Abstract
I'm currently
reading some interesting material on the Many
Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. There is a great deal
more information on the subject (most likely expressed more eloquently
too) available at the link, but I will re-state the ideas involved
briefly here. OK. I buy all of this whole-heartedly. I also believe that there are other universes. I just see this as being the fifth dimension. There a few interesting meta-consequences to this MWI meta-theory... Lets take the entirety of my life from my birth to my death and call it 'me'. I'm sure you'll grant me this. Now, this represents the 'path' which 'I' decided to take. If it helps you, imagine removing one of my dimensions, say my height. All you see of me is my footprints and where they are in relation to the earth. As I move around in my life, you will see my footprints move. If you kept track of every movement of my feet, the graph would look something like set of long tubes which twist and turn all over the place. These tubes are the entirety of 'me'. Of course it's actually more complicated than that, since I do have (at least some) height. The tube that is 'me' is actually four dimensional. Now, if every quantum event splits the universe, then there is a myriad tubes splitting off from 'mine' forming a sort of mesh of all possible me's. The image of a tree comes to mind. My (first) question is, where is the bottom of the tree? For the sake of argument, let's say it was when the sperm fertilized the egg that became me. As you can well imagine, the number of me's created from this point on expands geometrically to a tremendous size. But not an infinite one in the scheme of things, as there was an infinitely larger number of other universes created in which I do not exist, before I was even born. So you can imagine this mass of me's extending out in a multi-dimensional ball from the point of conception. Now, as mind-bending as this is, I can accept it. However, let's look a little closer at this ball-of-me. As I said, I am counting back to the point of conception and ALL possibilities have happened. Including the many different ways the egg could have split. It therefore must include the possibility that the egg split into identical twins. Now, as we are counting from conception, this means they BOTH must be considered to be 'me'. But identical twins are a common occurrence. I have personally known several and each would attest to being his or her own person separate from the other. But, according to MWI, they are more akin to an exploration of what it would be like to have two of yourself around at the same time. To 'me' that is what the identical twins formed seems like. Perhaps I was mistaken in the place I chose to originate 'me'. But to move it forward even the slightest bit is erroneous as there would be plenty of universes in which a being existed with the exact same parents, DNA, etc as me. Must these not be considered to be part of this greater ball-that-is-me? To move it back in time only opens the issue to more weirdness as we allow a different sperm to fertilize a different egg. Doesn't that imply that my sister is simply a different manifestation of 'me'? And what about expanding the definition to include all other time-lines which contain a person with the same DNA pattern, but from different parents? What about clones? Or if the DNA was manufactured from scratch to be exactly the same as mine and implanted in some (lucky?) mother-to-be? Or in a genetically modified plant? But why limit it to the same DNA? Wouldn't it be an absurd multiverse with all these myriad manifestations of 'me' without one in which I existed as a woman? But to allow this, you necessarily open the possibility to alternate DNA. I must exchange my Y chromosome for an X. This is a completely different gene structure coding for very different things. If you allow for a change in DNA structure even slightly, don't you necessarily have to include all variations of DNA? Where do you stop otherwise? Wouldn't the part of 'me' closest to the edge of this hyperspherical ball-of-me feel more akin to one just a bit further away into non-me then to the 'opposite' side of what 'I' (of this time-line) considers to be the greater 'me'? Where, exactly, is the center? The greater 'me' must in a sense be like the known spatial universe with no center and no edge. Doesn't this logically lead (in a few more unspoken steps) to the conclusion that all humanity is just different manifestations of one greater 'self'? Does it even stop there? As we have allowed for the possibility of alternate DNA extending out to all humanity, and given the fact that all life can be traced back to similar (if not a single) ancestor, shouldn't ALL life be considered part of this greater being? So, all life is actually part of what is this greater-ball-of-me. I can accept that. But in 'reality' we have only explored this whole multiverse at the level of biology and chemistry. What happens when we look at it from the point of view of physics? Would it surprise you to learn that half of the atoms in my body are the exact same as those of Jesus when he died on the cross and the other half comes from Hitler at the moment of his own death? Given the enormous number of atoms in the body (on the order of 10 to the 29th power), I undoubtedly share at least one atom from each of these men in this timeline. But in a multiverse in which all possibilities are manifest, there is at least one 'me', one who shares all of my life decisions and experiences, which does meet this dubious distinction. As this person is EXACTLY the same as me other than at the atomic level, can 'I' as the greater-ball-of-me not claim the same distinction? Once again, it can't stop there in this all encompassing multiverse. For there must exist a universe where an EXACT copy of me contains in every proportion, all matter of the universe. So, in sense, 'I' can claim the same distinction, as the 'me's of these other universes write this same essay, thus what I write is, in at least one instance, true. OK. I'll buy this. But what happens when we explore the same ideas from the cultural level? There are so many different cultural views today of cosmology. There are those who propose that God created the earth in 6 days some 6000 years ago. In the face of astounding evidence of an evolution taking place, they steadfastly maintain their position that the fossil evidence has been mistaken. As we all know there are many others who believe in Darwin's survival of the fittest evolution of our species from energy to atoms to organic molecules to self replicating systems to cells to multicellular life to the development of a central nervous system and sensory apparatus to the development of social systems to the initiation of culture to the development of our modern civilization. As the past lay closed behind us, other than our own perception of events and our perceptions of other's perceptions, neither of these theories can ever truly be proven wrong, at least not within our species lifetime. If our species actually mutates into something else, that still does not negate the possibility of a created past. Doesn't negate the possibility... but ah... isn't every possibility manifested in a multiverse which contains all possibilities? Doesn't acceptance of the MWI necessitate the acceptance of creationism not only as a possibility but also as a definite reality? Of course this is nothing to brag over, as just about every cockamamie idea has it's own reality if you accept MWI (including mine). Stop and think about that a minute. What ever it is you think about it, it's the truth somewhere where I write this. And not in others. Don't be afraid. Now is not the time to be putting up any sophist(ic) blocks on the meta-theory of MWI. If anything goes, anything goes right? But of course you are right too. In writing this essay I have certainly opened the pathway to a universe where my ideas are revered more so than those of Christ's; and another where my words are condemned as those of Satan or some other miscreant deity. And rightfully so - as most certainly, somewhere this is absolutely true. It may be an idea to explore this idea from the perspective of logic. Oddly enough, in a Godelian sort of way, it contains the seeds of it's own destruction, which 'must' lead, in a Buddhist sort of way, to it's salvation. I may easily pose the question: "Is it possible in MWI that there exists a universe that MWI is not true?" This is simply the classic "Can God create a boulder too big for Him to lift" paradox stated another way. Godel showed that any sufficiently complex system contains it's own refutal. Apparently MWI is 'sufficiently complex', which puts it at the same level as Russell's theory of numbers. For if all possibilities are accepted to exist, that it's own undoing must also be accepted. The salvation of MWI lies in the fact that no matter what you believe, you can be CERTAIN that somewhere this is the truth. You are 'saved' just as long as you think you are saved. Everything about MWI seems to state that, at least to me, what is most important to state is not the meta-theory from the perspective of physics or chemistry or biology or culture or logic or theology, but to explore it from MY perspective. 'My' salvation lies in what 'I' think and no-one else. Where do 'I' end? When I do a riddle, I must know if there is known to be a logical solution to it or not. It doesn't matter which is the case, just that I know one way or the other. Recently, I came across the following riddle through an e-mail from a friend: There are
three words in the English language that end in "gry". Now, judging from the short messages in the groves between the umpteen forwards of the message to me, this riddle had no known solution. But it had to have come from somewhere. And why the capitalization of the ONE's? I'll leave the actual solution of this riddle (as I saw it) until later. But you already have an advantage over me, as you now know that someONE came up with at least an hypothesis. The point I am trying to make bringing this whole thing up, is that it really does make a difference, to me at least, that I know if a solution exists or not. For most of my life I labored under the misconception that someone, somewhere in the scientific community, actually understood the answer to all of life's riddles (I'll finger Einstein, Darwin, and Bohr to name but a few). That meant for me, that all I would have to do is learn whatever it was these people knew, however mathematically (psychologically, spiritually, what have you) in depth it was. I learned quite early in my academic career, that I could learn just about anything in 3 days and regurgitate it to roughly 90% accuracy within a week. So what was the rush? Let's just say I spent my university career enjoying the finer, seedier aspects of the culture and, ironically, my doing as well as I did left me with a distaste for academia. There are many other aspects of academia which I hold in disdain, but these are no worse, and hence (to me) no different than the ones I face in my chosen path. Or, I suspect, no different, psychologically, than anyone else's. But I was mislead most of my life wasn't I? Now when I say most of my life, this is no exaggeration. I thought this well into my twenties. I don't blame science for my deception. I place 1% blame on the media, and the remainder of my own naiveté. Either way, I had to start over from scratch. Realizing I was now reaching 'real' adulthood, with no real research behind me, and (which is worse) no place to start, I decided it was high time I started figuring out what the final answer was. I also must credit my daughter Erica for my beginning to search. I mean I AM a scientist, and given my own (continuing?) childish naiveté that science holds all answers, shouldn't I be able to answer the all important question: "What is the meaning of life?" when it was inevitably asked? My search began with (appropriately enough I thought) a book entitled The Physics of Immortality by Frank Tipler. I view the reading of this book in a 'Trials of Job' sort of way. Touting a book for the layman which cannot be (completely) understood by a B. Sc. graduate may not be the best promotion policy. However, it DID open my eyes to the abstract nature of the direction science had headed in. (For this reason I changed an initial rating of 2 stones (which are good things) to 5 (out of a possible 6). How can I, in all fairness, give a measly 2 stones to the book which is as tantamount to my knowledge and life as the first new aspen tree which grew in the grove which became [the grove mentioned in the movie 'Phenomenon' as the largest living thing on earth. ...they thought it was separate but it was really just one...] ) From there I allowed myself to drift through knowledge. I could give a chronology and description of how I feel each book affected me, and the odd little story about how I came across it (which, when placed side by side, does seem a little other-worldly creepy) but I won't. For one, I sure you don't want to listen to me drone on (people avoid me at parties after I've had a few drinks) and two, I actually don't remember the content of very many books. I tend to walk away from most books with just one new idea. A BIG new idea, but usually just one. A few books I've walked away from with 2 or 3. One very special book changed the way I thought. Another completed my quest. One of the proposed consequences of MWI floating around is the 'Quantum Theory of Immortality' (QTI). The gist of the theory is as follows: If, as MWI states, all possibilities are manifest, there exists a universe where I live forever. It therefore holds true that I am immortal. One of the proposed 'proofs' of QTI is known by the dubious moniker 'The Quantum Suicide Experiment'. The gist of the proof is as follows: MWI-QTI states that I live forever, so even if I place a fully loaded gun to my head and pull the trigger, I will continue to live. Of course in 'your' universe I will be dead, but in 'mine' I will be alive. I discovered this possibility (quite on my own) a few years back and spent considerable times musing on it's implications, especially around the time of my grandfather's death. As such, I can now say I find the idea of QTI to be childish and it's proof, naive. First, a short polemic on the proof. Although accepting the fact all possibilities are manifest not only implies but necessitates a universe where you live forever, what if (as the helpful gas station attendant said) 'you can't get there from here?' What if the universe in which you live forever exists for another reason: say because humans evolved to a point where the telomeres at the end of our DNA strands are no longer lost over time, thereby halting the aging process. As this is nowhere near the case in our universe, what makes you think it's possible to 'quantum leap' into this other universe directly from this one? And if it is possible, why do you need to die here to get there? Furthermore, what makes you think you will be convinced by the experiment in the universe in which you survive. You pull the trigger and the gun doesn't go off even though it was completed loaded. A 'cause' other than immortality can be invoked to explain you situation, say the bullet in the chamber was a dud. The obvious reply to this for both you and the other me's in your universe, is to fire again (purely for experimental reasons). What if it's a box of duds? You get a new box, I say broken firing pin. So you go through gun after gun, box after box of ammo, showing you can't be shot. (First of all, despite the fact that I can always seem to come up with a higher prime number, this does not constitute a proof that there is no highest prime, simply that I may not have counted high enough yet. This is the same thing.) But what if I then say this: you have an odd magnetic field emanating from you that causes all forms of weaponry to malfunction when pointed at you. If you admit this as even the remotest possibility, then by the same theory by which you claim immortality (MWI), you must also claim this possibility to be necessarily the truth. It may be protested by you that you're sure that your life proves MWI-QTI, but in your rational(?) moments you would have to admit that your assuredness seemed to be based more on faith than science. To those the believers of QTI who take offence to my calling it childish, I hope you understand that I don't believe a child would come with this idea. Children have much better imaginations. If you are to take offence know that I meant much more of an insult than that; such as when I angrily tell my six year old she is being childish (yeah, so what dad.); that the idea came from a mind that's not thinking. I mean really, WHY would you want to live forever? Sure I would like most to live a long and happy life, just as anyone else. But I tell you this: I would rather live a short, miserable one than a long, miserable one. Instead of focusing on the length of your life, why not focus on the happiness? I mean really, which is more important? Furthermore, if all possibilities are manifest, there exists a universe exactly like this one in all aspects but one: throughout each and every moment of your entire life, you were happy. Let's call this consequence the Quantum Theory of Happiness (QTH) which I know that everyone around me has failed, and I certainly HOPE everyone else has as well. (Still wanna put that gun in your mouth smart guy?) Maybe it would be a good time to take yet another look at the consequences of MWI. I think a thought (say the position of one electron with respect to another). Now according to MWI, all possibilities are manifest. Therefore, every thought is seen to every possible conclusion. But in the sense of the 'greater-ball-of-me' all these conclusions, as well as all other thoughts which could have possibly occurred at that moment (of a certain quarks energy level ) also occurs at precisely the same moment in 'time'. Couldn't it be said that this greater-ball-of-me thinks a universe? And that every thought I think is, in 'actuality', nothing more than a small piece of a universe? One of the theoretical backbones of MWI comes from the field of Information Theory. If all possibilities are manifest, the multiverse contains a minimum of information. This is ascertained from the length of the computer program required to perfectly encode it. Now our complicated universe would require a program nearing it's own size to encode it. However, if everything is true, the program becomes quite simple. All information is as simple as no information. Imagine everything ever written by humanity to this point in history being written on a single sheet of paper, in 'reality' there is no longer any information in the now-black page. 1 or 0. A few years back I was contemplating the existence of an omnipotent god. Isn't that what the majority of today's religions consider their god(s) to be? Most consider it blasphemous to hint at the possibility of less. Now my definition of omnipotent means to know EVERYTHING there is to know about the universe, down to the last quantum vibration. It occurred to me, if god knows the position of every single atom, why did he need to create it at all? Furthermore, in order to know everything about me - my thoughts, feelings, secrets, etc. - wouldn't he have to BE me? Does he carry an exact replica of me around in his mind? This idea seemed a ludicrous waste. Then it donned on me that an omnipotent god, must necessarily BE the entire universe. My ruminations received a tremendous backing when I discovered information theory. Almost assuredly this was case. A minimum of information. Now I'd like to go back to this greater-ball-of-me carrying this universe around in 'my' mind. According to information theory, the universe which I carry in 'my' mind, let's say a universe perfectly matched to ours in exquisite detail (all possibilities manifest, remember), only exists in 'my' mind. But if it's a perfect replica of ours, and only a minimum of information is stored, isn't it in actuality our universe for 'real'? Have I found one of Mr. Hofstadtler's 'tangled hierarchies' in MWI? The only way out of this mess is to say that there is only one thing: thought. When Descartes stated: 'I think, therefore I am.' he made a helluva big assumption. Whom, pray tell, did he assume this 'I' to be? All can be said with assurance is: thought occurs. Wow. But... Why did the QTH fail? If the QTI is a 'provable' consequence of MWI, isn't the QTH as well? And it failed. Such a beautiful theory with such delightful consequences, too bad. I have an idea of how to fix it. Before I get into my real theory, I thought you might like to hear about my blind spot. After reading about everyone else's theories, I noticed that they all seemed to have one thing in common: there was something, which seems obvious to us now, which just could not be accepted by them. A glaring case would be Einstein and quantum weirdness. But my favorite would be Kepler's Crystal Spheres. I feel very close to Kepler, as he too would prattle on endlessly in letters to very important people. (Perhaps I am Kepler?) Before I get into my blind spot, I also feel I owe Mr. Kepler an apology. When I first heard of his three laws, I remember thinking, 'So what did this guy do to deserve to have these three pieces of the puzzle, so nicely laid out IN FULL by Mr. Newton, named after him'. It wasn't until I read Arthur Koestler's Sleepwalkers that I truly understood his genius. It was also this book which helped me realize that EVERYONE has a blind spot. So... where was mine? In my haste I called it Orbital Consciousness Theory (OCT) instead of some cool name like 'quark theory' that might hang around somehow, but I actually wrote that down and underlined it, so I should keep it. In my musings it donned on me that if you assumed that there were other perspectives of 'self', you could fit all the universe into the periodic table. (Wouldn't it be more surprising if I, as a chemist and arm-chair philosopher, choose something else as my white whale?) Gravity is an attraction of all matter to all other matter. I believe this may be thought of as an 'awareness' of other matter. Matter is made of energy: the other three forces. Together they form sort of a primordial awareness. I see this sense of awareness as akin to a hydrogen atom, and in a sense it IS the hydrogen atom. In my sense, the filling of one half of the first orbitals of consciousness (OC). 1S(1). When atoms come together to form a molecular bond, the 1S OC is filled. In the periodic table this would correspond to helium, the first noble gas and generally, a very interesting element. In my OCT, I see the filling of the S orbitals as fulfilling a sense of Self. As all orbitals of the S variety share a Spherical nature, they also share the same sense of ultimate Self that you or I feel. The P orbitals, stand for Program. D for Description/Dharma. F Fantasy. I could go into each of the finer details I've thought out for each of the OC, but I won't (at least not in this essay). The following list should suffice to outline my basic thinking on the idea: 2S - self
replicating molecules (life) 3S - multicellular
replicators (e.g. coral) 4S-1 - lower
brain, societal 3D - the soul in all it's incarnations. ... 8S-2 - god Humans sit, depending on the person and their proximity to 'enlightenment', somewhere in the 3D level. (I was quite proud of myself when I came up with a way of explaining the human soul in my theory.) The sense of Self each of us shares, however, lies at the cultural level. I was readying a short polemic as to why this should be the case, until I did some reading on culture and I realized 'Oh, people already know that'. Then I thought cool... that sort of supports my theory. In my saner moments of thought about this topic, I do realize that my divisions of the various stages of consciousness into orbitals as I did was quite arbitrary. But it also must be admitted that the divisions, as I've given them, are reasonable. You may notice a few things from what I have included in my list, and from things that I have omitted. First of all, I have placed an upper limit on the periodic table at the 8S(2) level. This would correspond to element number 120. I really do think that the periodic table ends here, although I can cite no scientific reason why, the symmetry that this would exhibit, as shown below, is quite convincing.
Adding the like rows together we find the equation 64 + 36 + 16 + 4 = 120 Another way of expressing this equation is as (4^2 *2^2) + (3^2 * 2^2) + (2^2 * 2^2) + (1^2 * 2^2) = 120 In other
words, similar to the 4 large dimension we are aware of (4,3,2,1),
On thinking deeply about the number 120, I found that it was quite a beautiful 'thing' in itself. To note: 120 = 1*2*3*4*5 [So as to not digress into this 'numerology' distraction in the future, I will mention here that 120 is not the only (or the first) integer that is both a factorial solution but also a sum of consecutive numbers. 6 = 1+2+3 = 1*2*3 The number 6 (and, symmetrically, -6) could be said to be a 'perfect number' if that phrase meant (in any way) that a number was a sum and multiplication of three same consecutive numbers only. I'm not sure if anyone else has defined the term 'Perfect Number' to mean what I state here (... and I don't care. I've also learned, during my recent studies into language itself, that my language is my language. Dictionaries and encyclopedias only state what words have been used for. They mean whatever we want them to mean, whenever we want them to.) but it fits nicely with my theory to be presented shortly.] I'm sure there is many other neat things about the number 120 but I think this should sufficiently make my point. I do think that there is other forms of 'matter' above the element 120, but I think something special, like leaping up an octave, occurs. I think much of 'dark matter' is composed of these higher 'elements'. Scientists call them WIMPs for Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. I often thought that perhaps, since the atoms fill out the first half orbital of my Periodic Table of Consciousness, the next octave somehow involves matter with a complete sense of self from filling the 1S orbital as I feel happens in molecules. But I am falling increasingly deeper into windmill jousting now. As such, I will also (partially) neglect going into why I have left out the higher orbitals between 3D and 8S. I think that it is in this region that we can find an explanation for Jung's archetypes, as well as aliens, angels, demons, mythological gods, etc. But I realize that to delve into an explanation of this region would be a trek into fantasy. It is mainly for this reason that I named the F orbitals the Fantasy orbitals. You may have also noted that I've given the 3D orbitals two names: Dharma and Descriptive. I originally called these orbitals Dharma to reflect the analogy with the human soul. After reading some material on language and symbols, I realized that what truly separated us from the rest of the animals was our ability, through language, to describe things in symbols. The power to name things, as originally given to Adam. My scientific side feels strongly towards Descriptive, but my spiritual side thinks it should be Dharma. So I've kept both (ambiguously) in mind. (Before I carry on with my new theory, I would like to point out one more thing though: that is the eerie similarity between the 8 self or S orbitals corresponding nicely to the eight chakras) Time and Energy Theory. One of the dirtiest little secrets of science, known well amongst scientists, but rarely (until recently) spoken of, is the fact that the two pillars of science are just that: separate pillars. Quantum Theory and General Relativity don't actually work together. I must admit that fully realizing this after being a 'scientist' for so long, was quite a smack in the face. I've thought very long about this problem as have many other greater men. I've come up with a solution that is different (as least so far as I've read) than anyone else's. That is not to say that it is right. In fact, even if my ideas are accepted whole-heartedly, at some point in time they will also be proven to be absolutely wrong. Maybe now, maybe in a hundred years. But change is inevitable. ALL theories fall by the wayside eventually. According to the Heisenberg Certainty Principle (HCP) it is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a quantum particle at once. Once you ascertain one quantity with certainty, the other becomes completely uncertain. This idea is very often misconstrued by the semi-informed that this is due to some sort of inaccuracy of measuring tools (which, to be sure, is still a problem) but the true reason is much deeper than that. It is more like the ideas are at right angles to each other. I find it helpful to think of the old illusion of the Faces & Vases. When you focus on the faces, you simply cannot see the vase: to see both is to see neither. The same is true the other way round. I don't think I fully understood HCP until I actually spent some time learning frequency analysis and Fourier transforms. But at that point, it became quite clear. Now another aspect of HCP arising from quantum theory is that time and energy share the same orthogonal relationship. I've always found it odd that in all my studies on the subject, this is always mentioned as an aside. (Oh yeah, and there's this thing too.) But this ties in very nicely with an idea from relativity theory. .... When I was reading about String Theory in Brian Greene's book The Elegant Universe, it struck me as odd that these theorists say there are six little dimensions (tied up in Calabi-Yau spaces) and four big ones. With all the emphasis on symmetry and super-symmetry, why the ugly 6-4 combination? m-brane theory proposed another dimension making 11. I believe there to be 6 little dimensions and 6 big dimensions. If symmetry is king, why not? I would name the dimensions as follows: Length, Width, Depth and Complexity/Change (Again you can see I'm torn between science and spiritualism. The Change/Humor/Paradox combination comes from a book which completed my ideas on this theory (after I'd actually started writing it) and also offered a prescription for what to do with the ultimate answer once it was found. That book is The Way of the Peaceful Warrior by Dan Millman. It is subtitled 'A book that changes life's.' And I can honestly say that it did. The Complexity/Possibility/Paradox is more descriptive given the current usage of language and so appeals to my objective side. Semantics for sure.) Throughout my search for the truth, I've always tried to look where I thought no one else was. (That is, after all, a good way to discover something no one else has.) The current understanding of the universe is that it is expanding. In fact, not only is it expanding, but it's accelerating. Acceleration (a) is the rate of change of the rate of change of displacement in time (d(dx/dt)/dt). My new thought was: what if things aren't moving apart faster, what if time is shrinking? Would this not cause the same effect?
... It has been said enough to me that I have something of a superiority complex and, as such, always think I'm right (...So? According to MWI I am!). But this is a misconception. I don't believe that I'm perfect, in fact, I'm SURE that I am not perfect (although I would, no doubt, like to be). The source of my confidence is my realization that this brings me closer to perfection. To realize you can't be perfect is to accept that you may always have something to learn, in any situation. To know this is to be closer to perfection. The true source of my vanity lies in the fact that I've realized that realizing this is also being closer to perfection. Any scientist of worth should always approach every hypothesis with the utmost zeal (following all scientific principles, of course). Otherwise... what's the point? The joy of science is (or should be) in the gamble ("Come on baby, Daddy needs a new pair of clues" or "I believe that if we do this, this will happen - I'M SURE!") Good. Be sure. That's where the excitement of science lies, but also be willing to completely abandon your perspective when something proves it incongruent. Here only lies more excitement, once you find it. If science could find a way to unite it's emotional/intuitive/feminine/ beautiful side with it's logical/scientific/masculine/beholder side, it would be better off. This is all I've ever tried to do, in my own, IMPFERECT way. I believe that life is like an arcade game. Not pinball. Pinball is too Zen. Pinball, that most archaic of games, is played by only the most experienced (and, oddly enough Tommy, the most inept) souls, as the game is always the same, just the stakes are higher farther into the game. This is like climbing the S(elf) orbitals one after another in my self-gilded Orbital Consciousness Theory. Real life is more like any (and all with reincarnation!) of the current video games. Prior to playing any game, you first chose that game to play. Herein lies the first truth of life. You CHOSE to play the game you are playing right now. Somehow, in whatever way the Other worlds work, the greater 'ball-that-is-you' chose the path you are currently on. All the fortunate opportunities - and misfortunate ones - were chosen by you in the hereafter[...? heretofore? HERE? (Does it make any sense to talk like this anymore? (so many sidetracks near the truth))]. Sometimes, we decide to play the game with all the cards, as those of you reading this who were born into free wealth and (more importantly) information know this to be true. There are others who decide to start with zero. This is like starting Some (Moses, Jesus, the Templars, The Jesuits, The Papacy, Kepler, Einstein, Heisenberg, Rzeznik) start with nothing and intuit their way through life. ... to be continued Lost Bits... When an atom forms a radical, is it angry? Doug: I'm
thinking of a number between 3 and 5. Can you think of what it is? Can't the snow on my television screen be thought of as a quantum event? I mean, it does come from an electromagnetic wave, which is truly the essence of our understanding of quantum isn't it? Right. So in some universe, there is a 'me' some night waking up, after dozing off in front of a midnight repeat of the Simpson's, to a TV that actually speaks to 'me'. The white noise forming a voice which speaks to 'me' and, oddly enough, seems to listen to 'me' too as everything I ask it answers. I can say for sure that I know (even better than you) what's going through this poor bastard's mind. Accepting this as a 'possibility' then opens the path to the 'possibility' that this also happens to every else. The possibility that the snow in our TVs have always spoken to us. The possibility that fans, air conditioners, idling cars, showers, whatever, also speak to 'us' either separately or in combination. And if these talking appliances could engage in meaningful conversation with us, answering all of our questions - strictly by 'chance' of course - how could 'we' distinguish their 'minds' from ours? Do they not pass the Turing Test? Wouldn't we have to either assume that these appliances have the same soul that we do (to which, I'm sure, the appliances would whole-heartedly concur) or that we have to re-think this whole concept of soul? ...do you already see where I am going with this? What if I traveled to a far off place to sit amongst a circle of ruins to dream a man into reality? Would you admit there was a 1 in 10 to the 10 to the 120th power chance of this happening? Don't waffle now... if you do there is gonna be some confused guy waking up in some ruins just down the river from me. I hope that I can still teach my children what they have forgotten when they are adults. That which they taught me. How to be a child again.
The
Meaning of Life 1)
Don't Hurt Others.
PRE-NOTE
TO SELF: Keep this at the bottom of the page as you type. Note: Possibly use this as 'opening quote' dated July 2, 2001 12:45 am EST.
|
