Yeah, that's my latest mantra - prove it.
That initially sounds paradoxical, no? Coming from someone known to say frequently, "If you can't disprove it, it exists," it probably does. But wait - there's more.
Simple grammatical analysis shows that I negate the verb "disprove," which has the prefix "dis-" meaning "to negate" or "the opposite." Thus, by not negating something, or by not showing the opposite - you are proving.
But of course, that in itself is a terrible Assumption. Terrible. Just because I disprove the sky is red does not mean I have proved it's blue. For all you or I know, through observation, the sky could be black or green. Sometimes it's purple.
Ah, in politics its so easy, isn't it? Prove that Barack Obama won't destroy the working class and employers through excess taxation. Sarah Palin, prove that Alaska actually accounts for 20% of the energy used in the US.
Neither of those statements are factually true. Barack Obama will destroy the working class and employers through excess taxation and Sarah Palin was way the hell off with her statistic (which McCain quoted). And we can prove it, can't we? Just look at the taxation figures kept by the Treasury, or better yet, individuals themselves; look at the records kept by oil companies who drill in and export from Alaska.
Yes, it's all easy. So, can we therefore prove such a statement as "In this reality, elephants can phase though walls" ?
Get beyond the fact that it's illogical to think otherwise. I am not talking about the reality where elephants can walk straight through walls, I am talking about this one. This reality in which we are manifest.
Facts:
• Elephants can walk through your average drywall with no apparent problems.
• Elephants cause quite a mess when they walk through your average drywall.
• Elephants are likely able to knock over a wall made of brick or cinderblock, and can probably barge through solid concrete as well.
But remember, those are facts of only this reality.
"Prove it."
Uhh. Sorry, that's gonna take awhile! It's gonna take until the time when we develop a means of inter-reality transit! How can I prove that these facts apply to only this reality when this me is completely incapable of observing another reality? This reality possesses traits of infinite others.
> There must be at least a single reality in which elephants can phase through solid objects without causing any damage whatsoever.
> There are infinite realities.
>> Thus there is a reality where this is possible.
> There is a reality where this is possible.
> Casual observations seem to prove it is not this reality.
WAIT!! *screech* *thud* Hold on, I think I just hit an elephant!
to be continued.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
A New Era with a side of Broken Promise
As I was listening to Dream Theater and drinking Dr. Pepper, several things occurred to me. One of them was something that had been nagging me all summer; Chinese essay not yet written, but the other was that I had a blog that hadn't been updated in awhile.
So, here is a new post, and I promise it will not be about pastrami or esoteric branches of Science (at least not to the sickening degree you're all used to).
But really. On such a note, I feel it's appropriate to say that this isn't philosophy we're talking about; this is more than just a love of and thirst for knowledge. This is pure quantum physics, indeed, the study of quantum mechanics, the behavior of particles which exist on a level so infinitesimally small that for our simple everyday purposes they simply do not exist. These particles, these tiny manifestations of that great thing known as Matter, can influence our world on a level we still don't fully understand. Can our observations and intentions affect the reality we perceive around us? Can our thoughts go back in time to influence an unobserved event? Can our universe tell us things through entities we can't see?
Any person you asked these ridiculously deep questions would likely do one of two things; you would either be regarded as some sort of harbringer of higher education (God forbid!) or you would be laughed at, very hard.
So! Higher education be manifest, then! Hark, tis upon us!
Let us be such harbringers.
Conceptual physics tells us that for each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Sir Issac Newton set down his basic principles - "laws" of Matter - hundreds of years ago. Ironically, that was an age where it was believed already that tiny particles existed that influenced our thoughts and actions. Of course, these were attributed to God; our actions were controlled by God, we all answered to God and God alone (the Church, of course, was God incarnate), and the Sun revolved around the Earth. Now, how times have changed! Except, we still know there are particles that we can't understand. Somewhat shockingly, there is being uncovered more and more evidence that our very observations and intentions can affect the world in which we live (or at least, the world we can see).
This means that, on a basic level, if we intend something to be, then it will be so - but of course that seems illogical. In fact, more and more scientists agree that it is not illogical but rather not a generally accepted fact. It is fact. If I intended my hair to be red, then it would be red. However, the very moment my hair is observed by someone who does not intend my hair to be red, then it ceases to be red. If you see a picture of me, you will not see red hair because the camera does not intend my hair to be red. If, however, every single observer who observed me during a given space of time intended my hair to be bright red, then naturally, my hair would be red. This doesn't happen though. Everyone thinks I'm blond. Even I think I'm blond. So, I am blond.
The simpler explanation is to resort to our friends Billy and Bobby to act out a simple scenario. Billy and Bobby, here, are standing in a room with only one door and no windows. No one can see in the door, and they are alone in the room. Billy stands facing the east wall of the room. Bobby stands behind Billy, facing his back. They are both facing the same direction. Billy cannot see Bobby; Bobby can see only Billy's back. And nobody can see them. By extension of that, this means that at this time, nobody can see Bobby at all. Bobby therefore cannot see himself (he is looking dead straight ahead). So, with this positioning achieved, Bobby proceeds to affect his reality with his intentions, as is possible under such circumstances. Bobby intends to be levitating off the floor of the room. In fact, Bobby intends to levitate exactly 3 inches off the floor of the room. Billy simultaneously intends Bobby to levitate exactly 3 inches off the floor of the room. The reality which Billy and Bobby are perceiving is limited to this small room. Bobby sees only Billy; no one sees Bobby. There are no observers but Billy, who is aware of Bobby's presence. Thus, Bobby is levitating 3 inches off the floor of this room.
Is there any way to prove he is not? If Jimmy were to open the door to the room, would he see Bobby levitating 3 inches in the air? No, he would not. No matter what Jimmy is expecting to find in the room, he is not intending there to be a person levitating 3 inches in the air. Even if Jimmy was Bobby's best friend, and knew exactly what he looked like, the reality in which Bobby is levitating 3 inches off the floor does not account for Jimmy observing the act.
Now, to throw a wrench in there. Jimmy closes the door behind him, and stares at Bobby, intending him to levitate 3 inches off the floor. Reality is now contained to a bare, confined room where Billy sees only a wall, Bobby sees only Billy, and Jimmy sees both Billy and Bobby. Does Jimmy see Bobby levitating 3 inches off the floor of the room? The "wrench," of course, is Billy's uncertainty of the third party's intentions. For all Billy knows, Jimmy intends Billy to levitate 3 inches in the air, or intends Bobby to levitate 3.5 inches, or 3.5 feet. Either way, intentions are mixed, and since Bobby is not a scattered particle and is perceived by his one observer to exist in only one place, he appears to be standing on the floor, still looking at the back of Billy's head.
But let's now use a very hypothetical, albeit entirely possible, situation. It stands to reason that if Billy intends Bobby to levitate 3 inches, and Jimmy intends Bobby to levitate 3 inches, and Bobby intends himself to levitate 3 inches, then Jimmy will observe Bobby to levitate 3 inches in the air. Billy cannot see either of them. Bobby is levitating 3 inches off the floor, and sees only Billy's back. Jimmy sees both of them, and sees Bobby floating 3 inches in the air. The moment one of them intends something else, they are back to observing what the layperson would call "normal stuff." To make things incredibly complicated, Billy now intends Jimmy to intend Bobby to levitate 5 inches off the floor. Bobby intends himself to levitate 5 inches off the floor. Jimmy, however, intends Bobby to levitate 3 inches off the floor. Thus, Bobby does not levitate. Why?
-
Think about that. Think deeply. Mull it over. Let it overwhelm you; let it occupy every corner of your consciousness. Perception. Intention. Observation. There is no way to disprove that they affect our world. Thus, we affect the very outcome of our observations.
I intend for you to have a nice day. :)
So, here is a new post, and I promise it will not be about pastrami or esoteric branches of Science (at least not to the sickening degree you're all used to).
But really. On such a note, I feel it's appropriate to say that this isn't philosophy we're talking about; this is more than just a love of and thirst for knowledge. This is pure quantum physics, indeed, the study of quantum mechanics, the behavior of particles which exist on a level so infinitesimally small that for our simple everyday purposes they simply do not exist. These particles, these tiny manifestations of that great thing known as Matter, can influence our world on a level we still don't fully understand. Can our observations and intentions affect the reality we perceive around us? Can our thoughts go back in time to influence an unobserved event? Can our universe tell us things through entities we can't see?
Any person you asked these ridiculously deep questions would likely do one of two things; you would either be regarded as some sort of harbringer of higher education (God forbid!) or you would be laughed at, very hard.
So! Higher education be manifest, then! Hark, tis upon us!
Let us be such harbringers.
Conceptual physics tells us that for each action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Sir Issac Newton set down his basic principles - "laws" of Matter - hundreds of years ago. Ironically, that was an age where it was believed already that tiny particles existed that influenced our thoughts and actions. Of course, these were attributed to God; our actions were controlled by God, we all answered to God and God alone (the Church, of course, was God incarnate), and the Sun revolved around the Earth. Now, how times have changed! Except, we still know there are particles that we can't understand. Somewhat shockingly, there is being uncovered more and more evidence that our very observations and intentions can affect the world in which we live (or at least, the world we can see).
This means that, on a basic level, if we intend something to be, then it will be so - but of course that seems illogical. In fact, more and more scientists agree that it is not illogical but rather not a generally accepted fact. It is fact. If I intended my hair to be red, then it would be red. However, the very moment my hair is observed by someone who does not intend my hair to be red, then it ceases to be red. If you see a picture of me, you will not see red hair because the camera does not intend my hair to be red. If, however, every single observer who observed me during a given space of time intended my hair to be bright red, then naturally, my hair would be red. This doesn't happen though. Everyone thinks I'm blond. Even I think I'm blond. So, I am blond.
The simpler explanation is to resort to our friends Billy and Bobby to act out a simple scenario. Billy and Bobby, here, are standing in a room with only one door and no windows. No one can see in the door, and they are alone in the room. Billy stands facing the east wall of the room. Bobby stands behind Billy, facing his back. They are both facing the same direction. Billy cannot see Bobby; Bobby can see only Billy's back. And nobody can see them. By extension of that, this means that at this time, nobody can see Bobby at all. Bobby therefore cannot see himself (he is looking dead straight ahead). So, with this positioning achieved, Bobby proceeds to affect his reality with his intentions, as is possible under such circumstances. Bobby intends to be levitating off the floor of the room. In fact, Bobby intends to levitate exactly 3 inches off the floor of the room. Billy simultaneously intends Bobby to levitate exactly 3 inches off the floor of the room. The reality which Billy and Bobby are perceiving is limited to this small room. Bobby sees only Billy; no one sees Bobby. There are no observers but Billy, who is aware of Bobby's presence. Thus, Bobby is levitating 3 inches off the floor of this room.
Is there any way to prove he is not? If Jimmy were to open the door to the room, would he see Bobby levitating 3 inches in the air? No, he would not. No matter what Jimmy is expecting to find in the room, he is not intending there to be a person levitating 3 inches in the air. Even if Jimmy was Bobby's best friend, and knew exactly what he looked like, the reality in which Bobby is levitating 3 inches off the floor does not account for Jimmy observing the act.
Now, to throw a wrench in there. Jimmy closes the door behind him, and stares at Bobby, intending him to levitate 3 inches off the floor. Reality is now contained to a bare, confined room where Billy sees only a wall, Bobby sees only Billy, and Jimmy sees both Billy and Bobby. Does Jimmy see Bobby levitating 3 inches off the floor of the room? The "wrench," of course, is Billy's uncertainty of the third party's intentions. For all Billy knows, Jimmy intends Billy to levitate 3 inches in the air, or intends Bobby to levitate 3.5 inches, or 3.5 feet. Either way, intentions are mixed, and since Bobby is not a scattered particle and is perceived by his one observer to exist in only one place, he appears to be standing on the floor, still looking at the back of Billy's head.
But let's now use a very hypothetical, albeit entirely possible, situation. It stands to reason that if Billy intends Bobby to levitate 3 inches, and Jimmy intends Bobby to levitate 3 inches, and Bobby intends himself to levitate 3 inches, then Jimmy will observe Bobby to levitate 3 inches in the air. Billy cannot see either of them. Bobby is levitating 3 inches off the floor, and sees only Billy's back. Jimmy sees both of them, and sees Bobby floating 3 inches in the air. The moment one of them intends something else, they are back to observing what the layperson would call "normal stuff." To make things incredibly complicated, Billy now intends Jimmy to intend Bobby to levitate 5 inches off the floor. Bobby intends himself to levitate 5 inches off the floor. Jimmy, however, intends Bobby to levitate 3 inches off the floor. Thus, Bobby does not levitate. Why?
-
Think about that. Think deeply. Mull it over. Let it overwhelm you; let it occupy every corner of your consciousness. Perception. Intention. Observation. There is no way to disprove that they affect our world. Thus, we affect the very outcome of our observations.
I intend for you to have a nice day. :)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
