Is there someone out there for you? The Numbers

Most of us at some point will ask ourselves if there's someone out there that's right for us. While there's a lot to consider on the nature of soul mates there's one abstraction that can't be denied and that's the numbers game. What are the odds that someone is out there for you at all let alone "the one".

It's estimated that we're in the neighborhood of 8 billion people and we now have the ability to collect large amounts of all kinds of aggregate data on all kinds of things. For example we've officially passed having more than 2 women for every man on this planet. I'm very interested in knowing why that's happening but that seems to be the current case. In some specific areas that number is amazingly larger more like 16:1 or 32:1. Our first big cut is trying to figure out how many people are in monogamous relationships. We can somewhat safely assume it's greater than half which leaves all those extra women for the remaining men provided we're only looking at hetero relationships. To solve that we cut the collected information of supposed polls that the global population is anywhere from 7 to 12 % homosexual. Keep in mind if more than half the population is in a 2 person relationship then the ratio's only get bigger. The current realistic number is no less than 3 available women per man and likely more in the range of 6 to 1 if we throw in more variables. However as we've learned previously from Occam's razor it's more likely that fewer variables is better or more accurate.

So the sad truth is ladies that men are slim pickings. As for men there are plenty of fish in the sea seems more appropriate than ever. Though to both the clear answer is you won't catch any fish if you're only hunting for the best.  

No Paradox Here

For students of determinism you may have already come to the conclusion that time travel is indeed possible if not likely and exists without the possibility of paradox. That is to say that if determinism is true then everything is destined and can not be changed. Thus if you're destined to time travel and kill yourself before you traveled that the does not result in a paradox nor does changing anything within the timeline as you were destined to do these things. This actually also doubles as proof of a timeline's ability to exist separate within itself and for multiple simultaneous timelines. With determinism you can never invalidate the premises required for a given event to occur or that doing so has no impact relative to your current action.

Part of this could possibly coincide with the hologram theory however that's thousands of times more complex to explain and I could easily write a book on it. Suffice to say I want to try and keep philosophy short from now on if that's at all possible. Perhaps just a paragraph or two in the future, let me know what you think.

The Long Way Home

The beuty of the universe is that it will always find new ways of telling you how much you simply do not know. Submerged in all the endless possibilities I hadn't stopped to consider the long term effects of what I've been doing in relation to myself. I'd believed that my methods were proof of my concepts and that because everything is happening at once anything that could happen was happening and thus could also not be happening. So I was surprised to say the least when I found myself unable to control what was now happening to me as a side effect of my travel that couldn't simply be undone. Merging with all the possible versions of myself resulted in not only overwhelming information but a kind of physical confusion of muscle memory making regular movement nearly impossible at times. Separating one timeline from another was also equally difficult in terms of memories. I'm not sure now which version of me was the original or if I can even claim to be an individual at this point given how many of me there are.

I can at least take solace in the fact that I am at least in control of myself and learning new methods by which to understand the universe. Honestly I had considered not even coming back, just as much as I'd considered going back and continuing as if nothing had changed which I very well am doing. I've adapted to comprehend that which I now see which is infinitely more than I'd ever imagined just a few perceived years ago. To me it feels like several lifetimes knowing how much I've done.

Even so I've also found a greater link between space and time and that any movement through space can have both direct and indirect movements through time. The electrons in your own body repel against almost all other electrons resulting in some isolation already keeping you from ever truly touching anything. Manipulating this fact you can have the first stage of travel. After mastering control of thisthe second stage comes in completely isolating yourself from the timeline you're in, and the third stage being movement between lines or across them and through them. The next stage is a matter of communication bringing things back and forth in similar manners expanding into larger objects and locations. then where I am now is a matter of all spacial movement having proportionate dualistic time movement that can be influenced so that for example walking around a kitchen you could step through a point in time in which perhaps the floor did not exist. Controlling how your movement effects the time around you different to how time effects you through movement. Consider it from an observational point instead of the person fading in and out it's the environment.

It's difficult to generate the words necessary to describe the concept further as not only do they not exist but creating them requires the readers to be able of comprehending their meaning which only a select few at this point can. perhaps in my explorations I'll discover a future version of my writings or derivative with greater understanding that I can provide for the sake of those interested.

random thoughts?

How did the earth get to it's place in this little system? Have we always revolved around the sun? Do we ever get a little out of orbit? All of these questions I find myself wondering about from time to time. I like to think that perhaps people just didn't consider the possibility that our planet came flying into this system from somewhere else and got caught up by this system while we were rocketing through space. What if that's what the last ice age was, just a case where we pop in and out of orbit where we adjust to being in this new system. Makes you wonder about the dinosaurs...

Total BS obviously but it's an interesting thought.

First thoughts

I keep wondering why I don't go into physics on a professional level, apparently as long as you can understand what you're doing you're ahead of the game as apparently a large number of people just are incapable of understanding it even if it's explained. That aside keep in mind I only have a basic understanding and so the answers to what I may bring up are probably already answered and I just haven't found them yet.

When I woke up today I was wondering about that particle accelerator at CERN and what happens before the particles collide. Is there a preceding force or colliding fields leading the particles other than what's generated by the machine? What would happen if a third particle were to rip through just before impact? What if the two particles instead of colliding with eachother collided on either side of a floating particle between them?

I have this strange thought I can't push aside that there's a small field surrounding each particle and the fields meet before the particles and in that small moment there's a window of opportunity and if you could get in between the two at that time this third field would provide something interesting... I also considered what would happen if a third particle from a different direction collided with the other two at the exact same time. I understand how difficult it would be to accomplish so that there were no variance that the three are in fact meeting at the exact same time rather than one or another meeting first. Still I can't help but wonder. Though from my understanding the LHC is primarily for trying to gather more information on the higgs boson and I doubt my ideas would help that, not to say for sure though as it's possible but I'm considering it unlikely for the time being.

These are the kind of strange things I wake up thinking about. Not sure why and usually nothing comes of them, but at least they're interesting.

It is not the question, nor is it the answer.

I assume most of you made it through highschool and therefore like every highschooler are aware of hamlet and a semi-famous paraphrased quote of "to be or not to be". Back in that day it was a somewhat important question as to whether or not life was worth even living. That's not really the case though as it's not a matter of should you live but first establishing if you can even live or if you're even alive to begin with. Rather than go that route though I would say the more important question is what are the implications of you, your life, and even more importantly the implications of your continued existence. If hamlet had focused more on why he was there in that moment and what his purpose in life was  it most likely would not have saved him any of the tragedy that would soon befall him though it may have given him enough insight to make some change that would ultimately be his salvation. Quite possibly the saddest ending of it all was the fact there was to great revelation, no real lesson learned from the ordeal it was an ending for it's own sake.

Consider not whether or not you should live but rather what living implies and it's consequences both good and bad, everyone dies not everyone truly lives.

If we change are we really still the same?

 Not to be confused with the quote "the more things change the more they stay the same." I mean that as time goes on we do in fact change. Where as the quote suggests change becomes harder over time and thus happens less often, or by some interpretation can also mean that change is irrelevant in the face of time, it could be said that we never really change at heart. Recent studies even show how from a young age people don't really change so much, that the core of our character is always the same. Then there's the fact we all accept that we get older and yet even so we still identify someone as though they haven't changed, that it's somehow still them. To a degree that's certainly true even if nothing about them is the same as before.

Consider however that after 7 years every cell in your body has been replaced. Consider the potential for complete and total organ transfers across the board, even entirely different bodies. What if you didn't have a body anymore and your mind existed in something more mechanical like a robot for example. Though you may technically be a cyborg at that point... Either way if truly nothing about you is the same anymore, can it really be said that's it's still you? Even if you identify yourself as who you believe you are, is it really the truth?

Consider this line from the movie "john dies at the end"
you use an axe to kill a man and the handle breaks, you replace the handle, you then use it to dismember the body chipping the axe head and breaking it, you then replace the head of the axe, later the man you killed and dismembered comes back as a zombie and sees you wielding the axe and says "that is the axe you used to kill and dismember me" is he right?

By sequence you have replaced all the parts. Is there some essence that still remains? Is it the sequence part that has somehow preserved the symbol of the original? How can you truly claim to be the same if you have changed which by very definition means you are no longer the same? We are all versions of ourselves constantly changing and yet somehow we identify to a single concept of identity, what is it that we truly call ourselves if it's not who we are? Or perhaps we're all chasing what was in the hopes that not all is lost as we find ourselves misplaced in our own world, in our own mind, in our own life.