CXLVII.
November 21, 2012 § Leave a Comment
If I could stare long enough at a single point . . . say, I was standing in a room and staring—not into a corner or at a blank wall, but if I could stare long enough, holding my friend’s hand while I did so (because her presence provides such strength), I could see into that spot, into this empty air, this vacuum, this invisible little nothingness between the ceiling and the floor and the walls, the part we walk through daily without feeling it pass through us—
if I could stare into the nonspecific space long enough I might see the atoms buzzing.
There is a law in quantum mechanics stating the specific placement of an atom cannot be exacted. A definite number cannot place its presence. The measurements are given in scientific notation so as to account for error. This is because the atoms are never not moving. Everything buzzes always. Without movement, nothing survives. Without the moon’s gravity and the tidal push, organic matter does not shift, life does not emerge on land. Stagnant lakes harbor death and bacteria. With only movement does life and light exist. With collision, new life is birthed. With a dying star, elements are hurled out into the nothingness; here, the debris collects and compacts. Planets are made. They move. The atoms they are made of move.
The laws of physics we are submitted to are specific to us and our size. Our atoms do not follow the same laws. They follow their own. How is it that the very essence of which we are made of does not follow the same rules?
The meteors and the red giants and the colliding galaxies are rushing ever-always, looming overhead. We are stuck between the quantum-sized fabric of matter and the ominous threats, the larger, unfeeling, relentless beasts. We are the Middle, a harmonizing of the unseen and the incomprehensible, all coalescing into brawn and sensuality and intellect and humor.
Vibrations of the atoms affect each erogenous pocket of matter—
screaming, we enter
pleading, we exit—
how magnificent, how frightening—
this begs interpretation but the truth remains evasive (“truth?” is the wrong question to ask here but I am left lying here, fighting off sleep and these poisonous thoughts that often plague a young man in his twenties.)
Another quantum law states how no prediction can be reached on what will happen in any given circumstance.
CXLIII.
November 18, 2012 § Leave a Comment
During the flight, Simon & Schuster’s World of Physics brought consolation; Weaver and Feynman affirmed my own life-mulling in the way that Fichte and Kant had this year previous–thank the Germans! Today, Blaise Pascal–thank the French! But these are only names, only heritages. Their words transcend them in the way that my own notes scribbled on airport receipts belong no more to me than anything else (do I “produce” these notes or, rather, discover them? And what is it I discover? That which lies dormant, breathing and waiting in nature.)
On the receipt acting as a page placeholder,
unlike the Greeks, I must form a concept of the nature of physical laws in the way that I have sought a relationship between the forces and structures of nature
no structure can exist without forces
the laws of nature which apply to a human apply to any celestial bodies as well
observation, reason, experiment
methods of understanding: control/isolate, deduction, approximation
CXII.
May 7, 2012 § Leave a Comment
What more can be said? I conquered how to illustrate what I see proves and disproves All. I am satisfied, bereft of words; nothing more can further satiate this thirst, this longing, this torture; no words can reach that which my absence of words accomplished
- -
until I know How Else,
farewell
CX.
April 27, 2012 § Leave a Comment
“It’s all so juvenile”
is a phrase I read via someone’s Facebook status, moments ago;
What is All? Is it living? Is it social drama? Is it Facebook? Because if we are talking of anything involving humans then the above statement is correct
because Facebook is never fully developed. And the Internet is still rather young. Social drama is forever unfolding, always developing. And living is all about development, especially for humans;
furthermore, humans can never reach their full capacity because we can always aspire to becoming something better than what we are;
a son can accomplish what his father could not: always—
a flower cannot accomplish anymore beyond what its flower predecessors could accomplish; the flower has reached its full capacity, just as the lion has and even the ape has.
We are juvenile creatures, I will assert. And I can stand by this claim. Anything we invent is juvenile, in effect, and will forever be so
- -
However,
on the thought of LkCa 15b (click here to google this), Nature is rather juvenile as a Whole;
always the universe is expanding within the Multiverse which is always expanding within Whatever;
always there are planets forming;
always there are stars dying to spread the elements that spur on new life;
always, Nature is developing,
and if we are Variants of Nature then we are its Exceeding of its capacity;
we are the developing brain of All
so All is juvenile.
XCVI.
January 27, 2012 § Leave a Comment
The greatest measure man has realized is time. With it, man has forgotten pain, numbed to centuries of injustice; with time, man has empowered himself, expanded himself, re-sought himself and rediscovered himself. Man has become mankind and redefined such becoming as humankind; through time, we have become fairer and intelligent;
through time, we will be much more.
Time exceeds me and, as such, I am also much more Then than I will realize now.
I
us
more
eternal
- -
This weekend, my editor has tasked me to give Why We Fall another look-through. More than a year has passed since my eyes last scanned its lines. Now, I see what Was. Now, I see what Will.
- -
all is relevant
(D.)
Moving forward past the outliers is not an option. Before I move ahead, however, allow me to summarize what has already been covered:
all is relevant and infinitely functional; therein lies the assertion that all is infinite. Nothing is ever not useful. But the outliers (the objects seemingly lacking function to the Multiverse, much less to anything of smaller proportions) gave me pause:
the outliers affected me
that is, in their own very unaffecting state. And I then moved to realize how some of the greatest moments of human history have occurred within the human mind. Perhaps, I thought, I am thinking too corporeally. Really, an outlier’s simply “being” will influence others to act;
the outlier’s functionality is in its ability to influence
just as our functionality, as humans, is to reason and label (really, only for our own selves, to make sense of our surroundings; the tree is never a “tree”; that is only what we impose upon it) and spread influence and give function to the “non-functioning” (ironically, we have created many obsoletes while Nature does not; unless we are considered as manifestations of Nature, as parts of the Whole; indeed, this argument is now coming full-circle.) The outliers are not obstacles to this argument. They are parts in supporting it. But allow us to backtrack to
all is infinite
as this assertion is so frustratingly simplistic and consumptive. It seems that if we are to put two opposing objects side-by-side, say, the works of Shakespeare and the works of Lil Wayne, a debate might appear to differentiate their levels of relevance to the Multiverse, that is, how much All may benefit from their works (as I defined functionality…”pertaining to the usefulness of a thing to any other thing; more specifically, functionality is the state of being useful to the Multiverse”…relevance shares a likeness in this definition.)
In fact, as I began Argument (C.) with a news quote on the truth of the NDAA bill and Obama’s stance on American rights, its relevancy was most likely brought into question.
What I am building to is how the Internet is a fantastic example of infinites and relevance. As I write this, the Internet grows. As people read this, people grow. As they write their own pieces, the Internet grows. Then, people. Then, Internet.
Oftentimes, a person may feel overwhelmed with the abundance of new music, new books, new films, new television programs; these are mediums through which a person may receive some version of solace. Such solace is needed as a result of feeling overwhelmed with the abundance of daily tasks, the utterly mundane of human routine. And the dilemma of the source for solace becoming overwhelming is a happenstance of the Internet. In fact, the Internet results in a functionality paradox.
- “Future Thought” from Argument (C.)
The very function of the Internet (to “connect”) is really severing a deeper connection between humans. And, even further, its overwhelming infiniteness may incite feelings of uselessness, of lacking function, in its users. Its gift to us (to create and share) may squash the uniqueness of creating and sharing. It may even squash the necessity of truth; as such with facebook and the news.
Unfortunately, any official news comes from newspapers and TV networks, mediums which lobbyists control in order to spin the facts. And any unofficial news comes from bloggers who aren’t necessarily being dishonest, but they aren’t checking the details before they post them either.
- Prelude to Argument (C.)
The Internet shows how people create their own standards of relevance.
Indeed, here I am arguing to myself how
all is relevant
all is infinite
but how can an emboldened statement of some self-entitled twenty-two-year-old have any relevancy of its own if the majority will make their own assumptions
despite how much effort I put into this
despite how many others predating my own existence died after having put infinitely more effort into this
despite how many relevant remarks I can list here to further substantiate my claims, my assumptions, my arguments,
my anger;
how can anything be relevant to anything unless the utter irrelevancy of It and All amounts to some cancelling, some amount of Nothing becoming Something in its own way of being too much of Nothing;
how can I rely on hope to carry Me onto others’ minds?
Indeed, am I not further from answering how All is relevant?
- Final Thought on Argument (A.)
XCV.
January 24, 2012 § Leave a Comment
The NDAA does not give our government the right to detain and/or murder American citizens without a right to fair trial. Despite what many people believe, the NDAA is not the death of our Bill of Rights.
Credit to Jason Easley of Politicsusa.com:
“…Obama then strongly debunked once and for all the notion that the NDAA detention provisions apply to American citizens, [saying,] “Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.”
How much clearer can it get?
- -
Unfortunately, any official news comes from newspapers and TV networks, mediums which lobbyists control in order to spin the facts. And any unofficial news comes from bloggers who aren’t necessarily being dishonest, but they aren’t checking the details before they post them either.
So it is the rush of things, the immediacy to be on-top of an issue, the want of readers and viewers and more “site hits” that cause misinformation to spread. And it spreads fast. Unbelievably fast. Many people are already convinced that Obama would willingly sacrifice our basic rights as American citizens. Many of these people received their news from facebook, from shared blog articles; it only took a matter of hours for these people to believe these falsities.
- -
all is relevant
(C.)
I met the end of Argument (B.) with a pondering of outliers (those items which fall outside the realm of functionality.) I came to this as a result of modifying the emboldened statement:
All is relevant; with relevance, comes infinite functionality.
Furthermore, I now modify it:
All is relevant and infinitely functional.
From there, it seems almost too easy to push ahead and rightly assert that
all is infinite
if All is never irrelevant in any form and if All never loses its function. No part of All (and I must phrase it this way, as “Nothing” is a specific item) is ever useless.
But the end of Argument (B.) introduced items lacking functionality. Of course, how does one determine functionality? I see functionality as pertaining to the usefulness of a thing to any other thing; more specifically, I see “functionality“ as the state of being useful to the Multiverse.
Still, though, I am backed into a corner. I was wishing to move ahead and tie this into the Internet Functionality Paradox, but I cannot move forward until I solve the dilemma of the outliers; that is, until I prove their usefulness or until I backtrack to reassert my Arguments.
- -
For future thought:
Oftentimes, a person may feel overwhelmed with the abundance of new music, new books, new films, new television programs; these are mediums through which a person may receive some version of solace. Such solace is needed as a result of feeling overwhelmed with the abundance of daily tasks, the utterly mundane of human routine. And the dilemma of the source for solace becoming overwhelming is a happenstance of the Internet. In fact, the Internet results in a functionality paradox.
