Thesis. Please, all of you, read this...
Dec. 12th, 2004 10:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wolven7I realised, today, that i'm going to have to write my thesis statement, soon. Then i started writing the following. I think they're related...
12/12/04, 12.46pm:
Size scales dictate fluctuations and changes, with particulate wave form constituents (particles. Pay attention) being theoretically composed of vibrating strings. Strings, being unprob{e}able past the Planck Length, may very well be made out of yet-smaller constituents. I've never been one to believe in a stopping point, within a[supposedly]n infinite context. Infinite regress being what it is, the large and small scale oscillations between particle- and wave-form schemata should continue infinitely downward and upward. This requires a belief that the world, in the future, will continue to be as we remember it having been, in the past. This poses a few problems.
Working, as we are, within a quantum mechanical framework, we cannot believe, with any certainty, that the future will be like the past. We can't even know that the present is like the past we remember. All we have are manipulatable properties of a probablistic reality. We have things as we remember them, things as they appear to be (/are perceived/Created to be, by universal consensus [unconscious]), and things as they may be, in the future. If enough people observe changes in the probability wave, then those changes spread, and are Further observed, exponentially. A wide enough initial spread almost guarantees that tomorrow's observable reality will be different from what we then remember of today's. The crux of this is a bootstrapping.
To be able to observe/perceive new facets of reality, we must first become aware of their possibility. To know that they are possible (better still when/if we think them Probable) we must observe them, or, indirectly, things about them. (The rest of this is me typing new additions, and thoughts. Bear with me.) The paradox, here, is fairly apparent. But not really. The observable indications, in the world around us, teach us many things about what may be actually happening, or possible, in our chosen reality. (Tom Waits - [Downtown Train (Live)]). The key, here, is that we must be first open to the possibilities, in order to become open to more possibilities. We cannot easily enter into a realm of infinite possibility and probability, without first being of a fairly open mind, as a closed mind rejects the premises, first off. Now, we can't say that anything is impossible, only highly unlikely, and even then, that chance, however small, is still a non-zero number. But what does that matter?
If the possibility of something were to be negative, or even infinite, this is not a failing. Within the context of our current Possibility matrix, the scale reads from 0 to 1, but there are, in fact, infinite points in between. Zeno's paradoxes and archery lessons taught us that. What if what is meant by an infinite probability, in this context, is the entire realm, between zero and one, and both numbers, as well? (Duran Duran - [Hungry Like The Wolf]). Something being Ultimately Possible, within a current understanding, is not a new idea, and as we generally attribute answers of Infinity, in these matters, to a lack of full understanding, this seems to speak to a principle of the power of ignorance. This is a good and bad thing.
In ignorance, meaning from an empty state, we are able to accomplish much more than we are, when we think we know the properties of the subject, at hand. People who don't consciously know that something is "Impossible," have been known to do said, through various feats. Personally, i find this sort of ignorance a reprehensible thing, however, and propose another way, which is also not new. (Poe & Mark Danielewski - [Hey Pretty (Remix)]). I propose a process of Unlearning things, and relinquishing any claim that we "Know" anything.
As was said, above, we can only claim that things hold a likelihood of continuity, and this is true, so long as we agree upon the state of things, and the way they should continue. But what if we agree to let things be mutable? Things, in memory, change, anyway; we forget, remember in more detail, invent things that didn't happen, but these fluctuations continue to act in the same mode as memory. The past is mutable enough. Let the past be what it is, and serve as a guidepost, for what Has Been. However, in addition, let us take the understanding that what Has Been is not what Must Be, and that we can change the nature of the things around us, at a given moment, should enough of us take the impetus to show enough of us, and the rest and all of us so choose. (Moxy Früvous - [Heatseeker Boy]). In this way, we can accept the nature of things, as they are, know what they have done, and what they believe they Can Do, and everything can learn, grow, and change. The further mutability, here-posited, seems as if it would destabilise the fabric of consensus reality, if possible, but that misses a key word.
Darkest of the Hillside Thickets - [Hookworm]--- Consensus Reality is what happens when everyone agrees to something (usually on a subconscious level) and makes that something the Way Of Things. It requires consensus. That is why there is a difference in perception, and why the natures of science and mathematics are constantly changing, because, while certain facts are "Hard-Wired," it seems, there is a continual drive for change. (Interpol - [Roland]). What i mean is that even our "Consensus Reality" is only a loose consensus, with room for growth, change, and evolution. Why would that "Basic" nature need to change?
A parallaxed Consensus Reality, with the inherent, yet Learned understanding of the nature of probability would give us greater control over personal realities and natures (which is where it would have to start, in each participant), and, ultimately, make the universe in which we live more capable of displaying the infinite potential it holds. (Rasputina - [Remnants of Percy Bass]). That potential permeates everything we do, and ripples, cleanly, through the fabric of all that is, in every renaissance, be it scientific, spiritual, or artistic in nature. And a true renaissance should contain all of the above. A true renaissance should be like an Apocalypse: it should rend the contemporary view of all that is, and rebuild it, around new lines, moving closer to the infinitely dense Point and the ultimately expanded Universe being conceptions of the same set. The apocalypse is what drives our goals, and orders our steps, be that rending an individual internal thing, or universal. (The The - [Uncertain Smile]). As if those were vastly different things.
Writing ©Damien Williams. All Rights Reserved.
.... I think i strained something... Or maybe i just stretched it back into the right shape... If you're silent, on this... I don't know... I'll be whimsically disappointed, most likely....
So, Satan was standing on the corner of 45th and Virginia, selling flowers, in the rain, when this little girl walked up to him and said....
12/12/04, 12.46pm:
Size scales dictate fluctuations and changes, with particulate wave form constituents (particles. Pay attention) being theoretically composed of vibrating strings. Strings, being unprob{e}able past the Planck Length, may very well be made out of yet-smaller constituents. I've never been one to believe in a stopping point, within a[supposedly]n infinite context. Infinite regress being what it is, the large and small scale oscillations between particle- and wave-form schemata should continue infinitely downward and upward. This requires a belief that the world, in the future, will continue to be as we remember it having been, in the past. This poses a few problems.
Working, as we are, within a quantum mechanical framework, we cannot believe, with any certainty, that the future will be like the past. We can't even know that the present is like the past we remember. All we have are manipulatable properties of a probablistic reality. We have things as we remember them, things as they appear to be (/are perceived/Created to be, by universal consensus [unconscious]), and things as they may be, in the future. If enough people observe changes in the probability wave, then those changes spread, and are Further observed, exponentially. A wide enough initial spread almost guarantees that tomorrow's observable reality will be different from what we then remember of today's. The crux of this is a bootstrapping.
To be able to observe/perceive new facets of reality, we must first become aware of their possibility. To know that they are possible (better still when/if we think them Probable) we must observe them, or, indirectly, things about them. (The rest of this is me typing new additions, and thoughts. Bear with me.) The paradox, here, is fairly apparent. But not really. The observable indications, in the world around us, teach us many things about what may be actually happening, or possible, in our chosen reality. (Tom Waits - [Downtown Train (Live)]). The key, here, is that we must be first open to the possibilities, in order to become open to more possibilities. We cannot easily enter into a realm of infinite possibility and probability, without first being of a fairly open mind, as a closed mind rejects the premises, first off. Now, we can't say that anything is impossible, only highly unlikely, and even then, that chance, however small, is still a non-zero number. But what does that matter?
If the possibility of something were to be negative, or even infinite, this is not a failing. Within the context of our current Possibility matrix, the scale reads from 0 to 1, but there are, in fact, infinite points in between. Zeno's paradoxes and archery lessons taught us that. What if what is meant by an infinite probability, in this context, is the entire realm, between zero and one, and both numbers, as well? (Duran Duran - [Hungry Like The Wolf]). Something being Ultimately Possible, within a current understanding, is not a new idea, and as we generally attribute answers of Infinity, in these matters, to a lack of full understanding, this seems to speak to a principle of the power of ignorance. This is a good and bad thing.
In ignorance, meaning from an empty state, we are able to accomplish much more than we are, when we think we know the properties of the subject, at hand. People who don't consciously know that something is "Impossible," have been known to do said, through various feats. Personally, i find this sort of ignorance a reprehensible thing, however, and propose another way, which is also not new. (Poe & Mark Danielewski - [Hey Pretty (Remix)]). I propose a process of Unlearning things, and relinquishing any claim that we "Know" anything.
As was said, above, we can only claim that things hold a likelihood of continuity, and this is true, so long as we agree upon the state of things, and the way they should continue. But what if we agree to let things be mutable? Things, in memory, change, anyway; we forget, remember in more detail, invent things that didn't happen, but these fluctuations continue to act in the same mode as memory. The past is mutable enough. Let the past be what it is, and serve as a guidepost, for what Has Been. However, in addition, let us take the understanding that what Has Been is not what Must Be, and that we can change the nature of the things around us, at a given moment, should enough of us take the impetus to show enough of us, and the rest and all of us so choose. (Moxy Früvous - [Heatseeker Boy]). In this way, we can accept the nature of things, as they are, know what they have done, and what they believe they Can Do, and everything can learn, grow, and change. The further mutability, here-posited, seems as if it would destabilise the fabric of consensus reality, if possible, but that misses a key word.
Darkest of the Hillside Thickets - [Hookworm]--- Consensus Reality is what happens when everyone agrees to something (usually on a subconscious level) and makes that something the Way Of Things. It requires consensus. That is why there is a difference in perception, and why the natures of science and mathematics are constantly changing, because, while certain facts are "Hard-Wired," it seems, there is a continual drive for change. (Interpol - [Roland]). What i mean is that even our "Consensus Reality" is only a loose consensus, with room for growth, change, and evolution. Why would that "Basic" nature need to change?
A parallaxed Consensus Reality, with the inherent, yet Learned understanding of the nature of probability would give us greater control over personal realities and natures (which is where it would have to start, in each participant), and, ultimately, make the universe in which we live more capable of displaying the infinite potential it holds. (Rasputina - [Remnants of Percy Bass]). That potential permeates everything we do, and ripples, cleanly, through the fabric of all that is, in every renaissance, be it scientific, spiritual, or artistic in nature. And a true renaissance should contain all of the above. A true renaissance should be like an Apocalypse: it should rend the contemporary view of all that is, and rebuild it, around new lines, moving closer to the infinitely dense Point and the ultimately expanded Universe being conceptions of the same set. The apocalypse is what drives our goals, and orders our steps, be that rending an individual internal thing, or universal. (The The - [Uncertain Smile]). As if those were vastly different things.
Writing ©Damien Williams. All Rights Reserved.
.... I think i strained something... Or maybe i just stretched it back into the right shape... If you're silent, on this... I don't know... I'll be whimsically disappointed, most likely....
So, Satan was standing on the corner of 45th and Virginia, selling flowers, in the rain, when this little girl walked up to him and said....
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-12 07:15 pm (UTC)On a side note : you're right my head does hurt, but in a good way. Also, nothing is "impossible" only improbable. *nods*
no subject
Glad to be of assistance. ^_^
no subject
Date: 2004-12-12 10:41 pm (UTC)And it also kinda makes me want to do terrible things to you. In a good way.
no subject
^_^ And That. Makes it All worth-while.
Yup yup..
Date: 2004-12-13 10:15 am (UTC)Tried to read it four times, and my eyes just skimmed.
I think I have to deal with some other stuff before I'm clear enough to shift viewpoints. *sigh* Stupid anchors of dumbass stuff.
Re: Yup yup..
As I said before
Date: 2004-12-13 09:01 pm (UTC)Too, I enjoyed this, especially as a break from Nietzsche. I'm thinking of digging up the man and shooting him, just for reiteration of my loathing for him sometimes.
That we know anything is questionable, as that an antithesis of anything we know can also be known simultaniously. And then there is always the question of knowing about a unicorn. Or a purple one for that mater.
Today on NPR, on All Things Considered, an expert on Kabala mentioned the nature of the name of god is an impossible formulation of the hebrew verb to be - to be past present and future all at once, as a single word. I am, I was, I will be, I am being, all forumulated in one. Sometimes, I think they knew more than they wanted to say.
Re: As I said before
I love Jewish Mystics. They do the Enigmatic thing, So Well.
Re: As I said before
Date: 2004-12-14 06:01 pm (UTC)All this points out the inherent flaws in the binary nature of Scientific Method. Seems tis being noted more oft by the scienticians these days. Some realize that 1 and 0 are a very limited way of seeing the world. Their methods of expanding thought seem to me somewhat limited though. 1,0, and -1 ain't much better. The just don't want to give up the gestalt of Learned Things yet (as they shouldn't), but have not come up with a satifying relief from their banal little views on reality.
I do disagree with one thing though (or perhaps merely seek to highlight an exception). There are indeed, to my mind, certain TRUTHS. inalienable, inevitable truths that will not be ignored, no matter how much man might wish to, no matter how ignorant man is of them. Consensual reality is all well and good, but some things are so powerful they define themselves, and the rest of us be damned.
so consider, for a mind-bending moment or three, a different path of travel beside time and space. Travel along the lines of perception, moving at the speed of shifting ideas, where the same facts and perceptual imput garners a million answers, and none of them the same. One man hears thunder and knows electrons flow between the clouds. Another sees lighting, and knows that zeus is PISSED. Gives me a smile, that does.
Re: As I said before
Re: As I said before
Date: 2004-12-14 06:08 pm (UTC)Yeaup. the same little gems of reality, seen through from infinite glorious angles.
Re: As I said before
no subject
Date: 2004-12-24 01:26 am (UTC)my own thoughts are, I think, quite similar to those put forth here, that the probabilistic nature of the quantum realm does apply to the larger realm of observable reality. Reality as consensual agreement of people.
One thing that stuck out though. In the next to last paragraph you say "That is why there is a difference in perception" referring apparently to the consensus that forms reality. I think instead of the difference of perception being a result of the consensus (as it's phrased there), it's what creates the drive for change, in an attempt to reconcile the differences. It's also those differences, I would think, that create the looseness of the consensual reality.
no subject