Wednesday 26 February 2014

What's to come...

I'm slowly preparing for an onslaught of dopamine, stress, and thought-production related posts. I expect to present what I believe to be the origin and manner of operation for mental stress, leading to its treatment and preemption - alluding to a believable premise for its eradication from a society.

I'm very close to beginning this posting roll-out, but before I do, I might get in one or two un-related posts... might. Just have to see how thought flows for the next few days.

Sunday 16 February 2014

A Clarification for Michio Kaku and Albert Einstein

Original/ Correction / Clarification

Einstein: "God does not play dice with the universe"

Kaku: "God plays dice with the universe, get used to it"

When faced with suggested random-acting forces in our universe, Einstein took a hard-line stance and determined that, whatever understanding for these forces would eventually be, they could not possibly prove to be random. "God does not play dice with the universe."

Yet the seemingly-random dice-throwing was still there, for everyone's observation. Although it could have been in his thoughts, Einstein's stance doesn't overtly present as being significantly reasoned, but principled - conforming and defending what Einstein trusted was a necessary characteristic for an orderly all-being. I don't know this to any degree, but it's possible that his unwillingness to consider otherwise may have prevented him from moving forward with determining what was actually being witnessed - and maybe a similar adamancy affected other research he did, and cut off some considerations. On the other hand, such certainty may have let him breeze through many issues that someone without a resolute-belief may have contended with for a long time.

Michio's ventured hard-obtuse statement doesn't waste time denying what is obvious as existing, the appearance of what looks like randomized forces in the universe, and Michio then states that God, therefore, does indeed play dice.

I suppose Einstein and Kaku were both correct and incorrect, to a quantum.

Perceived universal randomness is a temporary confusion, and not a true-property, and it's achieved by definite-forces with definite-properties interacting in a clashing way that their consequences are non-determinable to humans circa now. The intricacies of their determining calculations may be beyond our comprehension, but they are still grounded in actual properties and set values.

But dice-rolling, too, is not an instance of actual arbitration or randomness. Merely, just too-fast a process, which is too sensitive to minute details, for us to measure and determine before the die stills. Atmosphere, gravity, weight of involved-components, hand-moisture, air-current, the material and texture which the die lands on, and dirt or blemish on the die, all factor in to determine a non-random result. The things that determine what a die will cast are all very real, and not random.

Randomness is a modern Magic or Miracle. Ultimately, there can be no Random because something needs to determine a result, and if there wasn't something defined determining a result, there would be no result, and no action.

Supposing that a universe creator's capabilities would super-cede the complexity of the apparent randomnesses: Ultimately, God still does not play dice with the universe. Maybe poker.

Accurateness in understanding is important, often essential to research, because people's internal concept or definition for a thing partially determines what they look for in results, and what will unintentionally stand-out to them, apart from their looking for it. Inaccurate conclusions lead to inaccurate, missed, and mis-purposed conclusions in further research - and I think that whether its in a short, long, or way-off term, undiscovered and erroneous information will affect a lot of people's lives.


Sunday 2 February 2014

All Truth is a Singularity, Navigable In-Full by Reason

.      -   -      .
~~~ ~~~  /       \  ~~~ ~~~
;                  .      ..      .                  ;
;                                                                    ;
 .        .        .
.  .       .  .  .     .  .  .  .  .     .  .  .       .  .

.  .     .  .
.   .
.     . .              . .     .

..       .   .   .       ..

.. . ... . . .    .. . . ....  . . . . . . .   .... .. .... .. . . . ... .. . .. . . . . . ...

It seemed a slight bit deflating to re-post the title in the text-body space.

Ok, the impromptu:

From an unknown much earlier age, and until only minutes ago, I presumed this phrase-minting title was at least semi-common knowledge, even that this was someone else's quote. In apparent fact, neither is so, and I am not finding even an incomplete presentation of what is possible through methodical Reason in online searches. That seems to implore a thorough establishment of Reason as a method for determining truth, rationality, outward deciphering of unknown factors (and their specific identities) towards accomplishing a goal, and more. That should be a future topic.

The spark of this net-location was reactionary to a purpose, which, at the time, generally felt comprehensive and conclusive in its planned components. But, making this themed-space seems to beget related contemplation, and Shrap's current backlog does actually have its own backlog, so this is presently an indefinite project.