2008 is a year that will be remembered for many things - without getting caught up in cliché, I can safely say that this isn't a particularly easy post to write.
My personal top ten:
10. Driver's permit (laugh, its ok)
9. Theatre jobs pay over $1000
8. Nate thinks he can beat me in a mile race
7. Impromptu blast-beat competition at Guitar Center
6. Air purifier fills my room with ozone
5. Velvet jacket, suede sport coat, alpaca wool sweater
4. Being an editor of the paper apparently doesn't mean I can edit it
3. OVER 9000!!! songs in my music library
2. RuneScape kills my first MacBook; Apple gives me a new one for free
1. Nicole
And on a broader scale:
10. A Cross The Universe
9. Belgium gets a government
8. Worldwide BitTorrent traffic up 3%, average Christmas spending down 34%
7. Google publishes full books online, legally
6. Gays protest in San Francisco, only to have their right to marriage revoked
5. A Libertarian runs for President in America (no one cares about his age, 72)
4. Public entities with private shareholders put America and, subsequently, the world in recession
3. Darfur still without aid of world superpowers
2. Canada officially a tyrannical dictatorship
1. America elects an inexperienced black man President, proving their superficiality once and for all
That's all for now. Have a great 2009, everybody, and may it bring even more things that succeed, things that suck, and things that honestly make you wonder if they really happened.
Happy new year :)
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Sunday, December 14, 2008
I'm everywhere.
Since I intended to use this blog as a means of collating everything I do on the internet (and have so far failed) I'm going to draw my readers' attention to my Youtube page, where I post little videos now and then, as well as the DeviantArt page that I started recently.
Both are fun little mediums to show off work, the latter more so because nothing about my videos really showcases any filming talent I might have hidden somewhere.
And if you haven't seen Wicked, I strongly recommend it.
Both are fun little mediums to show off work, the latter more so because nothing about my videos really showcases any filming talent I might have hidden somewhere.
And if you haven't seen Wicked, I strongly recommend it.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
I like writing pithy biting comments on surveys.
Really, I do.
Recently, I took this satisfaction survey at my school, and I was finally able to anonymously express my opinions of the school - something that is hardly common and probably carries a bit less weight than delivering my concerns to school administrators in person - given the disparity between the level of force they tell us we have in terms of making arguments and the amount of force we actually have, I would rather openly keep such opinions to myself and privately post them...on my blog.
On this survey I provided several comments in the section given to personal reflections on the school's performance. That's what's written below.
-
Haverford tends to be a more conducive environment for work than any sort of sincere social interaction. The school prepares boys, through their methodology, to become very intelligent, wealthy, socially strained and out-of-touch adults.
You can't fix the tendency of members of the student community to shut themselves up inside little boxes and put up a facade as opposed to revealing their personalities. Haverford DOES NOT, in any way, foster an environment where students can feel secure expressing themselves as an individual - as the person they really are. Despite the availability of school counselors, the student body in general is NOT accepting of any manner of openness in terms of sexual orientation and emotional feelings. It is a rabidly conformist bubble, and always will be.
I mean what I say. The past 11 years of my life have been well spent, and I'm lucky to have social relationships outside of Haverford much more fulfilling than anything the school could ever engender.
Recently, I took this satisfaction survey at my school, and I was finally able to anonymously express my opinions of the school - something that is hardly common and probably carries a bit less weight than delivering my concerns to school administrators in person - given the disparity between the level of force they tell us we have in terms of making arguments and the amount of force we actually have, I would rather openly keep such opinions to myself and privately post them...on my blog.
On this survey I provided several comments in the section given to personal reflections on the school's performance. That's what's written below.
-
Haverford tends to be a more conducive environment for work than any sort of sincere social interaction. The school prepares boys, through their methodology, to become very intelligent, wealthy, socially strained and out-of-touch adults.
You can't fix the tendency of members of the student community to shut themselves up inside little boxes and put up a facade as opposed to revealing their personalities. Haverford DOES NOT, in any way, foster an environment where students can feel secure expressing themselves as an individual - as the person they really are. Despite the availability of school counselors, the student body in general is NOT accepting of any manner of openness in terms of sexual orientation and emotional feelings. It is a rabidly conformist bubble, and always will be.
I mean what I say. The past 11 years of my life have been well spent, and I'm lucky to have social relationships outside of Haverford much more fulfilling than anything the school could ever engender.
Monday, November 17, 2008
An existential something.
I wrote this awhile ago and now think it worth posting.
--
Technology has progressed ridiculously far in my own lifetime. I was born in 1992, when the old Apple Centris computers were top of the line (and cost around $2500) and the Internet was a casual toy. What’s e-mail? My father had a central bulletin board in his office where fellow doctors would pin stuff of interest. Or of course, face to face conversations would work too. Cell phones were little boxes of plastic carried by rich businessmen who thought they needed them, and no one was going home on Monday night (in their practical little hybrid car) to watch the big football game on a 54” LCD TV in HD provided by Fios. And now just sixteen years later – a mere blip on the grand scale of American history – the Internet is a versatile tool that evades definition, having application in all pursuits of our life; cell phones are ubiquitous and any kid without one is considered abnormal (or his parents don’t trust him) (personal note: five years ago, I was in sixth grade. There were about twenty people in my class of 70 who had cell phones. My brother is in sixth grade now. Of his class of 74, over 60 have cell phones). We e-mail – or instant message – anything. I admit openly to having shared music files over instant messengers. Hybrids, still a very imperfect technology, are nevertheless the latest craze, and you’ll be hard pressed to walk a college campus without seeing one of those distinctive little Priuses, decked out in Obama stickers and with one of those Christmas-tree shaped air fresheners hanging from the rearview mirror. Big-screen TVs – plasma, LCD, DLP – are present in more households than seems entirely necessary. Fiber optics continue to make “fast” even more illogically faster. And, by the way, I still use my Apple Centris – and would not part with it for $2500.
Henry David Thoreau did not believe that technology would accomplish anything. In his time, the biggest technological boom was railroads, and things to travel on railroads, and things to make travel via railroad even faster. The 1840s were a long time ago. In Thoreau’s writings, one can certainly see that he would prefer a cabin in the woods to anything else; he was an isolationist. He never even married. It’s the year 2008 now, and I happen to own a cabin in the woods. It’s backed up by a lake and has thick woods separating it from the lot next door. It’s up in the Pocono mountains – a little bit of solitude and escape only two hours away. And I’m not married,…nor am I an isolationist, nor do I believe it possible. And yet I feel comfortable being alone up there. But there’s no denying the influx of technology even there. We have to have electricity. So the cabin is wired. We have to be warm and we have to cook, so we have a big ol’ propane tank outside. And of course, there’s a community center that’s got a high-speed WAN (that’s “wide-area network” – or just plain Internet). But even in this fast-paced, un-Thoreau society, I feel at peace up there.
That’s my idea of isolation (I don’t use the internet up there). The benefits of advancing technology are undeniable. The downsides, though, seem to evade our grasp. How many child nutrition specialists have been on Fox and Friends, or in Parents magazine, scaring the general public into strictly regulating their children’s diets and forcing them to exercise because of their hitherto unrestricted access to video games, computers, and generally physically unfit activities? How many preteen girls have been abducted through stupidity using the Internet? How many people need to be in fatal car accidents – hybrid or not - because they’re texting while driving?
A lot of crotchety old “experts” will probably have you believe that all this technological invasion of our otherwise bland lifestyles is a terrible thing that is corrupting modern society. Unfortunately for them, they fail to realize that modern society is shaped by technology such as this, not corrupted by it. Take it all away – and what are we left with? Would it be a society like the isolationist, contemplative one that Thoreau imagined? Or would we find that our dependence on modern entities is more than skin-deep?
--
Technology has progressed ridiculously far in my own lifetime. I was born in 1992, when the old Apple Centris computers were top of the line (and cost around $2500) and the Internet was a casual toy. What’s e-mail? My father had a central bulletin board in his office where fellow doctors would pin stuff of interest. Or of course, face to face conversations would work too. Cell phones were little boxes of plastic carried by rich businessmen who thought they needed them, and no one was going home on Monday night (in their practical little hybrid car) to watch the big football game on a 54” LCD TV in HD provided by Fios. And now just sixteen years later – a mere blip on the grand scale of American history – the Internet is a versatile tool that evades definition, having application in all pursuits of our life; cell phones are ubiquitous and any kid without one is considered abnormal (or his parents don’t trust him) (personal note: five years ago, I was in sixth grade. There were about twenty people in my class of 70 who had cell phones. My brother is in sixth grade now. Of his class of 74, over 60 have cell phones). We e-mail – or instant message – anything. I admit openly to having shared music files over instant messengers. Hybrids, still a very imperfect technology, are nevertheless the latest craze, and you’ll be hard pressed to walk a college campus without seeing one of those distinctive little Priuses, decked out in Obama stickers and with one of those Christmas-tree shaped air fresheners hanging from the rearview mirror. Big-screen TVs – plasma, LCD, DLP – are present in more households than seems entirely necessary. Fiber optics continue to make “fast” even more illogically faster. And, by the way, I still use my Apple Centris – and would not part with it for $2500.
Henry David Thoreau did not believe that technology would accomplish anything. In his time, the biggest technological boom was railroads, and things to travel on railroads, and things to make travel via railroad even faster. The 1840s were a long time ago. In Thoreau’s writings, one can certainly see that he would prefer a cabin in the woods to anything else; he was an isolationist. He never even married. It’s the year 2008 now, and I happen to own a cabin in the woods. It’s backed up by a lake and has thick woods separating it from the lot next door. It’s up in the Pocono mountains – a little bit of solitude and escape only two hours away. And I’m not married,…nor am I an isolationist, nor do I believe it possible. And yet I feel comfortable being alone up there. But there’s no denying the influx of technology even there. We have to have electricity. So the cabin is wired. We have to be warm and we have to cook, so we have a big ol’ propane tank outside. And of course, there’s a community center that’s got a high-speed WAN (that’s “wide-area network” – or just plain Internet). But even in this fast-paced, un-Thoreau society, I feel at peace up there.
That’s my idea of isolation (I don’t use the internet up there). The benefits of advancing technology are undeniable. The downsides, though, seem to evade our grasp. How many child nutrition specialists have been on Fox and Friends, or in Parents magazine, scaring the general public into strictly regulating their children’s diets and forcing them to exercise because of their hitherto unrestricted access to video games, computers, and generally physically unfit activities? How many preteen girls have been abducted through stupidity using the Internet? How many people need to be in fatal car accidents – hybrid or not - because they’re texting while driving?
A lot of crotchety old “experts” will probably have you believe that all this technological invasion of our otherwise bland lifestyles is a terrible thing that is corrupting modern society. Unfortunately for them, they fail to realize that modern society is shaped by technology such as this, not corrupted by it. Take it all away – and what are we left with? Would it be a society like the isolationist, contemplative one that Thoreau imagined? Or would we find that our dependence on modern entities is more than skin-deep?
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Epic Fail.
I am ashamed of my country.
On Tuesday, November 4th, 2008, Americans proved yet again that credentials don’t matter. Americans proved yet again that style matters over substance. And most of all, they proved that this is a nation of blind followers. By electing Barack Hussein Obama, the single most inexperienced candidate ever, to the most powerful position of the most powerful country in the world, Americans have helped this nation lose even more favor with those who once had faith in her.
It is a mystery to any rational mind why Obama gained such huge popularity with the American majority to begin with. It stands to reason that he had won the black vote and the liberal vote before he was even the nominee, just like it stands to reason McCain won Texas before he announced he was running. What is more of a mystery is the American people’s apparent lack of appreciation for rationality. Style over substance – that has become a norm for a nation that watches Dancing with the Stars and American Idol. Admittedly, the days of Republicans like Reagan are gone. When he ran for re-election, Mondale won Minnesota and Reagan took the other 49. On election day 2008, Obama won all the states that John McCain should have. Pennsylvania, a red state until 2004, went overwhelmingly to Obama. Virginia, a major battleground state, was in McCain’s favor until the big city precincts starting reporting in and tilted it in Obama’s favor. All we can say now is “What happened?”
John McCain made several mistakes during his campaign. Among them were the selection of Sarah Palin as a VP candidate and his endorsement of Bush’s $700 billion government bailout of private firms (which he later retracted). However, this isn’t why he lost. The American people have already proven that they don’t care about facts. Why did Obama win? To the casual observer, he is just an eloquent speaker, a rare far-left Christian, an ideologue, and also a black man. To those who look beyond the skin-deep curb appeal of his speeches, Obama is the holder of a voting record more liberal than a self-avowed Socialist, a master of pork-barrel spending, a young and inexperienced ideologue, and a Senator who has never had his name attached to a passed Bill.
I cannot imagine how the next four years are going to progress. By any account, Obama’s plans should help people like me. I have already had some people say “But Jimmy, since you have a low income, why aren’t you glad for his tax cuts?” My income over the next four years will be so low I’ll barely pay taxes anyway. I am more concerned for people like my parents, high tax bracket individuals sending four kids to elite private schools and promising they’ll send one to college in the scarily near future. Obama has said he wants to return taxes to where they were under Reagan. The highest tax bracket under Reagan was 39%. Under Bush it’s been 35%. So that’s an increase of $15,000. $15,000 that we earn for ourselves. $15,000 that we need.
But according to Obama, it’s okay. Because in his acceptance speech, he told America that all his big lofty plans for America aren’t likely to get done within one term. So you know what, America? It’s not his fault he has no idea how to go about pushing a liberal agenda through a liberal Congress, and it’s not his fault he can’t deliver on the promises he made you. It’s your fault, America. It’s your fault for not seeing the plans behind the man and it’s your fault for placing no value on experience and policy. It’s your fault I have lost my faith in this country.
On Tuesday, November 4th, 2008, Americans proved yet again that credentials don’t matter. Americans proved yet again that style matters over substance. And most of all, they proved that this is a nation of blind followers. By electing Barack Hussein Obama, the single most inexperienced candidate ever, to the most powerful position of the most powerful country in the world, Americans have helped this nation lose even more favor with those who once had faith in her.
It is a mystery to any rational mind why Obama gained such huge popularity with the American majority to begin with. It stands to reason that he had won the black vote and the liberal vote before he was even the nominee, just like it stands to reason McCain won Texas before he announced he was running. What is more of a mystery is the American people’s apparent lack of appreciation for rationality. Style over substance – that has become a norm for a nation that watches Dancing with the Stars and American Idol. Admittedly, the days of Republicans like Reagan are gone. When he ran for re-election, Mondale won Minnesota and Reagan took the other 49. On election day 2008, Obama won all the states that John McCain should have. Pennsylvania, a red state until 2004, went overwhelmingly to Obama. Virginia, a major battleground state, was in McCain’s favor until the big city precincts starting reporting in and tilted it in Obama’s favor. All we can say now is “What happened?”
John McCain made several mistakes during his campaign. Among them were the selection of Sarah Palin as a VP candidate and his endorsement of Bush’s $700 billion government bailout of private firms (which he later retracted). However, this isn’t why he lost. The American people have already proven that they don’t care about facts. Why did Obama win? To the casual observer, he is just an eloquent speaker, a rare far-left Christian, an ideologue, and also a black man. To those who look beyond the skin-deep curb appeal of his speeches, Obama is the holder of a voting record more liberal than a self-avowed Socialist, a master of pork-barrel spending, a young and inexperienced ideologue, and a Senator who has never had his name attached to a passed Bill.
I cannot imagine how the next four years are going to progress. By any account, Obama’s plans should help people like me. I have already had some people say “But Jimmy, since you have a low income, why aren’t you glad for his tax cuts?” My income over the next four years will be so low I’ll barely pay taxes anyway. I am more concerned for people like my parents, high tax bracket individuals sending four kids to elite private schools and promising they’ll send one to college in the scarily near future. Obama has said he wants to return taxes to where they were under Reagan. The highest tax bracket under Reagan was 39%. Under Bush it’s been 35%. So that’s an increase of $15,000. $15,000 that we earn for ourselves. $15,000 that we need.
But according to Obama, it’s okay. Because in his acceptance speech, he told America that all his big lofty plans for America aren’t likely to get done within one term. So you know what, America? It’s not his fault he has no idea how to go about pushing a liberal agenda through a liberal Congress, and it’s not his fault he can’t deliver on the promises he made you. It’s your fault, America. It’s your fault for not seeing the plans behind the man and it’s your fault for placing no value on experience and policy. It’s your fault I have lost my faith in this country.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Prove it.
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.
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.
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)
