Tuesday, February 24, 2015

To Know the Light You have to Know the Dark. Too much of either makes for some very bad ideas.

when the medication
wears thin
or the metaphors
to self
medicate margins,
which won't rub
too much of you
off, crumble
against your own immunity
to make magic
you have to believe in,
you think only
with cornered thoughts.

Find the paint
and the way
to stroke it
to make a door
you can see
your way through.
It's a choice
of course
that you start
by putting one foot
in front of another
in any direction
with faith in the assumption
that a better place
to see from
will find you.
Even if you can't
see it now.

We can never
be wise but
we can aspire
to wisdom.
We may never
create lasting meaning
but the meaning
we create now
can still have magic,
making the journey
and what is
journeyed through
something worth loving.
Meaning is
what we make of it
that choosing
and making
are what rub
belief every which way
we can imagine.
And thus doubt
is the only certainty
and certainty
the only thing
worth the trouble
of doubting.

The bigger picture
will always have
a lot of dark spots
but its in
the shadows
that we find
the contrasts.
Keep faith
in that bigger picture
what ever the Fuck
it “really” is
because there is
magic in there
if we choose to see it.

Saturday, February 21, 2015

Monkey see, monkey do. What do you see in what you do, and what should you say about it?

I am
a monkey typing,
having a hand
in handle and
leveraging hammers
as the keys
for thinking
on, or assuming,

What do I
Succeed or fail upon
as I stumble
over the chances
of meaning?
What credit
is creditable?
Where does the messenger
stand in the genius
of what makes

Is it simply
the will to keep
with ego enough
to direct a continuing
faith in the gamble
that what I feel,
is real
in the casts of stone
staged in the eternal play
of questions well
beyond our grasp,
even as we reach
for the ownership
of answers?

I own
only what I realize
in the choices
I swing from.
But what
do I hope for?
Someone else
to catch on?
of what is obvious
even as it hides
in plain site?
As part
and parcel
of all the other
swingers in the nous
choking on validation.

Everybody wants
a dig me, but
nobody wants
to come down
and be grounded,
time grinding
out in the munch
of mulch that living
makes of blood and bone
for the only creativity
that matters
or gives gravity
to any risk
of letting go.

So many precious
pretensions to cling to
as in assuming
any mantle of messenger
or mandate for message,
in the first place;
more than monkeys
throwing shit around
and wishing
it could leverage anything.

Maybe we can
earn the hope
in living
well grounded
with grit enough
to keep coming
back to make
and break
and be broken again,
holding passionately
to our grief
as we let go
of what we love,
risking the fallout
of grasping
that and every other
branch that passion finds
a risk for.
Always listening
with every fiber
for a message
that requires no audience
and had to be
expressed because
we owned the choices,
accepted the pain
creating the will
to have faith

in what was realized.

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

The need to understand singularity.

The following post was prompted by the Aeon article linked below:

What the author is expressing here is really an indication of the problem we with have with singularity. The fact of the matter is that, as we understand it today, it is wholly unable to be consistent with itself and the formalized expressions that describe relativity. And this is so because it currently starts with the assumption that a single, immaculate moment of infinite mass began the cosmological process of what and when. An infinite potential that begins with no preceding specifications other than it is infinite.

From this inherent inconsistency does all of the seeming difficulties of quantum theory arise; especially as it relates to accepting either the “Copenhagen Interpretation,“ “Objective Collapse interpretation ,” or the “Many Worlds” interpretation. And the only way to resolve this, in my opinion, is to restate singularity as follows:

An unbounded process of infinite potential; an eternal of no time or space dimensions of its own where potential is a combination of both infinite boundaries, and infinite vectors of meaning association, within which to create new boundaries, within that unbounded, singular process.

This infinite potential cannot be static so its very being assumes an automatic existence of realities going out in infinite angles of relative direction (derivative of the various permutations of first order interaction constants, of which more will be said), realities where the arrow of time is the vector of association, or interaction, wherein is created both physical meaning space and sentient meaning space. All of these vectors then having an infinite corresponding set of initial reference points for which to set the base constants for which first order interactions will be able to constitute meaning.

There are a couple of things to remember here as these vectors expand out into their growing space time relationships, or over all meaning.

The first is that boundaries inside each are relative to the vector at hand, and remain deterministic only to a certain scale of energy. Higher energy scales mean more potential for vector cross talk, for lack of a better term, so require increasing probability resolution to describe; especially as sentient meaning space and physical meaning space begin to interact to a greater degree within the same vector of association.

The second is that physical meaning space is deterministic in the context of the first order of interaction, which is the creation of information as discrete units in a given sequence over time. Meaning in that context is inherent in the initial interaction constants, in conjunction with the given characteristics of space time at any major differential of expansion. Sentient meaning space, however, is where quantum complexity really comes into its own for it is here that the act of observation takes on fundamentally different aspect. Sentient choice in not only how an observation is conducted, but with the meaning assumptions already held in the individual meaning processing system, affect how the observation will resolve event probabilities.

Having realities branch off at every quantum moment is a great deal more consistent with a Cosmological whole when that cosmology begins with a singularity conceptualized as an unbounded process of time vectors originating from every possible reference point. That, in itself, however, would not be enough, in my view, to account for quantum complexity without also allowing that each vector of reality is made up of both physical meaning space and sentient meaning space. This necessarily gets us into the philosophical realm, but that would be necessary in any case. The problem for science in general is that, powerful though empiricism is, it can only take us so far in understanding the Cosmos. As the author of this article already stated, in the quantum world there is no objective observation. Which is no more than to say that there are limits to what we can objectively measure and test. Conclusions will, therefor, ultimately come down to subjective consideration, and choice.   

Illustration by Clayton Junior.

Monday, February 16, 2015

Another Stupid Question

Time now is measured by the standard of the energy oscillation of certain elements. We do that because these changes in the push and pull (we can measure through the space between the element and the measuring instrumentality) take place in amazingly small, but still exactly consistent, gaps. A fact I mention as it helps to put emphasis on how important “wave length” is to the idea of time. One need only to remember that old light is distinguished from newer by it's red shift, with old having an equivalence to distance.

This sort of thing gets me to wondering, of course, and the minute that happens you can count on an ever increasing probability of another stupid question popping up. For instance, if the above paragraph has validity than it should also be valid to state that time is the space in duration. If that is the case how can it be the same now, in any absolute sense, as it was when the universe was only, say, half as expanded as it is now?

By the same token, if the rate of expansion changes, and it has been increasing its rate of increase lately, what effect does that have on time at one point in the history of expansion as opposed to another point a good distance down the road of that history.

I understand that the equations surrounding the description of expansion involve the interplay of ratios between known variables. In these the variance of density and energy distribution are taken into account. Time, however, if I understand it correctly (see the introduction in this paper), is the idealized constant assumed from the relative perspective of a free falling observer (an immaculate observer, as it were, conceived without any initial thrusting; much like an immaculate bit of singularly infinite mass). The thing is, even though, as a dollar might have seemed to be the same thing in 1932, as it was in, say, 2000, time now might not equate to the same distance, or quite the same way, as it did halfway past the big bang.

This also gets me to wondering whether, if we were to imagine sentients doing the same kinds of Astronomical observations, and particle experiments we've been doing for the last 100 years; sentients who existed during that halfway point between our time and the big bang, would their results be the same? Or would they at least indicate the same ratios operating between the same groups of constants our scientists work with now?

We already know that time is relative to the relative velocity between two observers. What about the relative characteristics of space time itself between two observers resolving probability within quite different states of expansion?

I know. There's a lot I don't understand at work here. Aspects that the more informed will no doubt be able to marshal as they enlighten me. Stupid question though it may be, hopefully all involved will find the exercise useful; especially as it might prompt the knowledgeable to better explain things to the rest of us.  

Saturday, February 14, 2015

Getting tangled up in cause and time affect

The following post was prompted by the Phys.org article linked below.

The tension between the deterministic reality Einstein formulated in General Relativity, and the indeterminate characteristics of quantum wave theory have always fascinated me, despite the fact that I am an idiot when it comes to understanding the math. So you are entirely justified in being skeptical of what follows here.

Perhaps the only positive note is that, being outside the expertise of physics, I can keep asking the dumb questions on the hopes that I might get lucky.

The article in question here offers the results of new experimentation that seems to strongly suggest that the "epistemic interpretation" that Einstein hoped for just isn't to escape
the need to accommodate the non epistemic nature of quantum wave theory. Which, I have to admit, is wonderful for someone who likes to have at least some small empirical link to the mysterious.

In any case, though, one of the thoughts expressed by the article's author as to how to get General Relativity and quantum wave theory to live together would be "...to reconsider assumptions of the framework used to derive the theorems, perhaps by introducing backwards-in-time causality or parallel universes..."

This reminded me of a question I had had regarding quantum entanglement and Relativity. The question was expressed as another thought experiment.

Suppose you could entangle, say, two quanta of light, separate them in such a manner as to keep them in their originating, entangled state, and then put one into a space craft capable of some significant percentage of the speed of light. And say further that you then had that craft seed off for ten years of ship board relative time. Whereupon you immediately changed the state of the ship's photon. Would the earth side photon change its state relative to ship time or to earth time? And if the answer was the former alternative would that suggest an outside of time dimension, or something else completely? And if its the latter alternative, what would that do to quantum theory?