It's come to my attention that games have far outpaced desktop environments in raw functionality. Not just from an interface design of hyper efficiency or interactivity but also in utility. With Microsoft Smart Glass and Sony with remote play, continuous play, and second screen, we have entered into a reality where we can watch movies, and play games on multiple devices and screen simultaneously and independently of each other.
I envision in the near future where desktops namely windows finally adopt similar technology allowing for a singular unified workspace and hybrid computing. Like how I can take my vita which I'm using to play a game on the ps3 or 4 and as long as I already have it on my vita in some cases I can just walk away while I'm still playing and everything is fine, or in some cases I might need a short load function to resume the game right where I was. I see the near future where I can take a microsoft surface tablet and use it not only as a mirrored or extended display, but have a perfectly synced work environment that allows me to work on a word document on the surface and the desktop at the same time in such a way that while the host program might be on the desktop and the surface is only apparently mirroring the desktop in fact I could suffer catastrophic power failure and instead keep working on the tablet as if nothing had happened.
We can already do this with movies. I've literally been watching a movie which wasn't streaming but was on both my surface and my desktop and they were in sync having launched as a kind of second screen, then a blackout forced my computer into a blue screen in spite of my power supply and backup, yet on my surface the movie kept rolling without interruption.
We can do this with games on the ps3/4 with the vita. I don't mean remote play, or silly loading of save files however advanced they may be. I mean truly independent functionality of eachother in a singular environment. Consider something like luftrausers where you think you're playing it like remote play, you see it on your vita screen and on the tv, then suddenly power loss and the entire sytem loses power, wifi is down, system is down, etc, and yet your vita keeps on playing as if nothing happened because they were functioning on their own even if they were working on the exact same content. While this isn't an actual example my understanding is that it actually is extremely possible if it hasn't actually been done yet then you should expect it. Ruin for example was doing this in 2011 with a tiny save file that took a half a second or less between the two devices or save and or load and some remote play games have this with a one button command.
We already have workspace environments where people can drop in and out while working on the same project, like 3d models, and puzzles, without it effecting the work. It would not be a leap to imagine that they could take a current progress snapshot of the project and keep working on it using a mobile device without being connected to the project.
Imagine if you will a group of people counting. Any member can leave and keep counting on their own and the group can keep counting without them. Multiple members can leave and the same is true. At any point those members can come back and keep counting, and ideally as if though they had never left. This is a metaphorical example of how modern desktops should function in a mobile world. I should be able to use a surface tablet and work on my windows desktop perhaps writing in word then walk away with the tablet and keep working on the same word document as though nothing had happened or changed. Two independent systems syncing together as a single hybrid unit so long as they are able to communicate and functioning on their own even in the face of abrupt termination of communications. It may be the case that I'm already working on a surface and then windows detects I pulled in the driveway and then loads up my surface and what I'm currently doing and simply opens word on its own, syncs up, and is ready for when I sit down at my desktop. At most this system integration if it couldn't be seamless should be no more than a single button or gesture to activate.
Most of this as I've been saying is already available and possible and not only can be done but has been done. I imagine someone reading this could even write an app to do it with minimal effort. My horrible programming skills even were enough to get a proof of concept up and running with notepad. I managed to sync notepads and inputs using keyboard inputs from both the surface and my physical keyboard for my desktop and when I got far enough out of range of the desktop where I could no longer use it as a mirrored display it pushed that view aside to reveal my surface environment running notepad with the same text already input and ready for new input. While this is a huge difference from say running photoshop in the same way, the fact it can be done with notepad is enough for me to conclude on top of other evidence that it is extremely possible.
So what do you think of a unified environment? Is anyone else hyped for the realistic possibility that your windows 10 and tablets might take your internet browsing and make it seamless? If you had this power in your hands would you actually use it?
As an edited in post note. If you can't wait for some intrepid developer to write proper code for this idea and make it a reality, and you've got the money, then I will direct you to the thunderbolt hardware technology. This tech can allow a tablet or laptop immediate access to additional hardware using a single small plug which can just as easily be removed like usb. It can support multiple connections for multiple devices which themselves may have multiple pieces of associated hardware and can do so at extreme speeds. In many example setups they have a small tower filled with additional ram, gpu's, hard drives, a monitor, and more which the laptop immediately reacts to and can utilize. There are also ports and cards on modern motherboards for desktops that could allow a tablet or laptop to gain access to all such hardware and the entire system. This while not quite the same as described above is functionally very similar.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Sunday, October 5, 2014
A new world model
I may have discussed economic models lightly in the past perhaps also suggesting existing alternatives or theoretical solutions such as described in the venus project. However many of them are to some extent impractical or unrealistic even if technically feasible. In particular the human element and long term conditioning make radical changes hard to accept. I would now try to contemplate an entire system to replace what we have. Not just economics but laws and social contract and government in general. This is likely going to come in parts due to sheer length and will include education, government, laws, among other facets and what their roles should be. I will be attempting to design a system in both micro and macro ideals to function on any scale. I'll also try to compartmentalize them so each can function on its own independent of the other concepts though I will often try to tie them together if it makes sense to do so. The idea being that while they may function on their own they will be better together.
I've been influenced by many authors over the years and some of this will undoubtedly include their concepts or ideals though likely not verbatim. I don't plan to give them their proper credit nor do I plan to take the credit for myself rather that the concepts and information presented should be free to all who read them without concern for origin for the sake of forward thinking. The idea being that each author assembles their own masterpiece of smaller pieces they collect and this is to be a presentation of one piece just as theirs were and thus each element should not be broken from the whole except for validation. Remember that if any part is wrong the collective as a whole even if correct is also technically wrong.
I start by asking what is the current state of affairs and what is necessary to support life. I proceed to ask what must change to make life possible for all without disparity if it is not already so. Then what is necessary to leave the individual free to pursue their own happiness without constraint. Food and shelter are paramount to survival. The quality of the food and shelter have effect on the quality of life. In order to accommodate the most people a balance of minimum acceptable standards must first be derived which I am unqualified to do. Suffice to say an individual does not need the same amount as a family and should be treated as such.
Beyond survival a functioning society requires more if its members are to be minimally prosperous. Some rudimentary medicine is also needed. Since medicine is a trained skill then education is also thus necessary.
How then are we to provide these things to the people? How should we determine priority of who gets first access to the resources if we should even do so to begin with? Is trade, barter, or a monetary economic system relevant in modern times or can a superior solution be instituted?
What about amenities which are a luxury? Should they be used as community items temporarily borrowed, or fixed in a single location, or should they instead be available as property items? How should property be defined or protected and to what extent should an individual be allowed to protect property? All these questions and more will be detailed in upcoming sections.
I've been influenced by many authors over the years and some of this will undoubtedly include their concepts or ideals though likely not verbatim. I don't plan to give them their proper credit nor do I plan to take the credit for myself rather that the concepts and information presented should be free to all who read them without concern for origin for the sake of forward thinking. The idea being that each author assembles their own masterpiece of smaller pieces they collect and this is to be a presentation of one piece just as theirs were and thus each element should not be broken from the whole except for validation. Remember that if any part is wrong the collective as a whole even if correct is also technically wrong.
I start by asking what is the current state of affairs and what is necessary to support life. I proceed to ask what must change to make life possible for all without disparity if it is not already so. Then what is necessary to leave the individual free to pursue their own happiness without constraint. Food and shelter are paramount to survival. The quality of the food and shelter have effect on the quality of life. In order to accommodate the most people a balance of minimum acceptable standards must first be derived which I am unqualified to do. Suffice to say an individual does not need the same amount as a family and should be treated as such.
Beyond survival a functioning society requires more if its members are to be minimally prosperous. Some rudimentary medicine is also needed. Since medicine is a trained skill then education is also thus necessary.
How then are we to provide these things to the people? How should we determine priority of who gets first access to the resources if we should even do so to begin with? Is trade, barter, or a monetary economic system relevant in modern times or can a superior solution be instituted?
What about amenities which are a luxury? Should they be used as community items temporarily borrowed, or fixed in a single location, or should they instead be available as property items? How should property be defined or protected and to what extent should an individual be allowed to protect property? All these questions and more will be detailed in upcoming sections.
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
A flaw in the virtue of selfishness
If we all hold that self interest is paramount or half of us even hold it as an ideal in which we seek to acquire more and our greed keeps us from using the money we hold the entire economic system collapses
Free market is based on the principals of keeping the money flowing and changing hands, the selfish among as try to hoard it, and from the time we were kids we're told to save our money
its no wonder then the economy collapses when nobody spends their money.
Then again we always hear about how we're the ones living beyond our means and how we're under water leveraged to the hilt in upside down mortgages. This greed and selfishness tells us to acquire more and more things and to be materialistic. So what then is our problem? Are we spending or saving?
The real answer is more likely to be that we are not the problem. You may ask where did I say that we were? The fact is that its a hidden premise suppressed by our own mind for a myriad of reasons. In establishing that we are or are not spending our money and that is somehow a problem it becomes that we are the problem through transitive properties. Yet as I said it is more likely in fact that given a small handful of people control the economy given that they control more than 90% of the money we realize that they are the problem. Those few hundred perhaps a thousand at most that have failed their duty to us and our economy simply hoarding it all as they slowly choke the life out of us and we do nothing to fight back.
This seems like an inevitability within the philosophy without some level of regulation. Though to each their own I guess, perhaps one day we'll realize how little we need money in the future.
Free market is based on the principals of keeping the money flowing and changing hands, the selfish among as try to hoard it, and from the time we were kids we're told to save our money
its no wonder then the economy collapses when nobody spends their money.
Then again we always hear about how we're the ones living beyond our means and how we're under water leveraged to the hilt in upside down mortgages. This greed and selfishness tells us to acquire more and more things and to be materialistic. So what then is our problem? Are we spending or saving?
The real answer is more likely to be that we are not the problem. You may ask where did I say that we were? The fact is that its a hidden premise suppressed by our own mind for a myriad of reasons. In establishing that we are or are not spending our money and that is somehow a problem it becomes that we are the problem through transitive properties. Yet as I said it is more likely in fact that given a small handful of people control the economy given that they control more than 90% of the money we realize that they are the problem. Those few hundred perhaps a thousand at most that have failed their duty to us and our economy simply hoarding it all as they slowly choke the life out of us and we do nothing to fight back.
This seems like an inevitability within the philosophy without some level of regulation. Though to each their own I guess, perhaps one day we'll realize how little we need money in the future.
Sunday, September 28, 2014
Current misperceptions of Atlas Shrugged
I tried to avoid this topic for as long as I could. I tend to agree that selfishness is good and that altruism to some degree should be limited. I don't go to the extreme in saying a handout endangers the world or anything close but I will dispute what the handout should be. I finally get to this topic because partly of how popular the book has become and how people are using it to defend big business. There's an enormous misconception though and people keep leaning on it without realizing the real meaning of it.
The basic story of Atlas Shrugged is what if big business left us to our own devices and its heroes are the selfish industrialists while the villains are big government and those on welfare or looking for handouts which are described succinctly as moochers and leeches, the non contributing zeroes of society. The story itself was written in a time where the majority of people were self employed usually through agriculture or were in a service industry with no fear for technological outsourcing. Back when big business and industrialists and the wealthy were real entrepreneurs making changes in the world and creating entirely new things or finding ways to mass produce them. This is when we had new tech for making industrial steel faster and cheaper than ever before, mass production of automobiles, the invention of the fridge, toaster, early tv's, and more. The real concept of Atlas Shrugged was what if all the thinkers and creators were to leave the moochers behind for their own society.
Today we have people leaning on this idea that somehow big business and the multi billion dollar capitalists are somehow the real creators and inventors of everything these days and produce a society worth living in. If this were truly the case I wouldn't mind the fact they have their huge tax breaks, I might ignore the wealth gap and disparity, I might agree that government should find new ways to pay for public services and let free market rule. Instead you find me saying we need more public service and higher taxes a real middle class as opposed to the few hundred or so people that control over 90% of the US economy, and complaining about inequality and the lack of proper opportunity for social mobility. That is because I have deemed these wealthiest of people as hoarders and leeches on the belly of society. They produce waste and deliberately cause inefficiency seeking to maximize profits which only fuels their greed for more and to hold on to as much as possible. Many of the most successful failing to realize that holding on to their wealth so tightly is stagnating the economy into failure.
The simple truth of our world today is creators are punished and cheated out of their intellectual property only to have nothing done with it other than collect dust on a shelf. You won't see the rise of electric cars until oil has run dry with inflating cost on the way and only truly hyper fuel efficient cars at the same time to hold on till the bitter end. Then electric cars will still be inefficient with hyper inflated electrical cost to compensate for what is already an overburdened system with frequent failures in complete disrepair. These billionaires are sucking the nation dry and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they packed up and moved once we're dead from our current state of decay, likely they may even seek to make this literal if conspiracy theorists are right.
My only solution is the most upsetting which is that those with the money if they can't learn to use it and keep it moving then they should have it taken from them to the benefit of others. This only results in yet a communist system rife with corruption itself though and in turn is no solution at all. So how then do we balance the scales? We must work to find a solution together.
The basic story of Atlas Shrugged is what if big business left us to our own devices and its heroes are the selfish industrialists while the villains are big government and those on welfare or looking for handouts which are described succinctly as moochers and leeches, the non contributing zeroes of society. The story itself was written in a time where the majority of people were self employed usually through agriculture or were in a service industry with no fear for technological outsourcing. Back when big business and industrialists and the wealthy were real entrepreneurs making changes in the world and creating entirely new things or finding ways to mass produce them. This is when we had new tech for making industrial steel faster and cheaper than ever before, mass production of automobiles, the invention of the fridge, toaster, early tv's, and more. The real concept of Atlas Shrugged was what if all the thinkers and creators were to leave the moochers behind for their own society.
Today we have people leaning on this idea that somehow big business and the multi billion dollar capitalists are somehow the real creators and inventors of everything these days and produce a society worth living in. If this were truly the case I wouldn't mind the fact they have their huge tax breaks, I might ignore the wealth gap and disparity, I might agree that government should find new ways to pay for public services and let free market rule. Instead you find me saying we need more public service and higher taxes a real middle class as opposed to the few hundred or so people that control over 90% of the US economy, and complaining about inequality and the lack of proper opportunity for social mobility. That is because I have deemed these wealthiest of people as hoarders and leeches on the belly of society. They produce waste and deliberately cause inefficiency seeking to maximize profits which only fuels their greed for more and to hold on to as much as possible. Many of the most successful failing to realize that holding on to their wealth so tightly is stagnating the economy into failure.
The simple truth of our world today is creators are punished and cheated out of their intellectual property only to have nothing done with it other than collect dust on a shelf. You won't see the rise of electric cars until oil has run dry with inflating cost on the way and only truly hyper fuel efficient cars at the same time to hold on till the bitter end. Then electric cars will still be inefficient with hyper inflated electrical cost to compensate for what is already an overburdened system with frequent failures in complete disrepair. These billionaires are sucking the nation dry and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they packed up and moved once we're dead from our current state of decay, likely they may even seek to make this literal if conspiracy theorists are right.
My only solution is the most upsetting which is that those with the money if they can't learn to use it and keep it moving then they should have it taken from them to the benefit of others. This only results in yet a communist system rife with corruption itself though and in turn is no solution at all. So how then do we balance the scales? We must work to find a solution together.
Friday, September 26, 2014
Changing Post Dates
Now moving from Friday to either monday or wednesday to avoid conflicting with my game blog and promote frequent repeat visitors.
A thought for the day though. If you found out you were immortal how would that change your life? What would you do if you knew you would never die?
I think I'd be a lot more aggressive in changing the world and stop worrying over day to day survival, I would free myself from being a debt slave to the capitalist economy.
A thought for the day though. If you found out you were immortal how would that change your life? What would you do if you knew you would never die?
I think I'd be a lot more aggressive in changing the world and stop worrying over day to day survival, I would free myself from being a debt slave to the capitalist economy.
Friday, September 19, 2014
We are all 8th dimensional travelers
When we think and consider what if all universe met at a single point. We come to realize that what we do here on earth by having actors and emulating these stories is that we're really opening portals into another dimension that for a short time we live in. Yet we're so unaware of our own power that we have an abstraction of it that we call acting, which we separate into theater, tv, movies, and more such as that of literature which in some universe somewhere is the same as a written history of events. In my travels I have found the simple truth that we are all higher beings merely waiting to be awakened.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Movie Philosophy "In Time"
I thought a change of pace might be good. Today I consider a movie and some of the ideas in it, and if it does well then perhaps I'll do more in a similar nature. The movie I'm detailing today is "In Time" with Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried. This isn't a complete movie review or commentary on the collective as I'm sure there's a mixed bag of views on how subjectively good the movie is or not and I don't feel a need to add to it. Instead we're focusing on the focal point of the movie which is time as a currency both literally and metaphorically.
Since the metaphor is fairly straight forward it's comparatively short to discuss. The way I see it is that the movie uses it as a social commentary on how we spend our time or waste it doing everything. We all start out in life knowing that someday we die which can be equated to a fixed time of some degree. We then spend huge chunks of it doing repetitive things, some out of necessity like sleep, and others like labor as a means of survival. It could be taken a bit further that from the context of the movie we only have a couple years in our early years to truly live, suggestively in the 25 to 26 range after which a life of freedom essentially ends. Smaller notes posted throughout show some support for this concept such as the 3 minutes for coffee moment, which I know people will spend much more time in line waiting on their coffee. The time given to help out others and a subtle suggestion that the rich are stealing your life one second at a time. Quite honestly it's one of the most thought out concepts I've seen in a movie in quite some time.
Then there's the literal sense of time as currency. Early on we hear about the cost of bills and a breakdown of how much time it will cost to pay them. We then determine rent is surprisingly cheap depending on how much they get paid per shift at work which have to assume is more than the time they put in at the work itself. In terms of exact numbers it could be anywhere from 12 to 36 hours cost in rent which for their tiny apartment in a slum would be between 90 and 270$ and in my experience it's usually closer to 400$ so that's not an entirely unrealistic cost. Then we find out a single bus ride used to cost 1 hour and now costs 2. I don't know about you but I wouldn't be spending more than 3 dollars on a bus ride let alone 7 to 15 or more. So the pricing is a little out of control, going back to the 3 minutes for a cup of coffee this becomes much more extreme. If we consider the price of the coffee and compare it to a standard cost of coffee we find a minute is worth nearly a dollar or almost a direct transition. Meaning an hour is 60$ Would you spend 120$ a day for a bus ride plus however long it takes to get there, or would you just walk the 2 hours? Consider this a function of marginal utility in economics, and I guarantee you no sane person would do this on a regular basis. If we adjust rent for this pricing instead of using a sliding scale we find their slum rent is 2160$ which we don't know if that's per week or per month though I'm inclined to believe it's monthly. As an economics system this sounds so horrifically flawed.
Then we must also consider one of the most important things. This currency expires constantly and is supposedly nonrenewable. Consider how the time cop requests his "tritium /tridium" to be wired to him. This suggests that time can be transferred wirelessly and thus is not some chemical resource being introduced to the body. If this were somehow computer based as a binary countdown it'd be relatively easy to hack even if there were some genetic component to it. Stopping the timer, making it count up, changing it's values, stopping the kill switch/trigger at zero thus allowing negative values, etc. We have to then assume this somehow is not the case. That the time is static unchangeable and constantly decaying. How then does this not become a systemic crisis? Consider the cost of raising a child for 25 years, you're probably not going to have multiple kids to somehow renew the resource of time. Where and how does the time you get paid for working come from? How are there rich people in this system? If this were introduced tomorrow, firing up the "what if machine" and say everyone had these timers counting down. Billions would be dead by this time next year and that number only gets smaller each successive year even if there were a few select rich people collecting time with all of it counting down on the arm of every person this inevitably would have to kill everyone.
This is actually pretty clear to break down actually. If instituted today assuming the population is roughly 7.6 billion on the planet and that children's timers remain frozen until the age of 25 thus children born today have 26 years to live, knowing that the 1 year every person has expires one second at a time then we know that if nobody uses their time for anything and lets it expire then the majority of the population is gone by the end of the year. For people to continue to live it would become a necessity to give up time to others, or have children at much earlier ages knowing you wouldn't be able to finish raising them. The human race in order to survive would literally have to have kids when they're just hitting puberty at the average age of 13 raise them for the next 12 years in time to see them ready to have their own kids before their time starts to expire. Going the other route we see likely half of the population giving up it's time to the other half and dying out, repeated year after year assuming we don't use time as a currency we go from 7.6 billion to 3.8 after the first year, 1.9 the second, rounded up we'd have 1 billion the third year, 500 million the fourth, 250 the fifth, 125 the sixth, 67 the seventh, 38 the eighth, 19, etc with time expiring literally each person would revolve around having only that year left with everyone around them dying. That's the most people surviving as long as they can. Alternatively the majority of people could sacrifice themselves to a minor few concentrating 7 billion years into 600 million people, giving everyone an extra 11 to 12 years. Still though nobody could make it 25 years to raise kids unless that number gets concentrated down much further. It's possible some people might continue to live a bit longer, in particular children born in this timeframe will make it a bit longer but eventually all the time would expire and there'd be nobody left. If this movie worked as it claimed then that one city would be the only one left by the logic that your main characters mother is turning 50, thus 25+ years expired, and that one man is worth more than 1 million years easily betting a thousand.
By necessity I'm forced to conclude the machines they use to adjust time are just that some form of computer or machine designed with function and purpose which could be hacked to make alterations thus breaking the entire system. As an economic method it's horribly unbalanced and downright evil bordering on nonviable. As a metaphorical social commentary it's pure genius.
Since the metaphor is fairly straight forward it's comparatively short to discuss. The way I see it is that the movie uses it as a social commentary on how we spend our time or waste it doing everything. We all start out in life knowing that someday we die which can be equated to a fixed time of some degree. We then spend huge chunks of it doing repetitive things, some out of necessity like sleep, and others like labor as a means of survival. It could be taken a bit further that from the context of the movie we only have a couple years in our early years to truly live, suggestively in the 25 to 26 range after which a life of freedom essentially ends. Smaller notes posted throughout show some support for this concept such as the 3 minutes for coffee moment, which I know people will spend much more time in line waiting on their coffee. The time given to help out others and a subtle suggestion that the rich are stealing your life one second at a time. Quite honestly it's one of the most thought out concepts I've seen in a movie in quite some time.
Then there's the literal sense of time as currency. Early on we hear about the cost of bills and a breakdown of how much time it will cost to pay them. We then determine rent is surprisingly cheap depending on how much they get paid per shift at work which have to assume is more than the time they put in at the work itself. In terms of exact numbers it could be anywhere from 12 to 36 hours cost in rent which for their tiny apartment in a slum would be between 90 and 270$ and in my experience it's usually closer to 400$ so that's not an entirely unrealistic cost. Then we find out a single bus ride used to cost 1 hour and now costs 2. I don't know about you but I wouldn't be spending more than 3 dollars on a bus ride let alone 7 to 15 or more. So the pricing is a little out of control, going back to the 3 minutes for a cup of coffee this becomes much more extreme. If we consider the price of the coffee and compare it to a standard cost of coffee we find a minute is worth nearly a dollar or almost a direct transition. Meaning an hour is 60$ Would you spend 120$ a day for a bus ride plus however long it takes to get there, or would you just walk the 2 hours? Consider this a function of marginal utility in economics, and I guarantee you no sane person would do this on a regular basis. If we adjust rent for this pricing instead of using a sliding scale we find their slum rent is 2160$ which we don't know if that's per week or per month though I'm inclined to believe it's monthly. As an economics system this sounds so horrifically flawed.
Then we must also consider one of the most important things. This currency expires constantly and is supposedly nonrenewable. Consider how the time cop requests his "tritium /tridium" to be wired to him. This suggests that time can be transferred wirelessly and thus is not some chemical resource being introduced to the body. If this were somehow computer based as a binary countdown it'd be relatively easy to hack even if there were some genetic component to it. Stopping the timer, making it count up, changing it's values, stopping the kill switch/trigger at zero thus allowing negative values, etc. We have to then assume this somehow is not the case. That the time is static unchangeable and constantly decaying. How then does this not become a systemic crisis? Consider the cost of raising a child for 25 years, you're probably not going to have multiple kids to somehow renew the resource of time. Where and how does the time you get paid for working come from? How are there rich people in this system? If this were introduced tomorrow, firing up the "what if machine" and say everyone had these timers counting down. Billions would be dead by this time next year and that number only gets smaller each successive year even if there were a few select rich people collecting time with all of it counting down on the arm of every person this inevitably would have to kill everyone.
This is actually pretty clear to break down actually. If instituted today assuming the population is roughly 7.6 billion on the planet and that children's timers remain frozen until the age of 25 thus children born today have 26 years to live, knowing that the 1 year every person has expires one second at a time then we know that if nobody uses their time for anything and lets it expire then the majority of the population is gone by the end of the year. For people to continue to live it would become a necessity to give up time to others, or have children at much earlier ages knowing you wouldn't be able to finish raising them. The human race in order to survive would literally have to have kids when they're just hitting puberty at the average age of 13 raise them for the next 12 years in time to see them ready to have their own kids before their time starts to expire. Going the other route we see likely half of the population giving up it's time to the other half and dying out, repeated year after year assuming we don't use time as a currency we go from 7.6 billion to 3.8 after the first year, 1.9 the second, rounded up we'd have 1 billion the third year, 500 million the fourth, 250 the fifth, 125 the sixth, 67 the seventh, 38 the eighth, 19, etc with time expiring literally each person would revolve around having only that year left with everyone around them dying. That's the most people surviving as long as they can. Alternatively the majority of people could sacrifice themselves to a minor few concentrating 7 billion years into 600 million people, giving everyone an extra 11 to 12 years. Still though nobody could make it 25 years to raise kids unless that number gets concentrated down much further. It's possible some people might continue to live a bit longer, in particular children born in this timeframe will make it a bit longer but eventually all the time would expire and there'd be nobody left. If this movie worked as it claimed then that one city would be the only one left by the logic that your main characters mother is turning 50, thus 25+ years expired, and that one man is worth more than 1 million years easily betting a thousand.
By necessity I'm forced to conclude the machines they use to adjust time are just that some form of computer or machine designed with function and purpose which could be hacked to make alterations thus breaking the entire system. As an economic method it's horribly unbalanced and downright evil bordering on nonviable. As a metaphorical social commentary it's pure genius.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Total Weather Control
Today's topic is primarily for people familiar with both the military tech used for crowd control and some experimental japanese weather control systems. In particular the military has developed a system that boils the water just under your skin to the point no rational person would stay where they are by choice but is otherwise non-lethal. In japan on a small relatively uninhabited island for the last couple years there's been an experimental weather control system being developed and tested. The island itself is mostly stable all year round naturally staying within a specific temperature range which helps to determine the effectiveness of the system. Apparently they've been successful in making it rain when they want to, which could suggest they can do quite a bit more if they want to.
Now consider the principals of each and how we know thermodynamics work in response to specific electromagnetic frequencies and wavelengths. You could in theory create a fast acting freeze ray if you're not worried about cell damage that comes from rapid cooling and expansion. Which is to say if you're not using it on something living, such as people or animals as a primary example. These systems are both relatively small and very portable, given enough of them we could have a much greater control over the weather if we really wanted.
Consider though the effects this might have on the world if we could control the global weather. Would they be to our advantage or disadvantage? What repercussions could come from manipulating such a large natural system to such a great extent? I'm equally fascinated and horrified by the potential some of our wildest tech has to offer these days.
Now consider the principals of each and how we know thermodynamics work in response to specific electromagnetic frequencies and wavelengths. You could in theory create a fast acting freeze ray if you're not worried about cell damage that comes from rapid cooling and expansion. Which is to say if you're not using it on something living, such as people or animals as a primary example. These systems are both relatively small and very portable, given enough of them we could have a much greater control over the weather if we really wanted.
Consider though the effects this might have on the world if we could control the global weather. Would they be to our advantage or disadvantage? What repercussions could come from manipulating such a large natural system to such a great extent? I'm equally fascinated and horrified by the potential some of our wildest tech has to offer these days.
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
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.
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.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
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.
Total BS obviously but it's an interesting thought.
Saturday, June 8, 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Getting Lost + Convergence
As it would turn out I was in a very similar timeline for weeks and I'm only just now realizing this. Thankfully the other version of myself kept up the other blog on my behalf and now I'm back apparently he didn't keep a blog for this. Interestingly enough I'm finding that all forms of me across all timelines don't exist at the same time or in the same manner and as more and more find their abilities a convergence happens in which I gain their knowledge. Which means I pretty much feel at home wherever I am. I'm assuming now of course that this is my original timeline or close enough.
No I will not go back and re-write all of those blogs or copy paste to a drive and post here. I did that once already it was a headache and nobody believed me anyway because by the time I proved it they remembered it as though it had always been there and thus nothing had been missing to begin with. Oh the delights of time travel.
So what's new is the question? my answer is technically nothing, but you're about to hear some very interesting news about the wiiU that will more than likely upset or piss you off even if you liked the wiiU, if you already hated it then now you will be more justified in your hatred.
An interesting question for some of you, how would you know if you'd jumped timelines into a timeline exactly like yours except one minor difference that doesn't directly effect you? How do you know you haven't done so already at least once if not dozens of times?
I finally figured out what had been bothering me for so long, the light switches in the basement of my house flip in the other direction here, so they were reversed where I was. That was basically the only difference between here and there that I could find. Why didn't I stay? because those switches were pissing me off! When you do something enough times long enough and suddenly it stops working like it used to then it tends to upset you. Consider how you know though that you're in your right timeline or not and how you plan on living knowing that maybe you're not where you belong....
No I will not go back and re-write all of those blogs or copy paste to a drive and post here. I did that once already it was a headache and nobody believed me anyway because by the time I proved it they remembered it as though it had always been there and thus nothing had been missing to begin with. Oh the delights of time travel.
So what's new is the question? my answer is technically nothing, but you're about to hear some very interesting news about the wiiU that will more than likely upset or piss you off even if you liked the wiiU, if you already hated it then now you will be more justified in your hatred.
An interesting question for some of you, how would you know if you'd jumped timelines into a timeline exactly like yours except one minor difference that doesn't directly effect you? How do you know you haven't done so already at least once if not dozens of times?
I finally figured out what had been bothering me for so long, the light switches in the basement of my house flip in the other direction here, so they were reversed where I was. That was basically the only difference between here and there that I could find. Why didn't I stay? because those switches were pissing me off! When you do something enough times long enough and suddenly it stops working like it used to then it tends to upset you. Consider how you know though that you're in your right timeline or not and how you plan on living knowing that maybe you're not where you belong....
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Convergent Realities
Often when we have conflicting thoughts we assume only one can be correct or that somehow one is more accurate or realistic than the other. Tell me how do you prove that something isn't real when everything tells you that it is? Normally we compare to everything else we know and reject anything that contradicts that limiting us to what we can claim to have experienced.
I know that I've seen, felt, and done things that by traditionally accepted conventions would say are impossible and the highly improbable then points to that because it's so rare it couldn't be me by statistics even if I and the foundation of which they are based on. By definition one in a billion means at least one person has to do it at least once. Other times I know that my rational mind tells me that what I'm experiencing simply can't be real because it's so wildly different from what I had identified as reality. In that case though now I wonder if I'm really experiencing another reality. Keeping in line with what I know of dimensions and how they work in theory I have to accept then that at some point there is an entirely different reality that exists even if I'm not originally a part of it.
That's not to say it can't be accessed merely that it's not native to where I came from. What I find interesting though is how these realities at some points intersect even if only for the briefest periods. More interestingly is how they occur without specific or relative time as though they have their own subdimensions of time that behave in wild manners when they intersect and more importantly when they're done intersecting and go their separate ways it's as if they never intersected at all. It's a strange kind of non event in which something most certainly happened and perhaps even evidence of it happening could be recorded and yet it never does simply because by the time it's done there's no point in which it can ever be observed from any perspective.
It's a bubble in time unto itself in which it only exists for as long as it does and it's existence is independent of essentially everything else. I don't even know how to properly describe it other than to say that it is the most substantial nothing I've ever encountered. If I were to compare it to anything else I would imagine that it would be like experiencing an aurora or colors in a spectrum you've never even been capable of seeing before then as it fades away it's as if you're the only person that saw it happening and even if you weren't the only one to see it you're definitely the only one to remember it.
I for one will continue to embrace the realities I encounter as I encounter them no matter how alien they are to me if only for the sake of knowing they're there. I've seen realities in which life is in stages on an endless cycle, or where the concept of death doesn't even exist as life is basically eternal and I wonder then if what I'm seeing is exclusive to a reality fundamentally different principals or if it's possible such things exist within our own universe. Imagine meeting an alien race that had never encountered death, a foreign concept so radical they can't even comprehend it. Try to keep an open mind because if everything tells you something is real then you're the only one that can ever truly say it isn't and denying that reality to yourself may close more doors than you realize.
I know that I've seen, felt, and done things that by traditionally accepted conventions would say are impossible and the highly improbable then points to that because it's so rare it couldn't be me by statistics even if I and the foundation of which they are based on. By definition one in a billion means at least one person has to do it at least once. Other times I know that my rational mind tells me that what I'm experiencing simply can't be real because it's so wildly different from what I had identified as reality. In that case though now I wonder if I'm really experiencing another reality. Keeping in line with what I know of dimensions and how they work in theory I have to accept then that at some point there is an entirely different reality that exists even if I'm not originally a part of it.
That's not to say it can't be accessed merely that it's not native to where I came from. What I find interesting though is how these realities at some points intersect even if only for the briefest periods. More interestingly is how they occur without specific or relative time as though they have their own subdimensions of time that behave in wild manners when they intersect and more importantly when they're done intersecting and go their separate ways it's as if they never intersected at all. It's a strange kind of non event in which something most certainly happened and perhaps even evidence of it happening could be recorded and yet it never does simply because by the time it's done there's no point in which it can ever be observed from any perspective.
It's a bubble in time unto itself in which it only exists for as long as it does and it's existence is independent of essentially everything else. I don't even know how to properly describe it other than to say that it is the most substantial nothing I've ever encountered. If I were to compare it to anything else I would imagine that it would be like experiencing an aurora or colors in a spectrum you've never even been capable of seeing before then as it fades away it's as if you're the only person that saw it happening and even if you weren't the only one to see it you're definitely the only one to remember it.
I for one will continue to embrace the realities I encounter as I encounter them no matter how alien they are to me if only for the sake of knowing they're there. I've seen realities in which life is in stages on an endless cycle, or where the concept of death doesn't even exist as life is basically eternal and I wonder then if what I'm seeing is exclusive to a reality fundamentally different principals or if it's possible such things exist within our own universe. Imagine meeting an alien race that had never encountered death, a foreign concept so radical they can't even comprehend it. Try to keep an open mind because if everything tells you something is real then you're the only one that can ever truly say it isn't and denying that reality to yourself may close more doors than you realize.
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Is time idependent of space?
During the big crunch, does time move backwards?
From what I can tell all of time is essentially a loop however due to the nature in which I observe it I can't really tell how time behaves or functions leading up to the big crunch and subsequent bang. It appears to keep moving forward however as I've previously mentioned forward isn't necessarily the same as continuing on in the same manner and would be imperceptible to those within it making it difficult to really know.
I like to think that time is effected by space and is more or less a property of matter and thus would be effected by a substantial change in the universe however that is for a different post. The synopsis of which would essentially be that I'm almost positive that time functions differently just before and after the big bang and the big crunch irregardless of how it actually behaves in that time the time itself will be notably different from time as we know it now by behavior. I don't think we'd regress or anything of that nature like playing things in reverse but I would suggest that the big crunch and the big bang are one and the same and that anything entering the crunch is also at the same time exiting the bang like a dual sided funnel and the end and beginning of time are also the same at least as they relate to this dimension.
I also end up wondering if this is the case how do I know which point in time I'm really participating in. It's conceivable that all instances of this moment across all loops through time are in fact the same ignoring the fact that I move through and around all such moments. Going through one end to come out the other is indistinguishable from simply going back so what then is to say that it ever really begins or ends at all aside from the fact that there is a singular moment where all space is said to exist in a single point.
This brings me to the next question which is that if time is effected by space then why does the loop continue to exist? Unless time itself is also being compressed as well even if at a different rate which I can't conceive simply because as I observe it change while constant doesn't effect appearance. It's possible the timeline is also focusing back on that point and is progressively shrink into it without losing any detail which makes sense to some extent and yet again as one side of the point is expanding at some point should this happen then even the expansion would also have to become a contraction. Perhaps this infinite expansion and contraction is responsible for the literal movement of time which without it could be said nothing would ever move and rather everything exists everywhere in every state at all moments in all of time.
Yet I still am left with the itching feeling that in fact time is not connected to space and rather space is connected to time. Rather while they may be somewhat connected neither truly relies on the other and perception of behavior relative to either or both is merely that. Which is to say neither effects the other and they are actually independent of one another not including their interactions. Existing both within and outside of each other time could be said to be both a container and a reference for what space is and yet could also be considered a byproduct of it like a field around a source. Perhaps considering it like a magnetic field around a magnet. If that is the case though then perhaps I should ask myself if it can be controlled in a similar fashion what could I accomplish then by focusing it or amplifying it or containing it? There's a lot to be considered and yet it's all open to interpretation so who knows if an answer could ever be found and even if one were to be found what's to say we could ever hope to understand it if it ever presented itself and we took notice which might not even happen.
What do you think?
From what I can tell all of time is essentially a loop however due to the nature in which I observe it I can't really tell how time behaves or functions leading up to the big crunch and subsequent bang. It appears to keep moving forward however as I've previously mentioned forward isn't necessarily the same as continuing on in the same manner and would be imperceptible to those within it making it difficult to really know.
I like to think that time is effected by space and is more or less a property of matter and thus would be effected by a substantial change in the universe however that is for a different post. The synopsis of which would essentially be that I'm almost positive that time functions differently just before and after the big bang and the big crunch irregardless of how it actually behaves in that time the time itself will be notably different from time as we know it now by behavior. I don't think we'd regress or anything of that nature like playing things in reverse but I would suggest that the big crunch and the big bang are one and the same and that anything entering the crunch is also at the same time exiting the bang like a dual sided funnel and the end and beginning of time are also the same at least as they relate to this dimension.
I also end up wondering if this is the case how do I know which point in time I'm really participating in. It's conceivable that all instances of this moment across all loops through time are in fact the same ignoring the fact that I move through and around all such moments. Going through one end to come out the other is indistinguishable from simply going back so what then is to say that it ever really begins or ends at all aside from the fact that there is a singular moment where all space is said to exist in a single point.
This brings me to the next question which is that if time is effected by space then why does the loop continue to exist? Unless time itself is also being compressed as well even if at a different rate which I can't conceive simply because as I observe it change while constant doesn't effect appearance. It's possible the timeline is also focusing back on that point and is progressively shrink into it without losing any detail which makes sense to some extent and yet again as one side of the point is expanding at some point should this happen then even the expansion would also have to become a contraction. Perhaps this infinite expansion and contraction is responsible for the literal movement of time which without it could be said nothing would ever move and rather everything exists everywhere in every state at all moments in all of time.
Yet I still am left with the itching feeling that in fact time is not connected to space and rather space is connected to time. Rather while they may be somewhat connected neither truly relies on the other and perception of behavior relative to either or both is merely that. Which is to say neither effects the other and they are actually independent of one another not including their interactions. Existing both within and outside of each other time could be said to be both a container and a reference for what space is and yet could also be considered a byproduct of it like a field around a source. Perhaps considering it like a magnetic field around a magnet. If that is the case though then perhaps I should ask myself if it can be controlled in a similar fashion what could I accomplish then by focusing it or amplifying it or containing it? There's a lot to be considered and yet it's all open to interpretation so who knows if an answer could ever be found and even if one were to be found what's to say we could ever hope to understand it if it ever presented itself and we took notice which might not even happen.
What do you think?
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
Grasping Time
I can't show you exactly how close you are to controlling time and yet I can vaguely explain how it's so much closer than you would imagine. The future is always within our grasp even if we don't feel it there and our reach extends further than we can ever realize even if not everything within our reach is within our grasp. The first steps to realizing your control over time is realizing first that you do have control and you're already exercising it all the time as you slowly pull yourself through time. We try to explain to ourselves how we perceive time on chemical and psychological levels and rationalize away what we don't understand which is that we're shifting ourselves through time.
They say time flies when you're having a great time and yet I'm sure we've all experienced an amazing time only to have it end and seem like it was so much longer than it actually was and inverse where an amazing experience that seems short appears to have consumed the day. The reality is localized and collective time shifts. Triggering that state for some can be the first steps to controlling time. For others it's perceiving reality itself as a construct of pure imagination whose boundaries are self defined. The end result is a subtle change in the way time is being perceived on a regular basis which inevitably leads to subsequent changes in time perspectives. Eventually we all realize time is only a mere location like a city with many blocks and buildings and moving through this city of time is as easy as walking down the block.
I recently witnessed a first timer as she released herself from everything. This blissful state of empty mindedness just jogging and yet to anyone looking it was as if she was blinking out of existence and moving faster than a car on the highway. She didn't realize it at first and so I watched closely as it began to sink in. Of course I couldn't help myself though and had to play a joke or two on her in the process. I waited till she was on an elevator headed some floors up when she thought she was alone and proceeded to pop in basically. Told her I was with the time travel police and just a grand old time at her expense. I then leveled with her and showed her a few things, all in all it was a good time.
In the end unlocking the secret of time travel is just that perfect state of mind where time simply doesn't exist and from my experiences there are as many ways to travel as there are travelers and the math of doing exists somewhere as of yet though I have not met the person that went that route and I think it's likely he doesn't want to share it, take from that what you will.
They say time flies when you're having a great time and yet I'm sure we've all experienced an amazing time only to have it end and seem like it was so much longer than it actually was and inverse where an amazing experience that seems short appears to have consumed the day. The reality is localized and collective time shifts. Triggering that state for some can be the first steps to controlling time. For others it's perceiving reality itself as a construct of pure imagination whose boundaries are self defined. The end result is a subtle change in the way time is being perceived on a regular basis which inevitably leads to subsequent changes in time perspectives. Eventually we all realize time is only a mere location like a city with many blocks and buildings and moving through this city of time is as easy as walking down the block.
I recently witnessed a first timer as she released herself from everything. This blissful state of empty mindedness just jogging and yet to anyone looking it was as if she was blinking out of existence and moving faster than a car on the highway. She didn't realize it at first and so I watched closely as it began to sink in. Of course I couldn't help myself though and had to play a joke or two on her in the process. I waited till she was on an elevator headed some floors up when she thought she was alone and proceeded to pop in basically. Told her I was with the time travel police and just a grand old time at her expense. I then leveled with her and showed her a few things, all in all it was a good time.
In the end unlocking the secret of time travel is just that perfect state of mind where time simply doesn't exist and from my experiences there are as many ways to travel as there are travelers and the math of doing exists somewhere as of yet though I have not met the person that went that route and I think it's likely he doesn't want to share it, take from that what you will.
Friday, March 1, 2013
Perspective - Test Results?
I was considering an older experiment that's been repeated over the years. Originally the test was designed around authority and it's influence. The setup was that they would take the volunteers and have them ask a series of questions to what they thought was another subject but was actually an actor. Each time the "subject" answered wrong they were given instruction to press a button they were told would shock the subject and of course the actor would react. Each time they pressed the button the voltage would go up and the actor would complain of heart problems and the end result would be that people thought they'd killed the other subject. The concept was that people were willing to simply follow orders if they didn't feel directly responsible for the results.
I happened to wonder what if rather than the results reflecting on authority if rather they reflected on general apathy and people's lack of care for their fellow human. Simply put how do the results show that people simply didn't care about what they were doing? Granted some subjects refused to continue however they were in the minority and each subsequent test to my knowledge has had fewer such people. Though it may also be that people caught on and therefore those results can't be leaned on as heavily. Some variants, such as were you were the subject being asked the questions and getting shocked even when giving the right answer or almost constantly, might prove useful in getting more accurate results. Granted people are less likely to cooperate when they're in pain but that's not to say there might not be some other variant equally as effective and less painful.
I've been considering how often research results are considered from entirely different perspectives and to what extent. Not just the results themselves but how they were obtained. Looking at that example experiment above I would say there are quite a few potential views on what the study could've been used for other than authority and apathy. How often do people stop to consider each step in the process used to bring them these kinds of results.
I'm also curious how often the same results are used for different purposes. While results can be interpreted in different ways, sometimes quite drastically, how often are they significantly different from purpose. Consider that almost everything you see and touch has more than one purpose and as such test results also reveal a lot more than what you see up front and are often open to interpretation.
I happened to wonder what if rather than the results reflecting on authority if rather they reflected on general apathy and people's lack of care for their fellow human. Simply put how do the results show that people simply didn't care about what they were doing? Granted some subjects refused to continue however they were in the minority and each subsequent test to my knowledge has had fewer such people. Though it may also be that people caught on and therefore those results can't be leaned on as heavily. Some variants, such as were you were the subject being asked the questions and getting shocked even when giving the right answer or almost constantly, might prove useful in getting more accurate results. Granted people are less likely to cooperate when they're in pain but that's not to say there might not be some other variant equally as effective and less painful.
I've been considering how often research results are considered from entirely different perspectives and to what extent. Not just the results themselves but how they were obtained. Looking at that example experiment above I would say there are quite a few potential views on what the study could've been used for other than authority and apathy. How often do people stop to consider each step in the process used to bring them these kinds of results.
I'm also curious how often the same results are used for different purposes. While results can be interpreted in different ways, sometimes quite drastically, how often are they significantly different from purpose. Consider that almost everything you see and touch has more than one purpose and as such test results also reveal a lot more than what you see up front and are often open to interpretation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)