But there's a tricky story. Understanding the bigger aspect of turn. How did we go from worrying about not only what we might eat next, but also what might eat us, to coming to wonder about turn because, at some point somebody had to make the leap, as McLuhan suggested in his phrase (paraphrasing myself): "we imagined the rotation of the full cycle of feet, in the process of walking." Or maybe it was simple serendipity, and necessity, that got people to move things on rolling logs, but whatever it was, it made the wheel possible.
Then you had all those folks looking to the stars for so long, for all sorts of original purposes of course, not realizing that the real need was for them to start seeing events unfold in relationship to the turn of night and day, and then to the turn of all the bigger objects around them. Was it inevitable then that they would suddenly seek to segment the circle itself and start calling it a clock? Was the sense of linear segmentation needed first? Typography, with the printing press, could certainly provide a reasonably likely culprit there. The fact remains, though, that we did make them and that they made the possibility of organizing human life, in such an amazingly, fundamentally, different way than it had ever been; well... that dear reader ought to really, really, astound you, if bother to think about it at all.
In any case, however that circular segmentation came about, it also made it possible to start seeing things through the lens of a process that might be repeated. A process that might, because we can now see things in relation to arbitrary lengths of what a skilled person might be doing, or not doing, so that we could receive the benefit of either more, or less, bits of benefit, in each new way to slice occurrence; depending of course, on how precisely clever you could be with the new found need for gears we suddenly had. And once you have gears going you can see the turn of the inclined plane, to make screws, and once you see screws going you suddenly realise that wow. Turning things have a lot of power in them intrinsically. Power to literally motivate you through the sea, and the air eventually, once you realize it wasn't the flapping you had to mimic, but simply the motion of air over an either inclined, or declined plane, in a way that could balance those two opposites very carefully.
So now that you know you can segment circles one way, you should certainly be able to do so in another. How about like this for instance: You can also think of it as a degree of arc change, from the last vector of arc change result, where what is begin changed is the vector of some applied thrust.
You get this sort of odd ball thing when you interact objects that, on the one hand want to go in a straight line when accelerated, but that other objects can make them want to just go towards them as well, because the other objects may have a lot more meaning than our original Mr. Thruster does. And so Newtonian physics has to interact with the curved physics of relativity; where a better statement of gravity might suggest that the dance of energy and matter (as we've already stated above, because we just started seeing what each new ability to conceive with allowed us) is one requiring that things turn to the very circle of process that demands the iterative loop. And you can see this now in how, when things can be considered as "a degree of arc change, from the last vector of arc change result" that an increment of change must be transacted, the state changed, and then the same processing run again to determine the new answer to the new implied question of state. And it is inside of that odd interaction of two different numerical referencing systems, The Newtonian, and the world of the Relativistic, you get things like the dichotomy of Centripetal Force versus, Centrifugal force.
This is where the inertial relationship of act, and react must be bent some because, suddenly, the centripetal force, that has to be implied by the tension on an imaginary line (that continues to have tension precisely because the thrust vector keeps changing), has to be inferred a bit differently. This is the line, from the center of rotation, back along whatever relative length the radius of the rotation, that has to be there so that delta V can be applied to our Mr. Thruster at all, even though he may now be interacting in more than one frame of reference. And if anybody were inside of Mr. Thruster they would be feeling the assumed mass of what isn't coming out the back end of Mr. Thruster, even though the delta V is being applied. But he has to have that in one sense, even as he has it already implied by the whirling around the more meaningful object, in the other sense; especially as the velocity changes, because no matter how meaningful the more meaningful object is, the meaningful connection that keeps the string taut from the center of the bigger one, on out to Mr. Thruster, can only stand so much, with its ability to attract and hold, until finally, Mr. Thruster does indeed go off, on his nominal, Newtonian straight line.
What I am suggesting to you here is that, within my description of cosmology, we are, essentially, just meaningful objects ourselves created in what is nothing more than a very much more elaborate, and complicated, form of Cellular Automata (and you can't talk about that without also mentioning "A New Kind Of Science" by Stephen Wolfram); Or The Game of Life, as it was coined, way back when, in the beginning of desktops; played then, certainly, on the much more limited universes of two dimensional, cartesian coordinate systems, and memory representations of same in both video ram, and process specific ram. Our vector of experience association, or reality, plays out that more sophisticated game each arbitrary quantum moment to the next, as it seeks to create new levels of ever more interactively sophisticated objects so that the process of aggregation can actually pull off the miracle of evolutionary change. That supposedly organic processing of interactive transactions that make possible new expressive possibility, of which we now have entities able to make use of choice, and conception, like no object ever created before. And it does this through truly cosmic metadata (The Anthropic Principle in physics took a stab at seeing what some of these meta parameters might be); the starting parameters that decide what the primitives start with, as to interactive capability, as well as to what the nature of the interactive environment itself will allow for how transactions take place at all.
Of course Iteration, and incremental state change, have to also be implied, by basic, elemental intent; by the very nature of a system that needs be as as stated above; that needs new expressive elements to be created, creating the possibility of a new interactive complexity, from which even more complex interactive objects can be created from, and thus begin again the possibility of even more complex expression to do even more complex interactions, and so on. And so here we are, surprise, surprise, with one of these meaning processor species; the ones supposedly capable of choice, and facing the biggest one yet and not doing much about it.
Here they are, given this miracle and they seem to be fumbling it. The miracle which proves to be so meaningful, of itself, you'd have to expect that the meaning processor was in the works, to come out of this, from the beginning, but that would be kind of fantastical, now wouldn't it. Or Would it really? If process itself was the divinity? And the processor just a part of the divine process? Not the complete master, but not the complete pawn either. And doesn't this all just put a mind whomping, new spin on how we must conceive of ourselves, as well as what our role in life should be? And maybe that will be enough to give that species a little renewed faith that anything is still possible? Just maybe?
As always, time will tell.
See Also:
[Post Note: I start talking about rotating and hardly a full day later we learn that rotating one sheet of graphene 1.1 degrees relative to another sheet, and suddenly it will do amazing new things. You just gotta love coincidence. J.V.]
Insulator Or Superconductor? Turns Out, Graphene Is Both
It's hard to believe that a single material can be described by as many superlatives as graphene can. Since its discovery in 2004, scientists have found that it is not just the thinnest material known in the world, but also incredibly light and flexible, hundreds of times stronger than steel, and more electrically conductive than copper.
No comments:
Post a Comment