Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Indulging in a bit of ego: All of my verse in one collection

It is certainly an act of pure ego when a person puts a puts a bunch of musings into a collection, and then proceeds to post where that collection can be copied from. Most especially when that collection is not ordinary prose.

The thing to remember, of course, is that we all aspire to many things but that hardly changes at all the fact that we are human. And what is the point of expressing anything if no one is made aware of it.

The links below have in them all of the verse I have posted, either via Google+, or one of my blogs. I say verse quite purposefully as I have come to the realization that I don't know what the "P" word really means any more; so saturated with connotational baggage as it has become. Verse for me is simply another type of hammer and chisel to chip away at the immense block of stone that is language.

Word Doc File
Open Office File
Rich Text File

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

We shouldn't call Worm Holes Worm Holes

I've been thinking about a recent article in Quanta Magazine. A new approach to finding a way to bridge the problem of information, Hawking Radiation and the evaporation of black holes. The idea revolves around the equating of “ER” to “EPR,” where

...Like initials carved in a tree, ER = EPR, as the new idea is known, is a shorthand that joins two ideas proposed by Einstein in 1935. One involved the paradox implied by what he called “spooky action at a distance” between quantum particles (the EPR paradox, named for its authors, Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen). The other showed how two black holes could be connected through far reaches of space through “wormholes” (ER, for Einstein-Rosen bridges). At the time that Einstein put forth these ideas — and for most of the eight decades since — they were thought to be entirely unrelated...”

The idea here, simply put, is to explain how two entangled particles, one of which is caught up in a black hole, can allow information to be passed between them across the fuzzy boundary of a gravity singularity, which then, of course, causes Hawking radiation. The suggestion has been, through “EP=EPR,” that the circuit of transmission is a worm hole.

There is certainly still healthy skepticism around this new theory but you have to admit that it is quite intriguing. I'm not even a physicist and even I can see that the implications could be quite astounding.

If this link proves to be the case then one would have to think that such transfer circuits would be quite a bit more frequent than what may have been considered before. And the implications of that ought to cause everyone to take note.

Consider first of all that the cosmos as we ordinarily think of it is a quite vast meaning transfer system. Space Time itself both shapes, and is shaped by, the transfer of meaning between already encapsulated meaning objects. From this comes the basis of mass and energy as formalized in the dance of asteroids, comets, planets, suns and galaxies. The very fabric of space time is the standard circuit by which these meanings are transferred.

But wait a moment. A new circuit comes into view. One that cuts across the normal space time relationship to transfer meaning outside of that usual relationship. If this occurs vastly more often than previously considered, what is the aggregate affect on standard space time arrangements? Are the probability distributions of this vast transfer related in any way to dark energy or dark matter?

I do think that this further begs the question of whether quantum entanglement works across both space and time; which is to ask again the question of whether time relativity as it relates to the speed of light does, or does not trump entanglement. Just because distance doesn't seem to be any barrier doesn't necessarily mean time relativity isn't also one.

Time will tell I guess. Just keep your eyes and ears open though.

Thursday, April 16, 2015

Choosing to choose better is about knowing how to ask the right questions

to choose
for the now
and the here,
loving what allows
us to to love at all.
But also
for what the now
will become.
For what
the here
connects to
in and about
and beyond
what abounds
every boundary.
The transfers
to and fro,
choosing to find
every new
link and wonder
of what
that means again
and again.
For that is
the how
and the why
we embrace
the entirety,
giving back
the love
of our connecting
and caring

It needs
the good choice,
the better realization,
from the deeper
For it grows
as we do,
and it suffers
as we suffer
ourselves upon it,
and through it
with violent disregards
that comes of choices
that render rather
than remind the thoughtful
that thinking and creating
make links that hold
meanings that keep
us together, helping
each other to ask
better questions;
so as to come
to the next here
and now with the strength
of our differences,
each and every one
of them.

Only from there
can we move
to be aware
of ever more
of what it makes
us more of,
and thus itself
to see with
grander eyes.
We are
what we choose
of it.
We become
so much
of what we ask
of ourselves
and question
to go about
the choosing.
Only from this
will our reach
exceed our grasp.

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

The sharp edges, and many ways to slice, in looking deeper

drawn across
grander scales
of good chords
and discords
and harm-monics,
feeling what moves
the movement
of inflate, history-onics
in the biggest
frames of
grate, flickering,
all objects quaking,
you come
to know
every version
of what can be
in the extreme.
The highest crests.
The lowest troughs.
All in
the infinite variations
of what anyone
or anywhere
ever wears, tears
or is worn
out of it all.

You tune
to these mind
too frequent-cies,
more or less,
to any
or them
that could be
and what could happen
in the master
of mix,
is a roller you
can't coaster on;
rushing to fall
and rushing to rise.
So much sublime,
as well as the slime,
of every kind
of lofty dream
or deepest scream.
This is
what it means
to bear witness
to the dream
of that bigger
picture screened
in the highest
resolve you make
of resolution.

The possibilities
are so large
and you are
so small.
Can you stay
as you are
even as you change?
Keep the balance
in the mean
of perspective,
and so to have
any hope
for focus
on a purpose.
Are there meanings
you can make
to ease the take
of those who follow
in your wake?
You must find
a faith to take
it so.

Saturday, April 11, 2015

A life lived fully is anything but safe

Why do you fear
the ending, more
than the dull
litany of so many
folds of not
fully engaged,
the progression
telling no story
at all worth
the life worn
so shabby
for a miracle,
and out
of any good use,
across its dreary

you will
to say,
and still,
trembling, you
are not.
For there's always
a place, whether
climatic or without
event, where
even the dullest
plodding will stop.

And what reach
will your spirit
ever succeed
in grasping without
the risk at hand
and holding it
close to your heart?
To come
to know
that fear is so small
a price to work
a purchase
around which
you can live
a story worth adventuring
through whatever end.

Can there be
a growth beyond
what spans any
one lifetime?
An expansion
of spirit and
heart to take
larger aims
at the life
that greater needs
have called out
to those who make
the grander choices
possible by
what they've grown
to feel is their's,
and a chance
that is what they
live more for?

Those are
the hearts and souls
who trade
shorter journeys
for greater stories
that might
encourage others
to make that leap.
Knowing fear's embrace
will always hold
whether you jump
the folds or
the folds jump
on top of you.
Better a bold
short story
than a boring
durge without end

The one video that I've done

I also wanted to remind everyone that there is a relatively short video I did outlining the what and wherefore of the need for an alternative to Capitalism. Check it out here:

My YouTube Video

More open source songs

Some of you may have seen these already but I thought I might add them to the list of songs that everybody can make a stab at doing better.

As with the other open source lyrics the idea here is to allow one and all a chance to put their own stamp on how they think the lyrics should be expressed. I am hoping for a lot of interesting variations.

Here is the link list:

The Three Leaps of Life.mp3

The Three Leaps of Life.wav

Mickie's Man.wma

Old Mans Lament.mp3

Old Mans Lament2.mp3

Buyers Remorse.mp3

The Devil With Details.mp3


The Bull And The Shit.mp3


Can You Lend an Invisible Hand.mp3

You Think.mp3


The Struggle.mp3

Friday, April 10, 2015

Sentient choice does matter

The following post was prompted by the article in and linked below.

I have made a lot of noise in my posts here in the Cosmolosophy Blog about the unique aspects of sentient choice as it relates to the entirety, and what makes up the entirety. The choices we make matter as I have said many times before.

A new experiment done by a team lead by Howard Wiseman, director of Griffith University's Centre for Quantum Dynamics, has given a good deal more credence to that notion. 

I quote NBC's abbreviated rendition of the original "Live Science" piece in its entirety below. Before you go there, however, I want to make something quite clear.

I would just hope that physicists everywhere would take this notion to heart in a philosophical sense as well as a practical one. Especially when one considers their approach to looking into the deeper aspects of what constitutes matter. Bashing away with particle accelerators at it seems wrong to me both because of the risk such inputs might have to the ultimate of complex systems, but also because when we choose violence it should be under the constraints of a good deal of moral consideration.

I know that the universe itself does high energy interactions all of the time, but that is via the natural progression of interactions since inflation first began. When we choose to do it it is a whole different ball game, as I think ought to be quite clear now.

As the NBC article states:

The phenomenon was outside of contemporary experience in physics and seemed to violate the theory of relativity, which posits that the speed of light is an absolute limit on how fast any information can travel. Einstein proposed that the particle isn't in a superposition state, or two places at once; but rather it always has a "true" location, and people just couldn't see it.


The phenomenon is demonstrated with a thought experiment in which a light beam is split, with one half going to Alice and the other to Bob. Alice then indicates if she detected a photon and if so what state it is in — it might be the phase of the wave packet that describes the photon. Mathematically, though, the photon is in a state of "superposition," meaning it is in two (or more) places at once. Its wave function, a mathematical formula that describes the particle, seems to show the photon has no definite position.
"Alice's measurement collapses the superposition," meaning the photons are in one place or another, but not both, Howard Wiseman, director of Griffith University's Centre for Quantum Dynamics, who led the experiment, told Live Science. If Alice sees a photon, that means the quantum state of the light particle in Bob's lab collapses to a so-called zero-photon state, meaning no photon. But if she doesn't see a photon, Bob's particle collapses to a one-photon state, he said.
The experiment is described in the March 24 issue of the journal Nature Communications.
"Does this seem reasonable to you? I hope not, because Einstein certainly didn't think it was reasonable. He thought it was crazy," he added, referring to the fact that Alice's measurement looked like it was dictating Bob's.
The paradox was partially resolved years later, when experiments showed that even though the interaction between two quantum particles happens faster than light (it appears instantaneous), there is no way to use that phenomenon to send information, so there's no possibility of faster-than-light signals.


The team at Griffith, though, wanted to go a step further and show that the collapsing wave function — the process of Alice "choosing" a measurement and affecting Bob's detection — is actually happening. And while other experiments have shown entanglement with two particles, the new study entangles a photon with itself.
To do this they fired a beam of photons at a splitter, so half of the light was transmitted and half was reflected. The transmitted light went to one lab and the reflected light went to the other. (These were "Alice" and "Bob" of the thought experiment.)
The light was transmitted as a single photon at a time, so the photon was split in two. Before the photon was measured, it existed in a superposition state.
One lab (Alice) used a laser as a reference, to measure the phase of the photon. If one thinks of light as a repeating sine wave, phase is the angle one is measuring, from 0 to 180 degrees. When Alice changed the angle of her reference laser, she got varying measurements of the photon: Either her photon was in a certain phase or it wasn't present at all.
Then the other lab (or Bob) looked at their photons and found the photons were anti-correlated with Alice — if she saw a photon he did not, and vice versa. The state of Bob's photon depended on what Alice measured. But in classic physics that shouldn't happen; rather, the two particles should be independent of one another.
Jesse Emspak, Live Science
This is a condensed version of an article that appeared on LiveScience. Read the entire story here. Follow LiveScience @livescienceFacebook &Google+.”

Sunday, April 5, 2015

Calling it a collider is like calling war diplomacy by other means

The following post was prompted the article linked below.

Money spent for science is a good thing. One also has to acknowledge the incredible ingenuity and creativity that the physicists and engineers have shown in creating this amazing piece of functioning hardware.

What one also has to ask, however, is whether these truly creative folks have thought through the approach they are taking to looking into how the entirety works. Have they fully appreciated what taking what amounts to an enormous sledge hammer and bashing away at what makes reality work?

It seems to me that there is both a question of not taking full consideration of what this bashing might do to the most complex system we will ever undertake to understand, as well as to question whether or not there is a moral component to using violence in this fashion.

To the first part of the above paragraph I would only suggest one give the same credence to "small inputs have large effects" here as to that which "a butterfly flapping its wings" has been used to illustrate the complexity of whether systems.

To the second part of the above paragraph I would ask: is this truly the best way for a sentient to approach what should be held in awe, wonder, and a special kind of reverence? A reverence not based on deities, but one based on our own connection to creation and the desire to keep thoughtful, loving structure going, as opposed to ultimate entropy? Ripping away at things with only cold rationality in mind hardly seems a proper way to go about discovery at all to me. 

Image: CMS pixel tracker