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
Choosing
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
there;
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
choices.
It needs
the good choice,
the better realization,
from the deeper
understandings.
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,
respecting
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
Listening,
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
transferred
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
yourself
to these mind
too frequent-cies,
relating,
more or less,
to any
you
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
avoidance.
Safe
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
Econo-Blues.mp3
The Bull And The Shit.mp3
TheBullAndTheShit.wav
Can You Lend an Invisible Hand.mp3
You Think.mp3
YouThink.wav
The Struggle.mp3
Friday, April 10, 2015
Sentient choice does matter
The following post was prompted by the
article in NBCNEWS.com 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.
ALICE AND BOB
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.
"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.
SPLITTING PHOTONS
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 @livescience, Facebook &Google+.”
Sunday, April 5, 2015
Calling it a collider is like calling war diplomacy by other means
The following post was prompted the NBCNEWS.com 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)