Sun stands still today. The degree of inclination; the tilt of the axis. It’s not up and down; it’s a twirling dervish.A top a’bottom a cereal box.The (two/too) many worlds: classical and quantum.Mechanics tinkering then kicking tyres: velocity directed at space.Don’t look; the cat is & isn’t, so just let it be.Don’t change the rules by describing or observing.▪︎The Ark of the Covenant; Medusa’s Hair; Narcissus’ Reflection.▪︎A measured system’s wave function changes dramatically. So what are we studying?What are we not studying?…electrons spinning…First clockwise, then counter. Deflected up or down, state determined.The Copenhagen Interpretation
“Oh, c’mon,” said Einstein.”But, I’m a quantum system. How dare you treat me like a classical, empirical, little thing?!” I exclaim.”Entanglement. There’s only one wave function for the entire universe, sugar plum. Particles going off, but which way only No-One knows. Gnosis,” Æ says
▪︎Equal velocity in opposite directions.><Apposite.▪︎Once you see something, it cannot be unseen.Sacrifice of partial innocence and ignorance. A talisman.The wave function did not collapse; just went under construction.Pardon our progress as we erect separate worlds.Simultaneous reincarnation.Words hinting at worlds. Tao.Witticisms of Wittgenstein, “Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.▪︎…▪︎Who are all these people? Me? You? They us & we them?A computer’s operating system is not aware of that system by which it operates.It cannot fathom the algorithms it effortlessly executes.▪︎Analysis Paralysis▪︎It’s a dreadful recitation of the same information.Infinite jesters kidding, but this joke is on me because I keep gawking.And, the wave of the upcoming days presses down on all, yet makes the world as bright and light as a new pad of paper.Ripples in the fabric of spaces.
What, swimming in your own shit under bridges you may not cross?: I challenge.
Everytime with this one: we both think
but, we do not say.
Can you cross the zigzag bridge over my fish head: he koi-ly bubbles.
Oh howl you want to know if I am a demon, hum huh?: I think.
Yeah, I can. Many times have I crossed the eight branches of an iris-strewn river. You are merely a pond, doll. Turning left, turning right? Not problematic to a whirling dervish. A modern ballerina. Do you, sweet koi, have the tenacity of a salmon?: I say.
Can you cross my moonbridge?: I ask
Do you have the potential energy required to achieve the kinetic momentum required to overcome the archway: I wonder.
(Kindly let me know if my math does not tally below. I tried to check and recheck it, but…)
Q: When was 120 minutes ago from now?
A: It was two hours ago.
When was one hundred and sixty four billion (164,000,000,000) minutes ago?
My illiteracy with numbers occurs at a certain threshold.
Numerical literacy*? Not my strong suit. So, I play with numbers, with what I can imagine.
For example, I can imagine a triangle, a square, a pentagram, a hexagon, a septagon, an octagon. But, I cannot imagine, or see in my mind’s eye what a 25 sided polygon would look like. I would have to try to draw it.
There is a 10,000 sided polygon, called a myriagon, according to geometry.
I will take their word for it because I cannot imagine being able to imagine what that would actually like.
I am not monied. The difference between one million dollars and one billion dollars? Well, sure, ‘orders of magnitude’, but I only understand that in the abstracted sense. The practical difference between such huge numbers is not immediately obvious to me. But, the news, scientific research, and governments, regularly inundate us with such large numbers.
Do a thought experiment with me? I wanna know:
Q1. How far could the millions of dollars, comprising a billion dollars, go?
Q2. If I had one hundred and sixty four billion dollars (as I hear someone in America truly does) and I gave away one million dollars per day, how many days before I am broke? Let’s pretend I keep my $164,000,000,000.00 in cash in a safe. That means my money is not making more money via interest, returns, dividends.
If I have one billion dollars in cash, let’s imagine it’s kept in one million dollar bills. I would have one thousand of these million dollar bills.
I could give one of the $1,000,000 bills everyday for 1,000 days before running out of money.
If there are 365 days a year, 1,000 days is about 2.75 years.
The difference between a million and a billion, practically speaking?
A1. You can give away $1,000,000.00 everyday for almost three years before exhausting $1,000,000,000.00
So, how much more than 1 billion dollars is 164 billion dollars, practically speaking?
Well, if it takes 1,000 days, of giving away 1 million dollars each day, to get rid of a billion dollars;
It would take 164 times longer to give away $164,000,000,000.00 than it would take to give away $1,000,000,000.00
1,000 x 164 = 164,000 days
164,000 days = 449 years and a few months.
If I had $164,000,000,000 ($164 billion), I could give away $1,000,000 ($1 million) everyday for 449 years.?
Now that I see it this way it only raises more, honest questions from an ignorant me.
How much money do people need?
And why? To what end and what do they intend?
*My own numerical illiteracy was introduced to me by a slim, charming book called Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos which I found tucked away in the statistician’s, my father, bookcase.
I fell down the rabbit hole of Roger Penrose (along with Douglas Hofstadter) during my mid-twenties. I became quite intrigued by Gödel’s sentence G (Nagelhas a great book for arm chair thinkers like me).
Trying to learn mathematics. Comments and corrections welcome. Piece of a work in progress.
All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecideable propositions.
The single, circular ‘loop’ of the statement above is the assertion that, although the statement is true, it cannot be proven to be true. This parallels the way Principia Mathematica contained mathematical statements of truth that could not be proven through the text itself.
Gödel showed that probability is a weaker notion than truth. His sentence G showed that no fixed system could adequately represent the complexity of whole numbers-no matter how complicated or elegant. No connective set of principles could explain ‘a whole’. ‘A whole’ is a sum greater than its constituent parts.
See Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians which makes the point that although sun, water, and soil are required and can explain growth, they are not growth itself. Growth results in death (sic. cell senescence) which returns as birth/reproduction.
The main paradox in math is trying to enliven our intuitive realizations with formalized, axiomatic explanations?
system: combination of components can form a more complex organization, that can be termed a system. E.g. of biological systems: cells > organism > ecosystem. To understand how biological systems work, it is not enough to have a complete “parts” list.
emergent properties of systems: with each upward step in the hierarchy of biological order, novel proerties emerge that are not present in the level just below. They are due to the arrangement and interaction of parts as complexity increases. E.g. thoughts, memories are emergent properties of a complex network of nerve cells.
reducing complex systems to simpler components that are manageable to study (horseapples: I say) The dillema of understanding biological breaks down thusly:
1. We cannot fully explain a higher level of order by breaking it down into its parts
2. Something as complex as organisms and /or cells cannot be analyzed without observing them take their own selves apart.
Is it just, using an alchemical apparatus within a story?
an alchemical apparatus used to drive the plot, scaffold the story structure, and/or function, also, as a skeleton key?
Transmutate to into art.
The reader and/or audience undergoes the Cathartic process,
like enzymes provoke.
The Apparatus drives the substance of letters/words toward catharsis.
Our story’s technical equipment enables a bunch of words
to BeRead by an audience or reader of the collection.
In this way, words transmutate to a collection, set, Sum, somme
that somehow be-came greater than the sum of its parts
This alchemical thing is but primarily a piece of technical (albeit ‘unscientific’) apparati that is taken-up, in itself, and then applied to a bunch of words such that when those words are taken-up [sic. in the abstracted sense], an epiphenomenon emerges on a different level of scale.
He said, “Slick-you don’t hafta put effing limitations on the goddamn variables in a dynamic system! Like, the more chaotic the individual parts of a dynamic system are, then the more effing potentialities or organizational principles may be exploited and checked out for utility and efficiency. Why lock in and hoover when the shit will regulate itself eventually? Hmm? Why is it that everyone effing assumes that organic self-organization is so uncommon? … Well, you can still call it uncommon, I suppose, like…shit, like uh, as uncommon as a not great hand of poker.”
She said, “You mean if liberty is completely maximized, despite the appearance of chaos, society will spontaneously organize itself in a sustainable or meaningful way?”
“And the odds of this are as likely as getting dealt a losing poker hand- likely to occur more often than not?” she asked.
“Yeah,” he said, “the only precondition is that the individual parts all impact each other’s functioning.”
Euclid was the dude who gave us (Euclidean) geometry.
He included the postulate below. Given any straight line and a point not on it, there “exists one and only one straight line which passes” through that point and never never intersects the first line, no matter how far they are extended.
Well, this was later replaced with the assumption that more than one parallel can be drawn to a given line through a given point. One could also make the assumption no parallels can be drawn thusly. This led to a new type of geometry.
It was after this shift in thought that mathematics was recognized to be much more abstract than traditionally supposed:
Because math statements can be construed in principle to be about anything, rather than some inherently circumscribed set of objects or traits of objects.
Because the validity of math statements is grounded in the structure of statements rather than in the nature of a particular subject matter.
Because any special meaning that may be associated with the terms in the postulates plays no essential role in deriving the theorems.
*Clumsily articulated from readings by Douglas Hofstadter as well as Roger Penrose