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

Sometimes,

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

understanding

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.

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

I am

a monkey typing,

imagining

having a hand

in handle and

leveraging hammers

as the keys

for thinking

on, or assuming,

purpose.

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

message?

Is it simply

the will to keep

practicing,

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?

Recognition

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.

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.   

Too many worlds

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.  

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?

Schrodinger's cat gets a reality check