On Size and Weighting the Issue

on size and weighting the issue:

the key issue in the future is whether anything continues or not so that what is not apparent might not happen at all. this is to say that that that is not well remembered may not even exist metaphysically and so that there is no need to dwell on it. what is past may recur only slightly in the future as a shaded repeat like an alternative timeline.

who is she? what will she do next? what is real and what is apparent is that she continues to say the least.

the size of the problem illustrated by the past for decades yet is what concerns mental convolutions. that is to say that i can yet still remember, whether fortuitously or not. lack of sufficient memory blocks further thought sometimes and only fragments of voices or mood of the past may remain.

weight that large then and the alternative nothing. am i prepared still?

clearly the size of mental capacity is what concern. what of my physical dexterity and emotional tolerance? who i am is clear to me. very much is the case that i do not dwell on the future but mayhap my present is certainly not wondrous to think of.

CLEARCHARGE

On Size and Complexity

on size and complexity:

on first impression, the world, and the universe, seem a very big place. there is the sense, to anyone born on earth, that there are many places we will never explore, many people we will never know, many things we will never try. we walk a narrow path in life, aware that we only sample very little of what seems possible. the world is large and complex.

but complexity is not always bound with spatial size. little things could be very complex and large things may be simple. the permutations of a spatial arrangement become increasingly complex with the number of objects. and though an abstract example, in mathematics, everything is achieved with only ten numbers. and spatially large things may only have a few states, while spatially little things may have many. a tv screen has only so many pixels but it offers size in complexity as to what can be seen on it.

is so much possible in one life? or even desirable? what would we wish to avoid? and what do we truly want?

CLEARCHARGE

The Relative Inch

the relative inch:

what is an inch? put simply, it is something to measure distance in space. is it an absolute everywhere for everyone? or is my inch different to your inch?

what if on earth the perception of sight was so wired to make everyone seem of a similar physical size while in actuality true personal size differed greatly? this is assuming the virtual nature of the world and the quite fixed position of all people in space. put simply, we are assuming the 3D mechanical motion world construct is but an illusion. yes, what if the largest human body were actually a hundred times bigger than the littlest, but on earth they seemed the same height? although it is obvious to any reader what the 3D mechanical motion world construct is, let me express what it means. relative to the earth, humans "move" about, change their positions constantly on the ground, while only 3 dimensions are "allowed". the paradox of empty space arises when we consider seriously this construct to be entirely real. if motion is only virtual, we can dismiss such thoughts as a false dead end.

distance and physical size so far, but what about density and variety in true space? i think, superficially, if we can see and hear things that seem to be at more or less the same position in space before us, we can assume that our own personal field is rather dense with a great variety of things in it, can we not?

but how to overcome the rigidity in our minds that perhaps 3 dimensions in space are all that there are? it safest to say this is the minimum. perhaps there are 5 or 6 or more, we just cannot see them is the simplest explanation.

CLEARCHARGE