Tuesday, 30 October 2012

Stream/Zoom of Infinity

I must apologise for the stream of thought that is to follow. It is incoherent, but follow-able, just about

1, Nothing, by its own definition, doesn't exist . . .
2, How can something not be made of something?

One can't encompass all of infinity. Even if one could have infinite potential, as in grow/expand for an infinite amount of time/space, one would never attain/encompass all/infinity (as one starts from a fixed, nucleated position). For a person locked within your "infinity" they would never be able to realise that they were locked within your, not infinity, but: infinitely expanding zone, but they would perceive it to be a true infinity (unless they could expand at a faster rate and reach the frontier of your expansion). So from a POV a non-infinity can be regarded or concluded as an infinity. But does this mean that infinity doesn't exist? For one to expand infinitely there needs to be an infinite space to expand into, unless the space you expand into is also expanding just quickly enough for your expansion to not reach said boundary. However, if there were to be a limit, it would be reached and infinity as a concept could be shelved. I would suggest, that logically, one can't shelve infinity until it can be proven that existence is finite.

Not sure that I have said all I want to in that last paragraph, but maybe you could fill in any gaps?

I think one of the problems with our attempts to comprehend infinity is we tend to have this "mandelbrot-zoom-esque" vision of OUR own outward and unending journey, as we try to visualise. But I would say that the whole humanoid-pov system of thought is kind of counterintuitive to the true handling of infinity and its corollarised threads. One can't take on infinity, anymore than one can visualise many multiple-dimensional theories without trying to translate them back into 3/4D. Starting from the human/nuclear POV is not a position one can take, or allow to dictate comprehension, when tackling infinity, I feel.

Instead, I would say, one should try and accept the concept that infinity is actual, in all directions: Infinite time, Infinite space, Infinite supramacro 3D upscaling, Infinite inframicro downscaling. I don't personally see any other logical route, logically.

I said before, try to see all of infinity at once (as an attempt to visualise I suppose): "Infinity can only be seen if it is seen from everywhere at the same time. This is the “Infinitum Leap” that is needed to appraise its truth majesty." But seeing everything within infinity (as I describe it) from everywhere in infinity, does seem to be a concept too far. As a concept (seeing infinity as I suggest) one can kind of process it through the mind, think that one has a handle on its suggestion. But to try and visualise it is to try and drag it back down into the human 3/4D framework. A seeming impossibility.

Can one think of infinity without one’s being asserting its constant
zoom function?

Maybe the paradox isn’t wrapped up in infinity itself. Just wrapped up in our attempted comprehension of its physical system, and the conjectures it sustains? The paradox being our ability to comprehend the concept of infinity without being able to wholly visualise it. Or the paradox being our inability to see infinity as a whole despite the fact we all are, as individuals, even when separated, infinite in scope. Ok, if one’s perception zooms out then one’s physical self becomes a dotted mote of shrinkage and gone. But if one’s perception zooms in and down through scale, forever one’s perception would travel, just like a Mandelbrot zoom. I am aware that mathematics has infinities in different forms; different boundaries used as appellation and designation. But for me, the holy grail (being something I believe in despite its lack of evidence!) is maybe one day being able to grapple and fully comprehend . . .

. . . had to stop . . .

Monday, 29 October 2012

Which religion Should I Choose?

I come from the view that reality and proven facts are paramount in understanding the universe, reality, infinity. Not fictions or sub-sets of spiritual mumbo-jumbo that have been purposefully constructed to manipulate the vulnerable.

Philosophy is a pursuit of any possibility. But this produces cognitive conjecture, no matter how interesting. I am not saying that philosophy or fringe science doe
sn't possess a theory that is correct. But they can't all be correct?

Science steps in to prove which theories are still relevant at whichever level presently attained; as in religions need to fit around scientific discoveries to maintain credibility.

Habitual non-sensical babblings of theists could cause any scientist to run out of steam, but only in his/her willingness to continue to participate pointing out the obvious to the unenlightened, uneducated, blind, ignoring envoys of a childlike state of humankind. Come on, it is time to grow up and wean yourself off the traditional controlling malefactors.

Are Reality and the Physical the Same?

It would seem plausible that in the same way we think of an animal consciousness (dog, cat or some such) we indeed may be party to a limited form of consciousness. Indeed I don't doubt a higher level of consciousness awaits the combination of genetic and nanobotic engineering (or other future level of consciousness). It could be possible that humans (if existing in an illusory/simulatory world) are
simply simplifications of a level of consciousness far higher, indeed in a universe designed and balanced in such a way that the possibility of higher consciousness exists: it would seem statistically more likely that we are in a simulation (subjects of a god) than in a real universe. It would seem that it is statistically more likely that we are mere shadows of a form of consciousness far grander than ours. This is however far from conclusive, and not an idea I am comfortable with or even willing to peddle as anything close to fact. Numbers are ultimately manipulatable (a perfect medium in which to sculpt an existence).

Some say consciousness itself is hard if not impossible to explain as regards why it exists. Why does it need to exist when the brain has its abilities, abilities to deal with problems and issues. Why is consciousness, awareness of oneself, needed?

Is it not simply a construct/simulation created by the brain to link together the different functions/abilities/areas of the brain and enable a being to connect these functions in the brain and problems in the external world (input areas of brain) to the problem solving areas that are required to deal with them and so guarantee survival.

Would a brain running without consciousness be able to do even the simplest of tasks? Isn't an orchestrator needed, one that needs to be aware?

So now we move to this post's subject. Are reality and the physical world the same? Of course they aren't. Anyone's personal reality is a mere 10th of a second late reflection of the external physical world. Taking any hallucinogen and being able to maintain ones understanding that what one is experiencing is not real despite the realistic/vivid properties of the altered state is testament to the fact that personal reality is capricious and malleable.

I would say that reality is what it needs to be. Whatever it needs to be to be able to prevent its extensions (the body) from being no longer able to support that reality. Reality itself is evolved to self perpetuate itself. We need to be aware so we are. We need to be conscious so we are. Reality is the way it is to allow understanding and interaction with the external physical world. Separate and different but indelibly linked.

/riˈælɪti/ Show Spelled[ree-al-i-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural re·al·i·ties for 3, 5–7.
the state or quality of being real.
resemblance to what is real.
a real thing or fact.

In the "hallucinogen" section I was separating the physical world (what some would term reality) from "personal reality" (see second definition of reality above). Of course a hallucinogen does not alter physical reality, but it does alter a "personal (sense of) reality", which is what I was referring to. Of course the whole exercise was in the name of ideas to do with the separation of the physical world from reality (I chose my interpretation of the word "reality" to be what we perceive the world as being, in our minds, not what is empirically testable as being actual physical reality).

Sunday, 28 October 2012

What it takes to be a Real Man

Men forcing women to have sex with them.
Men forcing women to have sex with them when they want.
Men forcing women to have sex with them more often.

Men forcing women to have sex with them period, to me constitutes rape*. Whether the man uses his physical power to rape, kicks his wife out of the bed unless she gives in, withholds money, uses emotional blackmail**, or goes off sleeping around to emotionally manipulate her into thinking it’s all her fault and that she is obliged to give him what he wants***. In the eyes of the law in the UK all of these things would constitute a rape charge. But alas, so many men carry on perpetrating these types of crimes because for some reason they think they are owed something, or they feel cheated because their wife is menopausal and not feeling like having sex. "I am a man and I have feelings, I have needs." Fucking disgusting.

I would say that any of these disgusting techniques are to me as abhorrent as the acts of someone like Jimmy Savile (maybe worse, as Savile was clearly a clinical psychopath, whereas husbands are doing this to the one they "Love"). Using a position of power, whether given by institution or by “god given abilities”, instead of trying to create a mutual position of love, is for me atavism to the highest degree. But how can we approach these old out of touch men who seek to foster an environment that leads to this way of thinking. How can we make them realise they are owed nothing, and that if they would like something they should work at it, or even sometimes put-up and shut-up/forget-about-it? How can we get them to shoulder the blame and change their ways, to realise they have to provide safety and protection for their woman without the expectation of sexual favours on demand? Maybe we can’t teach older dogs new tricks (and sadly we can’t put them down as they are supposedly humans not animals), but we can, by peace, bring up the next generation to realise that men have no special sexual dispensation: a mode many men are attempting to manipulate/perpetuate within the modern social context.

There is a big difference between working and striving to please your woman, and using threats to get what you want.

For all you women out there who worry that the next generation won’t move onwards to a more civilised state of social evolution, I can say with my hand on my heart that I as a father will ensure my son understands his responsibilities fully, without any erroneous feeling of  entitlement.

Is being a real man being one who creates and provides? Not only; not without the recognition that women are to be cherished and loved and respected, at all times, for the wonderful and beautiful entities they are.

* "Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent." 
Source Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

*** Marital rape by coercion: "Increasingly, researchers have begun to use broad definitions of sexual violence to more fully understand many women's experiences of ""unwanted sex"" or sex out of a sense of obligation or ""wifely duty"" (Basile, 2002; DeKeseredy & Joseph, in press; Finkelhor & Yllo, 1985).  For example, Finkelhor and Yllo (1985) note the importance of social coercion (the pressure women feel to have sex as a result of social and cultural expectations of marriage as an institution) and interpersonal coercion (women who feel pressured to have sex when non-violent threats such as withholding money or child support are made) in women's experiences of marital rape.  In their study of women who are sexually assaulted when they are separated or divorced from their partners, DeKeseredy and Joseph (in press) classify women's experiences into four categories including sexual contact, sexual coercion (which includes unwanted intercourse as a result of verbal pressure), attempted rape, and rape.  Each of these conceptualizations is important in helping us to understand the complexities and nuances of women's experiences of sexual violence with their partners.  As we will address later, it is important for practitioners who are involved in trying to end violence against women to see marital rape in all of its forms and complexities in order to assist survivors." 


If you are suffering at the will of your partner please consider one of the below links: 

Saturday, 27 October 2012

Was Hitler right? NO!

Hitler took the disgusting idea of eugenically removing weaker genes from the human genepool to abhorrent extreme, but eugenic practises had been all too common across the civilised world pre World War Two. But it was the extreme actions Hitler took that forged in the popular psyche the understanding that eugenics is a wholly disgraceful undertaking.

Not to mention the fact that even gifted individuals can be produced by ordinary parentage: explain that one racists . . ?

The problem is genetics isn't the only factor when talking about phenotypic gene expression. How genes interact with the environment through the medium of body (bacteria acquisition at different ages has been remarked as a system that can sculpt the mind) and express in the individual is not all down to the genes themselves. Many factors are involved; different things interact with the body's and mind's functions, genes can switch on and off to different and at present unknown cues. Removing genetic lines from the human genepool is something that shouldn't be done, or should only be done with extreme caution (as in disease causing genes). All genetic material must be backed up and stored. Even identical twins can have different sexual preferences and IQs.

The future for me will be more about genetic design, and less about eugenics (implementing new material rather than specifically removing old (unless directly causing a crippling disease. But we must even be wary of that because maybe it is human's weakness that makes us more advanced, or at least weakness is so spliced into us as to be hard to remove without gaining possibly unforeseen or unwanted results) would we start to lose our most intelligent people if we started to remove genetic weakness? Maybe treatments of disease/aging whilst maintaining genetic makeups is an equally persuasive option? I am sure there will be more than one camp. That is the beauty of diversity). A process of designed improvement. This in itself will create mistakes. But it will kickstart a much faster period of human evolution with the (intentional) mutations it will employ.

Question is which countries will allow genetic engineering to happen freely? Those countries will have the upper hand genetically (will they disgust the world as much, and be shunned as vehemently as the nazis? Surely creating innocent lives by design is as divisive a subject as holocaustic eugenics?)

Well that's my general take.

Monday, 22 October 2012

Predestination and Freewill: Ours and God's

I don't believe in god; ALL of the following is just contemplation.

I like the idea that: for God, the past, the present and the future do not exist separately; everything is present to God.

The idea of a god that could possibly have created our universe being truly omniscient (as in knows the future as well as the past and present of all) is marvellous in theory, but to see eternity and infinity all at the same time seems difficult as it requires infinite computing power (as in infinite time to relocate and process information). I suppose if god is everything that ever was this is possible; we could talk about an omniscience that predicts the future perfectly, well at least for a certain relevant timeframe, and therefore has the ability that you demand of this god, but would still be a living in the present power.

For a god to know all of its states in time (configurations of the matter of infinite existence at all points) how is this mind linked? Linked by time itself; by the physical? How is it possible for information to pass from the infinite recesses of the eternal future to the infinite recesses of the eternal past? It would have to be instantaneous, but for any given data for say the present, to access any data from say any point in time in eternity it could take an indeterminate amount of time to search through the mind's pathways/databases? How also is data exchanged between physical areas of the universe. There would have to be, again, some kind of instant access (entanglemnt). But if the physical realm is infinite, how can algorithms not spend all their time searching. How would this neural net work/run?

If there is a god (deistic) that is everything it therefore follows that we are part of that all and part of god. Therefore every action we take is within god. I don't have any issue with this concept running in tandem with free will. In such a scenario we are composed of matter which god makes up, and his orchestration of said matter is in such a way as the universe takes on the properties that it does. I see no distinction here between what atoms do and what humans do. All our actions would be under the umbrella of god, whilst our freewill is maintained so too is the will of god as he wants things, and designs things, and in fact orchestrates things to happen exactly as they do. He would want us to have freewill so we may be inventive and evolve, yet this is his design. I personally don't see a logical corrollary incepting from the idea god knows all of eternity already. I would assume that god isn't omniscient entire, as in knows the eternal future, but instead is able to calculate the future as he runs everything from a base bottom up level.

So in conclusion: To say there is a conflict between freewill and god having complete control of what makes up the universe is false if we all are (part of) god.

If there was such a complex god you can be damn sure he has a plan (predetermined goal) so I don't see an issue. Whether this god knows all the eternal future, or only what extent of future he can compute (say 5 billion years into the future in lieu of a final goal for the universe) then I would say that is pretty well predetermined?

If god is the organisation inside of us, the design that drives matter forward by his carefully weighted laws of physics etc. and also maintains and computes all physical interactions within the universe (namely us and our freewill) then his existence splices nicely alongside freewill. God's freewill, and our freewill working in sync. Just one way it could work . . . 

Suggestion: God is our freewill. God is everything, from how the universe was designed to every action that now happens; as in god's will has our freewill included within it. No conflict as god's will is always in sync with ours, from bottom up. It is a symbiosis where the freewill of all creatures is the will of god. The decisions are made by both at the same time as the two can't be split.

If you are accepting my premise that the two freewills are combined but at the same time assuming they are not. That is the conflict here. If you accept that both freewills are combined, theoretically, then it makes sense. 

If you are still trying to split the two. They are combined. Try to accept the premise. The very atoms in your body are maintained and orchestrated by such a god; this would be so deeply seeded within us that our freewill is not affected. They are two designs (ours and god's) moving in the same direction. One can change one's mind all day long, that is the design god intends, absolutely. I see no conflict; just needs the premise to be accepted.

If the freewill of god and human is inextricably intertwined, as intertwined as god is with every atom in the universe then this also incorporates predestination too, as there is only one way it goes. We are still free to choose as we wish; we can only choose this or that or this, and that choice is the way it goes. So we are predestined to have freewill. Remember, in the end, we only make one choice at any given juncture/present. Only one choice, which is the choice that we make, moves us forward into our predestined/predetermined future. You could say the choice is made, but at the same time we still make it, because the design is so deep down to the most intricate level that it is all one.

I'm not talking about a god that is related to say religious parameters directly. Whether you think the concept of god would be redundant or not within my context wouldn't change the fact that this god is controlling all. You could say that issues like sin etc. would be redundant as god orchestrates all, and I would accept that the views which are presently pedalled about what god is interested in would be redundant. All this god would be interested in would be for life within our universe evolving to an omega-type point. But we still would have to do it ourselves, with god as an interwoven contributor.

But of course the intertwining of freewills of god and human doesn't mean that god isn't just winging-it as we may also be just winging it, with predestination not included, if he so wished (to be ignorant and just react to what comes; don't humans do a combination of present based reaction and predetermination/future orchestration?). It could work either way because either way the god operates in the present as we do. He would, assumedly, have reasonable prescient powers as he is all, but not eternal prescience. All parties are free to change their minds at any point, as there is only one future (there may be infinite possible futures, but only one actual future that we move through and into.)

I don't think that absolute predestination is possible to orchestrate as the physical world such a god would abide in and be linked to is not capable of working within a neural type framework that would link such an eternal god's faculties together across eternity.

If you choose to kill, it is god and you combined. If you choose to not kill, it is the will of god and you combined.

Assume that the freewill of god and the freewill of you is combined. You can choose whatever direction you want. There are enough people to get the job done that god wants done. If you rot in jail and don't procreate that is yours and god's choice COMBINED. Enough people will make the correct decisions with god, to get where we need to get to. The individual is of no importance in the scheme. We all are part of the game/wave of an evolving race.

Does a shared will repeal the concept of predestination? Or can one only do what one can do? One provides one's own destination?

Would this not happen with god to? The (limited (to a godlike timeframe)) predestination of god working in sync with a limited human predestination?

Does this mean that we would be predestined to live in a world where free will is an illusion? (and indeed ask what free will really is?).

I have to say that I don't agree. The predestination is, I agree, not a concrete, more the discretion of the god and how he wishes to run it, lazily or with more exactitude. The "illusion" suggestion doesn't hold. We are not only individuals within the universe; there is a wave called humankind; it is in god's interest to have some individuals falling by the wayside, in the greater scheme, as all action whether positive or negative creates or forces a positive outcome on the back of human creativity. Freewill of the human isn't effected or affected by the freewill of god because they are one and the same thing. You could say god's freewill is more complex because his predestination skills should be more developed but that doesn't change the fact such a god's freewill is indivisible from our own, we both make the choice that is best for us given: the circumstances, the neural pathways in the human brain, past experiences, predictions of the effects of the decision, yadda yadda. When god IS us; when god IS everything we are made of (indivisible physically down to the most basest of constituents of matter), one cannot in all reason expect the freewills of the god and the individual to be divisible/separate-able.

Decisions on what we believe would happen if the freewill of god and all the freewills of the universe, indeed every single atom moving etc, were one, could differ. But if one can accept that these things could be one and the same then this would mean a joined universal freewill.

If we are to question the concept of freewill itself from a purely philosophical perspective (not the physical perspective I am presently working within (my premise)) then that is a different conversation: as in we don't have freewill because we are just atoms/molecules/synapses reacting as they are designed to(naturally or by god) and so we have no freewill. But I would apply this to god as well. For the type of deistic god I am referring to is also composed of the physical and would be subject to such an interpretation of freewill. As in if we have no freewill, so god also has no freewill, because we only do what the nature of what we consist of can do when challenged in any given situation.

This thought process for me is a learning/defining experience as it is questioning my theories/ideas of god in ways I haven't thought about before (new territory). So the step by evolution of my conceptualisation here is a work in progress (hence the ranging/developing semantics if there is any). Also I am trying to tempt people into making the step across this specific logical barrier/impasse as a thought experiment, by appealing to their conceived axioms in lieu of remoulding their thoughts along the lines of how I see it, not as a definite explanation but as a plausible possibility for All.

Ie: In descriptive terms sometimes it is necessary to emulate the POV of the other side of the debate to draw them into your POV. There are many ways to define the same process, when different views are taken:

I could say that god has freewill. A human has freewill. But both are the same will as they are combined, without confusing the matter. I myself do not believe this to be an issue; or in fact a definite, just a possibility, so these conjecturalisations lend themselves to exploring best ways of concisely defining terms ad hoc.

What if I said that one cannot "combine" things that aren't by nature separate. Isn't it just more concise to say that the will of a god is an abstraction of the collection of all wills? And so not leaving the question of individual free will in doubt. 

No, I can't wholly agree with the abstraction description entire, as it implies the will of god can only be equal at most to the sum of all wills? I would say that the will of god/creative-source is the will of people (whole universe's collective will sentient or basic (physical properties etc.)) but also the will of god is more than the sum of all within our scale of reference (which I could explain further but it eats into my work in progress).

I see the will of the creative source (god) as one that orchestrates all movement within the universe down to the finest degree, but is also a whole sum more; and farther ranging in scope than we could possibly envisage in any detail. I do not see the fact the will of god is a whole lot more than the sum of all wills and computations of matter interactions etc. as anything that eats into the ability of any one individual or limited-collective to express their freewills in anyway they see fit. The framework is supplied by the creator, is the creator, and we are free to will whatever we wish, but obviously the framework we function in is a limited one at present, until we can evolve to the point of omni-like orchestration over this framework.

But of course we could go further to say that the limits of the human physique and mind are direct restrictions on our freewill. Are we free to move outside the atmosphere of the earth without a spacesuit? Some could say this is possible in the future. So is the restriction time related, as in I won't be able to enact this feat within my lifetime, therefore I don't have freewill due to these out of my control restrictions? Freewill of a human is limited by intrinsic nature of the framework of creative source, freewill of creative source is limited by intrinsic nature of protomatter/infinity. But freewill of human is FREE within limits. Freewill of god is FREE within limits. So freewill is mutually exclusive, and also one.

So the collective of all life and computing of matter within the universe constitutes the free will of god, at the same time as the free will of god constitutes the physical realm as they are one and the same, indivisible:

Without humans/Life having free will, as in the opportunity/facility/framework (Laws of Physics) to develop free will,  god would have no freewill . . ? (something to think about at least).

What I find great is that for me the direction it moves in is out of the control of god (teaser). 

Sunday, 21 October 2012

Belief in God is Unproven

The agreement to disagree becomes default when all that is (il)logically left is belief. I would say that a respect of people's beliefs is essential in a peaceful world. But an atheist's challenge must be one of exposing a believer's belief for what it truly is: a belief (unproven).

If you are a person who is happy to believe then fair play, but never discount a thinker's right to question validity of any 'way'.

The experience I had of seeing the whole universe through god's eyes was an illness induced hallucinatory experience, and despite its overly-real type lucidity, I still class it as a projection of my own mind. I would find it impossible to interpret any such singular experience I would see through my own eyes as being absolutely real. Evidence of god's existence has to be recorded and verified by a respected group of people, people I might add, who have no pre-bias.

We must never give up the 'good work' (either side), keeps life interesting.

Friday, 12 October 2012

All human action whether positive or negative has a positive outcome.

Don't be pessimistic; reach for the stars. It's more the societal condition. We can't really change individual humans' greedy desires, but we can temper their expression within socially evolving constructs. I think we work well as a collective, but sometimes our goals are all wrong. If the military budgets of the world were funneled into space exploration we could get to Mars soon. We should be there already. But we do have to stay positive so we can bring the world into equilibrium, to then have a shot at the bigtime. 

I suppose we can't force frontier physics, it evolves as it will. But the fact so many scientists are working so hard is kind of comforting. Ego-centric behaviours have detrimental effects: Ego of individuals or groups who are glued to their specialisations; but we do have to go through this process.

Every action a human makes is a contribution to the whole, whether it is a positive or negative. All actions inevitably produce positive outcomes (which kind of backs up why a god (if there is one) allows pain and suffering). We have to look forward to what might be, that is what will drive us. Equations and scientific insights will refine as they are applied successfully to the physical (backing this scientific position or that). The inner details of financial markets aren't a fundamentally problematic issue. I think it is politics that needs to step up and force the redistribution of money to the correct places (as much as possible). Though of course this is difficult. All are wrapped in a system that works as it will. But it would be nice to see a bit more will to explore. Say Kennedy made the Moon landings happen (for relatively little more money); who's going to make Mars happen, or are we waiting for technology (the All to just evolve to the level)?

There is a disconnect in the financial systems. A will to accumulate wealth for the individual or for corporate-persons instead of putting wealth into projects for the many (humankind). I suppose this doesn't equate to us traveling in the wrong direction necessarily, but it does cause financial and resource wastage.

Are we talking about melting down and remoulding the system? No way! Not gonna happen. It needs to evolve its own way forward (it is). You could say that human nature is what will prevent us forging forth; I say human nature (collective (as in tweaked/socially evolved)) is the only thing we can truly rely on; and I think we can because the selfish, greedy drives of individuals only truly prosper when the whole prospers/moves forwards/consumes etc.

Can we look at container space as a metaphor for money for humankind, and relational space as a metaphor for ego-centric, selfish profit gain?

I would also say that financial markets are contingent on futures. As is the imagination-driven scientific exploration. All looking forwards to estimate what will be if we strive.

I am aware that there is a project mapping the skies; mapping all of the galaxies and all of the stars in those galaxies. But this imagery is only a snapshot of the visible universe, and not a map of the way the universe is now. I am not aware of a project that is attempting to map the universe as it actually is. I would imagine that the computer power required would be immense, to plot course forwards in time in relation to distance etc. plus the fact many stars will die and be born; even if we could plot accurate predictions over billions of years (many many galaxial cycles) we can't predict the chaos of change/creation/destruction. Maybe if we could understand darkmatter and darkenergy (or the whole true picture what ever it may be) then we would have a more comprehensive picture, but the chaos of matter is something we can't plot I think, at present. Not until we can be sure of the ages of all those stars too, and even then its HARD (we need to be a bit/lot further along the path).

So the actual mapping is as hard as the combining of the equations is as hard as say the accurate predictions within financial markets. Two have too much chaos at present, as in not enough ability to compute or understand the intricacy, and the other is an evolving process to try and learn. I suppose they all require and are processes to learn.

Which brings us neatly to the overarching conundrum. Human Nature, Human Purpose, Human Desire, Humanity of Humanity. I would always take the positive view.

I tend to focus my ponderings on beyond the empirical constructions: layers of infinity, estimations of multiversal interactions. A more generalised speculation/conjecturalisation of physical systems beyond our ken. And the possible influences of such on theories of god. All from a philosophical perspective.  

But where would any conjecture be, what would be the validity of human endeavour, if as a race we adopted the notion that pessimism and skepticism towards the natural order of social evolution (where we are now) is of benefit to the whole. We learn from our mistakes. Bad action formulates and steels positive reaction due to the inherently constructive nature of human being, especially including greed. Yes spread positive vibes, but also capitalise on the ignorant and oppressive natures of the evil societies in the world. Through the power of Constructiveism, by seeding the world with the knowledge that wealth and productivity will bring the world into a balance, men and women as equals, which will in turn free all of us to evolve the system to the next level. Globalisation supported by consumeristic driven technological development.

Balance the scales. Balance all the scales. Gender. Monetary. Political. Intellectual.

Free women. Free the world.

Evolve Human Society.

Wednesday, 10 October 2012

Infinity and "Middle of Existence" are Mutually Contradictive

I would say Infinity has no centre. There is only POV. An infinite amount is immeasurable, so there is no way it can be divided into two equal parts and a middle ascertained. One can only choose a coordinatised position, or view it from everywhere at the same (at all) time/s (conceptually). But even when viewing from a POV one must conceptually never slip into the erroneous interpretation of infinity
referred to from a fixed-type semantical position (position that assumes an "individual's type view" that influences language used back to explaining infinity from a POV). Hope that is understandable.

So: "If the universe (sea of multiverses) is infinite in size where would you find it's center?" is an impossible question as using my axiological stance/definitions the question contradicts itself.

And: "If time is eternal where would be the center between past and future?" By saying past and future one is taking a POV type position when constructing the question, as there is only the present when the question is asked. One could say that the present is the middle between past and future from a POV stance (a specific and limiting axiological stance) but infinity doesn't recognise your position or existence in its construction. It just is infinite and eternal. Saying "middle" when regarding eternity or infinity is for me an erroneous assumption/conceptualisation because something that has no end is not measurable, and can't be split into equal parts. To assume to be in the centre smacks of Aristotelian physics assuming the earth is the centre of the universe (false and assumptive axiological structure).