecules, saying that that's what touches, in those spaces between, even when we don't. But that doesn't work, because molecules are particles, and particulate matter is still particulate matter. There is as much infinitely small space between the small things, as the large things. (Rob Zombie - [Living Dead Girl]). So the molecules can't touch each other, to move or feel anything. But we do feel. We interact with and touch the world, even though many of the sciences say that we can't. What does that mean? That the universe is inherently a weird place, and that, just because the formulas work, doesn't mean they accurately describe everything. Right? Maybe.
Look at the universe, again, but, instead of a clockwork machince, or a tapestry, or a soup, or a pie, see it as everything. (Velvet Acid Christ - [Futile (LSD Mix)]). Every metaphor, made real, every point of view realised, and expressed, as a mode for understanding and parsing the universe. Make the way you view it literally infinite, and the models for working within it will all be correct. Physics, Euclidean Geometry. Non-Euclidean Geometry, all of them will work, and will work equally well.
Pain - [Easy Out]--- I keep pushing for this infinite thing, you know? And i keep trying to put it forth as an understandable ideal, and something that can actually work, within a societal matrix, and i keep not quite getting it across. There's something, everytime, that blocks, some aversion to a choice that big, some closing off of something. Or maybe my premises are simply off. I'm not trying to put forth a new pure science, or a new religion, or start some kind of weight loss cult (Caffeine, Nicotine, Regular exercise, that's the secret. Start early.); all i want to do is get people to think. (KMFDM - [Beast]). I would like to think that, in embracing the ideal of infinity, i've found the idea that can't be faulted. If everything is true, nothing is true, both of those, neither of those, and every part of those equally, as well as an infinite amount for which we don't have the words, then the only problem left, is one of choice.
I like to think that. But, as i said, there's the possibility that my starting premises are flawed. That things don't boil down to choice, perception, experience, and intent. But many things say otherwise. (Venetian Snares - [Dance Like You're Selling Nails]). Quantum mechanical experiments, influenced only by expectations of experimenters, and the maleability of physics... More testing is most certainly needed, before any true decision can be reached, but in the mean time, all i really want is for it to make you think. Consider the possibilities of whta has been said, and don't dismiss it out of a kneejerk reaction to vouchsafe the metaphysical morals with which you were raised. Question, and come to your own conclussions.
I wonder, sometimes, if people still think it ok to question the accepted normatives, or if they've all been scared away from dissent, by cries of "Outcaste" and "Unclean," for the thinking...
Later.
We have, in our understandings, two ideas: We have the idea of the infinitesimal incriment (Zeno's Arrow), which says that, small or close though we may get, nothing ever fully ends, disappears, or arrives at anything else. There is no touching, because we can only move forward, or whicheverward, in incriments, and those incriments are infinitely small. There is always space between, and that space is extension of Something. (LUXT - [Parasites (N-Vitro Mix)]) The other idea is that things end. They stop, and are different distinct things. The pressure exerted on a wall, by a sledgehammer, will help break that wall, because a wall is a wall, a sledgehammer is a sledge hammer, and applied force is applied force. You can pick things up, and touch things, and feel the textures of things. You can taste salt on someone's skin, or the warm, wet CO2 insides of her or his mouth. You can do all of these things, even though, by nature of the incrimental graph, you can't.
The problem is often explained away by molecules, saying that that's what touches, in those spaces between, even when we don't. But that doesn't work, because molecules are particles, and particulate matter is still particulate matter. There is as much infinitely small space between the small things, as the large things. (Rob Zombie - [Living Dead Girl]). So the molecules can't touch each other, to move or feel anything. But we do feel. We interact with and touch the world, even though many of the sciences say that we can't. What does that mean? That the universe is inherently a weird place, and that, just because the formulas work, doesn't mean they accurately describe everything. Right? Maybe.
Look at the universe, again, but, instead of a clockwork machince, or a tapestry, or a soup, or a pie, see it as everything. (Velvet Acid Christ - [Futile (LSD Mix)]). Every metaphor, made real, every point of view realised, and expressed, as a mode for understanding and parsing the universe. Make the way you view it literally infinite, and the models for working within it will all be correct. Physics, Euclidean Geometry. Non-Euclidean Geometry, all of them will work, and will work equally well.
Pain - [Easy Out]--- I keep pushing for this infinite thing, you know? And i keep trying to put it forth as an understandable ideal, and something that can actually work, within a societal matrix, and i keep not quite getting it across. There's something, everytime, that blocks, some aversion to a choice that big, some closing off of something. Or maybe my premises are simply off. I'm not trying to put forth a new pure science, or a new religion, or start some kind of weight loss cult (Caffeine, Nicotine, Regular exercise, that's the secret. Start early.); all i want to do is get people to think. (KMFDM - [Beast]). I would like to think that, in embracing the ideal of infinity, i've found the idea that can't be faulted. If everything is true, nothing is true, both of those, neither of those, and every part of those equally, as well as an infinite amount for which we don't have the words, then the only problem left, is one of choice.
I like to think that. But, as i said, there's the possibility that my starting premises are flawed. That things don't boil down to choice, perception, experience, and intent. But many things say otherwise. (Venetian Snares - [Dance Like You're Selling Nails]). Quantum mechanical experiments, influenced only by expectations of experimenters, and the maleability of physics... More testing is most certainly needed, before any true decision can be reached, but in the mean time, all i really want is for it to make you think. Consider the possibilities of whta has been said, and don't dismiss it out of a kneejerk reaction to vouchsafe the metaphysical morals with which you were raised. Question, and come to your own conclussions.
I wonder, sometimes, if people still think it ok to question the accepted normatives, or if they've all been scared away from dissent, by cries of "Outcaste" and "Unclean," for the thinking...
Later.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
on the other hand
Date: 2004-07-25 04:00 pm (UTC)Your premises may or may not be faulty. However, the real issue is your audience's penchant for being willfully obtuse. Tackle that and you may make more headway.
Re: on the other hand
And i'm not asking acceptance, so much as the start of an informed dialogue, on their perceptions.
But we shall see.
Re: on the other hand
Date: 2004-07-25 04:08 pm (UTC)What good is the dialouge if the opponet is hiding his perceptions simply b/c he can?
Re: on the other hand
Re: on the other hand
Date: 2004-07-25 06:02 pm (UTC)Either that or you're a bloodthirsty heathen.
Re: on the other hand
Re: on the other hand
Date: 2004-07-26 11:35 am (UTC)Re: on the other hand
Re: on the other hand
Date: 2004-07-26 06:44 am (UTC)Re: on the other hand
Re: on the other hand
Date: 2004-07-26 11:38 am (UTC)Re: on the other hand
Re: on the other hand
Date: 2004-07-26 07:41 pm (UTC)I've always looked at it this way:
Date: 2004-07-26 05:11 am (UTC)2: If you still don't believe me, Mister Math-Schientisht, I'm going to punch you in the face. If I hit you, then as a scientist you'll have to come up with a better-working theory.
Against what might be expected, I came up with the first one at age 11, when I first heard about the "ball never hits the wall" idea, and didn't come up with the more violent and snarky response until much later.
Re: I've always looked at it this way:
As i said, It's all there. The models work, in their contexts, and there is at least one context in which they will not work. Maybe. Won't know till i test them all. The point being that they're all there, and all workable...
Violence=Good. *nods*
no subject
Date: 2004-07-26 06:46 am (UTC)no subject