Back in Action

Alright, all these posts are just ones that I rather enjoyed from my past and have chosen to preserve. Expect actual new and original posts to come soon once we have cast off our shackles, so to speak.

Faux insight on the pan-dimensional nature of man

Hmmm, been wondering about the finite/infinite nature of man lately. Are there an infinite number of perceivable dimensions in a universe that stretches onward into infinity? Or is everything exactly as it appears face-value and there is no depth to it at all? It would seem to me that the only description impossible to apply to the universe is simplicity. It would be easy to say that there is nothing beyond what we can perceive, nothing but the corporeal, nothing but nothingness ultimately. And yet, all of the evidence points to the infinite complexity of everything. The mere existence of infinite mathematical series imples to me that in both directions, macro and micro, from out perceived world, there could extend an endless number worlds and levels of existence. We ourselves may exist in multiple dimensions; in levels of existence that we are not aware of. Not everyone views us in the same way, we all have a filter that constricts our view of the world. No one can grasp the entirety of another person, a person cannot grasp the entirety of themselves. We are endlessly complex, but complexity may be the only way we know how to interpret simplicity. No man is capable of understanding nothingness, nonexistence. The very nature of nonexistence implies that it cannot be perceived. For if there was something to be perceived, then it would in fact have to exist. The simplest answer to our ultimate fate, nonexistence, would then be the most complicated. I think I should read some Zen. Goodnight

Asceticism in the Age of Information

Asceticism: Something that has been bothering me for about a year and half now. Is there room for a true ascetic in today's world? Is there even meaning to an ascetic lifestyle? I fear that there may be a trend, especially in the current political and religious climate I find myself in, to scoff at the ascetic life and those who classically followed it (especially those of the Christian traidition). First and foremost, there can be no asceticism without spirituality and there can be no spirituality without God. Many may disagree, but to define spirituality without a sense of deity (whatever deity it may be) is a true fallacy. Even if one's thoughts of a deity are limited to the global spiritual consciousness of mankind, one still believes in some outwardly potent and all-encompassing spiritual force (ie. one is not a atheist regardless of what they claim). But I digress. We need the ascetic. It is so easy to embrace to modern lifestyle, to embrace technology, to embrace the ease at which science and thought can explain our world. It is much easier to remove the universal impact of our actions in light of what is put before us in our everyday experience. These things are not evil (at least not in a moral sense), but ultimately they are shallow, they are hollow, and they amount to nothing but a means unto themsleves. No, we need ascetics now more than ever. We need to understand the underlying feelings and desires of the human heart, not those that come pre-packaged for us in society. We need to learn to discover things by ourselves.I fear that a popular trend of agnosticism does not stem from true ascetic thought, as it should, but from an exposure to what is immediately unacceptable compared with what is immediatley sensible. In other words, the Church has become it's own greatest obstacle to spirituality. So caught up is it with beuaracracy and image that the essentials are lost. It drives people to other paradigms before they can justify the change to themselves. I trust no metaphysical idea written in a book, those are the thoughts of others, based on the thoughts of still others, that could ultimately be truth, but need to ultimately be proven on each individual's basis. We don't think for ourselves, it's too difficult. We would like those before us to have already done our thinking ahead of time. It's easier that way. With a little thought and a little effort, we can accept what they present and move on. It seems like truth, but is it? I don't know, that's for each of us to define in ourselves. It's for the ascetics. Atheism cannot be taught, neither can God be taught; but they can be learned and they must be learned for each individual. I think it's easier for us to be taught than to learn; easier to know than to understand.

Wee Freakin Beasties

I came to a realization yesterday about the makeup of the Universe. Before I get into that, let's start with a few ground-rule assumptions about the Universe that I think we can all hold to be true (although ultimately unprovable). All science begins with these basic assumptions and I will build my theories upon them.

First: The completeness of creation can be viewed as an isolated system. There is an ultimate, an upper limit that encompasses everything: The Universe. We are all part of it.Second: There is an ultimate truth to the workings of the Universe. We may have not even come close to understanding this with our science and, in fact, we may be further away today than we were 500 years ago. However, there must be an underlying truth and system. If all answers to the workings of the Universe were equally probable, then there could be no existence. There is not existence without finality, without truth, without a concrete set of rules by which everything must follow. These rules may be beyond our ultimate comprehension, but they exist. Chaos is not chaos, it is merely an infinitely complex system. If anything was possible by definition in Chaos, then nothing would ultimately be possible.

Ok, so that has been established. This may be hard to understand as I am trying to write it out as best as possible, but I am willing to discuss and clarify further if you think you disagree with me. Now let's begin with the most basic unit of life, the single-celled organism. How did we eventually evolve from the single-cell into the multi-cell, from the asexual to the sexual, from the simple to the complex? Is random mutation and natural selection purely the cause of this? Examine the human body. In it's basic form, it is a collection of living things existing in a symbiosis. If there is no need for a certain organ, that organ atrophies by natural selection until it finally disappears. The appendix is an example. Now imagine each of these cells as it's own separate species of sorts (Mind that this is merely analogy for a larger case to be presented later) and notice that on the cellular level, each of these cells has conception that it is part of a larger being. It is merely going about it's daily business, living, interacting, reproducing, oblivious as to what happens on the macroscopic level. Is it not possible to believe, then, that we as people are a part of a larger system. A planetary system, a galactic system, a universal system, of which we are ultimately oblivious? We don't understand how things operate on a galactic level. We are only capable of imagining what can occur on a personal level, maybe even a planetary level. This is our order of magnitude in the Universe. Our existence must have some place in the working of things, but surely it is part of a greater system that influences our existence. The appendix did not choose to atrophy, the body chose for it and as a need for the entire system, it was phased out. Could we not be subject to the same rules? Our sentience, our ability to perceive, our actions occur because they are necessary for the system. If we became damaging to the system, we would cease to exist and something would rise to take our place.

Ok, I'm going to have to stop there. I may post other thoughts as they come to me, we'll see.

Human Evolution and the Genius of Arthur C. Clarke

A few days ago when I was going throught my whole levels of consiousness kick, I had an epiphany about the stages of sentient evolution and mankind. Only now I realize that this was just me fully understanding the implications of Arthur C. Clarke's work, but before I get too deep, let me explain.From the inception of life up to a certain point, an organism evolves to adapt to its environment. The physical form changes to one best suitable for the situation it is in. In the case of Humanity, we went through the ape stages becoming physically strong, developing depth perception, and creating a social order. At some point, the opposable thumb was developed. This was the first major leap for our species, we could now effectively use tools and manipulate our environment. Still our bodies evolved to a point where we could maximize our newfound abilities (ie bipedal configuration) until at last, we came to the dawn of the history of civilization.This represented a new plateau for humankind. No longer did we physically change to better suit our environment; we began to change our environment to better suit our needs and wants. At this point, we ceased (for the most part) to develop physically as we became better and better at manipulating the environment. We evolved in an orthogonal direction to our previous physical path, now our evolution was a mental one, a cognitive evolution.We're currently in the middle of our cognitive evolution; progression to where one day we will achieve an ultimate, unifying theory on the operation of life, the universe, everything (to reference Douglas Adams). At some point, it is feasible, as Clarke forsaw, for humanity to no longer require the naturally evolved body. We would create new bodies for ourselves, ones that better suited our new cognitive abilities. We would sever all ties to the natural world, no longer living in it, but living on another plane of existence completely. A plane of artificial existence from which total manipulation of the natural world is possible. Eventually we would even slough of these artificial bodies, perhaps becoming pure thought: actuality.In Clarke this is the ultimate meaning of the monolith. The oldest races in the Universe went through these stages, using the monoliths as bodies until they no longer needed them, and then using them as tools: sef-perpetuating probes that could spread throughout the Universe. This is an oustandingly brilliant idea. Obviously a pure consciousness would not be able to interact with the natural Universe directly, so it would use these monoliths with which it could interface directly to enact its will on the Universe. Essentially, a race of pure thought could thread its influence into the very workings of the Universe itself. And that's where I tie back into my other ideas on evolution. Could it not be possible that an older consciousness is tied into the very strings of the Universe. We are all apart of it, all influenced by it, and yet all influencing it at the same time. This may be a bit of a stretch, but it does raise compelling questions.How long do these stages of evolution take? Are we on the right path? Is there even and ultimate cognitive truth? Obviously I have no idea, but I guess it gives us all something to look forward to.Disclaimer: I have not fully read all of Clarke. I only know what I have gleaned from the movies, 3001 (of which I've read around half), and articles and the like in reference to this material.

Thought and the Universe at large

Lying in the grass on a fall day, I can almost feel the world move under me. If I let myself go it's as if I can feel the system, I can feel a part of it, I can feel my part in it. When I do nothing I feel the most alive. There at my hands is everything and nothing at the same time. To understand nothing is to understand everything. They are the same concept. Can we forsake the petty in lieu of the Universe, or are not the petty things grand in their own right? Are the needs of the many more important than the needs of the one? Is each of us not the most important being in our Universe?

There is no limit or restriction. These are illusions. Are we not each a seperate World, a seperate Galaxy, a seperate Universe seeking our own prolongement? We are immortal. We are forever. We forever have been and forever will be. There is finite matter and energy in the Universe. Our matter was present at the big bang; present at the fusion of the Sun, present at the formation of the World. Our matter will exist beyond ourselves. It will be present at the end of the Sun, at the end of the Galaxy, at the end of the Universe. There is nothing to prevent that. We only assume different roles in the system. The groundwork for our DNA was present at creation and the implications of our existence will ripple through time and space immemorial. Fear is an illusion. Isolation is an illusion. These are animal instincts designed to further our primal roles. We are beyond those now....we can appreciate who we are and what we are capable of. We no longer need fear, doubt, poverty, despair.

Soon we will be capable of manipulating our own genetic code. Soon after that we will be able to enhance our bodies by artificial means: cybernetics. Later, once we can acheive the ultimate actuality of our genetic form and artificial form, we will expand beyond form. We will create genes for ourselves. The previously held ideals of beauty, intelligence, and strength will have no meaning...there will only be what we can achieve by our imagination. It is the ultimate goal of technology to be able to acheive all desires by the virtue of thought. We will construct new bodies for ourselves, capable of all feats physical and metaphysical. Thought will be technology and we will advance the technology of thought until we no longer need technology....we only need thought. We only have thought. But what is the nature of thought that makes it such a powerful force? What was the first thougt?

When did man first look up from his animal ambitions and contrmplate his place in the world and what force, natural or supernatural, created that impulse?

God help me, there must be a reason. Do you ever feel like you're on the cusp of it? Like it's buried under your psyche just under the surface; like at any minute, everything will just click? You wish that one day your eyes will be open and suddenly it will all be clear... but I doubt it will ever happen. Some times I'm so full of shit I can't even stand it.

On the nature of black holes

The energy of the Universe could be infinite. Becuase of the pairings of particles and antiparticles, by conservation of energy one can create an infinite number of particles (at least at the high energy state present at the creation of the universe) as long as it is in an antiparticle pair. Not to mention, on the event horizon of black holes, this very thing can happen. Although in theory, the particles are more apt to be expelled at the event horizon while the antiparticles can be sucked into the singularity adding negative energy to it...thus a black hole may after a time disappear altogether from the collection of negative energy cancelling out the mass. Basically, black holes in all irony can spew energy while they're sucking in mass until they annihilate. I don't know if I buy this. Math allows for some pretty ridiculous assumptions that make no sense in the real world. The problem is, what does make sense in the real world? Surely the world is not limited to what we can experience. But then again, maybe it is.The weak anthropic principle: We experience the Universe in the way it is becuase if it were not the way it is, we would not exist.

You ain't got no alibi

You're Blogging, yea yea, you're Blogging.
Ah, I finally finished the Elementary Particles. It's only taken me 6 months, but I've finally done it. I really suck at reading sometimes. I mean I love, I truly love it, but I can have such a short attention span that I'll get halfway through a book and then start on something else until I come back to it. Luckily, my memory for such things has remained impeccable, even if it's slipped in other areas...
But anyway, I have to admit that it was brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. I won't spoil anything save to say that in the end it turned out exactly as I wanted it to. The revelation at the end wasn't so important to me as the actual development of the characters. It was depressing on some levels, but fulfilling. Houllenbec (sp, I'm too busy/lazy to bother looking it up) didn't cheat the reader at all. All characters ended up exactly where their actions took them and in all of their suffering they made several great points about the the human condition.
Now as for the ending. (There may be minor and major spoilers) This is aimed at those of you who've read it, and those that haven't need to so that you can debate it with me. I believe that it had the right idea. That is truly the only recourse for mankind if it wishes to better itself. However, I will have to disagree with the general neglect of spirituality and the generally communistic undertones of the solution. Still, perhaps its the right idea. The only problem of course in this solution is that ultimately I claim it will lead to genocide on someone's part and possibly the creation of a slave race. I don't believe that humanity can be responsible enough and the resolution was just a little too utopian. Either way, spirituality is not some stupid superstition brought about by an ignorant society to try and bring itslef together. Community is important, but there has to be the sense of the individual, the identity of self. If these things are lost then we are lost; especially if some lose identity for the sake of others. Spirituality is meant to connect the sense of self with the sense of community, this much Houllenbeq (i still don't know if I'm spelling this right) was right about, but it also connects the sense of self with the sense of environment. That is the true purpose of spirituality, to connect with the roots, with the system: to feel life around you and in you. A manufactured species might lose this connection with life. They might not feel the connection with the natural and venture in the dangerous world of technology worship. Technology is now their god and it is an unforgiving deity. It cares not for the obsolete and it has no love for the weak. All technology loves is the new...the strong...the smart...the powerful. What is morality in the age of technology? What is morality in the age of community? Truly if one can put the community above one's own sense of self, then morality should win out. But is there a morality of nature as well? In a species that can produce itself ad infinitum does it need to care of its responsibility to nature? Once again, the Universe is no longer connected with it. They were made by a distinct purpose. Is such purpose good for a species? Does it answer questions or just create more, unanswerable ones. I think that the author could tackle a beautiful array of poignant social issues in a book focusing on the the child race, but that is not for me to decide.

The End of the Beginning

Another foray into the world of information. Seeing as I am about to abandon my old blogging haunts, my first few posts following this one will be repostings/post-postings of previos material that I would strongly regret losing. Unless, of course, I decide it would just be easier to not. Either way, I welcome you, friends, to the future: a solar system of 10 planets and a new era of not space exploration, but space civilization. (And hopefull an era where my love of the grandios doesn't mire everything I print)