Animus, Change and Affect

animus, change and affect:

let us begin with an aside, as to the schizophrenic patient who "hears voices", when he has calmed down, been released from mental hospital, it would seem that medical science, in the form of a patient psychiatrist, who it seems, always loves to ask the question, "do you still hear voices?" at every meeting, explains that the "wiring" in your brain has misfired or such, and that these are, in fact, hallucinations, not that you actually hear anyone else really talking to you. well, in retrospect, this just smacks of a form of solipsism, it is put that you couldn't possibly be talking to anyone else, it's all in your own mind, well, by induction, how could i possibly be talking to him, or her? what if the psychiatrist is just a "hallucination"?

i have posited, repetitively, i'm afraid, about the fundamental fixed, motionless solidity of reality, least bits of matter, which i will refer to as a "bit" henceforth, and so on. the sense of time is derived from the changes of state that bits "experience". change is fundamental, time could be described as an "experience". again, as i have repetitively stated before, "time" can thus flow in many directions at the bit level, "forwards", "backwards", "left", "right", etc., a bit can "re-experience" a previous state, e.g. a visual bit has been red before, it isn't now, but it will be again, just blink.

but to call it "matter", i have realized, is to convey as sense of "non-person". what if, so to speak, everything is "alive", has an "animus" or personality? do we all like each other? do we not copy those whom we do and refuse to mimic those we do not? when my neighbour was likeable, i copied him, when he wasn't, i didn't. so thus, sometimes, when a neighbouring bit of the same type is agreeable, its "affect" on the bit's change of state is powerful, when it is alien, or hostile even, its affect is not and the bit doesn't follow its neighbour's change of state. that is to say, bits possess a type of personal reaction to their neighbours.

CLEARCHARGE

Inducing Change

inducing change:

the least bit of matter, as discussed before, indivisible, packed together with its neighbouring contiguous least bits of matter, going through uniform, discrete changes in state. at the fundamental level time is discrete. real space is composed of least bits of matter chained together, forever fixed in position.

of course, there are different divisions of matter. you could almost consider each in their own dimension, so to speak, even though different types are actually mixed together, space is variegated. and i suppose like affects like, generally speaking.

change in state of a least bit of matter may affect change in state of neighbouring least bits of matter to a greater or lesser extent, though perhaps not at all in some cases. it may effect similarity. it may be a forceful steer, not inducing a similar series of changes in state, but definitely altering what theoretically would have happened otherwise if it were not present. some states may be so powerful, so energetic, if you like, that they induce a whole ripple effect of change.

states can, if you like, vibrate in space, as if they were a fluid moving object, or gently flow around, unless disturbed or dissipated.

a least bit of matter may revert to a past state. if you like, time is going forwards and backwards all over the place all the time, at the fundamental level. it may be that the reversion happens on its own, so to speak, in some cases.

sometimes, something new, or relatively new, is required in order to disrupt a stasis, so to speak, that exists in space. it is breaking free a prisoner of time, if you like.

the strength of affect may be related to how different the states are becoming and how fast the changes are happening.

of course, posit that some least bits of matter may never change state at all. they serve as a time anchor, if you like.

CLEARCHARGE

Affect and Change

affect and change:

least bits of matter, adjoined to their neighbours, porosity of space a concept, that is, gaps in between where nothing exists, when each least bit of matter changes state, it affects its neighbours.

what is space but a heap of what looks like prickly gems connected to each other? when it changes, like it's saying become like me, or the same, speculatively, if a group of neighbours become similar, at the border, affect is less from the central least bit of matter, and what is beyond is affected by some other least bit of matter or is in itself experiencing sharp change.

the illusion of free movement, physical motion, shift, swivel, pull towards, push forwards.

CLEARCHARGE

Metaphysics - Strength of Affect

metaphysics - strength of affect:

it may seem too simplistic to term all that exists in reality, "matter", for the world is complex, and surely not everything is made up of the same thing and it certainly doesn't seem so. and the word "matter" is unavoidably linked to the world that we see, we think of objects as being made up of "matter", even though the visible world is somewhat illusionary in the sense that it does not reflect the fundamental structure of reality. but the word "matter" seems substantial, it implies existence, so i use it in the sense of something that actually exists in this space of this reality.

what would an outside observer make of this reality? that there is an intrinsic intelligence underlying everything perhaps, that things are ordered logically. there is a "mental component" to much of reality. otherwise, physical laws would not hold, there would be no order in the world, the world would not "make sense".

the first few days of time, what you might call "creation", may have been somewhat haphazard, but there was some clever thought as to how things should be, so happenstance first, and reasoning somewhat later to explain how it fitted in with everything else. first there was rain, then there was running water. and the egg came first, it appeared before the chicken. and someone drew an animal, then it appeared, and so on. throw out the concept of logical evolution and imagine a young world with some of what we would now think of as modern 20th century Earth things already present, a world of anachronisms seemingly. houses existed yet no one had built them by hand, the original world had trees, yet no one had planted them and they had not grown to size, they always existed, and so on.

but the visible world is at the "top", if you like, what are "under" it are "concepts" from which what we see are derived. some may be eternal like the tree, and some may not be original, were created after the start of time. i put it that logically, that which we are most used to, find unshocking and most normal, are things that are eternal, that existed from time zero. anything later has more novelty.

at the micro level, considering "least bits of matter", how do they interact with each other? i have examined "seeing the world", put it that our eyesight, our field of vision, is like a 3D television set wrapped around our heads, that we actually, in reality, never shift position and are fixed in real space. an object "moving" is merely a picture being translated across the pixels of light in front of our heads. that works because neighbouring least bits of matter copy the state, or the colour, of the pixel next door, that's how objects seem to move.

there is a "strength" to visible light, it makes copies of itself. this is one example of how neighbouring matter reacts to that next door and the most apparent, but surely neighbours have an effect on change in other ways, not just forcing copying. if we think about a local group of least bits of matter, what decides the change in state of each least bit of matter? posit that each state a least bit of matter assumes has a potential to affect its neighbouring least bits of matter, has a certain "strength of affect". but its neighbours are changing too and their states have competing "strengths of affect". the answer is that the strongest decides.

what is impressive about reality is that it is built on simple "logic rules" or natural laws to create a complex visual "world" in which we can experience "life". what is at the "top", what we see and hear, depends on the order created from "below". and the logic contained is quite strong.

CLEARCHARGE

What of Memory If There Is Change?

what of memory if there is change:

it is a characteristic problem in dreams that everything changes so fast that you lose things. i have a recurrent kind of nightmare where for example i am about to travel in a plane, but i've lost my passport or something else i had earlier. the world of dreams is very unstable. however, in contrast, the world of waking life seems very stable and almost permanent, but is it?

the very essence of time is that things change. you may argue that time is most real in dreams, where everything changes fast. and if things change can anything last? can you have reliable mental memory or material records that we trust will not become corrupted in time?

if i wrote something in a book in a dream, i would not be surprised if either the entry changed soon after or even if the entry or book disappeared later never to be seen again. however, in waking life, there was a time when i would be surprised if a book changed magically overnight and a passage disappeared, because i thought the world was more stable than it is. but that's time, if something were truly to stay the same, then time could not be real.

now all this is worrying, i fear my memory is at best only a partially true record of the past, where there are cases where vivid memories have been conflated and i think events happened at the same time but didn't, where some details are now false and never happened, where if the past had certain flavours to it, the flavours of my memories are now mutated, and so on. and why is this so? because time slowly destroys memory through change.

i admit to a minor crisis, where my memory does not quite agree with material records, paper and electronic. logically it's easy to say, well, either your memory is wrong or the records are, or perhaps even both, but they can't both be right at the same time. the confusion is real and disturbing. if my memory is that wrong, i'm in big trouble. if paper or electronic records have mutated to something inaccurate, then they are unreliable and lying to me.

and you then think, if only there weren't so much change, nobody can remember it all! and if material records are subject to inevitable change as well, naturally, and are therefore unreliable, what then? from experience, living randomly and impulsively leads to fragments of memory which are hard to piece together a few years later. one of the biggest problems is conflation of bright memories, and where you assume that other events, less well remembered, happened then or there as well, when they didn't. this is pretty much the case a few years afterwards. however i think that very many years later, your memory is cleaned out somewhat and what's left tends to be true and the confusion is gone, even if only because lots of other memories have been lost.

on reflection it seems that anyone who does a lot is simply not going to remember much. if you really wanted to keep memory organized you would have to devise some kind of repetitive schedule at the very least, like fish on Fridays, then you could say, well, it was a Friday, so then i probably had fish.

CLEARCHARGE

The Question of Time Infinity

the question of time infinity:

time is of change in the matter that makes up this reality. if we assume change is eternal, then yes, we could expect linear time to be infinite, that another second will follow on from this second, another year from this year, and so on.

but of change in matter, in the total of different states matter could have, what if this number for each least bit of matter is finite? also, assuming that matter could change back to a former state, that repetition occurs, that in a sense time could go backwards, so to speak.

the other assumption, of course, is that matter changes, never to fall back to what it once was, that each state is different to all those of the past, that change is a long road to infinity. now this does not seem likely given how stable this reality is. red is still red, blue is still blue. if this assumption were true would we not always see new colours that we had never seen before?

if we accept that time could go backwards, that repetition occurs in states, we arrive at the theoretical possibility that repetition for the whole of reality could occur, that eventually, we will be locked into a grand infinite cycle of change, where we repeat everything, forever. this is like the theory of eternal return or recurrence, but here we could assume that the start of time does not repeat, but everything after a certain point. this is unless some least bits of matter could have an infinite number of states.

let us imagine a very little reality composed of 4 least bits of matter joined together. change is such that matter does revert to past states and let's say there are only 4 finite possible states for each of these 4 least bits of matter. therefore there are only 4 quadrupled equals 256 maximum possible combinations of states at any one time, and here we can easily imagine repetition for the whole of this reality to happen.

now let me say i do not understand the metaphysics of change and how neighbouring matter affect each other. and perhaps the period of time each state lasts has an infinite range and so perfect repetition, so to speak, is not the case.

CLEARCHARGE

An Examination of the Possible Effects of Neighbouring Matter

an examination of the possible effects of neighbouring matter:

though we may never be able to truly, fully "see" or know in a visual sense what is happening at the micro level of matter in real space, we can posit various ways matter affects its neighbours:

it makes its neighbours more like itself. this is the most evident possibility and explains how our eyesight works and how objects seem to "move" as the visual pattern or image is copied incrementally. this is how signals are passed through space, how we communicate, etc.

it makes its neighbours more different, as though, to use a 3D mechanical motion theoretical model metaphor, it knocks its neighbours off course.

it has no effect on its neighbours.

two neighbours tend to stabilize each other, so they stay more or less the same.

what we are thinking about is how matter's change changes its neighbours' change, so to speak.

CLEARCHARGE

Time and Infinity

time and infinity:

is time infinite? well, firstly, what do we mean by infinite? if everything were to continue to change, then yes, time as thought of in the common linear aggregate sense is indeed infinite. only if change were to stop, theoretically, would time then have an end.

but examining matter, all that exists in space, and i include everything in this, does an individual least bit of matter have an infinite number of states? or is this finite? this is rather like asking if there are an infinite number of shades of colour.

if the number is finite, we can imagine a very large, but finite, chart of change for all matter.

perhaps change is somewhat like a tide of flowing water. it rushes in one direction, sweeping others along with it, but eventually returns in the reverse direction at some point. one would hope. it would concern anyone to consider that change rushes in one direction only to remain stuck there forever, never to return!

and perhaps early events exert a gravitational like pull from which we can never truly escape. for language has developed thus far and it is unlikely we would ever overturn it completely as it is now and start afresh.

a popular question is that of the eternal return, that we are doomed to repeat everything forever, that somehow we return to time zero only to begin again in exactly the same way. theoretically, if we admit that a least bit of matter can return to its state at the start of time, then it seems possible. it would be likely that for some individual least bits of matter, eternal return is completely happening, that some do repeat their changes forever. but what would make a return to time zero happen throughout reality? the only thing i can think of, is that time gravity, if you like, were to exist, that is, a strong pull back to the start, that matter is reluctant to change, or to change too far, and that it naturally reverts to its original state.

CLEARCHARGE

The Push Change in Time

the push change in time:

here we are examining matter at the micro level. again we assume it to be made up of individual least bits of matter packed together. at its simplest, the theory is that each least bit of matter is affected by its neighbours in its changes.

the proof of this lies in our eyesight. as an object moves across our field of vision or even if we turn our head, a copy of each pixel is made by its neighbour, and so the image is shifted across. here, a least bit of matter forces its neighbour to become exactly like itself, as if it were ordering, "become like me!" now turn your head to the right. what you see before you is everything shifting to the left. now there are billions of pixels in your eyesight but at the micro level what is happening is thus. each pixel to the left makes a copy of the pixel to the right and so the image is shifted to the left pixel by pixel.

this is the "push change" that a least bit of matter effects on its neighbours. and so, at the start of time, time zero, a fated, by which i mean completely without human intention, for that came later, sequence of events at this micro level came into play. initially, each least bit of matter had its own starting state but was immediately affected by its neighbours.

it raises the question, would an isolated least bit of matter change at all, if it had no neighbours to push it about, so to speak? there is no changing the existing order however. all matter is fixed in position and neighbours exist and there is no changing who one's neighbours are. does time then only arise because there is neighbouring matter that provides a push change? perhaps matter changes anyway, but one's neighbours have an effect on that change.

now it is obvious that there are many types of things or matter that exist. it may be that we may never be able to know fully how these different types of matter affect each other, if they do at all. it may be that there is no effect, or very little.

CLEARCHARGE

Time and Space and Do Things Ever Happen Again?

time and space and do things ever happen again:

again, posit the theory that all things that exist, or matter, in this reality do not "move", that they are forever fixed in their positions in space relative to each other. i do not mean matter in the sense of the current scientific meaning. by matter i mean everything that is.

it is time and the change in state of matter, indeed the changing image, that gives rise to what is commonly thought of as motion and it is vital to note that this motion is merely virtual, our eyes playing tricks on us, and very much an illusion. where people are concerned, you are always the same real distance away from me, our spatial locations are fixed forever. nothing can make us closer or further apart. in meeting, it may seem that i am only an arm's length away, but in reality, i may truly be light years away in real space.

thus lies the difficulty in thinking about reality. if you are fooled by the 3D mechanical motion model world we inhabit, you believe people actually "move" relative to one another, that objects "move" and so on, when it is all merely just a product of what we see.

but what of time? our minds may become so distorted that even change becomes hard to believe! it is all too easy to imagine a timeless piece of rock that never changes, a place where there is no time. it is harder to think of matter that actually changes! how does it change? if infinitesimal change is not the case, then discrete change is. a least bit of matter is one thing, then suddenly another the next moment!

look at the computer screen in front of you. see how it changes, where your focus shifts. notice how your thoughts change in your head as you read. now in reality, the screen, or what you see of it, is intimately connected to your head and to where your thoughts are. as your focus changes as you read the script, the thinking in your head changes also. as both are connected, we can say there is a common time across the distance between where you see the screen and your head. we say "at the same time". this common time concept is what we primarily think of when we think of time. we assume there is, if you like, a common universal time against which all local changes can be measured. everything is thought of as happening relative to this. but the manner in which the computer screen is changing is not quite what is happening with the change in your head. the key is spatial connection.

now our imagination permits us to think of unlimited events that could or could not happen. however, i posit that at the individual level of matter, changes may be very limited. imagine one least bit of matter could only have two possible states, A to B and then back to A, in perpetuity. all too often in discussing time, as such, it is thought of in the aggregate and common universal time sense. in this sense, i do not argue against that time travel to the past is impossible, or that events can repeat exactly, or somehow i can travel back 100 years in time.

i am merely saying that what reality is, is composed of a vast number of individual least bits of matter, that so to speak, can travel back in time, or repeat past states, all the time.

CLEARCHARGE

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.

CLEARCHARGE

Quantum of Change

quantum of change:

Zeno's paradoxes make use of mathematical theory of continuous numbers and the infinitesimal to put the case that motion is but an illusion. as discussed before, the key to understanding here is that continuous numbers are purely theoretical, they are not real!

now motion may be an illusion, if motion is thought to be the actual movement of an object or body maintaining its integrity or identity as it moves in the "external world", if the "external world" itself does not actually exist and we are all "brains in a vat". then such movement is merely the function of our eyesight, that is, the image of an object or body is copied to adjacent pixels and we see what only seems to be motion. however that was not zeno's point, i believe.

there are two questions here, one is about infinitesimal space, and the other is about infinitesimal time. the paradoxes arise when we consider the concept of the infinitesimal to hold. posit that there is indeed a minimum distance that has real significance in reality and that nothing smaller should be considered, that is, the size of the littlest least bit of matter, uniform throughout, that experiences individual change. there should then be no smaller "real" distance. can we use the general conclusion that the infinitesimal is not real enough when we think about change? for when we talk about time we are really talking about change. but what do we mean by change? yes, it is a difference in the same thing! therefore there are two things to be considered here, what it was, that is, the state it was in, and the difference. a difference means a sudden change! change is sudden! if we consider the infinitesimal to hold then logically a discrete change is in itself impossible and one second would never become the next second!

what could be true is the concept of quantum of change, that is, there are discrete "steps" of change. you can think of life like a movie's film negative, with 24 frames a second. but how is it that if, like continuous numbers, continuous change with an infinite number of "instants" is not real, it is so easy to think of? like somehow, something is always changing, so it is continuously changing, something like that. however, continuous change is not that easily definable or explainable, in a strict sense, as is discrete change, and there is the example of a movie's film negative. posit that the truth is always more explainable, with more real life examples, than something that is not true, a falsity. such we hope!

CLEARCHARGE

The Discrete Nature of Change

the discrete nature of change:

if change involves a difference in state, in that something becomes something else, any absolute difference, no matter how seemingly little, is still a change, and therefore change could be considered as discrete, for there is no "in between" as such. mathematical theory has its concepts of the infinitesimal or infinitely small or little, and of continuous numbers, however these things may not have a basis in reality, they are too abstract!

if, as explained before, all things that exist in this reality, fixed in absolute and relative position to each other in space, could be divided into least bits of matter, each uniform across its volume in space, then each experiences discrete changes uniformly.

the mind and therefore the thinker is quite capable of thinking about things that may not be true. this is the peril of thought. the thinker may not notice change when there are very little differences in state. big changes catch our attention, this is what discrete change seems, after all.

CLEARCHARGE

Change and Time

change and time:

what is time? there is time because there is change. as you are aware, time is measured by the cycles of days and years and it is assumed that it is valid to do so, that the concept of common time throughout this reality is real, that every bit of matter, everything that exists, moves in time together.

what is change? a different state in the same something that exists. i will avoid most of the philosophical debate as to whether something that changes can be considered the same thing. here are some words that may confuse the issue, fluid, infinitesimal, continuous, etc. the infinitesimal is a mathematical concept but i don't believe that it is a real one, in reality, i posit that the infinitesimally small does not exist. perhaps neither is real the idea that change could be somehow fluid or continuous. change could be discrete. a high definition television of 1920x1080 pixels may show a changing image that seems fluid and continuous but it is not, the mind is easily deceived here.

it is commonly held that time travel is generally impossible, but posit that past states of a bit of matter can be achieved again, that you can, in this sense, go back to the past exactly as it was and you can even go back to the state at the start of time. even if this may not be true, a similar state may be achieved.

what little is known about is how its neighbours affect change in a single bit of matter. what is obvious is the mimicking or copying effect. this is how we see an object appear to move across our field of vision. a change in image or state is passed on to the neighbour. after a lot of change in a bit of matter, perhaps it can be brought back too by its neighbour who has not changed or changed very little.

on another note, what of change and death? well, we must define what death is, first of all. originally, it was a word associated with a nebulous dread and a vague sense of "the end of it all". on earth it means the end of a life on earth or quitting the world of earth. if we apply the word to change, does change not mean the death of a bit of matter from what it once was? is time not then constant death? rule out the concept that something that exists, that has "mass" or substance, can cease to exist in any shape or form, become nothing, lose "mass" or substance. this is a slippery slope! only that, yes, it could cease to exist only in the sense that its state has changed. much thinking is all skewed in the vague feeling that we have all "died" long ago and ongoing change towards something very different is inevitable and that we can never recover what once was. but i have just posited that exact states can be regained, we can bring the "dead" back to life! on the other hand, what if change were something very "difficult", that a return to the starting position were inevitable, that the "gravity" exerted by the start of time position were altogether too strong, that we could be imagined as a statue in equilibrium, that we could never really move about too much? of course, these are extremes, but either or both could be relatively true at the same time for different parts of reality!

CLEARCHARGE

Change and Time and the Human Being

change and time and the human being:

from the perspective of any observer, things change. because things change, this gives rise to the concept of time. the primary sense in which this is evidenced is in our eyesight. this is something obvious we can think about, the field of our vision is ever changing, ever moving. this does not prove that all things change however, and we cannot assume it, perhaps there are parts of reality that simply do not, and therefore are without time itself yet still very much real in space. it is a great part of our consciousness that the sun rises and sets and days and years pass, indeed perhaps we overemphasize this natural cycle, chiefly because we can see it. however there are things that cannot be seen, we cannot easily think about yet, but they change nonetheless too.

what is a human? a mind with a body, that principally can see his or her interaction with a 3D physical construct. because of his or her mind, a human can think, process its movements within this construct, and even wander off into abstract thought! also a human has emotions tied in as well, which can explain his or her actions. can a human think clearly about real things that it cannot see or hear? everything is connected, so perhaps he or she can. what is consciousness and what are our senses? does one gradually become the other? the power of abstract thought is that it can consider all the possibilities that could be true of reality. the crazy person does not get very far, perhaps. we hope eventually that the truth will fit, will work so to speak, and drive the solution to the puzzle of life and the universe.

i think it can be said that not everything changes as much as everything else. this may seem obvious but actually can be quite a nebulous concept. they have different "speeds", different "distances", in the way they change. we might suppose that some things change so fast or move so fast that we cannot keep up, we cannot think about them properly. some things seem to be out of our control. it's like a part of life was born at 360 mph, and that dangerous too! we might hope to find a few "safe" courses of action which we could repeat. allow me to express something i think is mistaken. we must stop thinking of time as an endless mutation that can never return, as a linear one way passage on the mathematical x-axis to infinity. just as it is night now and the sun will rise again in the morning, and blue will be blue and red will be red forever, time is not a one way trip to oblivion, as you would think in a paranoid moment. posit that things revert to their starting point. but though it is highly unlikely, what if time were an infinite loop, somehow everything reverted to its original state at the start of time, at the same time? what makes this impossible?

consciousness is a volatile substance, and we can forget easily. assuming it always existed, everyone must wonder what it was at the start of time. lack of knowledge is an anxious making condition. everyone still worries about their future, that hasn't changed! we can only conclude the state of nervousness on the first day of time must have been extreme!

CLEARCHARGE

From Child to Present

from child to present:

he had met his friends for lunch. they had talked and reminisced of old times. though their life situations had moved on from twenty years ago, they were all recognizably the same people, but now the talk was more of work and business and news.

he often wondered how he would answer the question, how old do you feel? in truth, he thought he felt exactly the same at all ages of his life but to answer, the same as when i was three and now, seemed a little ridiculous and somewhat provocative.

but how had he changed? he felt wiser, he supposed, better at assessing risk, if nothing else, not only from the mistakes and errors of judgement he had made in the past but from a better understanding of generally how things worked on Earth. he wondered if all prescribed grownup speech and behaviour was all some kind of program he had picked up along the way to adulthood, and compatibility between people depended on like conditioning.

when he had first met his friends, they were all still in the form of children, playful yet watchful, and in a way, quieter and more subdued.

CLEARCHARGE

An Article of Time

an article of time:

as we all know, time as recorded is measured in seconds, minutes, hours and so on. we assume there was a start to everything, useful as a reference point.

the following is an illustrative construct:

let us imagine a board of coloured squares, ten by ten, to be seen....

now at the start, the original states of those squares seem random as compared to each other. there are numerous colours, perhaps some squares are the same colour but different shades, perhaps some squares are identical to other squares. as time progresses, some of those squares change, though perhaps not all squares change. some squares change a great deal. some squares change very little. some squares change and then back to original state, perhaps in an infinite time loop. some squares may change a great deal but eventually are reset to original state.

do squares affect adjoining squares?
if so, how much?

CLEARCHARGE