The meaning of life
That somehow, through sheer will, humans have yielded consciousness, love, spirituality, a brain that seems to have no bounds in knowledge or creativity, that makes us want to live forever and in infinite bliss, to help each other, that consciousness itself is the constant defiance and attack against entropy... and the mechanistic clockwork doesn't care. It keeps ticking as we drive ourselves into oblivion, nearing the thermodynamic collapse of the universe, or the sun consuming the earth, or the rotation of the earth slowing down, or our atmosphere escaping, or a meteorite striking, or possibly even nuclear bombs of toxic chemicals wiping us out, if our own programmed death doesn't get to us first.
The cruel irony is that the sun breathes life into us, makes us care, and understand our position, want to live forever, scream to be alive, only to consume us; that our short, pitiful lives on this planet are meant to be nothing more than short blips, and that even if we survived, long enough to these points, there would still be an end no matter what we did.
And yet the human brain constantly seeks for a way around this; there must be a way, for our children to live forever, and us, with a good standard of living, to help everyone on the planet, and on other planets, and in the universe!
That there has to be a way, because we strive for a way, because we want a way, and that sheer consciousness will defy this silly entropy and thermodynamics and find a way around it, because it must be done. Is this possible?!
It wouldn't really matter if it was. If there is no true value in the universe, or even if there is, then what does it matter? It does not matter if it matters or not.
We, humans, create value, decide when things are important or not, what is and is not good or bad or considerable. That is the meaning of life; whatever we choose.
Friday, May 31, 2013
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Schrodinger's Cat
Schrodinger's Cat
Schrodinger's cat talks of a magical cat in a magical box; presumably, the cat can live forever, unless the poison that's set on a random timer, with an infinite clock, is activated and kill is, which will happen literally instantaneously. Thus, unless we open the box, or find an alternative means to observe the creature, we could never really know if the cat was dead; we could of course guess, with a certain degree of intuition, but this would still be an observation. Thus the conclusion was that the cat was both alive and dead at the same time. A degree of quantum uncertainty given incredibly random variables.
But how is this possible? The paradox results from not knowing; the only logical conclusion is that it could be both. So how do we know without some form of observation?
Perhaps a more accurate idea however is the idea that the cat is dying. Of course, all cats are dying slowly, but this cat can only be killed by poison; thus, given time that passes, it is slowly dying. It is not known at what point it will die; but while it's alive, it is dying. Of course one could say it is not necessary dead at the moment.
But a cat destined to die is dying, and is essentially, already dead. Anything destined to die is dying, and is destined to be dead. Thus we know two things; it is destined to die, so it is dying, and it will inevitably die at some point. But we do not know how long it will live. Thus the conundrum is not the question of, is it alive or dead, but when will it die? Schrodinger's cat is more or less improperly phrased, since it's not exactly a paradox. A more appropriate response is "I don't know" or "it could be both", but if one asserted it was alive AND dead, how would we know?
We must consider the complexity of life. Is it alive; what is alive? What is dead? What is broken and fixed? Does mass converting to energy and vice versa really change it's form or is it one in the same, pure perception?
And the entire phenomena is based on perception and observation in the first place, does it matter if the cat is destined to die or not? Depending on the perspective, the cat may be alive, or it may be dead. Thus, the cat is both alive and dead at the same time, and certainly is dying, regardless of the circumstances, since a different view could determine it and observation, which relies upon human perception, is the means in the first place. Thus not the physical objective view, but the subjective one in the mind, determines the quantum state of the cat as well.
But more importantly, if we want to become technical, on a quantum level, according to quantum mechanics, observation can change a system. Merely observing it can effect the outcome. Assuming this is a box in the real world, or real world physics apply, could it be that observation could influence the outcome? The objective is a hypothetical box with all the real world constraints tied to it.
Thus the cat is both alive and dead, moving and unmoving, until we observe it, not just due to a lack of information or a matter of perception, but quantum mechanics. Observing Schrodinger's cat determines it's fate in many ways, according to quantum mechanics. And thus in a way, if we understand how our observations impact the world, how it changes the outcome in the state of quantum uncertainty, we can know it's fate to a certain degree, at least to a certain probability.
Schrodinger's cat talks of a magical cat in a magical box; presumably, the cat can live forever, unless the poison that's set on a random timer, with an infinite clock, is activated and kill is, which will happen literally instantaneously. Thus, unless we open the box, or find an alternative means to observe the creature, we could never really know if the cat was dead; we could of course guess, with a certain degree of intuition, but this would still be an observation. Thus the conclusion was that the cat was both alive and dead at the same time. A degree of quantum uncertainty given incredibly random variables.
But how is this possible? The paradox results from not knowing; the only logical conclusion is that it could be both. So how do we know without some form of observation?
Perhaps a more accurate idea however is the idea that the cat is dying. Of course, all cats are dying slowly, but this cat can only be killed by poison; thus, given time that passes, it is slowly dying. It is not known at what point it will die; but while it's alive, it is dying. Of course one could say it is not necessary dead at the moment.
But a cat destined to die is dying, and is essentially, already dead. Anything destined to die is dying, and is destined to be dead. Thus we know two things; it is destined to die, so it is dying, and it will inevitably die at some point. But we do not know how long it will live. Thus the conundrum is not the question of, is it alive or dead, but when will it die? Schrodinger's cat is more or less improperly phrased, since it's not exactly a paradox. A more appropriate response is "I don't know" or "it could be both", but if one asserted it was alive AND dead, how would we know?
We must consider the complexity of life. Is it alive; what is alive? What is dead? What is broken and fixed? Does mass converting to energy and vice versa really change it's form or is it one in the same, pure perception?
And the entire phenomena is based on perception and observation in the first place, does it matter if the cat is destined to die or not? Depending on the perspective, the cat may be alive, or it may be dead. Thus, the cat is both alive and dead at the same time, and certainly is dying, regardless of the circumstances, since a different view could determine it and observation, which relies upon human perception, is the means in the first place. Thus not the physical objective view, but the subjective one in the mind, determines the quantum state of the cat as well.
But more importantly, if we want to become technical, on a quantum level, according to quantum mechanics, observation can change a system. Merely observing it can effect the outcome. Assuming this is a box in the real world, or real world physics apply, could it be that observation could influence the outcome? The objective is a hypothetical box with all the real world constraints tied to it.
Thus the cat is both alive and dead, moving and unmoving, until we observe it, not just due to a lack of information or a matter of perception, but quantum mechanics. Observing Schrodinger's cat determines it's fate in many ways, according to quantum mechanics. And thus in a way, if we understand how our observations impact the world, how it changes the outcome in the state of quantum uncertainty, we can know it's fate to a certain degree, at least to a certain probability.
Now that we can divide by zero...
Now that we can divide by zero...
This opens up a wide variety of new things we can do. Mathematically, of course, which explains the real world. Thing of it as the square root of -1, or i; it's not really anything but a place holder, but entirely necessary for us getting from one point to another. What can we really do with this?
The possibilities might seem limitless at first, but we must remember, it is nothing.
This opens up a wide variety of new things we can do. Mathematically, of course, which explains the real world. Thing of it as the square root of -1, or i; it's not really anything but a place holder, but entirely necessary for us getting from one point to another. What can we really do with this?
The possibilities might seem limitless at first, but we must remember, it is nothing.
Dividing by Zero
Dividing by Zero
Dividing by zero has been tricky for mathematicians for many years. To this date, it's been deemed "unresolved", even by the best calculators. Many a mathematicians have tried to resolve this paradox, but all of them have failed for one reason; they tried to use math. The answer is ironically simplicity itself, but that is what you get when it comes to 0.
Many a people might first assume that 1/infinity is equal to zero. To some, this may seem valid; divided by enough, literally enough, infinity, and you will get nothing. Thus, 1/infinity = 0, thus, 1/0 = infinity. It must; when you divide by nothing, you can fit nothing into something an infinite amount of times! Except that, division isn't about fitting things into things; it's about coming out with equal portions. 10/8 is 1.25, and is in fact not 8, nor 10. It is not about fitting that number in there, but coming up with no spaces in between. Thus when you have an infinite amount of spaces in between, you do not have division. You have unresolved.
The reverse paradox of 1/infinity would appear to be zero; enough times, you get zero. But you do not; take a pie, for example. You cut it into 1 piece, you have one pie; two pieces, you have half a pie, four, you have four slices, 8, 16, etc. so on, you each have a piece of the pie. When dividing by infinity, no matter how small, you still in fact have a pie. That pie still exists. That 1, or that 85, divided by infinity, still equals a pie, at the end of the day. Thus, when dividing by infinity, you still end up with a slice of pie, no matter how small, since you are essentially, dividing a pie.
But what happens with zero? What happens when you take a pie and divide by zero? Do you get 1; that is, a pie? Do you have say, a single pie, thus anything divided by zero is one?! Sadly, no. A pie divided by 1, is one pie. Thus, when you divide by one, that is, make one slice, you still only have one pie, or 85 pies, depending on how many pies you started off with. So thus, dividing by zero is sadly not dividing by 1, and sadly, dividing by 0 does not mean just one pie. Thus any number, which is a place holder or that even has theoretical value, must always still have value.
But what do we do then?! What is anything divided by zero?! The answer is quite simple really; and equal to pie divided by zero; nothing. You literally get nothing. When you divide 1 pie by 1, you get one pie; when you don't slice a pie at all, you are ignoring it. You simply are not paying attention to it; there may even not be a pie to begin with. There simply is no pie. The answer, is nothing; you DO nothing. You simply have done nothing; and this, all you get is, nothing. Not a number, not a figure, but nothing. You do, nothing.
Now, luckily, there is a very convenient way to represent nothing in mathematics, which has transformed many a civilizations; zero. The simple zero is the place holder of nothing. Thus when you divide by zero, you get nothing, or zero. 85/0 is 0. You have done nothing. Now here's what will really bake your noodle.
The same is true for all other equations. 1+ 0 = no change. 1 - 0= no change. 1 x 0 = no change. What is so different about dividing? That it must fill the blanks? This is true, to some extent. But consider that zero is neutral; when you are multiplying by zero, what are you doing? This too should end up meaningless; 2 x 2 is not 3, just because it fits up to four, so, so too should 2 x 0 not make any sense. But the answer is not simply that you have no change; it's nothing. You literally get nothing.
Now, this should have been obvious to mathematicians everywhere! Consider that you already divide by zero already. What is 50/10? Ahh, 5 you say. But why?! You just divided 5/0! Think about it; in the algorithm, you get, say, 50, and you get 10.
50
10
The above is obvious; 0/0, makes sense. But what of 5/0? What do you get then? 0. Nothing. Not a real thing; because you did nothing. It's just a place holder; it literally has no value. It is neutral beyond just negatives and positives, but of all values! Thus in multiplication and division you get no change, but this is represented as nothing. As you complete the equation, 0 is divided by 1 and then 5 is divided by one; you then get 5, but the two zeroes do not stack, and simply are added as, 0, and the 5 does not move up a place. Thus, you have divided by zero; and gotten nothing. Not 5, not infinity, but nothing.
Thus, any figure divided by zero is nothing, and this was obvious the entire time. And since nothing happens to have an easy mathematical figure to represent it, 0, it could be postulated that dividing by zero, is zero, or at least nothing.
Thus the simplest way to explain dividing by zero.
More in depth stuff
The age old adage of multiplication the inverse of division; we cannot find the answer through this, it must already be known. But the concept of, what is 6/0 = ???. So say, now we get, ??? x 0 = 6? The answer is this is impossible. But it's not looking at it in the correct light. It postures, you cannot find anything multiplied by zero that would equal six (or any number number) so thus there must not be a solution.
Completely ignoring that the mathematical equation may be illogical itself. It's true, nothing multiplied by 0 will ever equal six. But, anything divided by zero is equal to zero. Thus, the answer is not, what multiplied by 0 is equal to 6, but that 6 divided by zero is zero, or 6/0 = 0. Thus you have a solution to this conundrum, but this conundrum cannot be used to find the solution. You must already know, the answer. It is something math nor logic can find.
Limits
In calculus, limits are a number a figure approaches, but never actually reaches. At first glance, one might say that 1/infinity is zero, since in calculus, summations find it to be zero; but this is false. Summations inherently approach figures but never reach them; limits are the figure it's always approaching but never reaching. This is somewhat intuitive, but there are advanced mathematical ways for confirming this.
Thus, in the same way, perhaps the limit of 1/0 is infinity, to some degree, but it's not. That's because you must find what it fits into, and it does not fit all the way; it is about leaving no gaps, as 10/8 = 1.25, but not 1, since one can fit, but does not fit completely. Thus division requires a complete fit; and 0 will never fit into one. Thus 1 seemingly cannot be divided by zero; on the other hand, it can not be multiplied by zero, since this would similarly imply no value. This is represented as zero however, just as it is in multiplication.
Dividing by zero has been tricky for mathematicians for many years. To this date, it's been deemed "unresolved", even by the best calculators. Many a mathematicians have tried to resolve this paradox, but all of them have failed for one reason; they tried to use math. The answer is ironically simplicity itself, but that is what you get when it comes to 0.
Many a people might first assume that 1/infinity is equal to zero. To some, this may seem valid; divided by enough, literally enough, infinity, and you will get nothing. Thus, 1/infinity = 0, thus, 1/0 = infinity. It must; when you divide by nothing, you can fit nothing into something an infinite amount of times! Except that, division isn't about fitting things into things; it's about coming out with equal portions. 10/8 is 1.25, and is in fact not 8, nor 10. It is not about fitting that number in there, but coming up with no spaces in between. Thus when you have an infinite amount of spaces in between, you do not have division. You have unresolved.
The reverse paradox of 1/infinity would appear to be zero; enough times, you get zero. But you do not; take a pie, for example. You cut it into 1 piece, you have one pie; two pieces, you have half a pie, four, you have four slices, 8, 16, etc. so on, you each have a piece of the pie. When dividing by infinity, no matter how small, you still in fact have a pie. That pie still exists. That 1, or that 85, divided by infinity, still equals a pie, at the end of the day. Thus, when dividing by infinity, you still end up with a slice of pie, no matter how small, since you are essentially, dividing a pie.
But what happens with zero? What happens when you take a pie and divide by zero? Do you get 1; that is, a pie? Do you have say, a single pie, thus anything divided by zero is one?! Sadly, no. A pie divided by 1, is one pie. Thus, when you divide by one, that is, make one slice, you still only have one pie, or 85 pies, depending on how many pies you started off with. So thus, dividing by zero is sadly not dividing by 1, and sadly, dividing by 0 does not mean just one pie. Thus any number, which is a place holder or that even has theoretical value, must always still have value.
But what do we do then?! What is anything divided by zero?! The answer is quite simple really; and equal to pie divided by zero; nothing. You literally get nothing. When you divide 1 pie by 1, you get one pie; when you don't slice a pie at all, you are ignoring it. You simply are not paying attention to it; there may even not be a pie to begin with. There simply is no pie. The answer, is nothing; you DO nothing. You simply have done nothing; and this, all you get is, nothing. Not a number, not a figure, but nothing. You do, nothing.
Now, luckily, there is a very convenient way to represent nothing in mathematics, which has transformed many a civilizations; zero. The simple zero is the place holder of nothing. Thus when you divide by zero, you get nothing, or zero. 85/0 is 0. You have done nothing. Now here's what will really bake your noodle.
The same is true for all other equations. 1+ 0 = no change. 1 - 0= no change. 1 x 0 = no change. What is so different about dividing? That it must fill the blanks? This is true, to some extent. But consider that zero is neutral; when you are multiplying by zero, what are you doing? This too should end up meaningless; 2 x 2 is not 3, just because it fits up to four, so, so too should 2 x 0 not make any sense. But the answer is not simply that you have no change; it's nothing. You literally get nothing.
Now, this should have been obvious to mathematicians everywhere! Consider that you already divide by zero already. What is 50/10? Ahh, 5 you say. But why?! You just divided 5/0! Think about it; in the algorithm, you get, say, 50, and you get 10.
50
10
The above is obvious; 0/0, makes sense. But what of 5/0? What do you get then? 0. Nothing. Not a real thing; because you did nothing. It's just a place holder; it literally has no value. It is neutral beyond just negatives and positives, but of all values! Thus in multiplication and division you get no change, but this is represented as nothing. As you complete the equation, 0 is divided by 1 and then 5 is divided by one; you then get 5, but the two zeroes do not stack, and simply are added as, 0, and the 5 does not move up a place. Thus, you have divided by zero; and gotten nothing. Not 5, not infinity, but nothing.
Thus, any figure divided by zero is nothing, and this was obvious the entire time. And since nothing happens to have an easy mathematical figure to represent it, 0, it could be postulated that dividing by zero, is zero, or at least nothing.
Thus the simplest way to explain dividing by zero.
More in depth stuff
The age old adage of multiplication the inverse of division; we cannot find the answer through this, it must already be known. But the concept of, what is 6/0 = ???. So say, now we get, ??? x 0 = 6? The answer is this is impossible. But it's not looking at it in the correct light. It postures, you cannot find anything multiplied by zero that would equal six (or any number number) so thus there must not be a solution.
Completely ignoring that the mathematical equation may be illogical itself. It's true, nothing multiplied by 0 will ever equal six. But, anything divided by zero is equal to zero. Thus, the answer is not, what multiplied by 0 is equal to 6, but that 6 divided by zero is zero, or 6/0 = 0. Thus you have a solution to this conundrum, but this conundrum cannot be used to find the solution. You must already know, the answer. It is something math nor logic can find.
Limits
In calculus, limits are a number a figure approaches, but never actually reaches. At first glance, one might say that 1/infinity is zero, since in calculus, summations find it to be zero; but this is false. Summations inherently approach figures but never reach them; limits are the figure it's always approaching but never reaching. This is somewhat intuitive, but there are advanced mathematical ways for confirming this.
Thus, in the same way, perhaps the limit of 1/0 is infinity, to some degree, but it's not. That's because you must find what it fits into, and it does not fit all the way; it is about leaving no gaps, as 10/8 = 1.25, but not 1, since one can fit, but does not fit completely. Thus division requires a complete fit; and 0 will never fit into one. Thus 1 seemingly cannot be divided by zero; on the other hand, it can not be multiplied by zero, since this would similarly imply no value. This is represented as zero however, just as it is in multiplication.
The unstoppable force meets the immovable objects
The unstoppable force meets the immovable objects
This one depends on context. If we go with the scientific definition of force, than force can be exerted without work I.E. you can apply energy and force, but not get movement. You could theoretically sit there all day pulling a stump and never have it move. Thus, force may continue to be exerted, but not change the position of the object, thus a force could be "unstoppable" and the object could remain still.
If said force must keep moving, even after contact with the immovable objects, than how would one resolve this paradox? You could in fact, deflect it; redirect the energy into another direction thus allowing it to move but not violate it's constraints on either side. The object stands still, the force is still moving.
But what if, what if, the unstoppable force must continue in a straight line? It cannot be deflected or stopped, and must continue on the same path it did before?
This one is more complex. The object obviously cannot move, but the force cannot stop. How would one get around this? This assuming the force cannot be redirected in some way, reflected or otherwise. You could theoretically slow it down, infinitely, so that a collision never occurred, but this is not necessarily what will happen.
There is no way to move the object or force; a collision seems inevitable, and what will happen?! Well, one may not move the object; but they can move the space around it. Since they can move the space around it, and thus physically transport the object without it actually moving, the object can remain still and yet the energy by directed around it, or vice versa. The point being, spacetime is moldable itself, thus one could easily move the object.
Now one might ask yourself; okay, this is how you could avoid a collision, but is it what would happen? Despite this notion, obviously, if an immovable objects struck and unstoppable force a series of time space ripples would carry out with such immense force instantaneously, so fast that as fast as is possible, a second divided by infinity, that it would begin bending space time and create anomalies that would inevitably redirect them both. Thus, the two entities would in effect, after immediate contact, lasting an infinitely short amount of time, warp space time and be redirected, thus solving the problem all together.
This conjecture is somewhat easier to validate as it does not leave the machinations of the universe up to a guess. As of now, infinite energy is impossible; according to Einstein's theory of relativity, anything with an infinite amount of energy would have infinite mass; thus there is a speed limit, since energy couldn't go on rapidly forever and create infinitely massive things, due to the laws of energy and mass equivalence. The unstoppable force doesn't really do anything, exerting itself on empty space; no energy is created. But the immovable object never moves, yet presumably it's an object, with mass, or some concept of energy storage (such as a photon). This in turn creates potential energy, due to the force; thus, the energy builds up rapidly, and in fact that the laws of conversation of energy and mass suggest the object would be gaining mass due to the energy. An unstoppable force can create an infinite amount of energy (although it does not necessarily have energy itself) when no amount of energy or mass can stop it or slow it down, and this force is transferred to the object; thus you get an infinite energy build up. Since the energy is infinite, this does not occur over time, but instantaneously, as fast as fast is possible, in an infinitely short amount of time. Thus the briefest contact possible, an infinitely short amount of time, if perhaps no contact at all, would still transfer and infinite amount of energy, since the energy is limitless. Mass bends space time, such as black holes or suns keeping planets in orbit; thus more mass = more spacetime bending. With infinite energy comes infinite mass and thus, a massive space time anomaly; potentially the size of the universe or more. In this case, enough to redirect the force, in a manner, without physically effecting the force, but rather changing the path itself. Thus the objects briefly come into contact, spawn an infinite amount of gravity, and when they no longer touch, have warped apart from each other, an infinite distance away.
Thus, this is what you get when an unstoppable force meets and immovable objects.
Logic couldn't tell you that, but I could.
That's because I have omni-reason.
Blast holes in logic with Occam'sz LAZAH!
This one depends on context. If we go with the scientific definition of force, than force can be exerted without work I.E. you can apply energy and force, but not get movement. You could theoretically sit there all day pulling a stump and never have it move. Thus, force may continue to be exerted, but not change the position of the object, thus a force could be "unstoppable" and the object could remain still.
If said force must keep moving, even after contact with the immovable objects, than how would one resolve this paradox? You could in fact, deflect it; redirect the energy into another direction thus allowing it to move but not violate it's constraints on either side. The object stands still, the force is still moving.
But what if, what if, the unstoppable force must continue in a straight line? It cannot be deflected or stopped, and must continue on the same path it did before?
This one is more complex. The object obviously cannot move, but the force cannot stop. How would one get around this? This assuming the force cannot be redirected in some way, reflected or otherwise. You could theoretically slow it down, infinitely, so that a collision never occurred, but this is not necessarily what will happen.
There is no way to move the object or force; a collision seems inevitable, and what will happen?! Well, one may not move the object; but they can move the space around it. Since they can move the space around it, and thus physically transport the object without it actually moving, the object can remain still and yet the energy by directed around it, or vice versa. The point being, spacetime is moldable itself, thus one could easily move the object.
Now one might ask yourself; okay, this is how you could avoid a collision, but is it what would happen? Despite this notion, obviously, if an immovable objects struck and unstoppable force a series of time space ripples would carry out with such immense force instantaneously, so fast that as fast as is possible, a second divided by infinity, that it would begin bending space time and create anomalies that would inevitably redirect them both. Thus, the two entities would in effect, after immediate contact, lasting an infinitely short amount of time, warp space time and be redirected, thus solving the problem all together.
This conjecture is somewhat easier to validate as it does not leave the machinations of the universe up to a guess. As of now, infinite energy is impossible; according to Einstein's theory of relativity, anything with an infinite amount of energy would have infinite mass; thus there is a speed limit, since energy couldn't go on rapidly forever and create infinitely massive things, due to the laws of energy and mass equivalence. The unstoppable force doesn't really do anything, exerting itself on empty space; no energy is created. But the immovable object never moves, yet presumably it's an object, with mass, or some concept of energy storage (such as a photon). This in turn creates potential energy, due to the force; thus, the energy builds up rapidly, and in fact that the laws of conversation of energy and mass suggest the object would be gaining mass due to the energy. An unstoppable force can create an infinite amount of energy (although it does not necessarily have energy itself) when no amount of energy or mass can stop it or slow it down, and this force is transferred to the object; thus you get an infinite energy build up. Since the energy is infinite, this does not occur over time, but instantaneously, as fast as fast is possible, in an infinitely short amount of time. Thus the briefest contact possible, an infinitely short amount of time, if perhaps no contact at all, would still transfer and infinite amount of energy, since the energy is limitless. Mass bends space time, such as black holes or suns keeping planets in orbit; thus more mass = more spacetime bending. With infinite energy comes infinite mass and thus, a massive space time anomaly; potentially the size of the universe or more. In this case, enough to redirect the force, in a manner, without physically effecting the force, but rather changing the path itself. Thus the objects briefly come into contact, spawn an infinite amount of gravity, and when they no longer touch, have warped apart from each other, an infinite distance away.
Thus, this is what you get when an unstoppable force meets and immovable objects.
Logic couldn't tell you that, but I could.
That's because I have omni-reason.
Blast holes in logic with Occam'sz LAZAH!
What came first, the chicken, or the egg?
What came first, the chicken, or the egg?
An age old addage, that logic cannot solve. But the answer is very simple, when you've accepted the all knowing form omni-reason; they both came at the same time. This is not something logic can tell you; it asks which, which is impossible to determine with knowledge. But with intelligence, and reason beyond that of logic, it was easy to understand.
Obviously logic presented multiple logical fallacies, ironically; the Chicken coming before the egg when the first egg was in fact the first chicken, soon to be. The embryo that was the first chicken baby was in fact, an egg; thus whatever genetic lineage we consider the cut off for the first chicken to be, occurred at the same time as the egg. The very first egg was the first chicken.
And yet, logic could not solve this; it simply cannot. The logically fallacy of the cyclical understanding of asking, what came first, time, or space? The two are invariably inseparable. The answer being that space time is a single unit in and of itself. The object is itself, and thus the cyclical argument of finding the first one failed. You had to realize it was both.
But this could not be done with logic. It presented a logical argument that was incapable of resolving itself. It needed outside help figure out the answer, becuase logic was stuck.
And this is what I call omni-reason.
This is what I call, Occam's LAZAH!
An age old addage, that logic cannot solve. But the answer is very simple, when you've accepted the all knowing form omni-reason; they both came at the same time. This is not something logic can tell you; it asks which, which is impossible to determine with knowledge. But with intelligence, and reason beyond that of logic, it was easy to understand.
Obviously logic presented multiple logical fallacies, ironically; the Chicken coming before the egg when the first egg was in fact the first chicken, soon to be. The embryo that was the first chicken baby was in fact, an egg; thus whatever genetic lineage we consider the cut off for the first chicken to be, occurred at the same time as the egg. The very first egg was the first chicken.
And yet, logic could not solve this; it simply cannot. The logically fallacy of the cyclical understanding of asking, what came first, time, or space? The two are invariably inseparable. The answer being that space time is a single unit in and of itself. The object is itself, and thus the cyclical argument of finding the first one failed. You had to realize it was both.
But this could not be done with logic. It presented a logical argument that was incapable of resolving itself. It needed outside help figure out the answer, becuase logic was stuck.
And this is what I call omni-reason.
This is what I call, Occam's LAZAH!
Occams'z LAZAH, the principle Paradox Solver
Occams'z LAZAH, the principle Paradox Solver
"An amalgamation of pseudoscience and iythiopathic rambling that actually coalesces into something partially useful, more convenient than a half truth."
Sometimes, you realize that logic cannot intrinsically solve all the problems you're looking for. Occasionally, it even requires for you to take blind leaps of faith to make decisions, or continuously guess in never ending paradoxes. They say that logic can explain any thing; but sadly, logic can only explain things logically, which we only assume is how the universe works. Now for logic to be logical, it must be correct; thus, is the principle concept of logic. But logic is very limited; at it's core, it's algebra. Either something is something, greater than, less than, similiar to, or not. Ultimately reduced to yes or no. To be, or not to be; live, or die? The logical conclusion is derived from a series of random variables and therefore, the answer chosen is a simple logical equation. Thus, forms the basis of logic.
But is logically wholly correct; does it apply to real life? We would of course, have to find something illogical in real life to disprove logic's logicalness. And indeed, we would also have to logically prove why it's illogical for it to be illogical; not only disproving logic the end all be all, but being a paradox itself. Logic, perhaps ironically, cannot solve paradoxes; they are deemed illogical, something logic cannot solve. Thus, paradoxes are an example of anomalies logic cannot solve in real life.
Examples of paradoxes in real life
Occam's Razor
Theoretically, Occam, a man, designed a supposedly logical system that all things simple are logical; logic meaning that it's definitely correct, and therefore, right, at least according to the universe. The concept is analogous to balancing something on the fine edge of a razor, with a slight shimmer causing it to lose it's balance on way or the other. This is however easily disprovable; so much so, that our very existance is more complex than not existing, thus defeating the idea of simplicity pertaining to all things in the universe. Indeed, it would be more simple for their to be one base particle to our universe, instead of several, but that simply may not be true. Or it might be; regardless, not all simplest solutions are the best. Nothing is hardly a solution at all, for example, yet it is infinitely simple beyond something. And one thing is usually much simpler, but may not be adequate for achieving your goals.
Thus one can conclude that Occam's razor is not always correct, and is therefore illogical. When Occam's razor becomes your God, you've forgotten the irony of the God you pretend to fight against. Regardless, Occam's razor presents a concept of a logical "tool" so to speak, to help guide you to making decisions, false or not, beyond simple questions.
Thus, Occam'sz LAZAH! Allows you to blast holes in logic, and solve what it cannot solve. Logic believes it has the solution; but it does not. As previously described above, it merely can only tell what is and is not logical,
"An amalgamation of pseudoscience and iythiopathic rambling that actually coalesces into something partially useful, more convenient than a half truth."
Sometimes, you realize that logic cannot intrinsically solve all the problems you're looking for. Occasionally, it even requires for you to take blind leaps of faith to make decisions, or continuously guess in never ending paradoxes. They say that logic can explain any thing; but sadly, logic can only explain things logically, which we only assume is how the universe works. Now for logic to be logical, it must be correct; thus, is the principle concept of logic. But logic is very limited; at it's core, it's algebra. Either something is something, greater than, less than, similiar to, or not. Ultimately reduced to yes or no. To be, or not to be; live, or die? The logical conclusion is derived from a series of random variables and therefore, the answer chosen is a simple logical equation. Thus, forms the basis of logic.
But is logically wholly correct; does it apply to real life? We would of course, have to find something illogical in real life to disprove logic's logicalness. And indeed, we would also have to logically prove why it's illogical for it to be illogical; not only disproving logic the end all be all, but being a paradox itself. Logic, perhaps ironically, cannot solve paradoxes; they are deemed illogical, something logic cannot solve. Thus, paradoxes are an example of anomalies logic cannot solve in real life.
Examples of paradoxes in real life
Occam's Razor
Theoretically, Occam, a man, designed a supposedly logical system that all things simple are logical; logic meaning that it's definitely correct, and therefore, right, at least according to the universe. The concept is analogous to balancing something on the fine edge of a razor, with a slight shimmer causing it to lose it's balance on way or the other. This is however easily disprovable; so much so, that our very existance is more complex than not existing, thus defeating the idea of simplicity pertaining to all things in the universe. Indeed, it would be more simple for their to be one base particle to our universe, instead of several, but that simply may not be true. Or it might be; regardless, not all simplest solutions are the best. Nothing is hardly a solution at all, for example, yet it is infinitely simple beyond something. And one thing is usually much simpler, but may not be adequate for achieving your goals.
Thus one can conclude that Occam's razor is not always correct, and is therefore illogical. When Occam's razor becomes your God, you've forgotten the irony of the God you pretend to fight against. Regardless, Occam's razor presents a concept of a logical "tool" so to speak, to help guide you to making decisions, false or not, beyond simple questions.
Thus, Occam'sz LAZAH! Allows you to blast holes in logic, and solve what it cannot solve. Logic believes it has the solution; but it does not. As previously described above, it merely can only tell what is and is not logical,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)