It's funny

Stephen Hawking has called the universe "the ultimate free lunch".

hre's a long quote:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

Now twice zero is also zero. Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy.

"It is said that there's no such thing as a free lunch. But the universe is the ultimate free lunch."

The Taoists say you can only have dark if you have light. good and bad, tall and short etc. define each other and support each other. I feel that this echoes Hawking's statements.

There's a form of english used by some philosophers that omits any use of the verb "to be". They do this because they believe that "universe" is a verb, not a noun.

I've thought a lot about these, what i believe to be, connected issues. It seems to me that the univese exists solely because it is in flux. that the "virtual particles" that exist in a vacuum are a microscopic version of the true nature of reality. it is only because of the dynamic between positive energy and the negative energy that are kept separate from each other instead of allowing them to cancel out.

that is to say, ulitmately they do cancel out and there is nothing. but if there was nothing there would be nothing. and the nothingness would be without description and in fact, there is nothing but somehow, in the nothingness, there is also 1 and -1. that is the mystery of existence. perhaps that is the nature of god. that which allows the nothingness to be 1 and -1 instead of zero.

it's my version of the anthropic principle and it's still very hard to put in words. in my head it's conceptualized more clearly.

worlds

following the many worlds/ quantum suicide interpretation: a man is aware of the world where he stays alive. people who die in his world have actually split off into universes where they are still alive. in his universe they die. as the worlds continue to split he becomes more an more alone. as he becomes increasingly old and alone he begins to wonder why he is living so long and others are dying. he continues to live to a ridiculous age. everyone is young around him and he starts to feel invisible. t hen aspects of invisibility begin to take hold. other bizarre change sin the universe begin to manifest themselves. as a 200 year old man in a 80 lifespan universe the universe begins to evolve in bizarre ways since it is affected by this paradox. as the universe continues to get more an more bizarre the line betweeen life and death become more and more blurred. eventually the lines between any two given states (and indeed even between himself and other 0objects in the universe) become more and more blurred and he eventually arrives at a state of undifferenciated existence. this state is the true nature of nirvana or heaven and also the true nature of death.

the nature of time and entropy

hawking called the universe the ulitmate free lunch. it's as if there was nothing or there was 1 and -1. the nothing still is but also there is 1 and -1. and 2 and -2. electrons and positrons. matter and anti matter.

humans are entropy creating devices, that is we exist by creating entropy. order for our lives is created by causing an increase in entropy for the universe. The line of time can also be viewed as a line of entropy. our metabolism causes us to travel down this line towards greater entropy. this is why the arrow of time points in the direction of entropy.

it's possible that the whole universe, seen as all moments at once may look like nothing. ultimately it is nothing. it is the void. all components added together are zero. slicing it up into time into a line of entropy allows it to be 1 and -1. allows the separation of 1 and -1 from zero.

quantum vacuum fluctuation is the background noise of this separation. there could be nothing with no something. instead there is something out of nothing. there is improbability. there is conciousness and existence.

since nothing can be measured without an observer. perhaps the observer is that which creates 1 and -1 by splitting hte universe through the act of entropy splitting. the creation of moments in time.

What "out there" really is

It has been said that there is no way to distinguish one electron from another. That is to say, in a Feynman Diagram, 3 electrons that occur as a result of two separate collisions can be correctly viewed as one electron moving forward in time, interacting with another particle as a collision then moving backwards in time to a second collision that causes this electron to begin moving forward in time. It appears to be three electrons but this is purely a matter of how you care to view it (a matter of opinion). There is no way to prove it is not the same electron.

It has also been said that an electron is merely a manifestation of a vibrating "string." This string, should it choose to vibrate in a different way, would then appear to us as a different kind of particle. Can it therefore be said that we could replace the three electrons in the previous paragraph with three different particles? A neutron decays and produces (a proton and) an electron which then annihilates with a positron. Or the positron moves forward in time until it becomes an electron then moves backwards in time until it combines with a proton to produce a neutron.

Since there is no way to really say that the positron, the electron and the neutron are distinct, separate entities - is it wholly outrageous to imagine this on a larger scale? On the largest scale? That, perhaps, in all of the universe there is just one particle? One particle outside of time. With all of infinity at its disposal. Interacting with itself. Carving out the entire universe. A true "God Particle."

In the context of the VR contruct, described in previous posts, is it possible to say that the "out there" I have been referring to is actually just this one particle. This one particle creating your larynx and the computer in front of you and the star millions of light years away and creating the light it sent to you over this vast distance.

Since the particle is capable of moving backwards and forwards in time, unfettered by the limits of time, it has literally "all the time in the universe" to produce this for you. It can not be said to be doing this slowly or quickly since those words describe something that is forced by time to be one or the other.

Since particles can be described also as waves can this particle not also be described as a wave? And since it appears to us as many particles interacting with itself it can also be described as many waveforms interacting with each other. If this is true then perhaps the one particle you are interacting with to create your VR construct can be described as just a very elaborate waveform. A single omnipresent particle producing an eleborate waveform for you to interact with so that you can create [what appears to you to be] a star millions of miles away, a mountain a mile away and a house across the street. Everything around you. Everything that appears to be the wide world you live in is really just a Virtual reality contruct composed of the interaction between your consciousness and an entity producing an extremely complex waveform.

External vs Internal

The VR contruct is personal to you. It is an immediate product of your interaction with the "out there." It is not the "out there" but it is constructed in conjunction with the "out there."

Consider the light from a distant star. When you "look" at a starry night the distant star that you see is not actually out there. In fact, there's a distinct possibility that the star you are looking at no longer exists. So what is it that you are looking at? It's the light that made it all the way to your eye.

You are looking back in time, in a sense, except that you are not time traveling. The light has traveled through time and distance to get to you. The item you refer to in your mind as 'the star you are looking at' is a product of the external world interacting with your eye. Interacting with you. You created this star with help from the external world.

The external world you perceive directly as your personal Virtual Reality Construct is not "out there." It is representative of "out there" but differs in many ways. One of the demonstrable ways is that it is localized in space and time to yourself whereas the "out there" is not. The star you are seeing may no longer exist; yet for you, it exists as the light it cast off millions of years ago. "Out there" (whatever that means) it is gone but for you it is still real and existing. In this way the dissonance between what you see and what is "out there" can be demonstrated.

Light from a mountain a mile away is the same. Light from the house across the street is the same. Light from your computer screen you are looking at right now is the same. The sound of you typing is the same. The sound of your own voice is the same. This particular difference is much, much more subtle in the everyday items but it is there just the same.

The thought you are thinking right now is not the same.

Political ramifications of the VR contruct

The amalgamation of the entirety of humanity's VR constructs could be said to constitute humanity's VR constructs-at-large. That seems a simple enough idea.
All of humanity's relationship with reality is contained within this.

This is why shaping opinions and beliefs is so crucially important. When you shape a belief or opinion - especially in the magnitude that mass media provides - you are truly redefining reality since that reality as we know it is ultimately composed of the beliefs and attitues that drive the component nervous systems.

As a not-perfect example. I was having a talk with someone recently about Cheney's attitude that since he has power in the senate - he is not to be considered part of the executive branch. My friend's opinion was that this was bullshit. I said "yes ,but if no one stops him - it is essentially a true statement"

a few further thoughts on the vr construct

The VR construct described in the previous post can be considered as an extension of the body since it is composed of elements of the nervous system.

When I described the inability to walk through walls...well, let me say, that I would prefer to describe the relationship between VR construct and external force (external reality) as "having rules." One cannot violate the rules during the on the fly contruction of the VR contruct; although, what "having rules" truly means and the limits of these rules are open to debate.

The distinction between VR construct and reality (map and territory) on a day to day basis can sometimes seems arbitrary and could be argued (by someone other than me) to actually be arbitrary but that is a matter of what works for you. They are indeed different (the map is, in fact, demonstrably not the territory) but this thought may lead down the path of true solipsism which i believe is a precursor to sociapathy. sociopathology is bad. Those people you experience are real, I swear. Although THAT is not demonstrable it is better in the vast majority of circumstances for you to behave as if it were true.

The Construct

Your body is a biological device. One of the functions of the device is to produce and sustain a virtual reality construct that you live within. This construct is a tool that allows you to interact with the external world - but it is not the external world you are looking at right now. It is a virtual reality construct your nervous system has created for you.

Look at something orange (or blue or red or whatever). That orange is not 'out there'. You created it. Your mind received a particle/wave oscillating at a particular frequency and interpreted it as orange and included into your VR construct.

In addition there is no way for you to know if my orange is the same as your orange (the question itself may lack coherent meaning or at least it probably lacks relevance).

Every moment your are creating what appears as reality to you. As a matter of fact, if you weren't creating it, there would be no moment.

It is not entirely accurate to say that you are creating it. You are co-creating it in conjunction with the external force providing input. There is no way for you to determine with 100% certainty what this external force is.

In one way this can be described as solipsism. There is no way for me to determine that any other humans are actually real. I'm not going to go into that here (I would start by elborating on the 'orange' passage above if i did though). I'd rather just point out that I don't indulge in this idea. I am firmly committed to the belief that you are sitting there reading this and thinking 'no, I'm quite real actually.' This, however, is a violation of logic since it is based on very compelling evidence but is ultimate founded on faith. There is no possible way for me to prove it - I just think it works as the most accurate model for me.

The more important aspect of this idea for me is related to the idea of thinking positively. We all know that thinking positively leads to a higher likelihood of positive things happening for you. This becomes a more profound thought to me when I realized that I am actually (co-)creating this whole thing I am looking at and living in.

Sure, I can't walk though walls or leap hundreds of miles because of the strength of the co-creating element ( whatever it is that is outside of me that causes oscillating particles to strike my eye [ that i then interpret as orange]). But I still have tremendous latitude in creating my VR living space.

This idea has caused me to become more observant and active. To increase the richness and detail of my VR construct, my personal reality. Observation is an act of creation.

okay..last story of the night

lately i've been ignoring my blog and by lately i mean probably a year or two. I've been 'Verbal Blogging' and 'Instant Message Rambling.'


yeah...life story as it matters to you in a sentence, last story of the night happens now:


I had a roommate way back when. How far back? Betweeen 1 and 100 years. Let's call him 'Dustin.' After moving to ___ from ___ (about 3000 miles - put it together) I started a band with a guy that coincidentally had grown up with him. And had been in a band with him and and and and and... And then all his friends were my friends and everybody knew each other from here and there and insanity ensued. Next point...


Dustin had a number of unusual qualities. One that needs to be dealt with at the beginning so that it never comes up again is that he had a _____ so long that he could ______ it. For real, i shit you not. This is not a an embellishment. He rarely left the house. He also was the last person GG Allin ever gave a black eye to.

What he did in the meantime during his senior year at super big deal art school was study minstrel banjo music and build banjos from scratch. Minstrel banjos. These things were made with sticks that he attached to gourds that were dried in the oven. He would play the old time old timey music on them. There was an underground back then too and that was his area of study. Senior year. He did a whole presentation about it. Well documented. There was a live performance component and six hand-made prize banjos . He got an F.

He, of course, complained to the dean. After about 2 seconds of consideration the dean awarded him an A and probably some merit of "achievement like acknowledgability" that might have mattered more than to him than pretty mch nothing at all but I doubt it. Apparently bitching and moaning isn't as useless as the sqeaky wheel never used to...ok you get it, i think.

After graduating he took off on a vacation to the south with his girlfriend and they visited a number of sites that were related to his study. Completely randomly (according to eyewitnesses, but I believe them) they passed a banjo factory in kentucky but otherwise in the middle of nowhere one early evening.

They stopped to check it out. After requesting a tour they were introduced to the owner who was on site and they ended up hanging out with him until the wee hours drinking whiskey and talking shit. 'Dustin' told him the story of his banjophobic 'professor-like entity' and his resulting struggle and, of couse, his love for banjo history.

They crashed out there, got on their way the next morning and that was that.

ok, I kind of forget the timeline but, probably about 2 weeks to 3 months later 'Dustin' got a 'phone' 'call' from a 'person'. He was told the owner of the factory he had visited had died and left the factory to him.

Ok seriously, no shit, this happened.

At first Dustin was against the whole idea. He's not a business man, He'll ruin it; but, he did inherit in the end and runs it to this day. last I heard.