Saturday, January 19, 2013

Translation and Analysis of the Text

translation and analysis of the text:

"...such is the nature of the brand"

what does that mean? it seems to be a statement of emphasis that does not convey much meaning perhaps, but let us deconstruct or analyse it carefully, indeed treat it as though it were in a foreign language and make an attempt to translate it.

there are 3 key words: "brand", "nature" and "such".

"brand" we associate with big, popular products, for example, food and drink, probably the most common category where brands are found. it also means to stamp a name on something. so perhaps a popular brand of drink, with its name stamped on the packaging.

"nature" we associate with personality or it could also be about the planet, trees, plants, and so on. so, a person roaming the natural world.

"such" implies "very" usually, as in for example, "such a good..."

combining all three, we must find a theme that links all of these ideas. we then have something like "people really like drinking a very popular brand of soda, like Coca-Cola, when they have a picnic out in the countryside" as a possible interpretation.


On Matter and Space

on matter and space:

let us move beyond dualism, that that exists is either mental or physical, and idealism, that all that exists is mental, and physicalism, that all that exists is physical. these arguments, after all, only involve two concepts, the mental and the physical. may i suggest that reality is more complex than that. perhaps there are things that truly exist that could not be categorized by either term!

the external world as it seems, i have argued, does not exist, but i do not deny the possibility that physical objects may exist independently "out there". for all i know, there may be a permanent tree that is lodged, forever fixed in space at certain coordinates, and there may be a statue of a human body out there too!

even mental components vary, to hear, to see, and so on, so as to render the term as perhaps too wide. but are there "in between" senses, perhaps where light merges with thought, and with mood, for example? surely there is not just one base mental component that can change to very different states, for example, what becomes light cannot become sound, surely?

and can you hear and see things at the same point in space in front of you? it seems you can in a general area and so the question becomes more complex. allow me to digress, let us call all things that exist, matter. if we consider all the definitions of the word and all its usages, this seems to be where a common meaning is found. are there only 3 dimensions to real space? so it seems. theoretically if there were more, say 4 or 5, a sound and the light could appear to be at the same point in virtual 3D space. or, there are only truly 3 dimensions in real space and it just happens that sound matter and light matter are closely packed together in a mixture, and it just seems that light and sound happen at more or less the same point.

if there is more than that that is physical or mental, what is it? it seems that to make a virtual world work, it requires electronics. the universe may be a vast, virtual work in progress, powered by a supercomputer, with electronics forming connexions that translate everything to the senses.


Saturday, January 12, 2013

The Neighbour Effect and Time

the neighbour effect and time:

here we reject the theory of atomism, that of solid atoms moving around in a void, as being the case in actuality. it only leads to the paradox of empty space and alarming questions as to what happens when atoms leave each other, if they were together originally, could they ever return, and horrifying thoughts of violent collisions between matter, spatial chaos, and so on. atomism could only be real in a virtual sense. why does atomism seem as if it could be true? because we see objects "move" and have extrapolated all sorts of motion theories based on what we see. again, i posit that all matter stays in the same "place" in real space, that it merely changes state.

consider the evil demon, who delights in presenting the world in a way that could persuade you to believe in false things. it has shown you an object that feels real, that seems to "move" in space and so ergo you believe that all things must "move". nothing really "moves", all "motion" is virtual. even worse, when the scientist examines something under the microscope, the demon presents a compelling image for the scientist to see, it fixes the observations so as to "prove" the scientist's hypotheses. of course, later paradoxes imply the theories are invalid, are actually false. confound the demon by examining all the possibilities! the clock is ticking...

what is apparent, on the nature of change, is that the picture of a object moving across the static pixels of our eyesight involves replicating a change in light, the image of the object, along its perceived path. this is the most obvious way neighbouring matter influences an individual least bit of matter. it makes the other the same, or almost the same, as itself. it is like a wave of an order through space, "become like me!"

perhaps we cannot know how a least bit of matter would change in isolation, for none are. everything is connected. least bits of matter are perpetually influenced by their neighbours.


Saturday, January 5, 2013

A Shifting Mosaic of Time

a shifting mosaic of time:

so, let us again posit that nothing moves physically in actuality, that physical motion is but an illusion, a delusion even, brought about by the sensational nature of our eyesight, a product of sense naivete about reality, a gullibility born of the way things look and appear. now i'm afraid i digress, i hazard a guess that the original meaning of the word "physical" was to do with the human body alone, for that is what it still means primarily to me, but that this later mutated to also mean about inanimate objects as well, and so on. i am not going to deal with the conflicting philosophical concepts of duality or monism here. here let matter mean anything that exists, to put it most simply, whether it be mental or "physical". this is somewhat different to contemporary usage and concepts, but again i hazard a guess that this is the original meaning.

in a reality where there is no physical motion, where all matter is static in space, where all matter has permanent neighbours, so to speak, the popular concept of "motion" actually happening would be the horrific breakup of matter in reality space, the ultimate sickness that cannot happen, that things actually moved away or left!

now matter does not move, but it does change, though again i digress, perhaps not all matter changes at all, that is a theoretical possibility. now let us dismiss the mathematicians' and physicists' concepts of continuous numbers, continuous motion, even infinity perhaps, and certainly infinitesimals, the infinitely little. but how does it change? what is time? the only concept that is left to me is that, if you imagine the entirety of reality to be a massive solid mosaic, and each tile representing a "least bit of matter" which i have explained in previous posts, is that all matter that changes changes suddenly to another "state" or "version", there is a "holding" period where it stays the same, then suddenly it changes again to yet another "state" or "version" of itself. as is apparent from thinking about light and our own eyesight and changes, it can be deduced that not everything changes "at the same time", each "tile" to its own beat, so to speak. "holding" periods of time when a "tile" stays the same are different too. all this could be visually represented by computer graphics, i am sure, but unfortunately i don't know how to code a program to show all this! of course, all this is predicated on the assumption that change is discrete, that infinitesimal increments of time are not real, it only seems so perhaps sometimes, and that "time" is different in a sense, everywhere.